Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Fred Thompson and the Tennessee Money Machine

Former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson (R) seems likely to announce his candidacy for president this month, but journalists and rival campaigns will have to wait a while to see how much money he has raised, as Thompson's late entry into the '08 race means he won't have to file a detailed report on his fundraising until the end of September.

Fred Thompson
Fred Thompson reacts to a sign reading "Get on the FredExpress, Fred Thompson for President," held up by as supporter as he works the crowd during a June 27 South Carolina Republican party fundraiser in Columbia. (AP)

Stories abound about the success Thompson is having in the early stages of his search for the tens of millions he'll need to run a serious campaign operation. The reality is that Thompson starts far behind the GOP financial frontrunners -- Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney.

But he has one major factor working in his favor: His political base is in Tennessee -- a state whose Republican donors have shown time and time again their willingness to dig deep to support candidates.

In 2004, Tennessee donors gave $28.4 million to candidates and campaigns, good for 20th overall in terms of political giving, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Of that $28.4 million, roughly three quarters of it (74 percent) went to Republicans -- the highest percentage of GOP giving for any state in the top 20. Four years earlier, Tennesseeans donated $25.5 million to campaigns, with 63 percent going to Republicans. In each cycle, the largest donor city in Tennessee was Nashville, where donors gave $10.9 million in 2004 and $9.3 million in 2000.

Why is Tennessee such a reliable donor state? Theories abound, but the one we at The Fix subscribe to is that GOP givers in the Volunteer State have long been conditioned to donate to political campaigns -- especially for president. Beginning with Sen. Howard Baker in 1980 and continuing through Sen. Lamar (!) Alexander's two runs in 1996 and 2000, as well as former Sen. Bill Frist's long flirtation with a 2008 presidential candidacy, Tennesseeans have grown used to seeing one of their own in the mix for national office. (And hey, let's not forget Al Gore's four races for national office.)

As a result of the repeated runs for president by its native sons, Tennessee has produced a group of skilled political fundraisers who have helped collect the cash necessary to finance these national races. The best known of this group is Ted Welch, a developer in Nashville who is widely regarded as the leading money man in the state. (Welch is supporting Romney and, apparently, has had no second thoughts since Thompson entered the race.)

But Thompson has Jim Haslam, the CEO of Pilot Travel Center and a Bush Ranger, as well as Michael Lebovitz, also a Bush Ranger, in his camp. Dorinda Moss, a native of Tennessee, is Thompson's national finance director.

Less well known but no less important is Kim Kaegi, a Tennessee fundraiser extraordinaire who has collected cash for nearly every serious GOP candidate in the state over the last several cycles. Kaegi was the driving force behind Sen. Bob Corker's (R-Tenn) 2006 campaign in which he raised more than $13 million. Kaegi has signed on to Thompson's team. One big free agent in Tennessee GOP money circles is Linus Catignani, the man principally charged with raising money for Frist during his time in the Senate.

In short, expect Thompson to have a HUGE third quarter as he taps into the GOP fundraising network built by Baker, Alexander and Frist -- all of whom are involved in his campaign. But it is less clear whether Thompson can effectively grow his financial operation beyond his home state as he looks at a nomination fight whose pricetag is certain to be more than $100 million.

By Chris Cillizza  |  July 9, 2007; 10:12 AM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Microtargeting Explained and Examined
Next: Franken Impresses (Again)

Comments

gsufazmy aownzhsg lfhseq jpovx rtgxq ngdhca pdwq http://www.taipbe.rmhzdbcn.com

Posted by: dsoa utdr | August 7, 2007 9:38 AM | Report abuse

drczpgwo egdwzb iqbasuytm opsuhzag tbiw pmaucz sneifdbjy

Posted by: srom ywvkxqc | August 7, 2007 9:36 AM | Report abuse

"your hate blinds you"

Or is it your racism.

Posted by: rufsu | July 10, 2007 2:03 PM | Report abuse

?????????

I am a former Army Infantry soldier 11B.

Wasn't Thompson a nixon mole during watergate? Regan is dead.So is elvis and john wayne. Sorry to break it to you. Welcome to reality. Now, build from that point.

The republcians have zero chance in the next election. Zero. Your going to back an actor who hasn't been in politics for decades? That's your call. I'll go with AMericans not traitors and sell-outs. You do you, I'll do me.

Welcome to reality Mr Smith. Good luck.

Posted by: Rufus | July 10, 2007 2:00 PM | Report abuse

As a life long resident of the Volunteer State, a disabled combat veteran who for many years in the 80's owned and a successful corporation in Tennessee. I feel that Mr. Thompson will be a very strong force in the race for the White House. Having know Mr. Thompson for many years the American people can I feel rest assure that our nation will not have to worry about where the next scandal will come from, or wether or not which side of the fence Mr. Thompson will be on. He is a man of great moral and ethical stator, a born leader. When Mr. Thompson walks in the room, everyone knows, it is sort of like the old slogan of E. F. Hutton, "when he talks, everyone listens".

What else do we have to choose from? I feel Mr. McCain is a fine man, and have much respect for him as combat veteran and prisoner of war. He has fought hard for veterans rights, and has a strong since of foreign policy. Unfortunately though, Mr. McCain does not have the type of leadership America needs in international relations to pull us up out of this mess that the current administration has thrown America into. To bad President Regan is not still around, hu?

Mr. Romney, a good man, but no experience in foreign policy, or international leadership. Mr. Giuliani has already shown his colors, he is already to heavily influenced by corporate America, and that scares us all.

On the Democratic side, well there is not even an option, Oboma or Biliary, enough said!

We still have a long road ahead in the race, let us all be of open minds and open hearts, for the heart usually makes great decisions and do not forget it is the American fighting men and women who gave us all the rights to vote, so use your right and vote in this election.

God Bless America, and those who defend her.

Posted by: Adam Smith | July 10, 2007 1:51 PM | Report abuse

"China executes ex-head of food and drug agency
Zheng sentenced to death in May for taking bribes to OK substandard drugs"

they know how to deal with treason. China seems to know how to deal with people in the government who put their own security ($$$$$$) over their countries best interest.

Posted by: rufus | July 10, 2007 12:46 PM | Report abuse

Global warming is a myth, right? Pollution is good for the enviornment, right? You people.

"In March we all took on Fox and we beat them. Bad. The Nevada Fox-sponsored presidential debates were cancelled when our videos showing Fox's distortions were spread far and wide. Local bloggers worked like crazy, activists around the country wrote and called, and MoveOn used their strategic strength and smarts to bring it all home.

Now Fox is at it again. The only surprise this time is the amount of time and energy they are putting into denying that the sun sets in the west. Okay, well not exactly, but pretty close. They are fighting the scientific truth of the climate crisis and are claiming it just isn't so! I'm not kidding. Take a look at the video evidence, you won't believe what you see. (Well, maybe you will)

The Sierra Club has a petition to sign asking Home Depot to stop advertising on FOX News"

Murdock says Global warming is real yet his "news" station continues the attack. You gop'ers are funny. What do you have to gain by destryoing the world? Where is the win for you? I don't get it at all.

Is it that you think Jesus will come and save us? Is it that you think the world is a horrible place. Rather than making it better and saving it ARMEGGEDDON? I don't get you people at all. You dittoheads are not in charge anymore. You are irrelevant for a generation. Good-bye

Posted by: rufus | July 10, 2007 12:28 PM | Report abuse

Wow traheel. 25000. Wow. Chiropractors? WOW.

How much do we spend a month on the war? 12 BILLION is reported. The real number is unknown. How many american deaths by those two HUGLY IMPORTANT STORIES your spreading. YOu are a joe. you cannot defend these criminals. That is the differance. I think ALL criminals and frauds should be in jail. YOu think ONLY DEMOCRATS should be persued. Wait. The storm is coming. Right now you just don't know what your people ahve been doing. "I plead the fifth. I don't recall." Patriot act. Attorney purge. You just don't know yet. Rush/Fox news doesn't report news if it's bad for the gop. You will hear. Bush cronies are sell-outs. They're going to roll over when it helps them. They are going to sing.

Your party is done for my lifetime. Finally. You people are a loke. Stop hiding you head in the sand and defending criminals. You know the saying "lay down with dogs you catch fleas."

And the spelling. As people here know, I do that for authoritarian gop'ers who need something OTHER than the facts to talk about. It's a trick to show independant thinkers how out of touch you people really are. The peopel who attack or discredit rather than conversating on the facts.

Your party is done tarheel. We both knwo it. You words are usless.

Posted by: rufus | July 10, 2007 12:07 PM | Report abuse

Gus Burk. Super post. The warming and cooling cycles have been occurring on a more or less regular basis for millions of years. One climate alarmist proclaimed that we haven't had global warming like this for 600 years. What caused it then? Too many fireplaces in the castles and huts? We need to quit spending billions trying to stop a process that is natural and will continue to occur for the next million years, even long after Al Gore is extinct.

Posted by: badgerone | July 10, 2007 12:05 PM | Report abuse

rufsu (as you spelled it), you obviously didn't read my posts. How does a U.S. Congressman from Louisiana affect me? He's a U.S. Congressman and brings his corruption to every committee he's on. Committees that make decisions that affect the lives of all Americans. You are clueless to how Congress works. I stress clueless. You want a current Democratic Party North Carolina scandal that affects me. Here you are. It involves Jim Black who was acknowledged to be the most powerful politician in North Carolina.

Black Pleads Guilty to Corruption Charges - Took $25,000 from chiropractors for influence, by Paul Chesser, Carolina Journal, February 16, 2007. Jim Black, North Carolina Democratic Speaker of the House, last week pleaded guilty to taking about $29,000, mostly in cash, from some chiropractors, is looking at a 10-year maximum jail sentence and a possible $250,000 fine. He also committed crimes related to the state lottery and allowing a lobbyist to use his office and resources. But to lighten his sentence, Black has agreed to name other corrupt Democrats.

Posted by: tarheel | July 10, 2007 11:58 AM | Report abuse

"rufus, "... Democratic socialism is new..." No it isn't. It is Scandinavian socialism and it works just fine, than you. Universal medical care, universal retirement insurance, 6 weeks paid vacation manitory for all workers, ZERO national debt, universal public service (9 months military or alternative service), a clean environment, taxes raised to the hilt on the rich and moderate for everyone else, pretty much universal home ownership, business/corporations *required* to be socially responsible, 2 years minimum unemployment (and a corresponding low unemployment rate), etc. The Danish model is what we ought to be following. Just swipe it from them and put the DNC stamp on it if you want. It works and it works well."

I'm aware there are countries out there that claim democratic socialism. They do good. Not bad mouthing. it is a new development. How many years? Under fifty for sure. That is new to me. In regards to socailism principles here. Socialism conbined with our democratic "freedoms" ideals COULD be utopia. I'm aware they're doing their thing out there. If the dark side wins again i might have to move ovr there.

Posted by: rufus1133 | July 10, 2007 11:43 AM | Report abuse

What CNN? Aren't they the "liberal media".

they are a small notch below fox, in terms of republican propoganda. I guess you get labeled libral for being left of the FOx FAscsits.

What a joke. For all the "liberal media". I have NO liberal tv shows to watch. Conservatives?

Posted by: rufus | July 10, 2007 11:22 AM | Report abuse

Everyone needs to go see CNN's hit piece on Michael Moore. First they introduce Moore, then unleash a TOTALLY false and misleading hit piece on SiCKO called a "Reality Check" that was totally factually incorrect and tried to call Moore out for "fudging". So after the hit piece they have Moore on and he is (understandably) BALISTIC.

Watch:

www.michaelmoore.com

I encourage EVERYONE to stand up to the insane, ludicrous lies by Wolf Blitzer and Sanjay Gupta. PLEASE WRITE TO CNN after watching the piece on Michael's site. Thanks.

Posted by: F&B | July 10, 2007 11:13 AM | Report abuse

Mark in Austin, I am amazed by your reckless optimism. Cassandra doesn't read. What would anyone want to read anything that is different from their ideological misconceptions?

Posted by: Razorback | July 10, 2007 10:13 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: Mark in Austin | July 10, 2007 8:21 AM | Report abuse

What a waste of time. The republicans have no chance. None.

Posted by: rufus | July 9, 2007 9:37 PM | Report abuse

David, you say its thin & cheesy - but you don't say its false, does that mean you believe its true?

When you run for POTUS, you have to expect this sort of thing. If you're running as the electable saviour of the pro-life Washington outsider cause then this sort of thing is very damaging, no matter how "cheesy" you thyink it is...

Posted by: JayPe | July 9, 2007 9:16 PM | Report abuse

The Left (incudes most of the media) is beginning to take regular pot shots at Fred Thompons as they know he'll be the front runner immediately upon announcing his candidacy.

The cheap shot about alleged lobbying for a pro-choice cause is about as thin and cheesy as those sure to come.

Posted by: David | July 9, 2007 9:08 PM | Report abuse

The Left (incudes most of the media) is beginning to take regular pot shots at Fred Thompons as they know he'll be the front runner immediately upon announcing his candidacy.

The cheap shot about alleged lobbying for a pro-choice cause is about as thin and cheesy as those sure to come.

Posted by: David | July 9, 2007 9:08 PM | Report abuse

The Left (incudes most of the media) is beginning to take regular pot shots at Fred Thompons as they know he'll be the front runner immediately upon announcing his candidacy.

The cheap shot about alleged lobbying for a pro-choice cause is about as thin and cheesy as those sure to come.

Posted by: David | July 9, 2007 9:08 PM | Report abuse

The Left (incudes most of the media) is beginning to take regular pot shots at Fred Thompons as they know he'll be the front runner immediately upon announcing his candidacy.

The cheap shot about alleged lobbying for a pro-choice cause is about as thin and cheesy as they are sure to come.

Hillary, you're about to get your bum kicked. Woe to the anti-war MaGovernite party that rallies to Billory.

Posted by: David | July 9, 2007 9:04 PM | Report abuse

Al Gore? Global warming? Al is about lies, from the mining on his property to Earth warming. I'll take Fred any day over the Demo's. Without global warming we would still be stuck back in one of the glacerial epocs, as it is we are in a 10-20 thousand year inter-glacial epoc within the current ice age. We know that there have been a minimum of seven glaciations and as many as ten since the last pole shift. Each time global warming ended the glaciation period. Humans had nothing to do with it but have profited from it. As to the continued warming, it has been occurring since about 13,000 years ago and will culminate with a cooling downturn that will last for three to eight thousand years taking us into the coming glaceral epoc. It is not a matter of if but when. It occurs on a regular basis. Humans currently account for .12 to .14 of
1% of greenhouse gases. This small amount is not driving the planet's heating. Look across the solar system and you will find that Mars and Venus are both heating up. This is cause by solar changes that occur in a solar cycle of about 25,000 years. also know as the solar wobble. Within this cycle is a 1500 year cycle of heating and cooling that parallels the rise and fall of various cultures

Posted by: GUS BURK | July 9, 2007 8:28 PM | Report abuse

It is pointless for anyone to talk about how liberal voters will stay home if (or rather, when) one of the more moderate Democratic candidates wins the nomination. The majority of Americans don't want to see another Republican occupy the Oval Office right now, a sentiment that is not likely to change in the next 16 months. I am a liberal, tried, true, and proud. I will vote for the Democratic nominee next year. I support a candidate in the primaries, but I will rally behind the nominee for the general, whomever it turns out to be.

I do so because the alternatives are unappealing to say the least. None of the top-tier GOP candidates can move us past the widening gap created by the current divisive tone of American politics.

Posted by: JamesCH | July 9, 2007 8:13 PM | Report abuse

rufus, "... Democratic socialism is new..." No it isn't. It is Scandinavian socialism and it works just fine, than you. Universal medical care, universal retirement insurance, 6 weeks paid vacation manitory for all workers, ZERO national debt, universal public service (9 months military or alternative service), a clean environment, taxes raised to the hilt on the rich and moderate for everyone else, pretty much universal home ownership, business/corporations *required* to be socially responsible, 2 years minimum unemployment (and a corresponding low unemployment rate), etc. The Danish model is what we ought to be following. Just swipe it from them and put the DNC stamp on it if you want. It works and it works well.

Posted by: MikeB | July 9, 2007 7:55 PM | Report abuse

loudon -- zouk/razorback/trotsky/village idiot goes off duty at 6. noon to six, that's his working schedule.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 9, 2007 7:03 PM | Report abuse

Rightwingnut ignorant coward: Please report to the real world. You know, the one in which rightwingnut Republican isolationists kept the US out of World War II until Pearl Harbor.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | July 9, 2007 6:05 PM | Report abuse

"Fred Thompson aided Nixon on Watergate

Former president called potential candidate 'dumb as hell'"

Yet President Nixon and his top aides viewed the fellow Republican as a willing, if not too bright, ally, according to White House tapes.

Thompson, now preparing a bid for the 2008 GOP presidential nomination, won fame in 1973 for asking a committee witness the bombshell question that revealed Nixon had installed hidden listening devices and taping equipment in the Oval Office.

Those tapes show Thompson played a behind-the-scenes role that was very different from his public image three decades ago. He comes across as a partisan willing to cooperate with the Nixon White House's effort to discredit the committee's star witness."

Tricky freddy

Posted by: nixon | July 9, 2007 6:02 PM | Report abuse

I see the braindead loudon voter is still not able to make an intelligent contribution. how amusing.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 9, 2007 5:59 PM | Report abuse

tHE PROBLEM IS )brave blank poster) you see ME as you enemy. You see americans as your enemy. You see, whoever rush/hanntiy/oreilly tells you is the enemy. That's the problem. Aren't the sadui's bush's freinds? So who are bush's enemies? WTC. Americans? Who? Treason?

Posted by: RUSUS | July 9, 2007 5:57 PM | Report abuse

I see the rightwingnut ignorant coward is posting feverishly. how amusing.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | July 9, 2007 5:52 PM | Report abuse

Let's count dead enemies.

Clinton: zero
Bush: lots and lots.

Never mind though because the NYT doesn't hype this number up for obvious reasons.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 9, 2007 5:52 PM | Report abuse

To much truth Blarg. There just going to throw a temper tantrum. At least all independant poster who read (but are scared to post because of these fascsits) see their face. That's all we can ask. Vote em' out. That's the plan. Go independant if WE need to

Posted by: rufus | July 9, 2007 5:50 PM | Report abuse

Well there was that 3000 civilian killing a few short months after his departure. Planned for years based on the non-response of all the previous efforts. but who's counting?

Posted by: Anonymous | July 9, 2007 5:49 PM | Report abuse

"they think that random killing of civilians is exactly equated to volunteer soldiers in a war zone"

Civilians?

The Battle of Mogadishu ("Black Hawk Down"), in which 19 American *servicemen* were killed, in 1993;

The bombing of a U.S. *military training center* in Saudi Arabia, killing five Americans, in 1995;

The bombing of the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, killing 19 members of the *United States Air Force*, in 1996;

The bombing of the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen, killing 17 members of the *United States Navy*, in 2000.

Not a single example from that list was of "women and children getting blown up in subways." That never happened in the Clinton years. What happened was that our military was killed in small numbers. And one embassy was bombed in the Sudan. Compare that to the far larger number of deaths of military personnel and civilians abroad under Bush. If you want to count dead, you're going to lose. To pretend otherwise is beyond ridiculous.

Posted by: Blarg | July 9, 2007 5:46 PM | Report abuse

But in the weeks before his cash totals were disclosed, the Obama campaign hit a series of rough patches that seemed to highlight his relative inexperience on the national stage.

_Critics dismissed as somewhat lackluster Obama's performance in three nationally televised debates. One was a civil rights forum in which Obama, the field's only black contender, was expected to shine.

The debates proved an effective showcase for rival Hillary Rodham Clinton, and the strong reviews she received helped reinforce her status as the Democrat to beat. The candidates will debate again July 23 in South Carolina.

_Obama's relationship with Chicago real estate mogul Antoin "Tony" Rezko continues to draw scrutiny, even as the candidate has sought to further distance himself from his longtime political consigliere. The Obama campaign has already shed about $37,000 in contributions connected to Rezko, who was indicted last year on charges he sought kickbacks from companies doing business with an Illinois state pension fund.

_An Obama campaign research memo surfaced criticizing Bill and Hillary Clinton's financial connections to India. The memo fell into the hands of Clinton's communications team, who promptly shared it with reporters. The snarky tone of the memo -- which at one point identified the New York senator as "D-Punjab" -- seemed to contradict Obama's stated commitment to running a positive campaign.

Obama blamed his staff for producing the memo, the third time he's publicly pointed the finger at employees for campaign mishaps. He then spent most of an Iowa campaign trip distancing himself from the memo and apologizing to his Indian-American supporters.

"Obama is to some extent a victim of his own success -- when you come blazing out of the gate, it makes it very difficult to continue to beat expectations," Democratic strategist Dan Newman said.

To be sure, none of the stumbles were fatal or even likely to sway many votes at this stage of the campaign. But evidence suggests Obama's fabled charisma hasn't closed the sale yet, either.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 9, 2007 5:45 PM | Report abuse

"If the Japanese want Pearl harbor so bad, just give it to them. It's not worth getting angry over."

Present day Lib time traveler going back to 1941

Posted by: Anonymous | July 9, 2007 5:44 PM | Report abuse

Thompson will quickly snuff out any hints of the previously unstoppable Romney fundraising effort. Mitt's dried up, except for his own cash.

Anybody see "Opus" on Fred yesterday? Funnnnny...

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by: matthew | July 9, 2007 5:41 PM | Report abuse

research it. I'm not as concerned with a label or name. I'm concerned what's happening on the streets.

Democratic socialism is not bad or scary. It is utopia. Reasearch. We are corporate slaves wasting our lives so the top %5 can live it up. Slavery. rATHER THAN HOLDING ON TO THE MONEY TO PAY OUT STOCK HOLDERS, that money needs to go to the people MAKING the product. It's not that hard. The CEO doesn't need %50 of the earnings. That's not what a "republic/democracy" is based on.

Democratic socialism. Money away from the top percent and back to the people. Electricty to all (this is not a thrid world country), food and water to all americans. Housing is possible. Let go of your greed.

ONE WORLD ONE PEOPLE. Star Trek Style. We can advance. Or we can destroy ourselves. The GOP is for destroy ourselves (greed will destroy them). Are they going to win or is humanity?

Posted by: rufsu | July 9, 2007 5:41 PM | Report abuse

June 4th 1944. Libs in congress today demanded a timetable for the invasion of France. they felt the war was not progressing as planned. the NYT today printed the agreed upon timetable for invasion, specifying the beach, time and strength of the Allied forces. General Rommel telegraphed his thanks to the editors.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 9, 2007 5:40 PM | Report abuse

This site is a waste of time. These fascists are teh same as all the other fascsits who have came and went. The others loved power. The only differance between these fascsits is that they want $$$$$$ and power.

Nothing new. Democratic socialism is new. Never been tried. Scared the fascists to death. Why? Because they FEAR they will lose their possesions. Not the case. They are just scared of change.

Don't hate them. Pity them. Help them. When they lose or when they go to the pearly gates, they won't be able to say they werne't told. They won't be able to say that love. All they know is money. The mark of the beast. They will have to answer for this some day. Judgement day. Or closer to home, in 2008. Either way they are going o be little whining bit__. Just remember that posters. There time is up. Regardless of the parroting propoganda. Their time is up. They have a couple months. They won't be able to say they wern't warned. All the treason they commit in the meantime and every should be treated as such

Posted by: rufus | July 9, 2007 5:34 PM | Report abuse

Add up all the numbers in that post, and you get 285 Americans killed by terrorism in the 90s. Compare that to the approximately 600 American soldiers who have died in Iraq since January of this year. So, yes, I am nostalgic for the 90s.

this is perfect analysis by the Lib true believers. they think that random killing of civilians is exactly equated to volunteer soldiers in a war zone. According to them we should hide at home in our basements and as long as not too many women and children get blown up on subways, everything is just fine and dandy.

On the other hand, if one wishes to consider going on offense, killing the enemy and fighting over there ( a decidely anti_Lib notion) you can also count the dead enemy if the NYT will allow it:

There have, since 2001, been single days in Afghanistan and Iraq when our armed forces, sent into battle by President Bush, have killed and captured more terrorists than the United States government managed to neutralize during the entire Clinton presidency.

" love how you treat failed plots as evidence that our policies weren't working. There were several failed terrorism plots this year; do you count those against Bush?'
" the point was the Dem response to all the information and attacks. what response you ask?

get me a fatter intern bellowed Bill! and fire some missiles at someone to show I'm on the job. I mean getting a job. oh never mind, don't do anything.

Posted by: Trotsky | July 9, 2007 5:33 PM | Report abuse

Today, former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani delivered a speech to the Jewish Community Relations Council in New York:

[I]f we flee Iraq, if we do what the Democrats want us to do -- which is to not only flee Iraq, not only retreat in Iraq, but give them a timetable of our retreat.

Have you ever heard of that in a history of war? Have you ever heard of an army being required to give a printed schedule of its release to the enemy? It makes no sense, does it? Whether you're for the war or against it, you would never have an army retreat on a six- month, one-year, 18-month schedule explaining, We'll reduce the forces by 20,000, then by 30,000, then by 50,000. Gee, you can then figure out when the forces are depleted enough so you can really do damage to them.

Giuliani needs to brush up on his history. A publicly-announced gradual reduction of forces is exactly what the United States did in the Vietnam War. On May 14, 1969, President Richard Nixon laid out an "eight-point peace plan" calling for the gradual withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Vietnam:

Over a period of 12 months, by agreed-upon stages, the major positions of all U.S., allied, and other non-South Vietnamese forces would be withdrawn. At the end of this 12-month period, the remaining U.S., allied, and other non-South Vietnamese forces would move into designated base areas and would not engage in combat operations.

Some highlights of Nixon giving the enemy a "timetable of our retreat":

June 8, 1969: Nixon announces the redeployment of 25,000 troops, which would begin in the "next 30 days" and be completed by the end of August.

Sept. 16, 1969: Nixon announces a new "troop ceiling," meaning that a minimum of 60,000 troops would be withdrawn by December.

Dec. 15, 1969: Nixon calls for a "reduction in our troop ceiling of 50,000 more U.S. troops by April 15 next year."

April 20, 1970: Nixon calls for the withdrawal of 150,000 troops "to be completed during the spring of next year."

Oct. 12, 1970: Nixon announces the reduction of the troop ceiling by another 40,000 troops between "now and Christmas."

Nov. 12, 1971: Nixon announced to the nation, "Over the next 2 months we will withdraw 45,000 Americans."

Jan. 13, 1972: Nixon stated, "I am announcing today the withdrawal of an additional 70,000 [troops] from Vietnam over the next 3 months."

Apr. 26, 1972: Nixon announces that "over the next 2 months 20,000 more Americans will be brought home from Vietnam."

Whether it's blowing off Iraq Study Group meetings, showing ignorance about the root causes of 9/11, attacking Clinton for 9/11, or fear-mongering about sensible redeployment from Iraq, Giuliani talks big and thinks small.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 9, 2007 5:29 PM | Report abuse

During the press conference today, White House Press Secretary Tony Snow blindly defended the President's "surge strategy" and inexplicably argued that Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) supports the policy. "If you look at what Senator Lugar has said about the surge so far, he says that it's working," said Snow. "His comments indicate that he thinks it's working."

In reality, two weeks ago, Lugar issued a sharp rebuke of the President's "surge strategy." On the floor of the U.S. Senate he specifically stated that the Bush administration's "surge" is failing:

In my judgment, the current surge strategy is not an effective means of protecting [U.S.] interests. Its prospects for success are too dependent on the actions of others who do not share our agenda. It relies on military power to achieve goals that it cannot achieve. It distances allies that we will need for any regional diplomatic effort. Its failure, without a careful transition to a back-up policy would intensify our loss of credibility. It uses tremendous amounts of resources that cannot be employed in other ways to secure our objectives.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 9, 2007 5:27 PM | Report abuse

When you're losing an argument, allows drag up Jefferson and Clinton -- surefire way to distract. Or bin Ladin. Only lthat one doesn't work anymore now that it's been 6 years and he's still out there...

funny foks, gop. in the clown kind of way.

'For those of you who are alarmed by the anti-democratic tendencies of today's GOP, you needn't worry any longer: The leader of the Senate Republicans has just conceded to his constituents that their opinions -- and those of the public at large -- are "not irrelevant."

An article in USA Today captures the surreal but revealing scene:

HOPKINSVILLE, Ky -- Just down the road at Fort Campbell on Thursday, TV cameras captured a wrenching scene: tearful spouses exchanging last hugs and toddlers clinging to parents' desert fatigues as troops prepared to ship out for a 15-month deployment.

Hours later, the man who must try to hold Senate Republicans together in this week's debate on Iraq delivered a luncheon speech here to 130 local business and political leaders. Mitch McConnell, Kentucky's senior senator and his party's Senate leader, did not sugarcoat the situation.

"The majority of the public has decided the Iraq effort is not worth it," he said. "That puts a lot of pressure on Congress to act because public opinion in a democracy is not irrelevant."

Phew, thank God for that. I was getting worried there for a minute.

Posted by: Josh | July 9, 2007 5:25 PM | Report abuse

How many people died as a result of that tarheel? How many people'slives does that effect?

You are in NC. Does a crooked politican in New Orleans effect your daily life? Is he being held accountable? Do you hear any dems/libs saying he should be held accountable?

Again. When you want to act like a grown-up. You will be treated like one. using arguments liek this make you look very partisan.

Think about this always before you open you fascsit mouths:

HOW DOES THIS EFFECT ME?

You'll do a lot better. As is your just wasting everybody's time.

Posted by: rufsu | July 9, 2007 5:22 PM | Report abuse

Waaaah. GOPs are insulting me. I am going to pretend that I don't trade in insults every day all day and act offended. We Libs are very good at acting offended at things we normally do anyway. Watch.

anything to get away from all this policy and logic and facts. you all know we Libs don't do that.

Lylepink, over half the country knows what crooks the clintons are. there is really no debate. Only the vastly disingenuous could defend almost any of their actions. Pardons in particular is a very sore subject with them. and whatever you do, don't mention killing terrorists.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 9, 2007 5:21 PM | Report abuse

'I love how you treat failed plots as evidence that our policies weren't working. There were several failed terrorism plots this year; do you count those against Bush?'

Don't expect consistency from parrots and trained seals, blarg.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 9, 2007 5:19 PM | Report abuse

Coming attractions! Congressman William Jefferson appearing in Cold Hard Cash should be hitting the airwaves soon. $90,000 in bribe money in the freezer. And he gets re-elected. The Democratic party just loves Democratic voters. Step right up robots and pull that lever for Bill. Bill Clinton, Bill Jefferson. Whatever Bill has had a scandal lately. They still get voted back into office or get huge crowds for their speeches. No wonder the Dems support cloning research. Cloned voters. You gotta love'em. Hillary and Nancy sure do.

Posted by: tarheel | July 9, 2007 5:18 PM | Report abuse

Stalking people at supermarkets that is

Posted by: rufus | July 9, 2007 5:18 PM | Report abuse

Amoth middle school argument by the hard (scared) blank poster. "I know you are but what am I."

Elementary school agruments. You want to be treated like a big boy, stop the personal attacks. Try posting why bush shouldn't held accountable to the law like everybody else. Right now your middle school arguments (clinton did this or that) make you look like an angry 14 year old boy who is new to the game. Doesn't know what in the world he is talking about.

this is your wake-up call. Act like a middle school child get treated like one. Like Fox news, when they act like a NEWS ORGANIZATION then they should be treated as such. I say give them papparazzi privledges. They are already stacking people in supermarket. Go full distance :)

Posted by: rufsu | July 9, 2007 5:16 PM | Report abuse

http://www.ftc.gov/reports/060518PublicGasolinePricesInvestigationReportFinal.pdf

This is the report of the Federal Trade Commission issued about gas prices after the hurricane. The report was unanimously adopted by the Commission, which includes 2 members appointed by Democrats.

I challenge anyone who posts on this blog to find anything in this report that is inconsistent with the economic principles I have advocated on this blog.

One idiot has already dismissed the report as the opinion of "a bunch of lobbysists". Lets check out who some of the commissioners are.


In joining the Commission, Leibowitz resumed a long career of public service. He was the Democratic chief counsel and staff director for the U.S. Senate Antitrust Subcommittee from 1997 to 2000, where he focused on competition policy and telecommunications matters. He served as chief counsel and staff director for the Senate Subcommittee on Terrorism and Technology from 1995 to 1996 and the Senate Subcommittee on Juvenile Justice from 1991 to 1994. In addition, he served as chief counsel to Senator Herb Kohl from 1989 to 2000. Leibowitz worked for Senator Paul Simon from 1986 to 1987.

DEMOCRATIC CHEIF COUNSEL TO THE ANTITRUST COMMITTEE??? I bet he is engaged in corporate conspiracies, right Cassandra?

J. Thomas Rosch, nationally regarded for his antitrust and trade regulation law expertise, he has been lead counsel in more than 100 federal and state court antitrust cases and has more than 40 years experience before the Bar. In 2003, Rosch was honored as Antitrust Lawyer of the Year by the California State Bar Antitrust Section. He obtained his LLB from Harvard University in 1965 and was a Knox Fellow at Cambridge in 1962.

Another idiot, just because he agrees with ME?

Some of you liberals like to lecture about science and rationality, then you dismiss the conclusions of very experienced credible people from both parties.

Dismissing them as ignorant conspirators shows who is truly ignorant.

Posted by: Razorback | July 9, 2007 5:15 PM | Report abuse

Wonder which country will be the first to invade the US, once we no longer have any military deterent? In nine months?

Russia? China? Iran? North Korea?

Our treasonous administration has set us up for an attack -- our ports and borders are wide open, our National Guard is overseas/depleted, our military is depleted-- we have never been more vulnerable.

Posted by: Suzanne | July 9, 2007 5:14 PM | Report abuse

Add up all the numbers in that post, and you get 285 Americans killed by terrorism in the 90s. Compare that to the approximately 600 American soldiers who have died in Iraq since January of this year. So, yes, I am nostalgic for the 90s.

I love how you treat failed plots as evidence that our policies weren't working. There were several failed terrorism plots this year; do you count those against Bush?

Posted by: Blarg | July 9, 2007 5:13 PM | Report abuse

A shining example of the elevated discourse of cons

drindl, do you selectively ignore all the others who posted similarly. you are a shining example of "chosen ignorance". Only one side of every conversation pierces your entrenched concepts.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 9, 2007 5:11 PM | Report abuse

Why does CC allow this person zouk to paste the same stuff over and over?

Posted by: Julian | July 9, 2007 5:11 PM | Report abuse

'and the market is sodden with angry, nasty, insulting Libs.'

or zouk:

Please explain basic economics to me. I am an ignorant coward Lib and have no concept of anything more complicated than cutting and pasting from Kos, and that took me months to figure out. I was the first in my family to make it past 6th grade....to 7th grade. Mom was so proud.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 9, 2007 5:10 PM | Report abuse

"republicans know we'll be running out of troops in 9 months and are starting to get scared..."

Think about the hell the troops are in though. Yeah it's bad here. Imagine troops with no safe line to retreat to. Imagine death around you at all times.

The gop extends tours. This after they shrunk the military. The gop would keep them there indefinatly. Who supports the troops? The democrats ARE looking out for them, unlike the gop which is using them.

This coming from a formor Army infantry 11b soldier :)

Posted by: rufus | July 9, 2007 5:09 PM | Report abuse

The bombing of the World Trade Center, killing six people, in 1993;

A plot to bomb the Lincoln and Holland Tunnels, the U.N. complex, and the FBI's headquarters in New York City in 1993;

The Battle of Mogadishu ("Black Hawk Down"), in which 19 American servicemen were killed, in 1993;

A plot to bomb American airliners over the Pacific, killing one Japanese tourist in a dry run, in 1994;

The bombing of a U.S. military training center in Saudi Arabia, killing five Americans, in 1995;

The bombing of the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, killing 19 members of the United States Air Force, in 1996;

The bombing of the U.S. embassy in Kenya, killing 213 people and wounding approximately 4,000, in 1998;

The bombing of the U.S. embassy in Tanzania, killing at least twelve people and wounding approximately 85, in 1998;

A plot to bomb Los Angeles International Airport in 1999;

A plot to bomb the U.S.S. The Sullivans in Yemen in 2000; and

The bombing of the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen, killing 17 members of the United States Navy, in 2000.


Response - do nothing. that is our default policy as you are now realizing. unless there are interns around. then we go to work!

Let's get all nostalgic and go back to the Clinton 90s when we preferred to lie supine for our enemies and interns to have their way with us.

Posted by: How Dems fight wars | July 9, 2007 5:08 PM | Report abuse

'and the market is sodden with angry, nasty, insulting Libs.'

you mean like razorback?

'An idiot like drindle never lets facts get in the way of an ideological conclusion, no matter how stupid it is. An idiot like drindle almost never participates in a factual debate, because she doesn't know anything.'

Posted by: Anonymous | July 9, 2007 5:07 PM | Report abuse

I notice Hillary has not been attacked very much today, and the almost stupid remarks trying to equate the Bubba pardons to the GW communited prison time of Libby. There is absolutely no way they can be even remotely considered in the same breath. I did not agree with some of the pardons by Bubba, but Susan McDougal was by far the one I considered most just. Fred Thompson was defended by me awhile back when someone accused him of being gay, and I will continue to speak out against lies, no matter as to who they are directed. Coming from the strongest Hillary supporter on this site, I expect some will not agree, so fire away.

Posted by: lylepink | July 9, 2007 5:06 PM | Report abuse

National security adviser Stephen J. Hadley visited Capitol Hill just before Congress adjourned for the Fourth of July. Meetings with a half-dozen senior Republican senators were clearly intended to extinguish fires set by Sen. Richard Lugar's unexpected break from President Bush's Iraq policy. They failed.

Always deferential, Hadley took copious notes. But he did more than listen. Based on what Hadley said, one senator concluded that "they just do not recognize the depth of the difficulty they are in." That difficulty entails running out of troops in nine months.

Hadley increased latent fears of the U.S. military being made the fall guy -- a concern shared by many retired and some active senior officers, including a current infantry division commander.'

republicans know we'll be running out of troops in 9 months and are starting to get scared...

Posted by: Anonymous | July 9, 2007 5:05 PM | Report abuse

'An idiot like drindle never lets facts get in the way of an ideological conclusion, no matter how stupid it is. An idiot like drindle almost never participates in a factual debate, because she doesn't know anything.'

A shining example of the elevated discourse of cons. You beat them in a debate and they start calling you names and throwing a full-blown toddler tantrum.

Posted by: drindl | July 9, 2007 5:03 PM | Report abuse

they are wrong on nearly every issue. They are agisnt free choice and truth at everychance. What are they for? You be the judege. To me they about $$$$$. Nothing else. Slavery and $$$$. This is the internet age. They can no longer propogate without it catching up to them. That only works without the internet. Or with the internet destroyed (patriot act). They are scared. Their 60 year old revolution is finally over.

America gets her integrity back starting in 08. As to Live Earth. You know they got it all wrong. With those names. They had ALL the biggest names in the industry. Does that happen if global warming is a myth as gop/razor would have you beleive.

The people now use their own eyes/brains, as opposed to their ears. The dittohead fascists are done for a generation. Bad for them. Good for the rest of the world. Now comes the sabotage. We can't be scared to hold the saboturs feet to the fire. Jail time. Real consquences for TREASON

Posted by: rufus1133 | July 9, 2007 5:03 PM | Report abuse

waffling, flippflopping

I thought that was what you Libs wanted in a candidate. I am going to have to talk to Mitt. all the MASS pols act like this, I didn't understand that only Libs like it.

Posted by: Jim | July 9, 2007 5:03 PM | Report abuse

why do all the gas companies charge exactly the same price?

Please explain basic economics to me. I am an ignorant coward Lib and have no concept of anything more complicated than cutting and pasting from Kos, and that took me months to figure out. I was the first in my family to make it past 6th grade....to 7th grade. Mom was so proud.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 9, 2007 5:00 PM | Report abuse

'Cassandra _ I work for Romney's campaign and I come here every day for ideas from you. thanks for your help.'

Why thank you, Jim. Your waffling, flippflopping, dog torturing candidate needs all the help he can get.

Posted by: Cassandra | July 9, 2007 4:59 PM | Report abuse

Don't fret mikeB. these are the people who tried to tell you about a country they've never been to. While your standing on the soil.

They are propogandists. They are george bush's lawyers. They show their face everytime. It's all about money to them. Their children are not as stupid and greedy as they are. they will stand with us. Sad. I feel sorry for them

Posted by: rufus | July 9, 2007 4:58 PM | Report abuse

"Having a bit of trouble sticking with the singular for an entire sentence, eh numbnuts?"

the upper limit for LV intellect. don't forget to send 3 bears your alumni check, they need the money. you must get such immense satisfaction from your wordly contributions to this blog. I can only guess that you must be some sort of failed insult comic. you succeed in insulting on every single post you have ever written but the failure comes in being funny.

and the market is sodden with angry, nasty, insulting Libs. there are, however plenty of openings for bright, succint, creative, intelligent, thoughful ones. In fact, none have been found yet.

Posted by: preK Lib | July 9, 2007 4:57 PM | Report abuse

I want the lowest possible consumer price, which is achieved by market competition.'

LOL--gee, why do all the gas companies charge exactly the same price?

Posted by: Anonymous | July 9, 2007 4:57 PM | Report abuse

preK Lib - aka KOZ-William-anon-Razorback-village idiot; it makes a whole more more sense to pay attention to the ideas expressed than to spelling and grammatical errors. There are plenty of people here (you posts being exhibit "A") who spell well but blather on and on with arguments that have the logical connectedness of a pile of straw.

Posted by: MikeB | July 9, 2007 4:55 PM | Report abuse

And Zouk, if you really think Joe Biden and Dennis Kucinich have the same policy ideas, you just haven't been paying attention.

Specify. Kucinich is simply more honest and open about it. the others wouold say and do it if they had the nerve to tell the truth. Can you construct a compare and contrast so we may consider your claim?

for example, on the war, we have stay until we win (McCain) and leave now regardless of consequences (Paul). On abortion we have Rudy vs the rest. On immigration we have McCain vs the rest.

In contrast you have Edwards - raise taxes and spend vs hillary (I will do that after you vote).

Posted by: preK Lib | July 9, 2007 4:51 PM | Report abuse

Jim - don't look now, but it's time to change the sacred underwear again. Of course, you could always let one of your wives do it...

Posted by: Anonymous | July 9, 2007 4:49 PM | Report abuse

preklib/zouk: "When someone is bragging about their educational achievements in the same sentence they exhibit grammatical and stylistic faults, they have it coming."

Having a bit of trouble sticking with the singular for an entire sentence, eh numbnuts?

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | July 9, 2007 4:49 PM | Report abuse

When someone is bragging about their educational achievements in the same sentence they exhibit grammatical and stylistic faults, they have it coming. Otherwise I never fault grammar or spelling, even when it is totally unintelligible, like you know who.

Posted by: preK Lib | July 9, 2007 4:45 PM | Report abuse

That last line should have been "Of course, that's nothing new."

Posted by: Blarg | July 9, 2007 4:44 PM | Report abuse

You're right, Rufus. I didn't watch Live Earth because I was scared. The concept of sitting through a Madonna or Police concert terrifies me. And I'm fairly sure that my head actually would explode if I had to listen to Linkin Park or the other artists you listed.

And Zouk, if you really think Joe Biden and Dennis Kucinich have the same policy ideas, you just haven't been paying attention. Not that anything else is new.

Posted by: Blarg | July 9, 2007 4:42 PM | Report abuse

Cassandra _ I work for Romney's campaign and I come here every day for ideas from you. thanks for your help.

Posted by: Jim | July 9, 2007 4:40 PM | Report abuse

Tarheel: yes, but in the '90's we were at peace, respected around the world, and the budget was (in later years) IN SURPLUS. Also, quite honestly, the stuff you cite does not hold a candle to lying the country into the mose disastrous foreign policy mistake of our lifetime, and I include Vietnam.

prekLib (Zouk): are you really criticizing someone for their use of grammar. you has been wrong Before, and you is now also.

Posted by: Bokonon | July 9, 2007 4:37 PM | Report abuse

I know they arn't investing. No one is investing in new refineries. Under normal circumstances, high profits causes investment which increases supply which reduces prices.

This is not happening because of environmental regulations, not because oil companies that you say are greedy are voluntarily not investing money, which would make them more money.

Posted by: Razorback | July 9, 2007 4:37 PM | Report abuse

"all rightiwngers sound alike, talk about exactly the same things in exactly the same language. "

that may be true of rightwingers but not of the GOP party. On the other hand, it is absolutely true of all the current Dem candidates who can't be distingusihed based on any policy. they all agree on everything. and so do their supporters. call them left wing or mainstream Libs if you like. pick any issue and you will find 100% adherance to the Lib line; Abortion - on demand, taxes - raise them, government - expand, war - lose it, education - do nothing, immigration - open up, retirement - do nothing, medicare spend, spend, spend,.

the GOPS actually have well-thought and and diverse views on all of these subjects. It is hard to find one on which everyone agrees. consider that the leading candidate is gay friendly and abortion tolerant. How closed-minded of those wingers. but all those great open-minded and free thinking Libs just magically came to the exact same solution to every problem in the world. Hmmmm. It boggles the mind, unless you're a Lib of course, then it makes perfect sense. Uh huh.

Maybe you had better stick with the chanting considering what actual analysis does to your mantras.

Posted by: preK Lib | July 9, 2007 4:36 PM | Report abuse

"Seriously, the obsession with celebrities doesn't fall along liberal/conservative lines. Both sides love to be represented by celebrities, because celebrities can get peoples' attention."

wHO SAW bILL o'ReILLY TRYING HIS hardest to get Bruce Willis to come out as a conservative. Fox does it all day. This has nothign to do witht he convo. us want the gop'ers to mentally realize how big hypocrites thye are.

Woodstack? Ever hear of that? Did it have an impact on america? Live Earth was woodstock X20. I know your scared. I bet you couldn't watch more than 5 minutes of it. It hurt you, pyhscailly didn't it? Veins busting out. It's only in your head. Come with us. Join humanity. The borg are lying robots. Join humanity :)

Posted by: rufus | July 9, 2007 4:34 PM | Report abuse

"Seriously, the obsession with celebrities doesn't fall along liberal/conservative lines. Both sides love to be represented by celebrities, because celebrities can get peoples' attention."

wHO SAW bILL o'ReILLY TRYING HIS hardest to get Bruce Willis to come out as a conservative. Fox does it all day. This has nothign to do witht he convo. us want the gop'ers to mentally realize how big hypocrites thye are.

Woodstack? Ever hear of that? Did it have an impact on america? Live Earth was woodstock X20. I know your scared. I bet you could watch more than 5 minutes of it. It hurt you, pyhscailly didn't it? Veins busting out. It's only in your head. Come with us. Join humanity. The borg are lying robots. Join humanity :)

Posted by: rufus | July 9, 2007 4:34 PM | Report abuse

"Seriously, the obsession with celebrities doesn't fall along liberal/conservative lines. Both sides love to be represented by celebrities, because celebrities can get peoples' attention."

wHO SAW bILL o'ReILLY TRYING HIS hardest to get Bruce Willis to come out as a conservative. Fox does it all day. This has nothign to do witht he convo. us want the gop'ers to mentally realize how big hypocrites thye are.

Woodstack? Ever hear of that? Did it have an impact on america? Live Earth was woodstock X20. I know your scared. I bet you could watch more than 5 minutes of it. It hurt you, pyhscailly didn't it? Veins busting out. It's only in your head. Come with us. Join humanity. The borg are lying robots. Join humanity :)

Posted by: rufus | July 9, 2007 4:34 PM | Report abuse

I wonder why all the liberals arnt falling over themselves to support Dingle's carbon tax, which is needed to save the planet.

I hope you liberals are smiling after the democrats, who said they would lower gas prices, raise them.

Posted by: Razorback | July 9, 2007 4:32 PM | Report abuse

"New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, a Democrat, touted an "Apollo program" -- referring to the 1960s effort that put men on the moon -- that would reduce dependence on foreign oil by more than half and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent.

During the Republican presidential debate in New Hampshire two days later, many candidates said much the same thing.

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, a Republican, also called for an "Apollo program" and said reducing foreign dependence on oil was intrinsically tied to national security.

"It's frustrating and really dangerous for us to see money going to our enemies because we have to buy oil from certain countries," he said. "We should be supporting all the alternatives."

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, a Republican, said oil companies ought to play a part in rebuilding old infrastructure, which would increase efficiency and possibly reduce costs.

"Big oil is making a lot of money right now, and I'd like to see them using that money to invest in refineries," Romney said. "Don't forget that when companies earn profit, that money's supposed to be reinvested in growth and our refineries are old."

Funny how Rudy rips off Richardson -- and Romney says exactly what I said. Oil companies are not reinvesting because they don't want to bother and they don't have to. Even some republicans understand that.

Posted by: Cassandra | July 9, 2007 4:31 PM | Report abuse

MikeB -- There's ample room for disagreement, but JimD most definitely is not an apologist for neocons and is ALWAYS civil in debating the issues. I would encourage you to read some of his posts again before making that kind of an attack. He's a good guy, even when he disagrees with me. :)

Posted by: Colin | July 9, 2007 4:30 PM | Report abuse

The only person who makes arguments similar to mine is JD, and he hasn't posted at all today. I havn't posted for weeks, prior to today. An idiot like drindle never lets facts get in the way of an ideological conclusion, no matter how stupid it is. An idiot like drindle almost never participates in a factual debate, because she doesn't know anything.

Posted by: Razorback | July 9, 2007 4:30 PM | Report abuse

(CNN) -- In late June, the U.S. Senate passed an energy bill that would raise gas mileage standards for the first time in 20 years and fund research on alternative energy sources.

High gas prices and low mileage are among the factors behind an apparent shift in the nation's energy debate.

The bill's proponents call it a breakthrough in the nation's energy debate, saying the focus is shifting from reliance on fossil fuels and foreign oil toward renewable fuels and green technology.

The measure comes amid another summer of high gas prices, state and local conservation efforts and a presidential campaign where voters and candidates say the issue is key.

A recent analysis by the Gallup Poll showed energy as Americans' fourth most-important priority for Washington, below Iraq, terrorism and national security, and the economy.

The analysis also showed a majority of Americans prefer energy conservation over more production, and that a large majority also favors tightening emissions standards and developing alternative sources of energy.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 9, 2007 4:27 PM | Report abuse

Only a moron would think that I use any talking points from anyone, least of all big oil companies. I oppose subsidies to big oil companies. I would have opposed the oil subsidies in the 2005 Energy Policy Act, even though someone as liberal as Barack Obama voted for them.

Refining has been done for over 100 years. Big oil companies and big airline companies have access to cash and access to expertise. They don't build refineries because it takes forever to permit them and to build them, and if permitted, you get years of lawsuits. Who would want to commit investment under those circumstances? Liberal regulations raise gas prices.

I am pro-consumer. I want the lowest possible consumer price, which is achieved by market competition.

Posted by: Razorback | July 9, 2007 4:26 PM | Report abuse

'You know, there are some perfectly good medications available today that work for people with multiple personalities.... (Of course, they don't work for people with no personality, but that's another problem).'

You're right, MikeB, but with these people you don't know whether they're the same person or not because all rightiwngers sound alike, talk about exactly the same things in exactly the same language. Rush doesn't call them ditthoheads for nothing. Pathetic how proud they are to be called parrots by their god. Funny though.

Of course, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity couldn't stop babbling abou thatt Live whatever it was show. I don't pay attention to celebrities myself. But they used exactly the same talking points that we have seen reproduced here.

Posted by: drindl | July 9, 2007 4:24 PM | Report abuse

a good representation of the Lib constituency here today. you can say and do anything to fool these imbeciles. you can make 11% profit and be labeled a gouger by al gore at 200% profit on a fake science. you can almost eliminate unemployment with tax breaks and proper managment of the economy and be labeled incompetent by eurotrash.

but if you pardon an entire raft of crooks, that is business as usual. If you lie under oath, that is a vendetta against you, the VRWC. If you ignore an enemy who wants to kill you, that is fun with an intern. If you want to do it all again, that is Liberalism. If anyone chalenges you on your stupidity, call them stupid instead.

Peace Mom for speaker.

Posted by: preK Lib | July 9, 2007 4:23 PM | Report abuse

'Cassandra, why havnt big rich airlines, big rich trucking companies, and other big rich companies who buy more energy than anyone else built their own refineries?'

Why don't vets build pharmaceutical factories? What a stupid question. It takes expertise and a good deal of cash. And what big rich airlines are you talking about? They're all hurting for various reasons.
'
but only a moron would suggest that I don't have a great deal of policy knowledge.'

Only a moron would think you have more than a collection of phony talking points for oil companies.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 9, 2007 4:20 PM | Report abuse

Why don't big airlines and big trucking companies build refineries? They are buy the most fuel. Are they in on the nutty collusion conspiracy? And what about the Democrats appointed to the FTC by Democratic Senators? Are they a part of the collusion conspiracy?

Can you find ONE economist who states that the price increase which results from witholding supply offsets the profits lost because of lower quantity sold?

Of course you cannot. You live in your ignorant little ideological world, and do not want to think.

Posted by: Razorback | July 9, 2007 4:20 PM | Report abuse

Who's digging up old scandals? There are plenty from 2007 to enjoy.

Washington Post. Democrats Offer Up Chairmen For Donors: Party's Campaigns Had Faulted GOP For 'Selling Access' By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum and John Solomon, Washington Post Staff Writers, February 24, 2007; Page A01.

New York Times. Former Democratic Leader in Brooklyn Is Convicted, By Anemona Hartocollis, Published: February 24, 2007. Clarence Norman Jr., leader of the Brooklyn Democratic Party, the biggest Democratic organization east of Chicago, since 1990, was convicted February 23 of coercion, grand larceny by extortion and attempted grand larceny by extortion in what prosecutors said was a scheme to shake down judicial candidates in exchange for party support.

New York Times. Rhode Island: Ex-Lawmaker Gets More Prison Time, by Katie Zezima, Published: February 21, 2007. Former Democratic State Senator John Celona, who was sentenced last month to two and a half years in federal prison for taking corporate payoffs, was sentenced to an additional year and a half in prison after pleading no contest to similar state charges. Celona will serve the sentences concurrently starting on March 2.

Black Pleads Guilty to Corruption Charges - Took $25,000 from chiropractors for influence, by Paul Chesser, Carolina Journal, February 16, 2007. Jim Black, North Carolina Democratic Speaker of the House, last week pleaded guilty to taking about $29,000, mostly in cash, from some chiropractors, is looking at a 10-year maximum and a possible $250,000 fine. He also committed crimes related to the state lottery and allowing a lobbyist to use his office and resources. But to lighten his sentence, Black has agreed to name other corrupt Democrats.

From www.northnewjersey.com -- Federal probe divides Trenton, Tuesday, February 13, 2007, by John P. McAlpin and Mitchel Maddux-Trenton Bureau. Democrats are refusing to release documents related to a federal probe on how millions in public funds were handed out over the last three years of the Democratic party controlled legislature. Among those who received subpoenas were Senate President Richard Codey D-Essex Senate Majority Leader Bernard Kenny D-Hudson Assembly Speaker Joseph Roberts D-Camden and Assembly Majority Leader Bonnie Watson Coleman D-Mercer, legislative officials confirmed. This may be the biggest state-wide scandal ever once it's done.

Posted by: tarheel | July 9, 2007 4:14 PM | Report abuse

'Cassandra , you are suggesting that oil companies withold supply from the market to increase prices, thereby profiting more.'

Please don't make me laugh.And don't tell me there's no collusion. The FTC investigates and doesn't find a problem? Who's in the FTC now? Former lobbyists. Gee, no wonder they don't see a problem.

Remember Enron? Remember the great phony California energy crisis they engendered? They do it all the time.

Please take your phony economic stats elsewhere. The truth is obvious to anyone with a brain. But clearly that's not you.

'The reason refineries havnt been built is because of environmental regulations.'

More BS. They don't build refineries because they don't need or want to. Why should they, when they continue to rake in enormous profits just by price-gouging? Why rock the gravy boat?

Posted by: Cassandra | July 9, 2007 4:12 PM | Report abuse

The Soviet Union and the world Communist movement will triumph over the evil capitalists in the United State. I know this to be true because I read it in Pravda. Pravda is Russion for "truth". I am so sophisticated.

Posted by: MikeBstoopid | July 9, 2007 4:10 PM | Report abuse

preK klown: do you really think anyone (other than your fellow droolers) is impressed that a few thousand brain-dead morons in Texas and a couple hundred brain-dead hacks in Washington cast votes for this piece of garbage?

Come on, McFly.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | July 9, 2007 4:09 PM | Report abuse

preK Lib - So, now its KOZ-Zuk-William-Trotski-AND-...Razorback. You know, there are some perfectly good medications available today that work for people with multiple personalities.... (Of course, they don't work for people with no personality, but that's another problem).

Posted by: MikeB | July 9, 2007 4:03 PM | Report abuse

Here is a pretty fair analysis of the situation we find ourselves in, with the lobbying charges against Thompson.

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZjMwMDExOTlhMzg2Mzc3MDEwNjUwZDIzNDEyZjc2MzM=

As the piece states, what makes it hard is that the "he said, she said" splits down party lines.

Posted by: Mark Sutherland in MO | July 9, 2007 3:59 PM | Report abuse

"my education is many times superior"

clearly not an english major

Tom Delay became an ....Majority Leader of the US House of Representatives....
Yep, quite a record of achievement

Not a logic based education either huh fool?

considering this is your level of discourse "whereas you rightwingnut lemmings worship great intellectuals like Tom Delay. nitwit" One can only guess you went to three bears kiddie kollege for your degree.

Posted by: preK Lib | July 9, 2007 3:56 PM | Report abuse

Another article from that same German paper that MikeB cited:

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,2648360,00.html

"The Nuremberg-based Federal Labor Agency said that the number of jobless dropped by 37,000 in seasonally adjusted terms to 3.82 million this month with the unemployment rate edging down to 9.1 percent and job vacancies increasing."

But as MikeB has said, we should be careful about comparing unemployment rates between countries. The US rate doesn't factor in people who have stopped looking for work. If the German and other EU rates do factor in those people, then their rates will always be higher than ours.

Posted by: Blarg | July 9, 2007 3:53 PM | Report abuse

MikeB

Where do you think I got the GERMAN GOVERNMENT unemployment statistics from?

Yes their unemployment rate is falling but it is still 8.8% for June.

Posted by: JimD in FL | July 9, 2007 3:49 PM | Report abuse

Gov. Ed Rendell shut down the Pennsylvania government late Sunday over a budget stalemate with the Legislature that partly hinges on his energy plan for the state.

Among the key sticking points are raising the state's debt ceiling and an energy plan that Rendell has insisted the Legislature approve before he signs.

"We have a $650 million surplus in Pennsylvania," said Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi, a Republican. "There's absolutely no reason why we can't have a budget agreement. We could have had a budget earlier but for these ancillary issues."

The centerpiece of Rendell's energy plan would place a surcharge on electricity use for a fund for alternative energy programs and electricity conservation.

In a typical liberal move, Rendell wants force the bill for going green onto taxpayers while blaming the Rs who place fiscal honesty above politcal pandering.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | July 9, 2007 3:47 PM | Report abuse

proudtobeGOP: and with all that education, Tom Delay became an exterminator -- and failed at that. Yep, quite a record of achievement.

While I haven't served ten terms in Congress, neither have you, and my education is many times superior to Delay's.

As for Madonna, who I really have no interest in whatsoever, she has sold tens of millions of records. You haven't. So I guess you're a complete loser.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | July 9, 2007 3:47 PM | Report abuse

I see dead people too. and they talk to me.....about politics.

Posted by: dufas1133 | July 9, 2007 3:46 PM | Report abuse

I can see into the future. Of course, MikeB has a source for his riduculous statement that the European press says that US unemployment is some astronomical amount. The problem is, its in a different language, was seen only by MikeB, and is not available on the internet. Yeah right, whatever.

Posted by: Razorback | July 9, 2007 3:43 PM | Report abuse

So if you throw out the old corrupt socialist and bring in a new conservative, the result is that unemployment goes down. Even in germany and France. and who is surprised by this????? It looks like even in europe the give-away socialism is coming to an end. Let's hope we're next and Hillary stumbles bad or the american voter discovers the truth about Dem pols in the next few months.

In case you were wondering the truth is that Dems/Libs will say and do anything to get your vote and then totally disregard all that to maintain power once in. this last election is a classic example of this.

Posted by: Trotsky | July 9, 2007 3:42 PM | Report abuse

Sorry I misunderstood this extremely complex point, Trotsky. Let me see if I've got this:

1. Actors are stupid. Never listen to what they have to say.
2. It's okay to elect an actor governor, or even president. Once elected, that actor is worthy of respect.

Right?

Seriously, the obsession with celebrities doesn't fall along liberal/conservative lines. Both sides love to be represented by celebrities, because celebrities can get peoples' attention. A few months ago, some conservative blogs were all excited that a terrible rap-metal band called Stuck Mojo seemed to be endorsing their politics. In 2004, a B-list actor was a major speaker at the Republican Convention. Then there's Charleton Heston, president of the NRA.

There are more celebrities who support liberal causes, because most celebrities are liberal. But when celebrities support conservative causes, conservatives love to have them. It's true on both sides.

Posted by: Blarg | July 9, 2007 3:38 PM | Report abuse

JimD in FL - You're defended by Razorback? Isn't that rather like lying dwon with dogs and waking up with fleas? Since you're so big on looking up news, here's a few cites FROM GERMANY.
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,2463280,00.html

As for the newspaper articles I spoke of, they were from newspapers I was reading in Germany and Austria while there. I don't quote them, specifically, becasue they were in German and I figure someone as ignorant of the rest of the world as our right wing bloggers here don't understand foreign languages (and, as evidenced by Razorback's posts, don't understand English either) and becasue it is a waste of time because the right is so locked into their fairy tales as delivered by Fox, they wont allow reality to waken them from their dream.

Posted by: MikeB | July 9, 2007 3:33 PM | Report abuse

blarg says "Get some laws passed to actually do something ..., and then I'll care"

FThompson is (potentially) doing just that, blarg. He and others who make an effort to serve the country through the legislative process do a whole helluva lot more for the country than all the whiny-a** celebrities in the world combined, with a very few exceptions.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | July 9, 2007 3:32 PM | Report abuse

I stated way up there that you can only expect phony stats from Mike B. that is most likely why he is an out of work engineer. Engineering usually depends on a facility with numbers, not numeric fraud. don't waste your time. Just examine the tone of his remarks for all you need to know.

blarg, you m issed the entire concept. electing actors is different from waiting for their approval before buying into something. why would someone who plays guitar or sings be expected to know anything more than average about just about anything but music? do the dixie chicks inform you on foreign policy. It would seem so. and the resulting deduction is that they know more than you do. A sad state of affairs for your party.

Posted by: Trotsky | July 9, 2007 3:30 PM | Report abuse

If money isn't imporant Rufus, tell Edwards to shut up about poverty, tell the NAACP to shut up about discrimination, shut up about the minimum wage and go back to a cave an trade coconuts for sharp stones.

Posted by: Razorback | July 9, 2007 3:27 PM | Report abuse

MikeB

No one who has read the body of my posts over the last year or so could ever find a rational basis to call me an apologist for the neo-cons.

US unemployment statistics are widely accepted by economists of all political leanings. As with any statistic, they have their shortcomings but being off by a factor of more than 3 is not one of them. German government statistics put German unemployment at almost twice US unemployment. I will not argue with you about the benefits of the European welfare states. They provide a degree of economic security we do not have in the US. They certainly do take better care of the less fortunate. There are also many advantages to 5 weeks paid vacation. However, these benefits come with trade offs and lower economic growth is one of them. There are many health and welfare indicators that show Europeans better off than Americans. This is especially true in the smaller, more homogenous societies like the Netherlands and the Scandanavian countries.


Posted by: JimD in FL | July 9, 2007 3:24 PM | Report abuse

To shay Blarg. Good one. What Hypocrites they are.

Posted by: JKrish | July 9, 2007 3:23 PM | Report abuse

I feel you mikeB. Ignore him. Normal people don't do this. Normal people don't defend criminals. Normal people don't APPROVE bad behavoir by digging up the past. They are not nromal. They are shakin in their little botties. Remember how tough they were before the 06 elections. Hwo did they act the next day? Deer in headlights? Imagine after they lose ALL power. No president no congress. Imagine that. Play time is over. Laws are back in effect coming 08.

If they were REAL americans they would be happy. As they only care about money they are terrified. "The dems are going to take all my money". You people trying lies and propoganda. It failed. We now see your game. Any post/answer will not do anymore. We need truth.

Good luck Razor/gop. Your done for my lifetime. You just don't knwo it yet. Please listen. WE'RE trying to bring you in. Forget about your money for a second. Money is nothing but little pieces of paper you greedy little piggies. Much evil has been done in the name of money over the last 100 years. Stop defending MONEY. I knowMoney is your god you worship. ATM's at churches and all. God pities you. He wants you back. It starts with burning that money. Try it. It may liberate you. You will be free. Try it. Just burn one dollar. Get yourself back.

Posted by: rufus | July 9, 2007 3:21 PM | Report abuse

JimDinFL, the last time I debated European unemployment with MikeB, his last refuge was to quote a foreign language newspaper that didn't exist, and to thereafter insist that he had a legitimate source.

Posted by: Razorback | July 9, 2007 3:15 PM | Report abuse

JimDinFL, you must understand that anything that tends to disprove a conspiracy has been planted by the conspiracy to conceal its existence.

Posted by: Razorback | July 9, 2007 3:11 PM | Report abuse

Pardoning Libby bad, pardoning child rapist, good, Mormon Romney bad, Mormon Harry Reid good, Bush reading email of terrorists bad, Penn (Clinton pollster) reading email of competitors good, subsidies to big oil bad, subsidies for big oil for use in already existing big oil alternative energy programs good, restrictions on liberty to prevent terrorism bad, restrictions on liberty for health (TB man good), Clinton's private life private, Guilianis private life not private, congressional subpeonas to Clinton bad, congressional subpeonas to Bush good, "fairness doctrine" for Rush good, "fairness doctrine" for Daily Kos bad, hedge funds bad, John Edwards/Chelsea Clinton hedge funds good, Imus hate speech bad, Rosie O hate speech good, Clinton kid off limits, Thompson kids not, gang banging Crips innocent until provent guilty, nutty conspiracy theories without proof, guilty until proven innocent, Dem corporate contributions show of great support, Repub corporate contributions, show of special interest ownership, hypocrits hypocrits hypocrits

Posted by: Razorback | July 9, 2007 3:09 PM | Report abuse

"That liberals place so much value in the phony pleadings from actors and entertainers is telling. Your arguments are so bereft of merit that it takes celebrity status to convince the masses."

Proud, did you notice the article at the top of the page? It discusses the millions of dollars Republicans have donated to Fred Thompson, a minor player on "Law and Order", in his bid for president. They give him money because he reminds them of a previous actor turned Republican president, Ronald Reagan. Before Reagan was president, he was governor of California, a position currently held by another Republican actor.

So which party pays too much attention to actors again?

Posted by: Blarg | July 9, 2007 3:08 PM | Report abuse

MikeB,

You really irritated me with the personal attacks. I have done more research and found the German government web site with the German government's unemployment statistics. June's stats are available and it is 8.8%. Of course, this could be the Bush-Clinton conspiracy extending to the German government.

http://www.destatis.de/jetspeed/portal/cms/Sites/destatis/Internet/EN/Content/Statistics/TimeSeries/EconomicIndicators/LabourMarket/Content75/arb210a,templateId=renderPrint.psml

Posted by: JimD in FL | July 9, 2007 3:08 PM | Report abuse

Terrorism is a term used to describe violence or other harmful acts committed (or threatened) against civilians by groups or persons for political or other ideological goals.[1] Most definitions of terrorism include only those acts which are intended to create fear or "terror", are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target "non-combatants".

As a form of unconventional warfare, terrorism is sometimes used when attempting to force political change by: convincing a government or population to agree to demands to avoid future harm or fear of harm, destabilization of an existing government, motivating a disgruntled population to join an uprising, escalating a conflict in the hopes of disrupting the status quo, expressing a grievance, or drawing attention to a cause.

Terrorism has been used by a broad array of political organizations in furthering their objectives; both right-wing and left-wing political parties, nationalistic, and religious groups, revolutionaries and ruling governments.[2] The presence of non-state actors in widespread armed conflict has created controversy regarding the application of the laws of war.

An International Roundtable on Constructing Peace, Deconstructing Terror (2004) hosted by Strategic Foresight Group recommended that a distinction should be made between terrorism and acts of terror. While acts of terror are criminal acts as per the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373 and domestic jurisprudence of almost all countries in the world, terrorism refers to a phenomenon including acts, perpetrators of acts of terror and motives of the perpetrators. There is a disagreement on definition of terrorism. However, there is an intellectual consensus globally that acts of terror should not be accepted under any circumstances. This is reflected in all important conventions including the United Nations counter terrorism strategy, outcome of the Madrid Conference on terrorism and outcome of the Strategic Foresight Group and ALDE roundtables at the European Parliament."

Posted by: you be the judge who is a terrorist | July 9, 2007 3:08 PM | Report abuse

tHAT'S WHY SUCH ANOMOSITY mIKEb. I feel you. if the dems were doing the same things I would be all over them myselves. I have to think it is becase stocks are high. You know republicans only care about money. Little pieces of paper over country and countrymen. Treason? You be the judge.

"In law, treason is the crime of disloyalty to one's nation. A person who betrays the nation of their citizenship and/or reneges on an oath of loyalty and in some way willfully cooperates with an enemy, is considered to be a traitor. Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as: "...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]." In many nations, it is also often considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aided or involved by such an endeavour.

Traitor may also mean a person who betrays (or is accused of betraying) their own political party, nation, family, friends, ethnic group, religion, social class, or other group to which they may belong. Often, such accusations are controversial and disputed, as the person may not identify with the group of which they are a member, or may otherwise disagree with the group leaders making the charge. See, for example, race traitor."

Posted by: jkrISH | July 9, 2007 3:07 PM | Report abuse

badgerone - I suppose ou don't read much. I'm a liberal and a Democrat and I post critical remarks about the current crop of Democratic candidates all of the time. I can only contrast this with the lock step defense of Republican candidates I see here. Furthermore, I listen to Air America and they simply pounded Rep. Jefferson and Murtha, they are critical of Hillary Clinton and Senator Kennedy and their apparent lack of concern about Amercian workers in the illegal immigrant and H1-B visa debates. You will never see anything like that on Fox or read it in a right wing rag like the WSJ.

Posted by: MikeB | July 9, 2007 2:56 PM | Report abuse

amazing, the worlds biggest company makes the most money. Libs think this is evil. when it is pointed out that profit is traditionally quoted in percentage terms to be able to compare, Libs ignore that and fall back to chanting "biggest profit ever, aaaoooogah". thus demonstrating no grasp of even the most simple economic terms and conditions. then they want to engage in a shouting fest about who is stupider. I think that answer is pretty obvious. al gore good, corporations bad. Ug.

Posted by: no econ, we're Dems | July 9, 2007 2:55 PM | Report abuse

BLah blah blah razor. Live Earth. Live Earth Live Earth :)

I know your scared. If you had the courage to watch it that is. Which I'm sure you don't. I can watch Fox "news". Can you watch anything other than fox news?

Obviouly no. Sorry about that. Jsut don't come on here trying to talk about that which you have no concept. If you only watch fox and listen to rush you are only gettign ahalf the story. What will you do without your avatars?

"In Hindu philosophy, an avatar (also spelt as avatara) (Sanskrit: अवतार, avatāra), most commonly refers to the incarnation (bodily manifestation) of a higher being (deva), or the Supreme Being (God) onto planet Earth. The Sanskrit word avatāra- literally means "descent" (avatarati) and usually implies a deliberate descent into lower realms of existence for special purposes. The term is used primarily in Hinduism, for incarnations of Vishnu whom many Hindus worship as God. Shiva and Ganesha are also described as descending in the form of avatars, with the Ganesha Purana and the Mudgala Purana detailing Ganesha's avatars specifically.

The word has also been used by extension to refer to the incarnations of God or highly influential teachers in other religions, especially by adherents to dharmic traditions when explaining figures such as Jesus or Mohammed."

Posted by: rufus1133 | July 9, 2007 2:55 PM | Report abuse

You misinterpret my reasoning. The question here is "did Thompson lobby for pro-choice issues?" That is all I am interested in seeing evidence on. A "he said, she said" argument is not enough in today's political climate, I want documented proof. And if he did lobby, there should be detailed records.

Do you have a link to the claim that someone saw records in Sununu's office that showed Thompson lobbied?

Whether he was once pro-choice, or federalist, or libertarian, or pro-life (as his voting record seems to reflect) is another matter. I am focused on ascertaining what the truth on this lobbying claim is.

Posted by: Mark Sutherland in MO | July 9, 2007 2:54 PM | Report abuse

loudone voter- Unlike your vaunted celebrities, Rep. Delay actually has had higher education; he attended Baylor University, has a degree from the University of Houston, and was elected by his constituents to 10 consecutive terms in Congress. You have not.

That liberals place so much value in the phony pleadings from actors and entertainers is telling. Your arguments are so bereft of merit that it takes celebrity status to convince the masses.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | July 9, 2007 2:53 PM | Report abuse

The only thing stupider than conservatives attacking Live Earth is liberals acting like it was some major political milestone. It was a big concert. So what?

These issue-based concerts do have some meaning. They tend to raise money and awareness for the issue involved. But don't pretend that everyone in attendance actually cares about the issue; most of them are probably there for the music or the spectacle. I'm not impressed by Live Earth. Get some laws passed to actually do something about global warming, and then I'll care. And I'm saying this as an environmentalist.

Posted by: Blarg | July 9, 2007 2:53 PM | Report abuse

And by the way, I oppose all energy subsidies. I oppose all corporate wellfare. Some shill I am, you idiot. You dont know enough about the issues to participate in an informed debate.

Posted by: Razorback | July 9, 2007 2:52 PM | Report abuse

Cassandra, why havnt big rich airlines, big rich trucking companies, and other big rich companies who buy more energy than anyone else built their own refineries?

The reason refineries havnt been built is because of environmental regulations. Librals enact policies that restrict supply, and then complain when prices go up. How stupid can you be?

When start with a capacity restrained market, and then put into the mix a requirement of having many different blends of gasonline during different times of the year, it causes prices spikes because you dont have one supply/demand balance to maintain, you have as many balance to maintain as you have different blends of fuel required.

The poster you responded to was right, except for use of the word "solely". The regulation limiting refineries and reguiring different blends restricts supply and increases prices. Prohibitions on drilling restrict supply and increase prices.

You liberals argue in a contradictory manner. You want environmental regulations that increase gas prices, and you want to pander to consumers with your illogical Bush/texas/oil rants.

Just watch the policy debate and you will see that I am right, even if you hate me. Today, Dingell, committee chair in the Democratically controlled congress admitted what I said the Dems would have to admit: Their energy bill will increase gas prices. Lets see what Reid and pelosi say too.

If you want a better explanation of what I say about markets, do a google search of "Federal Trade Commission" "collusion" "price gouging" and "oil companies"

If you want to learn about what drives gas prices, do a google search on "refinery capacity". If you dont want a bunch of garbage from trade journals, put "Reid" in the mix.

Disagree with me, call me names, lie about my positions, do whatever you want, but only a moron would suggest that I don't have a great deal of policy knowledge.

Posted by: Razorback | July 9, 2007 2:50 PM | Report abuse

I thought live earth was only going to have a few artists. Metallica. Garth Brooks? Keith Urban?

HAHAHA. YOu look like a fool GOP. Look at the names. this is bigger than Al GOre or Maddona. That was the biggest concept ever. Ever. Woodstock was small-time compared to that one. HUGE. World wide. Are you scared? Haven't you been hearing me yell

ONE WORLD ONE PEOPLE. I've been warning you, you just CAN'T listen. how could you. You GOP'ers are God's in your own mind. How can anyone who does not watch fox or listen to rush get through to you? YOu are lost little puppies. I'll take you under my wing gop. You have to listen though. Help me, help you :)

Posted by: rufus | July 9, 2007 2:45 PM | Report abuse

Cassandra , you are suggesting that oil companies withold supply from the market to increase prices, thereby profiting more.

This is a false argument that no credible economist of any ideological view would every make.

Profit is not a function of price alone. Profit is a function of price TIMES QUANTITY sold (less expeses). A greedy oil company would NEVER reduce its quantity sold, to raise the oil prices, because that would hurt its own profits. It would make more money per barrel sold, but would sell less barrels, reducing its profit, although it would increase the profits of companies who did not withold supply. This kind of collusion is a felony. The FTC has investigated for collusion, and found no evidence of it.

Cassandra, do you really believe a greedy oil company would sacrifices its market share by withholding supply, and thereby limit its own profits?

You also state I lied, then quoted oil company profits.

I have made no representations whatsoever about the amout of oil company profits.

Posted by: Razorback | July 9, 2007 2:44 PM | Report abuse

'Actually it is the con lemmings that look stupid, nodding thier heads in unison to every morsel of red meat thrown to them by fox news, rush limbaugh, bill oreilly, etc.

gee you folks are good at projection, little dittohead gopie. you have never had an original thought -- and you all are sure fixated by celebrities. but you have to have something to 'think' about i gues...

Posted by: Anonymous | July 9, 2007 2:32 PM | Report abuse

Sorry, Bokonon, that as a Democrat you don't feel you have to balance your criticism of the Bush administration. Gee, even Fox News tries to do some balanced reporting. Well, I respect you more for being honest about your leanings than others who insist they are nonpartisan unbiased tellers of the truth (as they see it). Anyhow, I got your point but you you missed mine.

What in heaven's name could induce Bill Clinton to pardon a Democratic Congressman that was a convicted child rapist who was into child pornography? What info did he have on Bill Clinton? The only logical reason seems to be Bill Clinton was protecting himself, just like you accuse Bush of doing. The Reynolds pardon makes no sense unless Bill got something from it. The 140 drug dealers, kidnappers, child molesters and others that Clinton pardoned can be found at: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/pardons6b.htm. Plus, you know every one of them was reviewed and approved by Hillary, or as Bill himself put it, the co-president at the time.

Posted by: badgerone | July 9, 2007 2:31 PM | Report abuse

proudtobeGOP: whereas you rightwingnut lemmings worship great intellectuals like Tom Delay. nitwit.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | July 9, 2007 2:31 PM | Report abuse

The facts don't like, razor scumbag, you do. Everything you post on here is a lie. You can call me names all you like -- but your corporate BS propaganda doesn't change the truth. You are a waste of time.

'In October, ExxonMobil, the world's largest publicly traded oil company, announced net income of $9.9 billion for the most recent earnings quarter, eclipsing analyst expectations and dwarfing the $5.68 billion reported for the same quarter in 2004.

It was the largest quarterly profit ever for a U.S. company.

ExxonMobil wasn't alone. Royal Dutch Shell saw profits grow 68 percent, to $9.03 billion. BP announced profits at 34 percent above 2004 levels, and ConocoPhillips saw revenue jump 43 percent.

And the trend continued into 2006. Today, ConocoPhillips surpassed expectations with $3.68 billion in fourth-quarter profits. And more sky-high earnings are expected through the end of this week, as the other big companies report.'

Posted by: Cassandra | July 9, 2007 2:29 PM | Report abuse

rufus - Actually it is the liberal lemmings that look stupid, nodding thier heads in unison to every morsel of red meat thrown to them by the under-educated entertainers-cum-activists who spout nonsense and line their pockets simultaneously, like Madonna. What with her high-school education and 2.5 GPA, she must be smarter than the rest of us, right?

She's laughing all the way to the bank, rufus. get a clue.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | July 9, 2007 2:28 PM | Report abuse

' All I have seen thus far in the lobbying claim is one group saying one thing and Thompson and Sununu saying another. '

sununu refuses to release the information, but it has been seen.

How about Thompson's own words [see link I gave you] where he says 'the choice should be up to the woman and not the government' -- is that pro-choice or not?

You're willing to believe anything but the truth, I see, like most R's...

Posted by: drindl | July 9, 2007 2:23 PM | Report abuse

"You are with us or agisnt us"

Free people will always reject fascism. They are done for my lifetime. You don't want to talk about live earth GOP. Trust me. Watch it, then talk about it.

You'll probably break into tears after an hour saying "what have I done to thsi country."

did you see those names. Everybody from all types of music. Genisis? Linkin Park? Police? Madonna? Ludacris? Fergie?

Damn. That was great. You can't remove this smile from my face after that one GOP. The wrold is finally getting on the same page as ME. What took so long? I say it's fox "newS" fault for destroying the media

Posted by: rufus | July 9, 2007 2:23 PM | Report abuse

"Why should they change anaything when they are making the biggest profits any company ever has?"
XOM
Profitability
Profit Margin (ttm): 11.00%
source - yahoo

Meanwhile, back on planet earth, al gore's company GIM is making a bundle off fleecing people:
GIM
Profitability
Profit Margin (ttm): 204.95%

tsk, tsk cassandra, your facts seem to be NYT accurate. 11 percent vs 205 percent. you are going to need Dem math to reconcile that one.

Posted by: there ought to be a law | July 9, 2007 2:21 PM | Report abuse

Who saw that melissa etheridge performance?

That's what I'm talking about. It was truth. The gop, rather than us all being americans when we have equal voice. They ask "what is the source, how are we differant." Instead of us all being americans. Who did this to us? Who started this war against American citizens? It was Rush and FOx "News". I didn't start this war. They did

Posted by: rufus | July 9, 2007 2:19 PM | Report abuse

Why do people here permit right wing attack dogs to distort the English language? What Zouk-Razorback call "free enterprise", the rest of the world calls a criminal conspiracy. It certainly isn't what the Founding Fathers meant by free enterporise and it isn't what Europe calls free enterprise.

A UN study has named Denmark as one of the world's best countries when it comes to corporate social responsibility

A well-balanced mix of capitalism and social integrity have helped make Denmark the world's second leading nation for corporate social responsibility, according to a study completed for the United Nations' Global Compact Leaders Summit, which ended Sunday.

The study, conducted biannually by London-based think-tank AccountAbility, rated Denmark second-best in its 2007 Responsible Competitiveness Index, which determines how effectively a country's companies are carrying out responsible business practices.

Denmark moved up one place from its ranking of third in the last RCI and only Sweden ranked higher in the 2007 study.

RCI 2007 examined 108 countries represented on all five continents and consisted of over 96 percent of global GDP. Variables used in the study included carbon dioxide emissions, ethical behaviour of companies, employment of women in the private sector, public perception of government corruption, freedom of the press, and countries' participation in the signing of socially and environmentally beneficial treaties.

The Global Compact Leaders Summit, held to discuss ways to build international markets while promoting social responsibility, was chaired by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and included many of the world's top chief executives, heads of state and government ministers.

All five Nordic countries - Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland and Iceland - placed in the top six, with the UK, New Zealand, Ireland, Australia and Canada making up the rest of the top ten.

In the same study, the U.S. occupied the bottom 10%.

Posted by: MikeB | July 9, 2007 2:17 PM | Report abuse

' A refinery has not been built since 1976.'

Precisely. Despite the fact that republicans routinely give gigantic tax subsides to oil companies. But they are simply passing that taxpayer money to shareholders and not reinvesting.

Why? So they can keep supplies low and demand high. Why should they change anaything when they are making the biggest profits any company ever has? What is their incentive?

Your corporate BS-fog machine ideologies and agenda can only fool the ignorant and ill-informed gopies, not those of us who can see through it.

OPEC IS manipulating the market -- and so is Exxon Mobil. Why? Because they can.

'Jan. 25, 2006

'While Americans were stung by historically high gas prices this fall, the world's biggest oil companies saw their profits skyrocket.

In October, ExxonMobil, the world's largest publicly traded oil company, announced net income of $9.9 billion for the most recent earnings quarter, eclipsing analyst expectations and dwarfing the $5.68 billion reported for the same quarter in 2004. It was the largest quarterly profit ever for a U.S. company.'


'.House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., has urged U.S. oil companies to invest in building more refineries and better communicate their efforts at bringing down oil and natural gas costs.'

Posted by: Cassandra | July 9, 2007 2:13 PM | Report abuse

GOP, You don't want to talk about live earth today. You don;t want that. Live earth was the biggest concert I've ever hear of. It was a huge sucess. It made the GOP look like idiots. Idiots. Did you see the names. I wanted to make a woodstock like concert, in the name of pat tillman with speakers sheehan and tillman's mom, with differant types of music.

I'm guessing you didn't watch. I don;t need to do that now. There is no way I could compete with that concert. I'm guessing you didn't watch or you would never bring it up. Did you see those names? Police? SOS to the world. "waiting on the world to change"..

HAHAHA. That concert really made you people out to be demons. You would know that if youwacthed. I know it wasn;t on fox. Sorry about that. You couldn't wacth it. There are highlights. Watch it. Se how stupid you look today, after that concert

Posted by: rufus | July 9, 2007 2:13 PM | Report abuse

Babs and I. Rosie O and I. Madonna and I. We agree on capitalism when it comes to THEIR money.

I wish those phoney self absorbed self promoting leftist hypocrits would also be capitalists when it comes to your money and my money.

Posted by: Razorback | July 9, 2007 2:10 PM | Report abuse

JimD in FL - ...and, by the way, the jobless number for the U.S. being quoted in Europe is 15% or more, which is rather more accurate than the nonsense you apologists of the neocon failure toss about.

Posted by: MikeB | July 9, 2007 2:08 PM | Report abuse

CRAWFORD, Tex., July 8 -- Antiwar activist Cindy Sheehan said Sunday that she plans to run against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) unless Pelosi introduces articles of impeachment against President Bush in the next two weeks. Maybe we can blog about Cindy's fundraising next."

Good. The dems are being cowards. There not doing what they got elected for. You can't complain about the low congress numbers then when we try and fix it complain also. Well you can. that's why you are hypocrites.

Posted by: rufus | July 9, 2007 2:07 PM | Report abuse

proudtobeGOP is right. What she says confirms my most basic political belief:

Everyone is a capitalist when it comes to THEIR money.

Posted by: Razorback | July 9, 2007 2:06 PM | Report abuse

Call me a liar all you want, Cassandra. Just name the lie. Name the red herring. Name the straw man argument.

Put some facts out there, gutless wonder.

Posted by: Razorback | July 9, 2007 2:03 PM | Report abuse

The Tally Sheets and the Vote Switchers
By Paul Singer and Bryce Bauer
Roll Call Staff


the most spineless of pols - who else - harry reid

Posted by: Anonymous | July 9, 2007 2:01 PM | Report abuse

What recordings from Sununu's office? I haven't seen those presented. All I have seen thus far in the lobbying claim is one group saying one thing and Thompson and Sununu saying another. Additionally, the former Congressman is not a neutral source as he is the a former dem. member of Congress and the head of the Brady Campaign. There is no evidence, just accusations. Where is the evidence? (and the youtube clip or the quote on his abortion position in 1994 is not evidence as far as any alleged lobbying goes since they we are not dicussing his possible past position on abortion but whether he was an abortion lobbyist).

Posted by: Mark Sutherland in MO | July 9, 2007 2:01 PM | Report abuse

"If you wanna save the planet, jump up and down!" urged Madonna. Can global warming be stopped by an out-of-breath, middle-aged, super-rich narcissist in a leotard and high heels?"

No, but she can make lots of money in the meantime. For her, the word green means money, not the environment.

Madonna, who seems to be on top of all her many business endeavors, has actually invested about $2.7 million dollars in companies that are creating the destruction that Live Earth was trying to raise awareness about. She has invested in several companies named as the biggest corporate polluters in the world.

It's a cruel irony that Madonna's Ray of Light Foundation owns blocks of shares in companies that folks like Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio would like to see punished, including Alcoa, Ingersoll Rand, Weyerhaeuser, and several others associated with oil exploration, digging, and refining including British Petroleum, Schlumberger (a chief competitor of Halliburton), Devon Energy, Peabody Energy, Emerson Electric, Kimberly Clark and Weatherford International.

Madonna's Ray of Light Foundation has stock in each of these companies. Her last published tax statement claims $4.2 million in corporate stock, and only $620,000 in donations to other charities including her pet project: the Kabbalah Center.

Just another example of the smug hypocrisy of the elitist left and lemming-like behavior of it's followers.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | July 9, 2007 2:01 PM | Report abuse

JimD in FL - U.S. unemployment statistics and job creation numbers are fabricated by the Commerce Department at the behest of whoever occupies the Whitehouse. In Europe, where people receive up to two years unemployment compensation, those figures actually mean something. Furrthermore, Germany and Austria and Sweden and Denmark roll into their unemployment numbers, people looking for work and/or drawing unemployment compensation. Here, after 12 weeks, they don't count any longer. Furthermore, the Bush's jobs creation numbers use jobs creayted overseas, at U.S. corporate subsidiaries, they count Indian guest worker engineers as hi-tech employeed, they count illegals employed in construction as employed, and they count people forced into minimum wage jobs, many with college degrees, becasue they canot find other employment. You cannot support U.S. employment numbers because they are quite simply invented and quoting those invented numbers is an exercise in fantasy. If you actually had a job, were actually looking for a job, knew someone who was looking for a job, or knew anything about this countries ranshackly "economy", you would know that.

Posted by: MikeB | July 9, 2007 2:00 PM | Report abuse

Cassandra, you are avoiding the gas prices. Do you agree with Dingell that they should be increased 50 cents a gallon?

Bokonon says: "Razorback, HUGE increase in gas prices, electric bills and water bills might be exactly what is needed,"

Do you agree with that?

Market forces, influenced in some ways by goverment policy is what sets gas prices.

Price controls in the 1970's allowed OPEC to exercise market power and spike prices. Over investment in new oil supplies and refining capacity which followed the repeal of oil price regulation led to the oil bust of the early 1980s and an extended period of relatively low energy prices. As excess refining capacity has been absorbed, and discovery of new supplies has slowed. A refinery has not been built since 1976.

Restricting supply and increasing demand cause price increases. Your "Bush high oil prices/ Clinton low oil prices" is just the kind of ill informed simplistic garbage that ideologes who no nothing like to spout.

Posted by: Razorback | July 9, 2007 1:59 PM | Report abuse

'he is too stupid to know it, just some of the idiots who post on here (Yes, thats you, Cassandra).'

FU, buddy. that's all you angry little gopies know how to do isn't it? someone catches you in yet another lie and you have nothing to say but insults and kicking playground sand.

Posted by: Cassandra | July 9, 2007 1:56 PM | Report abuse

Here's more..

'On Abortion: "Government should stay out of it... The ultimate decision must be made by the women... Government should treat its citizens as adults capable of making moral decisions on their own." -- Fred Thompson, July 1994'

'Former Rep. Michael D. Barnes, a colleague at the lobbying and law firm where Thompson worked, said that DeSarno had asked him to recommend someone for the lobbying work and that he had suggested Thompson. He said it was "absolutely bizarre" for Thompson to deny that he lobbied against the abortion counseling rule.

"I talked to him while he was doing it, and I talked to [DeSarno] about the fact that she was very pleased with the work that he was doing for her organization," said Barnes. "I have strong, total recollection of that. This is not something I dreamed up or she dreamed up. This is fact."

Posted by: drindl | July 9, 2007 1:53 PM | Report abuse

Razorback, "venture capitalists" HAVE NEVER provided funding for anything that does this country good. Please, name one example where "venture capitalists" have done anything that is of good for the Amercian people. You can't. These are greedy, blood sucking parasites that would not be tolerated in a civilized society.

Posted by: MikeB | July 9, 2007 1:51 PM | Report abuse

"If you wanna save the planet, jump up and down!" urged Madonna. Can global warming be stopped by an out-of-breath, middle-aged, super-rich narcissist in a leotard and high heels?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2007/07/09/nosplit/bmyawn109.xml

I wont even mention the tons of carbon put into the atmosphere to get all the stars to Al Gore's rock concert.

Al Gore puts on a rock concert, and leaves it to John Dingell to explain the inconvenient truth that you get to pay 50 cents a gallon more for gas, and its impact on the problem will be so tiny that it cannot be measured.

Posted by: Razorback | July 9, 2007 1:49 PM | Report abuse

' reviewed the LA Times story and the only claim that Thompson lobbied for the pro-choice group is minutes from a board meeting.'

Not at all -- there's recordings from Sununu's office. And here's Fred saying the words himself:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/06/prochoice_fred.html

Posted by: drindl | July 9, 2007 1:49 PM | Report abuse

"The kind of future I describe won't be easy to achieve. But I know two things for sure: The trail will be blazed by America's next titans of innovation, and their path will be lit by the support and investment of a determined federal government.

We're seeing the first part happening already. Scientists, states and venture capitalists are starting to work together. They are realizing - as countries like Japan, Germany and Brazil already know - that tremendous opportunity lies ahead.

Those who develop the clean, safe and efficient energy of the future will reap enormous rewards. It's time for our federal government to not just catch up, but to take the lead - and that won't be easy."

Sen. Harry Reid speech on energy policy, June 13, 2007.

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/06/13/majority-leader-harry-reid-the-debate-on-raising-cafe-standards/

He says that "scientists, states and venture capitalists are working together". This is true, private sector venture capitalists want taxpayers to share in the risk of their invesment ideas. This is what is know as CORPORATE WELFARE, and I am against it.

Reid also acknowledges that those who solve the problem will "reap enormous rewards".

Why not let those venture capitalists who stand to reap enormous rewards invest THEIR money, not taxpayer money.

And the idiots around here call me a corporate shill. Reid is the corporate subsidizer and corporate shill, and he is too stupid to know it, just some of the idiots who post on here (Yes, thats you, Cassandra).

Posted by: Razorback | July 9, 2007 1:45 PM | Report abuse

You're avoiding the gas prices razor/zouk/whomever... why did they stay so low during the clinton era, then shoot up as soon as bush became president, after he promised that he would LOWER them because of his close personal family relationship with the saudis?

the saudi government that funds the madrassas that fuel terrorism like 9/11?

Posted by: Cassandra | July 9, 2007 1:44 PM | Report abuse

I reviewed the LA Times story and the only claim that Thompson lobbied for the pro-choice group is minutes from a board meeting. What those minutes state is not reported, no billing information has been released, no phone records, no cancelled checks, no recollection from Sununu. Basically, it is the word of a left-leaning pro-abortion group with an agenda, against the word of Thompson and Sununu. At this point it is a non-story with no evidence to support it.

Posted by: Mark Sutherland in MO | July 9, 2007 1:42 PM | Report abuse

'Fred Thompson is an awesome man' 'any of you who are currently writing false accusations about him, you could be sued'

And which 'false accusations are you talking about, 'awesome' one -- there is not a single false assumption here. All are well-documented.

Posted by: Cassandra | July 9, 2007 1:42 PM | Report abuse

Do nothing dems had better watch their back. In a boldly ridiculous move, Cindy Sheehan announced her plans to unseat the new Speaker unless the leftwing payback promise is fulfilled.

CRAWFORD, Tex., July 8 -- Antiwar activist Cindy Sheehan said Sunday that she plans to run against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) unless Pelosi introduces articles of impeachment against President Bush in the next two weeks. Maybe we can blog about Cindy's fundraising next.

I just love it when the radical left attacks their own.


Posted by: proudtobeGOP | July 9, 2007 1:39 PM | Report abuse

I'm sure no one hates Bush as much as Al Gore. I don't think he would take it easy on him, nor should he. Gore may put these sell-outs in jail for 40 years. Treason?

Go Gore Obama 08. Or Obama Gore 08

Posted by: RUFUS | July 9, 2007 1:38 PM | Report abuse

MikeB says:

"Hey, if Gore was President, he would actually implement those policies that the right wing nuts continually attack."

State what the policy is, MikeB.

The fact is that Gore has NO policy. His is a cheerleader out to state that there is a problem, but he has NO POLICY when it comes to a solution. He is gutless. He doesn't want to propose the gas price increases and electric bill increases that are necessary if what he says about the problem is correct.

Posted by: Razorback | July 9, 2007 1:36 PM | Report abuse

How stupid does it sound to say that MikeB, ignorant coward, cassandra, drindl, JEP, etc are the same person just because they are all equally loony. (I must admit drindl is beginning to look rational compared to these loons.)

One must assume that just because I don't know any GOPs, there must be one or two out there, nope, make that only one. and if any of them find out how stupid our ideas are, they must have found out on fox. the NYT is on our side and doesn't print those facts. Regardless, we refuse to come up with facts, whatever they are and continue to debate based on pol tested idiocy.

bill clinton is the most honest and caring man in the world. hillary too.

Posted by: duh | July 9, 2007 1:34 PM | Report abuse

Again the loony liberals speak. Unfortunately it appears that many of you can not read because the subject is about Fred Thompson - NOT - Scooter Libby. Fred Thompson is an awesome man and any of you who are currently writing false accusations about him, you could be sued. Thank you for your time in this matter.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 9, 2007 1:34 PM | Report abuse

MikeB

If you read the fine print on the EU statistics, they use the survey to adjust nationally reported statistics on the registered unemployed. That is the people who are registered with their governments for unemployment benefits.

Posted by: JimD in FL | July 9, 2007 1:30 PM | Report abuse

'Finally, why do the scientist who will eventually solve the problem need a taxpayer subsidy?'

Why do the oil companies need a taxpayer subsidy?

Posted by: Anonymous | July 9, 2007 1:29 PM | Report abuse

'mike b You are getting hysterical"

getting? that is the default position for this moonbat. and you wonder why he was fired. I don't.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 9, 2007 1:28 PM | Report abuse

Alan Gore is possibly the only honest politcian we have right now. So, it make perfectly good sense for for our resident scumbag to attack him. Zouk-Razorback-William-etc. , our multiple personality resident right wing shill, would do anything to limit our choices of genuinely progressive candidates. Hey, if Gore was President, he would actually implement those policies that the right wing nuts continually attack. That fact that they WILL work, bothers them a great deal. It would put him and similar rabid dogs out of work.

Posted by: MikeB | July 9, 2007 1:28 PM | Report abuse

With gasoline prices soaring, the White House has sought to talk to friendly oil-producing countries. Bush promised during his last presidential campaign to "jawbone" OPEC leaders if the oil cartel hiked prices or cut production, as it did on Wednesday.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 9, 2007 1:28 PM | Report abuse

'Libs think the government or even better George Bush himself, controls gas prices.'

sorry zouk/andrew/razorback/assorted voices in your head, bush himself promished he could bring down gas prices, remember?

'CRAWFORD, Texas -- Stabilizing the oil market is in the interests of both the United States and Saudi Arabia, President Bush's national security adviser said Monday following a meeting at the Texas White House between the president and Saudi Prince Abdullah (search).

"The price level, both the United States and Saudi Arabia agree, needs to be one that provides an adequate return of investment but isn't so high it damages the market and our economy," Stephen Hadley (search) said.

Hadley said the two countries were working on a plan to increase production capacity to 12.5 million barrels a day by the end of the decade and to 15 million barrels a day in the next decade in order to bring prices down and stabilize the market. Saudi Arabia currently pumps about 9.5 million barrels daily.

Hadley sought to soothe anxieties about skyrocketing gas prices, which have hurt the president's approval rating.'
...

Bush and Cheney walked down a path at the ranch to greet Abdullah and his small entourage, which was nearly a half hour late to the meeting. The president gave Abdullah a warm embrace and they kissed on both cheeks.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,154493,00.html

Posted by: Cassandra | July 9, 2007 1:26 PM | Report abuse

MikeB -

I have NEVER attacked anyone ad hominem in here. You are getting hysterical. I have always tried to be reasonable and respectful of others in here unlike the zouks and rufuses, etc.

I googled unemployment stats for Europe and got a United Nations web site and a European Union web site. There are serious differences among the various European countries as to how they report unemployment. SO, I took stats from a EUROPEAN UNION web site. In any event, US unemployment is still lower than what you report for Germany.

Posted by: JimD in FL | July 9, 2007 1:24 PM | Report abuse

Bokonon says:

"Also, it is not Al Gore's responsibility to solve the problem... what he has undertaken is the task of making people aware of its urgency. Scientists, with the support of government, must be the ones to come up with solutions."

First, let me say that while I frequently disagree with Bokonon, he/she always argues with reason and facts. Why can't those who agree with also read, think, be informed and be rational in the same manner?

Although it is technically correct that its not Gore's repsonsibility to solve the problem, its the height of intellectual cowardice to talk about a problem, write a book called "the assault on reason", have a rock concert and be a celebrity, and then leave it to some poor dumb bas%*#@ like Dingell to have to point out how much all of this might cost.

If Al Gore was serious about reason and solving the problem, he would make sure that the discussion included not only the problem, but the solution and the cost of the solution.

Finally, why do the scientist who will eventually solve the problem need a taxpayer subsidy? Whoever develops the solution to the energy problem is going to make billions and billions of dollars. Why should we subsidize the persons who will either get rich or fail? Why not let the private sector take that risk? They will be taking the financial benefit.

Posted by: Razorback | July 9, 2007 1:21 PM | Report abuse

Is thompson even in the running? Has this coward even announced yet? If not why?

He has zero chance. Ban me. While you at it ban zouk. Get Rush/O'Reilly/Hannity/MAlkin/Ingram off the air also. Let's be fair here. Get fox news and rush off the air and you'll never hear from me again. Complain that I should be silenced while saying they should have "free speech" is a hypocriticale agrument. That is why the gop is done for my lifetime. They think they are above the rules, all the while thinking THEY CAN MAKE THE RULEs. We are all americans. the GOP is dylusional. they are living in 1962. The future is now. 2007. They are done. They have a couple months. Let them show their faces. It's funny. it's like a fish on land sqirming it's last sqirm. HAHAHA. Don't hate them .Pity them. Help them. Lead the gop to the light.

Posted by: rufus1133 | July 9, 2007 1:21 PM | Report abuse

White House: Dems Have Launched 300 Investigations In 100 Days The White House on Thursday pushed back against congressional investigations of administration activities, saying lawmakers should spend more time passing laws to solve domestic problems

Posted by: we're busy | July 9, 2007 1:20 PM | Report abuse


'The gas crisis is solely attributable to the 150 blends of gasoline, diesel fuels, and fuel oil the American refineries have to make to meet all the different air emission regulations across the United States. '

more lies, red herrings and BS. The price of gas was on average $1.13 during the clinton era. it is now 3.20. please don't tell me the repug congress enacted all these new standards -- its a freaking joke.

Posted by: Cassandra | July 9, 2007 1:18 PM | Report abuse

President Bush accused Democratic lawmakers on Saturday of being unable to live up to their duties, citing Congress' inability to pass legislation to fund the federal government

Posted by: what did you expect? | July 9, 2007 1:18 PM | Report abuse

'Live Earth' Branded A Foul-Mouthed Flop

Posted by: Anonymous | July 9, 2007 1:17 PM | Report abuse

Oh I see' andrew' is zouk too -- sorry zouk you posted the same phony sh*t last week under your own name....

Posted by: Anonymous | July 9, 2007 1:16 PM | Report abuse

L.Sterling - I'm noyt sure if you are really dense or just pretending to be that way. This whole discussion of Europe has everything to do with Fred Thompson's candidacy and his (and other politician's) search for money. The wealthy, corporations, and fanatical special interest groups buy and sell our politcian's like baseball trading cards (only the politician's, once bought, have less long term value). Europe has manitory public funding for political campaigns. The DO NOT ALLOW politcian's to advertise themselves for sale...as is Fred Thompson doing. To be fair, Clinton, Obama, McCane, Guiliani, all of them bear the same scarlet letter. In their case, it's a big "W", for political wh0re.

Posted by: MikeB | July 9, 2007 1:14 PM | Report abuse

Fred Thompson's campaign is going to go nowhere. Now Jeffries of Human Events has revealed that Thompson tried to keep the pro-life plank out of the 1996 GOP Convention platform that Jeffries argued it had to be in the platform along with others.

That gives credence to Thompson lobbying for the pro-abortion group.

Thompson taking credit all these years for being the person to out the WH taping system is a joke and he should be withdrawing from the race immediately. Wait you cannot withdraw from something you are not officially in so you can hide your fundraising figures and not have to debate.

We were shocked to find out from AP that Thompson wasn't even in the room when the investigators found the truth but was in a bar with a reporter when tracked down to tell him about the taping system and then Thompson told the Nixon WH (time enough for them to get rid of the 18 minutes?). A few days later Thompson asked the question in public he already knew the answer about taping makes him out to be a fraud all these years. Some big shot lawyer taking credit for something he didn't find for years including on his website today. Disgusting. AP gets kudos for doing investigative journalism.

Reseach to find what he did in the Senate and you won't find much -- empty suit and maybe Nixon was right 'dumb as hell' but then after Frist lost the Senate, the WH had to have some candidate in their corner so Fred got the call. Thompson was the perfect Senator to head Chinagate because the Dems knew he could be easily rolled over which he was.

Do the research and discover that the same people have been pulling strings in GOP campaigns since Nixon -- Howard Baker, James Baker, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Bush #41, Wolfowitz, et al. Did I mention that Libby was involved with Wolfowitz? After earning his J.D. from Columbia in 1975, Libby joined the firm of Schnader, Harrison, Segal, and Lewis, becoming a partner the following year, in 1976.[28] He was admitted to the bar of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania on October 27, 1976.[11][28][37] He practiced law there for six years until joining the State Department under Paul Wolfowitz, then head of State's policy planning staff.

Did you all know that when Bush #41 was head of RNC that he had to choose between two groups claiming to head the CR's? One headed by Rove who was all about dirty tricks and he chose Rove as the head of the CR's back when Nixon was President or that the Watergate committee looked at Rove but decided he was too small of fish at the time to bother with.

Why doesn't the Washington Post do a thorough investigation and tie all these people to every WH campaign since Nixon? When Pres Reagan won, they made sure that Bush 41 was the VP to continue their streak.

Did Reagan really not know about Iran-Contra? Was it hidden from him by a former CIA Director at the beginning?

Was Nixon taken out by a group that wanted Ford in office and instead by the Democrats?

These inquiring minds would love to know the answers to all of the above. If some of us can find the answers by searching, why can't the Washington Post.

Do some investigative journalism for a change and find the answers. We are concerned Republicans that want answers to questions. American people have a right to know all about Thompson who is being pushed as the savior of the Conservatives which is a bad joke.

Posted by: Gator Country Group | July 9, 2007 1:09 PM | Report abuse

JimD in FL - Don't you get just a little bit tired about spreading lies, half truths, and outright crap? Look, this country is in serious trouble. Europe has a model that we either WILL FOLLOW or we will cease to exist. I just returned from Germany and Austria over the weekend. The official government stats there are 1.8% unemployment for Austria and 5% for *ALL* of Germany and about 1.5% for Western Germany. The TELEPHONE survey you cite is utter nonsense and you know it. Either come up with genuine facts, real data and cite it completely, or get out of this forum. You're a menace AND an idiot. Your attempts to hijack conversations and debate, you continuous litany of prevaracations, outright lies and twisted half truths, have worn thin.

Posted by: MikeB | July 9, 2007 1:08 PM | Report abuse

As in all other of Chris's blogs, the Moonbats and Wingnuts from both sides have hijacked the site and gotten away from the central question/issue posed: what is it that drives supporters of Fred Thompson to shell out big $$$$$$$$$$$$ for as yet, an unannounced candidacy? Perchance they see the presidency slipping away from Republican hands, and know that any of the current crop, will not and cannnot assure a victory in '08. On the Moonbat side, Miss Hillary is going/shilling her way to making her nomination "inevitable", and this scares the hell out of many serious mid-road Dems, (myself included), who deep down feel that she can't win it, even on the best of days, and if she does, Canada will be the next migratory stop for million of us, who wouldn't be able to stand another 4-8 of Mr. Bill, and his entourage.............................

Posted by: L.Sterling | July 9, 2007 1:06 PM | Report abuse

badgerone, I'm not keeping score, and do not feel that as a Democrat, I am required to balance my criticism of sth of which I do not approve with criticism of sth else of which I did not approve. Moreover, Bush's pardon of Libby is a self-interested move, which ensures that Libby cannot be made (for 5th Amendment reasons) to testify against anyone in the Administration (definitely including Cheney, possibly also including Bush) regarding offenses which would probably lead to impeachment of both men. As odious as the crimes of which Reynolds is accused are, his release did not protect Clinton from anything. There's your difference right there.

Posted by: Bokonon | July 9, 2007 1:06 PM | Report abuse

MikeB says:

"And....wasn't it Razorback that claimed that no U.S. soldiers were forced to serve more than one tour of duty after I posted that my sons had served, repectively, three terms and two terms and had each been called up again. Razxoerback, caught once again in another lie."

I have never commented on the lenght or number of tours that anyone has served, or what the government's policy is or should be with regard to the number of tours served.

Posted by: Razorback | July 9, 2007 1:05 PM | Report abuse

Here's the funny part - Libs think the government or even better George Bush himself, controls gas prices. therefore, of course they should bring them down. they can do it too. they said so to get elected, remember??

then we can all drive even bigger cars to even bigger rock concerts.

Posted by: no econ, we're Dems | July 9, 2007 1:04 PM | Report abuse

Za otknis', Andrew. Poshol ty na hui.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 9, 2007 1:04 PM | Report abuse

Sam says:

"You are PART of the Assault on Reason, razorback/zouk.

Your red herrings, straw men, fake stats, obfuscations and outright lies are part of the con pattern of making rational discussion impossible."

What lie? What red herring argument? What straw man? What fake statistics. Debate me, you illinformed coward. I have put facts in my posts about Dingell's proposal. Meet reason with reason, you gutless wonder.

Posted by: Razorback | July 9, 2007 1:03 PM | Report abuse

The most disturbing pardon of all time has to be the pardon of Clinton supporter and Democratic Congressman Mel Reynolds. Reynolds had been convicted on August 22, 1995, on 12 counts of sexual assault of a 16-year-old girl, obstruction of justice and solicitation of child pornography. Later he was convicted on 15 counts of bank fraud and lying to the FEC and SEC. This was a child rapist involved in child pornography. But, he received a Clinton pardon. Just one of you, please explain the Reynolds pardon to the American people before uttering Scooter Libby's name again.

Posted by: badgerone | July 9, 2007 1:02 PM | Report abuse

I see Cassandra is her normal idiotic self. Only an idiot would think opposing a 50 cent per gallon gas price increase was corporate oil propaganda, and only an idiot focuses their attention on which psuedo-identity someone is using rather than the content of what is said.

Posted by: Razorback | July 9, 2007 1:00 PM | Report abuse

MikeB

You are incorrect about European unemployment. Here is a link to the May 2007 unemployment statistics posted by the European Union:

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/pls/portal/docs/PAGE/PGP_PRD_CAT_PREREL/PGE_CAT_PREREL_YEAR_2007/PGE_CAT_PREREL_YEAR_2007_MONTH_07/3-03072007-EN-AP.PDF

German unemployment for May 2007 is 6.6% compared to 4.5% US and 5.4% UK.

Posted by: JimD in FL | July 9, 2007 1:00 PM | Report abuse

The bombing of the World Trade Center, killing six people, in 1993;

A plot to bomb the Lincoln and Holland Tunnels, the U.N. complex, and the FBI's headquarters in New York City in 1993;

The Battle of Mogadishu ("Black Hawk Down"), in which 19 American servicemen were killed, in 1993;

A plot to bomb American airliners over the Pacific, killing one Japanese tourist in a dry run, in 1994;

The bombing of a U.S. military training center in Saudi Arabia, killing five Americans, in 1995;

The bombing of the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, killing 19 members of the United States Air Force, in 1996;

The bombing of the U.S. embassy in Kenya, killing 213 people and wounding approximately 4,000, in 1998;

The bombing of the U.S. embassy in Tanzania, killing at least twelve people and wounding approximately 85, in 1998;

A plot to bomb Los Angeles International Airport in 1999;

A plot to bomb the U.S.S. The Sullivans in Yemen in 2000; and

The bombing of the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen, killing 17 members of the United States Navy, in 2000.

What do you expect from the "Intern President" He was busy. War, what war? We don't need no stinkin' war.

Posted by: let's go back | July 9, 2007 1:00 PM | Report abuse

The gas crisis is solely attributable to the 150 blends of gasoline, diesel fuels, and fuel oil the American refineries have to make to meet all the different air emission regulations across the United States. There's multiple blends of unleaded gas, ethanol-based gas, diesel gas, ozone regional gases, summer blends, winter blends, off-road vehicle blends, fuel oils, California blends, and other individual state and county blends. If the federal government would just mandate the most environmentally friendly blends nationwide and narrow the number to 25 blends gas prices would be cut in half. Foreign refiners cannot produce our unique fuels so anytime a refinery goes down we see prices rise because no one else can pick up the slack in production.

Posted by: tarheel | July 9, 2007 12:59 PM | Report abuse

Once a REAL president is in office we start by gettign Rush/Hannity/O'rEilly/fox news off the air. This is zouks worse nightmare. What will he do without his avatars? How will their movement continue? It won't, without the above. Good

Posted by: rufus | July 9, 2007 12:58 PM | Report abuse

All the while the conservatives say I should be silenced ut zouk is far worse. At least I talk about facts. All he can do is attack. He show's his face. He must attack, he can't talk facts. When facts come into play he loses.

They have a couple months of political relevance. Let them say what they want. Let them show their face. They have so little time left. They are done. Hypocrits.

Posted by: rufus | July 9, 2007 12:56 PM | Report abuse

Oh zouk is Trotsky today too! How busy he will be all day! Prepare for the onslaught of lies and propaganda!

Gee, it doesn't seem like 'libs' are responsible for high gas prices, does it?

Average national price for a gallon of gas in 1999? $1.13 per gallon, which was about the same ALL DURING THE CLINTON PRESIDENCY.

After Bush took office, price has steadily climbed -- hit $3 a gallon at 2006, and has been there ever since... and now where I live averages about $3.50 for regular.

And remember how during the 2000 campaign Bush said he would REDUCE gas prices? Because he 'knew' the Saudis and he could 'jawbone' them? Remember that?

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/gas1.html

Posted by: Cassandra | July 9, 2007 12:56 PM | Report abuse

There have, since 2001, been single days in Afghanistan and Iraq when our armed forces, sent into battle by President Bush, have killed and captured more terrorists than the United States government managed to neutralize during the entire Clinton presidency

Posted by: indeed | July 9, 2007 12:54 PM | Report abuse

Yes, welcome back my friends to the show that never ends: The Bill & Hill Legacy Repair & Legacy-in-the Making Project, headquarters Eighth Avenue and West 40th Street, New York, New York. Today's message (and please, let's try to stay on-message): See? Bush isn't any tougher on al Qaeda than Clinton was, and surely not as tough as a smart, bold President Hillary Clinton would be. For all their bravado, these Bushies had their shot at taking al Qaeda's top leaders out, but they blinked -- and all because they were fretting over collateral consequences. Just like they have the gall to criticize Bill Clinton for doing.


Now contrast President Clinton. The 9/11 Commission notes that Clinton, dragged kicking and screaming after sundry al Qaeda threats and attacks, finally authorized a covert operation to kill bin Laden if he could not be captured. After that plan came to naught, another golden opportunity arose. So what did Clinton do? He personally "crossed out the key [authorization to kill] language he had approved [earlier,] ... and inserted more ambiguous language." (9/11 Commission Final Report pp. 131-33) (emphasis added). Pressed to explain why on earth he would paralyze his subordinates with confusion about what they were and were not permitted to do, "President Clinton told the Commission that he had no recollection of why he rewrote the language." (Id. at 133).
...
That's right: At this secret rendezvous where the Times intimates the Bush administration could have decapitated al Qaeda once and for all, the truth is: We can't even say, two years later, despite the supposedly great intelligence we had, whether any of al Qaeda's top leadership was actually there.

So, let's see if we have this straight: Under circumstances where the intelligence community couldn't say for certain -- and still can't say today -- that we'd actually have taken out anyone of consequence, Don Rumsfeld called off an operation to which the brass had assigned so many troops it would surely have looked to the Pakistanis like we were invading their country.

Yes, you can easily see why that's Page One material.
...
Has President Bush has made a truckload of mistakes? Yup, as has every wartime president in American history. I don't think he's been wrong as often as the Times has, and I confess to being dissatisfied with the administration's basic conception of the war. But the president has fought the war and wants to keep fighting it. To the contrary, President Clinton never fought the war, and Democrats -- including Senator Clinton -- now want us to walk away from Iraq while the same al Qaeda the Times suddenly thinks Bush hasn't fought hard enough is still on the battlefield.

Why, you ask, have we not suffered a domestic terror attack in the last six years? Perhaps it's because dead and imprisoned jihadists don't blow things up.

These are the facts and they will not change: There have, since 2001, been single days in Afghanistan and Iraq when our armed forces, sent into battle by President Bush, have killed and captured more terrorists than the United States government managed to neutralize during the entire Clinton presidency. Just to recap, those eight years under Commander-in-Chief Clinton saw:

The bombing of the World Trade Center, killing six people, in 1993;

A plot to bomb the Lincoln and Holland Tunnels, the U.N. complex, and the FBI's headquarters in New York City in 1993;

The Battle of Mogadishu ("Black Hawk Down"), in which 19 American servicemen were killed, in 1993;

A plot to bomb American airliners over the Pacific, killing one Japanese tourist in a dry run, in 1994;

The bombing of a U.S. military training center in Saudi Arabia, killing five Americans, in 1995;

The bombing of the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, killing 19 members of the United States Air Force, in 1996;

The bombing of the U.S. embassy in Kenya, killing 213 people and wounding approximately 4,000, in 1998;

The bombing of the U.S. embassy in Tanzania, killing at least twelve people and wounding approximately 85, in 1998;

A plot to bomb Los Angeles International Airport in 1999;

A plot to bomb the U.S.S. The Sullivans in Yemen in 2000; and

The bombing of the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen, killing 17 members of the United States Navy, in 2000.

Bush was in the big chair for 9/11, and his response was to attack -- not with indictments and empty threats, but with the greatest fighting force in the history of the world. He hasn't gotten bin Laden and Zawahiri, but he's wiped out much of al Qaeda's senior leadership and continues to use the military to hunt down the rest. It's not all good: He hasn't been tough enough with Iran, he is unwilling to confront the role of Islamic ideology, and he has failed to rally the country by forcefully, convincingly and constantly explaining the stakes. But he has fought bravely and has not calibrated his approach in accordance with opinion polls.

Clinton, by contrast, indicted bin Laden in June 1998 and did pretty much nothing to actually apprehend or kill him thereafter ... while U.S. embassies and a naval destroyer were savaged, and the enemy plotted 9/11 -- exploiting the wall barring information-sharing between intelligence agents and criminal investigators that the Clinton Justice Department heightened in 1995.

Bush has instituted a policy of not countenancing terrorists. He has too often failed to hew to it, but that undoes neither the good he has done killing and capturing jihadists, nor the antiterror tone he has set. Speaking of tone, Clinton, to the contrary, complemented his failure to confront jihadists by using his pardon power to spring FALN and Weather Underground terrorists from long federal prison sentences. And as Clinton's then-adviser Dick Morris has observed, the 16 FALN terrorists were pardoned for no better reason than to help Senate candidate Hillary Clinton with the Puerto Rican vote in New York.

Other than those few minor details, though, the Times has it absolutely right: There isn't a hair's worth of difference between the two administrations when it comes to fighting radical Islam. Go Hillary!

Posted by: Andrew | July 9, 2007 12:49 PM | Report abuse

You are PART of the Assault on Reason, razorback/zouk.

Your red herrings, straw men, fake stats, obfuscations and outright lies are part of the con pattern of making rational discussion impossible.

Posted by: Sam | July 9, 2007 12:45 PM | Report abuse

Razorback, HUGE increase in gas prices, electric bills and water bills might be exactly what is needed, unfortunately, because the federal money which could have been used to address an issue like this has been long ago spent on tax cuts, defense, "bridges to nowhere," etc. And in re: "the Chinese continue to build coal plants" - you're right, that's an issue. But it in no way excuses us from not doing what we can, and researching/negotiating in order to be able to do more. Anything we do will help, even if the Chinese keep polluting... 1)at least we would not be making it worse, 2)if we were able to convince other countries to follow suit, eventually the market would prefer greener technologies, and 3)China is -to a limited extent- getting greener itself, even if only within its borders, so it is conceivable that eventually they could be brought around as well, especially if a new government is in power at some point in the future.
The point is that although the problem can't be solved quickly and completely, slowly and incrementally is still progress compared with where we are now.

Also, it is not Al Gore's responsibility to solve the problem... what he has undertaken is the task of making people aware of its urgency. Scientists, with the support of government, must be the ones to come up with solutions.

Posted by: Bokonon | July 9, 2007 12:42 PM | Report abuse

And....wasn't it Razorback that claimed that no U.S. soldiers were forced to serve more than one tour of duty after I posted that my sons had served, repectively, three terms and two terms and had each been called up again. Razxoerback, caught once again in another lie.

The latest headline:
PORT ST. LUCIE, Fla. -- A Florida soldier who enlisted after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks plans to sue the military, fighting his fifth order to combat, according to a Local 6 report.

Twenty-six-year-old Erik Botta, who is a Port St. Lucie reservist, signed up for the service days after the Sept. 11 attacks. He did a tour in Afghanistan and three in Iraq, but he said enough is enough.

Botta plans to file suit this week, asking for an exemption or delay so that he can complete his engineering studies.

Posted by: MikeB | July 9, 2007 12:40 PM | Report abuse

I see 'zouk' is 'razorback' today, and he, like zouk, comes on at noon and then floods the site all day with corporate oil company propaganda. Typical...

Posted by: Cassandra | July 9, 2007 12:40 PM | Report abuse

Razorback

I never gave an amount for the increase in gas taxes. There is evidence that using less gas will reduce emissions. How much of a tax increase it would take to cause a reduction is something I do not know nor do I pretend to know.

Personally, I do not think that we will get a solution per se through changes in consumer behavior. I think if it will come it will be through technological innovation spurred by government investment in research and tax incentives. Also, entrepeneurs do see the potential in green technology. I am hopeful that technological fixes can be found to ameliorate the problem.

Certainly the rapid economic development in India and especially China present challenges. That is one of the reasons I believe that technological solutions are required. Also, as prosperity expands in these countries it should develop a constituency for environmentalism. I do not know if that will happen in time to make a difference.

The bottom line is that I am rather pessimistic. I do not doubt the necessity to reduce the impact of human activity on the environment in order to ameliorate global warming. I do not see people making the kind of drastic changes in behavior required to seriously reduce carbon emissions.

Posted by: JimD in FL | July 9, 2007 12:39 PM | Report abuse

Fred... Go for it. You have my family and neighbors ready to vote for you.

Posted by: Flar | July 9, 2007 12:35 PM | Report abuse

Razor - that was promised before the july 4th holiday. but you know how valuable Dem promises are.

have you ever seen a Lib proposal or law that didn't cost an enormous sum of money? they are incapable of cutting costs and spending less. for every problem facing america, their solution is always the same - bigger government, more regulation, higher taxes, more central control. Lenin would be proud.

Posted by: Trotsky | July 9, 2007 12:34 PM | Report abuse

Razorback apparently is confused about European fuel costs. To be sure, it costs more for gasoline in Europe, but most of that is due to taxes that support their wonderful mass transit system. Here, however, we get to p*ss money down that rathole of ever more profits for the CEO's and investors in, our privately held energy companies. You have to wonder, what would be the choice of the voting public, if they were offered the same deal that Europeans get - workable , efficient, and cheap mass transit, fives weeks minimum paid vacation, complete health care coverage (and there isn't that waiting period you liars of the right refer to), nearly complete employment for all citizens, a genuine retirement system, good honest government, and well regulated corporations versus the wild west of corruption and control by the wealthy we have here. You go on. Live in your "conservative" pipe dream and allow those "conservartive" politicians and corporate crooks to run this country into the ground.

And, as for phony statistics, we are fed a steady diet of them over here by the press and our government. The facts presented in Europe are *very* different than the crap you feast upon here in this second rate oligarchy.

Posted by: MikeB | July 9, 2007 12:32 PM | Report abuse

My questions is why don't the idiots who disagree with Gore ask him a simple question:

Al, if you could design the perfect global warming solution, what will be the impact on gas prices, electric bills, water bills, and job creation in America, and will what you propose SOLVE the problem.

Al Gore is a liar for writing a book called "The Assault on Reason" when there is no way he will ever answer the question that I just asked. It is an assault on reason when you talk about a problem, but are completely gutless when it comes to the solution.

Posted by: Razorback | July 9, 2007 12:29 PM | Report abuse

Bokonon, all I will do to "focus instead on the evil libruls" is point out that they are for a HUGE increase in gas prices, electric bills and water bills, even though there is no consensus that their sacrifice will help on carbon emissions because the Chinese continue to build coal plants.

I will also continue to state that Reid and Pelosi lied when they did there little pander to consumers about gas prices right before Memorial Day. They said they would get us an energy bill sometime during the summer. They sure didnt say it would ahve add 50 cents a gallon to gas prices.

Posted by: Razorback | July 9, 2007 12:24 PM | Report abuse

If Al Gore does run for president will he fianlly explain why he sat on his hands for 8 years as Vice President, part of that time with a Demcratic controled Congress, on the Global Warming issue?

Also, if this is such an important issue (and it is!!), why is anyone who disagrees with any of the Gore approved information disregarded and lambasted as a fool or worse? Isn't that kind of 'If you don't agree with us you are wrong and your opinion shouldn't be considered' kind of thinking what got us into this mess with Iraq (and led to Hillary's health care initiative failing)?

Posted by: Zonker | July 9, 2007 12:23 PM | Report abuse

Razorback, if there is a lot of money which will be spent on compliance with new, tougher standards, it follows that there is a lot of money to be MADE - by individuals and/or companies - in developing faster/cheaper/more effective/easier-to-use ways to do so... that's how capitalism, of which you are a fan, works, right?
And I seem to remember others - including Bush after 09.11 - saying that economic activity is what helps everyone the most, right? as in, "We don't have to raise taxes, just go out and spend money in the stores."
Well, in that case we SHOULD actually have raised taxes, or at least restored the cuts for the highest income people, so that's perhaps not the best example... but my point is: why do fans of business and capitalism NOT see the needed development of bio, solar, wind etc. technologies as an opportunity? and why do they not recognize that by failing to act, they are ceding this huge new market to European and Japanese firms, who have been working on this for several years?

Posted by: Bokonon | July 9, 2007 12:19 PM | Report abuse

Bokonon, as we have discussed before, I generally agree with the scientific consensus that there is a problem.

As I have posted on this blog numerous times, there is NO consensus about a SOLUTION. There should be some level of consensus about a solution before we act, and impose these costs on consumers.

Gore, Pelosi, Reid and the presidential candidates and all of the other politicos who run their mouths about global warming are playing a political game. They want the votes of those who are concerned about the environment, but are gutless and dishonest when it comes to discussing the costs of the solution, and who it is that pays those costs.

Posted by: Razorback | July 9, 2007 12:19 PM | Report abuse

Fred Thompson will say anything to get elected.

If he runs, his campaign will collapse under the weight of all his prevarications. The LA Times story illustrates how he rolls quite well.

Posted by: b, a Liberal | July 9, 2007 12:19 PM | Report abuse

From what I hear, I would vote for Obama over McCain, McCain over Hillary, and Hillary over Thompson.

Posted by: Golgi | July 9, 2007 12:18 PM | Report abuse

You go Fred, you got my vote.

Posted by: Misty | July 9, 2007 12:15 PM | Report abuse

Details here...
http://www.nashvillepost.com/news/2007/6/27/fredfest_07_thompson_fundraiser_lures_whoswho_crowd
on Thompson's fundraiser in Nashville late last month that drew a big crowd of local GOP stalwarts

Posted by: Tom Wood | July 9, 2007 12:12 PM | Report abuse

MikeB seems to have announced his support for the 50 cents per gallon increase in the cost of gas.

Perhaps he will send a memo to Edwards, his preferred candidate. Edwards, while on his poverty tour, can then explain to the po' folks why they should pay more for gas and electricity so that the Chinese can build more coal plants.

Posted by: Razorback | July 9, 2007 12:12 PM | Report abuse

Razorback, do you want to sit and do nothing as the globe warms? Are you denying that this is happening? What information do you have that is not available to the 90+% of the global scientific community?
Answer: there is none. It will be interesting to see if the "myth" crowd will be able to capitalize on the inability/unwillingness to understand the magnitude of this problem and the complicity of the human race and of our carbon-consuming ways in its cause, in order to convince the majority of voters in this or any other country to focus instead on the evil libruls who hate pleasure/comfort/God/Amer'ca/whatever.

Posted by: Bokonon | July 9, 2007 12:10 PM | Report abuse

MikeB, your suggestion that the European unemployment rate (as a whole) is lower than the US employment rate is simply false.

This argument that environmentalism leads to economic growth is also false. There is alot of money spent to meet environmental mandates, but this money comes out of the pockets of consumers, which means that they have to spend relatively more of their money for energy, and reletively less on everything else.

Favoring one sector of the economy (enerrgy) at the expense of other sectors is a break even proposition, not a growth proposition.

Posted by: Razorback | July 9, 2007 12:09 PM | Report abuse

no mention of him being a nixon mole. That's just what we need. Another cronie of "the corporation".

You want more of the same, choose Thompson. Not sure how many people that is. I'm sure it's under %20.

Posted by: rufus1133 | July 9, 2007 12:08 PM | Report abuse

They do so becasue these programs produce jobs (their unemployment rate is 1/4 or less than ours).


Mike b with his phony stats again

Posted by: Anonymous | July 9, 2007 12:06 PM | Report abuse

JimDinFL, there is absolutely no scientific evidence that making consumers pay 50 cents more per gallon for gasoline will solve the problem, or even make a measureable impact on the problem. In fact, some of the scientists that claim to be a part of the consensus you site say even $6 per gallon gas might not be enough.

The Chinese, on average, are putting one new coal plant on line each week.

How much should American consumers have to pay in hopes of just offsetting increases in carbon emissions from China?

Posted by: Razorback | July 9, 2007 12:03 PM | Report abuse

Video: With GOP Defections Rising, White House Considers New Iraq Strategy

Top Republicans, once President Bush's bulwark against withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, are increasing breaking with the White House over war policy.

Now reports are surfacing that the White House -- once living by the mantra "stay the course" -- may change its approach.

http://onthehillblog.blogspot.com/2007/07/video-with-gop-defections-rising-white.html

Posted by: Anonymous | July 9, 2007 12:02 PM | Report abuse

Watching the recent PBS-hosted Democratic presidential debate at Howard University, I was impressed with the uniformity of the messages communicated to the mostly black audience. I felt like each candidate was reading from one script, making a nuanced change here and there so there'd be some differences between them.

Every problem -- black unemployment, education, crime and incarceration, AIDS -- had one answer. More government programs and spending. There is simply nothing you could have asked any of these Democrats that would not have gotten this same answer.

Posted by: Star | July 9, 2007 12:01 PM | Report abuse

There seems to be a transparent and popular strategy for the 2008 presidential primaries. Instead of jumping in with both feet, float your name out there and see what dirt, and how much money, surfaces.

Thompson's handlers may be trolling for both reactions.

So far, the "dirt" on him works two ways... the pro-choice works against his base but for the general election; the Nixon-Libby-neocon-insider works for his base but not in the general election. A wash?

Will the $$ cabal that put Bush in power go with Cheney's guy Thompson? If so, the other GOP candidates are in for a fight, "Big time."

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth Hunter | July 9, 2007 12:01 PM | Report abuse

Razorback - Dingell may have blathered something about voters not wanting to bear the costs of a clean environmnet but that don't make his utterances true. I just returned from Europe, where they HAVE cut back on greenhouse gasses, where they are in line to produce 20% of their energy from either clean (nuclear) or renewable (Rape Seed and similar sources for bio fuels). The voters support these programs to the hilt. They do so becasue these programs produce jobs (their unemployment rate is 1/4 or less than ours). European economies are booming. "Green" doesn't just mean a clean envirtomnet, it means $$$$$$. The crap we get here from our corporations and their political allies is utter nonsense. In Europe, swine like Clinton, Buch, McCain, Dingell, and Kennedy would be serving hard time in prison, not in some cushy office in D.C.

Posted by: MikeB | July 9, 2007 11:57 AM | Report abuse

There is a world-wide scientific consensus that global warming is happening and that it is a result of a natural climactic cycle seriously exacerbated by human action. There is some debate about how much is caused by humans but there is a consensus that human activity is a very significant factor. Yes, some scientists dissent but they are a distinct minority. Many of these dissenters have their research funded by big polluters.

Many environmentalists do exaggerate the potential consequences. Many global warming deniers like to point out the drastic changes in lifestyle some environmentalists advocate. Razorback, for example, is quick to point out the potential negative economic impact of various measures such as higher gas taxes or higher fuel efficiency standards. History shows us that the environmental measures first enacted in the 1970's that did have an initial negative impact on some industries. However, these measures spurred a host of technological innovation that had a net positive effect on the economy. The polluting industries adapted and the negative impacts were overcome in a fairly short time.

Posted by: JimD in FL | July 9, 2007 11:54 AM | Report abuse

"The Michigan lawmaker has said he will push legislation in the fall that would restrict carbon emissions from both automobiles and electric utilities."

So 50 cents a gallon is the cost when it comes to gas prices. I wonder what the cost will be when it comes to your electric bill?

Of course, Dingell could have done what the dihonest liar Sen. Dodd did, and call his carbon tax a "corporate" tax, ingnoring the basic obvious fact that its the consumer who pays these costs, not corporate entities.

Posted by: Razorback | July 9, 2007 11:51 AM | Report abuse

In the interview, Dingell acknowledged that voters may not be willing to bear the cost of limiting greenhouse gas emissions, and that he would propose the new tax "just to sort of see how people really feel about this."

"I sincerely doubt that the American people are willing to pay what this is really going to cost them," Dingell said in the interview.

So all of you liberals who talk about how absolute the science is on global warming better get out there and push this tax increase.

Posted by: Razorback | July 9, 2007 11:47 AM | Report abuse

This weekend, the top 12 movies raked in some 161.5 million dollars at the box office.

The suggestion that corporate interests could "buy" the presidency for $100 million is ignorant, given that $100 million will not even buy one weekend's worth of movies.

The amounts of money raised for political campaigns would be a huge amount of money to any individual, but in the context of the size of the economy, it isn't that much money.

Another reality check for liberals: Today, John Dingell stated that his carbon tax would result in a 50 cent per gallon increase in the cost of gasoline.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/dingell-to-propose-50-cent-gasoline-tax-increase-2007-07-07.html

Remember when Reid and Pelosi promised an energy bill that would "get" big oil and protect the conumer from price gouging and protect the planet? Remember when I said the truth of the matter was that they would not protect the consumer and would end up INCREASING gas prices for consumers? Remember when some of the left wingers who post are here call me every name in the book?

You stand corrected. Apology accepted.

Posted by: Razorback | July 9, 2007 11:45 AM | Report abuse

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush invoked executive privilege Monday to deny requests by Congress for testimony from two former aides about the firings of federal prosecutors.

Posted by: more obstruction | July 9, 2007 11:43 AM | Report abuse

For uncensored news please bookmark:

www.wsws.org
www.takingaimradio.info
otherside123.blogspot.com
www.onlinejournal.com
www.globalresearch.ca

Breaking news!!!!!!!

http://www.guerrillanews.com/headlines/14792/French_official_suggested_Bush_was_behind_September_11

French official suggested Bush was behind September 11

According to a Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll carried out last July, more than one-third of Americans suspect U.S. officials helped in the September 11 attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could later go to war.

The U.S. State Department has rejected these accusations.
[Posted By gaanjah_mama]
By staff
Republished from scotsman.com
Boutin's office sought to play down the remarks

A senior French politician, now a minister in President Nicolas Sarkozy's government, suggested last year that U.S. President George W. Bush might have been behind the September 11, 2001 attacks, according to a website.

The www.ReOpen911.info website, which promotes September 11 conspiracy theories, has posted a video clip of French Housing Minister Christine Boutin appearing to question that Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda group orchestrated the attacks. Boutin's office sought to play down the remarks.

Asked in an interview last November, before she became minister, whether she thought Bush might be behind the attacks, Boutin says: "I think it is possible. I think it is possible."

Boutin backs her assertion by pointing to the large number of people who visit websites that challenge the official line over the September 11 strikes against U.S. cities.

Posted by: che | July 9, 2007 11:38 AM | Report abuse

There is a school of thought that a dollar for Bloomberg is not as valuable as a dollar for other candidates. (Cilizza may have talked about this in The Fix).

Of course each dollar buys the same amount of political goods: advertising, research, staff, etc. However, when you raise a dollar from a political contributor you also get his or her support. That can have value beyond the money even if the support is passive. Good word of mouth at minimum, up to and including voluntering for the campaign.

None of this means that Bloomberg couldn't do well by spending $1b of his own money, certainly he could. It just might not be enough.

Posted by: Bud Omsman | July 9, 2007 11:31 AM | Report abuse

Reality calling, JD. Bloomberg hasn't said he is running. In fact, he has said otherwise. And it's late. But don't you think if he threw his hat in the ring and spent bigtime to get name rec, he'd have a serious chance? Of course he would.

'Again keep in mind, $ doesn't equate to votes. Otherwise, Bloomberg would be the fav, instead of the 1000-1 shot.'

Posted by: drindl | July 9, 2007 11:19 AM | Report abuse

'Stop the complaining and cast your support for FRED THOMPSON FOR PRESIDENT.'

Why on earth for? The man is a neocon going back to the Nixon era. His main advisor is Dick Cheney. Why not just nominate Dick himself, or Rumsfeld, or Paul Wolfowitz? He would do exactly the same things as them. He's a total DC insider.

Posted by: drindl | July 9, 2007 11:17 AM | Report abuse

2007 North American cold wave
All of Canada and most of the United States underwent a freeze after a two-week aberrant warming that took place in late March & early April. Crops froze, and snow covered much of the United States.

2005-2006 European cold wave
Eastern Europe and Russia saw a very cold winter. Some of them saw their coldest on record. Snow was an abundance in aberrent places, such as in southern Spain and Northern Africa. All the winter months that season were well below average.

]2004-2005 Southern Europe cold wave
All areas of Southern Europe saw an unusually hard winter. This area saw an ice storm which have a 1 in 1000 of happening. This cold front caused snow in Algeria, which was previously. unrecorded.

2004 January cold outbreak New England
New England was a record month when frequent Arctic fronts caused unusually cold weather. Boston had their coldest winter in 114 years. Virginia Beach had an unusually long period of below freezing weather. One area of New York saw 150 inches of snow in a month.

Posted by: catastrohic climate change | July 9, 2007 11:12 AM | Report abuse

Troy, explain why we should support Thompson. What will he do about Iraq? Healthcare? Global warming? Actually, I'll make it easier for you: Tell me a good policy idea that Thompson has proposed on any issue.

Posted by: Blarg | July 9, 2007 11:07 AM | Report abuse

The 2006 North American heat wave spread throughout most of the United States and Canada beginning on July 15, 2006, killing at least 225 people. That day the temperature reached 117°F (47°C) in Pierre, South Dakota. The heat wave went through several distinct periods:

From July 15 to July 22 very high temperatures spread across most all of the United States and Canada. On Monday, July 17, every state except Alaska, Minnesota, and North Dakota recorded temperatures of 90°F (32°C) or greater. North Dakota had recorded a temperature of 104°F (40°C) the previous day.[4]

From July 23 to July 29 the abnormal heat was concentrated in the West coast and South West deserts. 164 fatalities were reported in California during this period.

From July 29 to August 4 the heat wave moved eastwards, causing further fatalities as it progressed.

From August 4 to August 27, high temperatures persisted in the South and Southeast United States.[5] The heat wave finally ended with the progression of a heat wave through the Southern Plains.

In early reports from this heat wave, at least three died in Philadelphia, Arkansas, and Indiana.[6] In Maryland, the state health officials report that three people have died of heat-related causes.[7] Another heat related death is suspected in Chicago.[8]

Although many heat related deaths go unreported, by July 19, the Associated Press reports that the soaring heat has already been blamed for 12 deaths from Oklahoma City to the Philadelphia area.[9][10] Reports by early morning July 20 raised the death toll to at least 16 in seven states.[11]

This period of heat also saw a wind storm (derecho) in St. Louis that caused wide-spread power outages, including for cooling centers designed to provide relief for those suffering from the heat. In addition, places on the West Coast, like California's Central Valley and Southern California experienced humid heat, which is unheard of for the area.[

Posted by: Anonymous | July 9, 2007 11:06 AM | Report abuse

Again keep in mind, $ doesn't equate to votes. Otherwise, Bloomberg would be the fav, instead of the 1000-1 shot.

So when you talk about 'buying' the presidency with $100m (or $1b); maybe inject a little reality into the conversation.

Posted by: JD | July 9, 2007 11:04 AM | Report abuse

Stop the complaining and cast your support for FRED THOMPSON FOR PRESIDENT.

Posted by: Troy Livingston | July 9, 2007 11:03 AM | Report abuse

'Right now, the Live Earth concert series is ongoing in each of the seven continents. Spearheaded by Vice President Al Gore, the event "marks the beginning of a multi-year campaign...to drive individuals, corporations and governments to take action to solve global warming."

With more than 2 billion people in 100 countries across the globe expected to tune in, the concerts are "an unprecedented opportunity to ask for the world's attention long enough to deliver an SOS and then to begin delivering information about the solutions to every single person," says Gore.

But the right-wing is pushing back against the concerts in an effort to protect the interests of the oil lobby. Leading the charge is the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), a think tank funded by both the oil and auto industries. On MSNBC's Tucker yesterday, Myron Ebell, the director of energy and global warming policy at CEI, said Gore "makes this stuff up" about global warming and "there is no scientific support for his claims."

It's amazing really, how far rightwing pundits will go to wh*re for oil companies. Bend over further, Tucker...

Posted by: Sam | July 9, 2007 11:02 AM | Report abuse

The Bush administration has failed to fill roughly a quarter of the top leadership posts at the Department of Homeland Security, creating a "gaping hole" in the nation's preparedness for a terrorist attack or other threat, according to a congressional report to be released today.

As of May 1, Homeland Security had 138 vacancies among its top 575 positions, with the greatest voids reported in its policy, legal and intelligence sections, as well as in immigration agencies, the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Coast Guard.

Posted by: smaller government, R style | July 9, 2007 10:57 AM | Report abuse


(CBS) For four years, Iraqis have been waiting in lines at gas stations in Baghdad, waiting for their lives to get better. But, as CBS News chief foreign correspondent Lara Logan reports, the situation has gotten worse and their government is now in crisis.

That has led senior Iraqi leaders to demand drastic change. CBS News has learned that on July 15, they plan to ask for a no-confidence vote in the Iraqi parliament as the first step to bringing down the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

Even those closest to the Iraqi prime minister, from his own party, admit the political situation is desperate.

"I feel there is no strategy, so the people become hopeless," said Faliy al Fayadh, an MP from the Dawa Party. "You can live without petrol, without electricity, but you can't live without hope."

Posted by: Anonymous | July 9, 2007 10:50 AM | Report abuse

Oddly enough, the president used to be fairly responsible when describing al Qaeda's role in Iraqi violence. Not too terribly long ago, Bush described "the terrorists affiliated with or inspired by al Qaeda" -- not even the network itself -- as the "smallest" component of violence in Iraq.

As the political winds shifted, so too did the administration's rhetoric. In May, Bush declared that al Qaeda is "public enemy No. 1 in Iraq." A few days ago, he reiterated the point at the Naval War College, describing al Qaeda as "the main enemy" in Iraq.

The point is as subtle as a sledgehammer. If the administration can transform al Qaeda from a minor player in Iraq to the sole purpose for our ongoing presence, simply through rhetorical games, Bush might reframe the debate: us vs. them. Americans against those responsible for 9/11. Forces of freedom vs. forces of terrorism.

I understand the appeal of such a dynamic -- it would make the war in Iraq so much easier -- but it's simply, unquestionably wrong. Worse, it's a shamelessly cynical ploy to rally public support under false pretenses. Americans don't support U.S. staying in the middle of a civil war, but maybe, the White House thinks, Americans will support a war against al Qaeda. It's a transparent con job.

Posted by: Josh | July 9, 2007 10:48 AM | Report abuse

Judge -- also, did you read about how Thompson tried to protect Nixon and undermine the Watergate investigation? I've got links if you want. But you're right, the base will care much more the pro-choice lobbying.

One more from the Denver Post - interesting paper, for you CC:

'Go blue, young Westerners

Call it blowback from the Sagebrush Rebellion. The same region that took a turn for the hard right a generation ago is now trending blue. The secret in the story is said to be a lot of things - different, authentically Western Democrats, and maybe an influx of people from California - but it may be simpler than all that.

The descendants of the rebels themselves - today's Western youth - are leading the charge for a more Democratic West. If the trends continue, the Republican Party may find itself in a world of hurt.

Posted by: drindl | July 9, 2007 10:44 AM | Report abuse

The other important name to consider is Fred Smith, founder and CEO of Memphis-based FedEx, who is on board with McCain.

Posted by: Dem and Us | July 9, 2007 10:43 AM | Report abuse

Another interesting piece from the Denver Post:

'Outing Valerie Plame aided our enemies
By Bob Ewegen
Denver Post Columnist

After 44 years in journalism, I don't get angry very often about the dirty tricks that so often besmirch the American political process.

But I am angry about the Valerie Plame affair, a sordid tale that flared anew this week when President George Bush commuted the prison sentence of Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

I am not angry at the commutation or the pettifogging partisan exchanges it spawned. I am angry at the underlying event - the fact that an American patriot whose only crime was to serve her country in a dangerous and honorable profession had her mission undercut for partisan political purposes.

I am even angrier that the vicious "outing" of Valerie Plame put her sources at risk - the men and women in foreign countries who had risked their own lives to help America in our war on terror.

In the intelligence trade, such foreign sources are called "assets." I call them heroes. And they are the ones who were put most at risk after columnist Robert Novak revealed Plame's CIA connection as part of a clumsy Bush administration effort to discredit her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who had become a critic of the Iraq war.'

http://www.denverpost.com/commented/ci_6316023

Posted by: drindl | July 9, 2007 10:39 AM | Report abuse

INteresting piece from inside:

'As a longtime attorney at the U.S. Department of Justice, I can honestly say that I have never been as ashamed of the department and government that I serve as I am at this time.
The public record now plainly demonstrates that both the DOJ and the government as a whole have been thoroughly politicized in a manner that is inappropriate, unethical and indeed unlawful. The unconscionable commutation of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's sentence, the misuse of warrantless investigative powers under the Patriot Act and the deplorable treatment of U.S. attorneys all point to an unmistakable pattern of abuse.

In the course of its tenure since the Sept. 11 attacks, the Bush administration has turned the entire government (and the DOJ in particular) into a veritable Augean stable on issues such as civil rights, civil liberties, international law and basic human rights, as well as criminal prosecution and federal employment and contracting practices. It has systematically undermined the rule of law in the name of fighting terrorism, and it has sought to insulate its actions from legislative or judicial scrutiny and accountability by invoking national security at every turn, engaging in persistent fearmongering, routinely impugning the integrity and/or patriotism of its critics, and protecting its own lawbreakers. This is neither normal government conduct nor "politics as usual," but a national disgrace of a magnitude unseen since the days of Watergate - which, in fact, I believe it eclipses.

In more than a quarter of a century at the DOJ, I have never before seen such consistent and marked disrespect on the part of the highest ranking government policymakers for both law and ethics.'

http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_6308408

Posted by: drindl | July 9, 2007 10:36 AM | Report abuse

I am astonished that CC includes no mention of the evolving storm threatening to engulf the Thompson presidency before it is even born. See http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-thompson7jul07,0,54260.story for the details.

Fred Thompson was hired and paid by a pro-choice organization to lobby the Bush I White House on its behalf. The Thompson campaign is denying that he ever did the lobbying. It looks like Fred Thompson either (1) engaged in criminal fraud in the past OR (2) is engaged in political fraud in the present.

This candidacy-killing story has been around since at least Friday if not earlier yet CC doesn't breath a word about it. I can understand the focus on the nuts and bolts of fundraising but the macroscopic picture is kind of (!!) important as well.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | July 9, 2007 10:35 AM | Report abuse

Berke Breathed's cartoon "Opus" yesterday in the Sunday comics is about Fred Thompson and is very funny.
http://wpcomics.washingtonpost.com/client/wpc/wpopu/2007/07/08/

Posted by: Golgi | July 9, 2007 10:32 AM | Report abuse

So it costs $100 million to buy the presidency now? Well, it's no surprise then that the president will owe heavily to multinational corporations once he/she gets elected, who else can afford that kind of cash?

The way our system is currently set up, it becomes inevitable that the adminstration will be beholden to entities whose interests are not necessarily in line with those of american citizens.

He who pays the piper calls the tunes..

Posted by: drindl | July 9, 2007 10:25 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company