Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Microtargeting Explained and Examined

Microtargeting is the new buzz word in presidential politics.

And yet even among so-called political professionals there is a distinct lack of understanding about just what microtargeting is and what it can -- and can't -- do.

Hoping to show the mechanics behind the magic, I did a profile of Alex Gage, the man tasked with slicing and dicing the primary electorate for former Gov. Mitt Romney's (R-Mass.) presidential campaign. (The story is long but, I think, worth the read.)

In essence, political microtargeting is the marriage of traditional political polling with consumer data long used by big business to shape their sales pitch to their customers.

A large sample poll (3,000 to 5,000 people) is conducted, testing voters' views on both candidates and hot button issues. That data is then fused to massive amounts of consumer data to create small segments of the electorate who not only vote similarly but also exercise, relax and vacation similarly. Messages are then targeted to each individual segment; as a result, the issues you hear about also happen to be the ones you are most interested in.

That tailoring of political messages raises privacy concerns in some circles and reinforces the idea -- prevalent among many voters -- that politicians are simply telling them what they want to hear.

Check out the story and then offer your thoughts in the comments section.

By Chris Cillizza  |  July 6, 2007; 11:31 AM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: On McCain's Money (or Lack Thereof)
Next: Fred Thompson and the Tennessee Money Machine

Comments

That too drindle. They much much bigger worries than leakin plame's name. ALthough that IS treason. I hope that once they are out of office the questions continue. Our furutre depends on these people NOT getting away with MURDER.

Posted by: rufus | July 9, 2007 2:31 PM | Report abuse

I understand your point Bokonon but you missed mine. What in heaven's name could induce Bill Clinton to pardon a Democratic Congressman that was a convicted child rapist who was into child pornography? What info did he have on Bill Clinton? The only logical reason seems to be Bill Clinton was protecting himself, just like you accuse Bush of doing. The Reynolds pardon makes no sense unless Bill got something from it. The 140 drug dealers, kidnappers, child molesters and others that Clinton pardoned can be found at: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/pardons6b.htm. Plus, you know every one of them was reviewed and approved by Hillary, or as Bill himself put it, the co-president at the time.

Posted by: badgerone | July 9, 2007 2:20 PM | Report abuse

'drindl: I think the outing of a covert agent by anyone in our goverment would be considered treason.'

Indeed. It was treason -- and it was perpetrated by Cheney, for his buds at Halliburton and Exxon and all the other war profiteers who are feasting big time on america's taxpayer dollars and driving us into debt.

Posted by: drindl | July 9, 2007 2:02 PM | Report abuse

i think releasing the name is the less of his "treason" worries. Now working with the saudi's to attack america so he can close his grip on America. Now that is real treason. That is what he needs to worry about. But, however he goes down is not as important as HIM GOING DOWN. Think about the future. Would you like this to continue. Like bush is trying to use clinton's presidency to say presidents are being set. imagine the next. Will he be able to do the same things as bush? Would we want him to? If not we need to hold these guys accountable so the next guy is scared to take it this far. 40 years each would do that just fine

Posted by: rufus1133 | July 9, 2007 1:55 PM | Report abuse

Lylepink. I like :) Treason?

Alright. That doesn't make you as "bad" as me. That just means your starting to see. Alright lylepink. Not an attack at all. I'm glad to see you coming around.

what is the punishment ofr treason, these days? I know what it used to be. We can at least give bush and his cronies (cheaney, tenat, gonzales, so on so forth) 40 years each right? That's not as bad as the old penalty for treason. They would be getting of lite with 40 years each :)

Posted by: rufus | July 9, 2007 1:51 PM | Report abuse

drindl: I think the outing of a covert agent by anyone in our goverment would be considered treason. This, in my way of thinking, is why no underlying crime was charged since the underlying crime would indeed be treason. The extent of this, and those who were involved, most likely will never be known for sure. Several articles have stated the Nixon matter fails in comparision, and I totally agree in that lives were put on the line and our intellegence community suffered a huge setback.

Posted by: lylepink | July 9, 2007 1:18 PM | Report abuse

badgerone, I'm not keeping score, and do not feel that as a Democrat, I am required to balance my criticism of sth of which I do not approve with criticism of sth else of which I did not approve. Moreover, Bush's pardon of Libby is a self-interested move, which ensures that Libby cannot be made (for 5th Amendment reasons) to testify against anyone in the Administration (definitely including Cheney, possibly also including Bush) regarding offenses which would probably lead to impeachment of both men. As odious as the crimes of which Reynolds is accused are, his release did not protect Clinton from anything. There's your difference right there.

Posted by: Bokonon | July 9, 2007 12:56 PM | Report abuse

This is why you people are done. Shutting rosie down for saying what you don't like. Well, I don't like what you people say. Do I have the right to shut you down? You are not God's. Your avatars are nothing but greedy little piggies. They are not gods.

You have a couple months. Enjoy them. Stop the hate. After a few months you will be out of the political realm. Take advantage of the time you have. Stop talking bout me. Stop talking about haitcuts. You have a couple months. Use it constructivly

Are you also having second thoughts on whter Fox "news" should STILL be on the air, rush? I sure am. Does that mean that I can get them off the air? It's up to you, conservatives. I guess you make the laws. We'RE just living in your world, right? Freedom?

Posted by: rufus | July 9, 2007 12:46 PM | Report abuse

The most disturbing pardon of all time has to be the pardon of Clinton supporter and Democratic Congressman Mel Reynolds. Reynolds had been convicted on August 22, 1995, on 12 counts of sexual assault of a 16-year-old girl, obstruction of justice and solicitation of child pornography. Later he was convicted on 15 counts of bank fraud and lying to the FEC and SEC. This was a child rapist involved in child pornography. But, he received a Clinton pardon. Just one of you, please explain the Reynolds pardon to the American people before uttering Scooter Libby's name again.

Posted by: badgerone | July 9, 2007 12:42 PM | Report abuse

As for rufus, golgi may be right. Rufus has made me rethink the wide open, no censorship nature of this blog. I'm inclined to agree with you on rufus now. When is enough, enough? We're way past that point.

"

As always with conservative hypocrites. "I should be free to do what I want, but anyone not like me must be silenced."

do it zouk. You silence me you silence zouk. You take me off here you must remove Rush/O'REilly/Hannity/Malkin/Ingram/Savage/Drudge.

Are you willing to do that? Free speech right. This is why they are done. You can't have your cake and eat it too. NOW YOU KNWO WHY IWANT THEM OFF TEH AIR.

Practice what you preach you fascist hypocrites.

Posted by: rufus | July 9, 2007 12:24 PM | Report abuse

Don't be a slave to CC Alan. He is a propogandist. Talking about what they tell you to, only. That's not freedom. don't limit yourself liek that. CC/ Rush/O'rEilly/Hannity are not your avatars. You are free.

Don't ban me. I'm just here to make sure zouk is balanced out. You can only combat hate with love. intolerance with understanding.

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

Posted by: rufus | July 9, 2007 12:20 PM | Report abuse

Don't be a slave to CC Alan. He is a propogandist. Talking about what they tell you to, only. That's not freedom. don't limit yourself liek that. CC/ Rush/O'rEilly/Hannity are not your avatars. You are feel.

Don't ban me. I'm just here to make sure zouk is balanced out. You can only combat hate with love. intolerance with understanding.

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

Posted by: rufus | July 9, 2007 12:20 PM | Report abuse

Alan - when we ignored him, Zouk used to behave himself. That seems to be a thing of the past.

As for rufus, golgi may be right. Rufus has made me rethink the wide open, no censorship nature of this blog. I'm inclined to agree with you on rufus now. When is enough, enough? We're way past that point.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 9, 2007 12:17 PM | Report abuse

If they are not the same person, which is possible, I think both zouk and rufus should be banned for their relentless flooding of this site. They have made the discussion unweildy in size so that you have to do a lot of scanning just to find someone who actually had something to say about micro targeting.

Posted by: Alan in Missoula | July 9, 2007 11:53 AM | Report abuse

The fact is, lyle, the CIA themselves referred the Plame case to the Justice Department for investigation -- for one reason only: because she was covert and it is illeegal to out a covert agent.

No matter how the wingers try to spin it, those are the facts.

Posted by: drindl | July 9, 2007 11:45 AM | Report abuse

All the regulars this AM have been right on target. The Libby commute will not go away and the evidence of Mrs. Plame Wilson being covert appears to me to be overwhelming despite the many claims and articles stating otherwise. I am still a little confused about the arguement about no underlying crime being comitted. The political cartoons and comics, I get daily by e-mail, and can login to the site anytime to read the daily and reread any from years past, btw, and the archives goes back to the early 90s on some of them. I think the cost is $19.95 a year, I haven't checked my account for some time, though it is well worth the pennies a day.

Posted by: lylepink | July 9, 2007 11:35 AM | Report abuse

Reality hasn't changed. Only the conservatives have changed( since the elcetions ONLY)

As to the spelling errors. I do that to draw the authoritarians in. If they can't attack something they have nothing to say. In some cases. Just tryin gto be as inclusive as possible

Posted by: rufus | July 9, 2007 11:28 AM | Report abuse

"My theory is that there is a Rufus club and all the members are on more or less the same wavelength about what kinds of things to post. But they aren't all the same person, so there is a little bit of variety. The misspellings are just to add distracting clutter so that any differences between posts go unnoticed. The different names are because it is a fun club, not some sort of a conspiracy, so they don't get obsessed with hiding their tracks. Each one just posts whenever he/she feels like it, under her/his own Rufus name. The club nature is out in the open."

WOW. Thank you for the complimint. You think I'm so enlightened I'm many differant people. WOW. Thanks guys. Nope. Just me. No0t crazy. Not a robot. Just a man. Just an angry young man. Who has been waiting for accountability for 6 years.

I have seen the lies you have missed. I am angry because you people have not been listening and only since the 06 election sweep, have changed. I have been the same since 2001. Only you have changed.

Posted by: rufus1133 | July 9, 2007 11:25 AM | Report abuse

Unclear. There might be one Rufus. There might be several. My theory is that "Rufus" is a computer program that automatically generates posts by combining several phrases ("zouk is a fascist", "Rush is bad", etc.) in a random order, then running the result through a filter to mess up the spelling. "

:)

And here I thought republicans were clones/robots. Look at Michelle AMlkin's eyes. Tell me she's not a robot.

Posted by: rufus1133 | July 9, 2007 11:03 AM | Report abuse

Golgi - interesting theory on rufus. There are a lot of reasons to accept, especially the random clarity and the 24/7 nature of his postings.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 9, 2007 10:47 AM | Report abuse

Oddly enough, the president used to be fairly responsible when describing al Qaeda's role in Iraqi violence. Not too terribly long ago, Bush described "the terrorists affiliated with or inspired by al Qaeda" -- not even the network itself -- as the "smallest" component of violence in Iraq.

As the political winds shifted, so too did the administration's rhetoric. In May, Bush declared that al Qaeda is "public enemy No. 1 in Iraq." A few days ago, he reiterated the point at the Naval War College, describing al Qaeda as "the main enemy" in Iraq.

The point is as subtle as a sledgehammer. If the administration can transform al Qaeda from a minor player in Iraq to the sole purpose for our ongoing presence, simply through rhetorical games, Bush might reframe the debate: us vs. them. Americans against those responsible for 9/11. Forces of freedom vs. forces of terrorism.

I understand the appeal of such a dynamic -- it would make the war in Iraq so much easier -- but it's simply, unquestionably wrong. Worse, it's a shamelessly cynical ploy to rally public support under false pretenses. Americans don't support U.S. staying in the middle of a civil war, but maybe, the White House thinks, Americans will support a war against al Qaeda. It's a transparent con job.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 9, 2007 10:46 AM | Report abuse

Blarg,

There is one difference between Bloomberg and the other two - Bloomberg has actually governed. Thompson and Obama are current or former legislators. Of course, governing New York City is different from governing the US but it is more experience than most of the front line candidates.

Posted by: JimD in FL | July 9, 2007 10:37 AM | Report abuse

I thought this was an interesting piece, from an insider...

'As a longtime attorney at the U.S. Department of Justice, I can honestly say that I have never been as ashamed of the department and government that I serve as I am at this time.
The public record now plainly demonstrates that both the DOJ and the government as a whole have been thoroughly politicized in a manner that is inappropriate, unethical and indeed unlawful. The unconscionable commutation of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's sentence, the misuse of warrantless investigative powers under the Patriot Act and the deplorable treatment of U.S. attorneys all point to an unmistakable pattern of abuse.

In the course of its tenure since the Sept. 11 attacks, the Bush administration has turned the entire government (and the DOJ in particular) into a veritable Augean stable on issues such as civil rights, civil liberties, international law and basic human rights, as well as criminal prosecution and federal employment and contracting practices. It has systematically undermined the rule of law in the name of fighting terrorism, and it has sought to insulate its actions from legislative or judicial scrutiny and accountability by invoking national security at every turn, engaging in persistent fearmongering, routinely impugning the integrity and/or patriotism of its critics, and protecting its own lawbreakers. This is neither normal government conduct nor "politics as usual," but a national disgrace of a magnitude unseen since the days of Watergate - which, in fact, I believe it eclipses.

In more than a quarter of a century at the DOJ, I have never before seen such consistent and marked disrespect on the part of the highest ranking government policymakers for both law and ethics.

http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_6308408

Posted by: Drindl | July 9, 2007 10:34 AM | Report abuse

"The soldiers think they can win," reads Bill Kristol's subhead in The Weekly Standard while "some Senators lose their nerve."
This conflation of the actual physical courage exhibited by soldiers risking their lives in a war with the alleged courage demonstrated by pro-war pundits and politicians in advocating that the lives of others be risked is surely the most annoying tick of America's War Party. War is hard. Favoring war is easy. The distinction isn't difficult to grasp."

The cowardice of chickenhawks is despicable beyond belief.

Posted by: Cassandra | July 9, 2007 10:31 AM | Report abuse

I still don't see the appeal of Fred Thompson. He's a minor actor who served one term in the Senate, and hasn't done anything political in years. And yet a lot of Republicans seem to be excited about his candidacy.

Maybe Thompson's appeal is that he's a blank slate. You can imagine him doing whatever you want him to do. Conservatives think he'll be a good solid Reaganite because that's what they want him to be. If you're against the war, you can imagine him ending it. If you're in favor of the war, you can imagine him running it better and making progress. There's little evidence of what kind of president he'd be, so you can think he'll be the kind of president you want.

Bloomberg is also a blank slate. He's rich, and he's an independent. Even though it's not at all clear what he'd do as president, there are people who want to elect him just because he's someone different. Obama was a blank slate in 2004, when people said he should be president because of one good speech. He's not a blank slate anymore, but that was a lot of his appeal at first.

And, of course, the media doesn't help. There are nearly 20 declared candidates, but the media would rather speculate about who might run than discuss the people who are actually running.

Posted by: Blarg | July 9, 2007 10:24 AM | Report abuse

My last two posts are to call attention to columns that underscore how this administration is not dealing with reality. The history of the Iraq fiasco is a giant exercise in dealing with the world as they wish it to be rather than as it is. The neo-cons ridiculed General Shineski for saying we would need several hundred thousand troops for an occupation of Iraq. The neo-cons predicted that Iraqi oil revenue would pay for the costs of the war. The neo-cons predicted that the Iraqi population would strew flowers at the feet of our troops a la Paris 1944. The neo-cons restricted planning for the occupation to a small group of true believers - people who might actually know something about the culture and history and society in Iraq were not welcome. There is quote attributed by various people to Ben Franklin, Mark Twain or Albert Einstein (and may not have been said by any of them) that "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result." Doesn't that seem applicable to the current situation in Iraq?

Incidentally, I emphatically oppose a withdrawal of US troops. But we do need a re-deployment and a new strategy. The surge seems to be having the same effect as squeezing a water baloon - you squeeze and the water goes elsewhere.

Posted by: JimD in FL | July 9, 2007 10:23 AM | Report abuse

'(CNN)-On the spot from local media, Rudy Giuliani revealed what he has been reading to prepare for a NASCAR race Saturday night. "Its a female guide to NASCAR. It was given to me by the person who wrote it," the former New York mayor told reporters in Jacksonville, Florida. "She participated in a fund raiser for me, she's an expert on NASCAR." Giuliani said his advisors had also suggested "NASCAR for Dummies" but he had not read that yet.

"I've watched NASCAR on television before, I haven't gone to one. I'm real excited about it," he said when conceding he was a relative newcomer to the sport. "I did go to a track once in Kentucky and drive around," during a fund raiser for Senator Jim Bunning of Kentucky.

Giuliani was campaigning in Jacksonville and Orlando on Saturday. He was to attend the 49th annual Pepsi 400 NASCAR Nextel Cup Series at Daytona International Speedway in Daytona, Florida Saturday night.'

I was curious after I saw this posted earlier whether any other media outlets would pick it up -- I'm sure if it was a democrat, it would be all over the front pages. But the con media doesn't want to depict republicans as effeminate-- it goes against their type-casting.

There are dozens of pictures of Rudy in drag -- several of Donald Trump kissing his bosom in fact. Can you imagine if one of the dem canddiates has this in his past? Can you imagine how the debate would be raging among the Serious Pundits about how could someone who liked to dress in drag be taken seriously as The Leader of the Free World?

But not a peep. Not a mention. What a rigged, partiasan joke our national media is.

Posted by: Cassandra | July 9, 2007 10:18 AM | Report abuse

'For that matter so does the real King of Zouk, who does not seem like a club.'

Unless you count the 'club for growth' and the RNC and the C of C.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 9, 2007 10:11 AM | Report abuse

Berke Breathed's cartoon "Opus" yesterday in the Sunday comics is about Fred Thompson and is very funny.
http://wpcomics.washingtonpost.com/client/wpc/wpopu/2007/07/08/

Posted by: Golgi | July 9, 2007 10:06 AM | Report abuse

Jackson Diehl discusses the unrealistic expectations of US and Israeli policy makers over the Palestinian situation:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/08/AR2007070800924.html

Posted by: JimD in FL | July 9, 2007 9:48 AM | Report abuse

My theory is that there is a Rufus club and all the members are on more or less the same wavelength about what kinds of things to post. But they aren't all the same person, so there is a little bit of variety. The misspellings are just to add distracting clutter so that any differences between posts go unnoticed. The different names are because it is a fun club, not some sort of a conspiracy, so they don't get obsessed with hiding their tracks. Each one just posts whenever he/she feels like it, under her/his own Rufus name. The club nature is out in the open.

But whatever. Who cares. I can't see a reason why a Rufus club of the kind I just speculated about would be bad, it's just a different way to use a blog.

And I have to say, once in a while a Rufus club member says something that I like. Rarely, but once in a while, yes. For that matter so does the real King of Zouk, who does not seem like a club.

Posted by: Golgi | July 9, 2007 9:37 AM | Report abuse

Look at Novak's column today -it tells an interesting story about how out of touch the administration is with Republican sentiment in the Senate.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/08/AR2007070800923.html

Posted by: JimD in FL | July 9, 2007 9:35 AM | Report abuse

'He had a part in this case and hated Libby b/c of it, that's why he went after him now.'

He 'went after him' you moron because the CIA asked that the outing of their covert agent be investigated, and Fitzgerald, a republican, was assigned to be special prosecutor.

And LIBBY LIED. Libby committed a crime. Libby LIED to cover up Dick Cheney's instigation of the outing of an important covert agent to silence anyone who would interfere with cheney's lies that led to the Iraq invasion and occupation.

Cheney was willing to break any law, to commit any crime, to get Halliburton and Exxon Mobil into Iraq. And voila! He got everything he wanted... and he's made billions off of it.

This is all about war profiterring and privatization and oil company profits, nothing more. Except of course for a lot of dead young americans and iraqis.

Posted by: Cassandra | July 9, 2007 9:34 AM | Report abuse

blarg -- zouk runs through the same range of subjects EVERY SINGLE DAY. nobody could be more repeitive about 'dems' 'libs' harry reid. nancy pelosi, etc.

Posted by: Sam | July 9, 2007 9:24 AM | Report abuse

Unclear. There might be one Rufus. There might be several. My theory is that "Rufus" is a computer program that automatically generates posts by combining several phrases ("zouk is a fascist", "Rush is bad", etc.) in a random order, then running the result through a filter to mess up the spelling. After all, no human could make so many posts saying exactly the same thing.

Posted by: Blarg | July 9, 2007 9:17 AM | Report abuse

Face the facts and no more red herrings please, Libby violated his public trust when he lied and is paying the price for it. I believe he already paid the $250,000.

--Libby didn't pay for it himself. His defense/slush fund [headed by none other than good ole Fred Thompson, his backer and enabler] raised 5 million from neo-cons [undoubtedly ripped off from US taxpayers in one nefariious no-bid way or another] and paid it off within 24 hours.

Libby will suffer nothing from this. Nothing. He's a loyal Project for a New Century man, and he will be rewarded for his efforts. He will be fully pardoned once the danger passes of him testifying about bush and cheney's involvement in the outing of Miss Plame, a covert agent

'WASHINGTON - An unclassified summary of outed CIA officer Valerie Plame's employment history at the spy agency, disclosed for the first time today in a court filing by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, indicates that Plame was "covert" when her name became public in July 2003.'

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18924679/

A few of my classmates, and Valerie was one of these, became a non-official cover officer. That meant she agreed to operate overseas without the protection of a diplomatic passport. If caught in that status she would have been executed.

The lies by people like Victoria Toensing, Representative Peter King, and P. J. O'Rourke insist that Valerie was nothing, just a desk jockey. Yet, until Robert Novak betrayed her she was still undercover and the company that was her front was still a secret to the world. When Novak outed Valerie he also compromised her company and every individual overseas who had been in contact with that company and with her.

http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/7/13/04720/9340

Wilson held non-official cover (NOC) status at the time of the public disclosure of her classified covert CIA identity in a syndicated American newspaper column, published on 14 July 2003, by Robert Novak, who identified Mrs. Wilson, the wife of former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, as "an agency operative on weapons of mass destruction" named "Valerie Plame."

Beginning in mid-June 2003, according to federal court records, Bush administration officials, including Richard Armitage and Scooter Libby, discussed with various reporters[1][2] the employment of a classified, covert, Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) agent, Valerie E. Wilson (also known as Valerie Plame). On July 14, 2003, a newspaper column entitled "Mission to Niger" by Robert Novak disclosed Plame's name and status as an "operative" who worked in a CIA division on the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Mrs. Wilson's husband, Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, stated in various interviews and subsequent writings (as listed in his 2004 memoir The Politics of Truth) that his wife's identity was covert and that members of the administration knowingly revealed it as retribution for his op-ed entitled "What I Didn't Find in Africa", published in The New York Times on July 6, 2003.[3]

On September 16, 2003 the CIA sent a letter to the US Department of Justice, asserting that Plame's status as a CIA undercover operative was classified information and requesting a federal investigation. Knowingly leaking the identity of a covert agent is a criminal violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act (IIPA), and the CIA is required by law to report any such possible criminal violations'

She was involved in nuclear non-proliferation and the US entire non-proliferation covert network was breached.This is how much cheney/bush care about national security. Not at all.

all they wanted was their war for oil.

Posted by: Cassandra | July 9, 2007 9:12 AM | Report abuse

Speaking of names, there's a 'rufus' and a 'rufus1133'.

Same guy (or gal)?

Posted by: JD | July 9, 2007 9:01 AM | Report abuse

The New York Times leads with the growing debate within the White House over whether President Bush should announce a plan to start gradually withdrawing troops from Iraq in order to avoid more Republicans from speaking up against the war. Although administration officials were hoping to avoid this kind of talk until the much-anticipated progress report in September, waiting no longer seems to be an option. "Sept. 15 now looks like an end point for debate, not a starting point," one official tells the paper.

And get ready for the new catchphrase as administration officials are apparently calling this a "post-surge redeployment."

LOL -- put a little more lipstick on that pig -- they call it 'cut and run' until THEY do it, then it becomes 'post-surge' tapdance...

Posted by: Anonymous | July 9, 2007 8:46 AM | Report abuse

"Nobody knows who you are so the name is simply a charade anyway...On top of that, how many times do you see a name and have a conditioned reflex to the content, before you even read it?"

If the name is a charade, then there isn't any relationship between the name on a post and the content of that post. But, as you just said, the content is usually closely related to the name. So the name isn't a charade.

The name on a post matters because it gives context to the contents. Once you've been here a while, you get to know peoples' backgrounds and political preferences. If MikeB praised Hillary's latest speech, that would be a big deal. If Lylepink praised that same speech, it wouldn't matter as much, because we know that she's his favorite candidate. It's about context.

You could argue that you don't want context for your posts; you want people to consider each of your posts for their merits, not for who you are. But that's not going to happen, because there are preconceptions about anonymous posts also. There's so much crap posted anonymously: unattributed bits of news articles, stupid jokes, insults, etc. People are more likely to skip over anonymous posts than signed ones, and less likely to reply. By not signing your posts, you're saying that you don't care if anyone actually reads what you say, and you aren't interested in a conversation. And if that's true, why are you here?

Posted by: Blarg | July 9, 2007 8:46 AM | Report abuse

If a junk-mail junkie like Rove uses microtargeting, it's got to work. MoveOn used it in its Call for Change get-out-the-vote phone campaign in 2006, and it quite possibly was responsible for the unexpected Senate win, especially in Virignia for Jim Webb.

Posted by: JTSpangler | July 9, 2007 7:06 AM | Report abuse

reason: I think the big question still remains as to the status of Mrs. Plame Wilson at the time of her outing. Several stories about her have neither proved she was covert or not. Claims have been made both ways, and I have tried to find out one way or the other, and there have been about the same number of stories claiming she was and wasn't. Based on this Administration, and their penchant for spreading false information, I tend to think she was indeed covert.

Posted by: lylepink | July 9, 2007 12:55 AM | Report abuse

Blank poster just showed himself to be zouk. Zouk is also razor.

For anybody that thinks there coming here to maKE real POLITICAL POINTS.

Reason?

Posted by: rufus | July 8, 2007 11:43 PM | Report abuse

reason, so what if Fitzgerald had been an adversary of Libby before. That happens all of the time in an adversarial system.

Look at how long it took Joe DiGenova and his successors (and at what cost to the taxpayers) to get Marion Barry and they had to "set him up" to do it. But they did it and got away with it without criticism.

Even if Fitzgerald was on a mission to get Libby, he could not have completed it if Libby didn't lie.

Face the facts and no more red herrings please, Libby violated his public trust when he lied and is paying the price for it. I believe he already paid the $250,000.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 8, 2007 11:25 PM | Report abuse

Pointless argument yuou are making reason. Who appoint Fitz? The neo-cons always hope on these kind of arguments to "make everything all better."

Who appointed fitz? Harkening back to Clinton is no excuse. Obstruction of justice at the highest levals. You see it, I see it. Let's be real here. Who are you trying to convince nothing here is improper? Yourself?

Posted by: JKRish | July 8, 2007 11:18 PM | Report abuse

rufus, thank you for validating my 10:57 a.m. post.

lyle, it was nothing personal. MarkD was correct the oxymoron was the juxtaposition of HRC and rational all of the time. If you had said pragmatic all of the time, the door would not have been opened.

'roo, I think that rufus is beyond those genteel concepts of socialism, he wants to bring down the evil capitalist structure. A joke in the early nineties was that it was ironic that the reason for the fall of communism was that you couldn't make a buck at it. There is an element of truth to that. rufus doesn't get it, he's on a wavelength that doesn't reach the rest of us.

And nobody made a good case for having to provide a name. The best I saw was straight out of Miss Manners, it is rude. Miss Manners doesn't trump logic in my book. Nobody knows who you are so the name is simply a charade anyway. On top of that, how many times do you see a name and have a conditioned reflex to the content, before you even read it? When I've seen Drindl, JD, Bokonon, ProudtobeGOP, MikeB, Lylepink, bhoomes and many others I've already got an idea as to what's going to be in the post before I even read it.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 8, 2007 11:16 PM | Report abuse

Truth Hunter, Patrick Fitzgerald became a US attorney in New York City in 1988. Libby worked for Marc Rich until 2000 in that case. Libby vs. Fitzgerald did happen and that was the whole issue in the Libby obstruction of justice/perjury cases. Fitzgerald worked on that case and so did Libby. Read it for yourself. Let's look at the facts. Libby and Fitzgerald were both in New York from 1988 on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Fitzgerald
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Rich

The argument that both were not in NYC at the same time is completely and utterly false. During this time, Fitzgerald did some work on the Rich case and that began a rough fued with Libby. These websites are proof they were both in NYC in 1988. The case continued until 2000, and Libby represented Rich until 2000. Fitzgerald didn't leave NY until 2001. He had a part in this case and hated Libby b/c of it, that's why he went after him now.

Posted by: reason | July 8, 2007 10:55 PM | Report abuse

Who spends hours/days attacking a crazy person? How many people in the crazy house get messed poked at all day? What would that accomplish? How many bums do people yell at nonstop all day, everyday? Not many I would think

Thank you for showing your face zouk. Your scared. I know I'm on the right track. My only question is what scares you the most? Is it what I think should be done in regards to moving AMerica away from me-first (screw everybody else) capitalism, or my accusations (nazi's bush saudi/nazi/baath party ties)? Just curious.

All is truth refardless. Anybody that cares to is a click away. HAHAHAHAHA. YOu are a funny guy

Posted by: Proof of fear/terror | July 8, 2007 10:02 PM | Report abuse

Mark in Austin: I was thinking of years ago when we had the Justice of the Peace and Constables system. I seem to recall that a Constable was the only one that could arrest the POTUS, and by that reasoning could be brought to trial without impeachment, which is simular to a Grand Jury. I think this would be a good research problem for law students, although I doubt any law like this exists.

Posted by: lylepink | July 8, 2007 9:58 PM | Report abuse

A democratic socialist is crazy, but a neo-conservative is just "responsible"

Silence the socialist. They are "crazy" for not blindly marching to the drumbeat fo a fascists.

Neither is crazy ( fascsim Socialism). They are merly forms of population control. Anyone who would claim so SHOWS THEIR FACE. The proof is in the puddin'.

Read past posts and see who is carzy. See who posts truths and facts and who resorts to "I know you are but what I'm I personal attacks" non-stop all day. Which is more constructive? Which promotes positive change? Which stops positive change? Who defends the un-defendable.

O'REilly/Hannity trying silence Rosie O'Donnell EVERDAY for months, while claiming no one can get them off the air because of the first ammendment and "free speech"


Hypocrites. You kids are smarter than you. They have less fear also. Fear doesn't really exist. I have much respect for the Army Rangers. A ranger taught me that. And freed me in the process.

Posted by: rufus | July 8, 2007 9:40 PM | Report abuse

irrelevance.

For Proudgop. Don't want to confuse you

Posted by: rufus | July 8, 2007 9:35 PM | Report abuse

Calling someone "crazy" them attacking them everyday? What does that make you? Didn't Bill O'REilly try TAHT ALREADY AND FAIL? What is the saying, that crazy is the man who does the same thing and expect differant results. NAzi's, Bill O'REilly, ann coulter. You lost in all these cases. Stop trying the same nazi tactics. You have tried and failed at every attempt. YOu may reign for a few years, but free people will ALWAYS reject fascsim. You lost zouk. YOu have a couple months. Then you will be crying in your closet due to your irrelevant.

Your children are not as willfully ignorant as their fathers/mothers. We have the internet now. Truth is at the touch of a fingertip

Posted by: rufus | July 8, 2007 9:32 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for that roo. I'm not crazy. The brave hero of a blank poster is scared of me. Why else would thye feel the need to post all day everyday. Is it because I'm lying? Why waste one's time.

No. He's scared. He see's the writing on the wall. The GOP is done for a lifetime. Weather I post or not the problems will exist. At least I back my posts ( with a post name). YOu know blank poster is a scared coward who can't even control his own imiage, much less mine. YOu hit the nail on the head roo. Democratic socialism has been called oput many times but never tried. Socailism cannot exist for real without democracy. This has never happened.

With our democracy we can acheive. Zouk/blank poster knows this. That's what scares them the most. And why? Greedy selfish fascist little piggies.

"Terrorism is a term used to describe violence or other harmful acts committed (or threatened) against civilians by groups or persons for political or other ideological goals.[1] Most definitions of terrorism include only those acts which are intended to create fear or "terror", are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target "non-combatants".

As a form of unconventional warfare, terrorism is sometimes used when attempting to force political change by: convincing a government or population to agree to demands to avoid future harm or fear of harm, destabilization of an existing government, motivating a disgruntled population to join an uprising, escalating a conflict in the hopes of disrupting the status quo, expressing a grievance, or drawing attention to a cause."

Who does that sound like?

Posted by: rufus1133 | July 8, 2007 9:28 PM | Report abuse

lylep - I actually do not think a President can be TRIED for any federal crime while in office and would have to be impeached before he could be TRIED.

But I do think he could be INDICTED, if I remember the implications of the Jones case. Then he would have to be impeached and removed before the trial could proceed.

I could be very wrong on this - I have not read the Jones case in several years and it may not have the implications for a criminal case that I am inferring from memory.

I'll bet Colin has a handle on this one. I do not claim one.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | July 8, 2007 9:03 PM | Report abuse

Mark in Austin: I thought that was the case in that the use of the word was applied to them instead of me. I asked on this or another blog if GW could be charged with Obstruction and brought to trial while still in office without Impeachment. Your thought??

Posted by: lylepink | July 8, 2007 6:19 PM | Report abuse

Roo at 12:23p, that was an interesting link.

Bokonon, I saw Bloomberg and thought he could barely disguise his impatience with the "reporter" - but neither could Truman.

anonymous at 4:44p, are you the one who cuts and pastes, according to anonymous at 1:22a? Actually your RG reference was funny.

Lylep, I think someone was trying to make a joke at your expense by suggesting that it could never be rational to support HRC - thus rational support of HRC would be an oxymoron.

I was a conservative D in the time of Lloyd Bentsen, who should have been the D Pres candidate in '88.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | July 8, 2007 5:44 PM | Report abuse

now, if the media were actually 'liberal' they would be all over this--rudy wnts to look like he understands NASCAR folks, so he is reading a female guide to NASCAR. Wonder if he reads it in drag? Is this a girly-man or what? Again, if he was a democrat, this is all we would be hearing about him in the media for the next 2 or 6 months. But he's a republican, so one outlet will run it and it will be dead news tomorrow. Watch it:

'CNN)-On the spot from local media, Rudy Giuliani revealed what he has been reading to prepare for a NASCAR race Saturday night. "Its a female guide to NASCAR. It was given to me by the person who wrote it," the former New York mayor told reporters in Jacksonville, Florida. "She participated in a fund raiser for me, she's an expert on NASCAR." Giuliani said his advisors had also suggested "NASCAR for Dummies" but he had not read that yet.

"I've watched NASCAR on television before, I haven't gone to one. I'm real excited about it," he said when conceding he was a relative newcomer to the sport. "I did go to a track once in Kentucky and drive around," during a fund raiser for Senator Jim Bunning of Kentucky.'

Posted by: Anonymous | July 8, 2007 4:44 PM | Report abuse

roo and Truth Hunter: I agree a name to reference would be much better and those using many are being ignored. I still do not get the term "oxymoron". Explain Please.

Posted by: lylepink | July 8, 2007 4:35 PM | Report abuse

Roo, thank you for that link... interesting. It seems to be from a British source-? or where did you find it?

And did anyone see the interview with Bloomberg on the Live Earth show last night? I'm not necessarily endorsing the show - some parts were better than others, and Al Gore actually came across as a sincere, likeable guy - but Bloomberg sounded extremely sensible, describing his new environmental program for NYC. If he seriously is planning to run, he did himself some good last night... although the interviewer didn't seem to know what she was talking about...

Posted by: Bokonon | July 8, 2007 1:45 PM | Report abuse

Anonymous said:

"wtf - All of those posts from "... ofzouk" were most likely rufus1133 trying to sabotage Zouk. rufus' fingerprints seemed to be on them, as well as his double post syndrome manifesting itself."

I doubt it. He lacks the subtlety.

"Zouk is a troll who some suspect is paid by the RNC to disrupt the discussions. He shows up around Noon most work days and almost immediately gets the thread disrupted."

Yes. Zouk should just be ignored. His diatribes are not worthy of responses.

"Rufus has become the main troll here. He's has serious psychological problems and is obviously using The Fix as some type of release, when he should be seeing a shrink. He's laughably living in the past spouting Communist Party/Daily Worker drivel. He hasn't yet realized that what he's supporting collapsed almost 20 years ago."

Actually, he seems to support the traditional quasi-socialist populist platform of the American left. You obviously have no understanding of communism, I would be happy to clear up any confusion you may have but please start at http://www.politicalcompass.org


"The interesting part is that some posters express indignation at no name being attached to a post. Yet except for a few, all of our posting names are fiction anyway. So, what's the difference? All of the posts are time stamped anyway if anybody wants to reference one."

You call your friends "The Guy I Met First at Main and Maple at 15:34 on 07/15/1973" instead of "Bob"?

Names have a meaning, they establish continuity, they remove the need to scroll up and down the page and scan for times. Posting anonymously is extremely rude.

Pseudonyms are perfectly fine and in the tradition of Internet communications. There is no need to learn a person's real name.

Posted by: roo | July 8, 2007 12:33 PM | Report abuse

Anon 10:57AM... There is a good reason for posting with a "name."

Just as you adriotly summed up many of the posters by "name," making this process of "knowing" them as you debate, as you described it, "fun"... being anon doesn't give others a chance to put unique thoughts in context as there are several anons.

Your insightful posts need a unifying voice. Please, consider a posting name. How about NLA.... No Longer Anon.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth Hunter | July 8, 2007 12:24 PM | Report abuse

lylepink - "supporter of Hillary, and rational AT ALL TIMES." is an example of an oxymoron, right?

Posted by: Anonymous | July 8, 2007 10:59 AM | Report abuse

wtf - All of those posts from "... ofzouk" were most likely rufus1133 trying to sabotage Zouk. rufus' fingerprints seemed to be on them, as well as his double post syndrome manifesting itself.

Either he's trying to damage Zouk's credibility, or get him banned from the site. And the latter is not going to happen. Zouk has little credibility now and there are few controls on the blog, except for some automatic ones for profanity. Otherwise it's a wide open forum.

Zouk is a troll who some suspect is paid by the RNC to disrupt the discussions. He shows up around Noon most work days and almost immediately gets the thread disrupted.

Rufus has become the main troll here. He's has serious psychological problems and is obviously using The Fix as some type of release, when he should be seeing a shrink. He's laughably living in the past spouting Communist Party/Daily Worker drivel. He hasn't yet realized that what he's supporting collapsed almost 20 years ago.

The sad part about rufus is that he has a newborn and you can see that unless he gets help, that kid is going to be messed up in 20 years or the kid will be normal but rufus will be telling him that he's not.

If you pray keep rufus in your prayers.

btw - I think that there are many more anonymous posters on here than the person above realizes.

The interesting part is that some posters express indignation at no name being attached to a post. Yet except for a few, all of our posting names are fiction anyway. So, what's the difference? All of the posts are time stamped anyway if anybody wants to reference one.

Thankfully the spelling and grammar freaks either no longer complain or have given up and left the blog.

There are many creative thinkers and writers here, and many that have never intellectually strayed past their political party's boundaries.

Welcome to the fun!

Posted by: Anonymous | July 8, 2007 10:57 AM | Report abuse

anom got it part correct, I am from WV. I voted for JFK in 1960, I am exAF, and Male. I am a strong supporter of Hillary, and rational at ALL TIMES. I hope you could give a name, when I go to the WaPost it greets me with ".Hello lylepink".

Posted by: lylepink | July 8, 2007 8:35 AM | Report abuse

You can't stop me from [posting truths. I don't post for teh willful ignorant. I post for the man/woman who has been lied to THEIR WHOLE life. The ones who have been told the republican way of life is " the way the world works."

That is a lie. The only power they have is the power WE give them. You can't hide your heads in the sand forever. If not here somewhere. The problems will still exist wheter a anonymous poster rufus is posting of not.

You can't hide in that cave forever.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_cave
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prescott_Bush
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_H._W._Bush

Posted by: rufus | July 8, 2007 3:58 AM | Report abuse

Sorry if I hurt your delicate sensibilities. This is not a game. PAt TIllman. Remember that name. I'm goning to shove that name down you republican's throuts. Everybody else please ignore.

ONE WORLD ONE PEOPLE

Posted by: JKrishnamurti Rufs | July 8, 2007 3:53 AM | Report abuse

wtf? -

WaPo probably uses a computer monitor, but only for anglo-saxon words for bodily functions. Otherwise two relatively unstable and self-absorbed folks make the blog tedious for the folks who want to discuss the subject.

One of the unstable ones calls himself "King of Zouk" and another calls himself "Rufus". Skip their entries
when you read this blog. They are not seriously deranged, but they seldom post on point and seldom enter into a discussion without insulting someone - and they post way too often.

There are sane regulars who talk about the subjects. They are of various political bents.

ProudToBeGOP and Razorback are smart conservatives
who sometimes cannot help themselves and tweak the liberal majority on the blog. Proud is ex-military. drindl and Bokonon are smart liberals who will lay out their visions and sometimes cannot keep from tweaking the conservatives. drindl is a writer in NY. Bokonon is in New England.

There is an electrical engineer in Oregon named MikeB
who has seen outsourcing up close and personal and has become rabidly populist. He is easily tweaked.

There is a port contractor in the mid-atlantic named JD who is both a libertarian and a laissez-faire capitalist.
He is very sharp on classical economics, which he claims as his academic background. A liberal, Cassandra, decries JD's description of politics in terms of markets, and is deeply suspicious of conservatives.

JudgeCrater and LoudounVoter are thoughtful left-center types who often add some humor. Spartan is an occasional liberal voice.

lyleppink in W.Va. is ex-military and voted for Nixon in 1960. She is now an avid supporter of Sen. Clinton, and is rational about anything except an attack on her candidate.

bsimon is a wry centrist from Minn., TruthHunter is a centrist from IA who has her own blog, Jason Perez is an 18 yr. old in Tampa who has really jumped into politics eagerly, Mark in Austin is a conservative Democrat lawyer in his 60s, JimD in FL is a moderate ex-Navy officer in his 50s, and Colin is a DC area lawyer and Obama supporter.

There are anonymous posters. One tends to challenge the facts as alleged by others. One tends to cut and paste news items. One offers serious engagement on issues. The 3 may be 1.

Someone who calls himself "Che" cuts and pastes long, long, commenetaries which must be skipped over.

Che may or may not be one of the anonymous posters.

Other folks stumble in from time-to-time, like you. Now that you have been introduced, you may go back and enjoy all the fun.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 8, 2007 1:22 AM | Report abuse

NEW YORK (Reuters) -- A secret 2005 mission to capture senior al Qaeda members in Pakistan's tribal areas was aborted at the last moment when Bush administration officials decided it was too risky and could jeopardize relations with Pakistan, The New York Times reported Saturday.

Citing intelligence and military officials, including a former senior intelligence official involved in the planning, the Times said in a story posted on its Web site that the target was a meeting of al Qaeda leaders. That conference was thought by intelligence officials to have included Ayman al-Zawahri, Osama bin Laden's top deputy, who was believed to run the group's operations, it said.

The classified mission was scotched even as Navy SEALs in parachute gear had boarded C-130 cargo planes in Afghanistan after then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld rejected a last-minute appeal by then-CIA director Porter Goss, the Times said, citing the officials and the former intelligence official, all of whom requested anonymity.

Rumsfeld felt the mission, which grew from a small number of personnel to several hundred, would risk too many U.S. lives, and he was also concerned about possible repercussions on U.S.-Pakistan relations, the Times said.

But that decision also frustrated some top intelligence officials and members of the military's secret special operations units. Some said the United States missed a significant opportunity to possibly nab senior al Qaeda members, the newspaper reported.

Posted by: rumsfled the gutless | July 8, 2007 1:20 AM | Report abuse

zoukie's had some field day posting nonsense? anyone monitoring this blog?

just check the address of the pointless nonsense, you'l get the ame guy every time/

Posted by: Anonymous | July 8, 2007 1:18 AM | Report abuse

zoukie's had some field day posting nonsense? anyone monitoring this blog?

just check the address of the pointless nonsense, you'l get the ame guy every time/

Posted by: Anonymous | July 8, 2007 1:18 AM | Report abuse

Does the WP have anyone monitoring these blogs?

Posted by: wtf? | July 7, 2007 11:41 PM | Report abuse

"Zouk is a style of rhythmic music originating from Guadeloupe and Martinique. It has its roots in Cadence music from Dominica, as popularised by Grammacks and Exile One.


Zouk means 'party' in the local creole of French with English and African influences, all three of which contribute the sound. In Europe it is particularly popular in France, while on the African islands of Cape Verde they have developed their own type of Zouk."

Posted by: kingofzouk | July 7, 2007 7:57 PM | Report abuse

While at Yale, he joined the Delta Kappa Epsilon fraternity and was elected president. He also captained the Yale baseball team, and as a left-handed first baseman, played in the first College World Series. Late in his junior year he was, like his father Prescott Bush (1917), tapped for membership by the Skull and Bones secret society. Some people believe that through this organization, also known as "the Order", Bush made connections with other influential people and families which would shape his career."

"He has given numerous speeches and participated in business ventures with the Carlyle Group, a private equity fund with close ties to the government of Saudi Arabia. Additionally, he held the position of Senior Advisor to the Carlyle Group's Asia Advisory Board from April 1998 to October 2003. In January 2006, Bush wrote a letter to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) of the People's Republic of China on behalf of the Carlyle Group. In the letter, Bush urged the Chinese government to approve an impending deal in which the Chinese government would sell 85% share ownership of the troubled Guangdong Development Bank to a consortium led by Citibank. In addition to praising Citibank and the other foreign member of the consortium, the Carlyle Group, Bush also intimated that a successful acquisition would be "beneficial to the comprehensive development of Sino-US relations.""

Posted by: saudi ties $$$$$ | July 7, 2007 7:24 PM | Report abuse

While at Yale, he joined the Delta Kappa Epsilon fraternity and was elected president. He also captained the Yale baseball team, and as a left-handed first baseman, played in the first College World Series. Late in his junior year he was, like his father Prescott Bush (1917), tapped for membership by the Skull and Bones secret society. Some people believe that through this organization, also known as "the Order", Bush made connections with other influential people and families which would shape his career."

"He has given numerous speeches and participated in business ventures with the Carlyle Group, a private equity fund with close ties to the government of Saudi Arabia. Additionally, he held the position of Senior Advisor to the Carlyle Group's Asia Advisory Board from April 1998 to October 2003. In January 2006, Bush wrote a letter to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) of the People's Republic of China on behalf of the Carlyle Group. In the letter, Bush urged the Chinese government to approve an impending deal in which the Chinese government would sell 85% share ownership of the troubled Guangdong Development Bank to a consortium led by Citibank. In addition to praising Citibank and the other foreign member of the consortium, the Carlyle Group, Bush also intimated that a successful acquisition would be "beneficial to the comprehensive development of Sino-US relations.""

Posted by: saudi ties $$$$$ | July 7, 2007 7:24 PM | Report abuse

"Harriman Bank was the main Wall Street connection for German companies and the varied U.S. financial interests of Fritz Thyssen, who had been an early financial backer of the Nazi party until 1938, but who by 1939 had fled Germany and was bitterly denouncing Hitler. Business transactions for profit with Nazi Germany were not illegal when Hitler declared war on the US, but, six days after the attack on Pearl Harbor, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed the Trading With the Enemy Act after it had been made public that U.S. companies were doing business with the declared enemy of the United States. On October 20, 1942, the U.S. government ordered the seizure of Nazi German banking operations in New York City. President Franklin Roosevelt's Alien Property Custodian, Leo T. Crowley, signed Vesting Order Number 248 seizing the property of Prescott Bush under the Trading with the Enemy Act. The order, published in obscure government record books and kept out of the news, cited only the Union Banking Corporation (UBC) connections with Von Thyssen. Fox News has reported that recently declassified material "The 4,000 Union Banking shares owned by the Dutch bank were registered in the names of the seven U.S. directors, according a document signed by Homer Jones, chief of the division of investigation and research of the Office of Alien Property Custodian, a World War II-era agency that no longer exists"[2]."

The assets were held by the government for the duration of the war, then returned afterward. UBC was dissolved in 1951. Prescott Bush was on the board of directors of UBC and held one share in the company. For it, he was reimbursed $1,500,000. These assets were later used to launch Bush family investments in the Texas energy industry.

Toby Rogers has claimed that Bush's connections to Silesian businesses (with Thyssen and Flick) make him complicit with the mining operations in Poland which used slave labor out of Auschwitz, where the Auschwitz concentration camp was later constructed.

The New York Herald-Tribune referred to the German industrialist, Fritz Thyssen, as "Hitler's Angel" and mentioned Bush as an employee of the investment banking firm Thyssen used in the USA. The underlying importance is Hitler's known ideology; intelligent business partners like Bush and Thyssen and Harriman clearly knew who they were doing business with and were willing to do so. Thyssen's "autobiography" is entitled I Paid Hitler.

Some records in the National Archives, including the Harriman papers, document the continued relationship of Brown Brothers Harriman with Thyssen and some of his German investments up until his 1951 death.[4] Investigator John Loftus has said, "As a former federal prosecutor, I would make a case for Prescott Bush, his father-in-law (George Walker) and Averell Harriman [to be prosecuted] for giving aid and comfort to the enemy. They remained on the boards of these companies knowing that they were of financial benefit to the nation of Germany." Two former slave laborers from Poland have filed suit in London against the government of the United States and the heirs of Prescott Bush in the amount of $40 billion. A class-action lawsuit filed in the U.S. in 2001 was dismissed based on the principle of state sovereignty.[5]"

Posted by: let me add some reality | July 7, 2007 7:22 PM | Report abuse

Elvis Presley, the man, the myth, the legend, the king of rock-n-roll, IS ALIVE and working as an undercover agent for the DEA. For years, the man known only as Elvis to the public, has caused world wide confusion concerning his supposed death on August 16, 1977 after entertaining and dazzling the world for over 20 years. Elvis Aaron Presley, did not die on that fateful day. He was only removed from the public eye to continue in his fight against drug use.
It had been rumored that he had died from a drug overdose. It is a well known and documented fact that Elvis had always been a strong believer and fighter against communism and drug use. In a meeting with President Richard Nixon on December 20, 1970, Elvis stated his true feelings against drugs and communism, believing that the two were definitely related. At that time, the President appointed him to be a Special Agent in the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs (now known as the Drug Enforcement Agency or DEA). What a perfect way to stage his escape from the limelight and publicity to move into undercover activities to prevent the use of drugs, than to say that he had died from the use of drugs.
In that meeting between the President of the United States and the King of Rock-n-Roll, President Nixon told Elvis that his image, reputation and credibility with his fans especially the younger kids and the hippie crowd, must not be tarnished. Elvis needed to maintain, in the public's eye, what had already been established. If Elvis were to go public about becoming a part of the war on drugs, suspicions would surely arise and any future plans of Elvis being able to be an effective force for the government would be destroyed.
Elvis was able to keep his involvement with the government, his public life and his private life completely separate but all the same. His involvement in bringing down drug dealers, and activities by the Mafioso, musicians and Hollywood actors came about as he performed and made public appearances as his family traveled and joined him most of the time. He was able to keep his activities with the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs and his involvement with the Federal Bureau of Investigations secret from his fans and family. The only one in his family that knew of Elvis's activities was his father Vernon. Vernon knew far more than all of Elvis's entourage, assistants, the government, his family and fans all put together.
In 1976 Elvis had become a part of a sting operation orchestrated by the FBI against the Mafia. Vernon had needed to raise some extra cash since the private jet that Elvis was leasing was a major hemorrhage in their expenses. Vernon was approached by Fredrick Pro, president of Air Cargo Airlines out of Florida. Fredrick was known to the FBI as Alfredo Poc, president of Trident Consortium in New York, and under investigation for racketeering, fraud and other Mafia activities. An agreement was reached between Vernon and Fredrick on how to refinance the plane, lease it to Fredrick, and gain an extra $10,000 a month on the plane. AT first Vernon was completely niave of what Pro and his co-horts were up to. As checks that were promised to come in from Pro were either not appearing or were bounced. Vernon had contacted the FBI.
The FBI had been monitoring Pro and his other Mafia connections since the mid 1960's. The FBI assigned two of their best Special Agents to go undercover in Elvis's entourage to infiltrate the mob activities. Vernon and Elvis were briefed on the continuing investigation and were excited to help the FBI in their operation.
By July 1977, the FBI felt it had enough evidence to arrest and convict the world wide Mafia ring that defrauded the Presley family of over one million dollars and many other organizations around the world.
Arrest warrants for everyone in the fraud ring were issued on August 16, 1977. Not surprisingly enough that was the day Elvis "died".
The night before, Elvis was extremely agitated. He seemed unusually worried about everything. The next day when he was announced to be dead, the paramedics showed up two hours after they were supposedly called, on their arrival they put on a terrific show trying to revive the King. The coroner's official report has never been released. Pictures of Elvis in his coffin have never been proven to be him. Handwriting experts have proven that the signature on his death certificate is Elvis's own handwriting.
In Elvis's last concert tour in the early summer of 1977, he left clues that he was not going to be around much longer in public. Elvis had said several times in that tour, "I dont look very good now, but I will look good in my coffin". He also stated that he was tired of living the way that he was, and that his life would change. He also said he would be just himself instead of an image.
Vernon had asked many of Elvis's close friends and family not to come to the funeral, but to come to Graceland a week later. He also would not accept the American flag, which is usually awarded to dead war veterans. At Elvis's request, Vernon did not order any new jumpsuits in 1977, which is quite odd, since he usually ordered at least two new ones a month.
Six weeks before his "death?", several publications released pictures of Elvis with his newly issued badge and identification from the DEA. He also was seen and photographed on a drug raid that same week wearing the typical DEA jogging suit.
Just two weeks before his "death", Elvis had met with then President Carter, who had issued a tribute to the world concerning his death. The tribute was released the moment Elvis's death was made public.
On October 18, 1977, Pro had finally been arrested along with many other men involved in the Presley fraud case. In September of 1978, they finally went to trial. During that trial, a secret witness testified. He told of things that only Elvis himself would know. The name of that witness has never been released publicly.
Getting Elvis out of public, private and Mafia sight was the only way the government could guarantee a conviction of Pro and his henchmen. In return the government had made Elvis one of their top undercover agents in the DEA.
As a special undercover DEA agent, he would be traveling around the globe, which explains why there are many "Elvis sightings" around the world.
During his entertainment days, Elvis would travel using fictitious names such as Col. James Burrows, Al Jefferies and others. Their have been photos of men traveling around the country, appearing on stage, and involved in drug and Mafia arrests that have gone by the names that Elvis used when publicly performing.
The mysteriousness of his "death" is good for Elvis so he can maintain his secret undercover identity and still be seen in public. In a very recent interview, a source that must remain anomoyus, said, "I saw Elvis in the mall exiting the J. Crew store. He was carrying large bags full of clothes and was traveling with some kids that seemed 'undesireable' and may be drug dealers or users".
The clues that leave no doubt that Elvis did not die on August 16, 1977, are endless and rock solid proof that he is working undercover for the federal government.

Posted by: groundbreakingjournalistofzouk | July 7, 2007 6:47 PM | Report abuse

We present a novel theory on Atlantis that will, if accepted, cause a revolution in the fields of archaeology and the human sciences, rendering them fit for the encroaching Millennium. Atlantis was never found because we have all been looking in the wrong places. Realizing that, we started to look for the spot where an entire sunken continent could be hiding itself. Geology afforded the correct, irrefutable answer: down under the South China Sea, that is where. The rest followed quite naturally and, in fact, far more serendipitously than we ourselves could ever have imagined beforehand.

For the tantalizing details, just keep reading, and you will see that we have also found, as a surplus, the Garden of Eden, the Island of Avalon, the Garden of the Hesperides, the hideout of the New Jerusalem, the true location of Troy and of Lanka, as well as the Holy Land and Paradise that has been promised us all from the dawn of time. Yes, Atlantis is rising from the waves, bright as the Phoenix and clean and virginal as the Venus of Botticelli.

Posted by: oceanologistofzouk | July 7, 2007 6:45 PM | Report abuse

Research That Shows God Does Travel in UFOs
But Is Not an Alien

There are certain connections we make in our minds that are cast in stone. If a police cruiser pulls up you expect a police officer to be in it, a tank always has soldiers, and planes always have pilots. UFOs have also been that closely associated with beings from other planets or galaxies and therefore are called aliens, and extraterrestrials. The popular concept about life outside Earth's biosphere took flight in the late 1800s with the popularization of the now famous canal system on Mars. This led to speculation that such a system had intelligent builders, which led to the concept of a Martian civilization. By the time Orson Welles broadcast of "War of the Worlds" hit the airwaves in 1938, a radio drama about a Martian invasion, the concept of life on Mars was so accepted it caused a social panic. To this day there is a direct association between any anomalous flying objects and visitors from other planets. Given that there have been no alternatives to this limited paradigm the extraterrestrial connection to UFO remains.

It is this direct association that we challenge in this work. Based on direct evidence, historical consistency, and simple logic we find the "alien connection" to be nothing more than a condition response based on society's constant exposure to a single and specific concept. By considering the entire historical evidence this concept comes into question. In the Bible and other ancient writings the "gods" fly in strange objects, throughout history the same anomalous flying objects appear with glaring consistency, and UFOs are the most common aerial phenomena seen in our modern skies. Any attempt to ignore the clear association of these three facts is unrealistic and simply defies logic. The flying vehicles of the ancient gods, the historical record, and our modern biosphere are not the evidence of a bizarre series of coincidences but overwhelming proof a practical connection.

Posted by: astronomerofzouk | July 7, 2007 6:42 PM | Report abuse

Ruf old pal, tell me how you got your Section 8 discharge?

Colonel Potter won't bite on anything. He says he seen 'em all before.

What did you do to get one?

Posted by: Your buddy, Klinger | July 7, 2007 3:56 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Anonymous | July 7, 2007 2:11 PM | Report abuse

What has george bush doen right? Please exclude the arguments "There hasn't been another major attack" They are in with the terrorists. Bush and the Saudi's go way back. Please exclude that one.

High stocks? Please eclude that. The rich may be getting richer here but how much are we spending over there. Factor in the lost of blood and that's a loss, not a win.

WHAT HAS GEORGE BUSH DONE RIGHT ZOUK? iT SHOULD BE EASY. I what you to show your face. You greedy racsit face.

Posted by: rufus | July 7, 2007 1:54 PM | Report abuse

Picture in your mind a round world. Now imagine that there are two people on this world, one at each pole. For the person at the top of the world, (the North Pole), gravity is pulling him down, towards the South Pole. But for the person at the South Pole, shouldn't gravity pull him down as well? What keeps our person at the South Pole from falling completely off the face of the "globe"?

Posted by: scientificgeniusofzouk | July 7, 2007 1:28 PM | Report abuse


The fourth example of the far-right Meme of the Week comes by way of the National Review's Iain Murray:
'
The socialization of medicine in the UK is responsible for a lot of problems. The importation of terrorists is just one of them.'

For those keeping score at home, Fox News was first, followed by MSNBC, and then the New York Sun.

Update: Reader J.S. points out that the National Review's Stanley Kurtz started hinting at the connection on Tuesday morning.'

Amazing the hysterical BS the handmaidens of corporations can come up to keep US citizens from getting decent healthcare.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 7, 2007 1:26 PM | Report abuse

The president decided to lambaste the Democratic congressional majority this morning in his weekly radio address, accusing lawmakers of failing to do their duty when it comes to annual spending bills.

"Democrats in Congress are also behind schedule passing the individual spending bills needed to keep the Federal government running. At their current pace, I will not see a single one of the 12 must-pass bills before Congress leaves Washington for the month-long August recess. The fiscal year ends September 30th. By failing to do the work necessary to pass these important bills by the end of the fiscal year, Democrats are failing in their responsibility to make tough decisions and spend the people's money wisely.

This moment is a test... Democrats have a chance to prove they are for open and transparent government by working to complete each spending bill independently and on time."

Yes, it's outrageous when Congress fails to pass each spending bill on time, isn't it? Indeed, it seems like just last year that a Republican House, Republican Senate, and Republican White House were so dysfunctional, that they failed to pass hardly any of the necessary spending bills. Oh wait, that was just last year.

Republicans intend to conclude the 109th Congress this week and leave Democrats stuck with the tab in the form of unfinished spending bills as the days of Republican rule draw to a close on Capitol Hill.

Congressional leaders said election losses had sapped Republican enthusiasm for trying to finish nine spending measures that were due Oct. 1. Congress will instead pass a stopgap measure to keep the government running until mid-February, leaving the fiscal tangle for the new Democratic majority to sort out next year.

Following Bush's reasoning, Republicans failed in their responsibility to make tough decisions and spend the people's money wisely. I wonder why he didn't complain about this a year ago?

Post Script: The AP headline on the story on Bush's radio address reads, "Bush rips Democratic lawmakers' failures." Apparently, the AP was short on time, so the editors just let Karl Rove write the headline for them.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 7, 2007 1:22 PM | Report abuse

Arise, you workers from your slumbers
Arise, you prisoners of want;
For reason in revolt now thunders
And at last ends the age of cant.

Away with all your superstitions
Servile masses, arise, arise!
We'll change henceforth the old tradition
And spurn the dust to win the prize.

So comrades, come rally
And the last fight let us face
The Internationale
Unites the human race!

So comrades, come rally
And the last fight let us face
The Internationale
Unites the human race!

Posted by: generalsecretaryofzouk | July 7, 2007 1:08 PM | Report abuse

Money is "drying up" for a program that treats kids addicted to the lethal heroin amalgam called "cheese" that has rapidly spread among Texas youth, and drug counselors fear the problem will go national if it is not eliminated.

"The bottom line is these kids need treatment and they can't get what they need. Kids doing heroin every day--outpatient care is not an option," said Michelle Hemm, Director of the Dallas Phoenix House rehabilitation center for adolescents.

The drug, a mixture of heroin and Tylenol PM, has killed 27 teens in Dallas and surrounding areas since 2005, and the Blotter on ABCNews.com reported last year that children as young as ten years old have become addicted.

Drug counselors in Dallas say they are forced to treat kids who desperately need residential care as outpatients because of stingy managed care companies and lack of state funds.

Posted by: republican 'small government' | July 7, 2007 12:51 PM | Report abuse

'Extreme Islamists and other radical groups have been able to operate more freely in Pakistan in the past year thanks to a peace deal the Pakistani government made with tribal leaders last September. Pakistani troops were pulled out of the lawless tribal regions in exchange for a pledge from local leaders that they would not provide sanctuary to foreign fighters.

"Clearly this has helped to establish a more effective safe haven for Islamic extremists, be they Taliban or local Pakistani groups or foreign fighters," said Grenier.

Many observers declared that Pakistan had thrown in the towel in their fight against the Taliban and Al Qaeda. And many say the White House has not done enough to step up the pressure on bin Laden.

"The administration often talks about taking the battle to the enemy, but the real enemy is the Al Qaeda core in the Pakistan-Afghanistan badlands," Bruce Riedel, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution told the Council on Foreign Relations earlier this spring. "And we, frankly, haven't taken the offense to them in quite some time."

Posted by: where the terrorists REALLY ae | July 7, 2007 12:49 PM | Report abuse

BOSTON - Republican presidential contender Mitt Romney, who rails against the "cesspool" of pornography, is being criticized by social conservatives who argue that he should have tried to halt hardcore hotel movie offerings during his near-decade on the Marriott board.

ADVERTISEMENT

Two anti-pornography crusaders, as well as two conservative activists of the type Romney is courting, say the distribution of such graphic adult movies runs counter to the family image cultivated by Romney, the Marriotts and their shared Mormon faith.

"Marriott is a major pornographer. Everyone on that board is a hypocrite for presenting themselves as family values when their hotels offer 70 different types of hardcore pornography," said Phil Burress, president of Citizens for Community Values, an anti-pornography group based on Ohio.

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, a leading conservative group in Washington, said: "They have to assume some responsibility. It's their hotels, it's their television sets.

Posted by: uh-oh | July 7, 2007 12:42 PM | Report abuse

Whatever, indeed. If it wasn't a haircut, it would have been something else. And it will be something else; with 16 months before the next president is chosen, there will be more stories that, reporters and analysts will assure us, show just how phony and effeminate Democrats are, and how authentic and masculine Republicans are.

Like John Solomon, political reporters pretend that these stories just happen, that they are delivered on a set of stone tablets by some assignment editor in the sky whose orders cannot be questioned.

Republicans claim Al Gore said he invented the Internet? Well, who cares if it's a lie? It's "out there," so reporters have no choice but to repeat it and repeat it until it becomes the essence of the public's view of the man, a vivid distillation of what all reporters dislike about him. Republicans say John Kerry "looks French"? Ha ha, what a witty barb! We'll make sure to mention it in story after story. John Edwards got an expensive haircut?

That certainly is worthy of extended discussion, rumination, and analysis, and once every ounce of blood is squeezed from the stone, we'll just keep it around to bash him over the head with, lest he begin to think for a moment that he can convince anyone he's anything but a fraud and a girly-boy.

But there is no assignment editor in the sky. Stories don't just "happen"; they are the product of choices made by journalists. When a campaign comes to a reporter with a juicy piece of opposition research, the journalist makes a decision to write about it, or not. When a flack makes a vicious attack on his candidate's opponent, reporters choose to repeat it. John Solomon chose to write about John Edwards' hair, and not his health care plan. There's nothing stopping them from writing about issues, or even writing about the day-to-day progression of the campaign in a way that doesn't turn them into handmaidens of one side's crusade of defamation and distraction.

Why have they allowed themselves to become republican wh*res?

Posted by: media wh*res | July 7, 2007 12:37 PM | Report abuse

ush was an ordinary guy, the kind of fella you'd like to share a beer with, more at home at a backyard barbeque than with those snooty elitists with their wealth and power. In short -- unlike his two opponents -- Bush was real.

And wouldn't you know it? The Republicans running this year are real, too.

John McCain? Newsweek tells us that if he seems blue on the campaign trail, "[i]t may be because at heart, he is not a politician. He is a warrior," while his every utterance is lauded as "straight talk."

Rudy Giuliani? He's "the one tough cop who was standing on the beat when we got hit last time and stood up and took it," someone who has "street cred" when it comes to "protect[ing] this country against the bad guys," says Chris Matthews.

Fred Thompson? He's "the pickup-driving former senator and 'Law & Order' star," says The Washington Post -- never mind that the truck was a campaign prop.

Which brings us to the second story The Haircut tells: Democrats are effeminate. Who cares about their hair? Women, of course, and if a man gets a good haircut, he must not be much of a man. And it isn't just Edwards who suffers from these attacks, as Kerry and Al Gore did before him. Tucker Carlson, testosterone oozing from his pores, muscles rippling under his bespoke suit, declared that Barack Obama "seems like kind of a wuss."

The flip side of this story, of course is that Republicans are manly. Tune into a story about the 2008 race and chances are you'll hear what strong, masculine men the Republicans are. Chris Matthews wonders how easily Rudy Giuliani would kick Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's ass in a street fight. Roger Simon of The Politico says admiringly that Mitt Romney "has shoulders you could land a 737 on," while Newsweek calls him "buff and handsome."

"Can you smell the English Leather on this guy, the Aqua Velva, the sort of mature man's shaving cream, or whatever, you know, after he shaved?" asked Chris Matthews about Fred Thompson. "Do you smell that sort of -- a little bit of cigar smoke? You know, whatever."

Posted by: how they do it | July 7, 2007 12:35 PM | Report abuse

This piece was unusual for Solomon, since it had no need to rely on innuendo and breathless insinuations of wrongdoing. That was not the case with his prior exposés of cases in which Harry Reid did not actually do something fishy in a land deal in Nevada; Nancy Pelosi did not actually do something fishy with an earmark for San Francisco; Bill and Hillary Clinton did not actually do something fishy in setting up a charitable foundation; John Edwards did not actually do something fishy in selling his house -- each one placed before the Post's readers fairly reeking of corruption and untoward influence. In no case was Solomon able to prove what he implied the Democrats were up to, but we've gotten well used to that.

You don't have to be a professor of semiotics to understand what The Haircut is supposed to represent. It was seized upon with such glee by the press corps because it brings together two key stories that its members never tire of telling about Democrats. By sheer coincidence, they also happen to be the two portraits Republicans have painted of their opponents with such smashing success before, and are planning to paint again.

The first story is this: Democrats are phony. They pretend they're regular people when they're really not, reporters tell us. They pretend they care about poor people, when they couldn't possibly, if they themselves are not poor. (The Republican presidential candidates, on the other hand, are rich and evince no particular interest in helping people who aren't, which seems to be what the press considers the appropriate stance to adopt.)

John Edwards is certainly rich. How rich? So rich that when he gets a haircut, he doesn't care what it costs. And not only that, he has a big house. As a point of comparison, Mitt Romney is much richer than John Edwards. I have no idea how big his houses are (he has at least three -- one in Massachusetts, one in New Hampshire, and one in Utah -- to Edwards' one), and neither does anyone else, because reporters haven't been interested enough to write stories about them.

But in the eyes of the press, if a rich guy spends a lot of time talking about ways to end poverty, he must be a "hypocrite," as though he were actually advocating not that poverty should be eradicated, but that everyone should be poor.

So the rich Democrat who cares about poverty is a phony, while the rich Republicans who don't -- well, no problem there.

Posted by: waldman | July 7, 2007 12:33 PM | Report abuse

"It is some kind of commentary on the state of American politics that as Edwards has campaigned for president, vice president and now president again, his hair seems to have attracted as much attention as, say, his position on health care."

If you assumed this point was made by a reporter writing a story on, say, John Edwards' position on health care, you haven't been paying attention.

No, this lament came from The Washington Post's John Solomon in the midst of a 1,288-word article about -- you guessed it -- John Edwards' hair. It's some kind of commentary, all right -- but not on the state of American politics; it's a commentary on the state of American journalism.

Let us pause a moment to consider the plight of John Solomon and other reporters like him. Committed to the betterment of the polity, eager to foster a substantive and meaningful debate, wanting nothing more than to play their role in the pageant of democracy, they strive to live up to the legacy bequeathed by our nation's founders, who understood so deeply the importance of the profession of journalism that they wrote an explicit protection for its practitioners into the Bill of Rights.

Yet all the reporters' good intentions come to naught. The siren song of The Haircut is too beguiling, sapping their will, rendering them powerless before its irresistible pull. Their fingers betray them, tapping out yet another article on The Haircut on their laptops, while bitter tears of regret splash onto the keys.

Posted by: Waldman | July 7, 2007 12:31 PM | Report abuse

MAJOR ATTACKS IN 2007
7 July: 105 killed in Amirli market bombing
19 June: 87 die in Baghdad mosque blast
18 April: 190 killed in car bombings in Baghdad
29 March: 82 killed in double suicide bombing in Baghdad market
6 March: 90 killed in double suicide bombing in Hilla
3 Feb: 130 die in suicide truck bombing in Baghdad
22 Jan: 88 killed in Baghdad car bombings
Source: AFP

Posted by: Anonymous | July 7, 2007 12:29 PM | Report abuse

A deadly truck bombing in a busy market in northern Iraq has killed 105 people and injured 240, police say.
The morning blast destroyed the market in the small town of Amirli, south of Kirkuk, killing many people instantly and trapping dozens among the rubble.

It was the deadliest single attack in Iraq since April, correspondents say.

It came as 29 people were killed in separate violence, including 22 people who died overnight in Diyala province when a suicide bomber hit a cafe.

The truck bomb struck Amirli on a busy shopping morning, destroying several buildings around the heart of the market, police said.

Correspondents say the market bombing could have been linked to political developments in the region, where a referendum on the status of Kirkuk province is due to take place by the end of this year.

Kirkuk lies outside Iraqi Kurdistan but is claimed by many Kurds for their national capital.

Officials in Diyala said the bomber who struck on Friday night targeted a busy cafe used by the Shia Kurdish community.

Posted by: we had no idea what we were getitng into | July 7, 2007 12:27 PM | Report abuse

'Citing Virginia's increasingly left-leaning independent voters, 40 percent of whom named George W. Bush as the worst president since 1960 in a recent poll, the Post offleads a piece contending that the state might go Democratic in the 2008 presidential elections. Other poll results: More than 55 percent of Virginians have a negative impression of the Republican party, and less than 32 percent of the state's voters think that the Iraq war is still worth fighting.'

Posted by: fyi CC | July 7, 2007 12:20 PM | Report abuse

'The LAT fronts the somewhat embarrassing news that former
senator and presumed presidential candidate Fred Thompson was once hired to lobby for an abortion rights advocacy group--a claim that Thompson, who will run as a pro-life Republican, emphatically denies.

"I think it's quite astonishing they're denying it," said the group's former president, who released documents proving that, in 1991, Thompson approached then-White House chief of staff John Sununu several times on its behalf. No word on whether Thompson also plans to deny all involvement in 1991's widely panned James Belushi vehicle, Curly Sue.'

Amazing, the way these people can deny reality and lie, lie, lie. But since Fox viewers do that routinely, I guess this won't bother them- they will just pretend it doesn't exist.

And I'm sure the fact that Thompson was a mole for Nixon, and tried to undermine the Watergate investigation won't be an issue for the hardcore fascists either. Or his involvement in Iran Contra.

The repugs just can't seem to field a candidate who doesn't reek, can they?

Posted by: Anonymous | July 7, 2007 12:19 PM | Report abuse

'The LAT offleads a piece outlining the rising tide of dissent among Republican senators and adding two brand new names to the Lugar-Voinovich-Domenici axis of impatience: Sens. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn. ("It should be clear to the president that there needs to be a new strategy."), and Judd Gregg, R-N.H. ("We don't seem to be making a lot of progress.") Although President Bush's almost Procrustean insistence on staying the course shows no signs of changing, more GOP defections are predicted in the upcoming months. "It's as if the dike has burst," said Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine.'

--I do wonder if all the R presidential canddiates will still keep supporting an open-ended commitment to the occupation of Iraq, given that support for it is down to about a quarter of the population. Way longshot Ron Paul, the only one i know of calling for a pullout, now has more money on hand than McCain!

Posted by: Cassandra | July 7, 2007 12:13 PM | Report abuse

reason -- please do not tell me rudy has a principled position on anything. like what, for instance? all he is interested in doing is continuing the work of cheney -- whipping people into a frenzy of fear, and then making big bucks off the war profiteering that comes of that.

he has not a serious bone in his body -- he is 100% greed and powerlust. he would be WORSE than bush, if you can imaigne that.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 7, 2007 12:04 PM | Report abuse

It looks to me like there's a corrolary to Parkinson's Law in this. The contact efforts expand to consume the cash available.

The money saved by the process being made more efficient through microtargeting is spent on more per capita mailings and phone calls to the targeted voters than would have been made in broadcast mailings and calls.

I don't know that they have factored the Point of Diminishing Return into the process yet; or more critically, the Point of Alienating the Voter.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 7, 2007 11:37 AM | Report abuse

I agree with Mark in Austin about the effectiveness of micromarketing compared to cost.

It'll be interesting to see how Tommy Thompson does in the Iowa straw poll in August and in the caucuses next January... he has been micro-shoeleathering.

He has vowed to visit all 99 counties in Iowa, and has been steadily doing this on little to no money.

While most have counted him out, it will still be instructive to see who he beats out.... maybe even McCain?

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth Hunter | July 7, 2007 10:53 AM | Report abuse

Mark,

I believe that you can purchase some of the consumer data from marketers. You would have to invest more up front in building the data bases and doing the intense polling to identify the sub-groups. However, I would expect that you save in things like mass mailings, outreach, etc. because you would be able to target your efforts far more precisely. The idea is to hit voters on issues of the most importance to them where your position matches their beliefs and not waste time stressing issues they do not care as much about or where you might disagree. (That is the idealistic version as opposed to shading your position so it seems to match their beliefs.)

Polling over the last 20 years has identified a number of groups within the voting population. We know what issues motivate them the most. Micro-targeting simply stratifies those groups further. It lets campaigns identify segments within groups that are overall not normally inclined to vote their way which are sympathetic to them. Some of these groups hypothetically could be - NRA members who are strong environmentalists, liberals who attend evangelical churches, African American business owners who see Republican economic policies as more favorable to them, etc.

Posted by: JimD in FL | July 7, 2007 10:42 AM | Report abuse

rufus = Zouk

Posted by: Anonymous | July 7, 2007 10:41 AM | Report abuse

JimD, and Golgi, you have expanded the explanation of the process under various scenarios, and much of this is completely new to me in this context, where there were "ancient traditions" about reaching your voters. What I, and presumably Truth, from her question, remain curious about is marginal analysis. Is this a no-stone-unturned approach that is likely to pick up 1% of the vote for five times the cost of a more traditional approach? Or are the costs fairly comparable?

The more I read, the more I think that the costs ARE fairly comparable to traditional methods, but it is the question that remains.

Put another way, would a candidate be better served by building networks through volunteers to the point that his network knew the neighbors as well as the micromarketer did, or am I posing an inapt question in that it micromarketers learn specifics that no neighbor is likely to value?

My questions reflect my "ignorance" - be patient with me.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | July 7, 2007 8:31 AM | Report abuse

Make the bed you lay in.

WHAT HAS GEORGE BUSH DONE RIGHT?

I want you republicans to show your face. You love him. You support him. WHY? It shouldn't be that hard. If you are not fascists liars it should be easy. Are you scared to show your face?

Posted by: rufus | July 7, 2007 6:36 AM | Report abuse

D-heads like pat tillman Proud Grunt?

Is that how you deal with people like me. Put us in the front. If that doesn't work then what?

I know you guys can ONLY watch Fox over there. That doesn't make it right. That doesn'
t make everyone r's.

Posted by: rufus | July 7, 2007 12:35 AM | Report abuse

Microtargeting has been done in marketing for over 20 years. First catalog and then internet merchants have collected data about consumers and then sent them precisely targeted sales pitches.

For example, union members in Michigan might be largely a Democratic voting bloc but consumer research finds that union members who own off-road vehicles or snowmobiles tend to be more conservative. This type of information allows campaigns to target the minorities of like-minded voters within a group that usually votes the other way. GOTV efforts usually do not go after voters in precincts that normally vote heavily for the other party. However, if consumer research can identify the people in "enemy territory" most likely to support your candidate, it can be a real difference maker.

Posted by: JimD in Fl | July 6, 2007 11:53 PM | Report abuse

Rufus wouldn't have lasted long in my unit. He seems messed up in the head, and d-heads like him get themselves killed quickly. You just pray that they don't get other guys killed or messed up when they screw up.

Posted by: Proud Grunt | July 6, 2007 11:48 PM | Report abuse

43 years of electoral experience tell me that GOTVer is correct. I suspect the microtargeting is aimed at earlier in the campaign than Election Day or the weeks leading up to the vote.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | July 6, 2007 10:59 PM | Report abuse

Microtargeting may work, but the personal touch of neighbors contacting neighbors beats microtargeting. The note from a neighbor, personally signed, is extremely effective in getting out the vote for the neighbor's favorite candidates. It's even more effective than a phone call, particularly just before an election, when the calls are more apt to turn people off than on.

Posted by: GOTVer | July 6, 2007 10:31 PM | Report abuse

Biden, si.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | July 6, 2007 10:24 PM | Report abuse

Reason, Seems to me that Biden should be on the list of consistent... did I miss something?

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth Hunter | July 6, 2007 9:55 PM | Report abuse

Romney can't pick a position and stick with it. Therefore, in my view, he is an ineffective leader. But, we don't have alot of principled people running, either. McCain, Guiliani, Obama, Bloomberg and Kuicinich has principled positions, but the rest in the fields of both parties flip flop as often as they can gain from it.

Now, I think Kuicinich is about crazy and would never vote for him...but he is consistent.

Posted by: reason | July 6, 2007 8:55 PM | Report abuse

"Thursday, July 05, 2007
What do you know? We May Have Gotten Mouthpiece Fred Off ABC

I started a relatively lonely campaign about 2-3 weeks ago to get Fred Thompson--all but declared presidential candidate who admitted he was benefitting from free ABC airtime--off the radio there. And off their Intertube site.

I posted on it, and it was picked up by Kos, C&L, I cross-posted at Huff Post and then did some radio on it (The Young Turks, etc.). We ended up getting some print coverage and it blew up into a mini-brouhaha.

Well lo and behold, ABC is now talking about Fred in the past tense. I am not bragging here. Obviously what they were doing was so beyond the pale, that anyone who brought it up would have been able to put pressure on them. But I guess that is the point. Stand up and make yourself heard, and who knows what happens.

On a related note, can we now assume Fred is about to officially launch an ill-fated attempt to be the next corrupt Republican President?"


When's this guy gonna man up and decalre, already. He's gets all the air time in the world. Once he declares Law and Order won't be on every channell all day,, will it ? YYEEAAHAHHH. Frickin republcians. If you can't win, cheat.

Posted by: It's a start | July 6, 2007 8:48 PM | Report abuse

The people making money off those high stock prices. Sell-out out our troops to line their pockets. That's who

Posted by: rufus | July 6, 2007 8:18 PM | Report abuse

Moron, you hit corporations in the pocketbook, not the government.

You don't hit the government in the pocketbook for 2 reasons. One it doesn't stop them and two, you just hitting yourself. Where do you think the money would come from?

Posted by: B. Brother | July 6, 2007 8:03 PM | Report abuse

They better hope I'm not on that list. I and thousands others are going to sue. Waiting for the names to be released after bush loses. I wish I didn't have to. How do you hurt people that only care about money? Hit them in the pocketbook

Posted by: rufus | July 6, 2007 7:22 PM | Report abuse

Another win for bush's corrput legal system. Anothe rlose for teh american people. You got a couple months GOP. Get it all in now. Not much more time of this nonsense.

"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A federal appeals court Friday ordered the dismissal of an ACLU lawsuit challenging President Bush's domestic surveillance program.


President Bush secretly instituted the National Security Agency's domestic spying program after 9/11.

The plaintiffs -- a group of journalists, scholars and legal advocates -- had no legal standing to pursue their claims because they could not show they were targeted by the National Security Agency's warrantless spying program, the court decided in a 2-1 vote."

Posted by: rufus | July 6, 2007 7:20 PM | Report abuse

Checking in, I see Truth is wondering what I am also wondering - about the bloated cost of some campaigns compared with others. For example, Richardson seems to be getting a bump on shoe leather campaigning.

Golgi, I see that I misspelled algorithm quite grossly.

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

I mearly mention when they attack my credibility. When they attack my patriotism, rather than responding to posts. They want to play games. We can play games. I watch the same shows as they do. I got their tactics in my back pockets.

I WILL NOT LOSE.

Posted by: rufus | July 6, 2007 6:57 PM | Report abuse

Nope. It has no bearing on the conversation at all. He doesn't want to hear about my military experiance. I'm really talking it easy on these fascsits by not telling about it. They don't want they. Brave blank poster has to attack soemthing. If not what would he say? nothing. He only knows what he's told. I'm trying to pull them in. It doesn't help "preaching" to liberals. WE'RE on point. I'm trying to help these fascsits think about things other than their pocket book. Like the blood of MY BROTHERS. This coming from an Army Infantry soldier 11B, fort benning GA. Support the troops. Listen to the generals comming back. Bring our brothers home. Their blood is not worth 100 million dollars for One soldier. It's worth much much more.

Posted by: rufus | July 6, 2007 6:54 PM | Report abuse

Did you notice that camera at the intersection close to your house?

It's not very large and very inconspicuous. We get double duty from them as weather monitors.

It's about 113 degrees by your house right now isn't it, but vey low humidity.

Posted by: B. Brother | July 6, 2007 6:53 PM | Report abuse

like the fifth graders are smarter than most of you, fox viewers.

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

"Time to end this - I apologize to all of the other contributors for stringing out the back and forth with rufus for so long. Rufus' regular representations that he was "infantry" made it appear that he had some credibility in that area, but there was never anything to back it up."

I really do not understand your obssession with this -- it doesn't seem to me that you have asked koz about his military service, have you? Or any other chickenhawks/war cheerleaders on this blog?

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

i DON'T HAVE A CELL PHONE. wHAT NOW. Won't get one for that very reason. YOur right. I'm smarter than a dittohead. Much like the fifth graders are smarter than most of our. Funny. Very funny, to me. You show your faces in everycase. You people label YOURSELVES as dittoheads. :0
Funny. You people are lost. You got a couple years. Then you are going to be in your closet sucking your thumbs. I see you

Posted by: RUFSU | July 6, 2007 6:46 PM | Report abuse

"WE'RE COMING TO YOUR DOORSTEP."

Actually we're already at your doorstep, rufus.

You know that GPS tracking chip in your cell phone...

Posted by: B. Brother | July 6, 2007 6:31 PM | Report abuse

You really are a pinhead, aren't you!

And a unethical one at that.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 6, 2007 6:27 PM | Report abuse

"Time to end this - I apologize to all of the other contributors for stringing out the back and forth with rufus for so long. Rufus' regular representations that he was "infantry" made it appear that he had some credibility in that area, but there was never anything to back it up."

No one gives a sh-- about you or your feelings. Post your posts or leave. No one cares about you ideas. You are a fascist and everybody knows it. The only person attacking me is you, as numorous posters. Get a life. You are alone. This blog should be a microcosim of that.

Posted by: rufus | July 6, 2007 6:25 PM | Report abuse

Zouk is a fascsit. Blank posters are cowards. Have a good weekend all.

Repeattly I asked "What has george bush done right."

They can't answer. He can lay blame on the democrats. The problem with that is only dittoheads buy it as the repubs contolled both house and senate before getting destroyed in the last election. They are scared. The repubs can no longer move to citeis like Reno or neebraska and isolate themselves from facts.

WE'RE COMING TO YOUR DOORSTEP. You WILL be voted out GOP. You cannot hide in 1962 America forever. be afraid. Be very afraid. The futue is now. God bless. have a good weekend. OOHH zouk is a fascist. Don't want to forget that. I should change my post name to that. NAAhh. :)

Peace in the middle east

Posted by: rufus | July 6, 2007 6:23 PM | Report abuse

Mark in Austin... The pols should know where their constituency stands on the issues... emphasis on "should"... however, the way they were evidently blindsided by outrage over the immigration bill shows they don't.

Is microtargeting just a way to justify higher billings with marketing gobbly-gook? Maybe that's where all of McCain's money went (he has slashed his staff in Iowa to 7) since he's broke and I haven't seen a commercial.

Cheers!

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth Hunter | July 6, 2007 6:23 PM | Report abuse

Zouk is a fascsit. Blank posters are cowards. Have a good weekend all.

Repeattly I asked "What has george bush done right."

They can't answer. He can lay blame on the democrats. The problem with that is only dittoheads buy it as the repubs contolled both house and senate before getting destroyed in the last election. They are scared. The repubs can no longer move to citeis like Reno or neebraska and isolate themselves from facts.

WE'RE COMING TO YOUR DOORSTEP. You WILL be voted out GOP. You cannot hide in 1962 America forever. be afraid. Be very afraid. The futue is now. Go bless. have a good weekend. OOHH zouk is a fascist. Don't want to forget that. I should change my post name to that. NAAhh. :)

Peace in the middle east

Posted by: rufus | July 6, 2007 6:23 PM | Report abuse

Golgi, I will take your word for the computer modeled testing. I was a math minor, but if these are computer modeled algorhythms I am content to believe your assertion without dusting off 40 years of cobwebs in my brain.

I wonder about the marginal benefit, compared with traditional politicking, and the marginal cost. Has that been measured?

I am going back outside, but I will ck back later. Thanks - and I am not offended by being asked to satisfy my curiousity and my skepticism by learning more.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | July 6, 2007 6:19 PM | Report abuse

Time to end this - I apologize to all of the other contributors for stringing out the back and forth with rufus for so long. Rufus' regular representations that he was "infantry" made it appear that he had some credibility in that area, but there was never anything to back it up.

The request for a simple Yes or No answer was intended to be a way to find that out, without him having to go any further.

It seemed to me that there was a high probability of ethical plaigarism (claiming, or appearing to claim, credit for something to which you are not entitled) and that motivated me to keep trying to obtain an answer.

His going to such great lengths to avoid answering the simple question indicate that his claims are indeed little more than ethical plaigarism.

I never expected that he had such psychological problems. Although maybe it should have been obvious from his posts.


FYI rufus - I'm far from being Zouk; you him an apology.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 6, 2007 6:15 PM | Report abuse

Check out this piece I wrote based on Cillizza's profile:

http://www.iowaindependent.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=501

Cheers,

Ben Weyl.

Posted by: Ben Weyl | July 6, 2007 6:09 PM | Report abuse

"No, smart guy, Clinton respected international law"

then how did he get into Bosnia? how did he blow up aspirin factories? Haiti? somalia? clinton ran the most rogue military in our history, tossing bombs around according to the level of his zipper. zipper Up - no action, zipper down - bombs away.

It is a requirement of a leader to do the right thing no matter the fall out from public opinion. thus was bill's greatest downfall, the inability to be unliked by anyone.

"Bush responded by going on vacation for an entire month." more stupid chanting. do you think, thay have any telephones, internet, staff, mail, cars, goats, etc down there. you are the one who is so utterly out of touch to think this is an issue. But after seeing the merits of your arguments, I can't blame you for falling back on weak DNc talking points.

And correcting grammar and spelling and punctuation proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that you have little to offer in the way of actual ideas. a blog is not a dissertation. you could improve your own skills by starting with some facts with citations and reasoning logically from there. I see very little of that in Lib corners. If you want dissertation quality, start there. I will forgive your spelling and general ignorance about economics, sociology, motivation, journalism, economics, history and mathematics.


Making stuff up that sounds good only works with fellow Dems. When debating with GOPs you are required to use facts and make sense. I know this will be a new thing for you but maybe your addled brain has some room left if you clear out come of the liberal assumptions, which are all wrong anyway.

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

Yes Mark, this type of algorithm works.

There have been a zillion (OK, hundreds or thousands) replications and validations of the same basic effect in lots of different systems. And it is a computer that is generating both the replications and the validations, so double-blind does not really play into it at all.

Either learn the math yourself or take the word of someone who is informed here... suspicion is generally useful, but in this particular case happens to be ignorant (and I mean that in a friendly way, you're a nice and reasonable fellow).

Enjoy your Friday pool and wine! That sounds great.

Posted by: Golgi | July 6, 2007 5:54 PM | Report abuse

'Try to stop repeating yourself in every post, day after day. Basically what we're all begging you to do is...get a life, dude.'

--this coming from a repug is pretty freaking hilarious, since they cover the same propaganda on this site, over and over, every single day. and this, jeez are they ever good at projection:

'Could the Left be any clearer about its intensions? Why don't liberals just put on brown shirts and arm bands and march around bonfires, consigning radios to the flames, to the rousing strains of "Cheney Uber Alles"?'

We don't do this because we're not copycats, zouk -- you guys already got this territory covered.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 6, 2007 5:51 PM | Report abuse

One piece of stupidity at a time:

Zouk says "so your argument ends in Clinton was either too wimpy, clueless, occupied with interns, etc. to do his essential job - protecting us from killers. Was china and Russia too unapproachable for him."

-No, smart guy, Clinton respected international law. And at the time, there was no reason to think that an invasion of Afghanistan would have "protected us from killers."
Once we got the intelligence that led to the summer 2001 memo entitled "Bin Laden Determined To Strike In U.S." on the other hand, there was a very good reason to believe that a threat was imminent. Bush responded by going on vacation for an entire month.
And - I can't ignore this - you ask
"Was China and Russia too unapproachable for him."
The past tense plural of the verb "to be" is "were," and an English question is indicated with a question mark (?).
Smart guy.

Posted by: Bokonon | July 6, 2007 5:51 PM | Report abuse

to hot for me to blog. Peace in the middle east. Have a good weekend. God bless

Posted by: rufus | July 6, 2007 12:43 PM

Posted by: the benefits of global warming | July 6, 2007 5:45 PM | Report abuse

Lisa says "It's vague enough to claim victory for their side and bogus enough to make the crisis last forever. In short, it's the same mission of every worthless government program."

You must be talking about the war on ter'r, right?

Posted by: Bokonon | July 6, 2007 5:43 PM | Report abuse

What does the term "dittohead" mean zouk. Why is it that republicans parrot the same talking points ove rand over? Do liberals? Most liberals I've heard are individuals. They have their own issues and own agendas. The proof is in the puddin. Dittohead claiming liberals are brianwashed. Funny.

The problem is you people are detached from reality. If this administration was democrat you would be fippin. you choose aprty over country. You will be removed from the political sphere. you got a couple months left of this zouk. Enjoy them. Don't stop. I like you showing others how out of touch the r's are. Keep it up.

Posted by: rufus | July 6, 2007 5:36 PM | Report abuse

what about reading books. The more books you read are you more lible to be liberal also? We're not counting fantasy dragons and warlocks. We're talking REALITY

Posted by: rufus | July 6, 2007 5:27 PM | Report abuse

You mean the less you know the more likly you are to be a diitohead or republican. Wow. Sounds right ot me zouk

Posted by: rufus | July 6, 2007 5:26 PM | Report abuse

"Fox News Spins 9/11 Commission Report

NEW YORK - June 22 - The Bush administration's long-running attempts to link Iraq and Al Qaeda were dealt a serious blow when the September 11 commission's June 16 interim report indicated that there did not appear to be a "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and Osama bin Laden, and that there was no evidence that Iraq was involved in the September 11 attacks.

But if you were watching the Fox News Channel, you saw something very different, as the conservative cable network eagerly defended the Bush administration and criticized the rest of the media for mishandling the story.

On Fox's Special Report newscast (6/16/04), anchor Brit Hume charged that the media were mischaracterizing the report: "The Associated Press leads off its story on a new 9/11 commission report by saying the document bluntly contradicts the Bush administration by claiming to have no credible evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the September 11 terrorist attacks." Hume maintained that the AP story was inaccurate: "In fact, the Bush administration has never said that such evidence exists."

"

http://www.commondreams.org/news2004/0622-09.htm

RIGHT ZOUK. Keep watching Fox and listening to rush and hannity. they are the ONLY people inthe world telling the truth. Everybody else in the world is lying. Right.

Posted by: rufus | July 6, 2007 5:23 PM | Report abuse

Could the Left be any clearer about its intensions? Why don't liberals just put on brown shirts and arm bands and march around bonfires, consigning radios to the flames, to the rousing strains of "Hillary Uber Alles"?

Since the Left can't compete in the marketplace of ideas, it wants to shut it down.

The aborted push to revive the misnamed Fairness Doctrine, and apply it to talk radio, is but the latest example of liberalism's drive to gag the opposition

Posted by: Anonymous | July 6, 2007 5:21 PM | Report abuse

A just-released study by the Culture and Media Institute shows a direct correlation between hours of watching TV and liberalism. For instance, heavy viewers (more than four hours an evening) are more than twice as likely as light viewers (one hour a night or less) to agree with the statement, "The government needs to get bigger."

The survey seems intuitively obvious. The people who decide what news stories to cover and how to report them, the TV talkers and the scriptwriters for prime-time television shows are doctrinaire leftists.


http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=29055

Posted by: who is brainwashed | July 6, 2007 5:18 PM | Report abuse

"In 1999, my uncle was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. If he'd lived in America, the miracle drug Rituxan might have saved him. But Rituxan wasn't approved for use in Canada, and he lost his battle with cancer."

A christian beleives that is God's will. If he was alive 500 years ago what would happen? It'snot always about me me me. Sometimes there are other factors. We don't live forever. It is not to be feared. Every second is to be embraced. the meaning of life is WE DIE

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

Truth suggested that microtargeting merely led to the perfection of pandering, if I may be allowed an Agnew alliteration. However, I wonder if there have been double-blind tests of its effectiveness. I would not be surprised if this technique has been developed and sold without ever having been tested.

I read the specific examples in the article, and I am not very impressed. A local pol should be able to tell you what his/her community is concerned about - schools, or health, or jobs, or security, or war, or energy issues - without a survey. The cost effectiveness of identifying people by shorthand that sounds like the alphabet soup of personal ads may be dubious.

Perhaps I simply do not want to be microtargeted by that alphabet soup, myself, and think the process demeaning. It's Friday - the sun is out! I quit. Pool and a Glass of Wine. PGW. Microtarget that!

Posted by: Mark in Austin | July 6, 2007 5:16 PM | Report abuse

But acknowledging there are complexities is first step to halting global warming hysteria. What Geldof in particular seemed to realize is that the arguments to stop global warming are persuasive not because warming itself is bad (indeed, there could be many benefits), but of the effects it may allegedly cause, such as the worsening of drought and malaria. Whereas Geldof's Live Aid raised money that directly went to buying food for Africa's poor (although there were some problems with distribution, as there are in many food aid programs), it's unclear how the "Live Earth" concerts will improve anyone's life.


And environmentalists have rejected solutions to the problems they say global warming will worsen. Indeed, as I show in my book Eco-Freaks: Environmentalism Is Hazardous to Your Health, environmentalists have created their own public health crises with many of their "solutions." It was not global warming but the banning of the pesticide DDT -- inspired by the hysterics of Gore's heroine Rachel Carson -- that has led to millions dying of malaria in the Third World.


And there is even a question about how seriously environmentalists take the global warming "threat." After all most eco-groups are opposed to nuclear power, which involves no pollution and carbon dioxide emissions. And they want to shut down the non-polluting dams that provide electricity in the Pacific Northwest, which would result in a sharp increase of the dreaded coal and oil to provide power. These are even bigger hypocrisies than a fuel-burning concert, and provide even more evidence that global warming hysteria is jumping the shark.

Posted by: gore has jumped the shark | July 6, 2007 5:13 PM | Report abuse

Government-run health care in Canada inevitably resolves into a dehumanizing system of triage, where the weak and the elderly are hastened to their fates by actuarial calculation. Having fought the Canadian health care bureaucracy on behalf of my ailing mother just two years ago - she was too old, and too sick, to merit the highest quality care in the government's eyes - I can honestly say that Moore's preferred health care system is something I wouldn't wish on him.

In 1999, my uncle was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. If he'd lived in America, the miracle drug Rituxan might have saved him. But Rituxan wasn't approved for use in Canada, and he lost his battle with cancer.

But don't take my word for it: Even the Toronto Star agrees that Moore's endorsement of Canadian health care is overwrought and factually challenged. And the Star is considered a left-wing newspaper, even by Canadian standards.

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2007/07/06/2007-07-06_more_lies_from_moore.html

Posted by: sally | July 6, 2007 5:09 PM | Report abuse

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's former finance director has been indicted on charges of filing fictitious reports that misstated contributions for a Hollywood fund-raising gala for the senator, the Justice Department said Friday. The indictment, rare for a political campaign, was unsealed in Los Angeles charging David Rosen with four counts of filing false reports with the Federal Election Commission.

Posted by: that is how we clintons do it | July 6, 2007 5:05 PM | Report abuse

Zouk wants personal attacks rather than facts. He is a fascist. His mother WAS a fascsit, her name is Kim. She lead him down the path of greed and hate, racism. He had no father or his father was very cruel to him. He doesn't see on shred of good in the world. He just see's money. And how he can get. Those with it and those without it. He see's skin tone first. He see's class second. His mind has been conditioned with double think and newspeak. He cannot think about "what is". It hurts his head. He hears red he see's blue. He hears up he see's down.

Down fear or hate him. Pity him. The only thing he loves and cares about is money. Money is nothing but paper. He is wasting his life.

I'm sorry to expose you zouk. You want to talk about facts, be my guest.

WHAT HAS GEORGE BUSH DONE RIGHT, OTHER THAN HIGH STOCKS FOR YOU AND YOUR BUDDIES? That's not enough for me. I want more, like everyone president in the histroy of this great country

Posted by: rufus1133 | July 6, 2007 5:03 PM | Report abuse

NASHVILLE, Tenn. - A lawyer for the brother of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said he's confident he can avoid a trial next week and settle a lawsuit that accuses Tony Rodham of failing to repay debts to a Tennessee carnival operator.

That should be a relief to Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign since the case could have revived stories about how her brothers accepted money from people pardoned by her husband, President Bill Clinton.

Rodham is accused of failing to repay $107,000 plus interest to the bankrupt estate of Edgar Allen Gregory Jr. and his wife, Vonna Jo, both of whom received a presidential pardon in 2000

Posted by: the family biz = graft | July 6, 2007 4:59 PM | Report abuse

This entry on microtargeting degenerated incredibly quickly. I guess that most posters here don't care about the issue. Disappointing, but that is what happens when people never really learned math very well.

Makes you wonder what incentive politicians have to improve the education system, doesn't it? After all, the more math we all learn, the less their microtargeting will impress us.

No Microtargeted Voter Left Behind

Posted by: Golgi | July 6, 2007 4:56 PM | Report abuse

Oldest DNA Ever Recovered Shows Warmer Planet Scientists who probed 1.2 miles through a Greenland glacier to recover the oldest plant DNA on record said Thursday the planet was far warmer hundreds of thousands of years ago

"tipper - we had the chart upside down the whole time. Doh! tell the boy its OK to blow out his bong hits after all."

Posted by: Al gore | July 6, 2007 4:52 PM | Report abuse

"most times the feds get involved, the problem gets worse"

Republican sabotage. At every turn. Self over country. Rather than solving an issue, like catrina, you greedy pigs always think how your going to profit. Extends to you politicans. Your time is up. The year is 2007. The future is now. Your kids and grnad kids are smarter than you. "are you smarter than a fifth rader is a huge show on fox. Maybe becasue it's interesting to you people. You learn something

MEme me me. money money $$$$$$$. Keep it up zouk. I love it

Posted by: rufus | July 6, 2007 4:50 PM | Report abuse

This is simply an extension of the new world of retail politics. If it worls for business, it'll work for pols.

Shameless promotion: Tune in to Political Buzz Radio at 6 PM tonight to hear Robert Borosage of Campaign for America's Future and Mark Mellman, Kerry's old pollster. Fun stuff.
http://blogtalkradio.com/hostpage.aspx?show_id=35944

Posted by: matt | July 6, 2007 4:50 PM | Report abuse

Lazy thinking (if you can attribute thinking to a Lib) is mindlessly blaming every ill in the world on George Bush. most of our nations's problems have been around for a long time. If you continue to beleive that the Federal government is going to solve them for you soon, you are delusional and have no grasp of history. most times the feds get involved, the problem gets worse.

Posted by: kingofzouk | July 6, 2007 4:44 PM | Report abuse

boko- Is this what you mean by "going green"? ...Madonna is the headliner at tomorrow night's Live Earth show from London's Wembley Stadium. But guess what? For her, the word green means money, not the environment.

She has actually invested about $2.7 million dollars in companies that are creating the destruction that Live Earth is trying to raise awareness about, and several companies named as the biggest corporate polluters in the world.

The companies include Alcoa, Ingersoll Rand, Weyerhaeuser, and several others associated with oil exploration, digging, and refining including British Petroleum, Schlumberger (a chief competitor of Halliburton), Devon Energy, Peabody Energy, Emerson Electric, Kimberly Clark and Weatherford International.

Madonna's Ray of Light Foundation has stock in each of these companies. Her last published tax statement claims $4.2 million in corporate stock, and only $620,000 in donations to other charities including her pet project: the (tax exempt)Kabbalah Center.


Posted by: Anonymous | July 6, 2007 4:43 PM | Report abuse

Colin, I guess you just chose to ignore the other things I mentioned which have been going on for many administrations. I understand that they don't fit into your little liberal world view wherein George Bush personally has ruined the entire planet. but your tactics show the weakness of your view. deductions from outlandish opinions are not Facts, they are still wacky opinions. Try beginning your line of reasoning with a single fact. you should be able to find one if you avoid the MSM and other DNC outlets.


I didn't said that government is never the answer. they provide an excellent national military for all the people. And whenever I feel like paying way too much for something, they are always glad to oblige.

Posted by: kingofzouk | July 6, 2007 4:36 PM | Report abuse

Right Colin. They sabotage then say, "See this is why I don't like big government."

As said above they preach small government. The proof is in the puddin". Many of them also calim to be christians/patriots.

Posted by: JKrish | July 6, 2007 4:21 PM | Report abuse

Anyone else find it ironic that KOZ's argument against government is predicated on the fact that REPUBLICAN administration's don't know how to govern? Talk about self-fulfilling prophecies...

KOZ -- when Clinton was president, we didn't have any Katrina situations even though we had plenty of Huricanes. We also had a healthier balance of regulatory oversight, which has ALWAYS served an important role in ensuring that are capital markets are the envy of the world. You can spin as much as you want, but the only thing this administration's incompetence proves is that this administration was incompetent. Government isn't always the answer, but George W hasn't proven that Government is NEVER the answer either. That's just lazy thinking.

Posted by: Colin | July 6, 2007 4:16 PM | Report abuse

Realism is a primary mode in Watchmen, which features themes that relate superheroes to the human condition. Moore explores the fantastic world of costumed adventurers by raising various social issues that begin with the perception of authority. The novel's examination of trust in authority can be summed up in the phrase, "Who watches the Watchmen?" In a Weberian sense, authority is seldom endorsed morally by those who do not have it, with institutionalized authority being unchallenged simply due to intrinsic aspects of social power. The vigilantes in Watchmen, before the Keene Act, represent superheroes as an institution, generally unquestioned until the issues of responsibility and culpability are raised. This questioning of authority mirrors the Opposition to the Vietnam War and the Civil Rights Movement, both of which are discussed in Watchmen.

These ideas are also apparent in what post-modernist Gregory J. Golda calls the "anti-veneration" throughout the novel, illustrated by depicting superheroes as "cranky and inept old timers". Golda's anti-veneration "treats destructive societal norms as the direct responsibility of the viewer by attacking the principles society holds most dear. This lack of respect for the past is the crux of the Watchmen."[21]

The subject of anti-veneration explores superheroes who are treated as veritable gods to be worshipped at one point (with Dr. Manhattan taking on the literal manifestation of a deity) and then are deconstructed in order to reveal flaws, which makes them less worthy of hero worship in the eyes of the public. Indeed, in one of the picto-essays at the end of each chapter, Osterman's mentor, Milton Glass, says that his first reaction to a newspaper reporter on learning of Dr. Manhattan's existence was that "The Superman exists, and he's American". Nonetheless, heroes can still be worthy within the valetism form of hero worship as theorised by essayist and historian Thomas Carlyle and expressed in Watchmen.[22] Carlyle, who was influential on early fascist philosophy, developed a concept of hero worship that was meant to overlook human flaws, as he contended that there was no need for "moral perfection."[23] Along these lines, Rorschach even belittles what he terms as "moral lapses" when discussing the Comedian's past acts of violence.[24] These Carlyle-inspired ideas are depicted throughout Watchmen, as Ozymandias, during a discussion with Rorschach, refers to the Comedian as "a Nazi."[25] To further exemplify this issue of superheroes as fascists, the extreme right-wing publication New Frontiersman appears to be the most ardent supporter of masked vigilantism with one headline reading, "Honor is like the Hawk: Sometimes it must go Hooded."[26]
"

Posted by: Who watches the watchmen? | July 6, 2007 4:15 PM | Report abuse

Cool With me. You show your face. youu are a coward and a fascist. At least I can say with I'm for. YOur to scared to even do that. Why? Because you are fascsits and you know AMerica is not a fascist nation. The republcian revolution was started by regan, illegals flood, fariness doctrine removed, pre-empive attacking, so and so forth. Continue with Rush Newt. All the while lies. Propoganda. This was before the internet. You cannot do that anymore. People can find out they are lying everyday much easier. Now that everyone knows you are facsits you are done.

The internet did that to yo unot me. You try and kill the objectivity with the internet, sites like Myspace (fox news own), patriot act. Not ok. Will not work. You fascist s are labeled as such. It's not as easy for you to create greed fascsit racsit kids anymore. They are smarter than you. You time is up Zouk. John Wyane is dead. The WATCHMEN are fake vigilantes (there was only one superhero)

I laugh at you HA HAHAHAHA

Posted by: rufsu | July 6, 2007 4:10 PM | Report abuse

rufus - Time to stop your charade.

Admit it, the answer is: I, rufus1133, do not have a CIB!

Posted by: Anonymous | July 6, 2007 4:06 PM | Report abuse

Wow, the director of the American Conservative Union has graced this blog with her presence! What an honor!"

I msut really be scaring them. Zouk feels he must post all day everyday. The conservative union also. Must be scared of truth. Bringing out the big propoganda guns :)

Posted by: rufus | July 6, 2007 4:04 PM | Report abuse

Too bad rufus, I thought that you were able to finally face it.

Instead you come up with this drivel "I will tell you all about it if you insist. If you want a simple yes or no on CIB, TEll me what bush did right, other than high stock prices."

Fine answer me, and I'll answer you, plus I'll throw in "the price of eggs in China" as a freebie.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 6, 2007 4:04 PM | Report abuse

Blarg, your numbers don't add up. you get approve of war 45%, dissapprove 54%. I don't know the margin of error but this is a pretty even split - not overwhelming. and the skew is party affiliated so we don't know who they were asking. If it was in NoVA the result would be quite different than down south near norfolk.

should we withdraw troops - 54/40. Still not a crushing result considering the question asked if we should withdraw some troops. who doesn't want that?

If this indication was so overwhelming, why has not the new Dem congress acted in the way you choose? could it be that professional poll takers whose job is on the line have determined that the pressure is not so overwhelming in most of the country? It would seem so. the polls I have seen indicate that Americans want to end the war (of course, how could you answer no to this) but not at the cost of losing the war. that is far from what most extreme Dems (this blog) think. they want to run away no matter the consequences. Even the elected Dems won't go that far. Even hillary and Obama won't go that far. So my analysis results in asking you - how far out on that left limb are you?

Posted by: kingofzouk | July 6, 2007 4:00 PM | Report abuse

Wow, the director of the American Conservative Union has graced this blog with her presence! What an honor!

Either that or someone is plagiarizing her. Which is a shame. Lisa De Pasquale's idiocy barely deserved to be posted once, much less ripped off by people incapable of original thought.

Posted by: Blarg | July 6, 2007 3:59 PM | Report abuse

You don't want to hear about my military experiance. By forcing the issue you are going to make me spill it on this website. You don't want that. It would hurt your feelings. I was 11B Army Infantry Fort Benning Ga went in 1998. That should be enough. You don't want me to talk about it. Believe me.

Your only going to hurt yourself zouk.

I will tell you all about it if you insist. If you want a simple yes or no on CIB, TEll me what bush did right, other than high stock prices.

I want you to show your face. If you are scared, the people here will know you are a coward and a fascsist. The gop, scared to talk about what their fascsit movement is really about. If you do you are done in this country. Unlike the dems. At least they are for something. You want to show everyone here what the GOP is about? What did George bush do right?

I'll expect crickets

Posted by: rufus | July 6, 2007 3:56 PM | Report abuse

No, I don't want to hear about your military experience. That you were at Fort Benning says, nothing. You could have been Radar O'Reilly there.

All I have asked for is a simple, Yes, I have a CIB; or, No, I don't have a CIB!

Do it, Soldier!

Posted by: Anonymous | July 6, 2007 3:49 PM | Report abuse

As was done with the movie An Inconvenient Truth, the Live Earth concerts also have a companion book. For an environmental movement, they sure seem unconcerned with wasting paper. The Live Earth Global Warming Survival Handbook: 77 Essential Skills To Stop Climate Change claims to provide "essential skills for stopping climate change--and for living through it." The book is full of haughty, pointless advice, including:

"Bathe together"
"Shut down your office PCs overnight"
"Build a bat house"
"Why not commute to your home office? Nine out of 10 of us drive to work, with the average commute now up to 25 minutes each way and still climbing. That's a lot of time wasted, and a lot of gasoline becoming co2 emissions."

Yes, why don't more truck drivers, construction workers and the other blue collar workers that run the country save on gas and just telecommute from home? The Live Earth spokesman, expensive concert tickets and ridiculous book perfectly illustrate the Left's "climate crisis" movement - an indulgent past time for rich liberals (or liberals with rich parents). However, once the summer ends, the kids will go back to their real friends and Al Gore will be there, pathetic and alone, with nothing but an empty swimming pool.

Posted by: Lisa | July 6, 2007 3:48 PM | Report abuse

SO rather that saying WHAT BUSH DID RIGHT YOUR PEOPLE ARE GOING TO CONTINUE to attack and blame democrats. Even after you had both the house and congress.

That's starnge argument. No wonder the GOP is done for my lifetime.

Posted by: JKRish | July 6, 2007 3:48 PM | Report abuse

The bashing covers everything from wiretapping to President Bush's global warming science."

And rightfully so

Soemone's got to hold them accountable. They surely can't do it themselves. We can rely on the leaders to do what's best for us rather than themselves. Soemone's got to force them to folow laws. I think bush and his cronies should be in jail for treason. That's at least 30 years not 30 months. Head wil and should roll. 30 months for a cronie is nothing. ANd he wouldn't even take that. How about 30 years for siding with the enemy of the U.S.

Posted by: rufus | July 6, 2007 3:46 PM | Report abuse

The 2006 election was about the size of government? Here's an excerpt from CNN's exit polls of the Virginia Senate race: (Sorry the columns don't line up.)

U.S. WAR IN IRAQ
TOTAL Allen Webb
Strongly Approve (20%) 94% 6%
Somewhat Approve (25%) 88% 12%
Somewhat Disapprove (17%) 33% 67%
Strongly Disapprove (37%) 9% 91%

SHOULD U.S. WITHDRAW SOME OR ALL TROOPS?
TOTAL Allen Webb
No (40%) 85% 15%
Yes (52%) 23% 77%

Looks like a majority of voters opposed the war in Iraq and wanted to withdraw troops. And people who held those beliefs mostly voted for the Democrat.

Face it, Zouk. The biggest issue in the 2006 election, by far, was the war in Iraq. If you have any data showing that people don't like Republican big government, I'd love to see it. Because every poll that I've seen shows that voters mostly wanted to stop this stupid war.

Posted by: Blarg | July 6, 2007 3:45 PM | Report abuse

Live Earth's purpose is "to trigger a global movement to solve the climate crisis." It's the kind of mission that is adored by the Left. It's vague enough to claim victory for their side and bogus enough to make the crisis last forever. In short, it's the same mission of every worthless government program.

Posted by: Lisa | July 6, 2007 3:42 PM | Report abuse

You don't want to hear about my military experiance. By forcing the issue you are going to make me spill it on this website. You don't want that. It would hurt your feelings. I was 11B Army Infantry Fort Benning Ga went in 1998. That should be enough. You don't want me to talk about it. Believe me

Posted by: rufus1133 | July 6, 2007 3:34 PM | Report abuse

Six for '06" has similarly been crowded out by politically unpopular bills designed to reward left-leaning, special interest lobbies. The AFL-CIO's demand for a vote over "card check" never had a chance of passing the Senate, but did put Democrats on the record as opposing secret ballots in union elections (a position with which some 90% of Americans disagree). This fruitless dues-paying has taken time, and by the end of Democrats' first 100 days in office, Republicans were able to crow that of the 17 minor bills signed into law, 10 focused on naming post offices and courthouses.

Much of the ideological agenda is being driven by the party's old Great Society bulls, powerful House committee heads such as Henry Waxman, Pete Stark and John Conyers. Ms. Pelosi has largely let them run wild, inviting embarrassment. Appropriations czar David Obey managed to single-handedly undercut most of his party's promises about earmark transparency, and only after Democrats had been slammed by most major newspapers in the country did someone at the top reel Mr. Obey back in.
The leftish bent has put on public display the party's disunity. Two recent examples: Democrats promised to fix the alternative minimum tax, which will soon hike the taxes of millions of middle-class Americans. The fixing task fell to House Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel, who several weeks ago reverted to type and floated the idea of paying for his "reform" with a tax hike on higher-income earners. The Blue Dog coalition revolted, refusing to sign on to a bill that branded them tax-hike liberals.

Ms. Pelosi similarly promised earlier this year to produce an energy bill to make America "energy independent" by "Independence Day." The Fourth of July came and went, though what's left of Ms. Pelosi's energy bill is still mired in the House. She and fellow liberals refused to go along with those in her party who wanted a more flexible hike that would do less harm to Detroit.

The ideological back and forth has even caused Democrats to miss out on a proud signing ceremony or two. They easily had the Republican votes to pass a minimum wage hike, yet Mr. Reid and Ms. Pelosi instead allowed the party to engage in a food fight over a related tax-break package (liberals didn't want a "giveaway" to business). Desperate to get it done, the leaders ultimately stuffed the provision into the supplemental, where it was overshadowed and forgotten.

Democrats still have a little more than a year to prove their worth. The lesson of the past six months is that Americans want a mature party that leads, not angry liberals who investigate.

Posted by: Kimberly | July 6, 2007 3:34 PM | Report abuse

Both leaders seemed to understand--at least in the beginning--that few things were more important than showing voters the party had a plan, and that it could get that plan passed. This philosophy was behind the "Six for '06," an agenda that was purposely small (minimum wage, college scholarships), so as to garner support from all party wings. Ms. Pelosi's first "100 hours" were then run with military precision, as she systematically passed items with unanimous support from her party, and Republican votes to boot. It was an impressive showing.

Then, with the first 100 hours done and gone, by mid-January the Democratic Party proceeded to fall apart. The crumbling has progressed along predictable lines.

For starters, the leaders have failed to keep the Bush-hating left under wraps. This crowd isn't nearly as interested in passing legislation as it is flooding the Beltway with subpoenas. By one count, the new Democratic Congress has held over 600 oversight hearings since assuming power. Given the Senate has only been in session 100 days (the House, 92 days), that works out to six hearings per day, or one every 1.5 hours. The bashing covers everything from wiretapping to President Bush's global warming science.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/kstrasselpw/?id=110010303

Posted by: Kimberly | July 6, 2007 3:31 PM | Report abuse

I still don't know who find out more about me would make my words any more or less true. That only works with the GOP. "Unless it comes from Rush/Hannity/O'reilly/Drude it's a lie"

Delusional people. It's ok. The people know what's time it is. If your movment was legit you wouldn't need propogandists.

Posted by: rufus | July 6, 2007 3:29 PM | Report abuse

wAHT HAS gEORGE bUSH DONE rIGHT zoUK? aNSWER ME i'LL ANSWER YOU. fINALLY.

Posted by: RUFUS | July 6, 2007 3:26 PM | Report abuse

Microtargeting in the shoe leather part of GOTV drives makes it a lot easier for volunteers who don't like rejection.

The downside is that it can falsely raise their expectations, because all of the people they contact in their efforts are already inclined to vote for their candidate.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 6, 2007 3:25 PM | Report abuse

Bill clinton passed welfare reform. He stayed away from regulating the economy. I liked that about him. It would be difficult to find much good to say about Peanut. building houses is noble, that is his best gig. but Bush is a mixed bag, policy wise. I don't think he suffers the same personal foibles as clinton, thankfully.

I did say that Repubs were complicit in growing the government lately. I personally disagree with this and therefore believe that the voters saw the same thing I saw - that the Rs needed to be punished for becoming too much like Ds. the sixth year had historical momentum anyway so the change was not unexpected. allowing the Dems to run congress may just turn out to be what is needed to point out the differences before the next go round.

the electorate had a brief flirtation with growing government at the beginning of the Bush presidency - NCLB, etc. this was promised in the election and resulted in winning some of the middle. I think it was a mistake but I was not the candidate and I didin't win the election. Bush did. Twice.

Posted by: kingofzouk | July 6, 2007 3:25 PM | Report abuse

Microtargeting is an appropriate technique for dealing with the incredibly shrinking GOP voter pool.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | July 6, 2007 3:19 PM | Report abuse

rufus - Come on now Boy, you can do it! A simple Yes or No.

Yes, I have a CIB.

or

No, I don't have a CIB.

It's the easiest answer in the world for anybody with credibility.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 6, 2007 3:19 PM | Report abuse

1. using govenment appointments as gifts for freinds. Using government jobs to help party.

2. The top brass working hand and hand with the same saudi's who bombed us on 9/11 and continue to bomb western nations.

3. Unability to hand any domestic problem such as Katrina, post 9/11 NY, hurricanes, tornado's floods. Your greed hurt the efforts because rather than fixing the issues at any cost you people tried to find a way to profit from it.

3. swift-boating political discourse

Once bush is out there will be much more. the birdies are going to sing. They are weasels by nature. Do you not think thye will roll over when it it conveinant?

The GOP is done. Your only hope is to cheat. That or postpone the election. I'm sure the GOP will be for that. There will be another attack (conveinantly near the election, like the gas price decrease befor ethe election)and you people will try and stop the election. I hope you do. Show your face. If you can't win cheat.

The GOP will be done for my lifetime. :)

Posted by: rufus | July 6, 2007 3:19 PM | Report abuse

Destroying the consitution. namly the ptriot act spying on all personal info. and the removal of habeus corpus.

going against everythign the constitution stands for

dEstroying the DOJ by putting cronies.

Hurting the credibility of the UN, making it a useless organization

The supeame court putting personal ideals above the law. You cannot force conservatism on free people.

Should I continue or are you going to stop me by telling what he DID do right

Posted by: rufus | July 6, 2007 3:10 PM | Report abuse

I'll tell you why you lost. All help you out zouk.

1. Iraq.
2. Entire GOP is corrupt as the mafia.
3. High stock prices OVER high worker wages. You people don't seem to understand there has to be balance.
4. Your right-wing attack media (Fox CNN MSNBC local news) has proved to be lying to the public. People don't like to be told falsities AS TRUTHS. That is not news. Once FOx/Rush were foundout to be propogandist liars who's only goal is lining their pockets, a lot of peopel were angry. That's why Trent Lott can say what he said.
5. housing market
6. Not getting Bin Laden after all these years, maybe even LETTIGN him escape. Paying pakistan to find him while they house him
7. military corrpution. Screwing the troops at hom. Whil;e selling secrets to china and other nations
8. Makingthe world a LESS safe polce for americans rather than improving the situation.

I can go on all day. What has he done right zouk?

Posted by: rufus 1133 | July 6, 2007 3:08 PM | Report abuse

Zouk, you think the Republicans lost the 2006 election because voters don't like the increased size of the federal government? Where are you getting that? And even if you believe that to be true, how can you keep whining about the big-government liberals, if you admit yourself that conservatives are the ones making the government bigger?

And when you're done answering those questions, tell us all the good things that Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter did. Otherwise you admit to being an unmitigated zealot, and too closed-minded to deal with.

Posted by: Blarg | July 6, 2007 3:01 PM | Report abuse

You tell us zouk. I'm lying. What has bush done right? You like to ask the questions and DEMAND answers. YOu tell me what Bush has done right. This is your big chance to prove your not here to divide and conquer.

What has bush done right?

High stock prices? Ok Is that it. If so you are a treasonous sell-out for supporting him. Party over country. Money over country.

Posted by: rufus | July 6, 2007 2:57 PM | Report abuse

"the 2002 - 2006 congress spent too much money. there were some instances of why this was done including an actual war, but the election of 2006 clearly showed this had gone too far. It is you Libs who wish to extend and expand this spending complete with higher taxes to pay for it all. do you decry spending or are you just looking for points against any R you can find?
"

Always comes back to this argument with repubs. Taxes money. money is nothing. If you were making 100000 more dollrs would you can about getting taxed for an extra 5000? It is relative. Money is nothing but paper.

Feeding the world's hungry is worth more than paper. Electricty to everybody is worth more than little pieces of paper. An american housing movement for all is more important than little pieces of paper. Money is nothing. What if the future involved only credit? what if money doesn;'t exist? Would you be wasting you r life in pursuit of it?

Always comes back to money. Getting it and keeping it right. Money won't make you happy zouk. The mark of the beast. When you choose money over God or your country your are a sell-out. When you trade you country's values for money YOU ARE A TRAITOR

Posted by: rufus | July 6, 2007 2:54 PM | Report abuse

There is not one single thing about Bush's presidency of which I approve.
- boko

then we are clearly dealing with an unmitigated zealot. why should we bother with someone so closed minded?

Posted by: kingofzouk | July 6, 2007 2:50 PM | Report abuse

Boko - you are good at tap dancing around the truth. Using clintons legacy when convenient and ignoring when necessary.

didn't clinton shoot missiles into soverign territory. but he wouldn't invade, is that what you are saying. but Bush did. so your argument ends in Clinton was either too wimpy, clueless, occupied with interns, etc. to do his essential job - protecting us from killers. Was china and Russia too unapproachable for him. I thought he was so loved and respected.

the simple matter of fact is that clinton fiddled while the signs were ignored and opportunites missed.

as far as Kosovo goes, i am sure you Libs prefer to go to wars where no one dies and no strategic interests are at stake and no one cares if you show up or not. good luck with that.

the 2002 - 2006 congress spent too much money. there were some instances of why this was done including an actual war, but the election of 2006 clearly showed this had gone too far. It is you Libs who wish to extend and expand this spending complete with higher taxes to pay for it all. do you decry spending or are you just looking for points against any R you can find?
I think anyone with an ounce of sense understands that Dems will spend more, tax more, grow government and avoid foreign policy. When you say that Rs did it, you try to hide the fact that you will do more. you are not fooling anyone though.

Posted by: kingofzouk | July 6, 2007 2:48 PM | Report abuse

Don't be scared blarg. Research. If I'm lying show me where. If you can't do that then look inthe mirror. My main goal is to Get O'REIlly/Rush/Hannity off the air. That is my goal. That's why I repeat. Not everybody who reads this blog posts. Not evertyone is here everyday, like you and zouk.

One person a day. That's it. They may never even post. One person a day. that's it. Ignore me. Or better yet tell me how I'm wrong. If you can't you need to look in the mirror. That or rese3arch what I say. If you don't do that I'm not sure what to say. I once blogged here and somone said "I never heard that". Like I can use my super mind powers and realize what others on this site no or do not know. I am preaching truths. You think I'm not point it out. As you people don't and continue personal attacks agisnt me, ANN COUlter style, I'm going to assume everything I'm posting is truth.

And saying the same thing was done in the past is not a good defense. We have laws. I a man steals/muders is that ok, if it's been done in the past? I don't think so. elementary school kid argument. Don't be scared Blarg/Zouk. Fear doesn't really exist. It's in your head

Posted by: rufus | July 6, 2007 2:40 PM | Report abuse

Blarg - that was his greatest failure and the last election pointed that out. Was that not clear?

I don't need to say anything new when all the basics are still in dispute here in liberal lala land. Most of you still think that fixing prices is a good idea. See the boko manifesto for a list of moronic liberal ideas on how to correct all the injustice in the world.

but you never get the follow up mail. the fact that government can't do it for you. you raise education subsidies - tuition goes through the roof. the Lib asks: how did that happen?

you ask the government to handle your health care, the military reports back that the care is substandard and the options eclipsed. how did that happen?

you ask the government to save you from the flood/huricane/tornado. they don't show up. Private industry does. how did that happen?

you ask the government to run the elementary schools. they hire adminstrators. Kids fail. how did that happen?

You ask the government to run your retirement program. the return on investment is negative. the money promised doesn't exist. how did that happen?

than you have the geniuses on this website advocating more. more of the same. More failure. when asked to justify their views, the facts and arguments are thin. the insults and emotion run deep. such is the state of the lefty loons.

Posted by: kingofzouk | July 6, 2007 2:36 PM | Report abuse

All right, Zouk. Point by poorly thought-out point:

"al queda was at war. were/are you and the other clinton apologists still sleeping?"

-We knew about Al Qaeda at the time. No, Clinton did not do enough, although there is not much he could have done. He would have had to have been able to prove to the global community the complicity of the Afghan government in order to violate the borders of what was considered a sovereign nation without international repercussions. How do you think Russia and China would have reacted to an American military exercise in their backyard? And, lest you forget, Bush was briefed by the outgoing Clinton people on the urgent threat posed by Al Qaeda when he took office, and did nothing. Later that summer, Condi Rice was briefed by George Tenet on the high threat level and menacing chatter, and nothing was done. There was even that infamous memo entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US" - no result. Then after the attack, one of Bush's first thoughts was, "How do I blame this on Iraw?" - and this after being told by Richard Clarke that there was really no justification for blaming it on Iraq.

"Wrong, still there (in Kosovo). no congressional or UN approval."

-We may still be there, but when was the last time you heard of a casualty in Kosovo? When was the last time you heard the WORD "Kosovo" on the news? In any case, we are no longer engaged in military operations in Kosovo. Sure, we have troops there, just as we do in hundreds of places around the world.

"'THE ECONOMY WAS IN SURPLUS, AND WE WERE PAYING DOWN THE NATIONAL DEBT.'
thanks to the repub congress."

-Well, let's see. We had a GOP congress from 2002-2006, and the debt exploded. The only difference was the party of the president. Doesn't really make your point.

"I guess all those pardons for money were just fine with you."

-No, actually. There were things about Clinton's presidency that I was unhappy with. There is not one single thing about Bush's presidency of which I approve.

Posted by: Bokonon | July 6, 2007 2:33 PM | Report abuse

Oh look, it's the "greatest hits" package from Zouk. Don't you ever say anything new? I guess I shouldn't complain; you've still got more to say than Rufus.

By the way, what does it mean to say that the idea of "bigger and stronger" government has been in decline for years? Bush added a new Cabinet-level agency, and greatly increased the size of the federal government. Are you saying that he weakened the government in doing so? Or is Bush one of the liberals that you hate so much?

Posted by: Blarg | July 6, 2007 2:22 PM | Report abuse

Reality zouk. Get back in reality. You got smoked in the last election. your just lucky they don't vote for the entie congress at once. Who is the minority? You live in the past. The news you are watching is not reality. Fascists are not the majority of this nation and time will show you that. Good luck, really. Things have gotten far worse since the sweep of 06. One issue at a time. It's going to take many years to correct the desturction you people have done to this country. WE will fix it though. It starts by getting the propogandists off the air. Then we can start the re-building process. It's going to be great. America is going to be far greater than it's ever been. As opposed to you parties plan of destruction. Of divide and conquer.

Posted by: rufus | July 6, 2007 2:22 PM | Report abuse

didn't you rabid lefty Libs get the memo? you are the ultra minority now in this country. you have lost every presidential election since Nixon was booted. After Peanut proved to be a total fool, your kind was no longer allowed. The liberal agenda for government - bigger and stronger, has been in decline for years. now the cultural and legal aspects of your platform are on the run.

the only gathering place you have left is this and other lefty blogs where you can all congregate and make yourselves feel like you are back in the Haight in '69.

but in the real world, your act is old, tired and stale and worthy only of ridicule. the ratings of all your shows are sinking fast, while your enemy - reason, proof and logic, is rising like a phoenix.

there just aren't enough of you stupid enough to fall for the clinton lies again and elect an even more liberal member of that family. His centrism was his only hope, she has none.

Because you refuse to run a candidate with any sense and only nominate moonbats and misfits, you shall remain in electoral doldroms forever. Preaching about the glory days of clinton is an indication you have no real message. no one wants to go back to the teen years now that we have grown up. all the corruption, personal vendettas, selling out for cash, dodging of facts, spinning like mad, desperation to be loved, convictions and fraud are not something we long for any more.
and trying to make going to war to do the right thing look the same as lining your own pockets is a clue that you have no shame and no way forward.

Posted by: kingofzouk | July 6, 2007 2:18 PM | Report abuse

The feudal right has spoken!

proudtobeGOP wants higher education that is affordable only for the wealthy, an increased and increasing deficit to be paid off - or not - by future generations of Americans, and the subsidy of counterintuitive superstition rather than assistance to Palestinians in establishing a home for which they have been fighting for almost 70 years, and maintaining the status quo in re: carbon emissions, despite what is globally acknowledged as a threat to continued human survival on Earth, and would continue, in spite of real financial need and the greatest level of income inequality in US history, to excuse those who earn over ~$207,000.00/year from paying their way.

Good old-fashioned short-sighted conservative greed.

Posted by: Bokonon | July 6, 2007 2:13 PM | Report abuse

AC is working now. I'm back now. don't be scared zouk/gop. Fear is not real. It's all in your conditioning. You are conditioned to fear. All you know is fear. Constant fear.

Fear does not exist. Pain is a feeling or sensation in your mind. You can turn them both OFF if you know how.

Posted by: rufus | July 6, 2007 2:05 PM | Report abuse

COUNTRY WAS AT PEACE - but al queda was at war. were/are you and the other clinton apologists still sleeping?

When Bill went to war, in Kosovo,WE WON. Then we got out.

Wrong, still there. no congressional or UN approval

THE ECONOMY WAS IN SURPLUS, AND WE WERE PAYING DOWN THE NATIONAL DEBT.
thanks to the repub congress.

I guess all those pardons for money were just fine with you.

Posted by: simpering apologist | July 6, 2007 2:03 PM | Report abuse

I just wanted to demonstrate the limitations of micro-targeting. I did not expect a respectful or intelligent response from someone who lives in an imaginary nation, although you did spell everything correctly this time.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 6, 2007 2:03 PM | Report abuse

What are you people afraid of? Like the fascsit on this site said" If you don't like it scroll"

don't hinder others from learning the truth. You can only combat lies with truth. Hate with love. Intolerance with understanding.

What are you afraid of, brave blank poster who is so hard they can't even bring themselves to pick an anonymous name and stick to it.

No name. no respect

Posted by: rufus | July 6, 2007 2:01 PM | Report abuse

The far-left has spoken!

bokonon wants govt price controls on higher education, increased taxes on Americans and taxes on churches to pay for subsidies to Palestinians and imposing carbon-neutrality mandates, and he would punish the successful who have the audacity to earn over ~$207,000.00/year.

Good old-fashioned tax-and-spend liberal stupidity.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | July 6, 2007 2:00 PM | Report abuse

You are a fool with no grasp of reality.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 6, 2007 1:59 PM | Report abuse

Boko - you forgot to say that you believe you know everything and that you will be running the world from now on.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 6, 2007 1:55 PM | Report abuse

Hey, Not-so-slick:

Even if I were to acknowledge your partisan, somewhat juvenile list (he did cheat on his wife, but the others?) ---

THE ECONOMY WAS IN SURPLUS, AND THE COUNTRY WAS AT PEACE, AND (MOSTLY) LIKED AND RESPECTED IN THE WORLD.

When Bill went to war, in Kosovo,WE WON. Then we got out.

Also, Bill won his two elections fair and square... and EVERYONE was doing well, and didn't mind so much paying taxes because - once again - THE ECONOMY WAS IN SURPLUS, AND WE WERE PAYING DOWN THE NATIONAL DEBT.

Not much you can say to that.

Posted by: just so we're clear | July 6, 2007 1:55 PM | Report abuse

Message to Mitt Romney:

I am not a member of what would be considered your "base." For example,

-I believe that the single greatest problem we face today, at least globally, is climate change. And I believe that this should be reflected in our global spending AND trade commitments, and that we encourage others to follow suit. I believe that we should belatedly ratify Kyoto, and lead by example in order to establish the credibility that will be needed as we go forward and attempt to build on that treaty. I believe that the lion's share of our energy spending should be devoted to renewable, carbon-neutral resources, and that we should establish an international competition to determine who can build or invent the best of these.

-I am agnostic, and believe that religion should be practiced - by those who wish to practice it - only in churches, or on private property. NOT on TV or radio, and not in schools or workplaces.
I further believe that any government contractor providing social or other services should be required to do so without reference to religion, and without requiring anything from those receiving the service, and that a contractor unwilling to do this should forfeit the contract.
I believe that the religious exemption from taxation should be revoked, and the resulting funds devoted to public education and scientific research.

-I believe that a way must be found to bring home many of the troops currently in Iraq. I believe that further effort must be made to internationalize the commitment to rebuild Iraq. I believe the nation's military focus should be returned to Afghanistan and Pakistan, and that we should involve ourselves - diplomatically - NOW in the situation in Pakistan. I believe that we should do everything possible to return a civilian, democratically elected leader to power in that country, and further believe that we should do everything in our power to safeguard the nuclear arsenals of India and Pakistan.
I believe that we must support a Middle East region summit, under UN auspices, at which Israel is given a seat at the table, but only one seat among many. I believe that we must use our financial, military, and other leverage to compel Israel to commit to returning to the 1967 borders as soon as a stable Palestinian government has been established. I believe that we must extend to the Palestinians a substantial aid package, conditioned upon the establishment and peaceful maintenance of such a government.

-I believe that every pregnancy should be chosen, and that a woman who chooses not to end a pregnancy should not hear boo. From anyone. I also believe that stem cells should be fair game. Having said all that, I believe that the federal government should actively encourage and facilitate adoption. For married, unmarried, straight, AND gay couples.

-I believe that all federal elections should be equally and publicly funded, and that candidates should be barred from using negative advertising. If they are unable to convince voters that theirs is a better idea, that's their problem.

-I believe that no university should be more expensive than 25% of the federal median income (per year), and that federal and state funding of tuition grants, research, etc. be increased.

-I believe that no tax loopholes should apply to anyone earning more than 250% of the federal median income. I also believe that anyone who can be shown to have moved a company overseas to avoid tax and salary expenses in this country have their assets seized in an amount equal to the tax they would have paid had their company remained in the US.

There's more, but that's a start. So, Mitt, how will you micro-target me?

Posted by: Bokonon | July 6, 2007 1:43 PM | Report abuse

rufas, keep this up and you may become as bad as I am some day. It will take work.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 6, 2007 1:39 PM | Report abuse

Ben - using your logic, then all of Ken Starr's efforts were just a waste of time and money, right?

Boy, I'm sure glad you guys are beginning to see things my way.

Posted by: Bubba | July 6, 2007 1:32 PM | Report abuse

rufus - if you're going to leave, just leave. Otherwise you're just another Zouk.

Actually, you've become worse than Zouk!

Posted by: Anonymous | July 6, 2007 1:28 PM | Report abuse

But Mr. Bush saw a basic wrong. A man who should never have seen the inside of a courtroom as a defendant had been pilloried for no good reason and then sentenced to a Stalinist sentence. His basic decency overrode political and PR considerations. He simply did the right thing. He let an innocent man breathe the air of freedom. He used the power of his office to say "enough" to an out of control prosecutor, an out of control grand jury, and an out of control judge and jury. In a simple phrase, once again, he did the right thing regardless of cost.


http://spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=11675

Posted by: Ben | July 6, 2007 1:22 PM | Report abuse

Netflix doesn't care what you like, as long as the Netflix computer can give you something to make you feel happy and keep buying Netflix.

The problem with applying this approach to politics is it stops happening as soon as politicians are in office.
"

Capitalism applied to politics. Capitalism is not america. It is so much more. This country was founded for a reason. It's not capitalism.

Posted by: JKrish | July 6, 2007 1:20 PM | Report abuse

I've made a little egg money in the past as a poll interviewer for commercial polls.
It must be remembered, when evaluating how effective such polling can be, that even well-researched products fail every day in the marketplace. Polls, even micro-targeted ones, may provide useful information. It may also make us too smart by half.

With modern mass media, it is difficult to tailor a message to one small demographic, while speaking differently elsewhere.

For the Democrats, scientific targeting in "battleground" states has cost them two presidential elections they could have won. I believe Howard Dean is right about the "50-state" strategy. I suppose my position as a resident of a "backwater" state, ignored by national campaigns, colors my view. But I do not believe any campaign gains by taking voter behavior for granted.

Posted by: Alan in Missoula | July 6, 2007 1:19 PM | Report abuse

Every now and then that smug Bill Clinton gives good reason to remind people that
Clinton has never been anything more than a draft-dodging, tax-evading, dope-smoking, pants-dropping, weenie-wagging, masturbating, wife-cheating liar, serial rapist and Whitehouse thief convicted of perjury, impeached, disbarred and alongside Jimmy Carter, is America's biggest embarrassment. He has demonstrated through his every action that his only real aim in life was to drag this nation down to the level of a third world toilet while traveling around the world personally cashing in on selling the Presidency of the United States of America. No other President in the history of this country has a legacy of swindling the taxpaying public by using the Presidency for personal gain, having the most cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation, convictions and guilty pleas, dishonest con games leaving many real and tangible victims in his wake through his in his wake and his and selling of pardons to criminals! This man's dishonesty knows no bounds and is only exceeded by his unbridled greed! Now he has the hubris to chide President Bush for one commutation! To think that some people want this back in the Whitehouse is just beyond the pale!

Posted by: Not so slick | July 6, 2007 1:14 PM | Report abuse

WRA - Sure, it depends on the politician.

I wonder what would happen if the word "microtargeting" passed into common usage.

When voters get political calls, the first question they might have for the caller would be "Did your campaign use microtargeting for this call?"

Posted by: Golgi | July 6, 2007 1:12 PM | Report abuse

Golgi, that would depend on the politician. There are certainly some that have no problem slicing and dicing data until they think they know exactly what will lull you into a false sense of security.

Then, when your guard has been let down...

they STRIKE!!!

Posted by: When Republicans Attack | July 6, 2007 1:08 PM | Report abuse

The algorithm for picking out issues to appeal to individuals is probably something like Netflix. Netflix uses an algorithm to pick out movies that their computer thinks you will like.

Netflix doesn't care what you like, as long as the Netflix computer can give you something to make you feel happy and keep buying Netflix.

The problem with applying this approach to politics is it stops happening as soon as politicians are in office.

Posted by: Golgi | July 6, 2007 1:06 PM | Report abuse

So, message to voters:

Next time you get a phone call or a mailing about an issue, you now know what is going on. The politician doesn't really care themselves, they just know that you care.

Posted by: Golgi | July 6, 2007 1:03 PM | Report abuse

For uncensored news please bookmark:

www.wsws.org
www.takingaimradio.info
otherside123.blogspot.com
www.onlinejournal.com
www.globalresearch.ca

The latest youtube video of New York Times Best Seller Greg palast:

http://video.google.nl/videoplay?docid=-5601690525518791303&q=greg+palast&total=393&start=0&num=10&so=1&type=search&plindex=0

www.gregpalast.com

Posted by: che | July 6, 2007 12:47 PM | Report abuse

to hot for me to blog. Peace in the middle east. Have a good weekend. God bless

Posted by: rufus | July 6, 2007 12:43 PM | Report abuse

I read the article yesterday. I have to say, I'm actually shocked that this _wasn't_ being done by all politicians. It's such a common idea in business marketing circles, I always just assumed it was being done by political machines.

Posted by: Chris McAvoy | July 6, 2007 12:37 PM | Report abuse

"politicians are merely telling them what they want to hear."

Call me cynical, but it's not news that politicians tell us what we want to hear. What is news perhaps is that they are refining the process.

This whole marketing scheme fits Romney to a T. Where are the GOP voices who said Kerry flip-flopped? Romney's campaign positions flop around more than a bass in a boat.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth Hunter | July 6, 2007 12:29 PM | Report abuse

Soon we will be able to transmit our tailor made messages to the antenna in your tooth.

Resistance is futile...

Posted by: more and better polls | July 6, 2007 12:15 PM | Report abuse

Kucinich Lays Out Positions To Steelworkers

Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, a candidate for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, articulated a variety of policy positions -- from health care, NAFTA and the war in Iraq -- for some 900 members of the United Steelworkers Union.

http://onthehillblog.blogspot.com/2007/07/kucinich-lays-out-positions-to.html

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

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company