Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

GOP Debate: Winners and Losers

Morning debates, like morning exercise, are tough for The Fix.

Since we were still in Chicago yesterday we rose even earlier than usual to make sure we detailed every jot and tittle of the Republican debate at Drake University.

What follows is our take on the winners and losers from yesterday's debate. As always, these winners and losers are one man's opinion and inherently subjective. Let us know what you think.

WINNERS

Rudy Giuliani: The former mayor acted like the frontrunner yesterday, spending almost all of his time attacking Democrats for their liberal positions on health care, terror and taxes. He also found a way to work his experience in New York City into a variety of answers, subtly reminding people not only of those accomplishments but of his service on Sept. 11, 2001. And, abortion -- Giuliani's weakest point -- came up early in the debate and then never re-emerged. Giuliani's best moment, however, was a lighthearted one. Asked to name the biggest mistake he had made in his life, the former Mayor joked: "To have a description of my mistakes in 30 seconds..." It was a nice change up from the super serious answers given by the other candidates and showed Giuliani knows how to think on his feet.

Mitt Romney: We've heard mixed reactions about Romney's retort to Sen. Sam Brownback's (R-Kans.) attack on his abortion stance ("I get tired of people who are holier than thou because they have been pro life longer than I have"), but we thought it was powerful. As regular Fix readers know, we are big fans of raw emotion in debates and Romney's outburst seemed to be one. He also landed the most quoteable line of the day about Sen. Barack Obama ("He's gone from Jane Fonda to Dr. Strangelove in one week"); we'll take a few points off for the fact that it was obviously pre-prepared but it worked nonetheless. Romney did nothing to break his momentum heading into the Ames Straw poll this weekend.

Barack Obama: Obama was all over this debate and was even the basis of one of the questions. That's great news for the Illinois Senator. It shows he has become a major center of gravity in this race although he has not yet reached the villain status enjoyed (and we do mean enjoyed) by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) It also allowed him to put out a statement of his own that drew a bright line between him and the GOP candidates on the war. "The fact that the same Republican candidates who want to keep 160,000 American troops in the middle of a civil war couldn't agree that we should take out Osama bin Laden if we had him in our sights, proves why Americans want to turn the page on the last seven years of Bush-Cheney foreign policy," Obama said.

Mike Huckabee: What the former Arkansas governor needed was a strong debate performance to build momentum heading into Ames this weekend. And, he got it. Huckabee was again folksy and conservative -- a style that should play well in Iowa both at the straw poll and in the caucuses. He gave an emotional testimony to his belief in the fair tax, cited his own personal struggle with weight and physical fitness and offered a common sense approach to solving the nation's infrastructure problems without raising taxes. Now, if he could just raise some money.....

LOSERS

John McCain: The rules of the game have changed for McCain who went from a frontrunner in the June debate to a second-tier candidate this time around. No longer can he simply tread water; he needs to make waves (pardon the pun). And, on Sunday McCain simply didn't do that. As he has throughout these debates, McCain looked somewhat uncomfortable on stage and often reverted to the same bits of his stump speech over and over again. Even his answer on why the surge in Iraq was working was delivered without any real sense of emotion. He needs to do better if he wants to make a serious run at the frontrunners.

Sam Brownback: For the first several debates, Brownback played to form -- a nice, conservative midwesterner. This time around he tried to be far more aggressive, taking the fight directly to Romney at times. Frankly, it didn't work for us. And, when it came to pushing a message to appeal to socially conservative voters likely to attend the Straw poll, Brownback was (again) outshined by Huckabee. We thought Brownback has significantly more potential in this race than he has shown so far. Maybe he'll surprise us at Ames.

Dick Cheney: The Vice President, who may be the only American politician with lower job approval ratings than President Bush, came in for some blunt criticism from several of the candidates. "I would be very careful that everybody understood that there is only one president," said McCain. Brownback added that he believed Bush had over-relied on Cheney when it came to foreign policy matters. Good thing Cheney doesn't have any presidential aspirations of his own.

By Chris Cillizza  |  August 6, 2007; 12:25 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: John Edwards: Mad as Hell
Next: The Fix: Social Networker

Comments

This darkness has to give.
I accept no money from any one.
DO NOT VOTE FOR CANDIDATES WHO TAKE MONEY FROM OTHER PEOPLE!This means that they start out stroke deficit.
Do not vote for any incumbant.
They either created the problem, or did not solve it.
I am pro clean water,and safe peaceful borders.My site is votemuff.com

Posted by: Daniel Muffoletto | August 15, 2007 12:03 PM | Report abuse

It is so disheartening, as an Iraqi Veteran(Feb03-Mar04), to listen and read so much superfluous crap that the liberal media puts out. Wake up people!!!

I am not a war supporter, in fact I HATE IT!!! However, I would rather assist a country that wishes to have similar luxuries that I, along with 85% of the rest of the Earth, possess. One in particular... and that is....FREEDOM. Instead of allowing another terrorist attack on our "HOMEFRONT".

Too many "true" Americans have obviously forgotten what happened on September 11, 2001. I would have hated myself if I voted for Gore in 2000 and he was elected. I doubt we would have the opportunity to even have a 2008 election, let alone a 2004 election. I'm pretty sure that without a spine, like most liberals, he would've followed in his predecessors footsteps and not done anything except fuel Bin Laden's hatred towards us with more ammunition to keep bombing us.

Reason for the above comment...
In 2000, what did Clinton do about bombing of the USS Cole ordered by Bin Laden?
NOTHING!!!
In 1998, what did Clinton do about the NOT ONE BUT TWO bombings of U.S. Embassies ordered by Bin Laden?
NOTHING!!!
In 1996, what did Clinton do about the bombing of the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia ordered by Bin Laden?
NOTHING!!!
(A real shocker) In 1993, what did Clinton do about the first bombing of the World Trade Center ordered by Bin Laden?
You guessed it! NOTHING!!!

In fact, President Clinton depleted our military forces by 30% percent during his tenure as our Commander in Chief. That's the major reason that the National Guard has been called up and used so much during the past 5 years. It's not because Donald Rumsfeld felt like it was a "cool idea" like some liberally minded elected officials have since stated during the 2006 elections and are now stating during the 2008 elections.

Americans, please wake up and realize that whether you like it or not, we are a safer country because we have a President that has the "guts" to go after terrorists.

DO WE REALLY WANT ANOTHER SPINELESS LIBERAL IN THE WHITE HOUSE?

DO WE REALLY NEED ANOTHER SPINELESS LIBERAL AS PRESIDENT?

I don't live in a fairy tale world that, obviously, some people are living in, as I am a realist and understand the issue of "GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR". Plus, I believe that contrary to our liberals thinking "we all can't just get along", unfortunately.

We live in such a crazy society that would rather follow a lost duck-GORE, when it comes to global warming, which in itself is a scientific FACT that is going to happen whether we want it to or not-than support our leader who has improved our economy over the past 6 1/2 years, created more jobs over the past 6 1/2 years, and made our country safer over the past 6 1/2 years.

Stop believing the liberal media. Stop being another lost sheep in the flock. If you don't believe what I have written, PLEASE, by all means, do you own research. READ FOR YOURSELF, rather than listening, believing and spreading falsehoods and other untruths that our wonderful liberal media would want you to do.

That's my peace. God bless the U.S.A.!!!

Posted by: stoptheliberalpress | August 9, 2007 5:18 PM | Report abuse

Chris Cillizza,
Are you watching the debates, or merely engaging in a self-fulfilling prophecy? As for the debates, Ron Paul is one of the FEW candidates who actually answers the questions--and he answers them well. Unlike Guilianni, who seems awkward and uncomfortable with his answers, Paul and a few others are outperforming Guilliani. Please call them like you see them, not how you want to see them.

Posted by: scott harmon | August 7, 2007 9:54 PM | Report abuse

Hi, Judge - It was Newt's reply to a question about "debates" and "forums" beginning 11 months before the first primary - a method for using the wasted time and money more wisely, in his view. He himself thinks that the long campaigns are fueled by the ascendancy of "professional handlers".

If you can find the interview on CSpan on the web site, you should give it an ear.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | August 7, 2007 4:08 PM | Report abuse

Mark in Austin: that would certainly serve to define the candidates better but if you're talking about the primary process it would take an awfully long time to get through all the pairing possibilities. A good idea but the execution of it could be problematic.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | August 7, 2007 3:42 PM | Report abuse

Judge C. Crater, (five posts from the top) gets it. He knows Obama has a child like intellect. And, by the way, Woody Allen? Nothing says informed quite like a Woody Allen flick. For crying out load, how do we ever lose to these clowns?

Posted by: auh2o | August 7, 2007 3:33 PM | Report abuse

roo: Nothing is absolute in politics, but I have had the strong belief/feeling that Hillary would be the dem nominee and our next POTUS from the very begining, and as time passes I have seen nothing except to increase that strong belief/feeling.

Posted by: lylepink | August 7, 2007 3:22 PM | Report abuse

To Ron who said:

"Another loser was Ron Paul, He shouldn't even be on stage period. He is a true socialist point blank."

You have not researched this man at all. Please do your homework before making a fool of yourself.

Posted by: Dave | August 7, 2007 2:55 PM | Report abuse

"Sometimes Newt surprises me in a good way."

I've developing a sense of Newt on only the most casual of observations, but it seems as though, when he's out of power, he has a knack for promoting ideas that better the country, but when he's in power, goes a little wacko.

Posted by: bsimon | August 7, 2007 2:53 PM | Report abuse

Roo, lylep, bsimon, judge - I just listened to Newt on my XM on CSpan on the way back to my office and he suggested that early "debates" would make more sense if one D and one R had an hour together for free form give-and-take, and if each D and each R had multiple opportunities with different debate opponents. He said it would pull everybody more toward the center.

Sometimes Newt surprises me in a good way.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | August 7, 2007 2:48 PM | Report abuse

Ron--Wow, if you think that *Ron Paul* is a socialist, you either have absolutely no idea what socialism is or who Ron Paul is.

Ron Paul is the definition of "strict constructionist." I am not entirely surprised that a Republican would not understand this since they typically use the term to mean "right-wing activist judge."

Although judging by the rest of your post your perception of reality is quite different from many of us anyway.

Posted by: roo | August 7, 2007 2:44 PM | Report abuse

lylepink--I am glad to see you consolidated your positions, however awkwardly.

Remember, though, that certitude is delusion. I would be more inclined to weigh your opinion if you did not seem so absolute.

Posted by: roo | August 7, 2007 2:40 PM | Report abuse

bsimon: The difference among the dems is very little except for the so-called "far left". These folks fit into a "Pureist" group that has no chance, just as the "Pureist" group of the repubs so-called "far right" has no chance. Who these groups will support in the General is where, IMO, the dems have the advantage unless a third party comes in, and then it will depend whose views fits these extreme groups.

Posted by: lylepink | August 7, 2007 2:30 PM | Report abuse

Another loser was Ron Paul, He shouldn't even be on stage period. He is a true socialist point blank. Thats the problem with both Parties. There are socialist liberals in both Parties. When will the Democ-rats and even some Republicans going to call these people what they really are. Socailist commies using the title liberal to hide their real affiliation, as well as their agenda. A socailist Country. Thats why they are so hard driven to take GOD out of every thing this Country was founded on. Once you take GOD out of our society then we have no rights exept through the Government ok. And thats what the Democ-rats and the wolves in sheeps clothing in the Republican Party are doing. The Democ-rats are at least up front about their agenda. It's time for every American who has any sense to the Liberals goals for this Country to make sure that these people are not elected to lead our GREAT NATION. I'm a Union Laborer and I see first hand what is going on in the Union's. And its not good for our Country. The Union's I have found out are not here to protect the worker's as of years ago. They stand for greed power and influence. Not for the worker but for the International leader's. Who take our raisies to fund the socailist that are takeing are freedoms away like the the ACLU ect., Did anyone ever notice that every time a contract is up their greed show's. Even though their wage's are the best, but not the product they produce is now. Thats what the Union's stand for now. Thats why they needed the Legislator to pass a Bill that would let them intimidate anyone who apposses them, by having someone look over your shoulder to see which way you check the vote to organize. How fair was that. Thats why our Steel Industry fell, Union GREED. Mike Veon was a great example of the way our Union Leader's used my hard earned money which I didn't want given to him was used. We used to have to sign a form to have 3% deducted from my wage's. But since no one was signing them , The International Leader's and the cronies from all the Union's with fixed Election ballots with hand picked yes men on their tickets were able to get it through taking our raises. Cause most didn't agree with their pick of who they were backing on election day. Which for the most part were Socailist Liberals. Who by the way didn't do any thing to help the working case, but only benefited the International Leader's with all the POWER. So HELP FIX AMERICA VOTE AGAINST ANY LIBERAL WHO IS RUNNING FOR OFFICE BE THEY DEMOC-RAT OR BE THE REPUBLICAN. All they are are wolvoes in sheeps clothing.

Posted by: Ron | August 7, 2007 2:07 PM | Report abuse

Uhmm.. How can you use the ABC poll to form any opinion at all about who came out on top when candidate RON PAUL is BY FAR leading the rest.

Go check out ABC for yourself and check out the actual poll. Don't just take the front cover of your newspaper literally, go to the poll!

Join in the fight to take back our country.

www.RonPaul2008.com

Posted by: Fred Tomston | August 7, 2007 2:02 PM | Report abuse

Brief Overview of Congressman Paul's Record:

He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.

He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.

He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.

Congressman Paul introduces numerous pieces of substantive legislation each year, probably more than any single member of Congress.

www.RonPaul2008.com

Posted by: Bobby D | August 7, 2007 2:00 PM | Report abuse

HOW ABOUT YOU COVER THE REAL WINNER OF THIS DEBATE:

RON PAUL.

TO TO THE ABC WEBSITE AND CHECK OUT ABC'S OWN POLL ON WHO REALLY WON.

RON PAUL NOW HAS 35,000 + VOTES TO ROMNEY'S PATHETIC 4,000

IS THIS UNBIASED NEWS REPORTING?

Posted by: Anne Marie | August 7, 2007 1:59 PM | Report abuse

lylepink, you're a pretty consistent supporter of Sen Clinton. As a Democrat, do think it is more valuable for the party to decide on a nominee early, or more important to have a real debate about what issues are important to the party & which candidate best reflects the party's (and, hopefully, the country's) priorities?

Posted by: bsimon | August 7, 2007 1:06 PM | Report abuse

I have been watching MSNBC off and on this AM and find they are promoting Obama more than ever, if thats possible. Very little mention of the NBC/WSJ, Gallop, Rasmussen, and CBS Polls, among others, showing Hillay with a 20 plus lead nationwide. I keep repeating Obama is going nowhere, and sooner or later you folks are going to wake up and smell the coffee. The anti-Hillary, ABH, and other simular spinsters are not doing to well in their efforts. There are only so many straws you folks can find and they are slowly and surely running out.

Posted by: lylepink | August 7, 2007 12:49 PM | Report abuse

Rudy is a born leader, incisive, smart, aggressive, and exactly what this country needs to stay on the offensive against terrorists - unlike, say, Obama, who would make nice with Ahmadinejad, Chavez, and any other tin-pot terrorist-coddling dictator around and apologize for all the mean things Bushdummychimphitler said about them.

Posted by: NOT paying attention | August 7, 2007 11:56 AM | Report abuse

Chris Fox wrote:

"Given the fact that none of these dwarfish wannabes has a chance at winning election, and given the fact that a Democratic presidency will have many current administration officials in prison or fighting extradition from Israel, and given that acquiring and holding on to power has been the entire raison d'être of the Bush administration ...

... I have no trouble believing they would stage a phony terrorist attack rather than relinquish power.

But then, I also think it would be the second one."

It is the prospect of left-wing, anti-Semitic lunatics like you holding the levers of power in this country that inspire to do everything in my power (money, volunteering, anything else I can do) to support whoever will be the Republican nominee for president.

Rudy is a born leader, incisive, smart, aggressive, and exactly what this country needs to stay on the offensive against terrorists - unlike, say, Obama, who would make nice with Ahmadinejad, Chavez, and any other tin-pot terrorist-coddling dictator around and apologize for all the mean things Bushdummychimphitler said about them.

Just keep talking - that will bring out the Republicans in droves and keep the White House in GOP hands in 2009.

Posted by: BrandonJacobs27 | August 7, 2007 11:55 AM | Report abuse

Robert Castle, your post is so full of ridiculous constructions and misinterpretations that it does not merit a serious response.

Posted by: bsimon | August 7, 2007 11:53 AM | Report abuse

ABH stands for Anybody But Hillary; Mr. Castle with all due respect that agrument about only Congress be able to wage War is over and POTUS has won that arguement as Commander-in-Chief who has the responsibility to employ the military if threats arise. This is true for whoever is POTUS, be it a D or R.

Posted by: bhoomes | August 7, 2007 11:51 AM | Report abuse

Obama, like the other sentors who are running for president, took an oath of office wherein he swore allegiance to the Constitution and promised to defend it against all enemies, foreign and domestic. In a moment of candor or idiocy, he declared that he would act unilaterally and aggressively, without regard to the Constitution and relevant treaties and resolutions declared to be part of the supreme law of the land by the Constitution, and commit crimes against humanity, war crimes. Only Congress can declare war and then only when the United States is physically attacked except in specified emergencies. A Congressional authorization to take action to remove the alleged threat posed by Iraq's non-existant weapons of mass destruction, fraudulently obtained, is not a declaration of war against Pakistan. The question for both parties is whether Obama is a crypto-neocon? Does he want to be president or emperor?

Posted by: Robert Castle | August 7, 2007 11:36 AM | Report abuse

bsimon - You're going to lose the Regressive thinkers if you keep posting along those thought lines. Right, MikeB?

Posted by: Anonymous | August 7, 2007 11:34 AM | Report abuse

Mark in Austin writes
"But China is different. The free trade model does not work with a state mandated economy, no unions, slave labor, no respect for international standards, etc."

Yes, China is different. The point I directed at MikeB was intended to address his particular concerns about outsourcing white collar jobs to India. China doesn't yet have the education infrastructure to compete in that market. They are apparently working to address this deficiency.

Posted by: bsimon | August 7, 2007 11:33 AM | Report abuse

Judge asks
"Do you mean "are finite" or am I missing your point entirely?"

I mean 'are infinite'. As in there is plety of work for both Indian and US knowledge workers, because the demand for their services is not limited by physical bounds - unlike, say, a manufacturing process.

Posted by: bsimon | August 7, 2007 11:31 AM | Report abuse

bhoomes: ABH? Architectural Builders Hardware? Atherton Baptist Homes? Actual Bodily Harm? Enlighten me.

Bill's getting too old for that kind of playing around. IMHO. He looked fairly fragile the last time I saw him.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | August 7, 2007 11:27 AM | Report abuse

bhoomes - good to see you back!

Posted by: Anonymous | August 7, 2007 11:21 AM | Report abuse

That's true Judge, which is why we political junkies love the election year. Obama still has a shot because of us money and ABH forces in the democratic party. But with her money and organization, plus I give her credit she is extremely well dicipline and doesn't make a lot of mistakes, she will be hard at this point to be denied the nomination. The best chance Obama may have is if Bill has another sex scandal. (which he probably has, we just haven't uncovered it yet.

Posted by: bhoomes | August 7, 2007 11:03 AM | Report abuse

What I think is that Romney is pro-abortion

Posted by: Paula | August 7, 2007 10:49 AM | Report abuse

bhoomes: welcome back; your POV is a concise, reality-driven addition to the blog.

Not sure whether HRC can be denied at this point or not but as always the mantra is "it's still early" although that'll finally change within the next couple of months. Obama's got a lot of $$$ to reach those who don't know him well, the ones who say they'll vote for HRC just because they've heard of her before. As you well know, candidates are a 'brand' and the ad wars have yet to begin.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | August 7, 2007 10:46 AM | Report abuse

What do you think of Romney and Giuliani's relative efforts to play nice with one another?

Posted by: lousiecarin | August 7, 2007 10:42 AM | Report abuse

Thanks Drindl, I see you haven't forgotten how wrong I was, that means I'm due to get one right, you can't get them all wrong. At this point I'm not sure you can deny Hillary the nomination, and I think even you would admit she doesn't project any warmth.
MARK: To answer of couple of your questions, I think the republican nomination is wide open without any real front runner I think Huck stands a decent chance, the more I see of him, the more he impresses me. Hillary and Edwards would be the most unacceptable to me. I'm comfortable with Mitt, Fred Thompson. Rudy is okay but I just think he is the one candidate who couldn;t beat Hillary because she is probably more socialy conservative than he is. The social conser vatives in my party would either sit out run a third party, costing us an election against a Dem(Hilliary) than any other our candidates could beat. (the serious ones, not our fringe candidates, aka: Trancredo , Ron Paul etc:). Of course I like Obama, Biden, Chris Dodd and richardson. Wouldn't vote for any of them but I wouldn't be sick to my stomach if they won the WH. 52% would be sick if Hillary won, which is why I don;t see it happening.

Posted by: bhoomes | August 7, 2007 10:30 AM | Report abuse

bsimon - I think the experience with India will mirror that with Japapn and Taiwan and S. Korea, following Friedman's prediction.

But China is different. The free trade model does not work with a state mandated economy, no unions, slave labor, no respect for international standards, etc.

JD and Razor are welcome to argue that the free market will overcome the difficulties posed by dictatorship, or that capitalism is on the rise in China. but until they meet the ILO standards they are DIFFERENT.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | August 7, 2007 10:19 AM | Report abuse

bsimon you wrote "the kind of services performed by knowledge workers are not finite." Do you mean "are finite" or am I missing your point entirely?

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | August 7, 2007 10:15 AM | Report abuse

MikeB writes
"Now, if the globalizers, led by the likes of George Bush and Hillary Clinton, aren't "fuzzy minded one worlders", I cannot think of who is. They are, in a word, classic communists."

Mike, I have to say, that one demonstrates a misunderstanding of both globalization & communism. Without getting into the differences, I think you ought to reconsider your anti-globalization opinions. I forget who mentioned it a couple weeks ago, perhaps it was proudtobeGOP, but I picked up 'The World is Flat' again. In the section I read last night, Friedman points out that while knowledge workers in places like India are starting to compete with US knowledge workers (like you and me), they are not a long term threat for several reasons. 1) as they prove competent, their compensation will rise, until they lose the pricing advantage. 2) and this is the important one, the kind of services performed by knowledge workers are not finite. This is not a zero-sum game. As the pace of innovation increases, so does the demand for knowledge workers. In other words, there is room in the economy for both the Indian knowledge workers, and the American knowledge workers.

The other anecdote Friedman uses is how Ag workers used to make up 90% of the US economy, but now are less than 10%. Had we decided to protect all those jobs, would the US have been as successful over the last 120 years? I think not.

In the end, globalization is irreversable. Worry not though, my friend, while there will be bumps in the road, we'll all be better off for it, in the end.

Posted by: bsimon | August 7, 2007 10:12 AM | Report abuse

Before beginning the drive, Mitt Romney put Seamus, the family's hulking Irish setter, in a dog carrier and attached it to the station wagon's roof rack. He'd built a windshield for the carrier, to make the ride more comfortable for the dog.

Then Romney put his boys on notice: He would be making predetermined stops for gas, and that was it.

As the oldest son, Tagg Romney commandeered the way-back of the wagon, keeping his eyes fixed out the rear window, where he glimpsed the first sign of trouble. ''Dad!'' he yelled. ''Gross!'' A brown liquid was dripping down the back window, payback from an Irish setter who'd been riding on the roof in the wind for hours.
As the rest of the boys joined in the howls of disgust, Romney coolly pulled off the highway and into a service station. There, he borrowed a hose, washed down Seamus and the car, then hopped back onto the highway. It was a tiny preview of a trait he would grow famous for in business: emotion-free crisis management.

Posted by: and the Big Loser is... | August 7, 2007 9:41 AM | Report abuse

Do you care whether a presidential candidate accepts donations from lobbyists?
Yes 82% 23000
No 18% 5078
Total Votes: 28078

people are starting to pay attention...

Posted by: cnn poll | August 7, 2007 9:19 AM | Report abuse

You sound like a good dad, Mark. Hey bhoomes, have'nt seen you since November. Glad you're back -- but don't make any predicitions. You know what happened last time.

Posted by: drindl | August 7, 2007 9:17 AM | Report abuse

Joe - 17 is a great age to get into politics. If there is a local election where you live, and you have any spare time, volunteer for a candidate you choose and start to get a nuts-and-bolts feel for campaigns and their foibles. Next summer you could volunteer for one of the Presidential candidates with a little experience behind you.

A long time ago, I had a law partner who ran for County Judge. The two best volunteers in that campaign were not any of the dozens of lawyers; they were two high school seniors, both of whom went on to be very successful in their lives. Not everyone appreciated how hard working and competent those "kids" were - there is a tendency for the older volunteers to think they know everything - but enough of us saw how good they were that they never became discouraged.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | August 7, 2007 8:59 AM | Report abuse

The reason Obama was targeted by the Republican debaters was because he's provided such an easy target. To think that man is a serious candidate is to revoke logic. Indeed, what is becoming obvious is that there are two tiers of candidates in the Republican race for the nominee (1st and 2nd), and only one tier for the Democrats. Comparing the two based on content, experience and vision, it's obvious those on the Democratic side are all second tier candidates. None of them make it to the first tier. And like this last mega flip-flop fiasco with FISA, the Democrats have simply become clay in the hands of a minority in both houses and a strong president. Wait until you see what the top contenders in the Republican party do with the Dem's nominee for president. It will be laughable.

Posted by: Rockyspoon | August 7, 2007 8:59 AM | Report abuse

The reason Obama was targeted by the Republican debaters was because he's provided such an easy target. To think that man is a serious candidate is to revoke logic. Indeed, what is becoming obvious is that there are two tiers of candidates in the Republican race for the nominee (1st and 2nd), and only one tier for the Democrats. Comparing the two based on content, experience and vision, it's obvious those on the Democratic side are all second tier candidates. None of them make it to the first tier. And like this last mega flip-flop fiasco with FISA, the Democrats have simply become clay in the hands of a minority in both houses and a strong president. Wait until you see what the top contenders in the Republican party do with the Dem's nominee for president. It will be laughable.

Posted by: Rockyspoon | August 7, 2007 8:59 AM | Report abuse

bhoomes - Do you think Huckabee can win the R nomination, or were you merely commenting on his performance?

As a Republican, if your Party loses the presidential election, which D do you think would be the least uncomfortable for you? The most competent?

Which R is most comfortable for you? Which R do you think is most competent?

Do you see negative character issues in any candidate that would give you pause?

Posted by: Mark in Austin | August 7, 2007 8:49 AM | Report abuse

As a plump pear I was hurt by the insults to Hillary of being a plump pear. Please, just criticize her for being an awful leader and a grating personality and a guaranteed loss for the Democratic party if she is nominated. Who cares if she is plump or not, the problem is she would make a terrible president and can't win the general anyway. Thank you.

Posted by: plump pear | August 7, 2007 8:42 AM | Report abuse

I think the old Huckster from Arkansaw was the biggest winner, he comes across as super smart on policy issues plus is folksy and likable. I want to thank my cluses democrat friends for being on the precipice of nominating Hillary. She cannot win and will also help us pick up congessional seats in the house and senate. You guys just don't get it. you keep on nominating people who are unlikable. And nobody is more unlikable than Hillary. A lot of people who don't normally vote will be out next year to vote against her because they do not want her in their living room for 4 years. Obama is likable, and voters are apt to give candidates a break when they screw up if they are likable. THANKS again DEMS for picking Hillary.

Posted by: bhoomes | August 7, 2007 8:36 AM | Report abuse

In the next election fiasco, all should recognize that Anyone but Hillary is the best choice - except for Guli, Bama, John, Mike, Mitt, Sam etc. I want another choice - "None of the Above".

Ron Paul is looking better and better.

Posted by: Tom Jefferson | August 7, 2007 8:22 AM | Report abuse

Stop ignoring Paul, repeaters. Not doing so will eventually cost your jobs.

Posted by: Arch | August 7, 2007 6:31 AM | Report abuse

I love hearing the frequent and shallow grumblings concerning Mitt. Seems to be a sign he's hit some left wing nerves. Also shows he's being taken very seriously (has Iowa in hand). Speaking of Iowa I love Guliani's approach, "If I can't win I don't want to play." If he can't win in Iowa, how will he ever win the nation?

Loved the joke about Jane Fonda/Dr. Strangelove. Romney's wicked smart!

Posted by: Andy N | August 7, 2007 3:33 AM | Report abuse

Ron Paul?

One sentence would have been enough, but you ignored him completely...you're running a blog for Christ's sake.....aren't even remotely familiar with what's going on outside your "blog" world and on the rest of the net?

Posted by: Ron Paul | August 7, 2007 2:52 AM | Report abuse

Ron Paul won the debate.I am a Dem but it is time for a real change in Washington,not just passing the Presidency to another lobbyist funded,big business puppet.

Senator Ron Paul is a honest man who did not vote for the war,did not vote for a pay raise,believes in individual rights and small government.His Bible for running the country would be our constitution which has been totally ignored by Dictator Bush.

If you are looking for a peoples President do yourself a favor and check out his youtube video's,listen to his message then you decide.

It seems he is being shut out of coverage by our media because he is a threat to status quo.....

Posted by: USPatriot | August 7, 2007 2:19 AM | Report abuse

Guliani was a big winner and really might have made himself the totally front runner for the republican party. I have read so much on him and the other candidates and have found out the history of voting and poll results like forever. I am only 17 and I am really getting into politics. Go to http://www.presidentpolls2008.com if you really want a daily update of political news on a daily basis.

Posted by: Joe | August 7, 2007 2:08 AM | Report abuse

Romney = pro-abortion

Posted by: Paula | August 7, 2007 12:18 AM | Report abuse

"Every four years, in the heat of the nominating process, liberals and conservatives alike dream of a world in which swing voters don't exist."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/06/AR2007080601158.html

Posted by: Mark in Austin | August 6, 2007 11:58 PM | Report abuse

lylepink, The reason those Republican trolls keep yapping about Clinton is because they think they can beat her. I do too. Actually so do about half of all Democrats. The Clinton's are kind of a strange couple. Now, with Bill, most of us Democrats actually took delight in his rougish ways. It was rather like sticking a finger in the eye of the right wing crowd; especially those insufferable Fundimentalists. But we really did know, really DO know, Bill Clinton is a rake and a loveable scounderal. But he was our scounderal and the whole point was, he behaved a lot of times like a little boy and we loved him for it! It was his charm. Now, Hillary has all of the charm of a snake and has at least as many skeletons in her closet as Bill. She may be tough, she may be mean, but that's the point! We don't want a mean, touch b*tch as President. We want someone thoughtful and caring and understanding of the plight of ordinary people, of that waitress that that ignoramous Romney blew off. That's the whole point behind the $400 haircut garbage attack on Edwards. He is a populist and the corporate masters of the Republican's, the corporate masters of most of the Democratic leadership, are scared spitless of a genuine populist. So, they are doing everything in their power to marginalize him, give the electorate no choice..... and between Clinton and Guliani or Romney or McCane or any of the rest of them, THERE IS NO CHOICE! As far as I can see, the genuine populists are Edwards, Kuchinich, and Paul (right wing, but a populist for all that). Obama *may* be heading that way, he will have to run as a populist to win. And Fred Thompson is certainly going to position himself as a populist, late "draft" into the race and all. Clinton and all the rest of the Democratic field are typical insiders who promise voters the moon and leave 'em high and dry one the election is over. It's what Kennedy and Clinton and Richardson and Dodd and the rest of them have always done. It's what McCain, Bush, Brownbeck, Guliani, and the Republican insiders have always done. These are bought and paid for corporate stuffed shirts, play actors on the stage of Amercian politics. They blather and say and mean nothing. That is why we don't take them seriously.

Posted by: MikeB | August 6, 2007 11:51 PM | Report abuse

I am not overly content with the Republican line up. However, it is a fact that the worst Republican candidate is better than the best Democratic candidate! What could be worse than seeing that plump pear in a pantsuit constantly? Seeing her with cleavage!!! Even Bubba doesn't suffer such pain!

Posted by: Liberal Lover | August 6, 2007 11:31 PM | Report abuse

Michael: I think you have been the only one I have seen for some time now that openly admits Hillary will be the dems choice in 08. The repubs are in a pickle about their choice. I personally think Rudy would give her a better race than any of the others, but am not as yet convinced he will be able to get the nomination. The base [far right] of the repub party has a bigger problem than the dems [far left]. Where I think Hillary would have the advantage in this is, the far left dems would support her, and the far right repubs would be less inclined to support Rudy. Both are in the moderate wings of their parties and it would be interesting, to say the least.

Posted by: lylepink | August 6, 2007 11:27 PM | Report abuse

who is Ron Paul?

Posted by: michael | August 6, 2007 11:24 PM | Report abuse

MikeB--"Now, back in my schools days, another term for communists was "fuzzy minded one worlders". Now, if the globalizers, led by the likes of George Bush and Hillary Clinton, aren't "fuzzy minded one worlders", I cannot think of who is. They are, in a word, classic communists."

Or, to put it another way:

"Back in school they told us the sky was green. Now, if grass is not green, I cannot think what is. Grass is, in a word, the sky."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Logical_fallacies

*Puts on his "Ask Me About Communism" pin*

Posted by: roo | August 6, 2007 11:13 PM | Report abuse

Republicans sound more retarded everyday.

Posted by: hhkeller | August 6, 2007 11:09 PM | Report abuse

What is with the weak arguments and the heavy sarcasm in these comments to your reaction to a GOP debate?

As a witness to the kind of leadership and stubborn confidence Giuliani has provided in a lifetime of service, based upon the libs reaction to your putting him at the top of the winners column - it gives me great confidence to know they are scared silly - they simply cannot respond with anything other than sensitive sarcasm and intolerant belligerence.

Giuliani is he man to beat. Up against hillary, I give him a strong 5-10 points in the general. Republicans know this - which is why he is repeatedly on top. The risk here is that their wacko base doesn't know how to win and will risk 4 Supreme Court justices to Hillary in the name of "pro-life" - Thompson is a Bob Dole. Guiliani is the only one who can win and will...

Posted by: Michael | August 6, 2007 10:45 PM | Report abuse

"What follows is our take on the winners and losers from yesterday's debate."

Be honest. These are losers and insane, pathetic losers.

Posted by: ifthethunderdontgetya | August 6, 2007 10:05 PM | Report abuse

I have spent some time today looking at the many GOP posters, on different sites, repeating the line about wanting to run against Hillary in 2008. They are all so simular in the way they are written, I can only conclude they are coming from one source. I've been saying for a long time now, Hillary is the dem the repubs FEAR the most in the General Election because they pretty well know they cannot beat her. Somehow they are trying to convince their base to "Hate Hillary" more than they already do. I suppose this may work for those that cannot think for themselves, and that appears to be a huge chunk of their base.

Posted by: lylepink | August 6, 2007 9:39 PM | Report abuse

MikeB, but "classic communism" was a workers' movement. Don't get me wrong, I am suspicious of the corporatization of the global economy too, but the beneficiaries of that when all is said and done are executives and investors like Rupert Murdoch et al.

Posted by: Bokonon | August 6, 2007 9:27 PM | Report abuse

I watched the debate last night and was disgusted with Romney. He is a weasel and even tried to implied Iraq had something to do with 9/11, when it clearly did not.

His attack on Obama was pretty ugly as well. It seems Romney is much like Bush in that he claims he can bring people together, but attacks others instead.

I was impressed with Paul who is the only Repubican who favors withdrawling our troops from Iraq. Granted he's a Republican so I'd never vote for him, but he was the least of the evils.

Mitt Romney is on crack!

Posted by: DavidE | August 6, 2007 9:09 PM | Report abuse

whtat's funny/pathetic is that Mitt has been running as a Mormon , now he doesn't want to be consider as running as Mormon.
Why doesn't he tie another dog to the roof while he tries to figure out if he's for American values or anti abortion

Posted by: Anonymous | August 6, 2007 8:23 PM | Report abuse

Is there a REPORTER in the house? A real reporter could not have ignored Ron Paul.

Posted by: Scott Robertson | August 6, 2007 8:19 PM | Report abuse

Anon Poster, August 6, 2007 06:58 PM : It wasn't my post, but you ranted at someone who posted 'George W Bush blurred the lines on this debate by doing business with the marxists.' I would like to take a hand a defending that remark. Now, back in my schools days, another term for communists was "fuzzy minded one worlders". Now, if the globalizers, led by the likes of George Bush and Hillary Clinton, aren't "fuzzy minded one worlders", I cannot think of who is. They are, in a word, classic communists.

Posted by: MikeB | August 6, 2007 7:57 PM | Report abuse

Patience, what is YOUR brilliant idea for bringing the Iraqle to a satisfactory conclusion? Remember that you must convince 40-odd other people who normally view you with suspicion to agree with you, and remember to phrase your answer in the form of a question.

What do you mean it's not an easy question?

And Mike, I can't and won't answer a racist question about Obama. Evolve a little, and ask me what I think of one of his ideas, or of sth he said, or of how he reacted to sth said by someone else, and I'll be happy to answer you.

Posted by: Bokonon | August 6, 2007 7:21 PM | Report abuse

"the media should stop demonizing Republicans on this issue."

The media is reporting what the candidates positions are on the issues. But of course it's not FOX so you don't comprehend it.

'It's good to have a candidate who is unafraid of the enemy.]

the enemy is you, rick and idiots like you, who are so easily played for suckers by your war-profiteering and corrupt candidates.

'George W Bush blurred the lines on this debate by doing business with the marxists.'

people this stupid, i don't even understand how they can type.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 6, 2007 6:58 PM | Report abuse

Chris, I can't speak for other, only for myself.

But solely on the basis of personal comportment and a couple of snappy answers, you've annointed that one-trick 9/11 pony Rudy Giuliani as the GOP's front-runner, despite the candidate's utter lack of candor and over-the-top false bravado. Are you a professional journalist, or a high school cheerleader?

You really ought to be ashamed of both yourself and your employer for once again -- as was done in 2000 and 2004 -- thinking that your readers are too stupid to know the difference between Velveeta and real Cheddar.

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii | August 6, 2007 6:53 PM | Report abuse

I find Romney creepy and I can't put my finger on exactly why. Is it the perfect make-up? The smarmy grin? The adoring wife (what's up with the camera coming back to THAT so often? No one else's wife in the audience?)

Of course the non-answer answers are frustrating, but the fact that he has mastered the process so well leads me to think he is a Stepford candidate.

Posted by: theRealCalGal | August 6, 2007 6:52 PM | Report abuse

GOP candidates should get together and agree that each will give the same answer on abortion: "It's a hideous practice, I pledge to resist any attempt to coerce taxpayers into facilitating it in any way, I personally abhor it, but I recognize, the President has limited powers in this matter, and the media should stop demonizing Republicans on this issue."

I like Giuliani and Romney focusing in on the central question - are we to retake our personal freedom, are we to return to being a nation of law and personal responsibility, or are we to continue the slide into socialism and nanny-statism? George W Bush blurred the lines on this debate by doing business with the marxists. I am gratified that this race incldues people who want to clarify the stakes in the central climactic battles of our times.

The other climactic defining battle is the Muslim war on western civilization. Giuliani recognizes that the leftwingers' appeasement approach must be exposed for what it is - treason. Not even Hillary is stupid enough to go there, but a hell of a lot of Democrats are. It's good to have a candidate who is unafraid of the enemy.

Posted by: Rick Labonte | August 6, 2007 6:32 PM | Report abuse

Global, I was all set to respond to Patience, but I can't say anything more competent that what you wrote. It was a good piece. What I do appreciate is varying points of views however, and I do agree the acidity is watered down on the liberal blogs versus the conservative ones. I'm sure Rush and Sean are talking about Hillary, Nancy and Obama right now, lol.

Posted by: Cave_mann | August 6, 2007 6:24 PM | Report abuse

I thought Stephanopoulos was pretty good at making the candidates answer the questions, but he let Giuliani off the hook when the mayor claimed he was pro-Second Amendment.

If a candidate claimed he was pro-First Amendment, but had shut down a few newspapers and said cities and states should be allowed to determine what is fit to print in their locales, do you think the moderator should just let it slide?

Posted by: Doug D | August 6, 2007 6:11 PM | Report abuse

"Only Rudy has the guts to pursue the "long hard slog" to vistory in Iraq (Rumsfeld's words in 2003) that is the central front in the war on terror."

And if he makes a mistake during the long hard slog does he only have to tell it to the Priest in Confession, or does he have a responsibilty to admit it to the victims of the mistake?

Also, I hope that he is smart enough to realize that the central front in this War on Terror is not (nor was it ever) in Iraq.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 6, 2007 6:09 PM | Report abuse

Romney fell flat on his face, and kicked himself in the backside on the way down. He insisted Brownback's attack ad wasn't factual, then didn't dispute the facts.

He criticized YouTube as a source of trustworthy information, when the information in question was a video of Mitt Romney speaking.

He tried to pull a Giuliani by butting in on Ron Paul with a "What about 9/11?", even though Paul had just stated that there was no al Qaeda in Iraq. Worse for Romney, Paul stiff-armed him into submission, and Stephanopoulos just went on to the next question.

The only good news for Romney is that the debate was on early on a Sunday morning, when a lot of Iowans are in church, and too many pundits are saying he did well, for some reason.

Posted by: Doug D | August 6, 2007 6:07 PM | Report abuse

Last week law-abiding Americans were once again forced to surrender their rights and freedoms. The event was eerily similar to the unwise passage of the PATRIOT Act some six years ago. We once again had a power hungry executive and a Senate controlled by Democrats. The only difference was that the House of Representatives is now under the control of Democrats - which makes what happened all the more troubling.

The Democratic-led Congress voted to allow the President and his administration to intercept the phone calls and emails of American citizens, without a warrant, with virtually zero judicial oversight, and no reporting whatsoever to Congress. The government is now allowed to grab any communication believed to be from outside the U.S. That includes American citizens who live overseas, service members such as those in Iraq, journalists reporting from overseas, or even Members of Congress who are abroad and call home to the United States - all without any sort of court oversight. This goes far beyond the identified problem of foreign-to-foreign communications that we all agree needed to be fixed.

Posted by: yet another liberty gone | August 6, 2007 6:01 PM | Report abuse

Zouk, It's Speaker Pelosi!

Posted by: Anonymous | August 6, 2007 6:01 PM | Report abuse

Did Bush Repeal the Fifth Amendment?

Although the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution guarantees that "No person shall ... be deprived of ... property, without due process of law," on July 17 President Bush issued an executive order authorizing the Treasury department to seize any and all property belonging to individuals who "pose a risk" of undermining the "peace or stability" of Iraq. The action does not require congressional approval.

White House Press Secretary Tony Snow clarified in a press briefing that the intent is to target "terrorists and insurgent groups," but the American Civil Liberties Union protested that the executive order "posed risks for residents of the United State." Michael Chossudovsky, professor of economics at the University of Ottawa, argues that the executive order in effect criminalized mere opposition to the war. But the matter received little attention in the press. (Two notable exceptions are this July 23 article by Walter Pincus in the Washington Post and this Aug. 5 op-ed by Editorial Page Editor John Diaz in the San Francisco Chronicle.)

Emboldened, perhaps, by the mild response, on August 2 President Bush issued a similar executive order (below) regarding Lebanon. This action authorizes the Treasury to "block the property and interests in property" of "any U.S. persons" (including "a spouse or dependent child") who challenge "the sovereignty of Lebanon" (i.e., support Syria's occupation of Lebanon and its interference in Lebanese politics). In this instance the target can be anyone whose actions are deemed to "pose a risk" of undermining Lebanon's democratic processes, violent or not.'

By the time these people leave office -- should they leave -- there won't be much Constitution left. And the rightwingers cheer.

Posted by: chipping away | August 6, 2007 5:59 PM | Report abuse

golgi -- R's have nohting to say, so few are listening.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 6, 2007 5:54 PM | Report abuse

Wow, the Fix on the Democratic debate had like 250-300 comments at this point in the afternoon.

Posted by: Golgi | August 6, 2007 5:47 PM | Report abuse

'Political Crisis: No Sunnis Remain In Iraq Government '

Posted by: real progress | August 6, 2007 5:47 PM | Report abuse

proudtobeGOP

Whats more important. The country improving or the republicans remaining in the white house? Thats what you have to ask yourself, are you american first or republican first. Republicans had congress and the white house and just as i predicted they would get soo caught up in party agendas that they would end up doing a terrible job and that is what has happened. Democrats cant really take credit, we were on the sidelines for 6 years. No you guys played yourselves out of the public graces all on your own. Now how do you convince voters to give you 4 more years when you have done so little the last 6? By scare tactics perhaps? Maybe a terror attack but that may have the reverse affect because the whole purpose of our foreign policy is to keep us safe from terror. To have an attack after all these radical decisions by the administration would have the same affect as not finding WMD's in Iraq. If republicans are going to continue the legacy of bush and cheney then we are clearly headed for distruction sooner rather than later. Do you want that just to keep a (R) in charge?

Posted by: gdavis4 | August 6, 2007 5:45 PM | Report abuse

Oh, my. Remember the Republican state legislator and co-chair of the McCain campaign in Florida who was busted for offering a cop $20 and oral sex? Talking Points Memo finds out why he did that:
"This was a pretty stocky black guy, and there was nothing but other black guys around in the park," said Allen, according to this article in the Orlando Sentinel. Allen went on to say he was afraid of becoming a "statistic."

I guess this raises the question of whether if you thought you were about to get mugged by a group of stocky black guys, your first plan of escape would be to try to give one of them a bl*wjob. But I guess maybe you had to be there.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 6, 2007 5:45 PM | Report abuse

Just in case you doubted that journalists at the big news orgs are pining daily for a link from Matt Drudge, a reporter for the Los Angeles Times has now openly admitted as much.

Check out this remarkable passage in this long LA Times article by Times staff writer Joel Sappell about Drudge:

Every day, journalists and media executives in newsrooms across the land hope they'll have something that catches Drudge's fancy -- or, as he has put it, "raises my whiskers." Most keep their fingers crossed that he'll discover their articles on his own and link to them. Others are more proactive, sending anonymous e-mails or placing calls to him or his behind-the-scenes assistant.

I'm not blaming Sappell for this -- unfortunately, what he's saying is almost certainly not an exaggeration, at least if my experience of newsrooms is any indication.

And while it isn't surprising that journalists would want their work widely disseminated, here's why this is striking: It serves as yet another reminder of one of the dirtier secrets of contemporary journalism, which is that some journalists and/or editors are almost certainly tailoring their work -- that is, what they are calling "journalism" -- in order to get a link on Drudge.

Is there any doubt that reporters writing about, say, John Edwards' hair, or Hillary's allegedly phony southern drawl, or other similarly bogus non-stories are operating at least partly out of the hope that their work will get that much-coveted Drudge link? After all, as this LA Times reporter tells us, many of his journalistic colleagues are actually keeping "their fingers crossed" for such a link. Pathetic.

Heck, maybe we should just go ahead and change Mark Halperin's now-infamous formulation about his journalism colleagues, "Matt Drudge Rules Our World," to this:

Matt Drudge Rules Our World -- Because We Happily Prostrate Ourselves At His Feet And Kiss His Toes.

--This is why our political discourse is rightwing rot.

Posted by: sickening and pathetic | August 6, 2007 5:43 PM | Report abuse

Aug. 6 (Bloomberg) -- American Home Mortgage Investment Corp. filed for bankruptcy protection, becoming the second- biggest residential lender in the U.S. to close down this year.

The filing adds to signs that late payments have spread to homeowners with good credit records. American Home sought federal court protection today in Wilmington, Delaware, with assets of more than $20.6 billion and debt of more than $19.3 billion. The company said Aug. 2 it would halt operations and slash its staff.

American Home specialized in mortgages for people who fall just short of top credit scores. More than half a dozen competitors have declared bankruptcy this year as defaults spilled over from ``subprime'' borrowers with the worst repayment records to those with more reliable payment histories.

Posted by: going down | August 6, 2007 5:39 PM | Report abuse

As if on cue.

"the U.S. command in Iraq have lost track of about 110,000 AK-47 rifles and 80,000 pistols"

I'd think 190,000 weapons are worth quite a bit more to our enemies than "hope and encouragement" several thousand miles away. Where is your scathing criticism of this incompetence?

**crickets**

Posted by: Anonymous | August 6, 2007 5:39 PM | Report abuse

"Resisting every effort of the commander-in-chief during a time of war is a pretty sure way of expressing an unwillingness to win."

Resisting like agreeing to authorize it? Or signing every emergency extension for funding of it? How about trying to pass legislation to fund body armor, up-armoring of the humm-vs and fixing/va affairs? Pay raises for troops in combat? Trying to guarantee adequate rest time back home before they go in for their 3rd or 4th rotation?

You're right, what a bunch of defeatist commies.

Do you think the enemy in Iraq reads the new york post looking for nuanced policy disagreements btween cheney/bush and congress? Don't be so naive.

now, if by winning the war on terror you mean cutting funding, voting down pay raises for the soldiers, increasing rotations, activating stop-release measures, appointing incompetents and friends of friends in positions of power, ignoring Osama and putting little yellow stickers on your car, then we're in agreement.

Posted by: It's the Global war on terror, GLOBAL | August 6, 2007 5:38 PM | Report abuse

The Politico, a brand-new political fanzine that combines the biting wit of a high school slam book with the nuanced policy analysis of Tiger Beat.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 6, 2007 5:38 PM | Report abuse

"Thanks to the Dems for giving our enemies so much hope and encouragement!"

C'mon now, give Bush 99% of the credit for his 100% incompetent prosecution of this war.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 6, 2007 5:35 PM | Report abuse

Due to loose record-keeping, the Pentagon and the U.S. command in Iraq have lost track of about 110,000 AK-47 rifles and 80,000 pistols provided to the new Iraqi national police and army, the Government Accountability Office told Congress in July.

In addition, 80,000 pieces of body armor and about 25,000 helmets can't be accounted for, the GAOsaid.

The report follows an October accounting by the Defense Department's special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction, which put the number of weapons missing at close to 500,000.

Auditors were unable to determine whether the weapons -- which included heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenade launchers -- were stolen, or being used by insurgents.

Posted by: your tax dollars | August 6, 2007 5:33 PM | Report abuse

"After the Pelosi attempt to steal a vote..."

Posted by: An alternate universe somewhere | August 6, 2007 5:33 PM | Report abuse

Family values: Rudy's daughter is an OBama aupporter.

Posted by: LOL | August 6, 2007 5:31 PM | Report abuse

On topic:

Phil M caught the debate consensus that elections do not create democracy. I too thought that was a significant bow in the direction of reality based foreign policy.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | August 6, 2007 5:26 PM | Report abuse

"...The Vice President, who may be the only American politician with lower job approval ratings than President Bush ..."

Are you serious? Have you looked at anybody in Congress lately???? After the Pelosi attempt to steal a vote, I'd be surprised if they rise above single digits. Any of them!

Posted by: Larry | August 6, 2007 5:25 PM | Report abuse

Sen. McCain is the only candidate sitting in our national legislature who offered NO earmarks.

Sen. Obama offered earmarks, but voluntarily disclosed them all.

Sen. Biden offered earmarks but disclosed only the ones that were "accepted", after the fact.

These are the only candidates who can claim any sort of principled position on earmarks, at least as of two weeks ago.

It is a two-party problem that infects the way our nation's business is done. The Ds now have the majority in both houses. They complained of these practices when they were in the minority. They have a chance to lead. They should do so. They may well be earmarking less now then when the Congress was in R hands. But arguing who is the bigger thief is exactly what makes party politics so suspect in all our eyes.

We do not let our kids get away with that. Why should we let our public servants?

Posted by: Mark in Austin | August 6, 2007 5:22 PM | Report abuse

Resisting every effort of the commander-in-chief during a time of war is a pretty sure way of expressing an unwillingness to win.

If they had supported our troops and the remained unified with the war effort, the bad guys over there would have had much less hope to carry on. Thanks to the Dems for giving our enemies so much hope and encouragement!

(Granted, some of the Rs have not helped that much either.)

Posted by: Patience | August 6, 2007 5:22 PM | Report abuse

"The Dems just don't get the realities of war nor have the will to win."

funny, I was just thinking the same thing about the republicans.

Posted by: Hubris is not the same as 'the will to win' | August 6, 2007 5:08 PM | Report abuse

I have always respected Sen. McCain and was sorry to see his uncertainty and listlessness in the GOP debate. He is head and shoulders above the rest of that second rate collection of wannabes but his time has come and gone. Give it up John,it's over. Not only second rate but scary is Tom Tancredo, this guy needs a shrink.

Posted by: Kay | August 6, 2007 5:01 PM | Report abuse

Only Rudy has the guts to pursue the "long hard slog" to vistory in Iraq (Rumsfeld's words in 2003) that is the central front in the war on terror.

The Dems just don't get the realities of war nor have the will to win. They don't even have the will to end the conflict in Iraq...which they have the constitutional power to do right now, but won't.

Posted by: Patience | August 6, 2007 4:59 PM | Report abuse

I have to agree with OEST about Tancredo and T Thompson. They have morphed into the Kucinich & Gravel of the right. I really hope some of these guys drop off after Ames.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | August 6, 2007 4:45 PM | Report abuse

It's kinda funny, the Paul Craig Roberts 'news item' from RIA Novosti, which offers Russian and international news from the Russian state news agency. Nice source!

Posted by: Mike B | August 6, 2007 4:42 PM | Report abuse

There were no winners in the GOP Debate.

Every American should have been embarrassed and terrified over on what they heard.

The only ones who deserved to be on the stage were Ron Paul, John McCain, and Duncan Hunter.

Mitt Romney lies about everything, even though he'll be the GOP nominee. Their ticket will either be Romney/Jeb Bush or Romney/Fred Thompson.

Giuliani is the face of evil and corruption. Has this guy ever employed anyone who does not end up in jail?

Tom Tancredo the other day said that a good anti-terrorism policy is to "BOMB MECCA," the muslim holy land. What can be more insane that that? I'll tell you what, claiming that the biggest mistake that he ever made was waiting so long to "accept Jesus Christ as his personal savior," that's what. What have "POLITICAL" debates come to, when they are about religious conversion. He should have been kicked out of the debate right then for violating the first amendment, and I AM A BORN-AGAIN CHRISTIAN (Pentecostal-Holiness / Evangelical), and I feel that way.

Sam Browback has child molester eyes, Mike Huckabee has a great voice and perfect diction, Tommy Thompson has a terrible toupe.

I could go on, but there's no need to.

Posted by: OEST | August 6, 2007 4:37 PM | Report abuse

Romney has been showing a temper the last few weeks over the abortion question and attacks on his Mormonism. His outbursts are getting tiring and are definitely having a negative effect. Memo to the Romney campaign...

http://political-buzz.com/

Posted by: chrisfl | August 6, 2007 4:36 PM | Report abuse

Once again putting principle ahead of politics, John McCain voted against the "ethics" bill saying that it "has completely gutted the earmark reform provisions we overwhelmingly passed in January,".

In defense of this toothless bill Dirty Harry Reid said it was ludicrous to suggest someone in his position would "cheat and lie" to hide earmarks.

Riiiight. This is just another poorly calculated attempt to convince the public that something has been done about ethics when that is not the case.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | August 6, 2007 4:31 PM | Report abuse

before we go anyfurther with cutting and pasting links from right wing sites and endangered senators i would like to point out an ethics bill was passed LAST THURSDAY
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20093557/

im sure proud will read the above article with great interest,since 14 repubican senators voted AGAINST the bill.

yawn, like i said non starter. back on topic kids.

Posted by: spartan | August 6, 2007 4:11 PM | Report abuse

Chris..Your winners are my losers. Once again Rep Paul is totally ignored as well as the poll showing him the winner in the debate. I don't understand how this can be in America, Isn't every candidate entitled to be covered or does the MSM consider themselves the "decider's" of who people should vote for? Your bias is showing.

WHO WON TUESDAY NIGHT'S DEBATE?
The 10 Republican candidates running for president jousted over the issues and with each other Tuesday night at the second debate of the primary season.

Who won Tuesday night's debate?

Ron Paul
26,094
It doesn't matter who won. I wouldn't put America in another Republican's hands. 1,999
Mitt Romney 467
Rudy Guiliani 437
None of them. I'm interested in the possibility of new candidates like Fred Thompson. 409
John McCain 202
Tom Tancredo 99
Mike Huckabee 73
Duncan Hunter 43
Tommy Thompson 40
Sam Brownback 28
James Gilmore 21
Total Vote: 29,912


Posted by: Anonymous | August 6, 2007 4:08 PM | Report abuse

I thought the most substantial GOP consensus in the entire debate was refuting the idea that because an election was held Iraq was now a democracy. This has been a major talking point for the White House and the entire Echo Chamber.

We've been told that the reason we have 160,000 US troops risking their lives in Iraq is to give the political process a chance to work. If Iraqi politicians aren't willing to talk with eachother in secure, air-conditioned buildings, why are we willing to risk the lives of US troops in 130 degree heat? I agree with a previous blogger on wasteful earmarks, but the financial cost of keeping our troops in Iraq while their parliment is out of session is about $12 billion. What a huge waste!

Posted by: Phil M | August 6, 2007 4:01 PM | Report abuse

wow proud, a news release from Sen. John Cornyn, R-Tex. Very persuasive.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | August 6, 2007 4:00 PM | Report abuse

bsimon -Senate Misses Historic Opportunity On Earmark Reform, Cornyn says Newly-Revised Bill Simply Allows the Fox to Guard the Henhouse
Thursday, August 2, 2007

"When the Senate first passed this ethics reform bill in January, it was an important step forward in reforming the way we do business in Washington. I was proud to support it because every American has the right to know how their tax dollars are being spent and who in Congress is advocating which local projects.

"Unfortunately, in recent months, the Democratic leadership has worked behind closed doors to strip this legislation of the transparency and disclosure taxpayers deserve. In January, we voted for a sensible rule requiring that every congressional spending earmark and its sponsor be disclosed before voting on the legislation.

The Democratic Leader's new bill rewrites this rule to allow himself and the appropriations committee chairman to 'certify' that a piece of legislation meets the rule without having to disclose it to the public. This is a perfect example of the fox guarding the henhouse.

"The American people are tired of games and tricks, which distract them with one hand, while the other secretly writes checks. We want responsibility, we want accountability, and most of all, we want transparency.

This watered-down legislation provides for none of that. It is the veneer of earmark reform without any of the substance behind it.

"The effort by the Democratic Leader to strip this bill of this critical provision is shocking. It is an affront to the millions of Americans who were promised real earmark reform and I will not be part of a sham effort to mislead them into thinking otherwise."

http://cornyn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ForPress.NewsReleases&ContentRecord_id=27939084-802a-23ad-4bf7-db8ac7bc53c5

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | August 6, 2007 3:57 PM | Report abuse

spartan: Republicans were for earmarks before they were against them.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | August 6, 2007 03:40 PM

would that be considered a flip flop then by the repubicans?

in anycase the crying about earmarks is a non starter considering how much money was being thown around when repubicans was in control. but the biggest earmark is the iraq war. 1trillion dollars or more when or if this affair is done.

Posted by: spartan | August 6, 2007 3:53 PM | Report abuse

obama has become the punchin laugh bag...
his inexperience is showing and making him an easy target as a democrat.

but romney commenting on obama flipflopping?
the two of them should love each other for their flippy floppies

Posted by: s.walton | August 6, 2007 3:52 PM | Report abuse

Earmark Reform: After claiming the moral high ground on ethics and passing a bill almost unanimously that requires transparency in earmarks, the Senate's Democratic leaders have a political problem. How can they abide by their promises of earmark reform without having to abide by them?

The fact is, no one had anything except earmarks to lose by adopting DeMint's (R-SC)recent rule change proposal, requiring full disclosure of earmarks.

Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) objected to passage of the DeMint rule, offering the excuse that the ethics bill would somehow be slowed down if an important item like the DeMint rule were implemented on a piecemeal basis.

In fact, senators covet their earmarks and fear passage of a rule change

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=20323#2

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | August 6, 2007 3:51 PM | Report abuse

spartan writes, of Jesse,
"the one good thing i remember about him(other than his career as a pro wrestler) on how he delt with stadium funding. if you want to build a stadium for your sports team use your own money not money from taxpayers."

Very good point. I miss that very much. Gov 'I used to vote against taxpayer money wasted on stadiums' Pawlenty let the legislature ramrod a Twins stadium through on the backs of county taxpayers. It should be criminal - reps from every other county decided to pass a bill to build a stadium with a special single-county sales tax. Then our county commissioners completed the disenfranchisement by not holding a (allegedly required) referendum. Now they're in the process of forcing the property owners to sell for a lower-than-asking price. That dispute is in the courts.

Posted by: bsimon | August 6, 2007 3:50 PM | Report abuse

Loudoun's thinking... "I'm justified in being wrong because someone else may have been wrong before". Nice.

Posted by: Mike | August 6, 2007 3:45 PM | Report abuse

proud writes
"It's $1,000,000 to extend a rail trail by 14 miles, not a rail line."

Ha! Good catch. Whoops!

On the larger point - isn't this congress spending less on earmarks than the prior? 2nd point - didn't the legislation passed on Friday that mandates listing earmarks qualify as shedding light on the earmarks that used to be well-hidden in bills?

I agree that Congress is frittering away money on pet projects that likely don't return much benefit to the taxpayers, but shouldn't the get some credit for reigning things a little - at least when compared to last year?

Posted by: bsimon | August 6, 2007 3:44 PM | Report abuse

spartan: Republicans were for earmarks before they were against them.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | August 6, 2007 3:40 PM | Report abuse

bsimon - It's $1,000,000 to extend a rail trail by 14 miles, not a rail line. Heck, for $72,000 per mile, I'll go over there and put in a gravel & dirt trail myself.

The earmarks were supposed to go away, remember...drain the swamp, etc. etc.?? Pelosi and Reid were supposed to have the most open, honest congress in history.

That did not last long.

Already Congressman Obey is hiding the Democrat earmarks until such a time that they cannot be debated in public. What could be worthy of such secrecy? How about needless pork.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | August 6, 2007 3:38 PM | Report abuse

'$1,000,000 to extend a rail trail by 14 miles'

We have one of those where I live... very widely used by bicyclists, dogwalkers, joggers, moms with strollers, the military, etc. Really popular. I don't see this sort of thing -- which is really good for a community's HEALTH -- as pork.

Posted by: Martin | August 6, 2007 3:37 PM | Report abuse

Bokonon, what is captain caveman obama up to these days besides doing little votes in the senate?

Posted by: Mike | August 6, 2007 3:37 PM | Report abuse

bsimon-true, but the one good thing i remember about him(other than his career as a pro wrestler) on how he delt with stadium funding. if you want to build a stadium for your sports team use your own money not money from taxpayers.

this also relates to proud's posting on earmarks. i just wonder if she was against them when the repubicans had control of congress. also i wonder which one of those earmarks are actually sponsored by dems or repubs. it might be enlightening to find out.

ill wait for either of your answers while i watch zouk and his sockpuppets do battle with team rufus.

Posted by: spartan | August 6, 2007 3:36 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, Loudon, I thought zouk might be doing us all a favor by actually leaving like he promises, or maybe that Exxon gave him a vacation, but I guess he just slept real late. Must have stayed up late playing Grand Theft Auto.

Posted by: Cassandra | August 6, 2007 3:33 PM | Report abuse

proudtobeGOP writes
"The solution for the entire problem is more transparency in the earmarking process so ensure that our politicians are spending our money on the right priorities - bridges and roads - and not pork for amusement parks."

Some of those items look like extreme bargains. Extending a rail line 14 miles for $1 million? Cheap!

More on point though, while the Dem congress is certainly piling up the pork, my understanding is that their earmark rate is about 50% what it was under the prior (GOP) Congress.

Posted by: bsimon | August 6, 2007 3:29 PM | Report abuse

Zouk must be running out of gas. Today his sock puppet is the very generic John.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | August 6, 2007 3:29 PM | Report abuse

spartan writes
"i wouldnt call ventura a fluke but i just wished that he should have ran for a second term. Minnesota lost out on a pretty good governor. but to run as a independant canidate you pretty much have to have big money and name id."

I think the Ventura administration did more good than harm & also wish he had stuck around longer - or at least run for another term. His style antagonized a lot of people - not just politicians, but voters too. And his constant carping about unfairness in the media didn't play well at all, he plays a tough guy on TV, but apparently has a pretty thin skin. Overall, as someone who voted for him, I was disappointed, but think his administration did more good for the state than harm.

Posted by: bsimon | August 6, 2007 3:26 PM | Report abuse


The worst problem with Rudy is the very questionable judgement he shows in the people he chooses to work with him. Among them are a pedophile priest, a cocaine dealer, and a mobster. And then there is his puppy-stapling 3rd wife, a real piece of work.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 6, 2007 3:26 PM | Report abuse

A look at these postings and I see how troubled liberals really are, a truly pathological bunch. It's no wonder they've done so poorly in national elections: only two DEM presidents in almost 40 years, both of which got in under extreme circumstances. Carter in the wake of Watergate and Clinton by virture of Perot's strong 3d party candidacy. Giuliani will win in 2008 driving yet another nail in the coffin of leftist thought and paranoia.

Posted by: John | August 6, 2007 3:24 PM | Report abuse

While Some 75,000 Bridges In America Are In Need Of Repair...

Congress continues its spending spree:

$200,000 earmark to finance a single bus in Michigan

$200,000 to reconstruct a parking lot in Massachusetts

$300,000 to renovate an amusement park in Texas

$50,000 to establish the National Mule and Packer Museum in California

$250,000 to expand a parking garage in California

$250,000 for a community center at the county fairgrounds in Ohio

$265,000 for a cinema in Massachusetts

$200,000 for a new artificial field in Massachusetts

$1,000,000 to extend a rail trail by 14 miles

$200,000 to relocate a library in Connecticut


The solution for the entire problem is more transparency in the earmarking process so ensure that our politicians are spending our money on the right priorities - bridges and roads - and not pork for amusement parks.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | August 6, 2007 3:21 PM | Report abuse

Loudoun -- I know you think you're both clever and enlightened, but I obviously wasn't refering to Proud or other right-wingers who don't like Mitt on account of his flip-flops -- so please, conserve your finite wit and don't try to waste any on me.

Posted by: Mike | August 6, 2007 3:20 PM | Report abuse

Wow, JD, you should go to some rightwing sites like little green footballs or free republic where the posters openly call for the execution and torture of 'liberals.' You ain't seen hate until you've visited a few of those-- but of course there are thousands.

I don't hate anyone -- but turn on Sean Hannity or Rush Limbuahg or Laura Ingraham, Hate Radio, and within 2 seconds you'll get an earful of scathing, vicious, and disgusting lies and smears about Democrats. 24 hours a day, every day.

Posted by: Jane | August 6, 2007 3:13 PM | Report abuse

'Wow, the hatred on this blog early on in the postings, this afternoon, is as bad as I've ever seen. '

'by virtue of the massive number of libs that crawled out of their holes to attack him.'

--mike's on now. guess he's zouk's replacement.. except the real bile to start flowing now...

Posted by: pot calling kettle black | August 6, 2007 3:08 PM | Report abuse

bsimon-good comment, i wouldnt call ventura a fluke but i just wished that he should have ran for a second term. Minnesota lost out on a pretty good governor. but to run as a independant canidate you pretty much have to have big money and name id.

also a few suburbs in michigan is looking into instant runoff voting. its a good ideal in the making. i wonder how it will do on a federal level?

Posted by: spartan | August 6, 2007 3:04 PM | Report abuse

Chris, who are you fooling? All you do is go to the polls, and list the winners according to their rank. And anybody but Ron Paul needed to replace McCain. A baby could do this. Ron Paul won again.

Posted by: brody | August 6, 2007 3:02 PM | Report abuse

LOL you sniveling little boy, you call those posts "hatred"? What a whiner. Run home to mommy.

Posted by: JD: What a Baby | August 6, 2007 2:56 PM | Report abuse

spartan writes
"i repeat my comment on 3rd parties. start small and win congressional seats and governorships. stop swinging for the fences when it comes to the presidency. work building a party first."

What's the difference? Ventura won here on name-recognition & having milquetoast competition for the office. The major parties had mediocre candidates, vs. Jesse's straight talk. Since then, the IP has offerred some very compelling candidates that, according to polls anyway, match the preferences of most Minnesotans. But can they win an election? Not a chance. They remain mired in the single - to low double digits. The problem is manifold, but to put it simplisticly boils down to voter habit - the mentality is stuck in assuming that either an R or D is going to win, thus any other vote is a 'wasted' ballot. Meanwhile the big parties spend enough time & money demonizing the other big party, that people start getting scared that the greater evil might win, so they support a candidate from the lesser evil, rather than trying something non-evil.

Interesting tidbit though - the city of Minneapolis is switching to instant run-off voting, so it will be very interesting to see how the challengers to the DFL do here. Basically Republicans don't have a chance in this town, but Greens have had some success and the IP may be able to do well too.

Posted by: bsimon | August 6, 2007 2:56 PM | Report abuse

"by virtue of the massive number of libs that crawled out of their holes to attack him."

yeppers, those other GOP candidates who are rightfully blasting Mitty as a Flip-Flopping Feeb definitely qualify as libs.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | August 6, 2007 2:55 PM | Report abuse

Wow, the hatred on this blog early on in the postings, this afternoon, is as bad as I've ever seen. And this is before Rufus and Zouk have shown up to slug it out.


From Chris Fox implying that the Government staged 9/11 for political reasons, to Jane's 'trained seals' post.

Good Lord.

Posted by: JD | August 6, 2007 2:53 PM | Report abuse

'although his business credentials are better than Giuliani's, and from what I have heard he is far more popular/thought to be a far better mayor than Giuliani by New Yorkers themselves. (drindl, is this right?)'

Guiiliani never had any 'business credientials' until he used his one-day performance on 9/11 to leverage millions in taxpayer-funded contracts for 'security' work [with bernie kerik] in Iraq. Bloomberg by contrast, built a media empire singlehandedly. I don't agree with everything Bloomberg does, but he appears to be pragmatic and competent and independent, and yes, I'm sure thought to be a better mayor by most than Rudy ever was. With this gigantic ego and abrasive in-your-face manner, Rudy fought with virtually everyone and alienated the very people he would have needed to work with to get anything done.

Consequently, he didn't get much done--except force the city taxpayers to pay for bodyguards for the serial misstresses he had while Mayor [some of them were on the city payroll too.]

I definitely think Bloomberg would pull votes from Guiliani.

Posted by: drindl | August 6, 2007 2:50 PM | Report abuse

Based on CC's logic that being attacked makes you a winner...

I haven't yet read this entire thread, but it would appear that Romney is definitely a winner, by virtue of the massive number of libs that crawled out of their holes to attack him.

Posted by: Mike | August 6, 2007 2:47 PM | Report abuse

Boko - Texas is so different from FL and both are so different from the mythical "South" that there is not much one can learn from either state about the other, or about the states in between.

My guess is that Bloomberg would have a steep uphill fight to affect the race in Texas.

He really does sound like a New Yawker.

Now, a Powell-Bloomberg ticket might have instant credibility.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | August 6, 2007 2:43 PM | Report abuse

Bokonon-here's my analysis on this. if bloomberg runs its going to kill rudy's chances. consider this, bloomberg pulls the indy voters,plus the economic conservatives and maybe some moderate voters from the d's but what votes is rudy going to get? the social cons? nope they are more likely to run their own canidate fracturing the election further. liberals? dems? only the ones who buy the horse manure rudy is selling. its possibly going to be a repeat of 92 with the election being thrown barely to hillary

but it all depends on who's both the gop and the dem nominee is. honestly outside of ny and nj i cant see what states bloomberg is going to win. and once again i repeat my comment on 3rd parties. start small and win congressional seats and governorships. stop swinging for the fences when it comes to the presidency. work building a party first.

Posted by: spartan | August 6, 2007 2:40 PM | Report abuse

Ron Paul won the debate according to ABC's own poll and Drudge Report's poll.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Decision2008/popup?id=3436820&POLL299=1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

http://www.presidentpolls2008.com/Articles/ron-paul-wins-abc-news-debate.html

Ron Paul places 1st or 2nd in every straw poll, debate, and active participation survey. Including this ABC debate!

Ron Paul is 1st on YouTube, Meetup, MySpace, Technorati, Alexa, Clickz, Google, etc. The old media is just too slow to realize what is happening.

Dr. Ron Paul has the most contributions from U.S. military personnel and veterans above all other candidates. So support the troops and vote Ron Paul!

A big problem with our electoral processes is that the old media generally supports the candidates with the most money. Those are the worst candidates because they are owned by special interest and lobbyists.

Ron Paul is the only major candidate not owned by military-industrial-complex, corporations, special interest, lobbyists, etc. Fix the system and vote Ron Paul. And tell everyone you know. Now is the time to set ourselves free.

Dr. Ron Paul is the man of integrity and courage that America needs at this time.

Visit YouTube and search Ron Paul to learn more...

Join the Revolution -- Vote Ron Paul!

Posted by: Bill O. Rights | August 6, 2007 2:39 PM | Report abuse

The Giuliani/Huckabee proposal, that Dyinglikeflies is floating, rings quite true for me. Giuliani would manipulate Huckabee's downhome qualities shamefully. Huckabee would be perfectly contented having a Quayle-like job description; it would give him more time to write diet books.

Posted by: Golgi | August 6, 2007 2:38 PM | Report abuse

Jane -

Anything from "uncritical listeners" to "like-minded audience" to "preaching to the choir" works for me.

I'll accept "intense", about this issue, as accurate. I do not take offense.

I wrote a book review for an international law journal about 25 years ago of a scholarly book on the varying standards we had used to judge war crimes in Nurnburg, Tokyo, and during the 'Nam war. The dehumanization that leads to actual intentional war crimes, as opposed to "collateral damage", has been an issue for me since.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | August 6, 2007 2:35 PM | Report abuse

Looking like Huckabee is running to be Guiliani's VP running mate. This will give Rudy the conservative "heartland" connection he needs to have a shot against Hillary, who has her own midwest roots.

Posted by: Dyinglikeflies | August 6, 2007 2:34 PM | Report abuse

In yesterday's Post, Ed Koch seems to think that Bloomberg WILL run.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/02/AR2007080201769.html

Two questions about that - can he win? and how will that affect Rudy AND Hillary? Only one can get the NYC / NY state votes (they may not be the same, I'm guessing, but someone from NY, like drindl, would know better.)

And how would that play out nationally? I think it might fracture the electorate even further... Bloomberg would get the economic conservatives (maybe?) who are socially liberal, which would hurt both Giuliani and Clinton, but probably Clinton more... although his business credentials are better than Giuliani's, and from what I have heard he is far more popular/thought to be a far better mayor than Giuliani by New Yorkers themselves. (drindl, is this right?)

and there is talk of a Bloomberg/Hagel ticket... how would that play down south, Mark and JimD?

does NY have an open or closed primary?

Posted by: Bokonon | August 6, 2007 2:29 PM | Report abuse

'I will but I can tell you that right wing posters assume that anything associated with the WaPo is part of a VLWC. So such a blog will be completely compromised in their eyes.'

Yes, Judge, but the MSM will nonetheless continue to warp and prostrate themselves to a group that will always despise them and only wishes to destroy them. Which they are doing a pretty good job of.

Posted by: drindl | August 6, 2007 2:24 PM | Report abuse

Romney? A winner? Maybe a whiner, definitely a clessless twit and a nutcase, but not a winner. The more I see Romney, the more I swear he's just Cheney dressed up in a different set of clothing. The guy is flat out scary. He is comletely clueless about ordinary people and swaggers around like he's some sort of tin god....maybe, as a Mormon, he already thinks he is a god. What a jerk. He is by far the worst candidate in recent memeory.

Posted by: MikeB | August 6, 2007 2:24 PM | Report abuse

' Animal comparisons can never be applied to a group of humans without a resounding echo of the dehumanization that permitted slavery, subjugation, extermination of peoples, and every evil that follows degradation of those with whom we disagree. '

Mark, you are sure intense. I would assume that you know that I find all those things repulsive -- but people who simply parrots what others think and even admit it ['dittoheads'] -- and swallow every lie they are told without question ... who credulously embrace utter nonsense and demagoguery, [like Rudy's 'paying for bridges with tax cuts' remark--has anyone EVER said anything more completely absurd, more delusional?]

What else does one call them? I think the comparison is apt-- and I certainly am not calling for the 'extermination' of anyone. I leave that to the rightwingers, who do so on a regular basis.

Posted by: Jane | August 6, 2007 2:22 PM | Report abuse

"Take the time to look at the Post blog for conservatives, "Right Matters".

I will but I can tell you that right wing posters assume that anything associated with the WaPo is part of a VLWC. So such a blog will be completely compromised in their eyes.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | August 6, 2007 2:14 PM | Report abuse

'more humbel and self-deprecating in the process.'

Rudy, humble and self-deprecating? Oh my, my. Now wonder this country is in such a mess. You gopers are seriously bad with character analysis.

He's humble like bush is humble -- as in, are you serious? I mean really. He's among the world's most selfish, arrogant men.

Posted by: Jane | August 6, 2007 2:11 PM | Report abuse

the first rule of project hillary is you talk about hillary all the time.

the second rule of project hillary is you do not talk about other canidates that are not named hillary clinton!

your breaking the rules cc....

Posted by: i am jack's post | August 6, 2007 2:10 PM | Report abuse

You know, the The Fix is starting to look an awful lot like the movie "Fight Club" when it comes to Ron Paul.

"The first rule of The Fix is we do not talk about Ron Paul."

"The second rule of The Fix is we do not talk about Ron Paul."

"The third rule of The Fix, if its your first time here, you have to post."

Am I wrong?

Posted by: Sean Scallon | August 6, 2007 2:08 PM | Report abuse

'CAMP DAVID, Maryland (AP) -- President Bush said Monday that with the right intelligence U.S. and Pakistan governments can take out al Qaeda leaders, and he wouldn't say whether he would consult first with Pakistan before ordering U.S. forces to act on their own.

"With real actionable intelligence, we will get the job done," Bush said.'

In what century, I wonder...it's been freaking 6 years and no progress...

'He was asked whether he would wait on permission from Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf before committing the U.S. military to move on "actionable intelligence" on the whereabouts of al Qaeda leaders in Pakistan. He did not answer.

Bush was at the presidential retreat at Camp David for two days of meetings with Afghan President Hamid Karzai. The two held talks on a rash of crises confronting Afghanistan: civilian killings, a booming drug trade and the brazen resurgence of the Taliban.

Karzai had said in advance of his visit to Camp David that Iran is a partner in the fight against terrorism and narcotics. "So far, Iran has been a helper," he said over the weekend.'

Karzai off-script on Iran, it seems. And Obama has sure hit the nail on the head about Pakistan. Bush is afraid of Mushareff, that's obvious, won't answer about asking 'permission' to protect US citiziens.

Posted by: Cassandra | August 6, 2007 2:06 PM | Report abuse

proud: With friends like you alienating any moderates ou there, the Rs will have no problem retaining the WH in '08. Keep up the good work!

proud, the only moderates paying attention right now are political junkies who know a good joke when they see one.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | August 6, 2007 1:57 PM | Report abuse

Obama fans, please. Hillary is the front runner, and the Republicans are scared. She's running an excellent campaign. Obama silly comments are hurting him.

Posted by: Brian | August 6, 2007 01:50 PM

get a grip man, just because the polls say one thing on 8/6/07 doesnt mean the same thing in january 08. if she is running an excellent campaign then why is she pulling out bill clinton so early? why jump all over obama so quickly? im no obama supporter but im smelling desperation coming from the clinton camp.

Posted by: spartan | August 6, 2007 1:56 PM | Report abuse

One of the anonymous posters wrote on another thread:

"Take the time to look at the Post blog for conservatives, "Right Matters".

Take its pulse. Frankly, it looks like the conservatives would both consider the Hillary candidacy their best hope of winning and their least liberal opponent at the same time."

I looked. Chris, you should look, too. I would not think it was more [or less] statistically relevant than this blog, but the posters have not yet degenerated into name calling so it must be new. I would be interested in the reactions of proud and of lylepink to that blog.

bsimon, jane may have drawn an apt analogy, but I think that proud was pointing out that no debater ever scored a point calling his/her opponent or audience 'trained seal[s]". Animal comparisons can never be applied to a group of humans without a resounding echo of the dehumanization that permitted slavery, subjugation, extermination of peoples, and every evil that follows degradation of those with whom we disagree. You are sensitive to that sort of insult, usually. It can never be done lightly. It can never be played for laughs.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | August 6, 2007 1:56 PM | Report abuse

Those of you running down Hillary Clinton are still living in the wishful-thinking-based community. The more people see of HRC the more they like her; that's why she easily won reelection in New York, doing well in Republican districts too.

On the other hand, the more we see of Giuliani and Romney the creepier they are .. and John McCain can't say two sentences without people tuning him out.

Posted by: Chris Fox | August 6, 2007 1:54 PM | Report abuse

proud writes
"I think [Giuliani] capitalizes well on questions designed to trap debators, and makes himself seem more humbel and self-deprecating in the process."

Well, that is more charitable analysis than I am wont to give. But then again, I don't trust the guy, so I question everything that comes out of his mouth. Perhaps my bias is getting in the way of fair analysis. As maybe you can tell, GWB's response to that question made an impression on me 8 years ago...

Posted by: bsimon | August 6, 2007 1:53 PM | Report abuse

Obama fans, please. Hillary is the front runner, and the Republicans are scared. She's running an excellent campaign. Obama silly comments are hurting him.

Posted by: Brian | August 6, 2007 1:50 PM | Report abuse

bsimon - I don't think Rudy's quip was analagous to Bush's lame-o joke at all. Rudy's addressing the 300-lb gorilla in the room...namely his conviction that, while not the best choice, the choice to have an abortion should be left up to the woman, not the federal govt.

Bush's joke, on the other hand, had nothing to do with anything topical at all, and I see it as his brand of down-home-type folksy humor that played well at the time. Not so much these days.

Rudy's not trying to gloss over the issues with these quips. Much like the lightning-strike joke in the other debate...I think he capitalizes well on questions designed to trap debators, and makes himself seem more humbel and self-deprecating in the process.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | August 6, 2007 1:49 PM | Report abuse

zackM is right. a hillary candiacy is the one thing the right is counting on right now. what better way of turning out voters for the gop and retaking congress is none other than hillary herself? and ive said this a thousand times, hillary at the head of the ticket is going to affect the rest of the slate.

obama how ever may be able to neuter that effect in a few ways. the inexperience tag wont work, if mitt,rudy or fred thompson is the gop nom. the morals card may not work also,since he's extensively written about them and practices what he preaches. the only thing i can really see going against him is his race but honestly folks do we really care that he's black in this day and age?

pair him with a seasoned vp pick like richardson, gen wes clark.(NO gore or hillary. stop it with the retreads already!) he's got a lock on the white house.

obama,john edwards, richardson and joe biden maybe the gop's worse nightmare, but hillary is their wet dream come true(sorry for the visual folks)

Posted by: spartan | August 6, 2007 1:44 PM | Report abuse

For uncensored news please bookmark:

www.wsws.org
www.takingaiminfo.com
www.onlinejournal.com
otherside123.blogspot.com
www.globalresearch.ca

Congress authorizes vast expansion of domestic spying

By Kate Randall
6 August 2007

The House of Representatives approved legislation Saturday that provides sweeping new powers to the government to spy on the American population. The 227-183 vote in the Democratic-controlled House capped a weeklong campaign by the Bush administration to push through changes in laws governing wiretapping surveillance, in which Bush officials branded any legislators opposed to the revisions as "soft on terror."

The Democrats' surrender to White House demands to pass the legislation was extraordinary even by their standard of repeated capitulation. Despite popular feeling that the Bush administration has engineered a war based on lies, and despite countless exposures of lawless and criminal government behavior--torture, CIA "renditions" and secret prisons, illegal spying, the concentration camp at Guantánamo Bay--the Democrats provided the votes required to pass legislation that tramples on Fourth Amendment constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.

For months, the Bush administration has been lobbying for proposed changes to essentially gut Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court oversight of its domestic spying operations. The new legislation grants the government the authority to intercept, without a court order, international phone calls or emails between a surveillance target outside the United States and any person in the US.

Under the Bush plan, the attorney general--and not the FISA court--would have the authority to order the interception of communications for up to a year, as long as he determines that there is a "reasonable belief" that surveillance is directed at someone outside the US.

The US government has always reserved the right to carry out spying on anyone who lives outside the borders of this country, but agencies like the NSA and CIA have been banned, at least officially, from spying domestically. Domestic spying is the preserve of the FBI and other police agencies, and supposedly only conducted on the basis of a warrant approved by an independent judicial body.

The Bush administration essentially wants to scrap this distinction, and it has seized on a peculiarity of new communications technologies to provide the pretext. Modern cellphone and email communications may well pass through network servers and switches located in the United States, even when both parties to the communication are outside the country.

The Bush administration claims that the FISA court has restricted its surveillance efforts by forbidding wiretapping when a suspected foreign terrorist is communicating by cell phone or email with another foreign suspect and that communication makes a connection through a US location, on the grounds that the US connection makes the communication domestic and not international. Considering the Bush administration's track record of lying about secret surveillance and much else, there is no reason to believe its story of judicial obstruction, which seems to have been concocted for the purpose of stampeding through the legislation.

The conduct of the administration since it began raising the issue of a revision of FISA rules several months ago strongly suggests that its real goal is to leverage the technical issue to legitimize widespread spying on US citizens. It is essentially arguing that since technology has largely blurred the difference between "domestic" and "international" communications, the old restraints on the operations of the NSA should be scrapped.

For the rest please go to:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/aug2007/spy-a06.shtml

Posted by: che | August 6, 2007 1:44 PM | Report abuse

sorry, should read 'similarly serious', not 'similarly similar'.

Posted by: bsimon | August 6, 2007 1:41 PM | Report abuse

first, Jane wrote
"And the trained seals in their audience will swallow it whole."

to which proudtobeGOP responded
"I'm sure the good people of Iowa really appreciate your insightful comment, Jane."


proud, unfortunately, it looks like Jane has the right of this one. As I pointed out above, both the media and the audience fail to learn from prior mistakes, or even acknowledge history. In 1999, the GOP field was asked about their mistakes, McCain mentioned Keating and the other guys (and gal, I believe Ms Dole was included) all gave similarly similar responses. Then comes Bush, the joker, who's apparently never made a mistake in his life - other than trading a hotshot ball player when he was collecting experience for the Presidency by running a baseball team into the ground. Now we have Giuliani, playing the same part, and getting the same response. Is this really the best the GOP can come up with?

Posted by: bsimon | August 6, 2007 1:39 PM | Report abuse

I absolutely agree with the last post. I think any of these Republicans would rather face Hillary than Obama in the general election because she is much easier to villianize (something the repubs. are great at doing), and so many already feel so strongly disgusted with her.

Posted by: Zack M. | August 6, 2007 1:32 PM | Report abuse

It's amazing how naive and credulous and juvenile that gopers are. What an empty, shallow and foolish bunch of losers.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 6, 2007 1:30 PM | Report abuse

NO, proudtobeGOP, NO! THROUGH the hoop this time, or you don't get any fish!

Posted by: Anonymous | August 6, 2007 1:29 PM | Report abuse

I wonder who else thinks Mitt would flop back to pro-choice if polls suddenly showed that to be the preferred position of GOP primary voters.

And I wonder how GOP primary voters transport their pets from place to place.

Posted by: Bokonon | August 6, 2007 1:27 PM | Report abuse

"And the trained seals in their audience will swallow it whole."
Posted by: Jane | August 6, 2007 01:17 PM


I'm sure the good people of Iowa really appreciate your insightful comment, Jane.

With friends like you alienating any moderates ou there, the Rs will have no problem retaining the WH in '08. Keep up the good work!

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | August 6, 2007 1:27 PM | Report abuse

Sean Hannity and Oliver North are using the name of dead American soldiers to garner profits for a right wing organization masquerading as a charity.

Sean Hannity claims that his concerts are "to benefit the freedom alliance scholarship fund for the children of America's Military heroes featuring Country Music Stars Montgomery Gentry, Leann Rimes, and Lee Greenwood." A closer looks at the facts tell a different story.

The money actually goes to 'TheFreedom Alliance', 'an educational and charitable foundation,' founded in 1990 by LtCol Oliver L. North, who now serves as the organization's honorary chairman.

And here's their agenda:

'While there has been a liberal domination of the institutions of the federal government, the media and college campuses, Freedom Alliance has worked diligently to educate concerned citizens across the nation to the dangers of a growing federal government and an expansion of international institutions whose policies and influence adversely impact U.S. policy.'

Posted by: Anonymous | August 6, 2007 1:26 PM | Report abuse

We can criticize Romney for sounding rehearsed with the Fonda to Strangelove joke, but I'm not sure we can credit it to a speechwriter. What pro speechwriter would seriously push a candidate to utter something so bizarre?

This sounds more like a joke Romney came up with around the family dinner table and thought it was a good one. Romney may not know how to tell the difference, because in a board meeting everyone laughs at a billionaire's jokes. This is a classic problem faced by the extremely rich.

Posted by: Golgi | August 6, 2007 1:25 PM | Report abuse

CC is unable to complete an entire post without some stroking of his favorite, warranted or not:

"...he (Obama) has not yet reached the villain status enjoyed (and we do mean enjoyed) by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.)"

Dude, the Republicans are not scared of her.
They didn't feel it necessary to mention her.
They think they can beat her.
SHE'S NOT THE STRONGEST DEMOCRAT.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 6, 2007 1:24 PM | Report abuse

gotta love the sound bite of Flip-Flop Mitty whining because the GOP ideologues are rightfully beating him up for coming late to the anti-abortion party.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | August 6, 2007 1:21 PM | Report abuse

"Romney did nothing to break his momentum heading into the Ames Straw poll this weekend."

That support, from what I have read today, is an inch deep. This joker is even less qualified than Bush was, if that's possible.

Posted by: Bokonon | August 6, 2007 1:20 PM | Report abuse

'This debate was a far cry more informative and substantive than the absurd YouTube debacle, i

'informative and substantive' -- it informed me, once again, that the demogogues in the Rparty will say anything, will spew any ridiculous lies about democrats, will mischaracterize any positiion, will continue to flog the same tired old talking points, and will promote the same failed policies, that they have been blathering about for 30 years.

And the trained seals in their audience will swallow it whole.

Posted by: Jane | August 6, 2007 1:17 PM | Report abuse

I agree that Ron Paul should be in the winners group. He took the small amount of time he had and capatilized on it with his answer to the war question. It drew Significant cheers in the crowd. Also I heard Romney's comment about Obama and it sounded Extremely rehearsed. Romney does OK in this forum because you can't really take it to him, but if the field dwindles by say three or four after the straw poll then Romney is in trouble.

Also Guiliani was a winner only in the fact that he didn't screw-up. CC, says the same thing about Hillary every debate at some point they are going to have to take a stand on something and articulate an idea. The media lamb-basted Obama for not saying anything but Guiliani hasn't said one thing about what he would do, and has gotten a complete free pass for it.

Posted by: Andy R | August 6, 2007 1:14 PM | Report abuse

Performance is a more accurate word than debate in today's political practice.
Surprised there has been no comment on having the event Sunday morning. Thought "the base" might object but then it is a Republican event.

Posted by: wking | August 6, 2007 1:07 PM | Report abuse

Please, please, please give me "liberal positions" because the nutjob conservative ways have destroyed this country in the last six years.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 6, 2007 1:06 PM | Report abuse

Morning debates, like morning exercise, are tough for The Fix.
-so your saying that you dont work out in the morning, well thats apparant from your winners and losers. god man you must be out of shape!

well i did see some of the debate yesterday. it was a nice suprise and somewhat interesting to watch. here's my winners and losers

winners!
obama- for all 8 gop canidates to name him on a gop debate proves that obama's comments about nuking pakistan and killing binladin was right.

ron paul-i was impressed by his honesty and candor about several subjects. unfortunately the stephanapolis never came back to him that much.

debate moderators-who ever that guy was with stephanopolis guy he's good. a refreshing change from stupid(chris matthews) and bland(wolf blitzer).

Losers
rudy-fitting that he's out in the cornfields that he set up yet another strawman attacking dems on taxes. um who was the party t hat cut taxes in the middle of a war? and not naming all his mistakes in 30 seconds, im sure his rivals will be glad to do just that soon.

mitt romney-i cant remember if he answered a question directly. can some one help me out here? but if your in the lead in iowa i guess it helps not shooting yourself in the foot just yet.

john mccain-he looks tired and bored, he may be at the end of his campagin. what happened to the mc cain of 2000?

tommy thompson, tom tancredo,mike huckabee,duncan hunter-guys give up already, you guys are at 10% combined and not gaining any traction. plus that crack about the state department by tancredo may have just killed his canidacy.

fred thompson-actually he's a part winner and part loser(a draw maybe?) winner because he's not apart of this fracas and loser cause he's not even an announce canidate yet. come on already either s#h!t or get off the pot!

Posted by: spartan | August 6, 2007 1:04 PM | Report abuse

I agree that Huckabee did very well yesterday and conncected with people more than most of the others. However, I would replace your pick of Obama with Ron Paul as a winner. He was coherent, on topic, serious and substantive.

Although I don't agree with Paul on every issue, I think he adds quite a bit more to any debate than do the D bottom-feeders like Kucinich and Gravel, or even Dodd.

This debate was a far cry more informative and substantive than the absurd YouTube debacle, imo. McCain was uninspiring, and looked distressed to be answering questions. Rudy looked alot less scripted and smooth than Romney, which I think is a good thing. Why did the camera keep apnning over to Romney's adoring wife? gak.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | August 6, 2007 1:04 PM | Report abuse

If Journalists and debate moderators did any fact checking at all, Giuliani's remark about funding infrastructure maintenance with tax cuts would have made him one of the Losers in the debate.

But, that's the beauty of a GOP Talking Point: Journalists let you say it and never call you on it.

Posted by: frank | August 6, 2007 12:59 PM | Report abuse

"...('He's gone from Jane Fonda to Dr. Strangelove in one week'); we'll take a few points off for the fact that it was obviously pre-prepared but it worked nonetheless."

Worked for a bunch of slavering GOPers who will laugh at any joke at D expense, even one they probably didn't understand. Will it work in the general? Nope. It will won't even work for most of the GOP 'base' who'll just scratch themselves and say "Dr. Strangewhut???" Rudy may have seen one too many Woody Allen movies.

I am reminded of Bush's captive, pre-selected audiences and how he got used to speaking to/performing for them and then flopped badly in front of a group that actually represented America. Without his handlers and a script (i.e., in a real debate with a real D opponent) look for Rudy to slip badly. And, as always, the GOPpers will show up here the next day proclaiming total victory even as his poll numbers drop.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | August 6, 2007 12:57 PM | Report abuse

Given the fact that none of these dwarfish wannabes has a chance at winning election, and given the fact that a Democratic presidency will have many current administration officials in prison or fighting extradition from Israel, and given that acquiring and holding on to power has been the entire raison d'être of the Bush administration ...

... I have no trouble believing they would stage a phony terrorist attack rather than relinquish power.

But then, I also think it would be the second one.

Posted by: Chris Fox | August 6, 2007 12:47 PM | Report abuse

Chris writes
"Giuliani's best moment, however, was a lighthearted one. Asked to name the biggest mistake he had made in his life, the former Mayor joked: "To have a description of my mistakes in 30 seconds..." It was a nice change up from the super serious answers given by the other candidates and showed Giuliani knows how to think on his feet."


I can't believe that you're buying into this line of BS. The last time this question was asked to this field, the GWB answer was "trading Sammy Sosa." It blows my mind that the GOP accepts these kinds of answers from candidates for President. Yes, lighthearted moments are great. But an inability to recognize past mistakes & learn from them is a catastrophic character flaw. Does Giuliani share this trait with Bush? We don't know, because the pundits like the jokester response after too many 'super serious answers' from the other candidates. Chris, I try not to pick on the reporters for their all-to-human failings, but to fall for this bullsh!t line from Giuliani after Bush gave basically the same one eight years ago is negligent.

Posted by: bsimon | August 6, 2007 12:45 PM | Report abuse

They're all losers.

'Nearly six years into the war, a third of Afghanistan's provinces are in the grip of insurgents, a level far worse than it was from 2002 to 2005, the years immediately after the American-led invasion, when the Taliban were toppled and forced to retreat across the border into Pakistan.'

Posted by: Anonymous | August 6, 2007 12:39 PM | Report abuse

WASHINGTON, July 20 (RIA Novosti) - A former Reagan official has issued a public warning that the Bush administration is preparing to orchestrate a staged terrorist attack in the United States, transform the country into a dictatorship and launch a war with Iran within a year.

Paul Craig Roberts, a former Secretary of the Treasury, blasted Thursday a new Executive Order, released July 17, allowing the White House to seize the assets of anyone who 'interferes' with its Iraq policies and giving the government expanded police powers to exercise control in the country.

Roberts said: "When Bush exercises this authority [under the new Executive Order], there's no check to it. So it really is a form of total, absolute, one-man rule."

"The American people don't really understand the danger that they face," Roberts said, adding that the so-called neoconservatives intended to use a renewal of the 'fight against terrorism' to rally the American people around the fading Republican Party.

Old-line Republicans like Roberts have become increasingly disenchanted with the neoconservative politics of the Bush administration, which they see as a betrayal of fundamental conservative values.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 6, 2007 12:36 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company