Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Matzzie to Head Democratic Soft Money Effort

Even as the Democratic primary fight enters the final stretch, plans are proceeding apace among party strategists to build an independent money machine that will rival or eclipse what they created in 2004, when donors poured millions into two key outside-the-party organizations -- America Coming Together and the Media Fund.

Tom Matzzie has been hired to run a new effort for 2008, which he has described in an e-mail as a $100 million-plus venture organized around "issues and character." Matzzie is leaving his post as the Washington director of Moveon.org to take the job. He did not return an e-mail seeking comment on his new position.

The news of Matzzie's hiring comes roughly two weeks after a group of the largest donors in the Democratic party gathered in Washington to discuss where they'll put their money during the 2008 race. One of the attendees -- Hollywood producer Steve Bing -- is said to be one of the leading financial forces behind the organization Matzzie has been hired to head.

Those familiar with overall Democratic fundraising plans for 2008 say that everything is still in a very nascent stage, but party heavyweights are clearly on the march -- setting up various organizations that may be integrated into a larger uber-fundraising effort, perhaps under Mattzie's group.

Last week John Podesta, a longtime Democratic operative who runs the Center for American Progress, and Anna Burger, a high-ranking official at the Service Employees International Union formed a soft-money 527 group called the "Fund for America."

Meanwhile, Republicans are not standing idle. According to a terrific New York Times story today, the GOP is likely to use the organization Freedom's Watch, as one of the primary vehicles for their efforts to influence the outcome of the 2008 election.

Soft money is even finding its way into the presidential primaries. Rick Reed (one of the men behind the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth in 2004) has a new group funding ads currently on the air in South Carolina, promoting Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) among other candidates.

McCain, one of the leading advocates for campaign finance reform, has decried the ads and asked for them to be taken down.

"While we have great respect for McCain, we have no intention of pulling down ads...or reducing our efforts to educate the America public, " said Reed in a statement that lavished praise on the Arizona Senator late last week. "We will, in fact, announce next week our plans to significantly expand out activities with respect to our television campaign."

This is only the beginning. Watch for any number of these third party groups to crop up over the coming months as wealthy people on both sides of the partisan divide seek to influence the debate.

By Chris Cillizza  |  November 12, 2007; 11:51 AM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Parsing the Polls: Why It's So Hard to Poll Iowa
Next: FixCam: Week in Preview

Comments

Thanks mibrooks, I'll be here all week. 8>D

Posted by: Spectator2 | November 13, 2007 11:25 AM | Report abuse

LoudounVoter -
"When asked to comment, Mr. Cash said, 'Zouk, you idiot, I'm dead. I don't give a crap about your nonsensical drivel.'"

Wonderful insult! This is the first time you've made me laugh out loud. You DO have a sense of humor!!!! (And, KOZ, you do have some good points, too, but this putdown was classic writing, as good as Barry or Hiaasen!)

Posted by: mibrooks27 | November 12, 2007 6:35 PM | Report abuse

zouk doesn't claim to be anything, really, does he, roo?

Ask him outright what he does, he never answers.

Posted by: drindl | November 12, 2007 6:35 PM | Report abuse

kingofzouk--I have also conclusively rebutted all your (inane) claims and proven my (equally inane) points using your own numbers.

YOUR figures, YOUR logic, and I can still show that you are wrong. In short, I win, you lose.

Aside from that, your metrics are ludicrous and further proof that you are not, in fact a scientist as you claim.

Posted by: roo_P | November 12, 2007 6:19 PM | Report abuse

kingofzouk--Not to rain on your parade but RIAA puts country music about 12-13% of all music sold in the U.S. in 2005, rock alone is around 30%. (Not that this is actually a valid metric of anything but I just want to set yet another one of your distortions straight.)

As far as books, well, let us just say that the "Harry Potter" series has yours beat handily.

Posted by: roo_P | November 12, 2007 6:14 PM | Report abuse

Let's just review the Liberal MO, demonstrated here today in spades.

first invent some phony numbers. when challenged, change the terminology, say pro-choice instead of pro-abortion. then try to use any numbers that can even remotely add to your cause while rejecting anything reasonable on the other side. Use selective sources and filter information. If that doesn't work, attack the individual, find out more about them. If you are still not getting anywhere, go ugly and start with the demeaning insults. Once that fails, simply retreat. Pretend you are giving up for philosophical reasons. If the subject ever comes up again, pretend you never heard about it and start with the fake numbers again. It is always a good thing for those not paying close attention to hear the same lies over and over. they won't bother to check back once the facts emerge.

Yes indeed - the Liberal way.

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 12, 2007 5:58 PM | Report abuse

So now the entire moonbat brigade is here trying to refute facts with witty retorts. We have loud and dumb who runs for cover everytime some concrete emerges. So are you now saying that country music is a Liberal bastion? Is that your claim now Loud and Dumber? I suppose you think hillary will get the NASCAR vote too?

somehow the fact that Dems have only won two elections with a majority in over 50 years indicates I don't understand majorities. the details escape me.

drindl chimes in with a single book from a list that includes in the top 20
bolton
scahill
coulter
ingraham
willey
timmerman
O'Reilly

from amazon bestsellers

So as usual, just as Karl rove said "the netroots often argue from anger rather than reason, and too often, their object is personal release, not political persuasion"

so good going there Ace, numbnuts or batty and battier. you have demonstrated once more that facts have very little do do with your own personal realities.

I am channelling Alice in Wonderland now. Words mean what I want them to. but then he was tripping, what is your excuse?

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 12, 2007 5:43 PM | Report abuse

Well it takes four networks to beat fox. I wonder if the fact that I couldn't even get fos this weekend in disneyworld has anything to do with it. Or that airports and hotels won't show it. Even with that substantial handicap, four neworks barely beats them. but you're right, that doesn't mean anything if you don't want it to.

As far as talk radio goes, the DJ actually takes calls and talks to the listener. they discuss issues until they are worn thin. they cover all apsects, plusses and minusses, costs and benefits. it takes someone intelligent and fast on their feet. They must be well-versed in many issues and able to be fact checked often. compare this to sat Krazy Keith who only interviews rabid Libs, throws softball leading questions, never responds to criticism or facts. compare to kruggman who wrights his column in a vaccum, never responding to criticism of his errors. compare to NYT editors who never admit an american victory or accomplishment. who never take on the opponent. compare to Ann coulter who will debate anyone anywhere as opposed to Dem pols who won't go on Fox.

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 12, 2007 5:30 PM | Report abuse

'we are having an adult conversation here.'

LOL -- the King of the Sandbox actually said this... teehee. His lack of self-awareness amuses me daily.You spent an awful lot of time on here today, ace. What did you say you did for a lving agian? You seem to be avoiding the question.

Posted by: drindl | November 12, 2007 5:30 PM | Report abuse

koz seems to have forgotten that presidents are elected by the Electoral College, not the popular vote, which is funny considering all the bleating about the EC by rightwingnuts in 2000.

So in the past 45 minutes or so, koz has (1) shown that he doesn't know what plurality means and (2) displayed a second-grader's level of knowledge about how we elect presidents.

And we are wasting time responding to this drooler because.....???

The board is yours, ace. Time for some willpower.

Posted by: Spectator2 | November 12, 2007 5:28 PM | Report abuse

Hey Ace - please alert me to the Dem president who won with more than half the vote. I have to go back to Carter - one termer and before that Kennedy. two in over 50 years. Impressive accomplishment for you Libs.

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 12, 2007 5:24 PM | Report abuse

SFB: your producing a chart in which three of the albums are by a dead guy and two are by American Idol winners really says a lot about the kind of "adult conversation" you're having.

But keep up the good work, ace. Big fan!

Posted by: Spectator2 | November 12, 2007 5:24 PM | Report abuse

No. 1 on Best Seller List:

1. I AM AMERICA (AND SO CAN YOU!), by Stephen Colbert, Richard Dahm, Paul Dinello and Allison Silverman

Posted by: drindl | November 12, 2007 5:24 PM | Report abuse

wow, three of those albums are by that noted conservative Johnny Cash.

When asked to comment, Mr. Cash said, "Zouk, you idiot, I'm dead. I don't give a crap about your nonsensical drivel."

Posted by: Spectator2 | November 12, 2007 5:22 PM | Report abuse

Hey numbnuts - no one asked for stupid peanut gallery comments. we are having an adult conversation here. at least some of us are.

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 12, 2007 5:22 PM | Report abuse

Only one more problem with your music claims - lies, no links, made up liberal fictions. they are like the bullets in the OK corral Star Trek episode.

1 RASCAL FLATTS 2 Lyric Street/Hollywood
2 CARRIE UNDERWOOD 1 Arista/Arista Nashville/RCA Music Group
3 NICKELBACK 1 Roadrunner/Island Def Jam Music Group
4 MARY J. BLIGE 1 Matriarch/Geffen/Interscope
5 EMINEM 2 Shady/Aftermath/Interscope
6 KENNY CHESNEY 3 BNA/Sony BMG Nashviile
7 JOHNNY CASH 3 Legacy/Columbia (Nashville)/Sony Music
7 JOHNNY CASH 1 Legacy/Columbia (Nashville)/American/Island/Universal Music Enterprises
7 JOHNNY CASH 1 American/Lost Highway/Universal Music Group Nashville
8 JAMES BLUNT 1 Custard/Atlantic/Atlantic Group
9 KELLY CLARKSON 1 RCA/RCA Music Group
10 MARIAH CAREY 1 Island/Island Def Jam Music Group

http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/charts/yearendcharts/chart_display.jsp?f=The+Billboard+200+Artists&g=Year-end+Top+Artists

Notice the top sellers are 8/10 country music. but try to find some "language" so you can continue to debate non-facts.

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 12, 2007 5:20 PM | Report abuse

"I seem to recall some dude named Perot who allowed clinton to win with fewer than half the votes. I don't recall referring to President gore."

You made an idiotic comment and you were busted on it, ace. End of story.

Posted by: Spectator2 | November 12, 2007 5:18 PM | Report abuse

I seem to recall some dude named Perot who allowed clinton to win with fewer than half the votes. I don't recall referring to President gore.

I must guess your issue is then with the word plurality, which you pedantic Dems love to do to avoid the issue completely. find a single misspelled or slightly inaccurate word and try to disspell the entire argument.

Nice try. I concede you know what plurality means maybe. From Webster:

a number of votes cast for a candidate in a contest of more than two candidates that is greater than the number cast for any other candidate but not more than half the total votes cast

now explain why no Dems have won over half of the votes/won in decades.

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 12, 2007 5:13 PM | Report abuse

kingofzouk--The Fix keeps eating my text today. But I will make this real simple for you. Look at YOUR numbers:

P2+ Prime Time
FNC - 1,821,000 viewers
CNN - 837,000 viewers
MSNBC- 501,000 viewers
CNBC -334,000 viewers
HLN - 439,000 viewers

Combine with YOUR logic (FNC is con, all others are evil lib media):

CNN + MSNBC + CNBC + HLN = 2,111,000 viewers. FNC = 1,821,000 viewers.

FNC loses.

Posted by: roo_P | November 12, 2007 5:12 PM | Report abuse

kingofzouk--Heh, talk radio is not "one-way"? We are talking about the device that just has a speaker, no microphone, right? You are broadly familiar with the construction of a radio receiver, right? The BROADCAST radio receiver?

Also, you are seriously saying that Russ Limbaugh's show is more in-depth than

The first truly accessible bi-directional means of communication or as we libruls call it, "dialogue", is the Internet. Why is it that the web is so strongly dominated by the left?

Posted by: roo_P | November 12, 2007 5:07 PM | Report abuse

Roo - except for one thing. as usual your facts come with no links. you just make it up.

P2+ Prime Time
FNC - 1,821,000 viewers
CNN - 837,000 viewers
MSNBC- 501,000 viewers
CNBC -334,000 viewers
HLN - 439,000 viewers

http://insidecable.blogsome.com/category/ratings/

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 12, 2007 5:07 PM | Report abuse

The King of Zouk has written:

"nothing to do with the statistical fact that a Dem hasn't won a plurality of votes in over 30 years."

MoreAndBetterPolls recognizes that the King is trained in mathematics, and must assume that his use of the word "plurality" in that context means something different than it does in ordinary English usage. MoreAndBetterPolls had previously assumed that a plurality of votes refers to the highest total among three or more contestants for an office, short of a majority. MoreAndBetterPolls previously thought that Mr. Clinton, on two occasions, and Mr. Gore, had won a plurality of votes, all within the thirty years preceding this date, and that they were Democrats.

MoreAndBetterPolls now defers to the King of Zouk and looks forward to further instruction in rigorous mathematical analysis from him, before commenting on any future polling.

Posted by: MoreAndBetterPolls | November 12, 2007 5:06 PM | Report abuse

Only problem is that all the Liberal endeavors fail - air america - their attempt to do radio went broke fast. the NYTimes is sinking fast thanks to Pinch. MSNBC has no viewers and Krazy Keith is too funny. CNN is replete with lies and propoganda. clintons and kruggmans books go straight to bargain bins. the idea that they rule hollywood may be true but the movies thay make lose money. the Christ movie raked it in whiel all the recent anti-war moview were without exception bombs (pun?). al gore lies his way to awards along with Moore but everyone knows all the science is fiction. but the debate is settled - if we all turn off the water when we brush - crisis averted. Oh and go to cuba for surgery.

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 12, 2007 4:57 PM | Report abuse

kingofzouk--Not that you usually let facts get in your way but if we say that Country is conservative and Hip-hop, Rock, Indie, Dance, Techno, Classical and others are liberal, and furthermore

Hip-hop + Rock + Indie + Classical > Country

Then logically the "liberal" music is more popular. Country being the single-most popular genre (it really is not but I will humour you here) just means that apparently the conservatives all listen to the same music.. which is curious since there was just a publicised study which concluded that liberals are by far more likely to

Let us take another example, your favourite! News channels! Fox is conservative and as you have many times claimed, all other channels are liberal. The combined viewership of the three main competitors is higher that Fox's, or in mathematical terms,

CNN + MSNBC + Headline > FNC

Libruls win again. All your figure says, again, is that all conservatives watch the same thing. How do you explain that being a scientist as you claim?

Posted by: roo_P | November 12, 2007 4:55 PM | Report abuse

JD - talk radio investigates issues in depth with on air and live conversation. Liberals are incapable of talking about things without pre-arranged talking points. they have to do movies. they need special effects. they can't do it without a script. Just look at hillary - nop answers, stale talking points and planted questions. Likewise they dominate the news press, which is one-way propoganda written by drop-outs but fail more and more at balanced cable news. country music and NASCAR overrun music and sports. conservative books outsell Liberal ones by millions, despite never getting a review in the Times.

In short - all the intellect and debate has headed over to cable news and talk radio. all the preaching remains on network news and printed news.

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 12, 2007 4:45 PM | Report abuse

kingofzouk: "a Dem hasn't won a plurality of votes in over 30 years."

Little boy tries to use a big word. Little boy looks like an idiot.

Posted by: Spectator2 | November 12, 2007 4:17 PM | Report abuse

JD: Talk radio is short attention span theater for those with... short attention spans.

"Hollywood" puts out two-hour movies.

You do the math.

Posted by: Spectator2 | November 12, 2007 4:13 PM | Report abuse

You know, there's probably an interesting discussion lying somewhere in here. It's funny how certain mediums (radio, books) are dominated by conservatives and certain mediums (popular music and movies, most cable outlets, the internet) are dominated by liberals.

I've heard Bill Press and other lefties suggest that radio leans heavily conservative because it's an all black-and-white discussion, free of nuance and subtlety, chock full of emotion and jingoism, etc. I find that an unbelievably patronizing, condescending, and smarmy position; it's shorthand and helps avoid in depth analysis.

On the other hand, there has to be a reason why 80% (or more?) of Hollywood leans so far left.

Posted by: JD | November 12, 2007 4:08 PM | Report abuse

What? No mention from CC about the Des Moines Register writing that Obama dominated at the JJ?

This would have been a full post if it had been Hillary.

The JJ is often the turning point for the nomination.

Come on CC, this is getting f***ing ridiculous.

Posted by: Boutan | November 12, 2007 4:06 PM | Report abuse

sniper king of zouk writes
"the idea that we "randomly" kill anyone is just silly liberal tripe."

drindl, there's your answer: the self-proclaimed 'king' of zouk is a mercenary in the employ of blackwater, or some such group.

Posted by: bsimon | November 12, 2007 3:58 PM | Report abuse

Hillary's Campaign Caught Planting Questions - Again For the second time in as many days, Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign has had to deal with accusations of planting questions during public appearances.

she can't answer any actual hard questions so she just answers her own questions now.

"bill - stop those mean boys from victimizing me. I only allow you to victimize me. can you make it so I am as touhg as a man, but if they treat me equally I can cry foul?"

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 12, 2007 3:53 PM | Report abuse

Dem Promises Carry High Price Tag

The cost to keep promises made by Democratic candidates could top $700 billion and push individual tax rates above 50 percent for the first time since the 1986 Reagan tax reform

Its really that simple.

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 12, 2007 3:50 PM | Report abuse

the idea that we "randomly" kill anyone is just silly liberal tripe. this is why you keep losing public debate. no one believes your lies anymore.

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 12, 2007 3:44 PM | Report abuse

"Let us leave those bickering losers in our dust and get on with our future as the permanant majority party."


The brilliant satirist is back. This is sold gold comedy, folks.


"Permanent majority party"

HA ha ha!

Posted by: bsimon | November 12, 2007 3:42 PM | Report abuse

so Lyle - your contention is that gore lost the election due to two clear errors. nothing to do with the statistical fact that a Dem hasn't won a plurality of votes in over 30 years.

Maybe we're just not that into you.

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 12, 2007 3:42 PM | Report abuse

proud tobe GOP asks
"Why should we undercut their efforts by constantly calling for retreat from our common enemy?"

I haven't & don't call for retreat. But if we're attacking strawmen, I'll ask:

Why should we use our hard-earned future tax dollars to pay mercenaries to randomly kill Iraqis?

Posted by: bsimon | November 12, 2007 3:41 PM | Report abuse

Proud - that entire topic is so last election. It is now clear that the Dems do not and never will have the votes to force a surrender. the Dems who were elected in swing districts won't follow Pelosi and Reid over that cliff. anyone with an ounce of sense understands that the military is winnning and winning strong. The committed (or should be committed) Libs seek to confuse the issue by constantly adding in additional requirements - like some giant underfunded liberal government program. their congress can't even pass approps bills from last year yet demand Iraq resolve centuries old issues this month.

Let us leave those bickering losers in our dust and get on with our future as the permanant majority party. they Dems have aptly demonstrated they are not mature enough to govern.

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 12, 2007 3:34 PM | Report abuse

proudtobeGOP: Your mention of 2000 brings back memories of how Al Gore distanced himself from Bubba, and by doing so lost the election, in large part by choosing Joe as his running mate, IMO. The dems made a bad mistake and folks like me can only hope they will have learned by now not to repeat how foolish they were then.

Posted by: lylepink | November 12, 2007 3:33 PM | Report abuse

well - noonan is an actual writer. I wouldn't expect you to know much about that subject area anyway. didn't she write speeches for a President? meanwhile your political experience stems from hours of tirades on some lefty blog. not even the other moonbats take you seriously anymore. just how many days in a row can the sky actually fall?

she sure pegged you and your lot:
"They came from comfort and stability, visited poverty as part of a college program, fashionably disliked their country, and cultivated a bitterness that was wholly unearned"

You see, she has a gift for wrods and the language that doesn't require slang and cursing - the sign of a talanted writer.

but your secret is out:

a study that found that writers and commenters on liberal blogs such as DailyKos.com cursed far more than writers and commenters on conservative Web sites such as FreeRepublic.com.

"My point is not that liberals swear publicly more often than conservatives. That may be true, but that's not my point," Mr. Rove said. "It is that the netroots often argue from anger rather than reason, and too often, their object is personal release, not political persuasion."

QED

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 12, 2007 3:29 PM | Report abuse

bsimon- Of course there are many challenges, but progress is occuring, and the fact that there are many thousands of volunteers stepping up to fight for their country is very promising, whether or not they are uber-organized or a rag-tag bunch, or not. In addition, grass-roots efforts have been spreading to regain the political reconciliation progress...

Thousands Returning to a Safer Baghdad
Saturday, November 03, 2007 AP

BAGHDAD -- In a dramatic turnaround, more than 3,000 Iraqi families driven out of their Baghdad neighborhoods have returned to their homes in the past three months as sectarian violence has dropped, the government said Saturday.

Saad al-Azawi, his wife and four children are among them. They fled to Syria six months ago, leaving behind what had become one of the capital's more dangerous districts -- west Baghdad's largely Sunni Khadra region, where, six months ago people wouldn't dare be outside, but now businesses are reopening and peace is being restored.

Sattar Nawrous, a spokesman for the Ministry of Displacement and Migration, said the al-Azawi family was among 3,100 that have returned to their homes in Baghdad in the past 90 days.

"In the past three months, the ministry did not register any forced displacement in the whole of Iraq," said Nawrous, who is a Kurd.

This would represent a dramatic end to the sectarian cleansing that has shredded the fabric of Baghdad's once mixed society.

Meanwhile, the volunteers pour in by the hundreds every week. Why should we undercut their efforts by constantly calling for retreat from our common enemy?

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | November 12, 2007 3:23 PM | Report abuse

blarg - guess who sells the most music in america? hint - look in on the CMAs. nope - no Libs there.
who sells the most books - O"reilly, coulter, not krugman, clinton, etc.
most attended sports - NASCAR - no hillary voters down there.

sounds like the groundswell of Lib voters is, like Bill's hope for an intern other than hillary - all dried up.

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 12, 2007 3:21 PM | Report abuse

'Wisdom from Noonan' = Wingnuttery from a Neocon

Posted by: drindl | November 12, 2007 3:17 PM | Report abuse

"I am not sure of the salience of Mr. Obama's new-generational approach. Mrs. Clinton's generation, he suggests, is caught in the 1960s, fighting old battles, clinging to old divisions, frozen in time, and the way to get past it is to get past her. Maybe this will resonate. But I don't think Mrs. Clinton is the exemplar of a generation, she is the exemplar of a quadrant within a generation, and it is the quadrant the rest of us of that generation do not like. They came from comfort and stability, visited poverty as part of a college program, fashionably disliked their country, and cultivated a bitterness that was wholly unearned. They went on to become investment bankers and politicians and enjoy wealth, power or both.

Mr. Obama should go after them, not a generation but a type, the smug and entitled. No one really likes them. They showed it this week."

Wisdom from Noonan - WSJ

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 12, 2007 3:14 PM | Report abuse

oops, writer... sounds like 'Flowers for Algernon.'

Posted by: drindl | November 12, 2007 3:13 PM | Report abuse

'I presume your use of WTF is some sort of reflection on your inability to craft the language in such a way as to stay gainfully employed as a writer'

Being able to master the tonality, slang, mood and conventions of a particular medium/audience are actually key to staying gainfully employed as a riter, zouk. I have written for everything from Sotheby's to Sports Illustrated.

I sit here writing for like 10 hours a day --so I amuse myself here. But how about you? You seem so secretive about what you do. So I ask again---welfare?

Posted by: drindl | November 12, 2007 3:11 PM | Report abuse

Blarg, What about "I'm hungry for your lovin' and standing in your welfare line?" Never heard it? I think it's the top 10 tune for all of those investors and bankers and free traders who are bleeding money these days and demanding a bailout of some sort or other.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | November 12, 2007 3:06 PM | Report abuse

I shouldn't have expected a serious answer from juvinile delinquents. does anyone wonder why the Libs are now the butt of all jokes? Even Maher makes fun of them now.

I presume your use of WTF is some sort of reflection on your inability to craft the language in such a way as to stay gainfully employed as a writer. Hence all the free time to fret about the sky falling today and every day.

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 12, 2007 3:04 PM | Report abuse

Yeah Blarg, didn't you know most hiphoppers were Republicans? Truth...

Posted by: drindl | November 12, 2007 3:01 PM | Report abuse

The dems ousted Lieberman because he turned his back on principle and turned instead to war profiteering.

Posted by: drindl | November 12, 2007 3:00 PM | Report abuse

Popular music is dominated by conservatives? Since when?

Posted by: Blarg | November 12, 2007 2:59 PM | Report abuse

book publishing dominated by cons -- wtf -- i thought it was 'a liberal media'

popular music dominated by cons -- again, wtf?

Presidential elections dominated by cons-- multinations/war profiteer money

think tanks dominated by cons -- see above

military dominated by cons -- miltary vows to be nonpartisan

finance and econ dominated by cons -- see corruption, predation, war profiteertin

religion dominated by cons -- see Jesus hijacked for political purposes, see demagoguery and manipulation of faith

Posted by: drindl | November 12, 2007 2:58 PM | Report abuse

"what is this telling you?"

There are a lot of criminals in traditional GOP constituencies? That's what you mean by pointing out all the 'cons', right?

Posted by: bsimon | November 12, 2007 2:50 PM | Report abuse

proud writes:
"now when we are seeing politcal progress bolstered by military progress."

Could you point to this alleged political progress? Its still a pipe dream. Seeing the rates of violence drop is certainly great news, but its entirely unclear that the Iraqi gov't will be able to do anything with it.

Today's Wash Post has a front page article describing how the Iraqi gov't - and the US military doing the training and coaching - hasn't figured out how to integrate 70,000 sunni recruits into the police & army.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/11/AR2007111101730.html?hpid=topnews

Posted by: bsimon | November 12, 2007 2:48 PM | Report abuse

drindl/chicken little - why are you always so overwrought? Everything in the political world does not signify the end of time. All you ever say is evil this and corrupt that. you are like a mean Rufas clone without the god stuff.

most of the country is so very over you Kos and moveon types. that is why your Dem congress is so unpopular - you are hostage to the nuts. even after month after month of good news, you Libs either ignore it completely or try to surrender anyway.

can anyone please answer a very simple question:

why is it that conservative/Republican ideas are so popular if Libs are on their way back? Exhibits to consider are:

Talk radio dominated by cons
Cable news dominated by cons
book publishing dominated by cons
popular music dominated by cons
Presidential elections dominated by cons
think tanks dominated by cons
military dominated by cons
finance and econ dominated by cons
religion dominated by cons

what is this telling you?

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 12, 2007 2:46 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, he's an independant now that his own party turned their back on him! We saw what happens when a Dem rejects his party's doctrine of cut and run.

Lieberman, a three-term Democrat from Connecticut, supports completing the mission in Iraq, supports victory in Iraq, but for taking this stand, he was purged from his party.

In 2000, the Democratic Party thought Joe Lieberman was good enough to run for vice president of the United States. Now, because he supports victory in Iraq, they don't think he's fit to be in their party.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | November 12, 2007 2:37 PM | Report abuse

proudtobeGOP writes
"What is incorrect about that, I ask you? [Lieberman is] exactly right"

Well... except that the Dems actually gave President Bush the benefit of the doubt for most of his first term. There was near universal support for the invasion of Afghanistan, for instance. When the GOP used the upcoming elections to threaten Dems with the 'weak on terrorism' label, Dems capitulated and voted to approve the use of force in Iraq. The President had promised to pursue all diplomatic options first, but instead pretty much ceased doing any diplomacy aimed at avoiding a military confrontation with Iraq. Once that happened, sane minds started pursuing other alternatives to the neo-con style of US foreign policy. It is important to note that growing numbers of Republicans have also moved away from the Bush/Lieberman school of thought regarding foreign policy.

Of course, at this point, Dems are much more vociferous in criticizing Bush policy; but for you to paint it as a partisan issue is to ignore the fact that growing numbers of GOP politicians and, more importantly, voters are starting to express similar doubts.

But don't let facts get in the way of the partisan bashing...

Posted by: bsimon | November 12, 2007 2:35 PM | Report abuse

'What is incorrect about that, I ask you? He's exactly right, and he ought to know, as a Democrat. He has called out the cowards in his own party who remain emotionally and politically invested in a narrative of defeat, even now when we are seeing politcal progress bolstered by military progress.'

HE ISN'T A DEMOCRAT. He's an Independent. He stopped being a Dem long ago. And he is the coward -- who continues to push the lies and propaganda of the war profiteers, because he is one too.

And why shouldn't we distrust Republicans? Look at the mess they got us into with a pack of lies? Half a trillion dollars and 4000 american deaths, show me the political progress?

'BAGHDAD -- The U.S. effort to organize nearly 70,000 local fighters to solidify security gains in Iraq is facing severe political and logistical challenges as U.S.-led forces struggle to manage the recruits and the central government resists incorporating them into the Iraqi police and army, according to senior military officials.'

Is that progress? The death toll for US troops was at a record high this year... is that 'progress'?

And the only narrative the defines the republican party, as relected by your every comment, is hatred of Democrats, and endless war and war profites, endless death and debt for this country.

Posted by: drindl | November 12, 2007 2:26 PM | Report abuse

Joe Lieberman is absolutely right when he says "For many Democrats, the guiding conviction in foreign policy isn't pacifism or isolationism, it is distrust and disdain of Republicans in general, and President Bush in particular,".

"In this regard, the Democratic foreign policy worldview has become defined by the same reflexive, blind opposition to the President that defined Republicans in the 1990s -- even when it means repudiating the very principles and policies that Democrats as a party have stood for, at our best and strongest," Lieberman continued.

What is incorrect about that, I ask you? He's exactly right, and he ought to know, as a Democrat. He has called out the cowards in his own party who remain emotionally and politically invested in a narrative of defeat, even now when we are seeing politcal progress bolstered by military progress.


Posted by: proudtobeGOP | November 12, 2007 2:13 PM | Report abuse

I had to add, I just heard Bill Kristol wants to nominate Leiberman for R VP. Since he's the biggest Cheney poodle/war hawk out there, I think it's a fabulous idea. Most dems can't stand him, so good riddance.

Can the Beltway Ignorati stop calling him a Democrat now?

Posted by: drindl | November 12, 2007 2:00 PM | Report abuse

If you're interested in who 'Freedom's Watch' it's the same old neocon war profiteers, slathering for a profitable war on Iran:

'Later this month, Freedom's Watch will sponsor a forum of some 20 experts on "radical Islam" that, according to a front page story in the New York Times, "is expected to make the case that Iran poses a direct threat to the security of the United States."

The forum is being "organized with the American Enterprise Institute, a Washington, DC-based neoconservative think tank, and it is 'private,'"

The idea for Freedom's Watch (FW) first surfaced in March of this year at the winter meeting of the Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC) in Manalapan, Florida, where Vice President Dick Cheney accused House Democrats of not supporting the troops in Iraq. The RJC, which is credited with shepherding then-Texas Governor George W. Bush on his first tour of Israel in November 1998, is a big-money pro-Israel lobby group that networks Jewish-American neoconservatives, Christian Right leaders and conservatives in Israel.

The Freedom's Watch "inner circle of strategists and donors are close to Vice President Dick Cheney or held high posts at the White House," the Associated Press's Jim Kuhnhenn pointed out in late September.

Posted by: drindl | November 12, 2007 1:46 PM | Report abuse

In the Balz/Murray piece recounting the Dem dinner on Sat night, they quote Sen Clinton as saying "There are some who will say they don't know where I stand. Well, I think you know better than that. I stand where I have stood for 35 years. I stand with you, and with your children and with every American who needs a fighter in their corner for a better life."


But isn't that response just another variant of trying to be all things to all people? That response doesn't add one whit of detail on where, exactly, she does stand. I imagine the focus group found the statement to be resoundlingly grandios, forceful and - maybe - even inspiring. But she isn't saying a thing, as usual. Step aside, Senator, and make room for a real leader.

Posted by: bsimon | November 12, 2007 1:42 PM | Report abuse

This jihad/smear campaign against George Soros smacks more than a little of anti-semitism. The man is a courageous Holocaust survivor, who came here and fullfilled the American dream, becoming wealthy by his own hard work.

I fail to understand what the wingers' problem with this is...

Posted by: drindl | November 12, 2007 1:38 PM | Report abuse

A new Florida poll out yesterday has some fascinating results both in the GOP primary (where Romney is going up!) and in the general election, where things are very close. Check it out here: http://www.campaigndiaries.com/2007/11/sunday-roundup-florida-is-as-tight-as.html

Posted by: campaigndiaries | November 12, 2007 1:17 PM | Report abuse

This sounds like a good deal for McCain. He gets to complain about soft money, burnishing his image as an independent with integrity. Meanwhile, an "unaffiliated" group does his dirty work, with money donated by his supporters. It's a win/win.

Posted by: Blarg | November 12, 2007 12:59 PM | Report abuse

I suspect that the new group will suffer from the same issues as ACT:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070927/NATION/109270078/1001

"Officials of a defunct pro-Democratic group that was hit with a near-record campaign-finance fine last month hold strong ties to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign, documents show... Funded with millions of dollars from billionaire George Soros, America Coming Together (ACT) misused about $70 million in "soft money,"

Posted by: LonewackoDotCom | November 12, 2007 12:59 PM | Report abuse

'What "issues and character" are they going to sell us?'

Wjen you've got Rudy Guiliani as your front runner, you might at well forget about any sort of 'issues and character' high ground, Proud. It's just too laughable.

FYI -- CC:

SANTA FE, N.M. (AP) -- Democratic Rep. Tom Udall who will run for the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by Republican Pete Domenici, an aide to the congressman said Saturday.
"He's definitely running," Tom Nagle, Udall's chief of staff, told The Associated Press.

Posted by: drindl | November 12, 2007 12:56 PM | Report abuse

What a perfect storm for dem uber-fundraising and election-swaying ads, Mattzie from moveOn and Bing, billionaire real-estate tycoon and former lover of Elizabeth Hurley who originally denied fathering her baby. What "issues and character" are they going to sell us?

With only 7 Sundays to go until the Iowa caucuses kick it off...they'd better start the mudslinging now.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | November 12, 2007 12:45 PM | Report abuse

I agree with pescoots, CC--this is really significant. Biden has more credibility with world leaders than anyone in this administration, and he's the only one doing anything to keep the Taliban and al queda from snatching Pakistan's nuclear arsenal:

'President Pervez Musharraf and opposition leader Benazir Bhutto each placed telephone calls from Pakistan to Democratic Sen. Joseph Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, to discuss the country's crisis before either talked to President George W. Bush.

On Saturday, Bhutto emphasized to Biden the need for parliamentary elections in January with Gen. Musharraf remaining as president but leaving the army. Musharraf called Biden on Tuesday and asked that their conversation be kept confidential. Biden got the impression Musharraf could accept January elections although he had triggered the crisis by suspending the constitution.

Biden, seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, wants the Bush administration to get actively involved in resolving the situation. He wants development now of a post-election power-sharing agreement between Musharraf and Bhutto.'

Posted by: drindl | November 12, 2007 12:34 PM | Report abuse

I went to the Swift Boat ad--CC--and I'm surprised you didn't comment a bit about it, because is the most Orwellian I have ever seen. It criticizes Democrats for 'blocking' the Wounded Warriors Act and 'denying our troops the care they need' because of the Dems 'agenda'.

Interestiing, the act was sponsored entired by Dems and passed in the House of Representatives by roll call vote. The totals were 426 Ayes, 0 Nays, 7 Present/Not Voting.

This is what R's call 'educating the public' -- completely misleading them, lying, fabricateing and twisted propaganda. Excpect a deluge of the sewage in the coming months.


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

Chris -

Why haven't you or the Washington Post reported on this? It seems extremely relevant to the Presidential race and U.S. foreign policy toward Pakistan.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/novak/644485,CST-EDT-NOVAK11.article

My apologies for commenting off topic.

Posted by: Pscoots14 | November 12, 2007 12:24 PM | Report abuse

In Iowa Friday for the Jefferson-Jackson dinner, Barack Obama told the crowd "The same old Washington textbook campaigns just won't do it in this election," he said. "That's why not answering questions because we're afraid our answers won't be popular just won't do it."

Obama is right. These 527s are yet another example of politics as usual, and there are very few politicians like John McCain with the cojones to decry the soft money influence.

I sure hope Iowans are paying attention, and that they won't hand over the primary to Billary.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | November 12, 2007 12:21 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company