Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Thompson Gets Key Endorsement in Iowa

Iowa Republican Rep. Steve King, one of the most conservative members of Congress, endorsed Fred Thompson this morning -- providing the former Tennessee senator with a much-needed boost in the rapidly approaching Iowa caucuses.

Thompson issued the following statement about the endorsement: "Congressman King's leadership in support of the sanctity of life and his efforts in the fight against illegal immigration have made him one of Iowa's great Republican leaders. He's a tireless fighter for the 5th district of Iowa and I'm honored by his support. I look forward to working with Congressman King over the next three weeks and into 2008 in support of the traditional conservative values he and I share."

King's endorsement was heavily sought by all of the leading Republican candidates. Since being elected to the House in 2002, King has emerged as a leading conservative voice in Congress, particularly on the issue of illegal immigration.

Since entering the race this fall, Thompson has cast himself as the only consistent conservative candidate in the field. His campaign has lagged, however, as the initial buzz surrounding Thompson failed to translate into real momentum, leaving Mike Huckabee to coalesce much of the support in the social conservative community that Thompson was hoping to win over.

Thompson, however, showed signs of life in last week's debate in Iowa (a rare moment of vitality in an otherwise lackluster debate), and King's endorsement should lend to the sense that the former senator may have a bit of momentum in the Hawkeye State.

Campaign spokeman Todd Harris said, "This endorsement comes at the perfect time for our campaign, right when Iowans are making up their minds. We kick off our Iowa bus tour tonight and this is the perfect start to what will be a very aggressive and ambitious 16 days of campaigning."

By Chris Cillizza  |  December 17, 2007; 11:04 AM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: FixCam: Week in Preview -- Lieberman Endorses McCain
Next: Senate: Deflating Democrats' Dream of 60 Seats

Comments

Dear Editor: A while ago, the voters let it be known how fed up they were with
the powers to be, when they gave the US
Congress back to the Democrats. The problem is, which party gets The White House? If they let the Republicans keep it, they're likely to see almost every piece of legislation passed by this Congress get vetoed, or if they give it to
the Democrats, then when they pass a sensible bill, it gets signed, and the regular majority will get a breath of fresh air again, knowing that things just may start going their way. Ira D. York
1127 South Linn Street Apt 15, Boone, Iowa
50036 (515)460-0828 This is my primary phone. E-mail:iyork50036@yahoo.com

Posted by: iyork50036 | December 27, 2007 4:40 PM | Report abuse

Dear Editor: A while ago, the voters let it be known how fed up they were with
the powers to be, when they gave the US
Congress back to the Democrats. The problem is, which party gets The White House? If they let the Republicans keep it, they're likely to see almost every piece of legislation passed by this Congress get vetoed, or if they give it to
the Democrats, then when they pass a sensible bill, it gets signed, and the regular majority will get a breath of fresh air again, knowing that things just may start going their way. Ira D. York
1127 South Linn Street Apt 15, Boone, Iowa
50036 (515)460-0828 This is my primary phone. E-mail:iyork50036@yahoo.com

Posted by: iyork50036 | December 27, 2007 4:40 PM | Report abuse

John Edwards is the only Democratic candidate running who can beat the Republicans. People need to face up to this, I don't believe HC can, nor is she the best candidate-I believe Edwards is a fresh face, experienced in the ways that matter for a President-negotiating, quick learner, but most importantly, someone who can really reach the masses, because he comes from the same kind of background that comprises most of the American public-working class made good.

Posted by: farfalle44 | December 18, 2007 3:48 PM | Report abuse

brooksie, i was wrong about you. you're not sick.

you're completely, certifiably insane.

Posted by: Spectator2 | December 17, 2007 11:40 PM | Report abuse

yes, brooks, you doddering, diaper-wearing sack of crap, my employer at the research library will be very interested in what you have to say.

go for it, scrote! why don't you post my work phone number and address too -- you obviously have been doing your own research. LOL

I'm quite happy to have exposed you as the completely insane lunatic you clearly are.

Posted by: Spectator2 | December 17, 2007 11:26 PM | Report abuse

Oh, and Phoebe, if it comes to it, your employer is going to be very intersted in your constant postings on this forum (and others) using a work computer and time.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | December 17, 2007 7:05 PM | Report abuse

Phoebe, you are the single most toxic person I have ever encountered. You're sick. I have no issues with women. I do have issues with fanatics, liars, character assassins, old guard feminists who demean men simply becasue they are men, and women who play at stirring up hysteria. You are a research librarian, very much a woman, who has pretended to be a male here (and elsewhere), pretended to be an Indepoendent when I can go you your hometown newspaper and read skreeds shilling for Clinton and other local Democrats from way back. There is nothing genuine about you. This sort of garbage is your trademark and I think it's high time everyone here knew it.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | December 17, 2007 6:57 PM | Report abuse

hey babbling brooks, when do i get my apology from you for calling me a member of the "Clinton mob," you sick freak?

you don't make "little side remarks," you liar -- you post paragraph after paragraph of rants and screeds, all tied to your issues with women.

Posted by: Spectator2 | December 17, 2007 6:44 PM | Report abuse

claudialong -,I never once used the term nor intimates that she was lesbian, or a feminst for that matter. What I did point out is that she was a part of the Prohibition movement, it's where she got her start. And, that movement was a disaster. Likewise, a lot of the old guard feminists running around today, are the same sort of people. It's true, they habe much good in bring women's health, income, and other forms of digraceful prejudice to the nations conscience. But, along with that, we have gotten male bashing, ill treatment of male students in schools, and some pretty wicked reverse form of prejudice.

Now, I want you to go back and read my posts. When did I call Susan B. Anthony a lesbian? Where did I call anyone a lesbian? And, if someone is a lesbian or gay, it is no business of mine or yours unless they seek legislation that creates harm to society (and, the reverse is true, all). What you are referring to is a disgraceful little snide remark made by some feminst yesterday. Liudmouth and the rest of the frenzied mob picked it up and smeared me with it. This is no different than the sort of garbage where this same twisted mob accused Obama of being a secret Muslim, of Romney being a racist, of Huckabee's proposed legislation to require "creationim" in place of "evolution" in high school biolohy classes. It's the kind of hysteria and hatred and character assassination these people stoop to and I want and apology. If I don't get one, I'm gpoing to file a complaint with the Post. If that fails, I'm going to file a lawsuit. I am in contact with an attorney about this matter right now.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | December 17, 2007 6:32 PM | Report abuse

mark -- that must go back to the days when voters actually put their ballots in a "sealed" box. I've read my Robert Caro. 8>D

Posted by: Spectator2 | December 17, 2007 6:26 PM | Report abuse

Yup. Box = precinct

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 17, 2007 6:23 PM | Report abuse

"I said "I voted for Gore, this box went for Gore, Austin went for Gore, Texas went for Bush, and nationally its a tie."

Mark -- great quote. I'm sure many people are reading that and thinking "this box"?? WTF? That's southern for precinct, right?

Posted by: Spectator2 | December 17, 2007 6:07 PM | Report abuse

'Drindl, George Romney marched with MLK, and walked out of the 1964 RN Convention when he did not get a Civil Rights plank in the platform.'

well, good for him, then. i could not imagine mitt doing the same thing, however. he couldn't be bothered to even attend the debate for black voters at Howard University.

MikeB -- I am sorry for you. I used to like you, but i am afraid youhave totally lost your mind. You do nothing but rant hysterically and irrationally label anyone who doesn't agree with you 100% on every single thing a Clinton supporter. I am not a Clinton supporter, never have been. I like Obama and Biden. I would vote for her over Rudy however, as he is completely insane--the next Mussolini.

I mean, you called Susan B. Anthony, who got women the vote, a wrinkled lesbian feminist. That's just weird, man, seek help.

Hey, Gore won the popular vote, Mark.

Posted by: drindl | December 17, 2007 5:58 PM | Report abuse

LV, why in the world would I want to talk about WMR, Mike Vick's candidate?

I voted for John Anderson in '80, too. I would have voted for GHWB in '88, but Sen. Bentsen was on the D ticket and I voted for him as VP. So the last time I voted R for Prez it was for Ford in '76, and I voted for Anderson and Perot, thus never voting for a winning D or a winning R after my first venture to the polls in '64.

The DMR has a better record at picking winners than I, unfortunately.

However, I was interviewed by BBC as I walked out of the polls in 2000 and was asked what I thought. I said "I voted for Gore, this box went for Gore, Austin went for Gore, Texas went for Bush, and nationally its a tie." Got that right, sort of. I should see if BBC still has the tape so I can give it to my grandkids. It makes up for never voting for a winner.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 17, 2007 5:54 PM | Report abuse

Can we all agree that George Romney was a good guy? The candidate to be discussed now is his son, Willard Romney.

Posted by: Spectator2 | December 17, 2007 5:41 PM | Report abuse

Drindl, look at this:

http://www.boston.com/news/daily/24/delbert_stapley.pdf

A Mormon racist writes to George Romney telling him to back off his Civil Rights horse.

Instead, George stepped up the pressure. I think when he was Gov. of MI he pushed a state civil rights package, too.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 17, 2007 5:19 PM | Report abuse

mark_in_austin - But claudia and the rest of the Clinton lynch mob will never allow a little thing like facts and truth get in their way.

And, Thompson? Another Republican that will draw more Democratic voters than Clinton.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | December 17, 2007 5:17 PM | Report abuse

Drindl, George Romney marched with MLK, and walked out of the 1964 RN Convention when he did not get a Civil Rights plank in the platform.

He and his wife may have lobbied within the LDS for that policy to change, and if you look on the web, you may find a public statement about it. Or maybe not. I am going from memory about the lobbying in the church, which means I may have heard it in 1964, or '68 or '70, and maybe from an unreliable source, since I cannot even remember why I think it.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 17, 2007 5:03 PM | Report abuse

good catch bsimon. CC caught off guard, too, appaentlly.

and thanks for that post, colin. that's what I was saying about obama. he's the opposite of Mittens and Huck -- they want to impose their vision of Christianity [and very different versions of it] on the country, which endangers every other religion, as well as the right of citizens to be atheist, agnostic or whatever.


Posted by: drindl | December 17, 2007 5:00 PM | Report abuse

Mark, did you know that black people could not be full members of the Mormon Church until 1978, because they supposedly bore 'the curse of Cain'?

I don't remember George Romney advocating for changing that.

Posted by: drindl | December 17, 2007 4:46 PM | Report abuse

Truth Hunter writes
"it was reported on a Des Moines talk show by an attendee that Mitt's A team had shown up for King's press conference thinking Romney was getting the nod."

Apparently Chris had prepared an article in that vein as well. Note that the URL for this post ends 'king_to_endorse_romney.html'

Posted by: bsimon | December 17, 2007 4:34 PM | Report abuse

Now for the rest of the story... it was reported on a Des Moines talk show by an attendee that Mitt's A team had shown up for King's press conference thinking Romney was getting the nod.

Actually, King's endorsement will harm a candidate as much as help them. He's known as a grandstander... an impression he just reinforced.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth_Hunter | December 17, 2007 4:01 PM | Report abuse

Mike -- follow the link I provided. It's the same speech you were quoting, which is listed in full on his website. The portion I quote comes after your quote and provides important context.

Posted by: _Colin | December 17, 2007 3:26 PM | Report abuse

_colin, I pulled that quote off the web where some supporter quotes his speech. It may be out of context. I will check. Over the weekend I heard Mr. Obama talking about the roll of religion and politics and he very much seemed to indicate that religion, and explicitly Christianity, had a direct bearing on how he would govern. That came up becasue some other Clinton operative accused him of being a secret Muslim (again!) and he wanted to make the point that he considers himself a Christian, even an Evanglical Christian, that he has attended the same church for more than two decades, and that his religious beliefs were what caused him to go into public service, to seek public office, in the first place. This, made me think more highly of Barak Obama than anything else I have read or heard during the course of his run for the Whitehouse. What a courageous and decent man. And, for all of those who would cast malign him, as the Clinton campaign has repeatedly attempted to do, what a despicable, underhanded campaign. Only the most loathsome and morally bankrupt will support you after this.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | December 17, 2007 3:22 PM | Report abuse

oh, coming from brooks, it was intentional.

Posted by: Spectator2 | December 17, 2007 3:20 PM | Report abuse

I don't know if it was intentional or not, but I know the speech pretty well and immediately saw that it was taken out of context.

Posted by: _Colin | December 17, 2007 3:10 PM | Report abuse

thanks Colin -- what brooks posted was his feeble and misleading attempt to make people think that Obama sucks up to the far right as much as brooks does. Your post makes clear that he does not.

Posted by: Spectator2 | December 17, 2007 3:07 PM | Report abuse

MikeBrooks -- I notice you didn't quote this portion of the speech, that comes immediately after what you quoted:

"While I've already laid out some of the work that progressive leaders need to do, I want to talk a little bit about what conservative leaders need to do -- some truths they need to acknowledge.

For one, they need to understand the critical role that the separation of church and state has played in preserving not only our democracy, but the robustness of our religious practice. Folks tend to forget that during our founding, it wasn't the atheists or the civil libertarians who were the most effective champions of the First Amendment. It was the persecuted minorities, it was Baptists like John Leland who didn't want the established churches to impose their views on folks who were getting happy out in the fields and teaching the scripture to slaves. It was the forbearers of the evangelicals who were the most adamant about not mingling government with religious, because they did not want state-sponsored religion hindering their ability to practice their faith as they understood it.

Moreover, given the increasing diversity of America's population, the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater. Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.

And even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? Would we go with James Dobson's, or Al Sharpton's? Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount - a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application? So before we get carried away, let's read our bibles. Folks haven't been reading their bibles."

http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060628-call_to_renewal/

Context matters. I have no problem with what Obama said in the portion of his speech you posted. AS LONG as his statements reflect the portion I just posted. If you don't see why that second piece matters, it's probably better to just let this one go and agree to disagree.


Posted by: _Colin | December 17, 2007 3:04 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: thecrisis | December 17, 2007 3:01 PM | Report abuse

_Colin, this is what Barak Obama has to say on this:

"...today I'd like to talk about the connection between religion and politics and perhaps offer some thoughts about how we can sort through some of the often bitter arguments over this issue over the last several years.
I do so because, as you all know, we can affirm the importance of poverty in the Bible and discuss the religious call to environmental stewardship all we want, but it won't have an impact if we don't tackle head-on the mutual suspicion that sometimes exists between religious America and secular America. We first need to understand that Americans are a religious people. 90 percent of us believe in God, 70 percent affiliate themselves with an organized religion, 38 percent call themselves committed Christians, and substantially more people believe in angels than do those who believe in evolution.
This religious tendency is not simply the result of successful marketing by skilled preachers or the draw of popular mega-churches. In fact, it speaks to a hunger that's deeper than that - a hunger that goes beyond any particular issue or cause
..... what I am suggesting is this - secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square. Frederick Douglas, Abraham Lincoln, Williams Jennings Bryant, Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King - indeed, the majority of great reformers in American history - were not only motivated by faith, but repeatedly used religious language to argue for their cause. To say that men and women should not inject their "personal morality��? into public policy debates is a practical absurdity; our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition."

-Barak Obama, Call to Renewal Keynote Address, 06/28/2006

Posted by: mibrooks27 | December 17, 2007 2:56 PM | Report abuse

Mark -- glad the WAPO review helped. When I saw your original post, I was also concerned.

Also, agreed about George Romney. When Mitt originally ran for office, he sounded a lot like his dad. It's ashame that he decided a 180 was necessary to run for president. Pragmatic, centrist governors that know how to make government work in a competent fashion appeal to a whole lot of people.

Posted by: _Colin | December 17, 2007 2:56 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Spectator2 | December 17, 2007 2:53 PM | Report abuse

mark-yup, good interview by russert. i found it perticularlly interesting that mitt romney called out mike huckboom(saw it on the other thread) on critizing bush's foreigen policy. on the other hand, mitty had no problem saying he didnt felt the need to follow the reagan/bush41 policies when he was trying to run for senate.

and for once it was great seeing the repubicans getting taken to the woodshed twice in a row. next week ron paul.

Posted by: jaymills1124 | December 17, 2007 2:48 PM | Report abuse

Borders are lines drawn on a map to divide us. To seperate power to the few. If this is a country by for and accountable to the people then those divisions need not apply.

In the future perhaps. When we truly are free.

"The map is not the territory"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map-territory_relation

The lines are for divide and conquer. they only exist to keep us slaves. Remove the lines that divide us (religon, economics, politics) and we are all teh same. Those that would divide us for perosnal or political profit need to be marginalized. Read the Tower of Babylon again, gop. You misunderstand. One World, one people is not the problem. Putting yourselves above God is. Pretending to know God's will is the problem. Free America, GOP. Start there.

The current gop is putting the world back decades, if not centuries. All for their "permentant republican magority" that was never going to happen. Quite the contrary. Teh more people that vote, the less power the gop has. That is why they suppress votes. That is why they mold the rules. It's their only chance. The gop is now shown for what it is. As a result the gop is done for a generation. Enjoy your irrelevance gop

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 17, 2007 2:45 PM | Report abuse

oh please, brooks, give it a rest. the only person i talk to in this way is you, because your hypocrisy infuriates me. you're a complete and utter joke. Republicans love you. You suck up to them while bashing Dems and liberals. How great is that?

PS I'm not a Democrat either; just because I end up voting for the Dem candidate for pres doesn't make me one. I usually do so holding my nose (Mondale, Ducarcass, Kerry). I voted for John Anderson over the loser Carter. Got any more brilliant deductions as to who I am, Watson?

Posted by: Spectator2 | December 17, 2007 2:44 PM | Report abuse

Woah, brooks, watch it with the character assassination. Your babblings aren't usually too bad but when you venture into the territory of accusing someone of spousal abuse or psychiatric disorders, that is where I have to draw the line.

You need to take a Logic 101 class and learn why your arguments are rarely, if ever, cogent.

Also, seriously man, get a spell-checker. It's "hyperbole," among other typos.

Posted by: thecrisis | December 17, 2007 2:44 PM | Report abuse

Clinton are at it again, using Bob Kerry to remind Iowa voters, Obama's father is a muslim, therey playing on the bigotry of voters. Do they not think voters can see right through that.

Posted by: vbhoomes | December 17, 2007 2:43 PM | Report abuse

And Colin, thanks for helping me put to rest my discomfort with that "letter". The WaPo article was a simple antidote.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 17, 2007 2:41 PM | Report abuse

Colin, agreed.

Jaymills, I watched WMR on MTP. Good start, when he called to mind his father's support of the Civil Rights movement. I really liked
George Romney.

Downhill after the first 17 minutes, I thought, as he dabbled in his inconsistencies.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 17, 2007 2:40 PM | Report abuse

Loudounvoter - You are one of the most frightening people on this forum. Everything from you boils down to name calling, shouting matches, hysteria and hyperboly, raw emotion, and hatred, bigotry, bullying, and lack of any kind of rationality. If you have a spouse or children, you are the sort of person that any normal good citizen would watch closely for signs of abuse. I strongly urge you to seek professional help. I have never encountered a person so badly in need of it. You are a walking advertisement for everything that is wrong with this country and especially with the Democratic Party.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | December 17, 2007 2:36 PM | Report abuse

I don't want to delve to far into the church/state thing, but one point that I think is often left out of the discussion is that such a separation is important in part b/c it protects RELIGION from being watered down in the name of producing an elusive ecumenical spirituality. That's a point that Obama, a devout Christian, makes often - including in front of deeply religious black audiences. Advocating in favor of separation doesn't mean someone isn't religious -- to the contrary, it may mean that person is more concerned with having their beliefs diluted than others.

Posted by: _Colin | December 17, 2007 2:34 PM | Report abuse

It just so happens the hindu's and buddists pratice what Jesus was teaching. They just don't take about it. They live it. All the other add on's (hindu buddist)are nice. They are for perosnal understanding. Allegories. But they are for division. not unity. Disregard the divisions. Break down the gates that divide us. What is left?

One WOrld. One people.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 17, 2007 2:31 PM | Report abuse

:)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiddu_Krishnamurti


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus


R

i'M NOT A HINDU. I just reject the catholic chruch. I consider myself a Lutheran. though I recongnize universal truths. for all we know Jesus may may ventured over the mountains and back, rather than spending all that time in the desert. Maybe it was an allegory. Regardless Jesus's teachings are truth. Teh source does not matter. Only the word. If you do not agree personally, disregard.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 17, 2007 2:28 PM | Report abuse

The real winner here seems to be John McCain. His profile is rising in Iowa a bit after getting all of the recent top newspaper endorsements, while F. Thompson, Huckabee & Romney fight it out for the conservative vote. I don't think, at this point, that F. Thompson can win Iowa. I think Huckabee has the momentum now, but Romney's spending will test that fully for until voting time in Iowa. Romney seems to have a pretty established lead in NH as well. But, I just don't see 1 endorsement of a US congressman (Congress approval rating is about 19%) boosting Thompson to victory. Has Chuck Grassley endorsed anyone? If not, it would be very big if McCain were able to pick that one up.

Posted by: bryant_flier2006 | December 17, 2007 2:26 PM | Report abuse

JK is our resident Hindu on the blog. Better not eat that chicken or hamburger, could be one of our relatives from the past.

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

One more point to drindl and 27. Speaking from a christian perspective.

To force religon on a free person is not chrsitianity. NEver has been. To force it on a free person is worthless. You must walk through the darkness to know what the light truely is. When you force religon on a free people you get one of two horrible transgressions (on christanity).

1. you get a robot. A follower clone. Think mormons. They follow but do not know why. It's for the fellowship. It's because their parents tell him "this is good. this is bad." They do not and cannot understand the faith. Why? Because it must be a willful choice. Otherwise what is teh sacrafice. What is the choice from, this or that? The forced person has no choice. Jesus doesn't want this person. Jesus wants a personal relationship. These people choose mud and brick (the church) over Jesus and his teachigns. Tehy choose the earthly paradise over true paradise.

2. The second person rebels agaisnt beign forced to believe. TIf their parents are "good", they turn to evil. Real evil. Cutting the heads off birds evil. HAting the cross evil (because they see the cross as evil, due to what has been done to them in the crosses name). Were the "savages" in south america scared of teh cross when it came over to their lands? What about a year or 5 later? Why? Was this the crosses fault? was it Jesus's teachings? Or was it false prophets that used a religon to force a free people to bow to their will.

Think on these things. Last post today. If you don't know by friday, I'm being watched.

If we can finally get the FISA amnesty thrown out, I can prove it. Then punish the law breakers for their trason. I'm going to sue these fascists for millions. i wish there was another way. How cna you hurt people who care about nothing (not their country, not their brothers, not the world) but money? You can't. The only way to hurt people that only care about money (gop memebers) is to hit them in the pocketbook. They do not fear or feel pain by any other means. Is that insanity? think on it? Who can you trust in a capitalist society? can mothers trust their sons/dauthers? Can children trust their parents? You naeigbors? Who is not trying to get something from you in a capitalist society?

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 17, 2007 2:11 PM | Report abuse

claudia: can you believe this nitwit calls himself a liberal? his latest posts on religion are the funniest yet from this self-proclaimed liberal. Just more sucking up to the right from babbling brooks.

Posted by: Spectator2 | December 17, 2007 2:06 PM | Report abuse

typo, the crisis. i actually know how to spell.

all i am saying, 'twit' yourself, mike -- is tht I beleive in the separation of church and state and the Constitution. If you don't, I feel sorry for you, because that is what the founders intended.. no establishment of relgion, no state relgion.

I am not a Christian, and I will not have it forced on me by anyone. I don't beleive in the business of orgnaized relgion. Obama is a good christian, a real one, and I admire him.

Huckabee, I'm not really sure what he is, except a politician.

Posted by: drindl | December 17, 2007 2:03 PM | Report abuse

Romney has raised far, far more than Paul.

Paul is a great candidate to have in the Republican lineup because it keeps the rest of the candidates in check. He's there to call them out when they say something unconstitutional, which is happening more and more often these days.

Though, he'd make a horrid president. We all know this. The country is not as it was 150 years ago and running it as if it were would be a catastrophic mistake.

Paul has raised the most from active officers because they don't want to seem cowardly by joining the anti-war Democratic Party so instead they join the most anti-war candidate of the Republican Party. Just another form of posturing.

Posted by: thecrisis | December 17, 2007 2:01 PM | Report abuse

Once the Dem nominee is selected I'll be looking forward to brooks bashing Dem senate and house candidates.

Posted by: Spectator2 | December 17, 2007 2:00 PM | Report abuse

Well said on the "Render to Ceaser" gop arguement, 27.

That is how the gop try and justify their interp. of christianity. All the pain the false christians (like the "religous right") has caused over the years. Simple solution.

Those that follow the teachigns of Jesus, and teh ten commandments are christians. those that do not, are not. Simple.

THE RELIGOUS RIGHT IN AMERICA ARE NOT CHRSITIANS. They are using the religon, and america's religous freedoms to implament their theocratic fascism.

A christian is by their actions. Not their words. Caothlics and mormons are devil worshippers. Some know it, some do not. My opinon. I speak for no one but myself.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 17, 2007 2:00 PM | Report abuse

thecrisis writes
"Hillary has proven TIME and TIME AGAIN with her voting record that she is intelligent, careful and thoughtful when casting her votes. "

crisis- HRC has proven time and time again, that she has long been preparing to run for the Presidency & has the voting record to prove it. Her votes to approve the use of force in Iraq & to label the IRG a terrorist group were not 'principled' votes, they were votes calculated to boost her hawkish credentials so she could compete effectively against the 'tough on terror' party.

Posted by: bsimon | December 17, 2007 2:00 PM | Report abuse

Obama 08

Get em Ron Paul. Get em. Take the country back.

the great thing about Ron Paul is the right has to listen to him. Has he raised the most of R's? Anyone have the numbers? I thought it was tellign When Duncan hunter was going after paul in the debate, and paul turned to him and said he gets the most donations from active officers. Classic. "Phoney soldiers"? Whose really supporting the troops. And whose trading their blood for little pieces of paper with old dead guys on it.

Anyone get scared when my yale plan posts closed this site down for hours on friday? do you hear me now? Free speech?

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 17, 2007 1:57 PM | Report abuse

thecrisis: The Republicans on here are laughing at brooks. He is the best ally they have.

Posted by: Spectator2 | December 17, 2007 1:56 PM | Report abuse

THE NAME IS CAESAR.

Don't engage each other in a history war if neither of you can even spell Caesar correctly. And Brooks, what in the hell is a "graven imagine"?

You need to spell-check your text to make sure you make sense...though I'm not sure the spell-check would do the trick now that I think of it.

Posted by: thecrisis | December 17, 2007 1:55 PM | Report abuse

lol babbling brooks, you drooling moron, in the past two posts you have:

1. once again called me a Clintonite despite no evidence of that. Let me make this as clear as possible: I hope the Democratic nominee is the best person to defeat whatever rightwingnut the GOP nominates. That can be Clinton, Obama, Edwards, whoever. Clear enough for you, ace?

2. You refuse to see, or are too stupid to see, the difference between the kind of Christian Obama is, and the kind of Christian Huckabee is. But that's probably because you're, as usual, sucking up to the Republicans on this board.

Posted by: Spectator2 | December 17, 2007 1:54 PM | Report abuse

Brooks, you are a true enigma.

Why have Republicans won so much in the past 20 years? Because they are so good at making democrats feel bad for being democrats that they end up turning on each other. It's almost as if some Democrats want desperately to earn Republicans' approval and they're willing to hang Hillary out to dry to prove it.

Hillary has proven TIME and TIME AGAIN with her voting record that she is intelligent, careful and thoughtful when casting her votes. Sometimes politicians can't just vote a certain way because it makes people with mushy hearts feel good about themselves. Foreign policy requires strategy because our opponents in the world are not as loving and transparent as some people in the United States seem to think they are.

Turning on Hillary for any reason is simply ridiculous. Ten years ago she was "too liberal" for America and now she's "too hawkish" or "too corporate" for liberals. This is what Republicans mean when they call Democrats spineless. All they have to do is start attacking a Democratic politician and Democratic voters will run as far and fast as they can so the big mean Republicans don't attack them too. It's shameful and anyone doing it is a sad member of their party.

Posted by: thecrisis | December 17, 2007 1:52 PM | Report abuse

claudia - The kind of nonsense, the intellectual hoops you jump through, are unbelievable. One quick little history lesson:
When Christ said, 'render unto Ceasar, that which is Ceasar's, render unto God, that which is God's', he was answering the Sadduces who were attempting to trap him. You see, taxes needed to be paid and the coins used had a picture, a likeness of people on them. For the Jews at that time, a "graven imagine" was a sin. If Christ had answered, just pay your taxes using the present currancy, they would accuse him of bowing to Rome using a graven image. On the other hand, if he answered that they should pay their taxes, he would run afoul of Roman law. So what to do! And he answered 'render unto Ceasar, that which is Ceasar's, render unto God, that which is God's'. The next time you pretend to discuss history or anything of intellectual import with me, you had better have better facts at hand. Twit!

Posted by: mibrooks27 | December 17, 2007 1:46 PM | Report abuse

And Loudmouth once again demonstrates that she/he/it is a bigot and that for "its" wing of the Democratic Party morality, decency, ethics, right and wrong, have no meaning and no value. So, they are reduced to name calling and uttering lame nonsense. It's pretty much what we all have learned to expect from you Clintonites, which is why most of us are making plans to leave you twits high and dry. You are an embarrassment to a long and dignified history of what liberalism is about.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | December 17, 2007 1:39 PM | Report abuse

drindl, blarg, just haven't gotten around to fixing it yet...

'claudia, bashing Christian's, bashing someone because the claim to want to restore the moral center to this country, is simply offensive. '

you are misunderstanidng me, mike. he'ss not talking about the 'moral center' -- he's talking about a religious government, a christian government.

My Jewish in-laws find them terrifying and offensive, which they also feel about Guiliani and Romney.

Obama is talking about non-secular morality and real Christian values -- not the ones practiced in this country by the 'Christian' right -- which are the opposite of Christ's teachings - compassion and tolerance, not bigotry and hatred.

Even Jesus advocated separation of church and state. He said, 'render unto Ceasar, that which is Ceasar's, render unto God, that which is God's.'

We are NOT a Christian nation, we are a diverse nation with many many religions -- and every citizen has the right not to have a particular relgion crammed down their throats.

Did you know that Huckabee accepted quite a bit of money from RJ Reynolds while he was governor, to travel around to different churches criticizing Hillary Clinton's health plan? He's a huge hypocrite.

Posted by: drindl | December 17, 2007 1:37 PM | Report abuse

judgeccrater - More spin and outright lies! I don't know why Mike Huckabee has the support of people home schooling their children. He is *opposed* to "private school choice". But I do know that he has been endorsed by several NEA chapters. In an example of having it both ways, the NEA was criticized by the New Republic recently:
""No doubt, the NEA's endorsement has something to do with Huckabee's opposition to private school choice and his support for a federally mandated and funded arts and music curriculum," Mike Huckabee puts the interests of a labor union ahead of children's education."

You ought to ashamed of yourself for spreading the sort of distorted utter garbage you posted.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | December 17, 2007 1:33 PM | Report abuse

continuing on the one minute post, did anyone see the mittster on meet the press?

Posted by: jaymills1124 | December 17, 2007 1:33 PM | Report abuse

fred thompson gets key endorsment in iowa

John McCain gets key endorsement from Joe Liberman(I-Isreal)

Hillary Clinton gets key endorsement from a newspaper that only good for lining birdcages and litter boxes!

once again the only endorsements anyone should really consider is when people vote for their canidate. thats the endorsement that matters.

Posted by: jaymills1124 | December 17, 2007 1:31 PM | Report abuse

All is right with the world. A review of the most recent boards indicates that after a brief respite last week following the Democratic debate, self-proclaimed liberal babbling brooks is back to bashing Democrats and liberals with relish. I'm starting to think he's Joe Lieberman, except that Joe says fewer nasty things about Democrats and liberals.

Posted by: Spectator2 | December 17, 2007 1:30 PM | Report abuse

Zouk, give me a friggin' break. You know as well as I do that the "failures" of the Democrats can be laid directly at the feet of the partisan hacks who are standing in the way of legislation. Republicans are angry about 2006 - the voters punched them in the stomach and told them to leave - and so they're stonewalling all legislation.

Quote me an article saying Congressional Republicans have even made a reasonable attempt to compromise and I'll retract my statement. And no, Michelle Malkin doesn't count as a legitimate journalist.

Republicans are (cleverly) posturing themselves so they can say Democrats didn't achieve anything while they had the (incredibly slim) majority. Now Bush is threatening to veto spending that only a few years ago he approved, only now to make the Democrats look bad.

But voters are smart enough to see through this senseless, wasteful partisan posturing and they'll even more firmly rebuke Republicans in 2008, both in Congress and in the White House. We'll see how much you cherish your Roveian partisan strategy when Democrats have a filibuster-proof majority in Congress and a president in the White House.

Republicans are done.

Posted by: thecrisis | December 17, 2007 1:30 PM | Report abuse

claudia, bashing Christian's, bashing someone because the claim to want to restore the moral center to this country, is simply offensive. There are millions of Christian voters. They compose more than half of the electorate, and in offending them you place ypourself squarely outside the mainstream of Amercian thought. The candidates I like are all self proclaimed Christian's - Edwards and Obama, Huckabee and McCain, decent moral, just plain good men. Now, over the weekend, Barak Obama attended the same church he has attended for more than two decades. He has thos to say about CHristianity and Christian leaders: "Imagine Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address without reference to "the judgments of the Lord." Or King's I Have a Dream speech without references to "all of God's children." Their summoning of a higher truth helped inspire what had seemed impossible, and move the nation to embrace a common destiny. Our failure as progressives to tap into the moral underpinnings of the nation is not just rhetorical, though. Our fear of getting "preachy" may also lead us to discount the role that values and culture play in some of our most urgent social problems."

Claudia, I submit, a very core reason Barak Obama is surging is simply becasue of that clarion call to being godly, being a self identified Christian leader.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | December 17, 2007 1:24 PM | Report abuse

Claudia (do you prefer that or "drindl"?), that Huckabee quote is scary! He got into politics because he thinks there isn't enough religion in our government. I used to like the guy, but not anymore. Being friendly and honest only goes so far; it can't make up for craziness like "taking this country back for Christ".

Posted by: Blarg | December 17, 2007 1:23 PM | Report abuse

The Democrats are wrapping up their first year in the congressional majority, and pretty much everyone agrees that it has been, to be charitable, less than a rousing success. Here is a comprehensive list of their legislative accomplishments:

An increase in the federal minimum wage, to $5.85 an hour from $5.15, effective July 24, 2007.


An increase in the federal minimum wage, to $6.55 an hour from $5.85, effective July 24, 2008.


An increase in the federal minimum wage, to $7.25 an hour from $6.55, effective July 24, 2009.

That's it. Other than that, the Democrats have failed at everything they have attempted, from routine matters like relief from the Alternative Minimum Tax to ambitious projects such as turning Iraq into a haven for al Qaeda.

But the one thing you can't say about the Democrats, at least according to the Washington Post's E.J. Dionne, is that they're responsible.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110010996

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 17, 2007 1:22 PM | Report abuse

Ron Paul! Ron Paul! Ron Paul! Ron Paul!
Ron Paul! Ron Paul! Ron Paul! Ron Paul!
Ron Paul! Ron Paul! Ron Paul! Ron Paul!

Posted by: washpost3 | December 17, 2007 1:22 PM | Report abuse

Ron Paul! Ron Paul! Ron Paul! Ron Paul!

Posted by: washpost3 | December 17, 2007 1:20 PM | Report abuse

Oh, CC -- why aren't you writing something about THIS-- it's huge.

'WASHINGTON (CNN) - The campaign of Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul said Monday that it had raised more than $6 million on Sunday - a sum that may be the largest single-day fundraising total in U.S. history.

The haul pads an already-massive campaign war chest. The Texas congressman has pulled in roughly $16 million for the fourth quarter.

This was his so-called Boston Tea party fundraiser. I'm no fan of Paul's, but's it's NEWS, CC.

Posted by: drindl | December 17, 2007 1:12 PM | Report abuse

Huckabee apparently behind smear campaign against McCain..

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4005347&page=1

Posted by: drindl | December 17, 2007 1:08 PM | Report abuse

What is REALLY IMPORTANT about this endorsement is the BLASTING he gave to Huckabee.

That being said, this endorsement makes no sense.

He said Fred:

1. Has the fire in his belly to win (huh?)
2. Is the best representative of family (huh?)
3. Is the best representative of church (huh - he doesn't even go to church!)
4. Has the resources to win (Thompson's campaign is on life support).

Talk about Non Sequitors and Oxymorons, hsi reasons for choosing Fred just make no sense.

Posted by: mitchellvii | December 17, 2007 1:05 PM | Report abuse

Whatever puts another "viable" candidate into the republican field is good news for democrats. With Thompson's rampant negative advertising, an endorsement like this will only guarantee more conservative-on-conservative mudslinging and will just tarnish each candidate a little more before the general election. Good job Thompson!

P.S. CSI OWNS LAW & ORDER.

Posted by: thecrisis | December 17, 2007 1:03 PM | Report abuse

I'd be embarrassed to run that puffiest puff piece EVAH for Huckabee. Did Huck's campaign pay the WaPo to run that?

Frankly, I don't know too many Democrats who advocate 'taking this country back for Jesus,' okay? The man is a stealh theocrat, not to be trusted.

"I didn't get into politics because I thought government had a better answer," he told a group of pastors on the eve of the 1998 Southern Baptist Convention. "I got into politics because I knew government didn't have the real answers, that the real answers lie in accepting Jesus Christ into our lives." He concluded that speech with words he says he'd phrase differently today: "I hope we answer the alarm clock and take this nation back for Christ."

Posted by: drindl | December 17, 2007 12:49 PM | Report abuse

"Huckabee's growing support to his support while governor for home schooling and his anti-abortion stance as well as statements he made about Americans wanting to be left alone...Once you get past the fact that he is a Baptist preacher with some conservative social values, he looks a lot like the democrat candidates."

D's support home schooling and leaving people completely alone?

Do people from parallel universes post blog entries here?

Posted by: judgeccrater | December 17, 2007 12:38 PM | Report abuse

Judge, Mr Harris' lines are Laugh out loud funny. The 'perfect start' for a 'very aggressive and ambitious 16 days of campaigning'. I don't think Fred has it in him.

Posted by: bsimon | December 17, 2007 12:35 PM | Report abuse

Campaign spokeman Todd Harris said, "This endorsement comes at the perfect time for our campaign, right when Iowans are making up their minds. We kick off our Iowa bus tour tonight and this is the perfect start to what will be a very aggressive and ambitious 16 days of campaigning."

You wish! I say again: too little, too late.

Posted by: judgeccrater | December 17, 2007 12:31 PM | Report abuse

Btw, I read that for Rudy's 'big speech' in FLA on Saturday, the auditorium was half empty...

Posted by: drindl | December 17, 2007 12:30 PM | Report abuse

'This is good news for Giuliani, the longer he is running against several candidates on his right,'

there is no one to guiliani's right. He is the most radical rightwinger, the most belligerent and neocon-- he has no 'liberal' views -- only sexually libertine. He's basically about Rudy having the 'right' to score all the chicks he wants.

Posted by: drindl | December 17, 2007 12:28 PM | Report abuse

We obviously still have with us those who never consider the issues we face but evaluate candidates on perceptions generated by the MSM. Thompson is a clear choice for those Republicans who fit the traditional mold. However, as I watch support emerging for Huckabee. I begin to think that I won't recognize the party if it goes that direction. I read an article this morning that attributed Huckabee's growing support to his support while governor for home schooling and his anti-abortion stance as well as statements he made about Americans wanting to be left alone. These are OK issues if one is voting for governor but hardly relevant to the Presidency(except the part about being left alone). Once you get past the fact that he is a Baptist preacher with some conservative social values, he looks a lot like the democrat candidates. We get more ignorant on these matters every four years.

Posted by: RobertThompson1 | December 17, 2007 12:27 PM | Report abuse

Jim52: You sound like you may be a Rudy supporter but I believe his stragery is been flawed from the start. If cannot win at least one of the early contest then you take on a Loser persona with the media and the public. Unless he can surprise in NH or SC, I think he done's for. The fact that he is Pro Choice candidate and has done this well speaks well of the Republican Party. The Dems would not even let a Pro Lfe Candidate on the ballot.

Posted by: vbhoomes | December 17, 2007 12:22 PM | Report abuse

How many key endorsements are there in a small state? Yesterday, it was the most influential newspaper; today, it is the most conservative Representative; earlier, it was Iowa's governor' Iowa's senators, etc., etc.

Posted by: bn1123 | December 17, 2007 12:22 PM | Report abuse

Fred's time has passed. He had his opening, but the religious fascists of the Republican party have moved on to Huckabee...

Posted by: uckeleg | December 17, 2007 12:13 PM | Report abuse

Could Fred's candidacy possibly gain some credibility after months in a comatose state? He actually looked alert and awake in the last debate. This is good news for Giuliani, the longer he is running against several candidates on his right, the better his chances of achieving plurality victories in the primaries.

Posted by: jimd52 | December 17, 2007 12:03 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: TennGurl | December 17, 2007 11:36 AM | Report abuse

I had to post this again

Clinton
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMlrSG1xb5k
vs.
Clinton
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_45KK8jwJR0
on experience....
Who is right????? Again he speaks out of both sides of his mouth when its politically expedient

Posted by: TennGurl | December 17, 2007 11:34 AM | Report abuse

Clintonian Double-Speak:

"Hillary Clinton Says Obama Not a Factor in Day-to-Day Decisions"

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,317094,00.html

Posted by: bsimon | December 17, 2007 11:10 AM | Report abuse

And don't forget that February will be a vacation month because of Valentine's Day...

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

Posted by: parkerfl | December 17, 2007 10:52 AM | Report abuse

Isn't Fred taking the next two weeks off for the Holidays? Fred is a good guy but lets be honest, he's lazy.

Posted by: vbhoomes | December 17, 2007 10:44 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company