Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

John Edwards: Mad as Hell

Over the last few weeks, a new John Edwards has emerged.

Beginning with the CNN/YouTube debate on July 24, Edwards has appeared far more angry -- outraged even -- at the current Administration, the war in Iraq and even many in his own party. At last weekend's YearlyKos presidential debate, Edwards worked himself into a lather on almost every question -- loudly proclaiming the need for real and big change while dismissing the half-measures and compromises advocated by some of his opponents.

Put simply: John Edwards is mad as hell and he's not going to take it anymore.

The angry Edwards is a marked contrast to the former North Carolina Senator's sunny optimism and unwillingness to attack any of the other candidates during the 2004 elections. Iowans seemed drawn to that positive message, nearly delivering Edwards a stunning victory in the first-in-the-nation caucuses.

That Edwards is gone, however, and in his place a candidate who seems intent on showing his disgust and distaste at every chance he gets.

For the moment, the strategy is working. Edwards stood out during the CNN/YouTube debate for his strident denunciations of the inside-the-Beltway culture and his call for bold change. At the YearlyKos debate, Edwards repeatedly brought the crowd to its feet, challenging his Democratic opponents to pledge not to accept campaign contributions from Washington lobbyists.

How far can Edwards ride his outrage? In a traditional election cycle, we'd be tempted to say not all that far. Remember back to the 2004 election when former Gov. Howard Dean's angry opposition to the Bush Administration's policiies made him not only a cult figure but also the Democratic presidential frontrunner heading into January 2004. But, Dean didn't wear well with Iowa voters who handed him a third place showing, which, when coupled with the now infamous "scream," crippled his campaign beyond repair.

But, conventional wisdom may be thrown out the window when it comes to the 2008 contest. Poll after poll shows that Democratic voters are deeply unhappy with the direction of the country and want fundamental change. Edwards' strategy at this point seems to be to show Democratic primary voters that he is just as angry about what George W. Bush has done to America as they are.

It's an interesting tactic by Edwards that, either intentionally or unintentionally, draws a contrast between him and his two main rivals for the nomination.

Neither Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) nor Barack Obama (Ill.) give off an angry/outraged air when they speak about the problems facing the party and the country. Clinton is the practiced tactician -- the one promising to turn the country around by sheer force of will and her knowledge of how the system works. Obama is all positivity and hope; while he and Edwards may be saying similar things, the tone of their delivery is far different.

It will be interesting to see if Edwards keeps playing the outrage card as he travels in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina in the coming weeks. His campaign may need just that sort of spark as he seeks to hold off Clinton and Obama in Iowa while seeking to build an organization to rival theirs in New Hampshire.

By Chris Cillizza  |  August 6, 2007; 9:20 AM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: GOP Debate Round Up
Next: GOP Debate: Winners and Losers

Comments

Ron Paul Hope for America Bicycle Tour

Bring your bicycles, your love for Our Constitution, Freedom

Sept 15-23 we will ride South Carolina for Ron Paul.

You wont miss us !!!!!!!

We start at Folly Beach Pier at 9 am.

Same starting point when I rode across the United States for Medical Marijuana Patients .

More info
ken_locke2001@yahoo.com

Support Ron Paul Hope for America 08

Posted by: ken locke | August 24, 2007 7:43 AM | Report abuse

this has really been an amusing afternoon, haven't been here for a while, I enjoy reading all the blogs, i must admit sometimes i want to jump right in and get in the fight, alot of good ideas here and some not so good, but just the same everyone is fighting the GOOD FIGHT, America is a great Country and good people, somehow we have gone astray, think about all of our ancestors how they wanted to make this the GREATEST PLACE ON EARTH, well i believe we have let them down, we are selfserving, greedy and want to blame poor people for everything that goes wrong, when in fact the only Welfare in this Country now goes to the Corporations, i work for one i should know. I wish these couple of guys here fighting all day, over the economy would just call each other on the phone and talk, being open to alot of reactionary bull%#%*, i like all these PRESIDENTIAL HOPEFULS fighting like little school children, your gut feeling can usually direct u to where u are at in the Country, I would like to see our COUNTRY DO A 360, we need to employ a whole new host of Congressmen and women. the House needs cleaning and i think it is time for all REPUBLICANS TO BE REPLACED. so if it is Hillary or Edwards so be it..myself I am for John Edwards, i see it as anytime they all hate him ....then they really fear him......that's great

Posted by: champions | August 7, 2007 6:18 PM | Report abuse

I encourage everyone reading this to watch the AFL-CIO debate tonight live on MSNBC, the working people needs a voice in the WHITE HOUSE and John and Elizabeth Edwards are the only thing standing between us and another 4-8 years of Republican rule, whether you all want to admit it or not- old white people vote here in the South still vote and an overwhelming majority will not vote for Hillary or Obama, like it or not, think about how WE CAN WIN next November, and Edwards is our ONLY shot, and it will be four years before we get another shot! I know the man and his family, he was born here in Seneca and even Republicans will cross over and vote for John Edwards, if the other side selects a pro-choice or former pro-choice candidate, but take it to the bank, they will not even consider it if its a Clinton or an Obama. Edwards all the way!!!

Posted by: SC Yellow Dog Democrat | August 7, 2007 5:29 PM | Report abuse

John Edwards is intellectually an order of magnitude higher than the opposing candidates in either party. He addresses the issues with complete well thought out strategies which no other candidate from either side has been able to do. It's no wonder he is angry. He debates the issues while his opponents get hung up on trivialties just to create a sound byte.

Posted by: tkredmond | August 7, 2007 12:01 PM | Report abuse

Mark in Austin writes
"So if a wind generator converts potential energy from the atmosphere to kinetic energy
that should leave less energy in the atmosphere. Do the downwind mills produce less? Is the effect de minimus?"

Yes. Yes.

Actually windmills affect the microclimate more than the macro climate. Erecting a field of windmills will have immeasurable effect on how a front moves through an area, for instance, or even the 'force' of the wind felt on the downwind side. Where windmills _do_ have a measurable impact is in the immediate downstream areas; I don't fully recall the details, but large windmills can disrupt things like dew accumulation overnight by disturbing air that might otherwise be still. The interference of the blades can also direct the breeze closer to ground level, due to the vortexes that are generated off the blade tips, if I recall correctly.

Posted by: bsimon | August 7, 2007 10:26 AM | Report abuse

When will you political press and TV pundits get off your fixation with style? It's old. I was at Yearly Kos, on the picket line when Edwards arrived where I spoke to him, at the forum where I listened from a second row table, and at the break out in the front row (lady wearing pink shirt). I was close enough to get a read on John Edwards and he is not the person you depict here. Perhaps no one outside of a TV soap opera is.

I read this man as confident, cheerful, warm, witty, very quick, passionate on the issues that drive his campaign, of course, as are Dodd, Obama, Kucinich, Gravel, and Biden. Richardson and Clinton aren't in that category but have other virtues and reasons for running.

Have you pundits learned nothing from blogger questions and YouTube questioners? There is a lot to learn and to teach about these candidates and you fail your profession where you settle for pre-made political stories gleaned from soap opera.

Posted by: MaryinBelltown | August 6, 2007 10:00 PM | Report abuse

bsimon wrote:


Lynn asks
"When you gonna write about the 'trial lawyer' Thompson and his wife's mysterous past they won't answer questions about, CC?"

Perhaps that will hit the presses when DA Branch actually announces he's running. Last I heard, he's waffled again & pushed the surprise back another couple months.

the main reason why fred thompson has not announced his candidacy is because he gets
MORE FACE TIME on the TV through his role in LAW AND ORDER SERIES and HE is paid for it! the rest of the republican candidates do not. when he announces, if he does, then he will be restricted to the amount of time he can be in Americas face through equal exposure rules.
really, who cares about a "tart wife".
another good lawyer.

Posted by: lindafranke1952 | August 6, 2007 8:43 PM | Report abuse

His network helped defeat Gore and Kerry - and led the charge to impeach her husband. And now - she's in bed with him!
Ahhh...the addiction to Power.

Hillary/Murdoch08

Posted by: Katherine | August 6, 2007 7:59 PM | Report abuse

Way to go Edwards! just ignore the new DC insider mantra that {gasp!} Edwards is angry that Broder began last week. Apparently, all those DC insiders are quite happy with the way things are going - for them.

Posted by: Richard | August 6, 2007 7:56 PM | Report abuse

Mark in Austin - Similarly, I just returned from a trip to Europe, a vacation through Holland, Germany and Austria. It was quite an eye opener. Nuclear power plants, smallish ones, everywhere, that generated their electricity. Locks on the Rhine, Main, Danube and canals. Barge traffic full of cars and other products and raw materials. Mile after mile of cranes, construction everywhere, and, in the cities and towns, people shopping and buying, everyone working, no drunks laying around, no unemployment (in Germany, as a whole, around 5%, in Austria 1.8%, and similarly low in Holland). Europe is rebuilding it's entire infrastructure to be energy independent. The trains everywhere run on electricity. In the countryide I saw windmills that produced electricity and pumped irrigation water. Instead of corn, they were growing a plant I cannot recall the name of, that produced biodiesel that 20% of their trucks ran on. It was amazing. For cars, efficient hybrid and diesel cars and taxes ON VEHICLES that made huge pickups and SUV's unaffordable for personal transportation. Buses and trains and boats and trams that were cheap and efficient and everyone used them. Even a small country like Holland had buses, regularly running buses, that ran to the most remote parts of the country. The Rhine and the Danube had been cleaned up so much that salmon runs had returned and people were fishing for them and trout and grayling. Why can't we do that? We will be forced to do it eventually, if we are to survive at all. Eisenhower, one of our great Presidents, had a vision that led to the interstate highway system and sparked the economic boom that made us an economic powerhouse. Now, we are sinking into third world obscurity, our jobs and technology being exported for short term gain. Where is our vision of a future? We have become a nation of self serving special interest groups, everyone hunting for a bargain, looking for that majic lottery ticket or stock that will make us instanrtly wealthy. Wealth is only truly acquired from hard work and cooperation - the Amercian dream. What happened to that dream?

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

"Anyway, the idea of an Edwards/Obama ticket as a sacrificial offering to the altar of Southern racism is ludicrous... particularly after Edwards himself said he doesn't want the votes of people who would vote for him just because he's white."

I've been pondering Gogli's statement all day. And he/she is right. %100. I wish we could tell gop'ers to not be racist. I think that would be like trying to tell them to stop being fascists. Not sure how far it would get.

Some people are un-willing to change and or compromise. The Dem's seem to be the only one's compromising. Not sure what if anythign the r's have compromised on. They are known for, if they don't get their way, walking out on compromise.

The problem with Obama taking the vp roel on an edwards ticket would be, his future would be tied to what edwards does. Not sure if he wants to risk it.

Time will tell. I've been pondering a switch to Edwards. MAybe that's the idea. Maybe he is there to divide the dem vote.

Great point Gogli. I'm teetering on the Obama/Edwards fence. Trying to compromise here with the racist fascsits. :)

What is more important? Change or having it OUR way? I'll do what's best for the country as opposed to what I want. Soemthign the gop will never understand. Choosing country over self. That is why I say youy ar traitors.

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

JD: Vernors is better. Not sure of the spelling.

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

JEP: bsimon post 02:44 PM has it about the way I am thinking. Around the middle of June I went over my Electoral College and added Pa. for a total of 309 for Hillary. I have Va. and Fl. as the only southern states I expect her to carry. I have 21 states and DC that I am pretty sure she will win. Iowa is not included, and I am becoming more hopeful since I heard from friends traveling thru there sometime back and told me not to be suprised if Hillary won there, when at the time she was polling third or fourth and now it is a tie. There is still a long way to go, and as we all know, things can change pretty quick.

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

MikeB - I was watching miles and miles of wind generators as I drove through west Texas Friday and I got to thinking about the conservation of energy.

So if a wind generator converts potential energy from the atmosphere to kinetic energy
that should leave less energy in the atmosphere. Do the downwind mills produce less? Is the effect de minimus?

I know you will think this is simple, but when you are driving through west Texas random thoughts are all you have. I also calculated/guesstimated tip rotational velocity at about 105 mph. Really had to work to entertain myself.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | August 6, 2007 6:18 PM | Report abuse

be honest mark. You just voted for perot because he is from texas. Didn't you :)

I know you texans. I know how you operate. close-minded and all.:0

jk. But not really

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

MikeB - did you ever see my question to you about the physics of wind generators?

JD - I am vaguely aware of studies claiming that the first round of GWB's tax cuts worked but the second did not. I cannot find it on a quick web search. May have been a Federal Reserve Bank multiple regression analysis - the thrust was that the huge deficit [off the books, but real] of the two wars was fueling a "Keynesian" growth spurt, and would have done so no matter what tax policy we pursued.

bsimon, Colin, JD, proud - we all agree that gas taxes should be substantially increased [remember, I voted for Perot and his pie chart that reflected the need for higher gasoline taxes]. We are almost big enough to form our own party.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | August 6, 2007 6:06 PM | Report abuse

You prove my point for me JD. Can I power my car on soda or milk? No.

Read the posts again

Posted by: rufus | August 6, 2007 5:16 PM | Report abuse

JD - I just love correcting your factual errors. You neocons keep talkig about gasoline taxes and other taxes and exclaim that it puts an undue burdon on odinary citizens. The, you usally go off about the high cost of feul in Europe. There IS a difference. In Europe, to be sure, gasline is expensive and most of that expense is taxes. Those taxes pay for a mass transit system that take ordinary citizens to an from work. You can travel from one end of Europe to the other on cheap trains, buses and trams. Here, with fuel costs climbing ever closer to European levels, *most* of those feul costs go into the pockets of futures traders and commodities traders and oil company CEO's. The current federal gasoline tax is $0.185 a gallon. Even raising this by ten cents a gallon isn't ging to significantly impact the cost of gasoline and it isn't going to do one thing about building a national mass transit system or even repairing the highways we have now. Gasoline and other fuels are a SECURITY interest to this country. It is a part of our infrastructure that we cannot survive without. Allowing robber barons and investor parasites to monkey with the cost and availability of this essential commodity is simply insane. Remove them from the equation and tax the snot out of gasoline with every dime going to build a national mass transit system and repair and maintain our present crumbing infrastructure. The choice is pretty simple - either we collec the money and do public good with it or the investors and oil company officers collect it and add it to their already bloated (and, usually, offshore) savings.

Posted by: MikeB | August 6, 2007 5:13 PM | Report abuse

"Gingrich says war on terror 'phony'... "

I'd much rather talk about this than oil. Oh, wait. They are the same thing. Sorry for my ignorance

Posted by: rufus | August 6, 2007 5:11 PM | Report abuse

ruf, not sure if you were talking to me, I doubt it since I'm no 'gas expert' as you say.

However, the price is determined by the market, plus any taxes. That's it. If you controlled all the means of production and distro of milk, and decided to price at $4, $40, or $400 a gallon, yes that's the price; but because the elasticity of that product is pretty high, people would quickly go to an alternative, and you would sell no milk. So, being rational and wanting to recoup your investment in cows, feed, etc, you would lower the price, until the supply and demand found an equilibrium.

The elasticity of gas is not quite as high; that's why we need a stiffer tax to alter behavior. People will drive roughly as much (and therefore pollute, and keep our dependence on foreign oil) whether gas is $3, $4, or even $5/gallon.

Just an example to drive home the concept; the elasticity of a soft drink brand is extremely high - people will readily switch between Canada Dry and Schwepps ginger ales based on price. The elasticity of, say, heroin is almost non-existent - people will pay virtually any price, if they are consumers of it.

Posted by: JD | August 6, 2007 5:10 PM | Report abuse

I say we fly around on jetpacks :)

Money doesn't really make the world go round. oil doesn't amke the world go round. How did these gop'ers draw us in a debate about oil. Tricky republicans.

Again, why did the GOP drop gas prices before the 06 elections?

Posted by: rufus | August 6, 2007 5:06 PM | Report abuse

not sure what I meant with "political leaders will have to ensure the various benefits." probably meant "sell the various benefits".

Posted by: bsimon | August 6, 2007 5:06 PM | Report abuse

Colin asks
"any ideas on how EITHER political party could possibly sell that idea to the public? Because the ONLY way that ever happens is if it's completely bipartisan, so that both sides are equally blamed by the general population."

You probably have to phase it in & make a strong case for spending the revenue on researching alt fuels and/or conservation technology. Oh yeah, and infrastructure. That's gonna be an easy sell in MN, though I'd rather it were the result of rational consideration, rather than the reflexive action we're going to see.

Back on point - in pushing for a higher gas tax, political leaders will have to ensure the various benefits. There are obvious benefits both environmentally and in national security. A less obvious, but still relevant benefit is economic. Our trade deficit is largely the result of two factors 1) the ever decreasing value of the dollar and 2) the ever increasing price of petroleum. Lower spending on petroleum & you've directly addressed the 2nd and indirectly addressed the first (falling dollar is partially a result of the trade imbalance).

Anyone have other ideas?

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

And gop. trying to slip something from newt.org in as a REAL poll.

tsst tsst tsst.

Doesn't work here buddy. Try again.

Posted by: rufus | August 6, 2007 5:00 PM | Report abuse

JD - I am not a mean spirited individual and you are taking my criticism of investing out of context. Jefferson, Washington, Madison, and the other Founding Fathers thought that the free enterprise system was the engine that would drive this country. Their vision was of thousands of *small* business owners, investing n thier own business. That is why, and they wrote this, they limited corporations to the lifetime and personal management of the business founder and their family. Those laws were changed quite recently, and I am amazed that people don't know that fact. Furthermore, those same Founding Fathers were opposed to banking and wealthy investors using money to control businesses and saw that as a great eveil. They even attempted to outlaw it. Overriding those laws, too, is a very recent "innovation". There is a big difference between a bank or personal loan, to get a busiess started, and what passes fo "investment" today. Short selling, commodities trading, futures, bonds, and similar financial instruments weren;t even legal in the early yars of this country...and for good reason. They are seen as detrimental to the private enterprise system. Large corporate entities have a negative impoact on employment numbers whereas small businesses create jobs. Large corporations manipulate laws (the patient laws are cases in point) to circumvent the original intent of those laws. Thge patent laws were originally envisioned to protect the rights of the investor. A patent *requires* an inventor. Today, however, large corporations require, in advance, that employees assign all rights for any inventions to the corporatioon, even before such inventions exist. Large corporations and investors are the bottom feeders, the parasites that exist upon and feed off the work of the people of this country. They exercise influence over policies only because they buy and sell politcians as if they were commodites. They are a danger and one that we need to get under control, if not exterminate, becase they threaten the very existence of this country and the peace of the world.

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

I here your arguements, I know know your going to call me a tin-foil hat. Answer my question, you claim to be a gas expert.

How and Why did gas prices go down before the mid-term elections?

Gas's, and any commodity's, only worth is what we give it. I can price milk at $40 a gallon. If I control most or all of the milk in the world I can charge whatever I want. If you want milk you have to pay what I say. Your tax option is fools gold.

Posted by: rufus | August 6, 2007 4:58 PM | Report abuse

Colin- As plans go, this one sounds realistic and progress-oriented to me...
and before anyone calls me a dittohead, I'll just ask - has anyone else come up with something better?

Energy independence battle plan:

1) ensure the viability of our biofuel investments

Apply a floating mandate for the percentage of every gallon of fuel that must be biofuel. Whatever ethanol is left over after the E85 demand has been met must be added to the gasoline.This would give ethanol and other biofuels a guaranteed market and would insulate it from fluctuations in the price of oil.


2)Build ethanol delivery pipeline

One of the largest constraints on the expansion of ethanol as a viable alternative to oil is the ability to ship it to market. We should form a public/private consortium to build pipelines from the ethanol providers to the major cities across this country.


3)Provide federal cellulosic ethanol research grants.

We need to push this technology that has the best near term chance of displacing all of our imported oil. We should provide 5 billion dollars in grants to corporations and universities that are actively trying to clear the last hurdles to the profitable implementation of cellulosic ethanol.


4)The Yario ethanol prize

We should set up the Yario prize for the first company to produce cellulosic ethanol at a price competitive with gasoline when oil is at $40 per barrel. The company must also demonstrate this by building a plant with a 100 million gallon/year capacity and operating it at the prescribed cost level for one year. The prize? 5 billion dollars.


5) Provide federal advanced battery technologies grants.

If we can achieve a plug in hybrid capable of 100 miles per gallon at an affordable price we would dramatically reduce our consumption of liquid transportation fuels in the first place. This one is cheap. The big three claim that a federal grant of $500 million over three years would get the job done.


6) The Yario battery prize

We should set up the Yario prize for the first company to produce a car capable of 100 miles per gallon which can be sold at a profit for 30 thousand dollars or less. Prize: 5 billion dollars.

I believe this battle plan has a very good chance of eliminating all imported oil from the middle east and Venezuela within five years and eliminating all imported oil in ten years. What do you guys think?

http://www.newt.org/forum/topic.asp?fi=20000001&catId=30000004&ti=400001123

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | August 6, 2007 4:56 PM | Report abuse

Colin, you want my honest opinion? Neither side has the cajones to follow through on a gas tax. An external event may do it for us, however; an Iranian-sponsored nuclear attack on Tel Aviv would send oil to $200 a barrel or more. Or some kind of tsunami, that can be attributed to warming, hammering the East coast.

I would much prefer to capture the rev ourselves, through a tax, but I cannot see ANY set of circumstances where that would happen; Repubs hate raising taxes on principal, and Dems hate passing 'non-progressive' taxes, which this would certainly be.

Don't kid yourself; raising taxes on gas (or anything, for that matter) will retard the economy. It's just that the alternative is worse; greater consumption of a scare resource, with high externalities.

Posted by: JD | August 6, 2007 4:54 PM | Report abuse

Most of America is angry about the current state of affairs, which is why everyone's approval ratings are so low...Bush, Cheney, Congress.

John Edwards is hated by the political elite in DC...the establishment Democrats, the Republican establishment, and the establishment media, regardless of the fact that he was in the Senate. He is the true outsider in this race.

He has a right to be as outraged as most Americans.

The difference between John Edwards and Howard Dean however, is when Dean looks angry, he really looks angry.

When Edwards is "outraged," his southern manners still shine through.

Interesting that Cillizza didn't point out that distinction between Edwards and Dean. Dean was angry and looked angry. Edwards is angry, but it comes across more as a "FEEL-YOUR-PAIN" anger.

It would serve Edwards well, if the media didn't have an agenda to TEAR HIM DOWN individually.

From the moment that the media lured Barack Obama into the race even though he said in 2004 that he DEFINITELY WOULD NOT BE RUNNING IN 2008, it's been "make sure that Edwards doesn't gain any traction" from the media.

And no, Obama didn't give the typical scripted answer that all candidates give when they are leaving the door open for running. He said DIRECTLY, "NO," he would not be a candidate for President in 2008.

What happened? He went on his book tour and the media started saying that HE HAD TO RUN, with Jonathan Alter sitting on Hardball declaring, "HE HAS TO RUN NOW!!! HE'LL NEVER BE ABLE TO GENERATE THIS BUZZ AGAIN."

Yeah. I wish the media would stop trying to influence people, and report exactly what Bush is up to for a change. When is Chris Cillizza going to say anything about Bush's signing statements, instead of trying to paint John Edwards as the Howard Dean of 2008, when Barack Obama really is in terms of "PEAKING EARLY," but could possibly implode at the end.

Posted by: OEST | August 6, 2007 4:48 PM | Report abuse

Again, you rtrickle down effect only works if the money is running down. Not staying on the top. This is obvious. It must be a greattime to be gop. Other than all the flak you have to take from us bloggers. Livin gin you republcian districts. Making money off slavery and shipping and recieving overseas. Not getting taxed. Listening to republcian parrots dominating the radio and tv. Must be a great time to be gop. No wonder your so clueless when you try and converse on-line. We're living on two differant planets. the gop world, and everybody else.

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

JD & Proud -- glad to hear you both support a gas tax increase. Now, any ideas on how EITHER political party could possibly sell that idea to the public? Because the ONLY way that ever happens is if it's completely bipartisan, so that both sides are equally blamed by the general population.

bsimon -- as usual, it sounds like you were ahead of your time on gas prices. Nonetheless, I'd ask you as well how politicians should sell a gas-tax increase. Honestly, I'm at a loss on this one.

Posted by: Colin | August 6, 2007 4:43 PM | Report abuse

"I'm called some kind of long-haired hippy liberal."

bsimon, you're OK in my book :-)

Posted by: JD | August 6, 2007 4:41 PM | Report abuse

"I think we'll all be better off if we can put an end to these problems. I think we can put more of our own people to work, contributing to the economy, rather than letting people remain trapped in a cycle of poverty that costs us all money - on welfare, law enforcement and prisons. Perhaps you see that as liberal. I see it as sound investment - spending money now in order to save money later. "

i HEAR YOU SIMON. iT'S ABOUT WHERE WE WANT OUR MONEY TO GO. dOES IT GO BACK TO AMERICANS. dOES IT GO INTO INFASTRUcture and back to AMericans. Or does it go to the top %5 and overseas. "Liberals" say it's our money give it to use. The GOP says give it to the top %5 and let them filter it down. "Trust us". As bush continues to say. Trust only works it you don't take advantage of that trust. The gop has done this

Posted by: rufus1133 | August 6, 2007 4:41 PM | Report abuse

Edwards gets it, and that is big trouble for those who are used to "owning" it...US...the U.S.

Reading these comments, I wonder how many were made by those who stand to continue reaping profits off purchased policy that corp dollars buy why the rest of the nation sits around wondering why and how these insane laws clearly opposed the prosperity of PEOPLE continue to be passed....

Anyone who lashes out should be questioned....what do they fear and why....

Edwards is moving an agenda for people...and that is power that can't be bought.

I am angry with the "we promise" of years gone by that turn out to be good intentions but blocked by dollars that elected folks..

Senator Clinton has the most purchased support and is a no go for this dem...

Edwards is my guy...and when people do some research get informed outside of the mainstream paid for propaganda we hear on the news most days...he will be their guy too...

Posted by: Hope | August 6, 2007 4:40 PM | Report abuse

JD: I couldn't possibly care less where you claim to work, how many degrees you claime have, or where you claim to live, since you can't prove any of what you say is true. You seem naive in that respect. Why anyone else would care is beyond me.

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

MikeB writes
"I have jo repect for anyone who makes thier money as an investor, someone who by definition mkaes their money at the expense of others."

That's a pretty simpleminded way of looking at investment. If I want to open a coffee shop & hit up my family and friends to invest in the venture, they expect to get some return on their money. If the coffee shop is a success, I will make a living and I will be able to compensate the other owners - investors, hopefully with either a divident, or in repaying their money, with interest. Of course, if the shop goes bust, they're out of luck. In other words, I'm supposed to compensate them for the risk they take in giving me money.

Posted by: bsimon | August 6, 2007 4:29 PM | Report abuse

MikeB, not sure why I keep responding to you, you seem like such a mean spirited and self-hating individual. But I think I'll try one more time:

what you see as an evil investor, making money off of the sweat of others; I see as someone putting capital to work, allowing others to pursue their dreams of starting a business, buying house, a car, or whatever. When someone 'invests' their money in a bank, stock, or bond, do you think it just goes into a mattress somewhere? No, it gets loaned out to the middle class folks you claim to love, so they can do things that will grow the economy (hopefully, assuming the venture goes well).

PS I actually work for a living, for a non-profit in fact, that deals with and oversees government. Of course, according to Loudoun, I'm not supposed to say that, since that's bragging somehow...even though I was asked the question...

Posted by: JD | August 6, 2007 4:28 PM | Report abuse

well blow me down. The Newt is making headway.

JD says " there is one place that taxes clearly NEED to be raised, and that is on the price of gas."

proudtobeGOP responds
"I wholeheartedly agree."

Funny thing guys, you both like to call me a liberal, but I've thought that gas is cheap for years. Still think so, despite $3/gal gas. Yet every time I've mentioned a gas tax in order to promote alternatives - or conservation - I'm called some kind of long-haired hippy liberal.

Posted by: bsimon | August 6, 2007 4:23 PM | Report abuse

thanks, proudtobe. Too bad that so many people have so much hate inside them that they cannot have a reasonable discussion about almost any issue. How awful it must be for their spouses.

Samuelson and Kraut have both done good workups in this paper on why, without a real gas tax, one that hurts enough to alter behavior, nothing serious will get ever get done, on either global warming or foreign dependence on oil.

Posted by: JD | August 6, 2007 4:23 PM | Report abuse

JD demands "respect" but what he fails to understand is that the politcies and politics he advocates undermines the very existence of this country. I have jo repect for anyone who makes thier money as an investor, someone who by definition mkaes their money at the expense of others. Just look at oil futures, as an example. These parasites bid the cost up and walk away with a pile of cash, leaving everyone else to pay the bills. Same for motgages. The subprime mess wouldn't exist if investors hadn't gotten in there and manipulated prices up to where actual people, who need a home to live in, couldn't afford homes any longer...or ended up buying a home that was bound to end up loosing value once the maret the investors created collapsed. Now, Thomas Jefferson and the Founding Fathers had these people around, too, and did everything in their power to curtail them. They left advice for us rto follow, to beware of them. But, like cockroaches everywhere, they bred in the dark places and came scuttling out to wreck ruin when we weren't looking. Well, JD, we ARE looking now. Get a genuine job, work for a living. Either that or starve in the new world order that is coming a lot sooner than you think.

Posted by: MikeB | August 6, 2007 4:18 PM | Report abuse

JD says " there is one place that taxes clearly NEED to be raised, and that is on the price of gas. It would reduce our dependency on a region of the world that wants to kill Americans, plus reduce greenhouse gas emissions, plus incentivize (more than all the federal spending ever could) alternative sources of energy and better gas mileage."

I wholeheartedly agree. After positing just such a plan last week, many left-leaning elitists quickly laughed at my willingness to pay more at the pump, despite the many valid reasons which you so correctly listed. It really boils down to a Cost vs. benefit argument. Incentivization is they key to becoming energy independant as a nation.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | August 6, 2007 4:16 PM | Report abuse

John Edwards is the Howard Dean of this race. Let's watch him similarly implode.

Posted by: Howard Dean, MD | August 6, 2007 4:03 PM | Report abuse

JD writes
"You and Colin are liberals, I know, but at least you are respectful."

I am liberal in the way of 'Liberal Arts' rather than Liberal politics.

Politically, I think gov't should be as small & unintrusive as possible. But I also think gov't should invest in its citizenry such that everyone has a chance to better themselves. That means that if a child's parents aren't putting food on the table, or getting that kid healthcare, gov't should ensure that the kid has access to food, healthcare & a decent education. The essential flaw in our system is that, in attempting to hold adults accountable, we inadvertently penalize their children. I think our prisons are overfull because of this failure - hungry & sick kids don't learn well in school - they tend to disrupt the classroom environment, which penalizes not only themselves but their peers.

I think we'll all be better off if we can put an end to these problems. I think we can put more of our own people to work, contributing to the economy, rather than letting people remain trapped in a cycle of poverty that costs us all money - on welfare, law enforcement and prisons. Perhaps you see that as liberal. I see it as sound investment - spending money now in order to save money later.

Conservatives claim to be fiscally prudent. I tend to find them short-sighted and, to borrow a phrase, penny wise but pound foolish.

Posted by: bsimon | August 6, 2007 4:02 PM | Report abuse

I know it's superficial, but I just can't get past Edward's hair issues. Between that and him applauding his kid making fun of another kid for buying his shoes at Wal-Mart, I'm afraid he's just not going to make it as an advocate for the poor.

Posted by: DCJO | August 6, 2007 3:59 PM | Report abuse

JD, There are givers and ther are takers. You are simply and totally a taker, a greedy parasite. Fortunately, you are about to rendered exinct.

Posted by: MikeB | August 6, 2007 3:56 PM | Report abuse

One more thing: there is one place that taxes clearly NEED to be raised, and that is on the price of gas. It would reduce our dependency on a region of the world that wants to kill Americans, plus reduce greenhouse gas emissions, plus incentivize (more than all the federal spending ever could) alternative sources of energy and better gas mileage.

Raising that tax would control for the externality (Loudoun, look it up) of the costs of maintaining current usage of oil, in lives, money, pollution, etc.

Posted by: JD | August 6, 2007 3:56 PM | Report abuse

Mike: "As for MikeB, I'd say my 2 degrees in econ are enough."

You'd think after the internet being around for so long that everyone would know that bragging about one's personal credentials would make one look like an idiot. I guess you'd be wrong.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | August 6, 2007 3:56 PM | Report abuse

bsimon: exactly. There's really no way to determine where we are on that curve at any given point...until receipts go *down* after lowering rates, which they haven't yet. I'd like to think that lowering marginal rates provides incentives that grow the economy, plus do other good things (attract overseas capital and smart people, utilize market forces instead of gov political agendas to allocate scarce resources, etc).

I'm willing, honestly I am, to hear an argument that taxes are too low. But the Dems are too afraid to make it, and the emotional types on this blog just scream and yell. Nobody uses facts.

You and Colin are liberals, I know, but at least you are respectful. As is Mark (well, for an attorney :-). Plus a few others.

As for MikeB, I'd say my 2 degrees in econ are enough. How many you have? And did you have a cite or other proof about your claim that the increased tax rev is mostly on the backs of the middle class? Or was that a DailyKos kind of quote?

Posted by: JD | August 6, 2007 3:52 PM | Report abuse

MikeB: JD, like a typical con, can't see more than a few inches in front of his face. That's why he thinks a short-term increase in revenues is great, even though the long-term LOSS in revenues is much greater.

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

JD writes
"Unless of course, you have some evidence that lowering tax rates actually lowers revenue? No? Didn't think so."

Doesn't the Laffer Curve you posted earlier show that lowering the tax rate lowers revenue? What conservatives typically do is pull out the Laffer Curve & assume that we must still be on the high side of the curve, therefore taxes must be lowered. They never seem to ask if we've perhaps gone past the sweet spot & started travelling too far down the curve. Why do you suppose that is?

Posted by: bsimon | August 6, 2007 3:39 PM | Report abuse

mad at Klobuchar writes
"I thought you all might be interested in the following information about the infamous 2005 highway bill... The state of Minnesota received 147 earmarks from the bill worth $495 million according to Taxpayers for Common Sense."

Uh, sir, may I remind you that firstly, Sen Klobuchar was not in the federal government in 2005, and secondly, Congress was controlled by the GOP? Perhaps your rage should instead be directed at Senator Coleman (R-MN) - who was in Congress in 2005, unlike Sen Klobuchar. She holds the seat formerly held by Mark Dayton (D-MN), who is no longer in public office.

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

JD, as you are wll aware, those receipts are due almost entirely to the alternative minimum tax and were collected from the Middle Class. Again, the wealthest 5% and corporate revenues ARE DOWN and have been FALLING since Bush took office. I await your apologies. Better yet, go back to school and study economics.

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

Obama can get more done in the Senate than as VP, so I don't think he would even consider quitting to become VP.

Anyway, the idea of an Edwards/Obama ticket as a sacrificial offering to the altar of Southern racism is ludicrous... particularly after Edwards himself said he doesn't want the votes of people who would vote for him just because he's white.

Edwards/Obama just isn't happening, it's a ridiculous idea.

Posted by: Golgi | August 6, 2007 3:30 PM | Report abuse

Loudoun, refer to the chart I just referenced. I assume that you also will now realize the error of your ways.

Unless of course, you have some evidence that lowering tax rates actually lowers revenue? No? Didn't think so.

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

MikeB said, " Back in the Reagan years it was true. But the bean counters have figured out how to use it as a loophole. Today...and go tax receipts for 2004, 2005, 2006....revenues are down."

OK MikeB, one more time. Please refer to this chart from the US Treasury

http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/reports/revenue%20growth.jpg

This isn't from Rush Limbaugh's site, or Fox News site, etc. This is the US Government. Or are you with Chris Fox and assume that there's a conspiracy afoot?

I will accept your apology now.

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

LOL JD posts a link to the discredited voodoo economics supply-side LAFFER Curve as support for his idiotic post?

Now I'm really LAFFIN'!

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | August 6, 2007 3:23 PM | Report abuse

JD. Just chock it up to class warfare. That's pretty much what you "free traitors" do when people worry about their jobs, about the future of this country, and about economic sanity.

As for your claim that revenues have risen when marginal tax rates were lowered, it's a crock. Back in the Reagan years it was true. But the bean counters have figured out how to use it as a loophole. Today...and go tax receipts for 2004, 2005, 2006....revenues are down. Many firms have "offshored" their headquarters, usually not much more than a Post Office Box, in Dubai or the Caymen Islands, and reduce the taxes they ought to paying by 100% (and sometimes...more!). Your whoole trickle down economic model is bankrupt and is harmful to this country. And, THAT, if you think it class warfare, is not something I will apologize for. Your days of wringing money from the poor and Middle Class aer...OVER and done with. Move to India. You aren't wanted, you aren't needed, and you don't belong here.

Posted by: MikeB | August 6, 2007 3:12 PM | Report abuse

I thought you all might be interested in the following information about the infamous 2005 highway bill. The bill contained more than 6,300 earmarks, including the Bridge to Nowhere in Alaska, at a cost of $24.2 billion.

The state of Minnesota received 147 earmarks from the bill worth $495 million according to Taxpayers for Common Sense.

Included in the list of Minnesota transportation earmarks are "high priority" projects like $1.578 million for bicycle trail construction, $1.3 million for a new visitor's center, and $1.52 for streetscape construction.

The inclusion of these seemingly unnecessary earmarks begs the question: if these are designated by Congress as a "high priority," then what does a low priority look like?

Posted by: Mad as Hell at Klobuchar | August 6, 2007 3:09 PM | Report abuse

Loudoun Voter, educate yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve

I've shown that revenues have risen when the marginal rates were lowered. Obviously there is a bottom limit to that. Duh. I never said that it should go to 0%; you should have inferred that from my response.

If you are suggesting that the rates now are the optimum rates, then you must be against letting the tax cuts expire in 2010?

MikeB, thanks for the insults. Appreciated. Did you actually have a fact-based argument, or are you just here for name-calling and class warfare?

vahawk, Heritage is a fiscally conservative non-profit. That's why I said, if you doubt their source (OMB), then you show me your numbers and cites.

Posted by: JD | August 6, 2007 3:01 PM | Report abuse

Sorry for the spelling errors. CC is messing with me. Trying to discredit. Frickin republicans

Posted by: rufus | August 6, 2007 2:46 PM | Report abuse

I notice that the Post is STILL censoring news about Edwards. Today he criticised Clinton's push for NAFTA, calling it an ill thought out and bad piece of legislation that has cost this country millions of jobs. You can actually read this news over on CNN, which evidently is actually trying to report this election, rather than corinate Ms. Clinton:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/06/edwards.clinton.trade.ap/index.html


And, Chris, tell your editorial staff to to at least try and play this election out on a level field. You already censored the Kos convention remarks about Clinton's being called the Senator from India, the criticism of her working with outsourcing firms, the millions of dollars in campaign donations she received from INDIAN firms interested in sending more H1-B visa'd workers here. Just STOP IT!! Report the NEWS!!!!! No more press censorship.

Posted by: MikeB | August 6, 2007 2:46 PM | Report abuse

JEP writes
"I've been touting the Edwards/Obama ticket for a long time now."

That's not very appealing, to this independant. For starters, Edwards is lighter weight than Obama. Secondly, if we presume for a moment that your assessment of Southern voters is accurate (of which I'm not convinced), I don't think Edwards can overcome the (alleged) aversion to Obama. For one thing, Edwards likely wouldn't have won reelection to his seat, had he run for a 2nd term. At least that's the conventional wisdom. If its true, an Edwards/Obama ticket is doomed.

Generally, I don't see what Edwards brings to the table. Yes, he has passion, but how's he directed it? Mostly towards running for President - 2/3 into his only term as Senator he ran for President, getting the VP nomination. Since then he's continued running - mostly by getting out & doing the speaking/fundraising circuit. Is this all we require of a Presidential candidate now? 4 years in the Senate and 4 years running for higher office?

Posted by: bsimon | August 6, 2007 2:44 PM | Report abuse

I hear that. I support Obama. I agree with almost everything he has said thusfar. My only issue with his is the experiance "problem". I think it will be good to get a fresh face with a fresh perspective in there. I am aware that many do not share these views and are scared of change. I have hoped the country would move past his percieved inexperiance. I had hoped Gore would have stepped up and ran and Obama would be a natural fit, based on the ideologes. Doesn't look like that's going to happen.

Like I said I am starting to warm to edwards. If Obama takes his vp role, I agree he would be a prime candidate in 4 or eight years. I also agree with your sothern white statement. Your making me re-think me stance. There is a Edwards office aroudn the corner from my house. Your making me say" forget obama" and go in there :)

Great points. Hold this site down withthose points. The zouk's and proid's and JD's will look like fools if they is another poster like you on here. Hold it down. :)

Posted by: RUFUS | August 6, 2007 2:44 PM | Report abuse

Rufus;

My brother suffered the same sad fate at the hands of hypocrites who call themselves Christians, he is bitter towards Christ because of what some very evil people did in Jesus' name.

Deaf sheep (evangelicals) following blind goats (televangelists) owned by hungry wolves (neoconservatives).

Just how many Monica Goodlings does it take to have compassion on one unmarried pregnant girl? Apparently, Ms. Goodling refused to let the office have a baby shower for an unmarried mother...

Compassionate conservatives?

HYPOCRITES!

Posted by: JEP | August 6, 2007 2:37 PM | Report abuse

Rufus;

I've been touting the Edwards/Obama ticket for a long time now.

With an eventual goal of Obama in 2016.

I have said right on this blog, if Obama could become our VP to the world, and spend his time travelling and repairing the damage Cheney has done, by the time he's finished, he would be one of the most qualified Presidential candidates in history.

And we would probably be loved and respected around the world again, Barrack's eloquence, class and compassion would surely assuage Cheney's crass, crude, cruel legacy.

Posted by: JEP | August 6, 2007 2:31 PM | Report abuse

bsimon: JD apparently knows the exact percentage rate -- probably to a few thousandths of a point or so -- that will maximize federal income tax revenue. Isn't that amazing? He is really something, huh? We're not worthy.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | August 6, 2007 2:26 PM | Report abuse

"By their fruits ye shall know them...""

I agree. I've been trying to get my grilfreind to become a christian. She told me she can't because how bad she whas treated at church. How thye turned their heads because "she wasn't one of them." Them not knowing that we are all one in God's eyes. What a croke.

I've been trying to tell her that these people are false christians. They are not christians at all in fact. They merly like the way being labeled a "christian, makes them feel about themselves. Puts them on a pedestal. Any real chrsitian knows this is not the goal.

A true christian follows the laws of the christ. The CBN, bush and the "christian" right is leading their sheep to oblivion. Real christians need to stand up agaisnt all these transgressions agaisnt us.

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

JD: "

Loudoun Voter - how about a tax rate of 100% That would maximize federal rev, right?

Just to continue your theme of using an extreme value to knock down a strawman..."

Um nice try, but I have never made the argument relating tax increases to revenue increases. So try again and explain why a tax cut to zero would not maximize federal revenue as your argument clearly indicates?

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

forgot to sign that last one, too...

I'm pretty much sold on a Edwards ticket, and I've posted before that in some ways, Gore has transcended this whole mess, and has influence above and beyond a politician's limitations.

No offense to Edwards, Obama or Clinton, but they do not rise to that level.

Curious, though, that I no longer consider the office of the President of the U.S. the highest calling, or the nexus of power and influence...

More and more, that nexus is becoming a public realm, and the blogs represent the public's first real foothold on it.

Sometimes, it doesn't take high office to have great influence.

Ask Jane Hamscher and Josh Marshall, they know what I mean.

Posted by: JEP | August 6, 2007 2:23 PM | Report abuse

"Second job? She already works 6 days a week!"

No, Mike, just let her take that second job, and then her kids can run around on the streets and join a gang!

Who needs Moms or Dads when you got gangs...

Posted by: Anonymous | August 6, 2007 2:16 PM | Report abuse

so I'm aausming you would be all over a Edwards Obama ticket, JEP. Me too. But the question becomes who would you rather have? A edwards obama ticket, or an obama gore ticket?

Posted by: rufus | August 6, 2007 2:13 PM | Report abuse

Rufus;

The C in CBN is using the Lord's name in vain.

"By their fruits ye shall know them..."

A lot of Christians are waking up to the war/torture/corruption Republican Party realities they have been blinded to, and they aren't falling for the gay marriage/ abortion red herrings any more.

Sometimes, the Truth just simply prevails, and truly spiritual people have no choice but to recognize it.

Posted by: JEP | August 6, 2007 2:12 PM | Report abuse

Lyle, my only real issue with Hillary and Obama is southern white males. There's just too much at stake to gamble on a sea-change in the Southern good-old-boy ranks.

Other than that concern, I would and will support them very gladly, should they prevail in the primaries.

I discovered a bit late (I was an early Deaniac) Edwards is a true populist, and has been since BEFORE 2004, if Dean was Edwards, and Kerry's DLC machine hadn't purchased the nomination, Bin Laden might actually be dead right now.

And Iraq would still just be a nuisance and a threat, not a world-class historical disaster of unprecedented cost and proportions.

With Edwards, the Southern Vote issue is not nearly as complex, he's "one of em". Not in ideology, but ideology has never been the real issue to the crackers. If it looks like a white male, smells like a white male and talks like a white male (especially with a southern drawl) they might just vote for it...

And that would guarantee a Democratic victory. Take those votes away, or worse yet, move them over to the R's, it could go much differently.

I admit, Hillary's corporate creds don't scare me as much as some, because I would guess she's perfectly capable of taking money from some of these creeps, then denying them their share of the spoils.

"Vast rightwing crybabies", after that.

I still wish Obama would quit the cigarette habit...

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

If Fox and their people are public enemy number one.

The Heritage Group is number two.

The CBN is three.

In terms of republican propoganda clouding any real political growth and dialogue amonst their constituacy.

I tried to get the CBN to start airing christian teches again and stop spouting republicna propoganda. No avail

Posted by: rufus | August 6, 2007 2:02 PM | Report abuse

Togledites like JD keep blathering about taxes and their trickle down theory of economics. Now, no one who cares to read history will deny that the trickle down economic model actually worked under Reagan. The problem is, people LEARN...especially corporations and investors. What once upon a time provided jobs and economic growth, is now a tool used by bussineses to avoid paying taxes, to maximize profits, and to take advantage of workers. It no longer does what it was supposed to do. Scrap it!

As for taxes, we live in a country with an infrastructure. That infrastructure costs money. That includes things like highways and bridges, an electrical grid, cellure and RF spectrums, schools, police, fire, and medical assistance. All of the things that set us apart from India or Somalia. I suppose the JD's of this country would have people selling organs to provide foo for their children. Likewise, he is the sort of self serving twit, like Romny, who is so clueless about that working waitress, trying to provide medical care for her sick children, that he doesn't see the problem ---- wages and tips: $400 a week (max), food for herself and two children: $150 a week (min), rent: $800 a month, medical insurance $1000 a month. Oops, not enough money. Second job? She already works 6 days a week! Even corporations are starting to see the problem. Most are self insured, bt with medical costs going up an average of 15% a year (And, that is your fault, too. You wont allow the government to negotiate with providors and vendors for the lowest cost drugs, equipment, and services.) , they are going broke providing medical insurance for employees and retirees. So they, too, are hollering for "relief". Toyota located their new hybrid assembly plant in Canada over uncontrolled medical costs. Without universal medical insurance, the United States is an economic backwater with no future.

Posted by: MikeB | August 6, 2007 2:01 PM | Report abuse

"Trickle-down, supply side economics has become the Sysiphus Stoneof modern economics."

I agree. Trickle down economics only works if the money is being trickled down and not horded.

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

JD writes, directed at JEP
"Are you suggesting that times have evolved, economically speaking, and the past is not prologue? OK, maybe I can buy that, but without clear evidence to suggest the contrary, isn't past experience with cause and effect the best we have to go on?"

Well, if we're going on past experience, should we assume that a tax cut will always boost the economy, or should we only conclude that cutting tax rates from 70% to 35% (making up numbers here) will boost the economy? Surely at some point cutting the tax rate will no longer have an appreciable and/or positive impact on the economy.

Posted by: bsimon | August 6, 2007 1:47 PM | Report abuse

The Heritage Group is a far right-wing organization that will bend numbers so they go along with their theories.

Bring some numbers from a non-biased organization and people might actually believe.

Posted by: vahawk | August 6, 2007 1:47 PM | Report abuse

I fell you JEP. Thanks for the clarification. On point analisys, by the way

Posted by: rufus | August 6, 2007 1:46 PM | Report abuse

"Forward Into Battle
With The Wall Street Journal and a new business network, Rupert Murdoch and Fox News chief Roger Ailes plan their next move: all-out war."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20123487/site/newsweek/

Play time is over. This is not a game. This is a verbal battle of ideas. And the gop ideas of " Iknow you are but what am I" are somehow winning. It is a verbal battle and somehow barney romper room tactics are winning Albert Einstein's. I blame fox for destroying the media and REAL journalism

Posted by: rufus | August 6, 2007 1:45 PM | Report abuse

Rufus;

In terms of Fox, we are on the same page. Their perversion of the whole concept of The 4th Estate (fair and balanced?) was instrumental in the "some of the people all of the time" equation.

I have nothing but contempt for them.

But compared to their delusional years imagining they were the Lords of FatBush, Hannity and O'Rielly (the whole cast, too, but those two in particular) have really been slapped down by history's latest round of harsh reality.

They will never humble themselves to admit it, but their imaginary powers are now relegated to the trash-bin of history, and only their delusions, the brainwashed Bushies, and Roger Ailes sustain them.

The vast majority consider them a joke.

That was my point, maybe I should have been more clear.

Posted by: JEP | August 6, 2007 1:43 PM | Report abuse

JEP: You are correct again, Hillary is and has been my favorite all along. Rasmussen has quite a good story today about polling, although he tends to favor repubs by about 3 [three] % above others, he is quite good. I like your comment about Fox news, I try and watch all the outlets to get a wide variety of views, and Fox has only one, not like the others, that sets them apart.

Posted by: lylepink | August 6, 2007 1:37 PM | Report abuse

"isn't past experience with cause and effect the best we have to go on?"

Only if the causes and effects remain the sdame, and that just isn't true.

JD, the whole"trickle-down" fiasco just illustrates what I mean.

The middle class is just now stretching it's new consumer-class legs.

It may be hard for the supply siders to admit it, but unless you empower the middle class with higher wages (not easy credit), the economy will always be subject to precipitous declines followed by long, struggling climbs.

Trickle-down, supply side economics has become the Sysiphus Stoneof modern economics.

GIVE THE MIDDLE CLASS A HEALTHY PAY RAISE AND THEY WILL SPEND IT!

And thatmakes the rich richer, and could eventually serve to eliminate the poverty class.

But as long as pour commonwealth is pooled up into those billiojn dollar bank accounts, it just can't grow the sway you all wish it would as you roll your archiac, supply-side economic sysiphus stone back up the mountain again.

Give the middle class a living wage, and the economy will explode, and create a free-market that is literally a perpetual mtion economic engine, which, once loosed from the constraints of voodoo economics, will enrich the entire world,not just the wealthy.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 6, 2007 1:37 PM | Report abuse

Loudoun Voter - how about a tax rate of 100% That would maximize federal rev, right?

Just to continue your theme of using an extreme value to knock down a strawman...

Posted by: JD | August 6, 2007 1:32 PM | Report abuse

JEP: Whenever some tool tells you that tax cuts always lead to more revenue, ask them if they therefore agree that the tax rate should be immediately cut to zero.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | August 6, 2007 1:23 PM | Report abuse

"For the rest of the nation, they are an impotent joke, especially Hannity and O'Reilly. When you have such high ratings, you might expect a varied audience."

tHEY MAY BE A JOKE jep, and I agree with almost everythign you said. But they are still public enemy number one. O'Reilly has succfeded in silencing many people. Fox has succeded in turn cnn msnbc and the main stream media right. They may be a joke but this joke is not to be taken lightly. They may be a joke but they still have pull. Like bush, getting his illegal wiretap some credibility by the dems signing on. These people may be jokes but these jokers are gettign results.

It's not time to laugh at Fox. It's time to be angered and get them off the air. No idsrepesct indended.

Posted by: rufus | August 6, 2007 1:22 PM | Report abuse

NonP, not sure why you think that's Guiliani-speak; I'm just pointing out facts. Here's one chart that shows the correlation between tax cuts and increased rev:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/images/chart.gif

I'm sure there are many other sources out there, if you don't trust Heritage.


JEP, while I love your skill with the language ('fiscal high-waders'), I'm not sure I follow. Are you suggesting that times have evolved, economically speaking, and the past is not prologue? OK, maybe I can buy that, but without clear evidence to suggest the contrary, isn't past experience with cause and effect the best we have to go on?

Colin, as one of the few on this site whose opinion I respect, I appreciate your comments. You're guess is correct, the real problem is runaway spending; and it's only going to get worse, both because of dem control of both Congress and the WH in 08, and because of the crushing entitlements to seniors.

Anon, as for your spelling issues....post a name or initials and we can have a chat. Otherwise, pipe down, adults talking here.

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

Hey, BSimon, it was just an observatin I made once, and still wonder about it...

Actually, back in my college days (early 70's) I won a bet when I played "Born To Be Wild" on a line-up of beer bottle at various stages of fullness...

No brag, just fact...


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

"People, who want Bush policies to be continued, should pick Hillary Clinton, people, who want radical changes, should pick Obama."

Golly, according to that mmodel, wouldn't Edwards actually seem "normal?"

Too much of a simplification, though, your lines are much too well-defined, all three share a great many similar opinions, but we are now ddown to parsing their differences, not their similarities.

Politics.

Posted by: JEP | August 6, 2007 1:10 PM | Report abuse

JEP notes
"made me wonder if the volume of air inside a flute playing middle c (or any note) is the same as the volume of air in a clarinet of an oboe playing the same note."

You are far outside my realm of knowledge. My experience with wind instruments starts & finishes with varying the volume of beer in a bottle.

Posted by: bsimon | August 6, 2007 1:09 PM | Report abuse

This just in from Media Matters;
"During the month of July, Fox's "business news" anchor devoted nine segments to bashing John Edwards. He paid more attention to Edwards than to any other candidate, Democratic or Republican."

When Fox News is so scared of one candidate, it actully serves as an endorsement.

They are trying to create a "Dean Scream" millieuaround Edwards, but only the 25% who still support Bush actually believe it any more. And that is the sun of Fox News' influence.

For the rest of the nation, they are an impotent joke, especially Hannity and O'Reilly. When you have such high ratings, you might expect a varied audience.

Not so Fox, Bush's 25% represents their audience, right down to the % sign.

So they go on, deluding themselves they have influence, when all they are doing is "fooling some of the people all of the time."

But, I do admit, it is a very loyal "some of the people all of the time."

Unfortunately for the rest of us who must suffer due to their ignorance.


Posted by: JEP | August 6, 2007 1:02 PM | Report abuse

Almost $500 billion -- and doesn't include Iraq and Aghanistan. Incredible.


'The House early yesterday approved modest changes to President Bush's record Pentagon budget proposal, but Democrats signaled plans to resume a more contentious debate over the Iraq war after the August recess.

The House's $459.6 billion version of the defense budget, approved on a 395 to 13 vote, would add money for equipment for the National Guard and Reserve, provide for 12,000 additional soldiers and Marines, and increase spending for defense health care and military housing.

The House early yesterday approved modest changes to President Bush's record Pentagon budget proposal, but Democrats signaled plans to resume a more contentious debate over the Iraq war after the August recess.

The House's $459.6 billion version of the defense budget, approved on a 395 to 13 vote, would add money for equipment for the National Guard and Reserve, provide for 12,000 additional soldiers and Marines, and increase spending for defense health care and military housing.

The measure does not include Bush's 2008 funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

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

Bsimon;

we both read the same geographic article, I was absolutely fascinated by that observation about the Fnote emanating from a supernova.

Funniest thought popped into my mind after I read that, made me wonder if the volume of air inside a flute playing middle c (or any note) is the same as the volume of air in a clarinet of an oboe playing the same note.

(...my wife is in a woodwind trio)

Someone has probably formulated that calculation sometime in the past, but I haven't found it yet.

Posted by: JEP | August 6, 2007 12:51 PM | Report abuse

"What she we do"

What should we do rather

Posted by: Anonymous | August 6, 2007 12:50 PM | Report abuse

"all ameicans should be angry, but i hate it when the dems argue with each other. put that aside for now and concentrate on knocking the neo-cons, who will follow bush to the very end.let's get them all out, now."

The dems have to agrue with each other. You got hillary and a portion of dems standing pat with bush. You got a large prtion wanting to pull out. Their are a lot of options. To not discussion and or argue destroys our process. If you don't want tooth and nail fighting in politics, you are in the wrong country. The stakes are to big to not fight and argue. Espiecally with hillary going the route she's going. She is the perceived front runner? Did you knwo the dems ok bush's ILLEGAL wiretapping over the weekend? Should we not be angry about that? What she we do. Sit here queitly and wait? Not me.

Posted by: rufus113 | August 6, 2007 12:48 PM | Report abuse

JD
Riddle me this...

When, in history, did the middle class replace the wealthy class as the consumer class? And, another step back, when did the wealthy class replace the royals as the consumer class.

Economies evolve.

Your models apparently don't.

Expertise is useless when it becomes arcane.

Posted by: JEP | August 6, 2007 12:44 PM | Report abuse

"serious disagreement among economist over the proposition that tax-cuts create revenue."

When Kennedy "did it" the economy was ripe for just such a tax-cut.

But while times have changed, apparently the models didn't.

Economies evolve, just like the societies that spawn them. Someday, the economists need to realize that and reconsider thier models from time to time.

Here's an analogy everyone will understand...If you keep putting the same clothes on your children as they grow up, those pants eventually don't fit.

You conservative economists are all wearing fiscal high-waders from the 60's.

Posted by: JEP | August 6, 2007 12:42 PM | Report abuse

all ameicans should be angry, but i hate it when the dems argue with each other. put that aside for now and concentrate on knocking the neo-cons, who will follow bush to the very end.let's get them all out, now.

Posted by: dee kuhlmann | August 6, 2007 12:42 PM | Report abuse

Lylepink, I thought you were a Clinton supporter?

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

anon says
"New York - The economy is losing its umph as summer winds to a close."

There was an article in yesterday's NYT in the business section on the way inflation statistics are calculated. The author argued that because core inflation numbers don't include non-durable goods like food & fuel (to try to limit volatility), but those are non-discretionary purchases, so core CPI & core CPE (did I get that acronym right?) under report inflation. I don't recall all the details, but the author made a compelling point.

Posted by: bsimon | August 6, 2007 12:35 PM | Report abuse

JD -- I gather you're a supply-sider, which is fine I suppose, but at the very least I think you have to concede that there is very serious disagreement among economist over the proposition that tax-cuts create revenue. Greenspan, for one, seemed to think that that assumption was a recipe for creating structural deficits - b/c it assumes you can continue to increase spending while reducing tax rates.

As far as your deficit as a % of the GDP, are you really arguing that we're in good shape b/c our current deficits are historically smaller than when we were in severe financial recessions and/or in the middle of the last world war? B/c I'm not sure that's actually a sign of financial health. Sort of like a family bragging that they're current debts aren't NEARLY as bas as the last time they declared bankruptcy...

All of this is really an aside though, b/c I'm fine with philosophical arguments favoring more tax cuts. I'd just like to have a rational argument where people get to decide whether/how many government programs they're willing ot have cut to pay for those tax cuts. As long as that debate is honest, I will happily abide by the results.

Posted by: Colin | August 6, 2007 12:35 PM | Report abuse

forgot to sign that last post...

Posted by: JEP | August 6, 2007 12:34 PM | Report abuse

JD, you never even tried to answer my comment.

You demand stats?

Go find a wartime era whern taxes got CUT for the wealthy like Bush did.

Then come back here with the proof of it.

Don't be so self-righteous, Mr. Spelling bee, you don't correct people's typos on the blogs, anyone who's blogged more than a couple times knows you can't judge a person's post by the typos they make on the blogs.

That's one of the true indicators of blog fluency,that you NEVER assume to correct a typo, it just makes all of us former speling champions laugh out loud.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 6, 2007 12:33 PM | Report abuse

"OT, but anyone here know how F-major relates to supernovas?"

Hmmm... Nat'l Geographic had an article on supernovas a month or two ago... Is that the note emitted by an exploding star - if we were able to hear it through the vacuum of space?

Posted by: bsimon | August 6, 2007 12:32 PM | Report abuse

JEP: I tend to agree with you on most things with Edwards being at least one exception. I have thought for a long time he was on a downhill slide. A few weeks ago I got a e-mail from friends traveling through Iowa and they said to not be suprised when the change started showing in the polls, and another quite revealing observation I will not mention at this time. This anger thing is not new to a losing campaign, and doesn't play very well with some folks, but in reality most of the country is "Mad as hell" about this Administration.

Posted by: lylepink | August 6, 2007 12:30 PM | Report abuse

New York - The economy is losing its umph as summer winds to a close.

For one, it's looking as if the downturn in housing is spreading to other parts of the economy. Investors, watching this happen, are becoming increasingly nervous and more selective with their loans.

The tightening of credit standards is taking place at a time when trends in consumer spending and the labor market are taking a downturn.

Car and truck sales are slowiing, there's a weakening recreational boat market, and slowing domestic sales of Harley-Davidson motorcycles. It's also spreading to freight haulers who are reporting weaker volumes. Caterpillar is reporting weaker domestic sales because of a slowdown in construction, and ad revenue is down for newspapers in part because of diminished real estate advertising.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 6, 2007 12:30 PM | Report abuse

"Everyone hates traffic congestion, but how do we fix it. WE HAVE TO PAY FOR IT!!"

That's a good point, vahawk. I'm from San Jose, since moved out. The number one problem in people's lives, it was polled, is traffic there. For all the hate the bay area gets from the rest of the country. Their problem is not money. It's not crime. It's over population and traffic. California has, Last time I checked, the 5 largeast economy in THE WORLD. You heard that right.

We need to spread the openness and ideals of the bay area across the country. 1962 is over. It's time to push freedom and individuality to the test. Look no farther than the bay area to see how to do it. The fifth largest economy in the world. Why? Less gop sabotage and MEME ME ME. I work out of the bay and nobody can get anything done. The business employee's won't teach their knowledge. Won;t document. Won;t grow the business because they don't want to lose their jobs. It's crazy. In san jose these people would get shoen the door. The business comes first. In terms of politics, the country comes first. We need to get rid of the republican saboturs. That of marginalize them, or send them to rupert murdoch land in austrialia

Posted by: rufus | August 6, 2007 12:30 PM | Report abuse

"wealth with honor" -- JEP where did you come up with that?

Posted by: NonP | August 6, 2007 12:28 PM | Report abuse

Mad as Hell at Klobuchar writes
"Klobuchar is attempting to shift all the blame onto the President of the United States!

Why is Amy Klobuchar making the media rounds to blame a federal politician for a local failure of funds allocation? Isn't that the question you should be asking?"

If Senator Klobuchar's comments are misdirected, in blaming the President and/or all Republicans, that doesn't necessarily imply that she should bear the blame instead. I can certainly understand you'd be upset if she blamed someone you support, who you think should not be blamed; but turning the blame back on her makes no sense what-so-ever. Personally, I haven't seen the comments you're responding to. From what I've seen so far, Senator Klobuchar tends not to be a knee-jerk partisan hack that tries to blame everything on Republicans, but there's certainly no reason she couldn't turn into such a creature - she wouldn't be the first, if this is, in fact, what's happened.

Posted by: bsimon | August 6, 2007 12:28 PM | Report abuse

"faltering (or falthering...)?"

ridiculing typos suggests you are quite new to blogging....

Posted by: JEP | August 6, 2007 12:27 PM | Report abuse

"filthy rich."

Has that term ever been more meaningful than it is today?

The concept of "wealth with honor" is dead.

Posted by: JEP | August 6, 2007 12:25 PM | Report abuse

"I know that this concept can be tough for the economics-challenged, but lowering taxes almost always increases revenue; go look at the figures if you don't believe me." JD -- JD, that sounds likes it's straight from Giulianni yesterday. Unfortunately, "almost always" is an overstatement. It all depends on a lot of variables, which any credible economist will tell have to be factored into the equation to see what the result will be. The variables change all of the time. A tax cut is no guarantee of a revenue increase.

Posted by: NonP | August 6, 2007 12:24 PM | Report abuse

NEW YORK -- Bear Stearns Cos. said Sunday that co-President and co-Chief Operating Officer Warren Spector has resigned following the meltdown of two hedge funds that invested in risky mortgage-backed securities.


Separately, another ratings agency, Fitch Ratings, downgraded $46.4 million worth of Bear Stearns bonds backed by subprime mortgages, or home loans to people with spotty credit histories.

The news sent the Wall Street brokerage's shares tumbling to their lowest price since November 2005. The shares, which have lost nearly one-third of their value this year, fell $7.28, or 6.3 percent, to close Friday at $108.35.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 6, 2007 12:23 PM | Report abuse

"Why is the economy falthering now, brainiac? Wealthy people hardly pay any taxes at all."

Posted by: | August 6, 2007 12:01 PM

Brainiac? Hmm, I rather like the appellation; did you think it up yourself?

How, exactly, is the economy faltering (or falthering...)? Stats please, not more of your emotional blather. Likewise, if the wealthy aren't paying any taxes, is that just class warfare talking points from tinfoilhats.com, or did you actually have some evidence of that?

Posted by: JD | August 6, 2007 12:22 PM | Report abuse


For now, Iowa caucus goers are frosty on the current slate of candidates, according to a Washington Post/ABC News poll released on Sunday. Only 19% of Republican caucus-goers responded that they were "very satisfied" with the current slate of GOP candidates.

Posted by: pathetic excuses for candidates | August 6, 2007 12:20 PM | Report abuse

"With the dawn of the Web, it began to dawn on the GOP propagandists that they were no longer able to spew out lies without being challenged."

Good point.

While they can buy off a few thousand Mainstream Media hacks and "top poundits", they just can't buy off 10 Million bloggers who are Mad as Hell!!!

And as those bloggers (Talking Points Memo, Firedog Lake, Digby, The Next Hurrah, YKos etc. etc.) supplant the MSM as the 4th Estate, the MSM that abdicated that throne doesn't seem to realize what hit them.

Posted by: JEP | August 6, 2007 12:20 PM | Report abuse

Journalists, bloggists, opinionates are contriving to create a viable Democratic candidate for 2008 -- and all knowingly or unwittingly in cahoots with the GOP sachems. And that is to please the hand which feeds 'em. Hey, why not? The kingmakers know that anger simmering under the candidates skins will erupt with enough provokation. Seed the conferences, the debates with just enough "juice" to get the resentments rising and you've got an image for the character assassins to target.

But it need not be a display of pique -- even a display of triumph [witness the claque over Dr. Dean's exuberance] is enough for the journalists to cluck their
collective tongues. Remember the calm of
GHW Bush when faced with perturbation. When criticized for not grocery shopping enough, it made him likeable and courtly. But when shopping for armaments he knows his onions. Yes, it was the stupid economy. But where are the journalists now to criticize the prodigal son? They've now come around to applaud his compassionate nature and good heart. Was it Mercutio who cried: "A pox on both their houses!"? Or could it be Edwards?

Posted by: Clyde Banks | August 6, 2007 12:19 PM | Report abuse

"We keep our options quiet. We don't go out to say to a nation that's working with us that we intend to go in there and bring on a unilateral attack," said Romney. "The only people who can defeat radical jihadists are Muslims themselves."

So I guess that means he's all for getting out of Iraq, right?

And Pakistan is hardly 'working with this...'

Posted by: Anonymous | August 6, 2007 12:16 PM | Report abuse

Obama told the group Sunday that he was surprised by the strong reaction.

"If we had actionable intelligence in terms of taking (terrorists) out and we couldn't get the government of Pakistan to act, we should act. That doesn't seem to me to be a controversial statement," he said.

Posted by: obama's right | August 6, 2007 12:14 PM | Report abuse

"The model shows that the oscillations within the core of the star are so strong that they eventually turn into sound waves, essentially restarting the halted explosion. Registering at an audible frequency, the sound wave has been consistently found, through the computer model, to be equivalent to the F-note above middle C, Burrows said."
http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/117855

Sorry, OT, but the Sing for the Blogs thing just got me thinking...

Posted by: JEP | August 6, 2007 12:13 PM | Report abuse

Angry is a fitting emotion to express what is currently going on in the current administration - especially their foreign policies. Estimated by the Borgen Project, every 3.6 seconds, another person dies of starvation. The initial thought is shock, and then anger that as one of the wealthiest and most resourceful country world-reknown for it's capabilities, the United States has done little to end this atrocity.

Posted by: Erica | August 6, 2007 12:11 PM | Report abuse

OT, but anyone here know how F-major relates to supernovas?

Posted by: JEP | August 6, 2007 12:08 PM | Report abuse

"Viva la Blogs!"

That was in F-major!

Posted by: JEP | August 6, 2007 12:06 PM | Report abuse

The Real Reason The Wingnuts Hate YearlyKos
Once upon a time, it was easy to be a GOP propagandist. Up until the mid-1990s, Republicans could spew out lies all day long and rarely had to worry about any watchdogs holding them accountable. Oh sure, there were a few obscure leftist print publications here and there, but they had tiny circulations and were often difficult to come by.... With the dawn of the Web, it began to dawn on the GOP propagandists that they were no longer able to spew out lies without being challenged.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 6, 2007 12:06 PM | Report abuse

"Network consolidators in media and the network consolidators in broadband are both talking about the same thing, fusing conduit and content, content and distribution. By controlling both, they can keep competing voices out with very far-reaching consequences for our economy, for our culture, for entertainment, for the credibility of our news, for the vitality of our civic dialogue, for the future of our democracy. So even if you rarely watch TV or read a newspaper, even if you wouldn't shed a tear if old media somehow disappeared tomorrow morning, I hope you will see that these phenomenon are really blood related."

In the coming months, the FCC will revisit media ownership rules that the Bush administration first tried to pass in 2003, but were later tossed out by both the courts and Congress. At the same time, a fight rages in Congress over so-called Net neutrality, which would prohibit telecommunications companies from giving preference to certain content that is delivered over broadband.

Neither issue gets much attention, but Copps, a balding former assistant secretary of commerce, has a way of turning incredibly complex bureaucratic rule makings into morality plays. "The way you win, the only way you win, is to take this story not just to Capitol Hill but all across America," he said. "Talk about it, write about it, blog about it. If you can sing, sing about it."

Posted by: this is how they will silence the internet | August 6, 2007 12:02 PM | Report abuse

Are you kidding me? We all should know that the executive branch has the power to use the funds the way they want to. The legislative branch only appropriate the funds. And the last time I checked, both Pawlenty and Bush are repubs. Is it all their fault? No, not completely. What's really to blame is the whole idea of that it is better to keep "my money" away from the government instead of investing in our infrastructure. Everyone hates traffic congestion, but how do we fix it. WE HAVE TO PAY FOR IT!! But guess what, good jobs come from that. EFficiency of travel comes from that. Yes, sometimes you have to spend money to make money. Its a win-win for the country, but repubs think it is more important to keep the rich, filthy rich.

Like Bush who says he will veto the child healthcare bill that would cost somewhere around 35-50 billion over 5 years. But he wants to get rid of the estate tax so that the Walton family can save $35 billion. Glad that the kids of Sam Walton are more important than millions of children.

Yep, repubs are the party of family values... if your family is filthy rich.

Posted by: vahawk | August 6, 2007 12:01 PM | Report abuse

'Um, it happened because our government spending increased faster than our revenue increased. I know that this concept can be tough for the economics-challenged, but lowering taxes almost always increases revenue; '

Typical R-trollism - demsa are 'economics-challenged' -- then a barrage of voodoo economics. Except none of it is true. Why is the economy falthering now, brainiac? Wealthy people hardly pay any taxes at all.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 6, 2007 12:01 PM | Report abuse

wELL SAID mIKEb. yOU ARE THE MAN ;)

Posted by: RUFUS | August 6, 2007 11:58 AM | Report abuse

"Because Klobuchar is attempting to shift all the blame onto the President of the United States!"

So, wher DOES the buck stop?

Actually, I think Amy is blaming the Republicans as a whole, not just Bush.

Is that what you are really so upset about?

I assume you (R) a Republican?

Would you give back your tax break if you thought it could undo the damage?

Posted by: JEP | August 6, 2007 11:55 AM | Report abuse

'Iraq, again: When Ron Paul noted that "neoconservatives promoted [the war against Iraq] many, many years before it was started," that there was "no al-Qaida in Iraq" before the war, that there were "no weapons of mass destruction," and that the same people who now predict disaster if we leave Iraq predicted the war would be "duck soup" in the beginning, McCain interrupted him -- twice -- to ask, "Have you forgotten about 9/11?"

the party of demogogues and delusion

Posted by: Anonymous | August 6, 2007 11:54 AM | Report abuse

Abortion: Responding to an automated phone call in which Sam Brownback challenges his antiabortion bona fides, Mitt Romney declared that he was for abortion rights before he was against them. "I was pro-choice," he said. "I am pro-life." When Brownback pointed to a 1994 video clip on YouTube in which Romney says, "I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country," Romney said: "Ah, that's the -- consider the source." A moment later, however, Romney himself pointed to the YouTube video and explained, "I never said I was pro-choice, but my position was effectively pro-choice."

Posted by: laughable flipflopper | August 6, 2007 11:53 AM | Report abuse

"but lowering taxes almost always increases revenue;"

But, friend, taxes have NEVER been LOWERED in time of war. Especially a trillion-dollar, no-bid war.

As usual, another economic "expert" cooking the books and disregarding the whole story to defend their abject greed.

Posted by: JEP | August 6, 2007 11:52 AM | Report abuse

"Why on earth would you blame a federal politician for a collapsing bridge that is inspected by a state department (MN DOT), overseen by Sec DOT Mary Kiffmeyer.. and Gov Pawlenty?"

Because Klobuchar is attempting to shift all the blame onto the President of the United States!

Why is Amy Klobuchar making the media rounds to blame a federal politician for a local failure of funds allocation? Isn't that the question you should be asking?

Posted by: Mad as Hell at Klobuchar | August 6, 2007 11:52 AM | Report abuse

John Edwards is the only candidate running for President who will actually do something to fix the mess this country is in. He is right on energy, on globalization, on jobs, on health care, on education, on corporate money used to buy politcians, on honest government, and stands for working men and women. As a country we have one chance and one chance only, of surviving, and that is to elect John Edwards as President. It isn't game anymore. For anyone who thinks so, look at the Democratic passed legislation to continue spying on Amercians, the Democartic passed legislation prohibiting common people from bringing in their prescription drugs from European pharmacies (while allowing Indian and Chinese drug companies to flood our markets with fake and, somtimes even poisonous, pills). They have done nothing with regards to the overwheling desire of most Amercian's to get out of Iraq, to curtail Bush's war powers provided after 9-11, to put an end to this globalization nonsense. Democrats like Kennedy and Clinton and Richardson and Dodd actually want to increase outsourcing and guest workers, want to legalize millions of illegals to further depress wages and ebenefits and increase job insecurity. Except for John Edwards, all of the other candidates are simply different versions of the same corporate cronies we have had for the past 20 years.

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

"But I bet you dollars to donuts we wouldn't have a few hundred thousand soldiers in Iraq today."

If Edwards had been elected President in 2004, Bin Laden would be the one we hanged, not Hussein.

Posted by: JEP | August 6, 2007 11:50 AM | Report abuse

anonymous post said, "We cut taxes for the rich and now we have the biggest deficit in history. Gee, how'd that happen?"

Um, it happened because our government spending increased faster than our revenue increased. I know that this concept can be tough for the economics-challenged, but lowering taxes almost always increases revenue; go look at the figures if you don't believe me. It stimulates the economy, encourages (economic) risk-taking and entrepreneurship, and allows the efficient market to direct the flow of capital instead of the government.

By the way, anon, our deficit as a % of GDP, which is the only measure that makes any sense, is much lower today (~3%) than it was in the 80s (6%), or W's first term (5%), or especially during WWII (30%).

Posted by: JD | August 6, 2007 11:50 AM | Report abuse

And people wonder why Edwards is mad as hell? And most of The People?

The kind of twisted logic and pathological denial displayed by this Pawlenty/Republican apologist is why.

Posted by: JEP | August 6, 2007 11:48 AM | Report abuse

John Edwards ought to be angry. And so should every other American in this country. Seven years have passed with so little forward progress for this nation that it has to be extremely frustrating to people who have been so close to having had the opportunity to really have some influence. I believe that if Edwards had run on his own against Bush in 2004, instead of with Kerry, he'd be President today and things would be very different.

I think 9-11 was in the making even before Bush became President. I hope that Edwards would have been as outraged as Bush was over the attack. But I bet you dollars to donuts we wouldn't have a few hundred thousand soldiers in Iraq today.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 6, 2007 11:48 AM | Report abuse

The winner of Sunday's Republican presidential debate in Iowa? Barack Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton, who responded to the Republicans' criticism of Obama's vow to take action against "high-value terrorist targets" in Pakistan with or without the help of President Pervez Musharraf by saying that the GOP candidates "want to keep 160,000 American troops in the middle of a civil war" but "couldn't agree that we should take out Osama bin Laden if we had him in our sights."

Since when has the US had to ask the permission of a military dictator to ensure the safety of our own people?

Republicans sure are careful not to hurt the feelings of middle eastern sheiks and dictators.

Posted by: Cassandra | August 6, 2007 11:46 AM | Report abuse

as for the baseball stadium, if you R's hadn't been so greedy with your tax money, YOU COULD HAVE HAD BOTH the stadiums and the good bridges.

Republicans, do me a favor and lets have an experiment in personal responsibility.

Check you bank account balance, figure how much of that would have gone into taxes before your tax cut, and then weigh whether you would give it back, if you could bring those victims up from their watery grave.

because, whether you all want to admit or not, those extra dollars you so desperately fought for, might have made the difference.

I did not say "would" have made the difference, I said "might"have made the difference.

But there's really no "other factor" that even "might" have prevented this tragedy.

Seriously, I believe almost all of you would gladly return that tax break back to the commonwealth, if you thought it would prevent this awful disaster.

You may not admit it to us Dems, but in your hearts you know I'm right.

Posted by: JEP | August 6, 2007 11:46 AM | Report abuse

We heard from several angry Minnesotans last week who were offended when President Bush, during a Rose Garden press briefing Thursday, said a few words of sympathy about the Minneapolis bridge collapse and then launched immediately into an attack on Democrats in Congress.

Posted by: all dittoheads scum are alike | August 6, 2007 11:44 AM | Report abuse

a true loon writes
"If Klobuchar and others had elected to pay for repairs and maintenance instead of alloting 100 million dollars to a new baseball stadium, then the road to the stadium would still be open."

So, let me get this straight. Before we even know the cause of the collapse, you want to presume maintenance was the problem, and then blame a politician that not only wasn't in office when the relevant decisions were made, but isn't in a position that bears responsbility for the expendatures in question? Why on earth would you blame a federal politician for a collapsing bridge that is inspected by a state department (MN DOT), overseen by Sec DOT Mary Kiffmeyer (who held that seat concurrent with her role as Lt Governor) and Gov Pawlenty? You know, the same Gov that repeatedly vetoed funding initiatives for Infrastructure? And you want to blame the freshman Senator? Take the blinders off, man.

Posted by: bsimon | August 6, 2007 11:41 AM | Report abuse

Republicans are emotionally unable to accept responsibility for ANYTHIMG, so they have to blame a Democrat.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 6, 2007 11:39 AM | Report abuse

"If Klobuchar and others had elected to pay for repairs and maintenance instead of alloting 100 million dollars to a new baseball stadium, then the road to the stadium would still be open."

I just figured out where this is coming from.

PAWLENTY'S STAFF!

Posted by: jep | August 6, 2007 11:37 AM | Report abuse

Hate to say it, because I respect them for standing up for their ideals, but the Blue Dogs who beat the R's back home last time around might find out they won not because of their Blue Dog creds, but because of their Democratic Party creds.

When they refused to allow Boyda into their ranks, they signalled their own confusion.

Some primary surprises are in store, no doubt, the Blue Dogs just plain missed their cues.

And if the Republicans think they will somehow benefit from this move to the center by the right wing of the Democratic Party, they are deluding themselves.

This is a matter of pulling right-wing Dems closer to the middle, not replacing them with Republicans even further on the right.

Posted by: JEP | August 6, 2007 11:35 AM | Report abuse

Surprise, surprise, surprise, the havoc in the subprime mortgage market is spreading to the rest of the mortgage market. Credit is tightening up at the fastest pace in decades and some of the high flying hedge funds are now bankrupt. This has sent the stock market plunging and house prices are falling in large parts of the country. We may not have yet entered the full meltdown phase of the housing bubble; still it is a good time to start assigning blame.

The media stand at the top of the list. While there were occasional pieces that hinted at a possible bubble, the mostly widely cited expert on housing was David Lereah, the chief economist of the National Association of Realtors (NAR) and the author of the book Why the Housing Boom Will Not Bust and How You Can Profit From It.

Posted by: lazy pathetic media | August 6, 2007 11:34 AM | Report abuse

JEP "now you want to blame a Democrat?"

You betcha. Klobuchar replaced Democrat Senator Mark Dayton, who did not run for re-election. So some of the blame lies with him as well.

The facts is that the Bush administration and Congress increased federal highway aid to Minnesota by 46% in 2005, for the four-year period through 2009.

So where did this increase in funding go? 79% went to highway programs, the exact function that would have included maintenance of the I-35W span that collapsed. Had MnDOT wanted to repair or even replace that bridge, the federal funding given to them would easily have covered the cost.

Amy Klobuchar's charge of "messed up priorities" and New York Democratic Congresswoman Louise Slaughter's labeling of bridge collapse victims as "almost victims of war" is shameful Nagin-izing of the infrastructure issue that was not made a priority by those same elected officials.

If Klobuchar and others had elected to pay for repairs and maintenance instead of alloting 100 million dollars to a new baseball stadium, then the road to the stadium would still be open.

Posted by: Klobuchar the new Nagin | August 6, 2007 11:32 AM | Report abuse

Really, what has got into Newtie? Have any of the R candidates respnded to what he said? I'd really like to hear about it if they have.

I'd really like to hear Rudy talk about the success story of Katrina, for instance...and Newt calling this whole WOT fiction for what it is... wow. I can't figure out where he's going with it, but it's interesting.

--Newt Gingrich: "We're about to enter the seventh year of this phony war...and we're losing."

.. instead of the current counter-terrorism strategy, we should focus on energy independence. "We have to have a national energy strategy, which basically says to the Saudis, 'We're not going to rely on you.'"

"Republican political doctrine has been a failure. Look at New Orleans. How can you say that was a success? Look at Baghdad... I don't think you can look around and say that was a great success."

At the Young America's Foundation National Conservative Student Conference in DC.

Posted by: drindl | August 6, 2007 11:32 AM | Report abuse

"Look for The Fix's list of winners and losers from today's (Iowa) debate tomorrow in this space." -- Chris it's almost Noon and no debate thread. Will we see one?

Posted by: NonP | August 6, 2007 11:32 AM | Report abuse

"Dodd, by his own candid admission, has no good explanation for the Democrats' behavior, which repeats itself endlessly. He has no good explanation as to why so many of his Democratic colleagues are so deeply afraid of being attacked by one of the weakest presidents in modern American history. "

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/index.html

Posted by: greenwald | August 6, 2007 11:31 AM | Report abuse

Who is "mad as hell"?

Republican primary voters for one, who apprently find the current crop of hacks, flip-floppers posing as GOP hopefuls and ideologues utterly lacking.

Watching Rudy G. attempt to stir up the GOP base with his red meat sound bites is particularly barf-inducing. And then there's Flip-Flop Mitty and John "Is This Thing On?" McCain. Wowee.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | August 6, 2007 11:31 AM | Report abuse

"Today is the anniversary of Hiroshima. 350,000 civilians dead, if you count Nagasaki which was 3 days later..."

Key word...civilians.

But lets not forget the fact that this number is probably half what it would have been if we had been forced to invade Japan, we should still have an international day of mourning every year on this date. I for one wouldn't be here now if my Dad had been forced to invade Japan in 1945, when he was in the Navy in the Western Pacific fleet.

But none of that justifies anything, it just proves we have nothing but bad options in a world of war for profit.

Scott Ritter's got it right, when we learn how to wage Peace instead of War, these nightmare nuclear scenarios could diminish or disappear completely.

Posted by: JEP | August 6, 2007 11:30 AM | Report abuse

"Democrats' responsibility for Bush radicalism
[updated below - updated again (with Sen. Dodd interview) - Update III]

It is staggering, and truly disgusting, that even in August, 2007 -- almost six years removed from the 9/11 attacks and with the Bush presidency cemented as one of the weakest and most despised in American history -- that George W. Bush can "demand" that the Congress jump and re-write legislation at his will, vesting in him still greater surveillance power, by warning them, based solely on his say-so, that if they fail to comply with his demands, the next Terrorist attack will be their fault. And they jump and scamper and comply (Meteor Blades has the list of the 16 Senate Democrats voting in favor; the House will soon follow).

I just finished a discussion panel with ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero which was originally planned to examine his new (superb) book about the work his organization has done for years in battling the endless expansion of executive power and presidential lawbreaking. But the only issue anyone in the room really wanted to discuss -- including us -- was the outrage unfolding on Capitol Hill. And the anger was almost universally directed where it belongs: at Congressional Democrats, who increasingly bear more and more responsibility for the assaults on our constitutional liberties and unparalleled abuses of government power -- many (probably most) of which, it should always be emphasized, remain concealed rather than disclosed.

Examine virtually every Bush scandal and it increasingly bears the mark not merely of Democratic capitulation, but Democratic participation. In August of 2006, the Supreme Court finally asserted the first real limit on Bush's radical executive power theories in Hamdan, only for Congress, months later, to completely eviscerate those minimal limits -- and then go far beyond -- by enacting the grotesque Military Commissions Act with the support of substantial numbers of Democrats. What began as a covert and illegal Bush interrogation and detention program became the officially sanctioned, bipartisan policy of the United States.

Grave dangers are posed to our basic constitutional safeguards by the replacement of Sandra Day O'Connor with Sam Alito, whose elevation to the Supreme Court Congressional Democrats chose to permit. Vast abuses and criminality in surveillance remain undisclosed, uninvestigated and unimpeded because Congressional Democrats have stood meekly by while the administration refuses to disclose what it has been doing in how it spies on us. And we remain in Iraq, in direct defiance of the will of the vast majority of the country, because the Democratic Beltway establishment lacks both the courage and the desire to compel an end to that war.

And now Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, with revealing symbolism, cancel their scheduled appearances this morning at Yearly Kos because George Bush ordered them to remain in Washington in order to re-write and expand FISA -- a law which he has repeatedly refused to allow to be revised for years and which he has openly and proudly violated. Congressional Democrats know virtually nothing about how the Bush administration has been eavesdropping on our conversations because the administration refused to tell them and they passively accepted this state of affairs.

The intense rush to amend this legislation means that most of them have no idea what they are actually enacting -- even less of an idea than they typically have. But what they know is that George Bush and Fox News and the Beltway establishment have told them that they would be irresponsible and weak and unserious if they failed to comply with George Bush's instructions, and hence, they comply. In the American political landscape, there have been profound changes in public opinion since September of 2001. But in the Beltway, among our political and media establishment, virtually nothing has changed.
"

Posted by: greenwald | August 6, 2007 11:27 AM | Report abuse

It's also the anniversary of another heinous event::

Six years ago today, Bush blew off the warning about bin Laden "Determined to Strike in US."

And did nothing and stayed on vacation for another month.

Posted by: Dawn | August 6, 2007 11:23 AM | Report abuse

'The people of this state did not elect you to be a war critic. '

Should have just stopped reading at that line. This person must be living in another dimension.


Posted by: JEP | August 6, 2007 11:22 AM | Report abuse

Wow. Are pigs flying for anybody else out there?

"Gingrich says war on terror 'phony' "

http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/stories/2007/08/03/newt0803.html

Posted by: rufus | August 6, 2007 11:20 AM | Report abuse

Today is the anniversary of Hiroshima. 350,000 civilians dead, if you count Nagasaki which was 3 days later.

350,000 dead bodies, within a matter of day. And that is with what we would call a 'small' nuke today.

We perhaps ought to think about that when we start slinging around the idea of 'nuking' anyone.

Posted by: Dawn | August 6, 2007 11:19 AM | Report abuse

Was this "blame Amy" crap from some campaign operative for Klobuchar's next opponent? Or did some Minnesota R think it might staunch the arterial hemorrhaging in their own party?

This sounds like a pre-emptive political accusation of the highest magnitude.

Once again, the R's, particularly the Minnesota R's, should get a lasso on this wild critter, and convince him/her that even MENTIONING the I35 bridge collapse will be a bad idea for their political futures.

Posted by: JEP | August 6, 2007 11:18 AM | Report abuse

'mad as hell at klobuchar' writes
"The fact of the matter is, it was not a matter of having enough money and you know it. It has to do with your failure to use allocated funds in a prudent manner."

Uh, Until this January, Senator Klobuchar was the Hennepin County Prosecutor, which, while does have jurisdiction over the former bridge, was not responsible for inspecting or maintaining the bridge. Her only responsibility would have been in prosecuting vandals or perhaps public urinators hanging one over the side. As far as 'responsibility' for the collapse, your ire is rather misplaced.

Posted by: bsimon | August 6, 2007 11:18 AM | Report abuse

By the way, the format for The Fix is way cleaner and nicer than those crowded, cluttered Washington Post "community groups" where you have to sign in. I was just looking at the awesome columnist EJ Dionne's "group" page. There is a lot of overlap with this blog, and I think very highly of Dionne. Unfortunately he gets an ugly format assigned to him.

White space + medium-size font + clean content = good

Multiple colors + little font = messy, does not attract viewers and posters

Posted by: Golgi | August 6, 2007 11:15 AM | Report abuse

'The blood of those who died on the 35W is on YOUR hands, Senator Klobuchar. '

How twisted republicans are. Trying to blame the failure of decades old bridge on someone who just got elected. Sad and pathetic dittohead.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 6, 2007 11:06 AM | Report abuse

To the spinmeister who is trying to defer guilt away from the Republicans for the I35 bridge collapse, I pose this simple question.

Are you a proud tax-cutting Republican, or are you an ashamed infrastructure neglecting Republican?

There is no way to justify yourselves, you have spent decades bragging about cutting taxes, now the repurcussions are falling down around you, now you want to blame a Democrat?

Not happening, fried. You R's would be much wiser to just stay quiet about it, because every time one of you tries to defer your guilt, you just look more hypocritical.

Tax cuts, so proudly touted and brageed about incessantly since 2001, during a time of war no less, represent REPUBLICAN NEGLIGENCE, and no matter how you spin it, you just look desperate.

Seriously, Republicans should not be pointing any fingers right now, you will get embarrassed every time you do it.

Because that finger will turn back on you.

Posted by: JEP | August 6, 2007 11:06 AM | Report abuse

The old poltical rules no longer apply. The internet and 9/11 changed the rules. Innocents are now in the middle of this. It's not the politicans who face the brunt of this "war". It's the american people.

PLay time is over.

ALL POWER BACK TO THE PEOPLE

Posted by: rufus | August 6, 2007 11:06 AM | Report abuse

'The people of this state did not elect you to be a war critic. '

you're wrong about that, but you're a con, so that's not surprising.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 6, 2007 11:05 AM | Report abuse

There is a difference between "anger" and "righteous indignation", and I actually think that Edwards is showing the latter (although I admit it'd pretty hard to write a compelling sentence around it, "Edwards is righteously indignant and he's not going to take it any more.")

"Anger" is a general, often-times misdirected emotion. I can feel angry at the system, or I can get angry at standing in line at the post office.

"Righteous indignation" is something different - it is directed, controlled and an appropriate response to injustice.

It is also something that I think can be ridden through an election season like ours...

Posted by: Jen Q | August 6, 2007 11:01 AM | Report abuse

"If you're not angry, you haven't been paying attention.

Posted by: cab91 | August 6, 2007 10:02 AM"

Word is born. I'll take it a step further. If your not angry, after the last 7 years of the DESTRUCTION OF YOUR COUNRTY, you are not an American. You are something else. I would argue you are a party loyalist and a traitor. If your not angry that is. And it's not the Dem's fault. That blame game argument is a joke. The r's had all three branches and misused them unbelievably, I would say illegally.

Sorry. Just wanted to piggie-back off that. I still don't understand the other side. Like proudop coming in here arguing and defending the destroyers fo the constitution.

Congress gave bush more illegal spying on americans authorithy. Does that make the dem's a accomplice
to serious crimes agaisnt americans?

Posted by: rufus | August 6, 2007 11:00 AM | Report abuse

"My guess is that since you notices and wrote about it CC then his tone will be more controlled over the nest little bit."

Andy, if Edwards starts taking his cues from Chris, we are all in real trouble.

No doubt there's some staging involved with Edwards' posturing, but his latest "manifestation" is nothing more than the evolved candidate, knowing what The People want, and letting his voice relate his real passion.

And because he was not a child of privilege, the media will not be able to whittle him down the way they did to Dean.
And because he's a trial lawyer, none of his opponents can effectively debate him face-to-face.

Fact is, that righteous, angry indignation will become more valuable to him, as a campaign tool, every day.

Because in expressing it, he gathers in all the disenfranchised Americans who "are mad as hell and not going to take it any more".

Here's my prognostication Chris.

Maybe after 2006, you might regard it. Here's some "unconventional wisdom" that may surprise everyone

Edwards is going to inspire an entire new layer of voters, young, old and in-between, we will see a very deep and broad widening of the voting base, and .

Edwards will not only tap disgrunted voters, he willtap disgruntled citizens who will go vote for the first time. And no one in the DC cocktail weenie crowd can take off their blinders long enough to see that mass of "mad as hell" non-voters who are going to change theire ways and go vote.

For John Edwards.

None of the poundits, as yet, are even counting that possibility.

But The People are.

The ones outside The Beltway.

Posted by: JEP | August 6, 2007 10:59 AM | Report abuse

Letter to Senator Amy Klobuchar:
How do you claim to be working for the people of Minnesota? During the previous week, and over the weekend, I and all of the citizens of Minnesota and the U.S. witnessed as you shamefully tried to shift the blame for the bridge collapse onto the President due to your outspoken anti-war stance. Well, let me tell you something Senator. The people of this state did not elect you to be a war critic. The people of this state did not elect you to weasel out on your responsibilities here at home.

I, for one, am tired of politicians like you who try to Nagin-ize every local disaster by pointing the finger at the war in Iraq as the source of all problems. The fact is that you are the one, as elected by Minnesotans, that sets the
priorities, choses one project over another, approves the engineering specs, has oversight during construction, and has responsibility for the maintenance of whatever you built or chose to ignore.

I guess you like to overlook the fact that Minnesota has enough money for a new football stadium and a new baseball stadium paid for largely by the taxpayers. I think the people would rather have safe bridges and roads, but you like to make the headlines by politicizing this tragedy for your own twisted liberal motives.

The fact of the matter is, it was not a matter of having enough money and you know it. It has to do with your failure to use allocated funds in a prudent manner.

The blood of those who died on the 35W is on YOUR hands, Senator Klobuchar. Stop trying to shift the blame, and be responsible for something in your own state for once.

Posted by: Mad as Hell at Klobuchar | August 6, 2007 10:59 AM | Report abuse

Sally,

The NORC scrutinized the ballots after the election. (and after the SC stopped the counting) and found that there was no way that Gore would have won without requesting a certain set of criteria that never would have been selected and would not have been more accurate even if it had been. You should join DavidinMexico. You two could start a revolution in Bolivia or something.

Posted by: Dave S | August 6, 2007 10:59 AM | Report abuse

Chris C-

The "mad as hell" tagline next to edwards was used by the New York Observer.

http://www.observer.com/2007/john-edwards-mad-hell-and-ready-lead

Posted by: JoJo | August 6, 2007 10:55 AM | Report abuse

Like I've said. I more I heard John Edwards the more I like him. Not enough to steal Obama's thunder, yet.

My only resevation if he is merly trying stealing Obama's populist juice, while not planing on delivering any of what he says. Like Clinotn with her marxist socialist garbage.

Posted by: RUFUS | August 6, 2007 10:53 AM | Report abuse

Lynn asks
"When you gonna write about the 'trial lawyer' Thompson and his wife's mysterous past they won't answer questions about, CC?"

Perhaps that will hit the presses when DA Branch actually announces he's running. Last I heard, he's waffled again & pushed the surprise back another couple months.

Posted by: bsimon | August 6, 2007 10:50 AM | Report abuse

'DavidinMexico--What election did the repubs win through fraud or miscount? Post election scrutiny of the ballots showed Bush beat Gore under any recount scenario.'

Sorry, Dave no. There was no 'scrutiny' -- the vote counting was stopped by the courts before it was ever finished. You don't have much of a memory, do you?

And Gore won the most votes.

Posted by: Sally | August 6, 2007 10:49 AM | Report abuse

JimD -- I agree that a candidate who is viewed only as angry has not chance in a general election. However, I think Edwards is a more adroit politician that you give him credit for. I suspect, if he manages to win the nomination, that his message will fundamentally be one of: anger over the past + a hopeful vision for the future. That type of message has certainly been used succesfully in the past, as a bit of anger at the establishment is part of EVERY outsider campaign, whether its run by Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, or Ross Perot/Bill Clinton in 1992.

Out of curiosity, why do you view Edwards as the least electable Dem? He's not my first choice either, but the general election numbers that are out there now actually tend to show him as the MOST electable - or at least tied for that position.

Posted by: Colin | August 6, 2007 10:48 AM | Report abuse

JimD in FL writes
"I personally think Edwards is the most unelectable major Democratic candidate and one of the few Democrats who would make me consider the GOP.... Again, though, anger does not go over well in general elections. The candidate who projects optimism is usually the one who wins."

Dem primary voters: pay attention to what Jim D in FL has to say. Even if the current anti-GOP mood continues into next November, there is no such thing as a 'guaranteed' win. The Dem party still has to nominate someone who will appeal to the swing voters. Kid Johnny Edwards has won one - exactly one - election. If all he brings to the table is a new 'angry' message, perhaps he's not the best person for the job. Of course, I'm no fan of Hillary either, so I advise you against nominating her too.

Posted by: bsimon | August 6, 2007 10:48 AM | Report abuse

The Post goes inside with a dispatch from Cairo that says Turkish leaders will warn Maliki that if he doesn't go after Kurdish rebels in northern Iraq, Turkey is prepared to invade. Although Turkey has always expressed concern over PKK members, it seems the country's politicians now agree with the army that it's time for decisive action. An analyst tells the paper that the invasion could come at "any moment."

Posted by: mess o' potamia | August 6, 2007 10:47 AM | Report abuse

DavidinMexico--What election did the repubs win through fraud or miscount? Post election scrutiny of the ballots showed Bush beat Gore under any recount scenario. Is there another election that you know of? I didn't like the outcome either, but attacking the election process when it worked (even if we disagree with the result) is more becoming of our Latin American neighbors to the South. Oh wait, that's where you are.

Posted by: Dave S | August 6, 2007 10:46 AM | Report abuse

It's not the first time the issue of missing weapons in Iraq has come up, but this latest estimate is much larger. Of course, the main concern is that the U.S. military has been inadvertently providing weapons to insurgents courtesy of the American taxpayer. The GAO found the military really has no oversight over these weapons, but emphasized that the problem was particularly bad in 2004 and 2005, which is when Gen. David Petraeus, now the top commander in Iraq, ran the training program. The paper talks to a defense analyst who says that while the U.S. military often talks about how Syria and Iran are supplying weapons to insurgents, it has paid little attention to its own role in arming the enemy.

Posted by: us taxpayers arming insurgents | August 6, 2007 10:43 AM | Report abuse

'Before he was elected as a ;tough-on-crime; U.S. senator from Tennessee or played a New York prosecutor on TV's "Law and Order," Fred Dalton Thompson worked as a lawyer who argued against the government's authority to regulate drug paraphernalia or to search a boat packed with 14 tons of marijuana.'

When you gonna write about the 'trial lawyer' Thompson and his wife's mysterous past they won't answer questions about, CC?

Posted by: Lynn | August 6, 2007 10:41 AM | Report abuse

"no Democrat will get Republican votes and no Republican will get Democratic votes."

Here in Kansas the Red, Republicans are changing parties from the top down, and you say "no Democrat will get Republican votes?"

If Kansas is making that quantum leap, don't you suppose it might also be happening in, say, CONNECTICUT!

Or California.

If it is happening in Kansas, it is happening everywhere else, too.

And rightly so. Party loyalty has been an outright embarrassment to a great meny intelligent R's under Bush, you can only abide failure for s long before you figure out a way to detach.

And in our two-party system (that was not an endorsement of that system) that leaves few options.

Someone isn't paying attention...

Posted by: JEP | August 6, 2007 10:40 AM | Report abuse

My guess is that since you notices and wrote about it CC then his tone will be more controlled over the nest little bit. And I have seen him in the interview with you and Balz and he seemed very cool and calm, but also passionate about what he is talking about. Some people say this is all an act but he came off the same way when he first ran for Senate in NC. He is a gifted speaker and knows when (ie KOS) to pump up the volume a little.

Also anyone who sells Edwards short might be suprised when he wins Iowa.

Posted by: Andy R | August 6, 2007 10:38 AM | Report abuse

Edwards is legit, a strong candidate, and would be an excellent president....please may November 2008 come now so we can elect him, or Hillary, or Obama, or Richardson...really anyone from that side of the aisle. Any one of them would be a vast improvement.

Four more years of Repubs and the continuing nightmare is unthinkable.

The only way the Repubs win in 2008 is through fraud or miscounts (it would not be the first time), or through a lack of Dem unity.

Posted by: DavidinMexico | August 6, 2007 10:35 AM | Report abuse

"Worse than Bush"

The book title from hell...

Posted by: JEP | August 6, 2007 10:32 AM | Report abuse

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

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

From their view, Edwards is the most liberal and Obama is close.

However, no Democrat will get Republican votes and no Republican will get Democratic votes. So calling an independent voter names, as someone did above, in order to get him to agree, was a good way to alienate the only general election vote that counts.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 6, 2007 10:29 AM | Report abuse

oops, there I go again, sorry for the double post.

Also, I read that article about the guns, I wonder if the Carlyle Group had a hand in that shady "transaction?"

Sounds like we just re-armed the very army that disappeared into the shadows when we invaded Iraq.

Negraponte went over there and set up the Shias with hand drills and torture chambers, he leaves and someone else goes in and sets up the Sunni with weapons, ostensibly for taking out Al Queda, but who will really suffer from our "enemy of my enemy is my enemy" errors?

Not Al Queda.

It will be our own sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, lovers and friends. Our own mothers and fathers.

Curious, how these automatic weapons disappeared in Iraq about the same time we "legalized" them here in the states.

Maybe someone shipped them over here for sale? Can't decide which is worse, a hundred thousand Islamic fundamentalists full of hate and paranoia, or 100,000 American rednecks full of hate and paranoia and "gun-love."

No more secrets. No more lies.

Hopefully, The Truth will soon prevail. A whole new kind of "conventional wisdom" that promote Peace, not War.

Posted by: JEP | August 6, 2007 10:28 AM | Report abuse

I was subjected to death threats, murder attempts and continuous extremely advanced forms of torture by Bush administration insiders continuously commencing in 2003 on US soil. Some of these heinous acts occurred under Senator Clinton's watch in Manhattan. Her response to the torture of Americans under her nose was not outrage or even action - it was a campaign fundraiser. But she is not the perpetrator; others are complicit. I have witnessed heinous human rights abuses far beyond any the Bush administration has publicly confessed to, to date. The Council of Europe has pointed out black sites in Europe. But with advanced military methods, a few black sites in North America can even be your own home.

Posted by: Whistleblower One | August 6, 2007 10:28 AM | Report abuse

'I remember telling you that exhaustively about the 2006 election, and you still gave all the R's the constant benefit of that now-unreliable "conventional wisdom", maybe you need to start calling it "conventional delusion."

Thanks for that remark... it's what the entire Beltway Media practices.

Just the fact that reporters take Rudy Guiliani's laughable and irresponsible demagoguery serious is vomit-inducing.

I am really starting to think he's worse than bush and I didn't think that was posssible.

Posted by: Sam | August 6, 2007 10:24 AM | Report abuse

"That Edwards is gone, however, and in his place a candidate who seems intent on showing his disgust and distaste at every chance he gets."

"disgust and distaste at every chance he gets"

How about "solidarity with the American Public and their disgust and distaste for the DC cosktail weenie crowd..."

Had any of those cocktail weenies lately, Chris?

Maybe you'll be invited to one of Jeri Thomnpson's parties for this!

Electra personified, the Freudiavelian Princess gets soft and fuzzy "daddy-love" articles, while Edwards gets trashed with these subtle insults.

As for wearing well with Iowans, hit the street in Des Moines, Chris, ask those folks how they feel.

You know what you will get?

"We're mad as hell and we aren't taking it any more."

This is not some feigned campaign tactic on Edwards' part, it is a very honest emotion in response to the past seven years of cultural disaster.

Edwards is, once again, proving he's "one of US", real people from real America, and his anger is nothing more than proof of his humanity.

Let me quote his YKos speech: "The system in Washington is broken - it's rigged to serve the interests of those with the most money to throw around, rather than the best interest of the American people. The type of change America needs will never be achieved if we just replace the insiders from one party with the insiders from another party. That's why the Democratic Party must lead the way in taking a bold step toward reform that will return the power in Washington back to where it belongs."

Damn, this guy is eloquent.

All these Dems better start talking the same way, soon, if they expect to make a run at it, because even Edwards is just now catching up to the rest of us in Realityville.

and this;
"But, conventional wisdom may be thrown out the window when it comes to the 2008 contest."

I remember telling you that exhaustively about the 2006 election, and you still gave all the R's the constant benefit of that now-unreliable "conventional wisdom", maybe you need to start calling it "conventional delusion."

The R's have a real problem on their hands, and they have had that problem for a long time now. REAL conventional wisdom suggests there is a huge change occurring in our government, and as long as all you "poundits" continue to depend ob your clearly disproven "conventional 'wisdom'", you will alwasy have to look back at your predictions and regret you were. once again, wrong.

"None of the above" is the most popular Republican candidate.

For Democrats AND Republicans.

I just hope the R's don't "find" Hagel, because of all their candidates, he is the only one who might draw votes away from the body of people moving over to the Dems.

And do I even need to say why?

Iraq, Iraq, Iraq...

Posted by: JEP | August 6, 2007 10:21 AM | Report abuse

Immense frustration is the only way to describe the reaction of our readers this morning to Glenn Kessler's report that the Pentagon has lost track of about 190,000 AK-47 assault rifles and pistols given to Iraqi security forces in 2004 and 2005 and that could well be in the hands of insurgents fighting U.S. forces. This fact comes from the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office, the investigative branch of Congress. The article also notes that the person in command of security training at the time was Gen. David H. Petraeus, the architect and leader of the so-called surge.

"So this is the great General Petraeus that is supposedly to get us out of this great morass and Win the War. Can't even keep track of an AK 47... How many of those 190.000 AK 47's are now pointed at American service men and women? And what else did we lose there. How many machine guns have gone missing? For that matter how many trucks have gone missing? How many tanks?"

"Niiiice work, Rumsfeld et. al. You didn't just go in with insufficient troops, you gave almost 200,000 weapons to the enemy! Ivy League neocons, there's no one better at losing a war."

Posted by: incredible incompetence | August 6, 2007 10:19 AM | Report abuse

"That Edwards is gone, however, and in his place a candidate who seems intent on showing his disgust and distaste at every chance he gets."

"disgust and distaste at every chance he gets"

How about "solidarity with the American Public and their disgust and distaste for the DC cosktail weenie crowd..."

Had any of those cocktail weenies lately, Chris?

Maybe you'll be invited to one of Jeri Thomnpson's parties for this!

Electra personified, the Freudiavelian Princess gets soft and fuzzy "daddy-love" articles, while Edwards gets trashed with these subtle insults.

As for wearing well with Iowans, hit the street in Des Moines, Chris, ask those folks how they feel.

You know what you will get?

"We're mad as hell and we aren't taking it any more."

This is not some feigned campaign tactic on Edwards' part, it is a very honest emotion in response to the past seven years of cultural disaster.

Edwards is, once again, proving he's "one of US", real people from real America, and his anger is nothing more than proof of his humanity.

Let me quote his YKos speech: "The system in Washington is broken - it's rigged to serve the interests of those with the most money to throw around, rather than the best interest of the American people. The type of change America needs will never be achieved if we just replace the insiders from one party with the insiders from another party. That's why the Democratic Party must lead the way in taking a bold step toward reform that will return the power in Washington back to where it belongs."

Damn, this guy is eloquent.

All these Dems better start talking the same way, soon, if they expect to make a run at it, because even Edwards is just now catching up to the rest of us in Realityville.

and this;
"But, conventional wisdom may be thrown out the window when it comes to the 2008 contest."

I remember telling you that exhaustively about the 2006 election, and you still gave all the R's the constant benefit of that now-unreliable "conventional wisdom", maybe you need to start calling it "conventional delusion."

The R's have a real problem on their hands, and they have had that problem for a long time now. REAL conventional wisdom suggests there is a huge change occurring in our government, and as long as all you "poundits" continue to depend ob your clearly disproven "conventional 'wisdom'", you will alwasy have to look back at your predictions and regret you were. once again, wrong.

"None of the above" is the most popular Republican candidate.

For Democrats AND Republicans.

I just hope the R's don't "find" Hagel, because of all their candidates, he is the only one who might draw votes away from the body of people moving over to the Dems.

And do I even need to say why?

Iraq, Iraq, Iraq...

Posted by: Anonymous | August 6, 2007 10:14 AM | Report abuse

Edwards is the new Al Gore.
Consultant says Al, people are seeing you as too stiff, you should start wearing a blue denim shirt and change your personality.
All starts wearing blue denim shirt, changes his personality, confuses voters, and loses election.
Consultant says John, people think you're too pretty to be commander in chief, you should start yelling and show them the testosterone pumping through your veins.
John yells, turns off voters, and loses primary.
Edwards used to be the most electable candidate on the dem side. Now he's not even worth a vp spot.

Posted by: DCJO | August 6, 2007 10:14 AM | Report abuse

Here in Iowa Edwards is still very popular, and there are a lot of Iowans who feel the same way about John Edwards that Trent Lott apparently felt about Strom Thurmond. If just a few of us had changed our minds on caucus night and gone for Edwards instead of Kerry maybe "we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years." Maybe "Angry Edwards" is either reflecting the way Iowan's feel right now, or perhaps he's stoking one of the most powerful emotions any of us feel--guilt over picking the wrong guy last time. Either way, he should be given credit for his correct reading of the emotion felt by many likly Democratic caucus goers in Iowa right now. It takes a lot to get people to leave home on a frigid Monday night in January, and maybe anger is just the emotion that will drive people to the caucus this time.

I remember "Dated Dean, Married Kerry," what about "Courted Hillary, Supported John"?

Posted by: Michael in Iowa | August 6, 2007 10:12 AM | Report abuse

How can you not be angry when you are standing by helplessly, watching the Constitution you love being utterly destroyed and all the freedoms and liberties guaranteed therein being stolen from you?

What a nation of sheep.

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

I admire John Edward's "anger". On Sunday, at the Daily Kos convention, he exposed Hillary Clinton for what she is, a two faced manipulator who accepts money from Washington lobbyists. I'm tired of the Democratic nominees and the media deferring to Hillary Clinton. She should not receive kid glove treatment just because she is the wife of a former president. Edwards should continue in his "anger mode". Both he and John Kerry should not have been so civil to the Bushies in 2004 race.

Posted by: Janet | August 6, 2007 10:09 AM | Report abuse

Karzai: U.S. Has Gotten Nowhere on Bin Laden

In the hunt for Osama bin Laden, the United States and its allies have essentially gotten nowhere lately, says Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

"We are not closer, we are further away from it," Karzai said ahead of his two-day summit with President Bush at Camp David, Md. "We are where we were a few years ago."

Posted by: the truth | August 6, 2007 10:05 AM | Report abuse

If you're not angry, you haven't been paying attention.

Posted by: cab91 | August 6, 2007 10:02 AM | Report abuse

I know there's something of a bipartisan Ron Paul cult springing up online. And I'm not joining. But I can see why it's there. It's not just a matter of whether you think he's right on the issues. He's pretty much the only guy on the stage who is making coherent points. I watched the debate and I was actually a bit shocked at just how weak and scattered the GOP field is.

Posted by: josh | August 6, 2007 10:02 AM | Report abuse

Edwards doesn't seem in the right place in this campaign. People, who want Bush policies to be continued, should pick Hillary Clinton, people, who want radical changes, should pick Obama. Under the circumstances, the place of Edwards and his campaign seems to be not a winning one.

Posted by: aepelbaum | August 6, 2007 10:00 AM | Report abuse

Jim D, you're the problem that the Democrats face.

Idiots like you are prepared to put another Republican clown in the Oval Office than a Democrat.

Any of the Democrats are better than the Republican contenders.

And if Edwards is not the most electable, then who is? Clinton? Obama? Are you kidding me?

Posted by: Anonymous | August 6, 2007 9:58 AM | Report abuse

Under just some of the revisions, NSA can spy on any call you make without a warrant, as long as Alberto Gonzales and the Director NSA claim they reasonably believe it involves "foreign intelligence." There doesn't have to be any connection with a foreign power or terrorist group. The FISA court may examine the overall process in some undefined, rubberstamp way, but it cannot consider the reasonableness of your individual case. Any pretense that the 4th Amendment applies is gone.

So you can be involved in totally innocent calls or e-mails with a friend or your cousin, and the government can spy on your communications without a warrant, without your knowledge and without the knowedge or approval of the FISA court. You can't get access to what they learned or what they did with that information. All you'll know is that you or your friend/cousin/kid/colleague can't get on a plane. Or someone disappears. Oh, and as a result of the 6th Circuit Court overturning a District Court's ruling that the original TSP was unconstitutional, you don't have standing to challenge this wholesale eviseration of the 4th Amendment. No court review; just Alberto and Rove.

Posted by: we are scr8wed. | August 6, 2007 9:57 AM | Report abuse

Democrats are doing very poorly in congress. They bark at Bush, but finally do everything he and his closest associates want. Their only option is impeachments, starting with Gonzales, ending with Bush/Cheney. Edwards is, as usually, a couple of years late to be angry, as Kucinich has been promoting these impeachments for the substantial while by now.

Posted by: aepelbaum | August 6, 2007 9:55 AM | Report abuse

When I think over my own personal concept of great presidential moments in history, there aren't a lot of angry faces jumping into my memory. Just the perspective of one voter.

An angry candidate is, however, a useful kingmaker.

Posted by: Golgi | August 6, 2007 9:55 AM | Report abuse

I believe there is another reason for John Edward's change of temperment: he is the lone Democrat or Republican, excepting Barak Obama in decrying the death spiral of the American Social Contract. And he is alone in proposing far-reaching, responsible plans to repair the socio-economic fabric of our society. His Health Care Reform Plan leading to Universal Health Care, Anti-Poverty Initiative and Tax Reform Plan are real-world plans that will redress social and economic inequity and improve U.S. economic productivity and competitiveness and quality of life. Edwards change of tactics is likely driven far more by his concern for the future of our nation than his poll numbers in Iowa or South Carolina.

Posted by: Kevin Smith | August 6, 2007 9:54 AM | Report abuse

Why is it that no candidate from the family values party seems to be able to manage to keep a marriage together?

Except for Mitt the Robot, but I guess his family has had lots of practice with marriages.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 6, 2007 9:52 AM | Report abuse

Its about time SOMEONE in the Democratic Party started acting (perhaps even actually FEELING) as angry as I am about this administration. For several years the base has been much less accepting of the incompetence and criminality of the Bush administration than our elected representatives.

I'd stopped listening to the debates because no one expressed my outrage. Maybe I'll have another look at Edwards.

Posted by: Smeesq | August 6, 2007 9:47 AM | Report abuse

It's difficult to see why there's such secrecy. Born in Nebraska and raised in Naperville, Ill., Jeri Kehn was the stepdaughter of the local band director. She attended DePauw University in Greencastle, Ind., and graduated in 1988. The eight years that followed are murky. Public records that NEWSWEEK reviewed strongly suggest she was married to a fellow DePauw grad named Bernard Alvey. (Various property and court records show that a woman named Jeri Kehn Alvey, who has the same birth date and other identifying information as Jeri Kehn Thompson, shared a house in Nashville, Tenn., with Bernard Alvey. He could not be reached for comment.) It's unclear exactly when she may have been married or when she may have gotten divorced. When asked directly about it, the campaign would neither confirm nor deny a previous marriage. In Nashville, court records show Jeri Kehn Alvey was twice sued in small-claims court over unsettled debts.

Posted by: piece of work | August 6, 2007 9:47 AM | Report abuse

'Apparently, Jeri has not been shy about using her authority. Her spare no-feelings management style doesn't always have the intended effect. Last month Tom Collamore, a former Reagan aide and tobacco lobbyist hired as campaign manager, quit after what a Thompson associate called "personality conflicts" with Jeri. Three other aides followed.

Those exits, combined with worse-than-predicted fund-raising numbers--Thompson raised $3.5 million in June, less than the $5 million the campaign projected--have caused jitters among key Thompson supporters. They privately question the wisdom of Jeri, who has no experience running a presidential campaign, taking on such an influential role--and are mystified why Thompson continues to stall his official entry into the race. "People are starting to wonder if she's more into this than he is," a Thompson adviser tells NEWSWEEK.'

Posted by: nasty business | August 6, 2007 9:46 AM | Report abuse

Who could blame Edwards for expressing anger at the state this country is in? That we are mired in a horrifying occupation of a country that never harmed us, that we are spending money at a rate that is bankrupting us, that almost have our people get no health care. I'm glad someone takes the plight of the middle class seriously.

Posted by: Tom | August 6, 2007 9:44 AM | Report abuse

But JimD, doesn't whipping up the base have some value? Since the D's don't seem to have a mechanism that matches the right wing noise machine can Edwards walk the fine line necessary to win the primaries and then turn the sunny optimism back on in time for the generals?

As CC points out, I see Edwards' anger as a logical answer to Obama's optimism. He really has no choice if he plans to distinguish himself from the other frontrunners. Certainly there is plenty to be angry about. Stories like that below, for example. If this had happened on Clinton's watch (in Bosnia, for example) Rush would have feasted on it for weeks on end. Beating up the R's claim to be the security party by hyping such incidents that prove the opposite (port security is another example) would be a good strategy.

"The Pentagon has lost track of about 190,000 AK-47 assault rifles and pistols given to Iraqi security forces in 2004 and 2005, according to a new government report, raising fears that some of those weapons have fallen into the hands of insurgents fighting U.S. forces in Iraq."

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | August 6, 2007 9:42 AM | Report abuse

Under its former chairman and CEO, Lee Raymond, who retired in 2005 as one of the best-paid corporate executives in history, ExxonMobil was well known for its hostility to government regulations on emissions of carbon dioxide. But, according to the report, the op-eds and position papers were only the visible tip of Exxon's effort to fund a small group of researchers and an overlapping network of think tanks that could be relied on to spread the message that global warming was nothing to worry about--or at least, nothing the government could or should do anything about. Their frequently repeated call for "sound science" on global warming echoes the tobacco industry's endless demand for more research on whether cigarettes really, truly, unquestionably cause cancer.

Of course, cigarette companies weren't concerned just about future sales, but the billions of dollars in compensation they eventually had to ... umm ... cough up. ExxonMobil's motivation, presumably, is to protect a fantastically lucrative market: its 2006 profits of $36 billion made it the most profitable corporation in history.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 6, 2007 9:39 AM | Report abuse

In watching John Edwards I've seen a controlled anger from him that I think is totally appropriate. There is a great deal of outrage in this country that is shared by a wide variety of citizens, not just the Democratic base. When you have conservatives such as Bruce Fein, Bob Barr and others who feel that this President and VP have committed impeachable offenses it is not surprising to see someone in the opposition party feel anger at what has been happening in this country. I don't think Edwards anger is an issue. I think other candidates lack of anger should be the issue. I think a bumper sticker I saw pretty much sums it up....If you're not outraged you haven't been paying attention.

Posted by: pmorlan | August 6, 2007 9:37 AM | Report abuse

Aug. 13, 2007 issue - Sen. Barbara Boxer had been chair of the Senate's Environment Committee for less than a month when the verdict landed last February. "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal," concluded a report by 600 scientists from governments, academia, green groups and businesses in 40 countries. Worse, there was now at least a 90 percent likelihood that the release of greenhouse gases from the burning of fossil fuels is causing longer droughts, more flood-causing downpours and worse heat waves, way up from earlier studies. Those who doubt the reality of human-caused climate change have spent decades disputing that. But Boxer figured that with "the overwhelming science out there, the deniers' days were numbered." As she left a meeting with the head of the international climate panel, however, a staffer had some news for her. A conservative think tank long funded by ExxonMobil, she told Boxer, had offered scientists $10,000 to write articles undercutting the new report and the computer-based climate models it is based on. "I realized," says Boxer, "there was a movement behind this that just wasn't giving up."

Posted by: Anonymous | August 6, 2007 9:36 AM | Report abuse

If you think those who have long challenged the mainstream scientific findings about global warming recognize that the game is over, think again. Yes, 19 million people watched the "Live Earth" concerts last month, titans of corporate America are calling for laws mandating greenhouse cuts, "green" magazines fill newsstands, and the film based on Al Gore's best-selling book, "An Inconvenient Truth," won an Oscar. But outside Hollywood, Manhattan and other habitats of the chattering classes, the denial machine is running at full throttle--and continuing to shape both government policy and public opinion.

Since the late 1980s, this well-coordinated, well-funded campaign by contrarian scientists, free-market think tanks and industry has created a paralyzing fog of doubt around climate change. Through advertisements, op-eds, lobbying and media attention, greenhouse doubters (they hate being called deniers) argued first that the world is not warming; measurements indicating otherwise are flawed, they said. Then they claimed that any warming is natural, not caused by human activities. Now they contend that the looming warming will be minuscule and harmless. "They patterned what they did after the tobacco industry," says former senator Tim Wirth, who spearheaded environmental issues as an under secretary of State in the Clinton administration. "Both figured, sow enough doubt, call the science uncertain and in dispute. That's had a huge impact on both the public and Congress."

Posted by: Anonymous | August 6, 2007 9:35 AM | Report abuse

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- A suicide bomber drove an explosives-laden truck into a village near the northern Iraqi city of Tal Afar on Monday, killing at least 28 people and wounding 50 others, an Iraqi army official said.

The blast left a 10-foot crater in the ground and damaged 10 homes in the Shiite Turkmen village of Qubbak, about six miles (10 kilometers) northeast of Tal Afar, the army official told CNN.

The suicide bomber used a dump truck and covered his deadly wares in a layer of gravel, Abdullah told the AP.

In Baghdad, three roadside bombs detonated in various neighborhoods, killing at least 11 people and wounding 33 others, according to the Iraqi Interior Ministry.

The deadliest of the blasts came in southeast Baghdad's Zafaraniya district, where eight people were killed and 16 were wounded.

Another bomb in the Ghadir neighborhood of southeastern Baghdad killed three people and wounded 11 others.


• Eighteen unidentified bodies were found across the capital Sunday, Baghdad police said. Another 21 bodies were discovered Saturday. Police have found 101 bodies in Baghdad so far this month.

• A U.S. soldier died Sunday during combat operations in Baghdad, bringing the weekend death toll to five. The U.S. death toll in Iraq stands at 3,663. Seven civilian contractors also have been killed.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 6, 2007 9:34 AM | Report abuse

"There is a liberal Democratic assumption that if you raise taxes, you raise more money," said Giuliani. '

There is also a 'liberal Democractic assumption that 2+2=4. But we all know repugs don't do math.

They do fantasy and voodoo economics. We cut taxes for the rich and now we have the biggest deficit in history. Gee, how'd that happen?

Posted by: Anonymous | August 6, 2007 9:32 AM | Report abuse

Angry may appeal to the hard-core base but it is a definite loser in the general election. I personally think Edwards is the most unelectable major Democratic candidate and one of the few Democrats who would make me consider the GOP.

There is a definite segment of the Democratic left that wants to wage a jihad against the Republicans. It may feel good at the time but it will never succeed in November.

There are certainly a number of perpetually p-o'ed conservatives. Rush and the rest of the noise machine thrive on whipping up the base. Look at the uproar over immigration. Again, though, anger does not go over well in general elections. The candidate who projects optimism is usually the one who wins.

Posted by: JimD in FL | August 6, 2007 9:29 AM | Report abuse

The only thing Edwards is angry about is how poorly his campaign is doing. He's slipped to fourth place in NH and has lost his lead in Iowa.

Posted by: Moxie | August 6, 2007 9:29 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company