Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Huckabee: The Christmas Ad

Former Gov. Mike Huckabee's rise in Iowa defies all traditional political logic.

He has spent almost no money in the state, his organization relies heavily on volunteers and he hasn't even spent that much time in Iowa during his recent burst.

Given that history, it shouldn't surprise anyone that as former Gov. Mitt Romney (Mass.) has begun to attack Huckabee for his allegedly soft record on illegal immigration and crime in ads in Iowa, the former Arkansas governor is up with an ad in the Hawkeye State that wishes voters a Merry Christmas.

Yes, that is "Silent Night" playing in the background. And, no, we don't believe the image of the "floating cross" behind Huckabee was intentional.

With those issues out of the way, let's look at why Huckabee is breaking with political orthodoxy by not responding when he and his record is attacked.

Like most things in politics, the decision seems to have money at its roots. Romney has a lot of it -- both the large sums he's raised and his own vast personal wealth. Huckabee doesn't have a lot despite the fact that , by all indications, his fundraising has picked up considerably of late.

Given the financial disparity, Huckabee knows that to join a fight with Romney over their respective conservative credentials is a losing endeavor for him. No matter how much Huckabee would spend attacking Romney -- presumably on some of the inconsistencies in his record as governor -- Romney could always drown him out with more money and more ads.

Knowing that, Huckabee has headed in the exact opposite direction. His ad plays nicely on voter fatigue ("Are you about warn out from all of the television commercials you've bee seeing? I don't blame you.") and puts in a subtle reminder that he is the best choice for religious voters ("What really matters is the celebration of the birth of Christ and being with our family and our friends.").

The ad -- and the decision not to respond to Romney's attacks -- are also in keeping with the positive messaging that has defined Huckabee the candidate to date. Huckabee's southern roots, humor and penchant for one-liners is what has endeared voters to him and he would be on dangerous ground if he pivoted suddenly into attack mode.

But, there's no doubt that not responding represents a real risk to Huckabee. Although voters decry negative advertising, campaign after campaign shows that it works. That is why almost every campaign devolves into negativity at some point. Romney's campaign plans to temporarily put the attack ads on hold heading into the holiday weekend, but they are almost certain to return.


Huckabee's decision not to swim in the negative waters doesn't mean the contrasts and the attacks will stop. Need evidence? Someone named "First Lady Giuliani" sent this spoof on Huckabee's ad to The Fix today:

The reality is that as election day draws closer, campaigns get nastier and nastier. A presidential race is no exception. Huckabee, by necessity, isn't playing that game. It's a calculated risk. Let's see if it works.

By Chris Cillizza  |  December 19, 2007; 11:51 AM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Wag the Blog: What Does Ron Paul's Support Mean?
Next: WaPo Iowa Poll: Women Heart Huckabee

Comments

A blatant use of religious imagery, along with a plea for votes because you are religious makes a mockery of the standard that a person's religion is not a measure of suitability.Hopefully these types of candidates will be winnowed out after South Carolina. Let us get serious?

Posted by: rkmclement | December 20, 2007 1:19 PM | Report abuse

Chris, at 12:30 PM on MSNBC you mentioned that Huckabee is speaking to people with "faith at the center of their lives."

Certainly you meant to say "Huckabee is speaking to Christians with faith at the center of their lives."

Chris, America is now a multi cultural country. Jews, Muslims, Unitarians, etc all have "faith at the center of their lives." Clearly Huckabee was not speaking to them.

With sadlessness in my heart for your thoughtless comment.

Krh1

Posted by: krh1 | December 20, 2007 12:43 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: tres43410 | December 20, 2007 12:16 PM | Report abuse

President Bush was squinting eagerly behind the wheel, trying to line up the deer over his steering wheel as he gunned the engine, playing 'Dixie' on his car horn "

LOL!! Yeah that pretty much sums it up, boko. But I would argue that Rummy was in the front seat pressing down with all his might onto the president's foot on that gas pedal.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | December 20, 2007 10:46 AM
"

:)

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 20, 2007 10:54 AM | Report abuse

"President Bush was squinting eagerly behind the wheel, trying to line up the deer over his steering wheel as he gunned the engine, playing 'Dixie' on his car horn "

LOL!! Yeah that pretty much sums it up, boko. But I would argue that Rummy was in the front seat pressing down with all his might onto the president's foot on that gas pedal.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | December 20, 2007 10:46 AM | Report abuse

dave writes
"Leaving Iraq is akin to taking our foot off the brake."

Interesting metaphor. I'm not sure that I entirely agree with the premise, but generally concede that we're better off sticking around for a while longer than just pulling up stakes & headin' fer home. Not that it'll ever happen, but I'm still for the Biden plan coupled with parts of the ISG's recommendations. Perhaps such steps won't be possible until Jan 2009.

Posted by: bsimon | December 20, 2007 10:06 AM | Report abuse

Chris,

Saying the cross unintentional is another shining example of why you've made it so far in the political punditry world at such a young age (you're 31 now, right?). Those that have vetted you along the way love that you have a savant-like way of knowing when to be silent on anything that could be controversial. Never taking a stand and knowing when to obey at those most critical moments has been your greatest strength. I know for a fact that this great ability quiet yourself has been welcomed with open arms in the inners circles you have been let into. There were many like you in the media throughout this decade who have stood by obediently and dared not get in the way of the interest of their corporate bosses (ie. in the run up to the Iraq War), and I look forward to watching you serve in this role for many years to come.

Sincerely,

J.P.

Posted by: happyj13 | December 20, 2007 9:33 AM | Report abuse

How pathetic for Drudge & other campaigns to have to stretch their hatred and suggest that Huckabee is using subliminal-cult like powers to push a cross & christianity on people!

Posted by: cel1ery | December 20, 2007 7:40 AM | Report abuse

So Dave, by that logic, would you agree that in 2003, President Bush was squinting eagerly behind the wheel, trying to line up the deer over his steering wheel as he gunned the engine, playing 'Dixie' on his car horn while "Cooter" Rove giggled nervously in the back seat?

"Awwww, them deer!"

Posted by: bokonon13 | December 19, 2007 10:56 PM | Report abuse

"JKrishnamurti - "Alright dave. If the surge is a sucess, why ae we in iraq? Why are we not coming home?"

I'll try it explaining it this way. If you are driving and you see a deer in the headlights, you step on the brakes. Hopefully, the brakes are working and slowing you down. If your goal is to not hit the deer, you A) keep stepping on the brake and certainly don't take your foot off of it and B) don't know about success or failure of that goal until your car comes to a stop (or hits the deer).

I think you (and many other Dems) are missing the point. We are still braking and slowing down trying to not hit the deer. We don't know how successful, if at all, the surge will be. Right now there are signs that the surge (braking) is producing some results (as I said before). Leaving Iraq is akin to taking our foot off the brake.

Posted by: dave | December 19, 2007 10:07 PM | Report abuse

Tell that to mr "I don't recall".

Tell that to Pat tillman's family.

Tell that to the iraq people. Is life better or worse for them now? How many hundreds of thousands are saying nothing? Are some of those people innocent humans or all they all terrorists because of their skin tone?

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 19, 2007 7:11 PM | Report abuse

Holy cow Zouk, you've officially gone off the deep end. The GOP has spent too much, but nowhere near what Democrats would have spent? Man, you just keep stretching and stretching for a cogent argument. Now you're comparing a very real GOP fiscal catastrophe to a hypothetical Democratic situation that doesn't even exist. Not even to mention we had a continually larger surplus every year from 1996-2000, suggesting another Democrat in the White House would have only continued that budget surplus by even greater amounts.

And I'm not ignoring anything that "anyone" says. If you haven't noticed, you're the only one here who attempts to debate with me, and you're failing miserably.

And I would certainly hope that the budget would be balanced with the Clinton military because Bush has either cut back or ruined every other non-military program since 2001 while pouring trillions of dollars into the Pentagon's unrestrained coffers. I sure would like to own stock in Lockheed-Martin right now, by the way.

And if your last muddle of confused babble was an attempt to discredit something I said about 9/11, please elaborate because what you said was basically "I don't have an argument for that so I'm done talking." Which might, actually, be a good thing.

Posted by: thecrisis | December 19, 2007 7:09 PM | Report abuse

zouk

"Fourth Amendment: guards against searches, arrests, and seizures of property without a specific warrant or a "probable cause" to believe a crime has been committed. Some rights to privacy have been inferred from this amendment and others by the Supreme Court. "

"Eighth Amendment: forbids excessive bail or fines, and cruel and unusual punishment.
"

"Ninth Amendment: declares that the listing of individual rights in the Constitution and Bill of Rights is not meant to be comprehensive; and that the other rights not specifically mentioned are retained elsewhere by the people. "


"Bearing in mind its resolution 1314(XIII) of 12 December 1958, by which it established the Commission on Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Resources and instructed it to conduct a full survey of the status of permanent sovereignty over natural wealth and resources as a basic constituent of the right to self-determination, with recommendations, where necessary, for its strengthening, and decided further that, in the conduct of the full survey of the status of the permanent sovereignty of peoples and nations over their natural wealth and resources, due regard should be paid to the rights and duties of States under international law and to the importance of encouraging international co-operation in the economic development of developing countries, "

http://www.taiwandocuments.org/un1803-XVII.htm


"226k - 32 sec @ 56k
This site uses Flash CIA Holds Terror Suspects in Secret Prisons - washingtonpost.com

CIA Holds Terror Suspects in Secret Prisons ... of officials in the United States and, usually, only to the president and a ..."

I can do this all day. But your not as dumb as you appear zouk. you just reject the laws. You don't deny these laws don't exist. You just think the gop doesn't have to follow.

"so according to rufas, one can compare actual crimes such as perjury, obstruction of justice, inappropriate sexual advances in the workplace, etc.

to

perceived policy differences with absolutely no criminal content.
"

Tell that to scooter libby. Clinton should have never got to that point. It was all a show. Waste of millions, to take the heat off somolia and other events.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 19, 2007 7:03 PM | Report abuse

zouk once again lies or displays ignorance. The "peace dividend" was the creation of none other than President George HW Bush and his secretary of defense, Dick Cheney.

Posted by: Spectator2 | December 19, 2007 6:57 PM | Report abuse

crisis, you seem to have an ability to ignore anything anyone says and just continue on with your Lib talking points. that is why I suggested you interact with loud and dumb.

the idea that the military budget was sacrificed to balance the budget during the clinton years is a fact. it was called the peace dividend at the time. this was the same time clinton was fiddling with interns and al queda was planning attacks.

the repub congress did spend too much but it was still nothing compared to what the Libs would have spent. as I said, with the clinton military, the current budget would be balanced.

but despite all the liberal wishful thinking and the dancing and negotiating with terrorists and facsists during the 90s, this is still a dangerous world and we are not ready to end the US Army. That conclusion does not depend on any ongoing campaign in Iran or Iraq.

the fact that neither Iran or Iraq did not actually attack us on 9/11 betrays your partisan ignorance. this argument is so tired and discredited I simply don't have the energy to ridicule you further on this.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 19, 2007 6:52 PM | Report abuse

Negative Ads may have worked in prior campaigns. But we have not seen many campaigns where negative ads have been made the issue. It's true most dislike them, though they have some impact. So Huckabee's unorthodox response, wishing Merry Christmas instead of responding with his own negatives, may well be the key to defeating the negatives.

Posted by: AlaninMissoula | December 19, 2007 6:42 PM | Report abuse

Ah Zouk, nice, you pull out the "blame Clinton" tactics. Repubs cry about Democrats blaming them for screwing things up last year and yet at the same time the Republicans are still blaming Clinton for their complete and utter failure to reign in out-of-control spending when their party ruled D.C. between 2000 and 2006.

Your entire argument is based on the idea of imminent attack - "our kids can pay or die" - and without that idea, your entire platform collapses. Considering neither Iran or Iraq had anything to do with 9/11, your argument that we must continue in Iraq and Iran to maintain security at home is in shambles, at best.

Meanwhile, the country that DID attack us is thriving in heroin production and the Taliban is at pre 9/11 strength, while our occupation of the region has now destabilized Turkey, Pakistan and Iran. I don't know about you but I am much less confident in the stability of the Middle East today than I was in 2002. We can thank Bush's expert military tactics for that blunder.

Posted by: thecrisis | December 19, 2007 6:40 PM | Report abuse

so according to rufas, one can compare actual crimes such as perjury, obstruction of justice, inappropriate sexual advances in the workplace, etc.

to

perceived policy differences with absolutely no criminal content.

all your yapping about crime doesn't make it so. Point me to one crime complete with evidence and I'll retract. Bush had a single advisor on a trumped up charge get convicted. clinton has his whole staff either in jail, dead or in witness protection.

Just like the Sopranos. how appropos.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 19, 2007 6:22 PM | Report abuse

You show your face zouk. go ahead. dig in a man's personal life. I'll take personal indistrections that effect nobody other than bill and his soup de jour, over the criminality of your president. Which affects all of us. That is the big differance between the parties.

The dem's indescresions effect local or individuals. The gop loves to trample the constitution. they are REAL criminals. The lewinski hearings were a scam to waste money and take you attention off somalia and other foreign events.

Again, teh differance is bush should be in jail. Clinton should be every adolencant boy's idol. In terms of socail behavior, not politics. Although line up the presidnets in terms of issus and success, failures. If you want a laugh.

Bush needs to go to jail. As does his criminal cabneit. think about the future. Clinton for a bj. that on the otherhand is political theature and fascism.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 19, 2007 6:15 PM | Report abuse

crisis - I must assume your are too much of a simpleton to understand debt to GDP ratio so I won't bother.

then there was that clinton recession bush inherited, the 9/11 attacks, you remember those don't you. I don't think your candidates do. Oh and the hurricanes, finance scandals, war, rebuilding the military, etc. Most of this stuff is a relic of the clinton era neglect.

despite all this - a 7 year expansion, record unemployment, low inflation.

In fact, if we cut the military back to the clinton levels, the budget would be balanced overnight. but there is that pesky enemy thing you Libs prefer to ignore. so our kids can pay or die? We all know which you Libs prefer. there is so much other spending to do.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 19, 2007 6:11 PM | Report abuse

dave - why would those vultures ever admit they were wrong. hillary clinton is incapable of admitting error. Harry Reid has the temerity of a jellyfish.

the funny thing is that they fault Bush for this personality feature. but bush fired Rumsfeld (after the election when it was least beneficial to him) and Bush changed the war strategy.

don't ever expect a clinton to admit a wrong. bill still can't admit he failed on terror, hillary that she flubbed health care and flunked the DC bar. that she changed her mind weekly on the war.

Remember the intern was all a vast right wing conspiracy - no truth to it. except for that pesky blue dress, they would still be denying it.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 19, 2007 6:04 PM | Report abuse

"I simply stated that you Libs like to rename things."

What part of "safe, legal, and rare" don't you get, zouk? Those are all pretty simple words, even for a simpleton like you.

Posted by: Spectator2 | December 19, 2007 6:03 PM | Report abuse

Alright dave. If the surge is a sucess, why ae we in iraq? Why are we not coming home?

You set it will not be set by policitians. Is george bush still a politicain or king.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 19, 2007 5:59 PM | Report abuse

Zouk, if we're "growing out of our debt" then why did the Republican Congress have to raise the federal debt ceiling every year since the tax cuts, just to allow them to stay in Washington D.C.?

And why has Bush failed to balance the budget with his GOP Congress behind him between 2001 and 2006? It seems every year we go deeper into debt and Bush's only solution is to balance the budget by 2012, which is the last year of the next president's first term, meaning the new president would have to abide by Bush's fiscal policies for their entire term, which needless to say is virtually impossible.

Again, you have no idea what you are talking about. If you injected even an ounce of realism and common sense into your arguments, well, you'd probably implode. Maybe that's not a bad idea?

Posted by: thecrisis | December 19, 2007 5:58 PM | Report abuse

bsimon,
Sec Rice prognostications have nothing to do with the agreement reached in Congress. But I would say that was not one of her more thoughtful statements.

I would not go as far as they were 'clear and measurable' but there are goals that have not been met or met completely. I personally think that it was poorly formed - it makes little sense to think there will be any goals met while violence is raging. But then it needed to be that way politically. However, I think it's safe to say that Dems never thought for a moment that it would even reduce violence, thus the "failed plan" and derision from the very begining.

When the surge ends is the key time point (not some arbitrary date selected based on US politics). If at that time, there has not been sufficient progress politically, on infrastructure and training of Iraqi police, then there will be problems. The current relative calm at least gives them a chance.

Finally, few people could have imagined the current situation a year ago, tenuous as it is. Democrats, well versed in where the plan has fallen short, need to recognize and acknowledge that there has been substantial progress and improvement in Iraq. At least I have heard less of the "failed surge" rhetoric as of late.

Posted by: dave | December 19, 2007 5:55 PM | Report abuse

"VERY SPECIFIC and rate circumstances"

we seem to be in one of those magic places. But my main argument was that you must grow your way out of debt because of the log-jam on any cuts in the Liberal congress. In the meantime, strangle the beast in its crib.

I am tired of paying the AMT. that one policy is why I quit buying real estate and I bet I'm not the only one.

I never stated how I personally felt about abortion above. I simply stated that you Libs like to rename things.

I do have a sound and firm anchor. I beleive it would be the utmost disaster for our country if the clintons get elected. Interesting how so few Dems on this site ever rise to defend those mobsters. but then you will all vote for them in the election. sounds like a remake of a bad John Kerry movie.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 19, 2007 5:53 PM | Report abuse

If Willard Mittens Romney gets the nomination the Dems can now run the usual ads showing him morphing into Bush, or vice versa.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071219/ap_po/romney_bush

Posted by: Spectator2 | December 19, 2007 5:48 PM | Report abuse

KOZ - Here's a fun little editorial that notes how Bush's own economic advisers admit that tax cuts do not pay for themselves, except in VERY SPECIFIC and rate circumstances, let alone increase tax revenue:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/30/AR2007113002190.html

I assume you will opt not to respond. Also, good abortion rant. Funny how you usually refer to yourself as pro-choice, except when the opposite view lets you make smug statements. Truly sad sir -- you seem to be without any anchor at all.

Posted by: _Colin | December 19, 2007 5:32 PM | Report abuse

dave-good point,makes you wonder how much did huckboom spend making that spot?

Posted by: jaymills1124 | December 19, 2007 5:29 PM | Report abuse

I think zouk is really for edwards, voter. I think he is just trying to make th gop look like morons. It's the only assesment that adds up. He can't possibly believe what he is saying is truth. so what does that make him? A propogandists or imcompetance. Like the ag gonzales. Is he a idiot or a criminal.

Has to be one fo the two. Either these people are traitors or sheep. I thought Fox and others had them in an imaginary world. Not so sure anymore. But being fascists is much more scary for my children than them being morons. And I don't think they're dumb.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 19, 2007 5:28 PM | Report abuse

dave, the Iraqis are still doing better than the Pelosi/Reid congress. they waited all year, didn't pass a budget, then on the last day, simply copied last year's budget and tried that.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 19, 2007 5:27 PM | Report abuse

CC - "No matter how much Huckabee would spend attacking Romney -- presumably on some of the inconsistencies in his record as governor -- Romney could always drown him out with more money and more ads."

I would argue that the number of ads (and to a point the amount of money spent for them) don't matter. The fact of the matter is that nobody outside of Iowa can really tell you about any of Romney's ads. Huck has put out two that have the buzz of the nation. In this instance, quality trumps quantity. If he can continue coming up with unique and extraordinarily effective ads like he has, he may not need to go negative.

Posted by: dave | December 19, 2007 5:25 PM | Report abuse

"Wait, are you now saying that cutting taxes can reduce revenue? That directly conflicts with Rudy's economic plan, which you've touted before. Something's fishy here."

a few dozen posts ago, zouk also made nasty comments about the pro-choice position, which Rudy also backs, at least to a far greater extent than any other Repube candidate. Something else that's fishy.

Posted by: Spectator2 | December 19, 2007 5:24 PM | Report abuse

dave writes
"A month after the surge reached full strength, Dems were quick to point out that it had failed and that the violence had not let up."

While I agree the Dems were a bit quick to criticize, in all fairness Sec Rice did say we'd see progress "In weeks, not months." Perhaps she promised more than could be delivered.

When the Petraeus hearings came along, he probably took a bit more heat than he deserved, but again, the metrics defined at the outset - by the Bush administration - had not been met. There were clear, measurable tasks set for the Iraqi gov't to accomplish, which they had not done then & still have failed to achieve.

While the military has reduced the violence, which is a good thing, it is unclear whether they will be able to maintain the relative calm as the surge reaches its natural conclusion & troops are rotated home according to schedule.

Posted by: bsimon | December 19, 2007 5:20 PM | Report abuse

"Let's review. Before the plans for the surge were even briefed, Dems were quick to denounce it calling it failed before it ever got started."

And they were right. It has failed. It it is a sucess bring the troops home.

We are to be there only long enough for political consolidation. Not happening. Not going to happen. Does the guilt of the dead soldiers ever weigh on you people? how many more are you willing to sacrafice for politics, AND YOUR PRESIDENTS legacy?

I say not one dead soldier is worth this criminals pride. NONE. But maybe I am to tough. When you've been in the soldiers shoes, it looks a little differant. Like that could be me, or my brother or son. You know , and america child.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 19, 2007 5:19 PM | Report abuse

suprise suprise, zouk made a comment with out using the word lib. congrats, heres a cookie. it must be so great being right all the time*snicker* you on your high horse pulling all those informative and on point news articles and with all that free time on your hands. but really, did you even comment on the topic?

*crickets*

judge- i dunno considering the fact that the polls for iowa this late in the game is now moot. now it really comes down to the get out the vote operations and who's operation is better.

Posted by: jaymills1124 | December 19, 2007 5:19 PM | Report abuse

there is something else you Libs don't understand about us conservatives. We don't live and die by the daily poll like a clinton. bush is doing the right thing regardless of what the biased press writes and what the game-show watchers think. It is called integrity. you should try it sometime."

Waht you mean to say, is your not accountable to the people. Like a politcal party monarchy. But only republcains are your subjects. "In america no man can be under another unless they allow it." I have been hearing that arguement lately from your people. Why do you submit to men if you are chrsitians? Why do you submit to men if you yourself are free. The answer to both is, YOU ARE NEITHER.

And if you are loyal party loyalists to a king, what country are you a memeber of? It's not america. The land of Oz? Wonderland? Explain your twisted gop world perspective.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 19, 2007 04:42 PM


Do you hear me on this zouk? do you agree that the gop is red coat party loyalists choosing party over country. And if so, is that treason? Do you still believe treason is not illegal and a normal process of government?

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 19, 2007 5:15 PM | Report abuse

Batman writes
"I suggest you consult the Laffer curve. I don't have the patience to school you on simple economics."

Wait, are you now saying that cutting taxes can reduce revenue? That directly conflicts with Rudy's economic plan, which you've touted before. Something's fishy here.

Posted by: bsimon | December 19, 2007 5:14 PM | Report abuse

claudialong - "Despite a reduction in violence in Iraq over the past three months, the Iraqi government has made no headway in improving the delivery of electricity, health care and other essential services..."

Let's review. Before the plans for the surge were even briefed, Dems were quick to denounce it calling it failed before it ever got started. Republicans suggested that the change in strategy be given a chance. A month after the surge reached full strength, Dems were quick to point out that it had failed and that the violence had not let up. Republicans suggested that we wait the agreed upon timeframe to see if there were any signs it was working. When that time came around, Dems said very little progress and "General Betrayus". Republicans suggested that there were signs that the surge was producing some results and violence was decreasing which could now allow for the other areas (political, infrastructure, etc) to progress. Now that reduction in violence is continuing, Dems are apparently complaining that Rome should be built in a day. What is apparent to many, that construction and infrastucture can't be built while violence was high and that improving conditions does not mean that business/working conditions automatically translate into Japan-like efficiency overnight, seems to escape many Dems. Maybe Dems should show some patience for a change.

Posted by: dave | December 19, 2007 5:12 PM | Report abuse

"After the Bush tax cuts, the economy has been on a record expansion - growing out of our debt."

HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Fantasy island. Do you ever watch real news? Seriously.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 19, 2007 5:11 PM | Report abuse

simple simon, I suggest you consult the Laffer curve. I don't have the patience to school you on simple economics.

jaymills, I think you should engage loud and dumb. the two of you seem to have the same drive-by, two-line style of insults and inanities. I admit I may be too much for you. I know math and logic is hard, but it holds the key to understanding if you are able to make the effort.

Of course, you may not be able. that is why I highly reccommened loud and dumb as your peer. you can also trade non-sequiters with rufas. he is a good sport, although cosmic.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 19, 2007 5:09 PM | Report abuse

"After the Bush tax cuts, the economy has been on a record expansion - growing out of our debt."

Funny how the value of US equities hasn't grown at all since Bush took office. We're talking almost seven years now. Funny sad, not funny ha-ha, of course.

Posted by: Spectator2 | December 19, 2007 5:07 PM | Report abuse

Interesting article on polling error at http://www.pollster.com/blogs/frankovic_on_iowas_challenge_f.php

Maybe Obama's lead in IA is a myth?

Posted by: judgeccrater | December 19, 2007 5:05 PM | Report abuse

zouk-sorry, what was your point again? you said the word lib and just scrolled right past you. are you like rudy and the only words you can say is a noun a verb and 9/11?

or in your case a noun, a verb and lib?

Posted by: jaymills1124 | December 19, 2007 5:02 PM | Report abuse

"Leave it to simple simon to get such a basic notion wrong."

Mr Dumas, you clearly misread what I wrote. I will repeat it for you here:

"Crisis, you clearly don't understand how tax cuts increase revenue. The GOP is very clear on this obvious causal relationship between gov't revenue & tax cuts."

Which is exactly what you claim, isn't it? And given that tax cuts boost revenue, wouldn't cutting taxes more boost revenue higher? Surely you're not saying this process can't be repeated forever?

Posted by: bsimon | December 19, 2007 5:02 PM | Report abuse

Factually - tax revenues did increase after the Bush tax cuts.

Leave it to simple simon to get such a basic notion wrong.

Policy - the Libs will never allow reduced spending except on the military (can lead to problems later as we have discovered) so in practice the only way to get rid of debt is to grow out of it. After the Bush tax cuts, the economy has been on a record expansion - growing out of our debt.

Lib economics must rely on reducing military spending and exposing us to foreign danger, just like clinton did. all other spending rises astronomically and according to the loudness of your special interest and donations to the clinton library, of course.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 19, 2007 4:58 PM | Report abuse

"Cafferty: It looks like family values aren't the campaign issue they used to be. "USA Today" reports that in this election cycle, so-called "family values" are lower on the agenda. Of course, Republicans have made family values a staple of their political campaigns for three decades now.

Randall writes: "People have finally figured out that family values was just a red herring, a Republican bumper sticker slogan which was used to keep people from paying attention to the real issues, i.e. the Iraq war, the skyrocketing deficit, the recession we're in, a lack of single-pay health insurance for everyone, and a government that has never worked for the people, but only for the military industrial complex and for big business."

"

Jack cafferty. Coming through again. I stopping watching wolf and cnn and their website due to several horrible stroies and lies. Like the "Torture produces good intel" they had on the front page last week. While leaving out the part that the cia guy who said this SAID WATER BOARDING WAS TORTURE. Left that part out, on the front page. Unconscinable.

Fox-lite. I thought it fitting that they had to pull a red alert iran nuke special because of the intel that they stopping their nuke program almost half a decade ago. That was nice. To bad Cafferty wasn't running th news over there.

The repbulcains are (the CLINTON news network). Just like they are puppeting clinton.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 19, 2007 4:57 PM | Report abuse

"how much of the clinton library did you have to buy to get all that stuff?"

The Clintons owe at least 165 million in favors for their library collections alone. It's the gift that keeps on giving.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | December 19, 2007 4:54 PM | Report abuse

ahhahahahahah awesome.

Posted by: thecrisis | December 19, 2007 4:54 PM | Report abuse

thecrisis: There's no such thing as GOP economic policy. Just fantasy. That's why a highly respected conservative economist like Bruce Bartlett is making it his life's work to see that idiocy like the FairTax (top supporter: Mike Huckabee) is never enacted.

Posted by: Spectator2 | December 19, 2007 4:54 PM | Report abuse

What a crock about the "floating cross" - complete with a nice bowl of ornaments - behind Huckabee. Just another ploy by the Romney folks to trash him. And I'm no Huck fan...

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

Posted by: parkerfl | December 19, 2007 4:53 PM | Report abuse

thecrisis writes
"THE MONEY LOST BY THE TAX CUT IS CURRENTLY BEING SPENT ELSEWHERE IN GOVERNMENT."

Crisis, you clearly don't understand how tax cuts increase revenue. The GOP is very clear on this obvious causal relationship between gov't revenue & tax cuts. In fact, its an open secret that the only reason they haven't cut taxes to zero is because the economy would overheat at such an astronomical rate we'd have a core meltdown a la the China Syndrome.

Posted by: bsimon | December 19, 2007 4:46 PM | Report abuse

"head in the sand -- a good approach to bad news.

Posted by: LoudounVoter | December 19, 2007 04:32 PM
"

It's not news unless it comes from fox rush savage or malkin. otherwise it is partisan attacks. The "liberal" scientists/media/judges/schools//actors or whatever boogyman they want to point to. Anyone that is not exactly like them will do. Slave clones robots. The borg, with Rush and murdoch as the few brains amoung them.

Let's free these old people. Let's break their chains and free them. Who's with me. :) .

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 19, 2007 4:45 PM | Report abuse

Proud - how much of the clinton library did you have to buy to get all that stuff?

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 19, 2007 4:44 PM | Report abuse

lv-true take zouk for example.

*I personally support Rudy and note that he still leads in the national polls which defies almost everything all you moonbats said all year. there will be ups and downs but hillary and rudy are still up and short term bumps are nothing to get excited about.*

you may not know this, but THIS IS NOT A CORINATION, THIS IS A PRIMARY! National polls are irrelvant at this point! pay attention to the state polls, and they tell a vastly different story.

but your right, the head in the sand approach does work for zouk!

Posted by: jaymills1124 | December 19, 2007 4:43 PM | Report abuse

"there is something else you Libs don't understand about us conservatives. We don't live and die by the daily poll like a clinton. bush is doing the right thing regardless of what the biased press writes and what the game-show watchers think. It is called integrity. you should try it sometime."

Waht you mean to say, is your not accountable to the people. Like a politcal party monarchy. But only republcains are your subjects. "In america no man cannot be under another unless they allow it." I have been hearing that arguement lately from your people. Why do you submit to men if you are chrsitians? Why do you submit to men if you yourself are free. The answer to both is, YOU ARE NEITHER.

And if you are loyal party loyalists to a king, what country are you a memeber of? It's not america. The land of Oz? Wonderland? Explain your twisted gop world perspective.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 19, 2007 4:42 PM | Report abuse

ZOUK, THE MONEY LOST BY THE TAX CUT IS CURRENTLY BEING SPENT ELSEWHERE IN GOVERNMENT.

I don't know how to make it any clearer than that. If you go and buy a car that costs you $1,000/month in payments, and then you lose part of your income and you can't make the payments, you need to either cut your payment down or increase your income elsewhere to be able to handle the loss in income. How can you not understand this? Either you don't understand English or you're in $10,000 in personal credit card debt...or possibly both, with your logic.

On the other hand, McCain has gone around the U.S. making speeches about how cutting taxes bolsters the economy and therefore increases tax revenue in the long run, a ridiculous and absurd economic proposition that has been disproved time and time again by economists. Yet, GOP politicians continue to think that by reducing revenue, we are increasing revenue. That really is the magical GOP pipe dream, isn't it? Cut all taxes and you'll bring in more tax revenue than ever!

If there's anything more absurd than GOP economic policy, I'd certainly like to see it, because where I come from, government programs require money and taxes are the only way to get that money. Coming to grips with the fact that as Americans, having to pay taxes is a necessary evil. No magic GOP double-talk can get around that.

Posted by: thecrisis | December 19, 2007 4:39 PM | Report abuse

The 12 Days of Christmas, politically (in)correct version:
-----------------------------------------

On the first day of Christmas the Clintons gave to me

A pardon from Bill & Hillary

On the second day of Christmas the Clintons gave to me

2 nights in the Lincoln bedroom
and a pardon from Bill & Hillary

On the third day of Christmas the Clintons gave to me

3 deconstructionist poets
2 nights in the Lincoln bedroom
and a pardon from Bill & Hillary

On the fourth day of Christmas the Clintons gave to me

4 hours of recorded whale songs
3 deconstructionist poets
2 nights in the Lincoln bedroom
and a pardon from Bill & Hillary

On the fifth day of Christmas the Clinton gave to me

5 blue dresses
4 hours of recorded whale songs
3 deconstructionist poets
2 nights in the Lincoln bedroom
and a pardon from Bill & Hillary

On the sixth day of Christmas the Clintons gave to me

6 cruise missiles
5 blue dresses
4 hours of recorded whale songs
3 deconstructionist poets
2 nights in the Lincoln bedroom
and a pardon from Bill & Hillary

On the seventh day of Christmas the Clintons gave to me

7 lawyers calling
6 cruise missiles
5 blue dresses
4 hours of recorded whale songs
3 deconstructionist poets
2 nights in the Lincoln bedroom
and a pardon from Bill & Hillary

On the eighth day of Christmas the Clintons gave to me

8 autographed ci-gars
7 lawyers calling
6 cruise missiles
5 blue dresses
4 hours of recorded whale songs
3 deconstructionist poets
2 nights in the Lincoln bedroom
and a pardon from Bill & Hillary

On the 9th day of Christmas the Clintons gave to me

9 economically disadvantaged female persons stealing milk-products from enslaved Bovine-Americans
8 autographed ci-gars
7 lawyers calling
6 cruise missiles
5 blue dresses
4 hours of recorded whale songs
3 deconstructionist poets
2 nights in the Lincoln bedroom
and a pardon from Bill & Hillary

On the tenth day of Christmas the Clinons gave to me

10 years probation
9 economically disadvantaged female persons stealing milk-products from enslaved Bovine-Americans
8 autographed ci-gars
7 lawyers calling
6 cruise missiles
5 blue dresses
4 hours of recorded whale songs
3 deconstructionist poets
2 nights in the Lincoln bedroom
and a pardon from Bill & Hillary

On the 11th day of Christmas the Clintons gave to me

11 table dancers
10 years probation
9 economically disadvantaged female persons stealing milk-products from enslaved Bovine-Americans
8 autographed ci-gars
7 lawyers calling
6 cruise missiles
5 blue dresses
4 hours of recorded whale songs
3 deconstructionist poets
2 nights in the Lincoln bedroom
and a pardon from Bill & Hillary

On the 12th day of Christmas the Clintons gave to me

12 males reclaiming their inner warrior through ritual drumming
11 table dancers
10 years probation
9 economically disadvantaged female persons stealing milk-products from enslaved Bovine-Americans
8 autographed ci-gars
7 lawyers calling
6 cruise missiles
5 blue dresses
4 hours of recorded whale songs
3 deconstructionist poets
2 nights in the Lincoln bedroom
and a pardon from Bill & Hillary


thank you. thank you very much.


Posted by: proudtobeGOP | December 19, 2007 4:38 PM | Report abuse

"lv-what edwards rumor?

Posted by: jaymills1124 | December 19, 2007 04:03 PM
"

Yeah check the breaking national enquier news. Right next to bat boy, and nostradomous lives. Hey it's better than going after haircuts. the gop is a party of clowns. they are done

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 19, 2007 4:38 PM | Report abuse

"what was the point you were trying to make again?

Posted by: jaymills1124 | December 19, 2007 04:21 PM

I keep forgetting that you Libs have such a short attention span and such a limited intellect. I will try to keep my responses to hand raising only or single line musings. If I feel I must go over two lines - ( A Lib no-no), I will sprinkle the post with insults and nastiness to maintain your attention.

will that work for you? that way you can avoid any substance altogether, just like your candidates.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 19, 2007 4:37 PM | Report abuse

lol jaymills i don't put any stock in it, but you'd think an edwards diehard and prolific poster like brooks would have something to say about it.

Posted by: Spectator2 | December 19, 2007 4:36 PM | Report abuse

"Senate OKs $70 Billion for Iraq, Afghanistan The Senate voted Tuesday to provide $70 billion for U.S. military efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, handing a victory to President Bush and his GOP allies on Capitol Hill

We surrender...again. -the Libs. We are out to prove we can be just as weak at home as we have tried to be overseas. We have jello-spined leaders who lead the way to cowardice and supine bewilderment. thanks harry and Nancy for showing us the true Lib colors. as usual you will claim it's not your fault. that is some leadership.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 19, 2007 03:59 PM
"

aGREE TO kING gEORGE'S DEMANDS OR HE WILL HUFF AND PUFF AND SHUT OUR GOVENRMNET DOWN FOR A YEAR. Stomping his hands and feet on the ground until he gets everything exactly how he demands it. Or else no government. A la newt after the coup of 94'. Over a BJ.

Does the gop really have that little faith in the american people. do you rally think the people ar ewith you. They were for impeaching clinton over a bj. Do you really think the republcains will get another person in the white house in the next 30 years? After the incompetance and criminality of the last 25 years of gop (and moderate republcain clinton) rule? Well, they are not.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 19, 2007 4:36 PM | Report abuse

lv-i found the link but there was no story. um i wouldnt put much stock into it since it came from the enquirer.

Posted by: jaymills1124 | December 19, 2007 4:35 PM | Report abuse

head in the sand -- a good approach to bad news.

Posted by: Spectator2 | December 19, 2007 4:32 PM | Report abuse

there is something else you Libs don't understand about us conservatives. We don't live and die by the daily poll like a clinton. bush is doing the right thing regardless of what the biased press writes and what the game-show watchers think. It is called integrity. you should try it sometime.

similarly, we don't react to hourly polls about candidates. We are taking our time and studying our options. Each one has certain plusses and minusses. since you seem to be determined to nominate hillary, it is very important that we pick the best one as he will be the next president.

I personally support Rudy and note that he still leads in the national polls which defies almost everything all you moonbats said all year. there will be ups and downs but hillary and rudy are still up and short term bumps are nothing to get excited about. unless you are a clintonista and live by the hourly polls. you may have to send out your gestapo to waterboard someones' kindergarten teacher if you sink down another point. Or you could dig up some bimbo eruptions to equalize the playing field. just don't release any documents or otherwise answer any prying questions before election day.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 19, 2007 4:24 PM | Report abuse

I think Huckabee's ad was brilliant and moving, and I'm neither a Christian or a Republican.

Posted by: fulch | December 19, 2007 4:22 PM | Report abuse

zouk-im sorry, i just stopped reading when you typed the words libs and clinton. what was the point you were trying to make again?

Posted by: jaymills1124 | December 19, 2007 4:21 PM | Report abuse

jaymills: scroll up on this board or check the ron paul board. when you read about you'd certainly expect an edwards diehard like brooks to respond. but no.

same for zouk and the latest poll results showing rudy in free-fall.

Posted by: Spectator2 | December 19, 2007 4:20 PM | Report abuse

I know you Libs are slow but I was actually just trying to refute your use of the term "expenses" to describe tax cuts. I think it is important to agree on basic definitions of words when confronting clintinistas. you never know when " is" means something totally different. for example pro-choice means you support killing babies, although it would be hard to tell by how Libs refer to the practice.

In this case I am not disputing that the government should spend less money. I am disputing that the government is entitled to my money with no explanation and if they are somehow deprived of it, it is considered an "expense" on their part.

It is simple philosophy. Libs think all rights come down from big government and if you behave, the nice Feds will write you a check and reward you with some of its money.

Repubs think that rights and responsibilites are granted TO the government by the people and that only the most essential needs are to be handed to them. they are not to be trusted, especially with my money. I may give them a little for the military, but that's it.

I understand you prefer to hand your entire paycheck over to hillary and then go begging for some of it back. I prefer she come begging to me.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 19, 2007 4:15 PM | Report abuse

bsimon-what's happening is this, the more people look at rudy, well the less they like him. i dont think the firewall of florida/super tuesday is going to hold up much longer. take a look at hillary's oh so commanding leading in new hamsh-wait you mean she's not leading in NH? oh darn.

oh yeah i found this poll on south carolina,

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/south_carolina/election_2008_south_carolina_democratic_primary

its a dead heat so anything can change between now and the primary.

Posted by: jaymills1124 | December 19, 2007 4:14 PM | Report abuse

Chris:

I think it is political genius to not roll over and go negative. The media loves a good fight and in my political experience it is much better not to respond to your opponents negativity. Iowa especially is not a go negative state. Most newbies to the political arena go negative there and walk away realizing they beat up themselves. Huckabee's momentum has caused his funds last month to be all of the former 9 months combined. Huckabee has lost a bit here in South Carolina as Romney and another organization have put large sums of money into negative advertising. Rasmussen's new poll here show a dead heat with both Romney and Huckabee at 23%. Romney is up 5 points while Huckabee is down 2 from the last poll in early December. Instead of going negative Huckabee runs a, "Merry Christmas" add. The media will be off the subject and start talking about his new ad.

Albert Milliron
Politisite.com

Posted by: politisite | December 19, 2007 4:11 PM | Report abuse

Lv writes
"still waiting for a single comment from zouk on the latest poll results."

Which poll, the one showing Rudy losing ground to Huckabee? It is strange that the Rudy supporters haven't at least claimed its one of those Lib Zogby polls. Oh... Wait... Zogby's not one of the Lib pollsters. Hmmm.

Posted by: bsimon | December 19, 2007 4:08 PM | Report abuse

lv-what edwards rumor?

Posted by: jaymills1124 | December 19, 2007 4:03 PM | Report abuse

It would be like asking a potential retiree if he has considered the additional "expense' of taking a part-time job instead of a full time job. Yes he is receiving less money each month, but he doesn't call it an expense, he calls it less income and he spends less on other things. He is not entitled to a certain income for ever, just like the Republican government. But not like the Lib one. they have expenses, you see.
Posted by: kingofzouk | December 19, 2007 03:52 PM

ok so in other words, i retire, and go out and blow my money on a mustang,get a job as a store greeter making minium wage and complain about not being able to pay the car note.

ok so its ok not to be fiscally responsible? because thats what your just proved crisis point. dunno what was your job again? economics?

crisis-i wouldnt bother commenting with him anymore, my 2:59PM comment proves it.

Posted by: jaymills1124 | December 19, 2007 4:00 PM | Report abuse

Senate OKs $70 Billion for Iraq, Afghanistan The Senate voted Tuesday to provide $70 billion for U.S. military efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, handing a victory to President Bush and his GOP allies on Capitol Hill

We surrender...again. -the Libs. We are out to prove we can be just as weak at home as we have tried to be overseas. We have jello-spined leaders who lead the way to cowardice and supine bewilderment. thanks harry and Nancy for showing us the true Lib colors. as usual you will claim it's not your fault. that is some leadership.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 19, 2007 3:59 PM | Report abuse

still waiting for a single comment from zouk on the latest poll results.

also waiting for a comment from brooks on the edwards rumors. babbling brooks is running silently today.

Posted by: Spectator2 | December 19, 2007 3:55 PM | Report abuse

crisis - you may attempt to use words that mean other things, like your heroes the clintons use "is' for "was' and "single document blocked' for "all documents blocked" but we Repubs refuse to accept the Dem idea that tax cuts for tax payers is an "expense". It is less income but the word expense implies that it is required bill that must be paid, like a utility bill.


It would be like asking a potential retiree if he has considered the additional "expense' of taking a part-time job instead of a full time job. Yes he is receiving less money each month, but he doesn't call it an expense, he calls it less income and he spends less on other things. He is not entitled to a certain income for ever, just like the Republican government. But not like the Lib one. they have expenses, you see.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 19, 2007 3:52 PM | Report abuse

There is hyprocrisy in all of us to varing degrees. Nobody is immune to their darker side. So its just a matter who wants to be honest with themselves and those who do not that courage for self-examination.

Posted by: vbhoomes | December 19, 2007 3:45 PM | Report abuse

Zouk, a tax cut is indeed spending if that lost revenue was being used for something.

Democrats demand that if we are to cut the AMT tax, costing $50 billion, we either need to cut $50 billion from spending or raise $50 billion in new taxes. For the record, if we rolled back the tax incentives for major oil companies (Bush wanted to do it in 2005 and now he doesn't...corporate ties, anyone?) that would be a huge start to offsetting the lost $50 billion.

Really man, you need to go out and read something that isn't Malkin, Coulter or any other idiot stick figure bobblehead GOP pundit. Hell, if you even read the articles on Washington Post in their entirety you would understand why the GOP is yet again proclaiming their immense fiscal irresponsibility with this AMT fix.

Posted by: thecrisis | December 19, 2007 3:42 PM | Report abuse

WASHINGTON -- Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, has called President Bush a loser and a liar and has referred to him derisively as King George. Mr. Reid has also apologized -- but only, he likes to point out, for the "loser" line.

But not since 1919, when Henry Cabot Lodge called Woodrow Wilson "the most sinister figure that ever crossed the country's path," has a Senate majority leader appeared to harbor such deep and utter disdain, even loathing, for a president, as Mr. Reid does for Mr. Bush.


what a no-class loser of a dust speck of a non-man in Reid:

Mr. Reid's father was a hard-rock miner, an alcoholic who suffered depression and committed suicide. His mother washed laundry for brothels.

another Lib trailer trash like clinton ruining the party. when in doubt - go ugly early.


Posted by: kingofzouk | December 19, 2007 3:40 PM | Report abuse

Clinton is a moderate republcain now. clinton is the same as bush. Fear teh yale (republcain) plan. Come on your smart enough to see the moderate sell-outs in the democratic party. Teh dinos.

Lieberman kerry clinton di fi rockafeller reid. Sell-outs. moderate republcains now.

What I said about the republcains also aplies to clinton. I am not a republcain. i am not a hypocrite. unlike you people I say accountability for all. thank you for making my point about clinton, though. and why she is done and falling like a rock. Wasn't she on fox the other day?

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 19, 2007 3:30 PM | Report abuse

Wonder what they will get for that money if Hillary should win?


10 felony pardons, 16 overnight stays in the Lincoln bedroom and all you can eat WH dinners. I just ordered up some stuff for myself. you can see the menu and the prices on her website.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 19, 2007 3:28 PM | Report abuse

Not sure you libs should talk about Saudi money seeing that we just found out they contributed over 10 million dollars to Clinton's Library since he left office. Wonder what they will get for that money if Hillary should win?

Posted by: vbhoomes | December 19, 2007 3:26 PM | Report abuse

"Morgan Stanley to Sell Stake to China Amid Loss
By MICHAEL J. de la MERCED and KEITH BRADSHER 11:00 AM ET
The bank said it would sell a $5 billion stake to China's sovereign wealth fund as it posted a loss after taking a new $5.7 billion write-down related to mortgages.
"
http://www.nytimes.com/

It's funny you mention that crisis. The gop is selling out to our enemies. They don't care. teh money is green. Anyone see the citi bailout last month by saudi's neighbors? their money is green. Who cares what they use it for, right gop? Gives you more enemies to fight for profit later. Arm them. Give them out treasure and blood. sell the coutnry to the terrorists. then what?

the gop is in with the terrorists and our enemies. Reserach Murdochs china ties.

Sad day in america when choosing outside money over country is NOT treason.

"Show me where treason is illegal". that's what zouk says. Throw them in jail to fix our issues people. If you are scared or unwillinging to hold traitors and criminals to account, like bush and cheaney, we don't have a nation. We are a nation of laws, lest we forget.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 19, 2007 3:18 PM | Report abuse

So it is official Democrat policy that there will be no tax cuts - ever. Only increased spending and taxing. Dems operate a one-way street to financial ruin.

BTW, tax cuts are not government spending, although I know you Libs think you are entitled to all of everyone's money and that you may consider giving some poor people a little back.

the government needs to make a good case as to why they need more of my money, not the other way around. It is my money and if the government makes a good case for why they need it, I may go along. but expanding government health care is not going to be acceptable - including adults in a children only program for example.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 19, 2007 3:17 PM | Report abuse

regarding the AMT and many other things (War in Iraq, anyone?): so much for Bush's PROMISE not to pass along the cost of anything to our grandchildren.

Posted by: Spectator2 | December 19, 2007 3:17 PM | Report abuse

A republcain scientist is not a real scienist zouk, as your studies have shown. Everyone knows their are two realities.

Reality.

And republcain reality.

Reality does not enter into your heads. only propoganda and how you can get what you want. You always have a bogus repbulcain survey or study that keeps your clones in line. We see you know. your party of clone party loyalist traitors are done. i know clinton is the repbulcain deam cnadidate. Not going to happen. We see what you are doing now.

We are smarter than your people zouk. you cannot win. itis impossible to beat truths with lies spina nd propognada. Impossible. Try as you might. your party is done. Without the sabotuers desotrying everything in their path we can build. Detroy what we build at your own peril. Enjoy your jail time zouk, for treason.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 19, 2007 3:13 PM | Report abuse

"The first and biggest Republican victory comes in the form of the omnibus spending bill, which funds nearly every government agency. Not only does the bill, which was handed down yesterday morning, match President Bush's funding levels, but it also contains none of the so-called "policy-riders" that Republicans had most feared, such as the abolition of the government's Mexico City policy and even an expected expansion of union-backed "prevailing wage" rules"

Because like little children bush threatened to shut down the government if he did nto get all his demands. So says the congressman from ny. Just like gingrich did. Sht down the government if everyhing is not your way. SAbotuer fascists.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 19, 2007 3:09 PM | Report abuse

Zouk, you half-wit. You know as well as I that the AMT fix hasn't been passed because while Democrats wanted to fill the revenue gap generated by the tax cut, the Republicans are DEMANDING that we spend $50 billion without paying for it somewhere else. If democrats are tax&spend, then republicans are just spend&spend.

I'm so fed up with the great American myth that is GOP "fiscal conservatism" I'm about to snap. The GOP has been the most fiscally wasteful political party of the last decade and I'm sick of them lying to taxpayers, passing spending bills and cutting the taxes that pay for the spending at the same time. With any GOP luck, in a few years we'll be owned entirely by the Chinese.

Posted by: thecrisis | December 19, 2007 3:05 PM | Report abuse

you know when the more conservative posters on the board wont comment on their front runners and instead launch into ad hominem attacks on democrats and/or liberals you finally realize something.

they are so screwed come 2008.

back on topic-i saw the aformentioned huckboom spot, well it was nice until i saw the big white plus sign(thats what i thought it was at first) look i would have to agree to a point that it was pretty innocent until you gotta realize it was subtle message to the evangelicals that he's one of them. i wouldnt be suprised if you played the ad backwards and heard the words "paul is dead, paul is dead"

but contrast that with the obama ad giving out seasons greatings with his family(huh i wonder where's huckboom's family right now?) it was very heart warming and sincere. maybe all canidates for the time being knock off the attack ads during x-mas.

but of course after chrismas day, you can go back to slinging monkeycrap at each other.

Posted by: jaymills1124 | December 19, 2007 2:59 PM | Report abuse

"You are not a scientist zouk"

Actually, I am.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 19, 2007 2:58 PM | Report abuse

look at zouk talk about everything except rudy's collapsing poll numbers.

Posted by: Spectator2 | December 19, 2007 2:57 PM | Report abuse

If the Dems had a mandate, they sure didn't act like it:

The first and biggest Republican victory comes in the form of the omnibus spending bill, which funds nearly every government agency. Not only does the bill, which was handed down yesterday morning, match President Bush's funding levels, but it also contains none of the so-called "policy-riders" that Republicans had most feared, such as the abolition of the government's Mexico City policy and even an expected expansion of union-backed "prevailing wage" rules.

2) The omnibus itself represents a major Republican victory, but that's not all. The bill currently includes only funding for the Afghanistan war, but by the time it passes it will include full and unconditional Iraq supplemental funding, ending yet another legislative crisis in the Republicans' favor. The Iraq money will be added by amendment in the Senate. This portion of the amended bill will then pass the House largely on Republican votes.

In essence, Democrats are capitulating on the Iraq question for a second time this year, after being elected with a clear mandate to hasten the unpopular war's end -- a bitter double-defeat that comes after dozens of symbolic votes on the war. And Democratic House members will be voting (probably today) to start a process that they know will continue the war funding -- voting for it before voting against it. It will enrage the Left and, oddly, make President Bush -- who has never understood, negotiated with, nor cooperated well with even Republican congresses -- appear to be some kind of legislative mastermind.

On the Alternative Minimum Tax, Democrats have already lost this one through inaction

How did it come to this? To be sure, Senate Republicans have the numbers to block some legislation by filibuster. They probably would have held the line regardless on some issues -- the AMT, for example. Yet good-faith negotiations probably would have produced a compromise on SCHIP, the spending bills, and the energy bill, with Democrats and moderate Republicans providing enough votes to pass something at least palatable for a presidential signature. Yet there was little good faith or negotiation. On the energy bill, Pelosi was violating a pre-existing agreement on how to proceed with the bill -- this process problem made it easier for Senate Republicans to convince moderate colleagues such as Sens. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) and Arlen Specter (R., Pa.) to vote no.

On S-CHIP, Democrats decided to turn the issue into a political blood sport rather than work toward a compromise. They ran ads against House Republicans on the issue while the debate was still going on, instead of building a serious coalition that could have reached a serious compromise and forced the president's hand in expanding the welfare state.

House Democrats' inflexibility and subordination of policy to politics led them to Waterloo this week. They are a majority that has used the tactics of a minority, and it hasn't worked very well.

Meanwhile, the minority party -- a party that is likely to stay in the minority through the next election -- is routing Pelosi on five bills in a single week. Next year is an election year, in which little will likely be accomplished. So the second session of this Congress may prove to be as mercifully unproductive as the first.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDQwMjZiYTgxOGE3OGUzMWJkMDcwN2YyYWU0YjkzNWY=&w=MQ==

always the losers

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 19, 2007 2:56 PM | Report abuse

You are not a scientist zouk. The scientists made up their mind. rush has been lying to you. Like always. Why is that so hard to understand?

Read up a little more and you will understand where cooling comes into play with global warming. Or just burn all the books. Is the earth flat zouk?

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 19, 2007 2:53 PM | Report abuse

"Gore thought it was a good idea to leave his seat and awkwardly stalk George W. Bush in the final debate of the 2000 season"

Yeah. SOOO important. Really telling about what you people value. You pick candidates on this nonsense? Really? What about the isues. Now we see why we are in the deep water as a nation. You old folk pick your politicans based on "morals" and values" and "imaginary polite rules". Larry Craig. that's all I have to say. George bush. It's all a show for the old folk.

What abotu the issues? Or select a president based on 3 minutes of ONE debate. Please join reality. Please gop

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 19, 2007 2:51 PM | Report abuse

If you think any of the preceding facts can falsify global warming, you're hopelessly naive. Nothing creates cognitive dissonance in the mind of a true believer. In 2005, a Canadian Greenpeace representative explained "global warming can mean colder, it can mean drier, it can mean wetter." In other words, all weather variations are evidence for global warming. I can't make this stuff up.

Global warming has long since passed from scientific hypothesis to the realm of pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 19, 2007 2:51 PM | Report abuse

Hillary has a lot in common with Al Gore, it seems. Both Gore and Hillary wanted to be president for a most of their lives, and with an uncommon ferocity. Each one's rise through the ranks came about via family members -- his father; her husband.

Both rose to fame on the wings of Bill Clinton, who is proving to be a mixed blessing for both.

"Running for president in 1987-88, for the first time in front of a national audience that neither knew nor cared much for his father, Gore performed awkwardly, previewing most of the faults that would mar his campaign in 2000.

Given health-care reform in 1993 by her indulgent husband, Hillary ran it into a wall. There is an irony here that may run too deep for sorrow: Gore and Hillary reached the near-top only through the grace of Bill Clinton, who in turn needed them to correct his own flaws.

But the downside of all of their rigor and order meant that they were also pedantic and boring, slow-moving, and heavy as lead. And moreover, they were utterly tone-deaf as to the effect they were making.

Gore thought it was a good idea to leave his seat and awkwardly stalk George W. Bush in the final debate of the 2000 season. Hillary thought people would be appalled by her accusation that Barack Obama planned to be president at age five, in Jakarta. (Which indeed they were -- but at Hillary, not Barack.)

And Hillary's cackle -- the harsh, grating 'caw' she unleashes in efforts at levity -- already has reached the iconic stature of Gore's histrionic eye rolling and sighs."

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YWZmNGMxZGI0OGFiMTQ2MThmMmU0NzFiZDMzNTQxYjE=

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | December 19, 2007 2:45 PM | Report abuse

Well, I don't know about y'all but I see the Anti-Christ, perceptions are a funny thing.

Posted by: truthhurts | December 19, 2007 2:42 PM | Report abuse

OH snap, CC typo!

Posted by: thecrisis | December 19, 2007 2:34 PM | Report abuse

'Al Gore says global warming is a planetary emergency. It is difficult to see how this can be so when record low temperatures are being set all over the world. In 2007, hundreds of people died, not from global warming, but from cold weather hazards.'

AHH, EXXON WEATHERNUT IS BACK. This is striaght out of th Exxon confuse people script: Anyne with a brain knows 'global warming' causes 'global climate change' which includes record low temperatures being set all over the world' so you just provided proof that global warming is happening, zouky. what a moron.

Posted by: drindl | December 19, 2007 2:33 PM | Report abuse

"Are you about warn out from all of the television commercials you've bee seeing?"-- you mean "worn".

"...and puts in a subtle reminder that he is the best choice for religious voters."--subtle?!

Posted by: georgewbush1 | December 19, 2007 2:31 PM | Report abuse

I don't know why you people give zouk any of your time. he has zero creibility, based on his asted post. He is a waste of time.

That's why I'm here to tie up the fascist propogandist zouks of the world to free you guys up to talk about real issues. Ignore the clown troll. post your posts. Zouk is a joke. His world is crumbling around him. Forget teh sad patheic little man. i got zouk. Ignore him.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 19, 2007 2:29 PM | Report abuse

"hey zouk, instead of flooding the board with incessant posts about the tiny world of cable news, how about even a single response to the reports of polls showing that rudy is collapsing under the huckabee onslaught?

Posted by: LoudounVoter | December 19, 2007 02:13 PM
"

Don't you know. It rudy vs hillary, because zouk and the msm say so. And the 49ers are going to win the superbowl this year.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 19, 2007 2:26 PM | Report abuse

And Zouk, yes, the Democrats were given a mandate in 2006. Thanks for acknowledging this, because it further supports my argument.

They were given a mandate but because of how Congress works, Congressional Republicans still have the power, along with the President, to essentially veto the mandate. Just because the voters demanded results from the new Democrats in Congress doesn't mean the GOP is any less capable of halting their legislation through standard parliamentary stonewall tactics. I'm not saying the Democrats haven't done the same in the past. I'm just saying lets call this what it is - GOP stonewalling in the name of posturing - now they cay say how "ineffective" the Democrats were in their first year, even though the Democrats had no ability to force the President to sign a bill he wants to veto.

Posted by: thecrisis | December 19, 2007 2:22 PM | Report abuse

Thanks pspeaker...

It kind of goes back to the Macy's strategy in the old movie Miracle on 34th Street. By Huckabee doing what's "right" and by being the nice voice of peace, he'll also *incidentally* advance greatly because of it. It's a win-win, but both wins are for Huckabee.

And for the record, I'm not a Huckabee supporter, I just like the way he runs his campaign.

Posted by: thecrisis | December 19, 2007 2:19 PM | Report abuse

writinron - OK, I admit I made that up. you should have been able to see right throught that one. Spongebob's viewers are way to intelligent to ever bother watching that loser Krazy Keith. now the Simpsons is another story.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 19, 2007 2:18 PM | Report abuse

shag11: "The cross was deliberated, plain and simple. You think this thing wasn't screened and scrutinized before is what put out publicly."

Clearly you do not understand how the Huckabee campaign works. What with all the obviously unscripted remarks he has made in the last couple of weeks, it is doubtful that any screening was done for this.

Posted by: pspeaker | December 19, 2007 2:17 PM | Report abuse

As a Jew I'm used to candidates pandering obsequiously and it's a little confusing that Huckabee's decided to pander so exclusively to one group.

Posted by: light_bearer | December 19, 2007 2:15 PM | Report abuse

thecrisis:
"I don't see this message as a message of Christ or of Christmas, but rather a plea for civility through what is the most cherished time for family throughout the year....cheers to Huckabee for staying above the fray and showing his true colors - his complete inability to abandon his Christmas spirit in the name of political posturing. "

I think this comment nails it. The message is very simple. Over-analyzing it tells much more about the person doing the over-analyzing than about Huckabee.

Posted by: pspeaker | December 19, 2007 2:14 PM | Report abuse

Hillary doesn't have to worry about her face. She has to worry about her mask. Back in the '92 race, Clinton pollsters devised strategies to humanize her and make her seem more warm and maternal. Fifteen years later, her campaign is devising strategies to humanize her and make her seem more warm and maternal.

The public still has no idea of what part of her is stage-managed and focus-grouped, and what part is legit. It's pretty pathetic, at this stage of her career, that she has to wage a major offensive, by helicopter and Web testimonials, to make herself appear warm-blooded.

From that "republican" moron Dowd

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/19/opinion/19dowd.html?_r=3&ref=opinion&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 19, 2007 2:14 PM | Report abuse

hey zouk, instead of flooding the board with incessant posts about the tiny world of cable news, how about even a single response to the reports of polls showing that rudy is collapsing under the huckabee onslaught?

Posted by: Spectator2 | December 19, 2007 2:13 PM | Report abuse

zouk:"Krazy Keith's numbers went down in an exact match to the rise in Spongbob's audience. Coincidence? I don't think so"

Now you've gone too far. You can slam my country and my religion if you want, but I'll be damned if I sit by while you defame Spongebob Squarepants-- the symbol of all that is good, true, and honorable in our national character. Shame on you!

Posted by: writinron | December 19, 2007 2:12 PM | Report abuse

Youch! The Huckster erased an 18 point deficit to Giuliani in one month?!? Couple that with today's story reaffirming G's ties to alleged felons and it looks like some predictions are going to end in disappointment...

Posted by: bsimon | December 19, 2007 02:09 PM
"

rudy fell because of his Judy issues. As well as his terroist ties, like bush. The american people seem to only want one presidnet with terrorist ties per decade.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 19, 2007 2:12 PM | Report abuse

O"reilly - 2,681,000

Krazy Keith - 807,000"


O'Reilly 25-54: 428,000
Krazy Keith 24-54: 234,000

You make my point for me. So what over 2 million of those viewers are elderly out of touch with rality being lied to DAILY. Way to be proud of the owrse amoung tus, zouk. 2 million a day being lied to. Factor in hannity rush and savage, although mnay are the same people.

Great. What will they all do when they have to think for themselves? Would the fascist gop that has grown be goen without a place to consolidate their lies and propoganda.

Enjoy it while it lasts zouk. Remember who the gop ran the show befor eyou complain about your masters being removed. It's all for the good. to free the elderly from the fascist masters who keep them in invisable cages using fear tactics.

What is the defination of a terrorist, zouk? Sounds liek the gop party platform

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 19, 2007 2:11 PM | Report abuse

Al Gore says global warming is a planetary emergency. It is difficult to see how this can be so when record low temperatures are being set all over the world. In 2007, hundreds of people died, not from global warming, but from cold weather hazards.

For Libs cold is warm.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071219/COMMENTARY/10575140

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 19, 2007 2:11 PM | Report abuse

Z-man, I'm in a giving mood. Here's another link for you, this time with an excerpt:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/19/AR2007121901151.html

"A Reuters/Zogby poll released on Wednesday said Huckabee has wiped out an 18-point deficit in one month to pull within one point of Giuliani, 23 percent to 22 percent, nationally.

Among Democrats, Clinton's national advantage over Illinois Sen. Obama shrunk slightly to eight percentage points as the races for the White House tightened in both parties. Clinton had an 11-point edge last month."

Youch! The Huckster erased an 18 point deficit to Giuliani in one month?!? Couple that with today's story reaffirming G's ties to alleged felons and it looks like some predictions are going to end in disappointment...

Posted by: bsimon | December 19, 2007 2:09 PM | Report abuse

"JKrishnamurti (or is that krishnajackass?). Your invective would be so much easier to skip over if it didn't have so much garbled syntax and misspelled words to catch my eye. It's like the car wreck - gotta slow down and look at the carnage. Perhaps you could blog more effectively on some pantywaist lib only forum with more bloggers in your first language.

Posted by: mtmccullough | December 19, 2007 01:55 PM
"

Got to give you conservaitves something to attack other than the words. you authoritarians cannot combat truth. So I give you something you can comabt. so you think. Thank you for shopping. come again.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 19, 2007 2:06 PM | Report abuse

The cross was deliberated, plain and simple. You think this thing wasn't screened and scrutinized before is what put out publicly.

Posted by: shag11 | December 19, 2007 2:04 PM | Report abuse

O'Reilly 25-54: 428,000
Krazy Keith 24-54: 234,000

Facts never are on your side dufas.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 19, 2007 01:54 PM
"

I'l take that. O'Reilly ahs the biggest audenice on cable tv. And the conservaitves will not watch olberman. to scared. I'll take that. How much has he grown the last year? 150% or so? How about O'REilly this year? Who is growing and who is shrinking?

I'll take those numbers for now. 1 of olberman viewers getting truth is worth 5 of your fascist clones. I'll take that trade. O'REilly's side can't win. Lies smeara and propoganda will never beat truth. It is impossible for your side to win

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 19, 2007 2:03 PM | Report abuse

so crisis - are you saying the Dems did not get a mandate last election, or just that they are totally ineffective leaders? always the victim. always someone else's fault.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 19, 2007 2:00 PM | Report abuse

that is why I say he is building credibility vbhoomes. We will see won't we. We already have seen fox for what they are. they have already lost all credibility. The left watches fox, I do every day. Why? to get inside of the head of madmen. How else would what they do make any sense to a non-dittohead independant thinker. How many conservatives give olberman ratings, you think? cold they even handle it? I don't think so. I think the elderly watching fox would destroy the imaginary world regan rush and fox created for them.

But I think Olberman will be the same if the d's ar ein office. He goes after the dems for being weak often. He will not change. But the system will, so he will also.

If you people knew what I know. If you knew the extent of the bush criminalty you would ask why every newsperson is not like olberman. And why all politicans are not like edwards and Paul, right now.

when are you conservaticves goign to stand up for this country? When? Party loyalists are traitors. Always have been. To choose a party over and at the detrement of your nation is treason. Someones got to say it.

Olberman rules cable tv. O'Reilly is a meat puppet with zero credibility. Olberman is building his credibility and will be their for a long time. those who gambled their crediblity all should be off the air. the fact that crediblity doesn't matter to the gop and their cult show their face. This is why teh gop is done. this is why fox's days are numbered. The fascist propogandists are shaking in their little booties. Anyonewho hears them can see this. Right zouk and vbhoomes. You boys are terrified aren't they? For good reason. the street is going to run both ways. They have silnced many for telling the truth. Soon they will be silcned for doing what they do. Lying to the edlery for profit.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 19, 2007 1:59 PM | Report abuse

I noticed that on one particular night Krazy Keith's numbers went down in an exact match to the rise in Spongbob's audience. Coincidence? I don't think so.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 19, 2007 1:57 PM | Report abuse

Oh Zouk, come on. I could hardly say a one-vote majority in the Senate constitutes calling our government "liberal" especially when four Democrat Senate votes are out on the campaign trail (not voting in the Senate) and Lieberman looks more and more like a (R) every day.

Pile on the President's veto power and the Democratic "majority" is hardly that. You and all of the other parrothead GOP pundits are so far off on this argument it's hysterical.

Posted by: thecrisis | December 19, 2007 1:56 PM | Report abuse

JKrishnamurti (or is that krishnajackass?). Your invective would be so much easier to skip over if it didn't have so much garbled syntax and misspelled words to catch my eye. It's like the car wreck - gotta slow down and look at the carnage. Perhaps you could blog more effectively on some pantywaist lib only forum with more bloggers in your first language.

Posted by: mtmccullough | December 19, 2007 1:55 PM | Report abuse

O'Reilly 25-54: 428,000
Krazy Keith 24-54: 234,000

Facts never are on your side dufas.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 19, 2007 1:54 PM | Report abuse

Despite winning an election last year, the liberal government has made no headway in improving the delivery of energy, health care and other essential services.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 19, 2007 1:51 PM | Report abuse

"Olberman will not have a job after GWB leaves office, his whole show is nothing but Bush bashing.I would think even the Bush haters would grow tired of it after awhile. Take that back, after Romney wins next year, he start Romney bashing.

Posted by: vbhoomes | December 19, 2007 01:44 PM
"

We can hope. if a dem get;s in he is not needed. We finally get law and order. look up how he handed the monica lewinski scandel. That is the differance. Clinton had one long scandel. Bush has so many people can't even grasp the criminality. Clinton= one scandel about personal affairs.

Bush= dozens and dozens.

Accountability comes back in 08. I hope the traitors get 30 years each, including those at fox. taht will fix them. this is zouk, and those like him's future. Enjoy it zouk.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 19, 2007 1:49 PM | Report abuse

WASHINGTON -- Despite a reduction in violence in Iraq over the past three months, the Iraqi government has made no headway in improving the delivery of electricity, health care and other essential services, a new Pentagon report said Tuesday.

Posted by: drindl | December 19, 2007 1:48 PM | Report abuse

If we're doing a link-exchange instead of a gift exchange, this one's for you Zouk:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/18/AR2007121802333.html?hpid=topnews

Posted by: bsimon | December 19, 2007 1:47 PM | Report abuse

Again zouk.

1. you could put a public execution on tv. Would get huge ratings, not news.

2. Key demos. Most of those are elderly. They don't count. What is 20% of O'Reilly's viewership? That is there key demo, if you exclude the 20% that watch fox to shut them down.

Regardless. Those are based on old people that are dying out. Is o'reilly buildingcredibility or losing it at a rapid pace? He doesn't have much longer now. He is fighting windmills now. O'reilly lost his mind and is closing up soon.

I'm sorry to say you will be stuck with Olberman for decades. Great for me. But what will you do when fox shuts down? How will you cope? To live through someone else is not to live zouk, Get your own life. Stop living through fascists that mislead the elderly for personal profit.

Again. Olberman is building credibility and his audience. O'reilly ahs no crediblity. Even o'reilly and fox admit this. You are a little slow, I know. the differance is your people have zero credibility with regular americans. Olberman has all the credibility. If your coward fascists would take him on, his numbers would dwarf o'reilly. He dosn't do that does he.

"If someone called me a liar, I would be all over them."

O'REilly

The next day.

Olberman plays the clip looks in th camera. "You are a liar"

What does O'reilly do. Lie spin and discredit others. Cries like a little baby while not mentioning olberman. HAHAHHAHAA

Great tv. You r boys getting punked and all. It's funny for me to watch. Pretty soon it will all be a happy memory. O'Reilly can't go on like this forever. His time is nearing an end. He will be replaced by ingram. I'll take that trade. Anything to get crazy people gettign their physcosys out on day daily, off the air. Like glen beck and rush and the other fascist drug addicts. Their days are numbered. Lying to the elderly, dividing the coutnry for profit is not a business venture. It is treason. Like you zouk. Peas in a pod. Enjoy 07. Change coes in 08. Play time is over.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 19, 2007 1:46 PM | Report abuse

Olberman will not have a job after GWB leaves office, his whole show is nothing but Bush bashing.I would think even the Bush haters would grow tired of it after awhile. Take that back, after Romney wins next year, he start Romney bashing.

Posted by: vbhoomes | December 19, 2007 1:44 PM | Report abuse

oh here's the URL for that last post:

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2007/dec/19/hole_in_the_head_conservatism

notice how zouk is picking up on the 'botox' them? the whole dittohead rightwing message appartus is doing that today -- hate radio, hate blogs, all of it. that's the meme of the day -- hillary has wrinkles. this is how desperate they are, how shallow, how pathetic.


Posted by: drindl | December 19, 2007 1:42 PM | Report abuse

"for simple simon"

Thank you, but I don't have cable & don't care what the talking heads on TV are saying. But I would like to wish you a very Merry Christmas & Happy New Year.

Posted by: bsimon | December 19, 2007 1:42 PM | Report abuse

They aren't making pentagram bookshelves anymore?

http://www.blacklistednews.com/view.asp?ID=5041

Posted by: grunk | December 19, 2007 1:39 PM | Report abuse

I see the pack of jackels hasn't been fed today.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 19, 2007 1:38 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 19, 2007 1:38 PM | Report abuse

Democrat victory according to Curly:

Audience for 12/12

O"reilly - 2,681,000
Krazy Keith - 807,000

An audience 1/3 as large is a sweeping victory for Libs. Same as passing no legislation is a win and losing a war is a win. same as a recession is good and military deaths is helpful. the upside down world of Libs.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 19, 2007 1:37 PM | Report abuse

Ron Paul has legions of passionate supporters, raised more money in one day than any candidate in history. Huckabee is now running even with Guiliani, and there is a schism a mile wide and deep in the R party... now the elites of the party are worried that the rabble they empowered and encouraged are getting out of hand:

'Conservatives David "Axis of Evil" Frum and Ross Douthat have been sounding alarms warning that the ideas embraced by the Republican presidential candidates may have gotten just a little too wacky. Frum, alluding to Mike Huckabee's national sales tax and Ron Paul's "self-taught monetary views," concludes that "if it is elitist to expect politicians to be able to see through glaringly false and stupid ideas - well in that case, call me elitist."

Frum worries that the right may have become overly reliant on populism - defending "the commonsense wisdom of ordinary voters against the pretensions of know-it-alls." Douthat agrees, while nonetheless zinging Frum for supporting Rudolph Giuliani in light of Rudy's enthusiasm for thoroughly discredited supply-side economics. Douthat writes: "Frum's larger worry about anti-intellectualism in the contemporary Right is one I share in spades."

But here's the real problem for today's conservatives: their movement's intellectuals and experts are overwhelmingly the ones who have come up with the ideas that have largely proven to be just as bankrupt in practice as the gold standard that Paul wants to resurrect. The brains behind the enterprise don't have any ideas left in the well to draw from that haven't already been tried and failed. Frum says, "...politicians who want to deliver effective government and positive results have to care about more than values - and have to do more than check their guts. They need to study the problem, master the evidence, and face criticism."

"Frum's larger worry about anti-intellectualism in the contemporary Right is one I share in spades."

hallelujah to that one...

Posted by: drindl | December 19, 2007 1:35 PM | Report abuse

yOU GOT NOTHIG ZOUK. What grade are you in? Are you out of middle school yet? Yet texting from a middle school aren't you. You are a joke. Go elsewhere. You are usless on this blog. What is your purpose? Not just here but in life? You have no purpose. You refuse to chance/grow. you do not help other grow. What good are you?

All you do is make bogus whines and gripes. You got nothing.You can't even talk about clinton no more because she is not even the nom. You are a joke. you got nothing .The world is passing you by. Your looking around wondering whee all the george bush fascists went. I'll tell you where they went. Tehy realized they were being lied to by propogandists like you and your masters and rejected you.

Now enjoy you rirrelevance in peace. Go back into hibernation in your cave coward. Fear goat hearders while your in their to. Shake whine cry and complain. Great existance.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 19, 2007 1:35 PM | Report abuse

Meanwhile...

'Supporters of Mike Huckabee appear to be calling the New Hampshire Do-Not-Call list with prerecorded robocalls, an offense that under New Hampshire state law can carry a fine of up to $5,000 per call.'

http://www.bluehampshire.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2785

Posted by: drindl | December 19, 2007 1:28 PM | Report abuse

Since I always get these stories before you do [you should really hire me] here's Rudy's version -- hilarious, I think. The 'faithful 'may find it a tad secular, but I think it's the best he's done so far, in terms of 'humanizing' his off-putting personality:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/19/the-hallmark-campaign/

The Giuliani campaign also unveiled a Web-only holiday-themed ad.

Again, it starts with him sitting in front of the Christmas tree. "With the primaries coming so early this year, I've got to tell you I'm having a little trouble getting my holiday shopping done. So I'll be working to get everyone the same gift. A safe America. Lower taxes. Secure borders. Job growth. Fiscal discipline. Strict constructionist judges. And probably a fruitcake or something.''

An off-camera voice asks, "Fruitcake?"

"What?'' Mr. Giuliani asks, gesticulating. "It'll be a really nice fruitcake, with a red bow on it or something like that.''

The card in the Web ad says "Merry Christmas & Happy Holidays."

Posted by: drindl | December 19, 2007 1:25 PM | Report abuse

Moe (aka drindl), the head stooge checks in. Her pack of jackels and stooges are now assembled (Larry-loud and dumb, rufas, curly and simple simon - schempf).

Let's get the irrational hate started then. Insults please. sprinkled with a big dose of idiocy.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 19, 2007 1:23 PM | Report abuse

interesting that at the religion blog, susan thistlewaite sees thru huckabee's duplicity and calls him out for it.

while one of the wapo's leading political writers is suckered once again. well done, chris. not a chance in the world that your hardball appearances will be impacted by your gullibility.

Posted by: mycomment | December 19, 2007 1:23 PM | Report abuse

Nah Claudia, I think it's just his mechanical heart breaking down.

Posted by: thecrisis | December 19, 2007 1:21 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 19, 2007 1:19 PM | Report abuse

'Thick black smoke billowed from a fire Wednesday on the White House compound in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building.
The blaze appeared to be located in Vice President Dick Cheney's suite of ceremonial offices on the second floor of the building.'

Overheated shredders? Addington burning files?

Posted by: drindl | December 19, 2007 1:19 PM | Report abuse

Lets give Huckabee and his staff due credit, it was a brillant ad and I bet all the other campaigns both democratic & republican wished they had thought of it 1st. Having said that, make no mistake, Romney's camparison ads about Huckabee is taking its toll on him and without the money to respond, it very well may prove to be fatal after Iowa.

Posted by: vbhoomes | December 19, 2007 1:17 PM | Report abuse

Zouk you fascist coward. olberman is going to be running MSNBC soon. He is the lone wolf. the lone newsman out there reporting truths and facts. He is on the upswing. fox is on the downswing.

Remember when newspeople spent years building credibility? Remember who it was the life-blood of a journalist or newsman? that is what olberman is doing now. He is building credibility as he builds his numbers.

Fox? What credibility do they have? And which who? HAHAHAHA

what is a newsperson with zero credibility, zouk? are the a propogandist? yes

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 19, 2007 1:14 PM | Report abuse

you're either a fool or a liar if you don't think that 'cross' wasn't intentional. this is a professionally produced video and they knew damned well the subtle message they were invoking; and a ready-made excuse that makes the questioner look hostile to the baby jesus -- if not crazy -- for even considering the intent.

Posted by: mycomment | December 19, 2007 1:12 PM | Report abuse

'And, no, we don't believe the image of the "floating cross" behind Huckabee was intentional.'

Oh please, CC.. can you REALLY be that naive? Or that much a shill for the R party?

Of course it was intentional, nothing in an ad is not. The lighting is very carefully done, with a highlight on one side of his face, a fill light on the other and a bakcground fill placed in such a way as to highlight the cross-- and he's tlaking about what's important this time of year is to worship Jesus. Important for whom? Jews? Muslims? Hindus?

The ad is saying I am only talking to those who are Christians, I won't be representing the rest of you. Just like Mitt Romney.

Here's a really funny 'review' of it...

http://www.236.com/news/2007/12/18/ad_review_mike_huckabees_what_3018.php

Why bother mentioning the fact that zouk credits the National Enquirer and Michelle Malkin, the hysterical ranting racist, as credible sources. Of course he's given up on life -- posting on this board is all he ever does. Either he's employed as the Exxon Weathernut Moonbat, or this is really all he has. An empty shell, a pathetic excuse for a man.

Posted by: drindl | December 19, 2007 1:12 PM | Report abuse

"Much has been made of Huckabee's remark that Jesus was "too smart to run for public office," but what is often neglected when this remark is mentioned is that it was a clever way for him to avoid the awkward question (at least for GOP pols) as to whether Jesus would approve the death penalty. Huckabee knew that he couldn't say with a straight face that the GOP's beloved death penalty was indeed the sort of policy that Christ would embrace, and what was even worse about Huck's quip was that it insinuated that Christ wouldn't run for public office because he would shy away from such (supposedly) difficult questions. I'm not a Christian, but I think it's quite safe to say that that's total nonsense.

Posted by: jbentley4 | December 19, 2007 01:06 PM

"

Well said jbentley4. I for one was outraged over that,as well as rmoney's "freedom requires religon". Although I am a christian, forcing it a free man/women creates a slave or a rebel. Huckabee got praised for that answer?

I said it was two answers in one.

1. Jesus would not be for murder

2. Huck, running for office would not have the luxary of WWJD.

i disagree, if he want's to call himself a chrsitian. Now if he doesn't call himself achristian, do and say what he please. But to take the positions he takes makes he un-christian, imo. A christian is so by their words and actions.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 19, 2007 1:11 PM | Report abuse

If fox did start mentioning olberman, it would be the begining of the end for then. Once their viewers start watchign reality, fox will be no more. The fact that the gop wants to hide in a cave and watch anna nicole news still is a joke. Watching REAL news would show their veiwers this.

In reno they recently cahgned the stations. All the news stations are on aftert the other now. Fox cnn and msnbc. I hope more people go from fox to real news. I won't hold my breath. These fascsits don't want truth and news. They want propoganda to justifiy their twisted world perspective. What do they do without fox and rush? They must join civiliztion/humanity, or get left behind in the dust. TIme will tell

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 19, 2007 1:08 PM | Report abuse

Whether it's Mike Hubkabee being Mike Huckabee or not, all the Republicans wrapping themselves in the cross and the Bible makes me want to gag. Harold Meyerson is so right pointing out the hypocrisy of the GOP as a party that so aggressively claims a Christian identity, but espouses so many non-Christian policies from a love of war, violence, and guns, to the abandonment of the poor and less fortunate while giving massive tax cuts and welfare to corporations and the richest Americans.

Much has been made of Huckabee's remark that Jesus was "too smart to run for public office," but what is often neglected when this remark is mentioned is that it was a clever way for him to avoid the awkward question (at least for GOP pols) as to whether Jesus would approve the death penalty. Huckabee knew that he couldn't say with a straight face that the GOP's beloved death penalty was indeed the sort of policy that Christ would embrace, and what was even worse about Huck's quip was that it insinuated that Christ wouldn't run for public office because he would shy away from such (supposedly) difficult questions. I'm not a Christian, but I think it's quite safe to say that that's total nonsense.

Posted by: jbentley4 | December 19, 2007 1:06 PM | Report abuse

"Krazy Keith - sinking in the ratings and losing track of reality. has anyone ever seen rufas and keith in the same room?

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 19, 2007 12:43 PM
"

Alright fascist. Now the people know your a lying propogandist. His rankings are sinking? HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA

Check agian. Take into account that 60% of fox viewers are elderly and out of the work force. They are not the key demo. They are old out of touch scared men and women. 20% are republcains that want to be in the know. The other 20% are people like me that hate them and are trying to shut their fascist opertion down.

So think on that zouk. 20% of you masters, at fox, ratings actually matter. The rest are old people and people taht hate them. gloat about the ratings all you want. How many times has O'Reilly and Fox mentioned Olberman? rush? Olberman thinks yoiu people view him as Voldermort, for harry potter fame. "He who should not be named".

HAHAHAH

I told you before. They don't mention who they fear. That is why hillary is on fox all day everyday, getting attacked to try and galvanize the left. Not going to happen. America is not a "dittohead nation". Americans do not fall for the propogandists garbage like you dittoheads zouk. I can function without olberman. What is the gop without fox rush malkin savage? You got nothing. ENjoy it while it lasts coward. You masters will be off the air soon. then how will you think for yourself? Your days are numbered fascist zouk. Enjoy you rfascist clowns while it lasts.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 19, 2007 1:03 PM | Report abuse

Huck! Quit lying! You keep telling whoppers and then pretending you are innocent. Knock it off! Quit abusing your identity as a Christian to win votes. You're using Jesus, and I don't think he'd appreciate it!

Posted by: mindstretch1 | December 19, 2007 12:57 PM | Report abuse

"the year's greatest absurdity from MSNBC's Keith Olbermann -- which by itself speaks volumes. In an interview with Playboy magazine, Olbermann claimed Fox News is more "dangerous" than al-Qaeda. Give it 30 seconds of thought. On one side, al-Qaeda slaughtered 3,000 Americans on 9/11. On the other side, Fox News, well, they're dangerous because some of their pundits are rude to liberal Democrats? "

How many HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of deaths has Fox's propoganda enabled? Who has doen more damage to america? Fox and the fascists they represent, or the terrorists? Or i fyou are someone like me the gop ARE the terrorists. The war on terror is being waged by the gop on america. I agree with olberman. The terrorists couldn't take over LA much less america. th gop has systemicatically destroyed our country the last 25 years. they right is this country ARE the terrorists. it's not a matter of which terrorists are worse. The gop is worse.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 19, 2007 12:57 PM | Report abuse

Loudon Voter writes
"note the clever approach of the GOPers on here... [they] have smeared two dems with one story. Impressive"

On the contrary, the effort is amateurish, at best. I would be impressed if they could implicate the whole party with the rumor.

Posted by: bsimon | December 19, 2007 12:53 PM | Report abuse

Huck is being attacked by everyone -- and it's starting to have a significant effect. The latest Iowa poll has his 16% evaporating in a week, and it's back to a tie with Romney: http://www.campaigndiaries.com/2007/12/early-state-polls-ia-and-nh-tied-for.html

Posted by: campaigndiaries | December 19, 2007 12:53 PM | Report abuse

This is easily one of the best political ads that I have ever seen.

While Huckabee's strategy of effectively ignoring the negative attacks is borne out of necessity (lack of money), it would be brilliant no matter what his other options were. Nobody likes hearing all of this arguing and name-calling right around Christmas. Romney is looking nasty and panicked while Mike Huckabee just smiles and wishes everyone a merry Christmas.

This reinforces everything positive about his campaign. It's exactly what he needs to do in order to prevent his new supporters from becoming disenchanted between now and the Iowa caucuses. If this is the kind of thing that voters would have to look forward to in the general election, then Huckabee is absolutely the GOP's best bet among this field for winning the White House. This guy could beat Hillary Clinton. I don't know about his chances against Edwards or Obama, but Huckabee can beat Hillary Clinton. We know that when things aren't going her way, she gets nasty and attacks. Huckabee will respond with a smile and some sort of friendly words to the public and then Hillary looks like a typical down-in-the-mud politician while Huckabee would look like a breath of fresh air.

Posted by: JacksonLanders | December 19, 2007 12:48 PM | Report abuse

I have to agree with thecrisis " Huckabee refusing to stoop to the level of desperateness achieved by Romney" works - especially b/c it seems consistent with, as Chris said, his positive messaging.

I think it says something else too. Many people (my Dad is one) lament that acquaintances, co-workers, store displays, etc. are afraid to say "Merry Christmas" for fear of offending someone - so they use the politically correct "Happy Holidays." For those who feel that way, this ad says not only "I'm one of you" but that Huck's not afraid to say who he is and what he believes. Bet if my Dad lived in Iowa, he'd caucus for him!

Posted by: -pamela | December 19, 2007 12:43 PM | Report abuse

bsimon: note the clever approach of the GOPers on here: 1 spread the rumor about Edwards (proud) and 2 try to tie it to Clinton (zouk).

Voila, you have smeared two dems with one story. Impressive

Posted by: Spectator2 | December 19, 2007 12:43 PM | Report abuse

the year's greatest absurdity from MSNBC's Keith Olbermann -- which by itself speaks volumes. In an interview with Playboy magazine, Olbermann claimed Fox News is more "dangerous" than al-Qaeda. Give it 30 seconds of thought. On one side, al-Qaeda slaughtered 3,000 Americans on 9/11. On the other side, Fox News, well, they're dangerous because some of their pundits are rude to liberal Democrats?

Here's Olbermann's actual outpouring of idiocy: "Al-Qaeda really hurt us, but not as much as Rupert Murdoch has hurt us, particularly in the case of Fox News. Fox News is worse than al-Qaeda, worse for our society. It's as dangerous as the Ku Klux Klan ever was." This is not an outburst that erupted on TV or the radio. He sat down with Playboy and spelled this out for transcription and editing. He did not add, "Just kidding! Hey, did someone spike my coffee?"

Krazy Keith - sinking in the ratings and losing track of reality. has anyone ever seen rufas and keith in the same room?

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 19, 2007 12:43 PM | Report abuse

"Last week, Bill Clinton severed all ties with Rob Burkle giving as a reason "potential conflicts of interest." Could the former president have gotten wind of this scandal coming out and distanced himself from Burkle because if it?"

IF he got wind of it early, of course he would sever ties as a result. He'd probably try to shut the story down first, because it is more damaging than helpful to his wife. If the story is true, Edwards suppoters are more likely to go to Obama than Clinton. It would make no sense for the Clinton campaign to leak the Edwards pregnancy rumor because the Clinton campaign's only chance to look competitive in Iowa & beyond is if the anyone-but-Clinton vote is split.

Posted by: bsimon | December 19, 2007 12:41 PM | Report abuse

trouble for zouk's boy rudy:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071219/ts_nm/usa_poll_politics_dc

And poor Willard Mittens Romney is just an also-ran with the other tired old men of the GOP.

Ron Paul is at least more than an asterisk, at 4 percent.

Posted by: Spectator2 | December 19, 2007 12:40 PM | Report abuse

Kingofzouk asks, "christmas ad = as in Christ, the son of God. do you prefer a different symbol?"

No, I just prefer that politicians do not try to manipulate me with subtle subliminal ads in which religious symbols are "innocently" inserted in the background and made to look unintentional.

If Rev. Mike wants to hold a cross or stand underneath one, that would be fine-- that would be HONEST. But I object to this type of cheap chicanery.

Posted by: writinron | December 19, 2007 12:37 PM | Report abuse

2,600 Pages of Clinton Records Withheld

The National Archives is withholding from the public about 2,600 pages of records at President Clinton's direction, despite a public assurance by one of his top aides last month that Mr. Clinton "has not blocked the release of a single document."

that depends on the meaning of "single document". the fact is they are ALL blocked, so indeed, not a "single document" has been blocked. how clintonesque. they contain all of hillary's secret experience. you know the 35 years (dog years) she has been laboring for you.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 19, 2007 12:34 PM | Report abuse

Zouk, if you read Malkin and think it's valid opinion, you should probably give up on life now.

Posted by: thecrisis | December 19, 2007 12:34 PM | Report abuse

what's "subtle" about Huckabee's statement: "a subtle reminder that he is the best choice for religious voters ("What really matters is the celebration of the birth of Christ and being with our family and our friends.")? That's pretty blatantly Christian an ad as a presidential politician gets. c'mon now.

Posted by: laneabroad | December 19, 2007 12:31 PM | Report abuse

Hah...so get this. I'm a liberal atheist (which is not the same as a communist, neocons).

And I love this commercial. This kind of stuff just kills me, but in a good way. I don't see this message as a message of Christ or of Christmas, but rather a plea for civility through what is the most cherished time for family throughout the year.

It's also Huckabee refusing to stoop to the level of desperateness achieved by Romney, who every day seems more and more angry and frustrated that the voters think he's a phony. He's taking out his frustration on Huckabee, who just smiles and says "that's okay Mitt, it's not your fault the voters hate you" while knowing that yes, it's definitely Romney's fault that the voters hate him.

Again, cheers to Huckabee for staying above the fray and showing his true colors - his complete inability to abandon his Christmas spirit in the name of political posturing.

Posted by: thecrisis | December 19, 2007 12:31 PM | Report abuse

I'm staying out of this one today. I will go off on this topic. Let me just say the "religous" right. are not christians. They are using a religon to herd the sheep into political fascism. Sad day in america. Maybe one day the followers will realize they are not following the Christ, but men. Flawed men. Their churches are not God. They are bricks and mud.

The gop twisting my religon is my major problem with the gop. As everyone knows, both are corrupted. I don't want fascists in my church. I don't want preachers in politics. these people must be shown the door. For both religon and politics sake. I know they have become accustome to having power. No more. That is the only way to seperate. To show the "religous" right the door.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 19, 2007 12:30 PM | Report abuse

Not being able to find anyone in Iraq to surrender to, the Democrats have decided to throw up their arms and give up in Congress. Michelle Malkin has the details:


Well, well, well. After all that Doing It For The Children hyperventilation, after all the finger-pointing and foot-stomping, after all the kiddie human shield-waving, after all the teeth-gnashing vows not to surrender on their massive S-CHIP entitlement expansion, the Democrat have, yes, surrendered.

Surrendered.

You will remember that Harry Reid and the desperate, Do-Nothing Democrats blamed the Republicans for obstructing funding for The Children. They attempted to tie S-CHIP funding to war funding. Then they planned to tie it to next year's election.

Now, they've decided to just give up and do what the Republicans proposed to do all along. Fund it without the massive expansion.
When one considers how the Democrats presented their S-Chip expansion to the American people and then skewered Republicans for opposing it, one must conclude that the Democrats are the most brazenly dishonest bunch of politicians around.

Perhaps this is why poll numbers for Congress have sunk to record lows.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/12/more_surrendering_from_the_sur.html

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 19, 2007 12:29 PM | Report abuse

Where is babbling brooks to defend his boy edwards from these scurrilous attacks?

Posted by: Spectator2 | December 19, 2007 12:28 PM | Report abuse

PUH-LEEZ!

Obviously, the cross was intentional. Further, the fact that the background is moving while he sits still suggests that the creators WANT you to look at the backgroud. It is not a distraction; it is the message.

"unquietmind" said, "he has the chance to garner a lot of attention not just to himself, but to the One in whom he believes"...

That seems pretty naive to me. He's not using his campaign to boost Jesus; he's using Jesus to boost his campaign. He's going for the BIGGEST endorsement of them all.

This is not win-win; it's lose-lose. The political process is undermined as people trade in conscious decision making for a religious litmus test; meanwhile, people of differing political persuasions are driven further and further from God by these religious hucksters and opportunists.

Posted by: writinron | December 19, 2007 12:27 PM | Report abuse

Perhaps we should examine the story from the standpoint of who might be leaking it. And for that, we need look no further than the man who is in the process of buying the Enquirer. Ed Morrissey explains:


AMI owns National Enquirer, as well as other tabloid gossip rags. AMI has been on the block for a while, and investor Ron Burkle of Yucaipa Cos. has been involved in making a play for AMI. Guess who just recently -- a week ago, in fact -- distanced himself from Burkle?
Last week, Bill Clinton severed all ties with Rob Burkle giving as a reason "potential conflicts of interest." Could the former president have gotten wind of this scandal coming out and distanced himself from Burkle because if it?
Or did the divestment of Yucaipa come to allow him deniability when the mudslinging hit? This has dirty political trick written all over it, and the fingerprints would not belong to Barack Obama. This could have an innocent explanation, but the coincidences appear rather convenient.
Has anyone ever bothered to ask why people who run against the Clinton's always end up getting smeared with the most spectacular scandals?

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/12/edwards_love_child_story_a_chr.html

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 19, 2007 12:22 PM | Report abuse

christmas ad = as in Christ, the son of God. do you prefer a different symbol? Perhaps a rhombus or trapezoid.

in other news:

""Presidential candidate John Edwards is caught up in a love child scandal, a blockbuster ENQUIRER investigation has discovered.

The ENQUIRER has learned exclusively that Rielle Hunter, a woman linked to Edwards in a cheating scandal earlier this year, is more than six months pregnant - and she's told a close confidante that Edwards is the father of her baby.""

got the clinton gestapo's fingerprints all over it.

"Hillary Clinton's husband may be a political genius, but he's also a Bill in a china shop.

And Tuesday, he went on a minirampage, grabbing unflattering headlines and hogging the spotlight at an event with Magic Johnson while stumping for his wife in Des Moines.

Campaigning at a Hy-Vee supermarket, he broke past a rope line at the carefully scripted stop to greet star-struck Iowans, creating near-chaos. A swarm of reporters followed the ex-President into the deli and produce sections. The basketball legend and senator were left mostly with the autograph seekers, while Bill Clinton answered questions about Sen. Joseph Lieberman from the political press and about the former First Couple's private life from "Entertainment Tonight."

From the "it's all about me" guy. not going to let her win and steal his thunder, is he?


Posted by: kingofzouk | December 19, 2007 12:18 PM | Report abuse

I don't get the fuss. Huckabee's a Baptist minister. It's Christmas. As a Presidential candidate, he has the chance to garner a lot of attention not just to himself, but to the One in whom he believes. I'm sure there is plenty of calculated politics behind it, but I think mostly it's just Huckabee being Huckabee. What's wrong with that?

Posted by: unquietmind | December 19, 2007 12:10 PM | Report abuse

Oh, of course the cross is intentional. And it's also hilarious.

Posted by: ChrisDC | December 19, 2007 12:04 PM | Report abuse

Question: What are the chances that negative advertisements will have an impact in the next two weeks? It seems to me that negative ads don't work directly, but instead help to frame issues and create subconscious doubts and rationalizations for behavior.

Posted by: ctown_woody | December 19, 2007 12:03 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company