Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
About Chris Cillizza  |  On Twitter: The Fix and The Hyper Fix  |  On Facebook  |  On YouTube  |  RSS Feeds RSS Feed

Romney Lands a Palmetto Player

Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) continues to build his South Carolina team, signing George Ramsey as an adviser to his Commonwealth PAC.

Ramsey has considerable experience in Palmetto State politics, most recently serving as campaign manager for Greg Ryberg's unsuccessful '06 bid for state treasurer. Prior to that race, Ramsey served as political director in Sen. Jim DeMint's (R) successful 2004 race. He has also done work for former Lt. Gov. Bob Peeler (R).

Ramsey will serve as a field director for the Commonwealth PAC in South Carolina. He joins Nick Breeding in the state for Romney. Breeding, who previously served as deputy political director at the Republican Governors Association, also serves as a field director for Commonwealth.

In addition to his staff hires, Romney has also been donating considerable cash to South Carolina state legislative candidates and county party committees.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has been making moves in South Carolina as well. Last week he announced former state Attorney General Charlie Condon and Bob McAlister, chief of staff for the late Gov. Carroll Campbell (R), as co-chairmen of his Straight Talk America PAC in South Carolina.

As in 2000, South Carolina could play the pivotal role in selecting the Republican presidential nominee. McCain saw his momentum stunted by President Bush in South Carolina and was never able to recover.

By Chris Cillizza  |  August 11, 2006; 9:53 AM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: We've Got Issues... What Are Yours?
Next: Connecticut: Can Lieberman Move His Numbers?


To: Drindle...Appreciate your comments. Lieberman, in my opinion, should admit that he lost his bid to remain in the Senate. The voters in Connecticut imposed Term Limits on Lieberman! He served Honorably...Period...End of Subject.

To: JimD in FL...Appreciate your comments.
The smokescreen of Terrorism I refer to is the very loose use of the phrase to scare the daylights out of the electorate and to posture the theory that only Republicans can protect us. Is Terrorism a real and significan threat? You Bet!!! I spent the better part of the last 30 years in the Military and Government as a Counterterrorism Analyst.

To: The Truth Hunter...Let's Keep Our Fingers Crossed.

Posted by: M. Stewart | August 14, 2006 8:38 PM | Report abuse

Dan Balz thinks Connecticut is " an intriguing laboratory for what might emerge in the 2008 presidential campaign."

Tell the name of the last Northeastern Democrat who won the White House? Was that person a military hero and seen as a war hawk unlike wimp Kerry or wimp McGovern?

Unless Dan Balz is ready for another wimp Democrat running for president, he needs to understand Connecticut has its hands full with the Senate race which has zero impact on 2008. If Lieberman lost, big deal, the Dems usually win the state anyway.

The last time Connecticut or New York or California voted for a Republican president was back with Reagan. And Reagan whomped McGovern's wimpish butt in 49 states.

Posted by: Slim Girl in Pearls | August 14, 2006 5:57 PM | Report abuse

M. Stewart makes a very good point about the fact that most politicians of either party are in thrall to their donors. I would include the various interest groups that mobilize their members to support or oppose candidates - from the NRA to NARAL and lots in between. I think the current administration is using Islamic terrorists as a smokescreen to try and redress what Cheney and the neo-cons view as an erosion of executive authority over the last 30 years or so. However, they are asserting executive powers that greatly exceed the constitution in the view of the overwhelming majority of scholars. BTW, thanks for the well written and thoughtful rebuttal of these claims of executive power, Colin. I agree wholeheartedly.

I do think M. Stewart is going a bit far, however. Especially if the comment about using terrorists as a smokescreen is meant to deny the threat. There are definitely Islamic terrorists who want to strike at this country at home and abroad. Recognizing the threat and taking steps to combat it does not mean we have to accept the Bush administration's flouting of the constitution. An interesting historical analogy would be the Cold War. Recognizing the threat from Soviet espionage did not mean that one should have agreed with McCarthy. (I am not comparing Bush to McCarthy). It reminds me of Camus' play "Caligula". The emperor is told that the Treasury is of paramount importance so he issues a decree ordering the wealthiest citizens to make new wills leaving everything to the Treasury and says he will have them executed as the need for funds arise.

Posted by: JimD in Fl | August 14, 2006 11:37 AM | Report abuse

Chris: Time to call in and wake up the intern, so they can put a new topic out for discussion.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | August 14, 2006 10:54 AM | Report abuse

I hope M. Stewart is not referring to the sort of 'civility' pushed by Joe Lieberman, as the incredibly paartisan hack dan balz has it:

'Will Lieberman's campaign prove to be a forerunner for a message of civility and bipartisanship that emerges nationally in 2008, or simply be remembered as an obsolete refrain from a politician living in an idealized past and that serves only to deepen partisan divisions?'

What a laughingstock this reporter has become. Lieberman civil? The DLC crowd is vicious. Lieberman attacked Lamont and his supporters and Democratic primary voters viciously, unfairly, venomously, and often. Leiberman says he won't let the results of a fair primary 'stand'. Don't we have primaries to determine the will of the voters? Isn't that what they are for? Why bother other wise? But Leiberman and the DLC and the corporate lobbyists who back them won't give up. It has nothing to do with anything but money.

Please Dan Balz, get over it. You work for the same masters, and it's just getting a little too obvious.

Posted by: Drindl | August 14, 2006 10:40 AM | Report abuse

M. Stewart, Very well stated. The survival of our nation IS at stake.

Without checks and balances in our government, it becomes what it now is, the private playground for the rich and infamous.

To restore the balance in our govenment, we must break the GOP grip on the three branches of govenment.

No more sacred incumbent cows grazing in the taxpayer pasture. This November we have the chance to show the sacred Bush-enabling cows the gate.

Posted by: Truth Hunter | August 14, 2006 10:23 AM | Report abuse

With the "Terrorism War" in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Lebanon continuing to rage and expand, our elected officials seem to be concerned only about power, their own agenda, their own pockets, and their own longevity. The Power Brokers of the past and those who currently control the executive and legislative branches of our Government lost sight, long ago, as to who they legislate for and represent. Why? Because they were bought and paid for years ago by lobbyists, special interest groups, and most importantly Corporate America!

Most of the politicians in Washington view their constituents as unintelligent, ill-informed, ignorant, or at best incapable of understanding domestic issues and world events. The Power Brokers on the Liberal Left are fighting to regain Power and the Power Brokers on the Conservative Right are fighting to retain Power. They are both of the same ilk! The real losers in this crazy political war are the citizens they were sworn to protect and represent!

Like Vietnam, the Power Brokers of today are spending our nation's blood and treasure at an alarming rate. And like Vietnam, the electorate is finally pushing back and saying enough is enough! Ned Lamont's win in Connecticut has energized the Republican Right to significantly expand their political offensive...The new Call-to-Arms seems to center on the phrase "Islamic Fascism" and all the fear that phrase conjures up in the voters mind.

In reality, the "War on Terrorism" or the new phrase "Islamic Fascism" is nothing more than a smoke screen to cover up the ineptitude of the current Power Brokers....Individuals who have made a fine art of emulating the "Peter Principle", which, simply stated, is that "In a hierarchically structured administration, people tend to be promoted up to their level of incompetence". Taking the Principle a bit farther, the 4th Addendum to "The Peter Principle" States: "You cannot embarrass an imposter in a large organization, they don't know enough to be embarrassed"...And lastly, the 6th Addendum to "The Peter Principle" States: "Nepotism is a career path not a business strategy". The basic "Peter Principle" and selected addendums add a whole new meaning to the statement: "You're doing a heck of a job Brownie"...for both the employer and his employees!

Hopefully, the electorate is beginning to wake up? We desperately need to hold our elected officials accountable! Longevity and incumbency should no longer be considered a badge of honor, as it breeds corruption and greed. We should demand term limits to begin an infusion of new ideas and professionalism in our government! Contrary to what the Republicans believe, control of both houses of Congress and the Executive Branch is not a positive environment...we have no check and balance of power. We need to demand civility and honest debate by our politicians. Most importantly, we need bipartisan cooperation for critical issues...Dream World? I hope NOT! Our survival as a nation is at stake!!

Posted by: M. Stewart | August 14, 2006 5:47 AM | Report abuse

Is it really 'within the executive's inherent powers' to ignore the Constitution?

Posted by: Drindl | August 13, 2006 6:35 PM | Report abuse

Zathras -- Thanks for the links, I'll make sure to check out the discussion.

Posted by: Colin | August 13, 2006 2:40 PM | Report abuse


Jack Balkin's blog has some excellent discussion of each of these legal issues you mention. In the main, what you say is correct. One interesting point Balkin makes about in discussing domestic surveillance and FISA is is that just because a power is within the executive's inherent powers does not mean it cannot be modified through legislation.

Posted by: Zathras | August 13, 2006 2:30 PM | Report abuse

"To argue otherwise would effectively erode the very core of our democracy. Are you really arguing in favor of that?"

I'm afraid that's precisely what these people want. They are so cowardly and craven they're completely willing to trash the Constitution so they can cower in the corner hoping some Daddy figure will protect them.

So much for 'live free or die'...

Posted by: Drindl | August 13, 2006 1:22 PM | Report abuse

Quentin - would you care to cite your legal sources for the proposition that GWB has the inherent power to authorize surveillance in a manner that directly contradicts a law passed by the United States Congress? B/c that is what we're really talking about. Democrats think that the FISA court, according to the provisions of that statute, should approve Domestic surveillance of US CITIZENS. Which, incidentally, allow for RETROACTIVE approval up to 30 days after engaging in wiretapping so as to allow for emergencies.

As far as legal arguments regarding domestic surveillance goes, the legal community OVERWHELMINGLY views the existing program as illegal. The American Bar Association has expressly condemned the program. Legal scholars as diverse as Orin Kerr and David Cole have stated that the program is not justified either by inherent presidential powers or by any ridiculous assertions that Congress' authorization of the Iraq war implicitly approved a program the members of Congress didn't know about. Moreover, your argument flies directly in the face of Justice Jackson's famous opinion in the Steel Seizures case about presidential power.

Whether or not this type of surveillance is good policy - and I personally think it is, as long as there is judicial oversight - we should expect the president of the United States to follow the law. Although I agree that the Executive clearly has inherent powers that they can exercise in times of emergency, those powers do not extend indefinitely or allow the executive to continually IGNORE laws that they don't like. To argue otherwise would effectively erode the very core of our democracy. Are you really arguing in favor of that?

Posted by: Colin | August 13, 2006 1:01 PM | Report abuse

Did you ever see Dick Cheney so happy? Like he found out there was a plot to kill thousands of americans and he's overjoyed! I mean, republicans all over were thrilled, couldn't control their glee, talked about how 'well this would play' in the elction. Sickness, Culture of Death. I can't stomach it. I pray that somehow people will see thrugh it this time.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 13, 2006 12:20 PM | Report abuse

The Democrats' and Republicans' definitions of surveillance are significantly diferent.

Apparently most Republicans have never read the Constitution, although they regulary cite the "intent of the Founding Fathers."

They see no boundaries in spite of what the 4th Amendment requires:

"Amendment IV

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Democrats see boundaries. Otherwise, we are a governemt of facists.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | August 13, 2006 11:53 AM | Report abuse

>>>Your claim that the Democrats do not oppose surveillance simply does not accord with the facts

Quentin, you are either totally ignorant or a GOP shill.

The Democrats have NEVER EVER EVER opposed surveillance. The ENTIRE issue with the NSA is OVERSIGHT. Cmon now, say it with me: O-V-E-R-S-I-G-H-T.

Good boy.

Posted by: F&B | August 13, 2006 11:33 AM | Report abuse

You're delusional, quentin. Completely twisting the available evidence to suit your twisted, warped view of the world. I can't reason with a partisan lunatic. bye bye...

Posted by: Anonymous | August 13, 2006 11:32 AM | Report abuse

Drindl, you are getting better. You are at least quoting sources now. Yes, Time had just one source, which is 100% more than you were citing above. Now you have added a few. Unfortunately, you are equating absence of evidence with evidence of absence. Neither you, nor The Guardian, has any idea when US intelligence services found out about this issue. Because you don't know that they found out beforehand, you assume that they didn't. That is not exactly an exercise in first class thinking skills.

Because Time is the only medium you know of that turned up this particular source, it must be wrong? Sorry, that is obvious nonsense. Worth questioning, possibly. Obviously wrong, that's just pathetic. You are jumping to conclusions on a partisan basis, which is no way to conduct a review of intelligence.

Your ridiculous point about when Dick Cheney found out - again, you have no real idea - is irrelevant anyway. Why would it have been discussed with the VPOTUS whenever US intelligence became involved? Tony Blair and John Reid would not have been informed until the last minute either.

Your claim that the Democrats do not oppose surveillance simply does not accord with the facts, and the nonsense about only wanting the 'rule of law' is more partisan ranting. The constitution hasn't changed since Bill Clinton authorised surveillance, nor since the Supreme Court said that Congress had no power to regulate the President's inherent powers as commander in chief.

For the President to exercise his inherent powers - in just the same way as every President since Lincoln has done - is not a breach of the rule of law, nor, incidentally, any different to the way such powers are exercised in the UK.

Your position appears to be that when a Democrat (or Labour) politician does something this is within the rule of law and when a Republican does the same thing it is not. The US constitution recognises no such distinctions.

Quentin Langley
Editor of

Posted by: Quentin Langley | August 13, 2006 4:46 AM | Report abuse

Could the condi suckups keep it a little shorter? You can't imagine how your fantasizing bores the rest of us.

And Quentin, Joe Klien is a Leiberman, DLC dem. Which is in name only. all he ever does is trash democrats. a phoney.

Posted by: Drndl | August 12, 2006 5:06 PM | Report abuse

I didn't say you personally -- read MY post.

The Time story had one anonymous quote. Do you really consider that credible. Check out the accounts at NYTimes, London Guardian or Inquirer, Washington Post, Toronto Star, to name a few. Cheney and other are quotes as having found out about it last week. Never trust a single source.

And Democrats are not resisting surveillance. If you want a straw man, that's it. We are asking for the kind of judicial oversight which the British have. they call it 'the rule of law'. We used to have it here too. We had it when Clinton stopped a similar plot back in, I believe, 1995.

We want surviellance, we just don't want a dictatorship. Do you? Do you really want one man, or a small group of bureaucrats to decide whether your whole life should be invaded?

Posted by: Drindl | August 12, 2006 4:56 PM | Report abuse


I didn't say that Time - with its continuing left wing bias, including the space it gives to Joe Klein - is a wholly credible source. I said it is MORE credible that than the wholly unsubstantiated and unsourced word of one anonymous blogger. This does not, logically, mean that you are wrong. Just that nobody is likely to give much credence to your unsupported assertions on matters upon which you appear to know nothing. You offer not the slightest reason for suggesting when the administration found out about this, and no-one here believes that you are in the confidence of the President or the CIA. You are asserting that you know when they found out about this. You don't. You made it up, or you are repeating something that someone else made up. You have no sources.

As for the anonymous poster who said this was the stupidest thing he/she had ever read, you didn't read it properly. Pay more attention before commenting next time.

I did not say that the Democrats want to see Americans, or anyone else killed. Though thank you for introducing me to your friend the strawman. I hear he hasn't got a brain. Is that why you are friends?

I said that the Democrats are resisting the policy which turned up the key evidence in this case. As Time reported, that came from telephone intercepts. The Democrats ARE resisting this policy, as you may have heard.

Quentin Langley
Editor of

Posted by: Quentin Langley | August 12, 2006 1:29 PM | Report abuse

Howdy from Crawford, home of our President. Has anyone reported how much the news companies pay in rent to our local school so that they can use the gym for press conferences? The media sets up long rows of tables to pound their computers or click their cameras. It brings thousands and thousands of dollars to the state, with media staying at WACO hotels, (and even a few stay at CRICKETS motel, known for a wakeup call right on your bed once in awhile.

Now, if you all have heard about the CONDI 2008 sign near Crawford, that is because hundreds of Texas folk donated money to create and put up the sign. Great message.

Today, the Washington Post had offered an early story about Condi and her efforts to create a ceasefire in the Israel-Lebanon conflict. On one hand, it praises Condi for bending the State Department to her will and using her relationship with Bush to soften him a bit.

Saddle up, and let's take a look-see at this article by James Mann, author of "THE VULCANS", about the Bush War Cabinet.

I will debate a few of Mann's points:

In Mideast, It's Condi's Fight Now By James Mann Sunday, August 13, 2006
(Connie comment: Instead of Cowboy Diplomacy, we now have CONDIPLOMACY.)

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice now faces the biggest crisis of her career. America's role in the Middle East is in danger of falling apart -- and it is her job to put it back together. As she sifts through the damage wrought by the month-long conflict in Lebanon and witnesses the intensifying violence in Iraq, her political future and vision of U.S. foreign policy as a transforming force in the Middle East hang in the balance. This, like none other, is Rice's moment.
(Connie comment: CONDIPLOMACY will use her skills with foreign policy to put in place a long-term ceasefire.)

Nothing she has done quite prepares her for this role. Throughout nearly a decade in government, Rice has combined many talents -- a striking public persona, political savvy, a knack for the bureaucratic infighting inherent in U.S. foreign policy, and the ability to avoid blame when things go awry.
(Connie's comment: like former General George Marshall, who became Eisenhower's Secretary of State; Condi will reshape the Middle East. Setting aside finances to achieve these goals. Does anyone else but me know that is took 3 years to create, finance, and pass through Congress the rebuilding program called the Marshall Plan after WW2 ended in 1945?)

You can read the entire article on Washington Post. But allow me to add more items:

If Rice fails and the turmoil in the Middle East worsens, the adulatory coverage of her tenure at the State Department will dry up. For the first two years, the public perceptions of Rice -- the boots! the dresses! the snooze on the floor of the plane! -- concentrated more on her personality than on her modest diplomatic record. So far as secretary, Rice has worked hard, with some success, to improve relations with European governments and to ease the hard-edged unilateralism that typified Bush's first term. But she has failed to produce far-reaching diplomatic breakthroughs on more urgent problems, such as North Korea's nuclear program.
(Connie's comment: will James Mann come out with congratulations on a job well done if Condi is successful over the next year? Or will he just give credit to every other person but Condi for any success?)

Of course, Rice enjoys the one asset that these two predecessors lacked: a close working relationship with the president of the United States. Indeed, her ascent to the top of the Bush foreign-policy team was underscored less than three months ago, when Bush agreed, at Rice's urging, to offer Iran direct talks over its nuclear program. That action reversed more than two decades of U.S. policy; it also aroused outraged protests from neoconservatives such as Richard Perle, who in these pages accused the administration of "an ignominious retreat."

Rice's rise within the foreign-policy elite was based in part on her ability to smooth over battles with people such as Perle, or to avoid the battles altogether. In terms of policy and philosophy, the Early Condi was a straddler. In her first big job, as a National Security Council specialist on the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe under President George H.W. Bush, the administration was divided over how to deal with Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev. Did he truly represent significant change? How much support should Washington lend him? Rice avoided closely identifying with either the hawks or the doves in these intra-administration debates.

Rice's talent for bridging differences within the Republican camp was part of her appeal to George W. Bush when he first ran for president. Since the 1970s, the Republicans have been beset by divisions over foreign policy. On one side are the realists, the wing of the party symbolized by former secretary of state Henry A. Kissinger and former national security adviser (and Rice mentor) Brent Scowcroft; they emphasize balance-of-power diplomacy. On the other are the conservatives and neoconservatives, the wing symbolized by President Ronald Reagan; they put a premium on values, such as political freedom, in foreign policy. These disputes had weakened the party and helped contribute to the defeat of two Republican presidents: Gerald R. Ford and, more important, George H.W. Bush, who was never able to win the support and enthusiasm of Reagan Republicans.

Rice's mission for the current president was to make sure it didn't happen again. She courted neoconservatives, suggesting that the differences within the party were more imagined than genuine. During the 2000 campaign, in which Rice served as Bush's principal foreign-policy adviser, he gave speeches calling for "realism in the service of ideals." Later, when the Bush administration drafted its first National Security Strategy in 2002, under Rice's direction, the document called for "a balance of power that favors human freedom." In each case, these careful formulations combine one nod to the Kissinger wing of the party (realism, balance of power) and one to the Reagan wing (ideals, human freedom).

Much of the commentary about Rice has jumped too far into the future, ignoring the perils and challenges that remain for the final years of the Bush administration. Pundits love to speculate about Rice as a potential candidate for national office, perhaps as a Republican vice presidential nominee. These breezy predictions overlook the many risks inherent in her current predicament.
(Connie's comment: James Mann just could not allow the topic of Condi as a contender for president slip from his fingertips. Yet, even if she became VP, would he lay a few political landmines in her way to the White House? He should come to Crawford and see the Condi 2008 sign. My hats is off to the people who raised the money at the Texas state convention, created the sign, and held a dedication which the Waco Tribune-Herald reported along with local news.)
Connie says: Come on over to the Western White House and see Texas/Republican/Bush stuff. There is even a "44--Condi 2008" button.

44 means she would be the 44th president and that is the nickname Bush gave her. WINK WINK.

Posted by: Crawford Connie | August 12, 2006 1:27 PM | Report abuse

Thanks F&B, you always give good source. And che too --lots of good info. But hard to assimilate. Do you spose you could condense some, so it isn't so hard to read?

F&B, our entire 'homeland security' system is now so politicized it is functionally useless. Who do they spy on? environmentalists, vegans, feminists, anti-war protestors -- democrats.

It isn't terrorists or 'fascists' or 'islamisists' that our government has declared war on -- it's us. Democrats. We are demonized and marginalized at every opportunity, in every way. On TV, on th radio, in the papers, in the 'liberal' media.

We are told we are godless, we are traitors, we are commies, we are appeasers, we are weak, we are bad parents. You name it, we are guilty of it. Just like the Jews in Germany were demonized. With the exact same language. It is us they feel is the real threat. It is us they would like to kill. Many of them come right out and say it.

Terrorists have nothing to fear from this administration. Bush and bin Ladin's goal is the same -- armageddon. Worldwide, nuclear relgious war. That's where we're going, folks. If the republicans win in November, that's where we'll be, in short order.

Posted by: Drindl | August 12, 2006 1:26 PM | Report abuse

Che is really on fire lately..........

This is a really interesting article that illustrates just how bad our homeland protection is compared to Great Britain.

"The disclosure that British officials conducted months of surveillance before arresting 24 terrorism suspects this week highlighted what many terrorism specialists said was a central difference between American and British law enforcement agencies.

The British, they say, are more willing to wait and watch.


Daniel Benjamin, a counterterrorism specialist in the National Security Council in the Clinton administration, said the apparent success of the British surveillance operation -- and the failure of the F.B.I. to identify and disrupt any similar terrorist cell in the United States since Sept. 11 -- argued for creation of an American counterpart to MI5. "The F.B.I. has still not risen to the domestic intelligence task," he said."

Posted by: F&B | August 12, 2006 1:04 PM | Report abuse

The difference between surveillance in this country and Britain: Competence and the rule of law:

"Today's fascinating Washington Post account of how a British-led team of investigators prevented the attack confirms his suspicion. However, it's worth pointing out one key difference between the British way and the new American way of surveillance: Barring some unforeseen and massively scandalous revelation, British investigators, in all cases, have to obtain and comply with court-issued warrants for any surveillance. This week's counter-terrorism success should demonstrate how possible it is, and remains, for open-society to combat jihadism while preserving the rule of law."

Even the neocons admit that Porter Goss destroyed the FBI. How much more damage have they done? How much worse off are we than BEFORE 9/11?

Posted by: Drindl | August 12, 2006 12:29 PM | Report abuse

I might add that the best intellligence the British got, what really cinched it for them, was from the Muslim community, who turned in the plotters.

For all you knee-jerk Muslim haters out there.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 12, 2006 12:23 PM | Report abuse

'But as I said, if by 1 year, the Middle East is not better off and more stable'

Umm, I wouldn't count on it, since things have been going steadily downhill for five years now. Quite purposefully downhill.

Condi as warrior princess? You are precious, tina, really precious. I bet you like her stiletto heeled boots, too.

Posted by: Drindl | August 12, 2006 12:20 PM | Report abuse

"The most frightening thing about the foiled plot to use liquid explosives to blow up airplanes over the Atlantic is that both the government and the aviation industry have been aware of the liquid bomb threat for years but have done little to prepare for it. What saved everyone was apparently superb intelligence work by the British, who apprehended the terrorists before they could carry out their scheme."

Posted by: Drindl | August 12, 2006 12:17 PM | Report abuse

Ok, on the Condi policy in the UN. She is the one who gets credit for bringing all of the other 14 members of the Security Council to the table to agree on this resolution which passed 15 to zero on Friday night. She met with PM Olmert (she also speaks for the president) so there was no need for Bush to call Olmert himself.

This going to be seen as a success or as a disaster in 1 year. By that time, if the Middle East is less at war, more stable, and getting back on their feet, then Condi gets full credit.

To Lola and to CW, the reason you have not seen the Condi for President people in S Carolina is that they are raising money and building a team. You can go to to see the Crawford Texas billboard which might appear in S Carolina next year as well. (thank you FIX for allowing me to come in here and share Condi news with your readers.)

On the California will be a CONDI win in 2008, consider this: at the recent California state convention, only Condi was at the top with the delegates, she was chosen over Rudy or McCain or anyone else. California Republicans admire and respect her and see Condi as a contender. If she is on the primary ballot, she wins all of the delegates and she will also win Southern states too.

But as I said, if by 1 year, the Middle East is not better off and more stable, with economic buzz and jobs for their people, then as I said, the conditions for Condi to run will be less viable. But she would still be a great VP, bringing strong diplomatic skills to the office.

I look forward to seeing more news about Condi in the Washington Post. So thank you all for helping to debate the issue of Condi as our next president. In my opinion, this UN resolutions for a ceasefire would not have passed without her. And that is one reason why she has the strength of Margaret Thatcher, and the backbone of Golda Mier, and the reality of mind like a Warrior Princess, ready to do battle for her nation.

Posted by: Tina | August 12, 2006 12:15 PM | Report abuse

'while a knowledgeable American official says U.S. intelligence provided London authorities with intercepts of the group's communications.'

You believe Time? Yeah, because they're so credible. What with having Ann Coulter on the cover and reprinting her filth. I'll tell you somethig -- I used to write for Time. And they WERE credible, about 20 years ago. But that was before the success of People mag caused them to trash any serious effort at journalism and turned Time into a mass market tabloid.

'a knowledgeable American official' -- I don't suppose this personal has a name or office? --how can you put any credence in a blind anonymous quote like that? It's a joke. I have read numerous accounts from credible sources around the world, and none have mentioned any american help with this.

Face it, you can pour all the billions you want down the rat hote that is this administration and it will disappear like all that went before it. Every competent person in government has been replaced by an incompetent crony who is only there to suck the taxpayers dry.

Try believing the evidence of your senses for a change, instead of believing in liars and fabricators and propagandists.

Posted by: Drindl | August 12, 2006 12:06 PM | Report abuse

damn-- you got us. We democrats have been trying for years to get Americans killed. We just love those terrorists so damn much...Ah well. Guess you figured us out. By the way, QL- that is possibly one the stupidest things ive ever heard.

(Also, I'm your neighbor-- I live out in Walton.)

Posted by: Anonymous | August 12, 2006 10:44 AM | Report abuse

Drindl says:

No one in our entire government had a freaking clue. Thank God for British intelligence.

TIME says:

while a knowledgeable American official says U.S. intelligence provided London authorities with intercepts of the group's communications.

Frankly, I believe Time. They at least claim to have a source for their comment. Drindl cites no source and I have never found him/her reliable in the past.

As a Brit, living within 30 minutes of Heathrow, I am glad that American intelligence is on the case. Despite the clear attempts by the opposition party in the US to frustrate them.

Quentin Langley
Editor of

Posted by: Anonymous | August 12, 2006 9:50 AM | Report abuse

The Fix faithfully reports on which presidential campaigns are adding more paid staff and on the campaigns' donation patterns, as they apparently subscribe to the late Townes Van Zandt's theorem: If you want good friends, it's gonna cost you.

Then, when presidential candidates reach the point, often early in the primary process, where their campaigns are flat broke, they will uniformly lay the blame on the high cost of television advertising.

When two candidates for a Senate seat in South Dakota spend a combined $34,657,594, as they did two years ago, too many political consultants are being paid too much money, because you cannot spend anywhere near that much on media in that state. It cannot be done within an election cycle--even an eleven-month election cycle.

I guess the candidates are too embarrassed to say "I spent the money I squeezed out of you on polling to discover where I stand on issues and on the purchase of very expensive conventional wisdom."

Posted by: LonestarJR | August 12, 2006 9:00 AM | Report abuse

A post like Che's deserves very little comment, but in case there are young people reading these, let me point out that referring to something as a "known fact" does not make it true. Headlining "proof" and following it with wild speculation instead of evidence doesn't prove anything.

TO: RMill
Thanks for your reports on state tracking polls. One needn't believe totally in polls' predictive powers to become addicted to them. SPECIAL NOTE: The letter 'a' does not appear in the word "incumbent." I promise this is true.

Posted by: LonestarJR | August 12, 2006 8:39 AM | Report abuse

It is a coinsidence that the terror plot has been discovered after Lieberman has lost the Democratic primary.



For uncensored news please go to:

Posted by: che | August 12, 2006 8:01 AM | Report abuse

Greg in L.A. - Big Dig? Romney gets credit for lookng good after the lady was crushed by the ceiling? Or, Romney gets blamed for not having done anything since the tunnel floods of a couple of years ago?

Posted by: Nor'Easter | August 11, 2006 11:28 PM | Report abuse


Jim DeMint got more votes in SC than any other R ever has, save GWB. Organizationally and on the ground the DeMint campaign wiped the floor with the Tenenbaum campaign. Tenenbaum only gained traction by lying about DeMint's position on taxes.

If you are looking for a field director wouldn't you want somebody who just came off the biggest win of any state elected official?

Posted by: Upstater | August 11, 2006 11:20 PM | Report abuse

Two words: Big Dig

Posted by: Greg in LA | August 11, 2006 10:56 PM | Report abuse

Hey Will. Speaking of "Soft on Terror" check THIS out:

Bush Staff Wanted Bomb-Detect Cash Moved

While the British terror suspects were hatching their plot, the Bush administration was quietly seeking permission to divert $6 million that was supposed to be spent this year developing new homeland explosives detection technology.


The administration's most recent budget request also mystified lawmakers. It asked to take $6 million from Homeland S&T's 2006 budget that was supposed to be used to develop explosives detection technology and instead divert it to cover a budget shortfall in the Federal Protective Service, which provides security around government buildings.

Bush is SICK in the head. Demented. Dangerous. Risking American's lives and actively creating holes in security on purpose. Just unimaginable. Read the whole article. It is mind-blowing.

Posted by: F&B | August 11, 2006 9:16 PM | Report abuse

I'll tell you a Democratic nominee who could carry a red state: Mark Warner. The Repubs, of course, would try to paint him as a left wing extremist (That seems to be their main campaign strategy, no matter who the candidate.) but it would be hard to do.

Warner makes Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Georgia, Louisiana, Arkansas and Florida competitive. He wouldn't carry them all, and he wouldn't need to.

Now, name a single blue state Warner would lose.

If the Democrats want to win in 2008, they will nominate Mark Warner.

Posted by: redstater | August 11, 2006 8:48 PM | Report abuse

It's amusing that, even with an entire week heads up to plan campaign materials and slogans, the best the Reds in the White House could do was mumble about "soft on terror", when the track record shows they haven't done SQUAT for LONGER than the USA fought World War II.

Yup, more than Five Years (like any good Red, that's how the Bushies think) of Failure.

Incompetence and Failure don't win votes. Iraq is not just a Quagmire, it has ZIP to do with fighting al-Qaeda, except by giving them a very lucrative recruiting ground worldwide as they succeed in their aims.

Time to pull the plug and defend our ports, not their ports. And time to stop bleeding money in no-bid red commie contracts.

Posted by: Will in Seattle | August 11, 2006 8:15 PM | Report abuse

Romney got a higher vote (41%) against Kennedy in 1994 than any other opponent before or since. He's got a solid record of accomplishment as governor, a take-charge personality, a sophisticated demeanor, a squeaky-clean personal background, a wonderful record of public service and a great business background. Plus, he can talk issues like no Republican presidential candidate in decades, and he seems to have the right policy priorities (defense/homeland security, education, healthcare, competitiveness) for the country. McCain and Rudy won't get the GOP nomination. The Democrats better hope that Allen (if he runs) beats Romney, because Romney will be awfully difficult for the Democrats to beat.

Posted by: Mark | August 11, 2006 8:11 PM | Report abuse

this is one of the most off topic and ridiculous forums EVER. I like how it went from MITT ROMNEY to terror and the NSA. And how did CONDI the unelectable get into the mix. Let's face the facts, both white republicans and democrats are more inclined to vote for the other party if a african american runs for office, any office. Next CONDI is a woman who again are at political disadvatage.(see article written by washington post). I believe as much as the next voter that a female and or minority president should be elected but it looks for the next few elections that it would be unlikely for that to happen.

Posted by: wow | August 11, 2006 7:32 PM | Report abuse

It doesn't matter of the Bush league types somehow stumbled onto this plot or not, you can be CERTAIN that they will use for campaign fodder. Ever since they discovered that flashing those red-yellow-orange-green idiot "terrorist alter: lights they have been using the to scare the bejesus out of soccer moms and NASCAR bed wetters. And these fools vote for Bush and th whack jobs suporting him. So loom for them to try it again. I hope my party has come up with something to counter this this time around - maybe hire a reallly good comedy writer to come up with some lines that embarrass people for buying this crap.

Posted by: MikeB | August 11, 2006 6:30 PM | Report abuse

Everything I have heard so far indicates that the bush administration, for all the billions it has spent on surveillance and homeland security, had no clue about this planned attack until last week, Wednesday, apparently when they were told by the Brits.

They're too busy eavesdropping on dangerous PETA bunny-huggers and vicious peace demonstrators to be bothered to look for actual terrorists.

Posted by: Drindl | August 11, 2006 5:56 PM | Report abuse

5:27 post

What planet are you on saying "in fact, the American NSA program that was essential in breaking up this terror plot".

It was the Brits who had the lead on this one from everything I read.

In fact the conservatives used that to attack the Democrats yesterday saying that their alleged resistance to funding anti-terrorist things was the reason the Brits were on top of it an we weren't.

I suppose the RNC will spin this one as a demonstration of the skill of DHS and the wisdom of the President with the assistance of a truly farsighted Republican majority who deserves our votes in November.

And I will get elected next Pope if you believe that.

Posted by: everyman | August 11, 2006 5:37 PM | Report abuse

'It was, in fact, the American NSA program that was essential in breaking up this terror plot.'

That wasn't referenced in any account I have seen so far. Provide links, please.

If this program actually does something besides spy on reporters and democrats, I might even support it.

Posted by: Drindl | August 11, 2006 5:34 PM | Report abuse

There will probably be one real good Terror scare within 30 days, or maybe a couple of weeks before the election. Cynical really.

If it's real, GW can declare martial law and suspend the elections. Cynical again. Sorry.

But there is hope. For all of the energy here and on other blogs about the administration's manipulation of this weeks terror threat, stocks didn't act strangely. Folks were pretty blaise.

Terror threats will get like commercials. People hit the mute button and 'zone' them out.

Posted by: poor richard | August 11, 2006 5:31 PM | Report abuse

>>But after 6 years of incoherent staggering, stumbling and bumbling, including their utter unaware clueless about this last plot, maybe that will change.<<

It was, in fact, the American NSA program that was essential in breaking up this terror plot.

You know....the same NSA that the democrats leaked to the press and was given a national spolight about?

Dont think I can trust someone who cant even trust his own countries programs for TRYING to track down these fanatics.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 11, 2006 5:27 PM | Report abuse

Sorry, 'it's comments like these' should have been in quotes.

And they will do anything to win. Anything.It's time to grow up and admit that.

I have to say, there seems less enthusiasm for Mitt than anyone so far. Maybe that's because he'll just be more of the same. But he does have really good hair.

Posted by: Drindl | August 11, 2006 5:21 PM | Report abuse

Condi won't run -- there's too much in her closet. And I don't mean Prada pumps.

>>How about another 'terror attack'? Hmm? How much you wanna bet we get one?<<

It's comments like these.....that puts the democratic party in the loss column during times of war.

During 'times of war'? Don't you understand, it will always be a 'time of war' now? Why Dems have lost was because republicans had a far better PR machine, and convinced people they could protect them better. But after 6 years of incoherent staggering, stumbling and bumbling, including their utter unaware clueless about this last plot, maybe that will change.

Apparently we were very close to massive numbers of people in this country being murdered -- again -- and again, el prez was on vacation and nobody in our entire government knew a bloody thing. Brilliant. In fact, they knew even less than last time. Maybe we should elect Tony Blair. At least he has a functioning brain.

Posted by: Drindl | August 11, 2006 5:13 PM | Report abuse

Crummy topic. Romney is trying to fly in under the radar screen to the nomination. He is as scary as GWB sould have been before he ran in 2000. So I suppose he should be taken seriously.

He seems to be establishing a stealth campaign. We won't know what his real positions on things are until afterthe democrats shoot themselves in the foot al let him get elected as a moderate. We could name this "Junior Syndrome".

Changing gears, after the duplicitousness the Republican conservatives have shown Condi, I find it hard to believe she hasn't walked yet.

Point well taken that no one knows her positions onthigs. All she has ever done is dutifully mouthed the administration's line.

She did not look very convincing in the press photo ops out of her Grand Lebanon Adventure last week.

Her background is old Cold War and I don't know if she appreciates the twists and turns the current insurgency type warfare takes. If she did she would not have let the current occupant of the White House do the obsviously culturally illiterate policy moves he has done.

Or maybe AIPAC has more clout at the white house than the cabinet.

I hate Fridays. Maybe Stephanopuolis will have some entertaining head shots on Sunday morning after this weeks PR follies.

Posted by: poor richard | August 11, 2006 5:08 PM | Report abuse

Condi seens a very nice lady. That is why,in my view, she just don't have the stomach for a run for elective political office.

Posted by: lylepink | August 11, 2006 4:55 PM | Report abuse

J. Crozier. I see your point and really do understand what you are saying. It's just, from what I have seen of "official" Washington, this is the way the game is played. Now, I certainly woldn't argue with you about changing the games rules. I think Washington insiders have made a mess of things and would be quite happy to throw most of them out, along woth their media friends. But, that would also rish tossing some pretty good people, too, who have been playing the game by the given rules becasue they really believe, once they "get there", that can make changes for the better. People like Charley Rangel, John Kerry, John Edwards, Al Gore, Barney Frank, and other Democrats too numerous to mention are all truly excellent leaders (My, isn't our side blessed with an embarrasment of riches!) and all are playing the Washington insider game to one degree or another.

Posted by: MikeB | August 11, 2006 4:44 PM | Report abuse

The Survey USA poll which has Linc Chaffee at a 48% Approval rating, has him at 46% disapproval.

The segments of the grouped polled which disapprove of him are Republican (51% to 45%), Conservative (56% to 43%) and Race (Hispanic 49% to 43% and "Other" 55% to 42% - which is weird because there aren't really a lot of "others" in Rhode Island).

Given that the Republican and Conservative segment both disapprove by 6 to 7 percentage points, Linc is really facing a daunting task.

32 days and counting.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | August 11, 2006 4:34 PM | Report abuse

I guess I'm just saying: If Condi DOES run then she has to eventually say where she stands on the policies she carried out.

Was she in favor of them? If so, she was in favor of policies that turned out poorly.

Was she against them? If so, she carried out policies she knew were bad. Why?

Posted by: J. Crozier | August 11, 2006 4:16 PM | Report abuse


I understand what you're saying. I really do. She's carrying out the policies of others, not advancing her own views.

But my basic point stands: If the policies have been disasterous ones, and she's the one who has executed them, then she is kind of in a bad situation out the gate if she does decide to run.

I'm not putting words in her mouth, just wondering how she would escape her current dilemna. If she tries to distance herself from the policies that she carried out on behalf of el Presidente, then she was a bit of a wimp for carrying out policies that she didn't agree with. Alternatively, she would do anything, even carry out policies she didn't agree with, to stay close to power. Neither are flattering options.

OR, if she tries to distance herself from those policies, and people don't believe her, then she gets painted as a liar for saying she was against the policies when she really agreed with them.

Or, she could decide NOT to distance herself from the policies and say she agrees with them...and run on her record. And, being a liberal myself, I can't see how that would be a popular option in '08 unless things miraculously turn around overseas. Most Americans think that our foreign policy is a disaster currently. (Maybe RMill can find some polls on this.)

My main point is she's stuck in a position where she has to either embrace the policies she carried out - and live with the fact that most people don't like those policies - or run from the policies she carried out and be vulnerable to being called (pick one)

A. A powerhungry politician who will carry out policies she hates to stay in power
B. A weak person who isn't willing to stand up and say something is wrong if she believes it is
C. A liar if people think she really WAS for the policies she carried out and is just claiming to not be in order to get elected.

I don't see how any of these options are winning options for someone trying to run for National office without some seriously good finesse and spin.

Posted by: J. Crozier | August 11, 2006 4:14 PM | Report abuse

Sorry, meant to say that Cantwell is the most vulnerable DEM incumbent

Posted by: Greg-G | August 11, 2006 4:12 PM | Report abuse

RMill, my friend, once again you have beaten me to the punch. Here's my Senate Top 10 Line:

1. PA--Ricky's finally showing some signs of life, but it may be too late.

2. RI--I thought Linc was going to pull this one out, but it's looking less and less likely, as he continues to lose ground in both the primary and the general. The surprisingly tight governor's race is only aggrevating his situation.

3. MT--I don't really put much credence in the poll that came out today; Burns' favorability ratings are still lower than Santorum

4. OH--DeWine is in real trouble; and Blackwell's getting slaughtered in the gov's race. DeWine hasn't really made any political mistakes recently, but the environment is so toxic that it may be out of his control.

5. MO--I've had my doubts about whether McCaskill can win this, but she has a smart strategy, and is credible in the rural parts of the state. I think she can pull this out, but I also think this will be the closest Senate race come election night.

6. WA--Still think Cantwell is the most vulnerable incumbent, but she is improving after running her first round of ads. McGaverick is a strong candidate, though

7. TN--Ford's done a nice job, but I think Corker's win in the primary has sealed the deal for the R's in Nov.

"8-10" AZ, MI, NJ, NV, VA: I think the incumbent will win each of these at this point, but their numbers are all soft and could get more competitive depending on their opponent's fund-raising and overall national atmosphere


Posted by: Greg-G | August 11, 2006 4:10 PM | Report abuse

RMill was right. A "Friday line" would have helped.

Look at the waste of time and electrons Tina was able to start because there was no Friday line.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | August 11, 2006 4:08 PM | Report abuse

J. Crozier - I didn't say I would vote for her. I have no idea of where she stands of issues that are important to me. That she is a Republican at all likely means I would disagree with her on choice, the envronment, energy policy, national health care, tax cuts, foreign policy, and a lot of other important things. But, I've been around long enough to understand that there ARE honest Republican's out there. Some may even make pretty good Presidents.....but outside of Mr. Powell and a very few others, I cnnot imagine any. Condi is simply following in the footsteps of every active Sec of State and advocating the policies of the White House she serves. She is no different than *ANY* past representative of an administration, Republican or Democrat. That isn't dishonest, it is simply the way things are...traditional...for better or for worse. Don't try and put words in her mouth that she may not agree with, is all I am saying.

Posted by: MikeB | August 11, 2006 4:02 PM | Report abuse

Friday Line
US Senate
Poll Updates

Addition to my posts yesterday regarding US Senate

August 8
Tester (D) 48%
Burns (R)* 48%

New Jersey
Menendez (D)* 44%
Kean Jr. (R) 38%

Special Note:

Dem Primary
Akaka* 47%
Case 45%

General Matchups
Akaka (D)* 58%
Coffee (R) 31%

Case (D) 63%
Coffee (R) 21%

Not in danger of party switch but losing another incumbant US Senator in a primary. Add to CT, and the possible RI Rep primary race could be historic to lose 3 incumbant Senators in primaries in one year.

Posted by: RMill | August 11, 2006 3:49 PM | Report abuse


That's part of the problem with a Condi ticket: how in the world are we supposed to know where she really stands? All we have to go on are her support for the Bush policies. No matter how they may eventually turn out, RIGHT NOW, they aren't exactly shining examples of successes.

Are we just supposed to take Condi at her word if she eventually says, "You know, it was my job to execute the decisions of the president at the time even though I did not agree with them."

If we take her at her word, then we have to accept that she was willing to advance policies that she stringently disagreed with and therefore she is a wimp for not quitting in protest. Instead, she chose to advance policies that she knew were disasters in the making. (My current opinion of Colin Powell. If he truly disagreed with Bush as much as he claimed afterwards then he should have quit and made his disagreements known, not lied to the U.N. and the world.)

Alternatively, we choose to disbelieve her which means that she truly supported all the Bush policies and that she is a liar for claiming otherwise.

So at this point either Condi is a wimp for going along with something she knew was going to lead to disaster, or a liar for claiming she wasn't for the policies when she really was. Neither one really endear her to me as a candidate for president.

Add onto that the frequent whispers that, whenever things get tough, Cheney steps in and pushes Condi aside and I still ask: what are her qualifications to be president?

She has been National Security Adviser during the biggest attack on U.S. soil since the Pearl Harbor bombings, and she's been Secretary of State during a period of time that has seen virtually the entire world start to hate us. The former indicates a failure of her job to predict and prevent attacks on the U.S. The latter indicates a failure to be an effective diplomat on the world stage.

Posted by: J. Crozier | August 11, 2006 2:59 PM | Report abuse

>>How about another 'terror attack'? Hmm? How much you wanna bet we get one?<<

It's comments like these.....that puts the democratic party in the loss column during times of war.

Posted by: AeroFANatic | August 11, 2006 2:48 PM | Report abuse

J. Crozier - I really hate beig out in this position because I'm a Democrat, but Condi functioned exactly like every good Sec of State functions. We haven't got much of an idea of what she really believes except Bush allowed her to voice her support (in oppositon to him) for affirmative action. She basically has followed orders and done exactly what Bush asked of her. If you want to blame someone for the forign policies failures of the Bush Administration, blame George Bush. He's an idiot and incompetent to boot. Just don't blame Condi for Bush's mistakes. We saw the same thing with Colin Powell. He functioned as a an extewntion of Bush, right up until he left office. It is only now that we are learning how much he disagreed with Bush and the rst of this collection of dopes functioning as our nations leaders. We'll learn about Condi and what she really thinks some other day...just not today.

Posted by: MikeB | August 11, 2006 2:44 PM | Report abuse

'Republicans would need either a certified Act of God or incontrovertable proof that the Democratic nominee plays golf with Satan to win California in '08.'

How about another 'terror attack'? Hmm? How much you wanna bet we get one?

Posted by: Drindl | August 11, 2006 2:42 PM | Report abuse

Also, the notion that having Condi on the ticket brings in California is one of the most ludicrous assertions I've ever seen on this blog.

And I've seen a lot of ludicrous assertions. Republicans would need either a certified Act of God or incontrovertable proof that the Democratic nominee plays golf with Satan to win California in '08.

Posted by: J. Crozier | August 11, 2006 2:32 PM | Report abuse


Can you please name one, single, accomplishment for Condi during the last five years? I've watched very closely during those years, and I can't for the life of me think of what you're referring to when you say: "In the meantime, she will remain being seen as presidential material based her ability to get work done on the world stage. "

Seriously. I'm not even trying to give you grief. I can't think of a single success to her name. Even in your long post up above, the only thing I can see you mentioning is that she might, MIGHT, have scored some popularity points with the French because she speaks French.

Otherwise, I can't point to a single event that has happened at any time in the last two Bush Administrations and say, "Wow, she actually accomplished something positive in the world."

Your entire line of reasoning for Condi, over and over and over again, seems to be:

A. She's a woman
B. She's black
C. She's got good approval ratings at the moment

While none of those things disqualify her for being president, nor do they really make her more qualified to be president.

Posted by: J. Crozier | August 11, 2006 2:29 PM | Report abuse

RR---your post makes no sense..You don't believe he is pandering to the right?? That is exactly what he is doing..In 2000 Falwell was "intolerant"..i guess in 2006 he is now tolerant? And who can forget that big hug and kiss he got from the how is he not pandering?? BTW, who are you supporting to be the gop nominee??

Posted by: TheIrishCurse | August 11, 2006 2:03 PM | Report abuse

Well, Chris, did you fo fly fishing?

Posted by: MikeB | August 11, 2006 1:41 PM | Report abuse

As a SC resident I've seen this guy work for a string of losers, presiding over the decline of what once had been "promising" political careers. Demint won because of the R behind his name and the fact that his campaign worked up the conservative base by demonizing the female Democratic Supt of Education.

Romney could carry the state in a gneral election, however he can't win the Repub primary here.

You only hear Rice's name in some mostly Democractic strongholds, and everywhere you hear it people know it's only hyothetical chatter.

Posted by: CW | August 11, 2006 1:34 PM | Report abuse

The blue monkey would totally win cause I heard that there's a picture of the Red monkey's Sectretary of Defense shaking Saddam Hussein's hand. Also I heard that the Red monkey's predecessor actually gave money and support to Osama Bin Laden. Not to mention that the Red Monkey has never run a successful buisness in his life, and had his daddy (Big Red Monkey) get him out of military service and a drunk driving charge. Then again the Red Monkey did find god so maybe all the rest is insignificant.

Also on a more serious note there are a few folks in the running who I think could win over major support. First is John McCain. Talk all you want about his pandering to the right he is VERY well thought of by the majority of americans and has the ability to really unite the independents of this country. I also think that Barack Obama has the charisma to win over lots of people. In the same way that Robert Kennedy did. Also watch out for Eliot Spitzer he is the modern day Andrew Jackson in my opinion (minus the massacreing of indians). Also Guiliani's social views taken with the leadership he showed on Sept 11 could unite a large number behind him.

Posted by: Andy R | August 11, 2006 1:15 PM | Report abuse

Zathras -- Almost all of Lieberman's "critical" comments regarding Bush and the war were made in 2004 when he was running for President. IMMEDIATELY after he was knocked out of the primaries, he went back to being a huge Bush supporter on Iraq.

Moreover, in addition to the horrific bankruptcy bill that you noted, he has also expressed a willingness to work with the president on (1) SS Privatization and (2) School vouchers. When you add that to his support for congressional intervention regarding Terry Schiavo and his backing of hospital's right not to supply birth control b/c of religious objections, you have a picture of a Senator who had clearly turned his back on a substantial segment of his base.

Posted by: Colin | August 11, 2006 1:14 PM | Report abuse


What?! You couldn't manage to squeeze in a Friday line from vacation?


Posted by: RMill | August 11, 2006 1:10 PM | Report abuse


You are just buying the netroors mythology on Lieberman hook line and sinker. He has occasionally criticized Bush on the handling of the war. Maybe not as much as you or I would like, but he has done so. He was instrumental in setting up the 9/11 commission, over Bush's strong initial objections. He has criticized Bush's acquiencence over the various torture scandals that have cropped up.

Domestically, he is in favor of raising the minimum wage. He has been active in supporting environmental causes. He is against the proposed Arctic drilling in ANWR.

I have strong disagreements with him, just as you do. His support of the bankruptcy "reform" handout to credit card companies is to me just as bad as his support of the war. However, to say he "hates his party, hates his base," etc. sounds exactly like Republicans' saying that Democrats hate our soldiers. You and the Republicans are just two sides of the same coin.

Posted by: Zathras | August 11, 2006 12:48 PM | Report abuse

Sam Houston, I think the color switching starts in November.... the GOP will have the blues, because the voters are seeing red.

The reason posters are interested in the 2008 presidential candidates is because it really DOES matter who is president, as evidenced by the Bush governing train wreck. We HAVE to get it right next time.

Posted by: Truth Hunter | August 11, 2006 12:33 PM | Report abuse

zathras, in the case of Lieberman, he was the one with the knife. Ever since bush was 'elected' he has been regularly stabbing his fellow Dems at every opportunity. He never has a cross word to say about repugs tho, does he?

He's just another Zell Miller, angry at his party and determined to see them fail. He haste his party, he hates the base, he hates the democratic process. why should anyone but repugs vote for him?

Posted by: Drindl | August 11, 2006 12:17 PM | Report abuse

Tina, I am a resident of South Carolina and I have NEVER seen the slightest interest in Condi for President, who are these people you refer to? The same holds true for Romney. If he thinks he's going to win using the same sleazy old boy network that W used he can forget it. People down here are worried about the war and the economy. Romney better have some good answers.

Posted by: lola | August 11, 2006 12:16 PM | Report abuse

I'd like to pose a question to Cillizza and the rest of the regular posters here: Does it really matter who runs for president this time around? As divided as the country is right now, couldn't we just run a red monkey against a blue monkey and still have it come down to who wins a few swing states like Ohio and Florida?

I enjoy the theater of national politics as much as anyone, but have to wonder if all this is really necessary right now? I just can't imagine which Democrat could possibly win a red state or which Republican could possibly win a blue state.

Posted by: Sam Houston | August 11, 2006 12:12 PM | Report abuse

RR, Your argument sounds like a description of Lieberman's loss, he also moved away from his base. So will a GOP- orphaned McCain run for president as an Independent? What does that do to/for your 75%? He's still popular.

Posted by: Truth Hunter | August 11, 2006 12:00 PM | Report abuse

Drindl: "...step out of line and you get the knife next."

As Lieberman learned, the Democrats are getting pretty good at this too.

Posted by: Zathras | August 11, 2006 11:58 AM | Report abuse

My apologies to Colin and others for doubting the reality of the proposed attacks. They seemed very real -- and do you know when our ever vigilant Honmeland Security and president found out about them? Last Wednesday, when the brits told them.

No one in our entire government had a freaking clue. Thank God for British intelligence. We no longer have any. Feel safer now?

Posted by: Drindl | August 11, 2006 11:57 AM | Report abuse

Tina, Sorry, but you and the "hundreds" in South Carolina are Condi's fan club.

In case you haven't noticed, on her watch as Secretary of State the world has descended into chaos and the human race is on the verge of extinction. If you love Bush as president, you'll die over Condi.

Posted by: Truth Hunter | August 11, 2006 11:55 AM | Report abuse

'Over the next year, Condi will continue to do her job as our top diplomat'

Best laugh of the day -- my question: is tina a robot?

Posted by: Anonymous | August 11, 2006 11:45 AM | Report abuse

Drindl, Truth Hunter:

You folks who accuse McCain of "pandering" crack me up. You all live in some fantasyland where McCain can ignore or run against GOP issues, candidates, and voters and still win the GOP nomination; some alternate universe where conservatives do not make up 75% of the Republican Party. Wake up people: McCain never came anywhere close to winning the 2000 nomination. He had no chance. The guy never won the majority of GOP voters in a single state that mattered; his victories in New Hampshire and Michigan were due to crossovers. Even liberal states like New York and California went for Bush over McCain. And unless they do something radical like, oh, AGREE TO THE REPUBLICAN PARTY PLATFORM, McCain 2008 will suffer the same fate as McCain 2000 ... he will be pretty much out of the race by April, and the same goes for Pataki, Giulani, and Romney. Being nationally known figures with good poll numbers and having a record of effective leadership is nice, but if they do not actually AGREE with the GOP on issues, then they have as much chance of winning the GOP nomination as would Zell Miller the Democratic one.

Posted by: RR | August 11, 2006 11:44 AM | Report abuse

This is hilarious. Look at all the comments about Mitt. My, he is sure going to generate a lot of enthusiasm as a candidate.

This guy has all the charisma of stale wonderbread.

Can't you just feel the Mittmentum?

Posted by: Drindl | August 11, 2006 11:42 AM | Report abuse

Romney will be judged by the voters in South Carolina as to being up to the job, not on how much money he raised or who he gets to work for him. With that said, Secretary Rice is still equal in national polls to Rudy Guiliani and John McCain (as she has been for the past year and 6 months).

Now, should Condi be excluded from any 2008 debate just because she is Secretary of State now? NO!!!!

If Condi said she would consider running, the media would yap at her ankles about using her office for political purposses and try to forece her to resign. So the people who understand this are working like bees to build the hive for the Queen Bee. That is as blunt as description I can come up with to explain what this draft movement.

Today, Friday (August 11)Condi is flying to the United Nations to show support for the vote on the Israeli-Lebanon Conflit Resolution. Her French language skills might have helped build a relationship with France as well as the fact that the murdered former PM of Lebanon Hariri was also a friend of Chirac. (As Washington Post Crawford reporter Mike Fletcher just reported on MSNBC).

Over the next year, Condi will continue to do her job as our top diplomat, and by the time of the August Iowa straw poll in 2007, we will see just how much support there is for her to run as President. Until then, she does not have announce.

In the meantime, she will remain being seen as presidential material based her ability to get work done on the world stage. In all fairness, the 2008 polls which include the name of Condi Rice show clear support for her to run. Whether she will win enough delegates is the unknown, just as it is unknown whether any Republican will have the the support to win those early primary states. But the door must remain open for Condi to enter the 2008 race up to and even past August 2007. Some political experts have also said that based on HIGH name identification and 60% job approval ratings, plus being in the top 20% as a presidential contender, that she can wait until after the January 2008 caucus to announce. (But I think some states require the candidate to have been declared before she can be included in 2008 ballot.) Which brings me back to the group promoting Condi for president RIGHT NOW. Americans for Dr. Rice has a huge billboard near Crawford which has a growing life in the WEB World. If they can raise the money to put her name on the ballot in South Carolina, or gather the names on petitions, or whatever it takes, I am sure those dedicated people will achieve the necessary goal.

Also regarding South Carolina, there are literally hundreds of people in the state right now who want Condi to run and would support her if she did so. The 2008 race is still wide open, with 13 or 14 Republicans running for the 2008 White House. As long as Condi maintains that 20% support in the nation, she is a contender whether the Washington Post thinks so or not. If she is on the ticket, either as President or VP, she brings in California (one of her strongest bases of support) and she brings in many votes in the South. (Yes, the party of Lincoln today is more racially diverse than the media is reporting as well.)

Posted by: Tina | August 11, 2006 11:41 AM | Report abuse

Drindl, No one in the GOP seems to be looking at the ramifications of their actions, it's just win at any price. Newt delivered for them in 1994, so.... To the scary religious hard right, The Rapture is a good exit strategy.

Posted by: Truth Hunter | August 11, 2006 11:41 AM | Report abuse

OT, but why does the Post feel the need to publish and legiitimize the loony Newt Geinrich, the bloodthirsty cheerleader for WW3? Are the repugs seriously considering this guy as a presidential candidate, someone who says 'bring it on' to armageddon?

I mean, the guy can't wait for the nukes to start falling all over the world, the bio-engineered diseases to destroy entire populations, the chemicals to lay waste to entire cities at a time. The entire world is armed to the teeth. If we say all-out war is the only solution, then we are giving up on the human race. We won't survive this one.

For those who are anxious for the shooting to start, remember that this time it WILL be all out war to end all wars...because there won't be anything left. Remember what Einstein said, "I do not know with which weapons WW3 will be fought. But I do know that WW4 will be fought with sticks and rocks."

Posted by: Drindl | August 11, 2006 11:18 AM | Report abuse

Drindl, Very well stated... add to the McCain shameless pandering his love-fest with "Winky Dinky is Gay" Falwell. Gag.

A little off topic, "Fixers" please read this about two U.S. border agents facing long prison terms, and if you are as outraged as I am, contact your representataives. This travisty cannot stand.

Posted by: Truth Hunter | August 11, 2006 10:44 AM | Report abuse

More and more, Romney is shaping up to be the "anti-McCain" candidate. Giuliani throws a monkey wrench into this, however, I cant see anyone other than these 3 getting the nomination at this time...

Posted by: AeroFANatic | August 11, 2006 10:38 AM | Report abuse

'McCain saw his momentum stunted by President Bush in South Carolina and was never able to recover.'

Hey Chris, I guess you don't want to mention the filhy gutter tactics Rove used on McCain in that state, hmm?

You know, like spreading rumors that McCain is unstable and crazy, that his wife was a junkie, that he had a child out of wedlock with a black woman, etc...

Oh, yes, they'll eat their own alright You always have to watch your back if you're a repug...step out of line and you get the knife next.

But McCain wants to be president so badly he has no shame --he can still kiss their butts after all that. Pity.

Posted by: Drindl | August 11, 2006 10:22 AM | Report abuse

Anyone associated with Jim Demint is trouble in my book. Looks like Mitt is following GW's playbook and lining up to be the slick talking alternative to McCain.

Posted by: Andy R | August 11, 2006 10:07 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company