Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

S.C.'s Sanford: So Far, Still on the Fence

COLUMBIA, S.C. -- Gov. Mark Sanford (R) said Wednesday that there is both "room" and an "appetite" for alternative Republican presidential candidates, the result of a party demoralized by its showing in last November's midterm elections.

"Part of the anxiety and the search has nothing to do with the candidates but more the overall mood of the Republican electorate," said Sanford in an interview in his office in the state capitol. "There are three imperfect top runners on the Democratic side, but you don't see the same level of inspection and introspection of those candidates because the mood over there is more ebullient."

Sanford said he has had conversations with both former Sen. Fred Thompson (R-Tenn.) and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) but would not reveal whether either man broached the subject of entering presidential candidacy.

But Sanford said neither Thompson nor Gingrich could afford to wait much longer to get into the race, noting that the primary calendar remains very much up in the air with the first votes possibly coming late this year. "Everybody thinks of it as a ways off," Sanford said. "It's not as far off when you think of a race as significant as the presidency."

Sanford seemed content to steer clear of playing the endorsement game -- at least for the foreseeable future. He said the fact he has not endorsed Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), as he did during the 2000 presidential primary season, should not be read as a slight. "A slap in his face would be endorsing one of his opponents," said Sanford.

(Click below for video from the Sanford interview; The Fix's write-up continues on the next page.)

VIDEO | (Video by Ed O'Keefe, washingtonpost.com

Instead, Sanford said his reasons for not throwing his support behind a candidate are entirely personal. He and his wife have four young boys (the oldest is 14), and he just concluded a reelection campaign last November.

Then there's the question of just how valuable the governor's endorsement would be to McCain or any of the other candidates. While Sanford has shown a remarkable ability to connect with voters, he has often feuded with members of his party's establishment, including the Republican-controlled state House and Senate. Still, a candidate would rather have Sanford's endorsement than watch it go to one of his rivals.

Sanford waxed philosophical when asked about his own future plans. "It is certainly my goal to be Cincinnatus [and] go back to the farm," he said.

But that desire for a return to private life has counterintuitively fueled talk that Sanford could wind up on the short list for vice president next summer. Sanford argued that he is doing nothing to court such talk and if he had an interest in winding up on the national ticket he would already have endorsed a candidate. "If you want to run for vice president you better be picking a horse right now," said Sanford. "I'm not picking a horse."

Of course, Sanford also refused to make a Sherman-esque pronouncement about the vice presidency. "Anybody who says 'I wouldn't even talk to them' isn't telling the truth," said Sanford. "Of course I'd take the call. Does that mean that is where I aimed? No. Do I think there is a remote chance of that lightning bolt striking? No."

On policy matters, Sanford was outspoken in the run-up to Tuesday night's debate about the dearth of candidates willing to address the massive growth in government spending over the past few years of Republican rule.

He pronounced himself "pleased" with the amount of time the candidates spent on the issue during the showdown in Columbia, adding that Republicans must find a way to extend the debate beyond the war in Iraq if they want to win the White House again.

"The way you guarantee to lose is if you are the party of Iraq," said Sanford, adding: "The conversation that will take place on Iraq and the Middle East has to be tempered."

The best way to do that, according to Sanford, is to engage voters in a "comprehensive conversation" of how American can better compete in the world.

By Chris Cillizza  |  May 17, 2007; 8:30 AM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: GOP Debate: Winners and Losers
Next: Wag the Blog: Hillary's Iraq Headache?

Comments

McCain suggested that he joins people of all faiths to mourn Falwell's death. I seriously doubt anyone except Christians is sorry he's gone. The attitude outside of the Baptist denomination is probably jubilation.

Posted by: reason | May 17, 2007 7:31 PM | Report abuse

Thanks, proud. Nicely summarized.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 17, 2007 5:31 PM | Report abuse

No fair, you didn't cut and paste that. how am I supposed to compete? You expect me to write something original, logical and creative AND longer than one line? Let me try to plaigerize something elsewhere. I'll be back.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 17, 2007 5:12 PM | Report abuse

(I mean the benefit is not worth risk)

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | May 17, 2007 5:09 PM | Report abuse

re "Did Sanders vote against that amendment for substance reasons, or for procedural reasons?"

Considering he co-sponsored the initial re-importation bill, I think Sanders had his name and reputation on the line on this, so he was unwilling to support any changes to it.

While some may focus on the impact of pharmaceutical companies on this issue, it is also critical to remember that the PBMs (Pharmacy Benefit Managers) aka HMOs that provide not only Rx insurance coverage but also Rx dispensing via mail-order pharmacies that they also own, are funding the push for price negotiation and drug re-importation on the other side.

These 3rd party conglomerates have much to gain from legislation that may reduce their costs while requiring that their insured use the PBMs' mail-order services to fill thier Rxs.

In other words, CEOs and big corporations are on both sides of this issue. Public safety hangs in the balance.

The VA system, as a federal hospital-based pharmacy system, has the ability to bargain for contract price because of their huge volume. The VA system is also regulated under Federal statutes, and is not bound by state regs like other pharmacies and health systems.

Under Medicare PartD, the ability to have Rx drugs paid in part by the feds for the first time ever -was set up differently to allow beneficiaries the most possible choices to selct from, given the vastly different Rx needs from person to person. (Some have said there are too many choices, but that's another issue.)

The Part D plans are not administered directly through the govt but rather through a 3rd Party payer, and they have historically been much better at price negotiations than the feds have - especially when you consider that often times they are one and the same. (ie. Merck/Medco offers a Part D plan and also is a drug manufacturer of many of the plan's formulary drugs.)

There is no evidence that govt price negotiation would do a better job at saving money for the consumer.

There is also no evidence that drug importation would actually save consumers money, although it would potentially save corporations money. I don't think the risk is worth the benfit.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | May 17, 2007 4:52 PM | Report abuse

I didn't say that Bush knew about 9/11. I said that he was given plenty of advance warning, and if his administration had been at all competent they SHOULD have known about 9/11.

Posted by: Blarg | May 17, 2007 4:47 PM | Report abuse

Wait - forgot about his idea that bush knew about 911. that leaves not a single rational Dem to debate.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 17, 2007 4:36 PM | Report abuse

Unlike certain other conservatives here.


It is difficult when blarg is the only Dem with the ability to be rational.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 17, 2007 4:19 PM | Report abuse

"proud - You said the word facts. Admit it, you are zouk posting under another name."

ok, I used "do nothing" once and "hillary" a couple times, but hey...
Only because imitation is the most sincere form of flattery, my friend.

Can we revive that burning canoe imagery yet?

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | May 17, 2007 4:18 PM | Report abuse

proud - You have an interest in the pharmaceutical area. Did Sanders vote against that amendment for substance reasons, or for procedural reasons?

Also, maybe you could explain to the rest of us why the GOP believes that it is okay for the VA to negotiate with the drug companies for veterans, but not for HHS to do so for Medicare particpants?

Wouldn't that just be "the market" acting in a rational manner?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 17, 2007 4:15 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for that, Razorback. While we disagree, I'm glad that you at least attempt to carry on an intelligent conversation. Unlike certain other conservatives here.

You're right that there's no scientific consensus on solutions to global warming. (Well, there is a consensus: Reduce carbon emissions. But that's not really a solution, because it's too vague.) But in today's political environment, there's no way to debate the solution. Too many groups refuse to even admit the problem exists.

I'm okay with partial solutions, because they're better than no solutions. Increasing automobile fuel efficiency over the next 10 years might just keep our carbon emissions constant, considering the increase in population. So? That's still progress. It's better than nothing. Biofuels aren't a complete solution. Neither is using CFLs instead of incandescent bulbs, or mandating 3% of all power from wind, or other environmental initiatives. But why do we need to wait for a perfect solution? While we're figuring out whether there is a perfect solution and what it would be, we should do the obvious little things that will have some beneficial impact.

Posted by: Blarg | May 17, 2007 4:13 PM | Report abuse

'Don't let facts get in the way of your thinking.'

Don't worry, you won't, proud. you never so. Got keep them CEO coffers full after all. They're what's important, not little you.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 17, 2007 4:08 PM | Report abuse

proud - You said the word facts. Admit it, you are zouk posting under another name.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 17, 2007 4:05 PM | Report abuse

I can't stand the requirement that I make sense. I miss the old days when my rants went unchallenged. drindl, help me. I hate with as much fervor as you.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 17, 2007 3:57 PM | Report abuse

Oh great! Bernie Sanders, the self-described socialist congressman from Vermont argues against the amendment requiring that US officials certify the safety and effectiveness of imported drugs.

If his opinion is a good enough reason for you to continue your blindly partisan view of this important issue, then ok. Don't let facts get in the way of your thinking.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | May 17, 2007 3:55 PM | Report abuse

I am back from my visit to all the lefty blogs and will now post all sorts of liberal garbage. enjoy.
"could you please restate that with at least two insults "
OK - You are so very sick and full of hatred

"could you please attack the character of the poster"

OK - All day long, every day you post drool like this, zouk


We Libs have very short attention spans and don't do well with reason

sorry I lost the thread, what did you say nazi?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 17, 2007 3:53 PM | Report abuse

Zouk and Razorback make me miss Tina.

I wonder if Zouk is as indignant at himself when he posts anonymously, as he is at me when I do it?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 17, 2007 3:51 PM | Report abuse

'We Libs have very short attention spans and don't do well with reason.'

All day long, every day you post drool like this, zouk, like a child smearing feces on a wall, which is pretty much what it is. You are so very sick and full of hatred... no wonder you have no life.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 17, 2007 3:48 PM | Report abuse


"The American people are understandably fearful about another attack like the one we sustained on Sept. 11, 2001. But it is the duty of the commander in chief to lead the country away from the grip of fear, not into its grasp." -- in today's Post, Charles C. Krulak, commandant of the Marine Corps, 1995 to 1999. Joseph P. Hoar, commander in chief of U.S. Central Command, 1991 to 1994.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 17, 2007 3:44 PM | Report abuse

We Libs have very short attention spans and don't do well with reason. could you please restate that with at least two insults and a couple references to nazis. that gets us going. could you please attack the character of the poster, we appreciate the concentration on personality and prefer to ignore math and science if possible. and if you could admit that you and all thinking posters are this character "zouk" we could actually make some progress. We like to have a bandit to go after. bush is on his way out so we are interviewing for new ones. no actual offense is required, innuendo will do. we reserve actual criminal behavior for the clintons and their operatives. But we forgive them.

Posted by: concerned Dem | May 17, 2007 3:37 PM | Report abuse

Blarg says:

"Razorback, I agree that good environmental policy isn't free. But you continually set up these false dualities to make environmentalism look bad."

I do not seek to make environmentalism look bad. I seek to make politicians that think environmentalism is free look bad.

Blarg then askes:

Do you care about the environment? Do you believe that fighting global warming is a priority, both for America and for other countries? Do you believe that sometimes it's worth paying a little more to make the world a better place? "

First I will say that I answer questions, and I answer them directly. Ask away.

Yes, I care about the environment. My limited experience with tasting and breathing poison was negative.

My position on global warming is that I am concerned that there is significant evidence that humans are a factor in the increasing tempurature on earth. Although I believe the debate is over politicized and that many overstate the case, I believe there is a problem.

I think we are debating the wrong question on global warming. As I see it, the question that is debated in the media is "are humans causing a potentially dangerous increase in tempurature on earth". The real question is what can we do about it. I see no scientific consensus on solutions.

I believe there should be a debate about the problem, potential solutions and the cost of the solutions.

If we do nothing, depleting carbon fuels will cause increases in carbon fuel prices that will make alternatives economic and that will eventually solve the problem, but maybe (even probably) not fast enough.

I believe that Kyoto is a farce, because shifting production to places with lower environmentals standards from places with higher standards increases polution. Kyoto does this because china and india are exempt.

The reason I talk alot about the cost on here is because if you really want a solution, the public has to be aware of the cost. Right now, you have a situation where the environment is used as a political issue for the gain of politicians, but no real solution can be agreed upon by the public until the cost is discussed.

This chipping away at the problem by adding 1 mpg per year, or having 3% wind portfolio is nothing if the problem is as serious as some say it is.

In short, I agree there is a problem, think over time market forces will improve the situation and hope there is a techinlogical breathtrough.

And if you don't like how long this is, tell Blarg not to ask me questions.

Posted by: Razorback | May 17, 2007 3:29 PM | Report abuse

Yes, i 'check in' from time to time-- i do not live here like you, becuase i have an actual life. So i have 'no facts' huh? you sure do sound like zouk. Maybe your roomies at the loony bin... they shouldn't allow you to have computers, you might hurt yourself.

The proof that you don't care about anything but money is in every single post you make.

Posted by: drindl | May 17, 2007 3:21 PM | Report abuse

Oh, concerned dem? [zouk] So you disapprove of Bush's killing of a pay raise for the troops and more compensation for widows? Why would bush not want to give adquate compensation to war WIDOWS, for chrissake. so you must agree with me, then. bush is wrong. just say it.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 17, 2007 3:18 PM | Report abuse

I am drindl, hear me roar!

Posted by: Anonymous | May 17, 2007 3:15 PM | Report abuse

Do you believe that sometimes it's worth paying a little more to make the world a better place? "


As long as its not on the military, that would be evil.

Posted by: concerned Dem | May 17, 2007 3:08 PM | Report abuse

drindl checks in with another illogical rant. No need for facts, just ranting.

Posted by: Razorback | May 17, 2007 3:04 PM | Report abuse


Dorgan and his allies said their bill includes safeguards to ensure the drugs are only imported from developed countries with sound safety standards.

"All the protestation on the Senate floor on this issue is protestation on behalf of the pharmaceutical industry," he added.

Later, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., spoke in pointed terms about what he described as the "enormous" power of the drug companies over Congress.

He noted figures showing that since 1998, the pharmaceutical industry has spent more than $900 million on federal lobbying. The 1,200 registered prescription-drug lobbyists "descend like locusts into the offices of members of Congress and say, 'Don't vote for change. Keep the status quo alive. Make sure that the American people continue to pay the highest prices for medicine in the entire world,' " Sanders said.

"Since 2000 ... the pharmaceutical companies have contributed almost $250 million in campaign contributions," he said, adding that the real question was "whether the Congress of the United States is in fact prepared to stand up to the most powerful, the greediest special interest in the United States of America."

Posted by: Anonymous | May 17, 2007 3:03 PM | Report abuse

The Baron said:
"Picking Sanford as a VP is absolutely ingenious. Who cares that he was voted one of the 3 worst Governors in America by TIME Magazine last year?"

Did you read the substance of their complaint? It boils down to this: somehow, they think Sanford is a bad governor because he doesn't believe in corporate welfare.

Posted by: Eric | May 17, 2007 3:01 PM | Report abuse

"Do you care about the environment? Do you believe that fighting global warming is a priority, both for America and for other countries? Do you believe that sometimes it's worth paying a little more to make the world a better place? "

Interesting that the only measure here is a belief. no facts or figures or cost or benefit enters into the Lib calculation.

Posted by: tinfoil hat squad | May 17, 2007 3:00 PM | Report abuse

'Do you care about the environment? Do you believe that fighting global warming is a priority, both for America and for other countries? Do you believe that sometimes it's worth paying a little more to make the world a better place?'

Blarg, blarg, you know they don't. They don't give a damn about anything but money. You should surely know that by now.

Posted by: drindl | May 17, 2007 3:00 PM | Report abuse

Don't forget, zouk also posts drool anonymously...

Posted by: Sue | May 17, 2007 2:58 PM | Report abuse

Do you believe that it's always worth paying a little more ?

you could be a Dem. If we knew about economics and/or honesty, we would be republicans.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 17, 2007 2:55 PM | Report abuse

stupid economics and intellectual dishonesty

We are Dems, of course we do this. what else is there?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 17, 2007 2:52 PM | Report abuse

At least Zouk admits that he's posting under multiple names. Admitting you have a problem is the first step.

Razorback, I agree that good environmental policy isn't free. But you continually set up these false dualities to make environmentalism look bad. "If you're for the environment, you're against the consumer. If you're for energy independence, you're against CO2 reduction." And in doing so, you ignore the many policies which would help both sides.

Do you care about the environment? Do you believe that fighting global warming is a priority, both for America and for other countries? Do you believe that sometimes it's worth paying a little more to make the world a better place?

Posted by: Blarg | May 17, 2007 2:51 PM | Report abuse

Blarg, do you think that progress on efficiency is or can be made fast enough to avoid the need for additional refineries to be built.

Posted by: Razorback | May 17, 2007 2:50 PM | Report abuse

Samuel R. Berger, the Clinton White House national security adviser who was caught taking highly classified documents from the National Archives, has agreed to forfeit his license to practice law. In a written statement issued by Larry Breuer, Mr. Berger's attorney, the former national security adviser said he pleaded guilty in the Justice Department investigation, accepted the penalties sought by the department and recognized that his law license would be affected.

Clinton later stated "It's OK, we all have these sort of blemishes on our record. Our people don't care".

Posted by: burgler caught | May 17, 2007 2:44 PM | Report abuse

Democrats pushed toward House and Senate votes Thursday on a budget plan that promises big spending increases for education and health care

spend more and raise taxes - love the Dems. Please ignore what we said to get elected.

Posted by: concerned Dem | May 17, 2007 2:41 PM | Report abuse

I believe that if managed carefully, this need not be devastating for the economy.


Jimmy Carter thought the same thing. enough said. Libs always think that, and they always fail to do what is advertised.

Posted by: tinfoil hat squad | May 17, 2007 2:38 PM | Report abuse

More like the clintons, who had this football for eight long years while fiddling and interning.

Let's see eight years in office vs 8 months. I would fault the hollowed out CIA - a result of clinton policies. followed by the lack of a real army - a result of the clinton policies. One can't heal all the evils of eight long years within the first 8 months. but really, the whole defense vs offense concept is important.

Posted by: Trotsky | May 17, 2007 2:34 PM | Report abuse

Blarg, you want your pie but dont want to get fat. I want both groups to succeed, but the first step in that success is to quit pretending that the 2 issues to not have to be balanced.

You cannot win the environmental debate without explaining to people how much all of this is going to cost.

Reid and Pelosi only address them as 2 separate unrelated issues, and that is, like I stated in my first point, stupid economics and intellectual dishonesty.

Posted by: Razorback | May 17, 2007 2:29 PM | Report abuse

Razorback responds to my idea by saying,
"It would lead to a gas price spike, gas lines, a recession, huge unemployment, and then eventual repeal of the Bokonon law."

All your snot aside, that's a good point. But remember, you couldn't telecommute back in the '70's, and that's an option now. You couldn't drive a hybrid car - or a normal car that gets 45 mpg - and that's an option now. Only about 30-40% of commuters in most cities drive anyway, and if prices caused an increase in the use of public transportation, that would be a good thing too.

My point is that yes, getting away from oil is going to require some economic restructuring, but if not done now it will have to be done later at a much greater cost. The technology exists, it works, and it's improving by the day... but as long as petroleum-based alternatives are cheaper, most people won't use it. I believe that if managed carefully, this need not be devastating for the economy.

And yes, it will have to be done at some point.

Posted by: Bokonon | May 17, 2007 2:29 PM | Report abuse

So, Zouk, do you agree that the Bush administration was massively incompetent? When it comes to 9/11, that's your other option.

Posted by: Blarg | May 17, 2007 2:27 PM | Report abuse

I've given my position on this policy question before. We need better fuel efficiency. Reducing demand for gasoline is the best way to deal with gas prices. As I've explained many times before, reducing gasoline usage would both reduce prices and help the environment. You insist that people who want energy conservation can't cooperate with people who want low prices, because you don't want either group to succeed.

Posted by: Blarg | May 17, 2007 2:24 PM | Report abuse

So the loons on this blog also think the President of the United States would knowingly ignore a known catastrophe for america to gain what exactly?

I think this is a good indication of your OWN morality and you are projecting it to others, as usual.

I think this clearly demonstrates the Left is completely nuts and discredited. there is no further reason to debate with provably insane individuals. your hate has overcome your rationality.

Your obsession with personalities has resulted in the rejection of any proper policies and debate. Pelosi shuts down the minority because she can't get her narrow way otherwise. the Senate continues work on a budget for the military they know the Pres won't sign. Meanwhile the moonbats on this blog and elsewhere think all is fair in politics but not so in war.

continue to attack personalities and throw insults. your lack of any vision whatsoever is now emerging so obviuosly, that even the lackey press can no longer ignore it. you are headed down the path to irrelevancy. enjoy the ride and stay as long as you like.

Posted by: tinfoil hat squad | May 17, 2007 2:20 PM | Report abuse

Blarg says:

"I think that pie is good. Pie causes obesity. But that doesn't mean I think obesity is good."

My only point in this whole discussion is that we have to balance the interests of environment and low gas prices, the same way that Blarg balances the interest between good pie and obesity.

Harry Reid likes to pretend that we don't have to balance those intersts. That is what makes him intellectually dishonest.

Posted by: Razorback | May 17, 2007 2:16 PM | Report abuse

Blarg says:

"Razorback, you said that Bokonon said that restricted capacity is good. He didn't say that. He said that environmental regulations are good. You misquoted him to make your point."

Bokonon said: "Yes, I believe that environmental concerns must trump everything else from here on out if we are to survive as a society. For that reason, yes, high prices are worth it."

Bokonon went even further, he said that HIGH PRICES are worth it. High prices caused by restrained capacity.

But what is Blarg's position on the policy question? He will not say.

Posted by: Razorback | May 17, 2007 2:13 PM | Report abuse

Bokonon says:

"And no, I'm not an economist, but I would guess that a windfall profits tax, coupled with a mandated $45/barrel floor and $60/barrel ceiling on oil prices would be a good start."

I know why Reid and Pelosi do not say that: It would lead to a gas price spike, gas lines, a recession, huge unemployment, and then eventual repeal of the Bokonon law.

Posted by: Razorback | May 17, 2007 2:06 PM | Report abuse

Blarg said: "If you don't believe that Bush knew about the attack, you have to believe that he and his staff were brutally incompetent. Take your pick."

Let's see... a. he knew, b. he and his staff were brutally incompetent.

Is there an "all of the above" option?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 17, 2007 2:05 PM | Report abuse

We must protect and defend our rights to bagged salad and peanut butter!

Posted by: do nothing | May 17, 2007 2:03 PM | Report abuse

I must go back to work so I am taking a moment to thank Proud for the quick, but more-than-adequate commentary on B-H and G-B.
I think there is some weight to Cong. Hunter's point as Proud described it.

If I get a chance at 5pm or so I will try to succinctly state what I found useful about B-H and G-B when I read both.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | May 17, 2007 2:03 PM | Report abuse

Bokonon shows that he is one of the few intellectually honest environmentalists when he says:

"Yes, I believe that environmental concerns must trump everything else from here on out if we are to survive as a society. For that reason, yes, high prices are worth it."

Why won't Reid or Pelosi or Blarg say that?

Posted by: Razorback | May 17, 2007 2:01 PM | Report abuse

Blarg, look at what I said at 1:27 for clarification in re: the relative merits of closing a refinery and higher fuel prices. I was not consulted before Razorback said "Bokonon and I..."

Posted by: Bokonon | May 17, 2007 2:00 PM | Report abuse

Razorback, you said that Bokonon said that restricted capacity is good. He didn't say that. He said that environmental regulations are good. You misquoted him to make your point.

I think that pie is good. Pie causes obesity. But that doesn't mean I think obesity is good. I think it's an unintended consequence of a good thing. And if you said that I love obesity just because I said I enjoy pie, you'd be dishonest. Which you are.

Posted by: Blarg | May 17, 2007 2:00 PM | Report abuse

The House Judiciary committee Thursday morning scrapped a beefed-up provision of the Lobbying Reform Bill that would have prohibited former lawmakers and senior staff from lobbying their former colleagues during their first two years out of office.

Posted by: do nothing | May 17, 2007 1:58 PM | Report abuse

Also, Bush was given memos saying that Bin Laden was determined to attack in the US. There were plenty of warning signs before 9/11. So if you don't believe that Bush knew about the attack, you have to believe that he and his staff were brutally incompetent. Take your pick.

Posted by: Blarg | May 17, 2007 1:56 PM | Report abuse

And if you think back, Bush's approval rating pre-09.11 was in the 40s. That one event, horrible as it was, is the only reason he was able to hang on for so long. By manipulating the fears of the public and presenting himself - incredibly - as the only solution, he was able to put a firm hand on the wheel and steer the ship of state into the Bermuda Triangle. I bet bin Laden thinks that's pretty funny.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 17, 2007 1:54 PM | Report abuse

Blarg:

Bokonon DID state we needed the enviromental regulations that restrict refinery capacity. Reid DID say restriced capacity causes high gas prices.

All I said that the public policy interest stated by Bokonon and the public policy interest stated by Reid were opposed. What is wrong with that logic? What is "intellectually dishonest" about that?

What is illogical and intellectually dishonest is when a person thinks they can be for the environmental regulations that prevent new refineries yet want to avoid political responsibility for higher gas prices that are caused by restrained refinery capacity.

Blarg, why don't you state YOUR position, or do you just want to play a semantics game?

Blarg, do you think we should build more refineries? Do you agree with Bokonon and I that environmental regulations limit refinery expansion? Do you agree with Reid that lack of refinery capacity causes high gas prices?

Posted by: Razorback | May 17, 2007 1:53 PM | Report abuse

so, "(Canada) met or exceeded our standards." You left out Japan, Australia, and Europe.

The vast majority of pharmacists do not wish to put their professional license on the line when dispensing drugs from the Czech Republic or Slovakia , for example.

Pharmacy sites in Europe and Asia failed to meet Fedearal standards according to the same report you cite.

PBMs attempting to increase their profit margin should not be allowed to jeopardize public health on a national level. They are the ones driving this legislation, and the Senate has ruled in favor of public safety.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | May 17, 2007 1:53 PM | Report abuse

The Tinfoil Hat Squad (Zouk) tells us:

"A mind-blowing 35 percent of Democrats believe the president possessed prior knowledge of the 9/11 terror attacks that killed over 3,000 Americans. Another 26 percent of Democrats said that they are 'not sure.'"

A few things I would say:
-I have also heard serious people say that FDR knew that the Japanese were planning to attack Pearl Harbor, but did not prepare because he judged that this would be the event that would finally convince the country to enter WWII.
-Do you think it's a coincidence that the hostages were released in Iran (1981) right as Reagan was being inaugurated?
-Nixon postured on Vietnam and even built up troop levels - knowing that many would die - as he was secretly planning to withdraw.

My point is that when it comes to using people as pawns, there is precedent. Do I know if this (in re: Bush, 09.11) is true? No. Knowing what we know about Rove, Swift Boat, etc., do I think it's possible? Yes.

Take your finger out of the socket, Tinny. It's time for your meds.

Posted by: Nurse Ratched | May 17, 2007 1:48 PM | Report abuse

Picking Sanford as a VP is absolutely ingenious. Who cares that he was voted one of the 3 worst Governors in America by TIME Magazine last year?

http://www.time.com/time/press_releases/article/0,8599,1129509,00.html

WOO-HOO!

How could you possibly go wrong?

Posted by: The Baron | May 17, 2007 1:46 PM | Report abuse

If At First You Don't Succeed - Change The Rules Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has decided to change the current House Rules to completely shut down the floor to the minority.

Pelosi said "We can't seem to make any progress unless we completely shut out the opposition. We were elected to institute our progressive ways and the public doesn't want to see us fail, even if we have to break all our promises we made about inclusion. We are considering a method to obviate the President and the Senate in this process."

Posted by: Anonymous | May 17, 2007 1:45 PM | Report abuse

Ignorant coward is found to be clone of National zoo's weasel and rat experiment.
(The New York Times, April 28, 2007)

Posted by: Anonymous | May 17, 2007 1:41 PM | Report abuse

Gas should be fixed at $2.50 per gallon. so what if all the stations are empty when I pull up.

I also think that Porsche should be forced to sell me a car for the same price as a Saturn. they can afford it. I can't. I also like the idea of getting paid $150K for pushing this broom. go Pelosi!

Posted by: Anonymous | May 17, 2007 1:37 PM | Report abuse

Wednesday's vote to cut off funding by March 31, 2008, was voted down 67-29, with 19 Democrats joining every Republican in opposing the measure, which was submitted as an amendment to an unrelated bill. Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold, who put forth the measure with Majority Leader Harry Reid, noted optimistically that a majority of his caucus voted for the measure, which is one way of defining majority down.

Those real votes again. what about my expensive push polls?

Posted by: concerned Dem | May 17, 2007 1:30 PM | Report abuse

I admit I can't back up anything I say. That is why I continue to post new spam when challenged on old spam. My opinions are all that I need.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 17, 2007 1:27 PM | Report abuse

Razorback:

You said: "The good think about a market is you can buy expertise."

-With what? With money. So if you have the money, you can buy the expertise. But you do agree that what is necessary is the combination of the two. All I was saying is that the amount of money required, combined with the finite number of professionals with the necessary skills, will mean that those companies already in place have an insurmountable advantage over the rest of us.

And "demand" is not "volume." "Demand" is the interest in the product, and that combined with the quantity available ("volume") is what determines the "price." Weigh those factors against one another, and subtract the "cost of production," and you will be able to determine the "profit." Duh.

You asked "do you really think Exxon would voluntarily pass up an opportunity for profit?"

-No, of course they won't. I didn't say that they would, at least not in the long term. But price manipulation - as we saw with Enron in California a few years ago - is an option that they can and do exploit. I am willing to bet that they would not balk at taking a plant offline temporarily if it were to increase the profit margin of their many other plants by 10-15% (and those are conservative estimates.)

Next you say "if restricting capacity is a good thing, why dont you tell that to Harry Reid, who says lack of capacity causes the high prices."

-You need a question mark after "high prices" to indicate that this is a question.

You continue: "You will admit that the high prices are worth it, why wont Reid and Pelosi? You make my point. They are being dishonest by pandering to both gas consumers and environmentalists, whose interests conflict."

-The problem here is that we are operating under different sets of assumptions. Yes, I believe that environmental concerns must trump everything else from here on out if we are to survive as a society. For that reason, yes, high prices are worth it.

However, as long as our citizens must rely on petroleum products to cook, heat, drive etc., these must be available to them at a price they can pay. That's what Harry is saying, and I agree. So what gives?

The other link in the chain is the profit margin of the private natural resources companies, who MUST be made to shoulder a far greater portion of the financial burden which goes with the investment, development, and implementation of new fuel strategies. Yes, it's overly optimistic, but that is the direction in which we should be going.

And no, I'm not an economist, but I would guess that a windfall profits tax, coupled with a mandated $45/barrel floor and $60/barrel ceiling on oil prices would be a good start.

Posted by: Bokonon | May 17, 2007 1:27 PM | Report abuse

'In fact, according to a recent report commissioned by the Governor of Illinois, "We looked at everything from the training and education of their pharmacists to the packaging and distribution process and we found that, in every category we looked at, (Canada) met or exceeded our standards." (The New York Times, October 27, 2003) '

Posted by: Anonymous | May 17, 2007 1:27 PM | Report abuse

Sanford was already using the "Cincinnatus" story-line when he explained why he returned to politics in 2002 (to run for Governor) after "retiring" in 2000 (following three terms in Congress). Can this be anything other than a thinly-veiled preview of his future intentions (in 2012, if not the current cycle)?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 17, 2007 1:25 PM | Report abuse

zouk and razor, is that you under my bed? I keep seeing you everywhere I go. you are not fooling me. you're disguises are tranparent.

I will strive to post at least every four minutes so you can benefit from my stellar wisdom. I was told this would drown out the voices. Off to huff, be back soon.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 17, 2007 1:23 PM | Report abuse

Care to back that up with facts or a link, coward? Your opinion has been proven wrong many, many times so I'm afraid we can't rely on just that.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | May 17, 2007 1:22 PM | Report abuse

oh, proud, that was simply an attempt to protect the high prices and profits pharma makes here. but you people will believe anything, won't you?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 17, 2007 1:21 PM | Report abuse

"Bokonon then says we need the environmental regulations that restrict capacity. Well if restricting capacity is a good thing, why dont you tell that to Harry Reid, who says lack of capacity causes the high prices."

That's some breathtakingly bad logic, Razorback.

Environmental regulations are good. They cause refinery capacity to be restricted. That doesn't mean that restricted capacity is good. If restricted capacity is bad, that doesn't mean that environmental regulations are bad. As usual, you're grossly misinterpreting peoples' arguments. Intellectual honesty isn't your strong suit.

Posted by: Blarg | May 17, 2007 1:20 PM | Report abuse

' but recklessly rushed to mandate importation of prescription drugs from around the world which would greatly jeopardize the same public's safety.'

Canada's safety standards for medications are far higher than the United States. Most civilized countries are.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 17, 2007 1:17 PM | Report abuse

I don't read books. they poison the mind. the only good information comes from ultra lefty blogs. Stop with the facts, we ignore them anyways.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 17, 2007 1:16 PM | Report abuse

"Judge C. Crater, I dont "when do Republican-leaning Canadians tell Democrats in the US who we should vote for" but I do know that yesterday left leaning Dems who would never vote for a Repub were telling Repubs they should vote for Ron Paul."

Razor if that's true it's unfortunate. The "left leaning Dems" I've seen (kisses, drindl) have taken pains to point out Paul's history of bigotry and racism and conclude that he is totally unacceptable. Granted, his isolationist arguments intersect strongly with REAL conservatism but Barry Goldwater has been spinning in his grave for some time now and that label is now merely that: a label, paper thin, usually signaling the presence of rank hypocrisy.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | May 17, 2007 1:15 PM | Report abuse

wow zouky so busy today. too much caffiene-- or maaybe just not enough meds!

Posted by: Anonymous | May 17, 2007 1:15 PM | Report abuse

drindl says "Funny how the CNN headline reads, "Lawmakers Push for Food Safety,' -- but only Dems are supporting the bill."

Funny how the dems are rushing to create a new Federal agency to protect public health when it comes to food, but recklessly rushed to mandate importation of prescription drugs from around the world which would greatly jeopardize the same public's safety.

Thankfully, clearer heads prevailed in the Senate where they voted 49 to 40 in favor of an amendment requiring that US officials certify the safety and effectiveness of imported drugs.

The safety requirement, proposed by Sen Thad Cochran (R, Miss), amended Dorgan's original proposal that would have made drug importation legal which opponents agree would jeopardize the safety and efficacy of drugs in the supply chain.

With 10,000 deaths per year attributed to food poisoning in this country, it's no wonder that "Schmuck Chewmore" has declared war on food-poisoning. Maybe that's the solution for the do-nothing Congress.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | May 17, 2007 1:15 PM | Report abuse

zouk complains about anon posts, then posts anon -- but still obssesses on harry reid, nancy pelosi, global warming and 'libs'

Posted by: Anonymous | May 17, 2007 1:13 PM | Report abuse

A mind-blowing 35 percent of Democrats believe the president possessed prior knowledge of the 9/11 terror attacks that killed over 3,000 Americans. Another 26 percent of Democrats said that they are "not sure." Thus 61 percent of Democrats believe or consider themselves uncertain about the assertion that the president knew in advance about the terror attacks of 9/11, yet did nothing to stop them.

the party of utter stupidity.

Posted by: tinfoil hat squad | May 17, 2007 1:12 PM | Report abuse

Health care is a "right," so says former presidential candidate John Kerry. Most Democrats nod in agreement. Never mind that of the 46 million people in America who lack health-care insurance, about half go without health care for only a few months, while they are between jobs. About three-quarters go without health care for less than a year. And 10 percent have high-paying jobs, but choose to pocket the money they would spend on insurance premiums. Millions more without health-care insurance came here illegally. But at least I get the Democrats' objection to government "failure" to provide health-care insurance.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 17, 2007 1:10 PM | Report abuse

'Tom Bethell (born 1936) is a political writer', known for his support of the market economy, political conservatism, and unorthodox science.

He is a senior editor of the The American Spectator, correspondent for National Review, and member of the Hoover Institution.

Bethell is a member of the Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV-AIDS Hypothesis which denies that HIV causes AIDS. His The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science promotes global warming skepticism, AIDS denial, and a skepticism of the theory of evolution.'

Another of zouky's wack 'experts'... quack, quack, quack

Posted by: Anonymous | May 17, 2007 1:09 PM | Report abuse

178 Dems vote for instant defeat. Problem is, 254 members didn't. We Dems prefer to conduct policy based on slanted push-polls. real votes always expose our silliness. we are going to need more cooperation - from the press. we need to trick the public into our ways. Honesty is never our best method.

what is the big idea in europe - voting in conservatives in France, England, germany, etc. We Libs over here are starting to get lonely. It seems our temporary victory last Nov. has been overcome by our own stupidity and lack of any fresh ideas to solve problems. We always thought simply bashing bush would do. who thought we would actually have to govern in the majority. can we revert back to our adolescence now?

Posted by: concerned Dem | May 17, 2007 1:05 PM | Report abuse

Bethell's book has 13 other chapters, each exploding the phony "science" behind some other liberal shibboleth. Think nuclear power is dangerous? By artfully playing on the confusion between nuclear power and nuclear weapons, activists have crippled the use of "the safest of all energy sources," and vastly increased the use of heavily polluting coal-fired power plants (Chapter 2). Worried about DDT thinning the shells of endangered eagles? It doesn't -- but a million people a year are dying of malaria in Africa alone for lack of it (Chapter 5). Convinced that the theory of evolution is essentially sound, and that critics of it are just wacky creationists? The truth seems to be that the origins of species are far more complex than simplistic Darwinists will admit (Chapter 14).

Posted by: Anonymous | May 17, 2007 12:59 PM | Report abuse

Will somebody please pass me a barf bsg? People are being blown to bits while politicians are posing for animal crackers.

Congress needs to tell our Pretender to the Throne Guy to Like it, or Lump it.

If Busholini doesn't like a bi-partisan bill sent to him by a democratically elected Congress, he can sit there and sulk until he finds a way to like it, or the money runs out and he has to bring the troops home, whichever occurs first.

Not one more life, not one more limb for Busholini and Captain Ahab to chase their paranoid delusions and drag our Ship of State to destruction.

It's time to call the guys in the white coats to the Oval Office.

Posted by: Kathleen Grasso Andersen | May 17, 2007 12:56 PM | Report abuse

I vote for Fidel. I love free health care. don't care about free dom though. If not him, then hillary will do, same policies.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 17, 2007 12:55 PM | Report abuse

'(CNN) -- Spurred by deadly outbreaks of E. coli and other food-borne pathogens, a group of U.S. lawmakers is pushing to put all food safety oversight under a single federal agency.

"I believe the food safety system is broken. It's collapsing," Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Connecticut, told CNN "We're unable to protect the public health. We're unable to protect the public's food supply."

DeLauro has introduced the Food Safety Act of 2007, which would create a Food Safety Administration responsible for ensuring the security of the food supply from all forms of contamination.

Sens. Dick Durbin, D-Illinois, and Chuck Schumer, D-New York, introduced a companion bill in the Senate.

The proposed legislation comes on the heels of a number of widespread outbreaks of food-borne illness. An E. coli outbreak in spinach last year killed three people and sickened more than 200. The FDA has confirmed 22 outbreaks of E. coli O157 linked to fresh leafy greens (20 lettuce, 2 spinach) since 1995. Half of those were linked to bagged salads.

Further fueling public concern, more than 400 people fell ill between last fall and this spring after eating peanut butter contaminated by salmonella spread by a sprinkler system.

In March, growing reports of sick and dying cats and dogs led to a recall of pet food whose maker had used melamine-laced food additives from China. Chickens and hogs that had consumed pet food remnants were withheld from slaughter for a time out of concerns about human melamine consumption.

Currently, 12 federal agencies and 35 laws govern food safety, often with overlapping jurisdictions and different priorities.

The lines are not always clear-cut. For example, cheese pizzas fall under the FDA, while pepperoni pizzas fall under the Department of Agriculture, and much, such as imported foods, fall through the cracks.

By the FDA's own accounting, the agency is operating under a $135 million shortfall. Since 2003, the FDA has cut field staff (inspectors and their support staff) by 12 percent, from 2,217 to 1,962. Inspections dropped 32 percent during the same period, according to FDA budget documents.

According to the CDC, each year there are 76 million incidents of food poisoning, leading to 325,000 hospitalizations and 10,000 deaths.'

Funny how the CNN headline reads, "Lawmakers Push for Food Safety,' -- but only Dems are supporting the bill.

Posted by: drindl | May 17, 2007 12:54 PM | Report abuse

Judge C. Crater, I dont "when do Republican-leaning Canadians tell Democrats in the US who we should vote for" but I do know that yesterday left leaning Dems who would never vote for a Repub were telling Repubs they should vote for Ron Paul.

Posted by: Razorback | May 17, 2007 12:52 PM | Report abuse

I hate it when my idiocy is exposed. worse is when someone uses my own words against me. since I have little control over my own posts, this is ineveitable. I just post what I find on the hate sites. I love hate and I hate love. I am so cute.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 17, 2007 12:50 PM | Report abuse

someone said: "Cooper...fails to recognize that anyone, not just big oil, can be in the refinery business. - Razorback

"Anybody", like us right?

If you'll let me borrow a few of your billions of dollars Hog Boy, I'll build one."

All you need is about 70 bucks to buy one share of VLO, Valero energy. Then you can make money off of the fact that environmentalists block everyone wants to compete with VLO by building a new refinery.


Posted by: Razorback | May 17, 2007 12:49 PM | Report abuse

Do Nothing Democrats
By R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.
Published 5/17/2007 12:08:00 AM


WASHINGTON -- The approval ratings of the Democratic Congress continue their swoon. When Senator Harry Reid and Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi led their enlightened hordes onto Capitol Hill early this year, they promised liberation and progress. They would raise the minimum wage. Homeland security was to be made foolproof. Medicare's drug prices would be lowered by congressional writ. Moreover, they had a scheme to lower interest rates on college loans. Finally something vast and ingenious was going to be done about the war in Iraq. Possibly the congressional Democrats were going to yank our military from that inhospitable country and replace it with the Peace Corps or perhaps the Good Humor Man.

Of course, the fulminating Democrats have accomplished none of the above. They continue to shriek about Republican mendacity and corruption -- though such misdemeanors were winked at during the Clinton years. They continue their ongoing investigations, and in the case of Attorney Alberto Gonzales they may undertake the capital's first exorcism. But as to their aforementioned early promises, they remain inert. The term "Do Nothing Congress" is being heard among good government types and concerned lobbyists.

According to the Gallup Poll, the Democratic Congress's approval rating has declined from 37% to 33% in mid-April, thence to 29% in mid-May. That rating places the Democrats below the approval rating of the hellish President George W. Bush, and at least he has invested some of his political capital in large things, for instance Social Security reform and two wars. The Democratic leaders have achieved nothing other than raising a cloud of gloom over Capitol Hill.

Frankly I would like to know more about the lingering 29% of the electorate that approves of the Democratic Congress. Are these the remnants of the Angry Left we heard so much from last fall? Or are these actually Republicans who want the Democrats to continue on a load that might well lead to oblivion. In recent weeks, Senator Reid and Congresswoman Pelosi appear to have been seized by an impulse to suicide. Perhaps al Qaeda will sign them up as drivers.


Consider too Senate Majority Leader Reid. Some politicians speak in sound bites He speaks in bumper stickers. His latest is this defeatist yawp: "This war is lost. Put that on your Volvo right next to your Kerry Edwards sticker.

Their position on the war may indeed be a political calculation, but it might also reflect something deeper. Their defeatism is very similar to the defeatism the Democratic congressional majority displayed in 1973 when it reneged on Washington's promise to support the South Vietnamese under attack. It is similar to the defeatism the Democratic majority manifested in 1986 over assisting the anti-communists in Nicaragua.

This defeatism is, I would wage, now part of the Democratic Party's DNA. At some point over the last three decades it came to be called the Democrats' Vietnam Syndrome. It is why for years the Democrats have not been trusted on matters of national security. The 2008 election will be decided on just this matter--national security.



Posted by: Anonymous | May 17, 2007 12:46 PM | Report abuse

"Arguably, he disqualified himself as a leader or, at best, proved he's not ready for prime time."

Arguably, Mr. Kipling is a partisan hack covering for his friends down in the USA who are deathly afraid of Obama's candidacy. Since when do Republican-leaning Canadians tell Democrats in the US who we should vote for?

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | May 17, 2007 12:42 PM | Report abuse

Unlike some, I don't stop reading if its policy substance.

At least Bokonon will try.

I said anyone could add refinery capacity.

Bokonon said- "anyone who has the money and the expertise, which limits it to a handful of people,". The good think about a market is you can buy expertise. Trucking and airlines could build their own refineries, but they run into the same environmental regulations that "big oil" does. The suggestion that only big oil can master a process that has been in existence for 100 years is silly. There is lots of money looking for a profitable idea.

I said that profit is not based on price alone, but price x volume. Bokonon said I forgot DEMAND. Demand is volume. Duh.

Bokonon then says "-As stated above, the level of demand is such that no matter how many refineries are open or closed, fossil fuel will be a profitable commodity to a greater or lesser extent. "

In other words, its fine for Exxon to shut down a refinery to raise the price because they will still be profitable. They will still be profitable, but they will make more money running the refinery. Bokonon, do you really think Exxon would voluntarily pass up an opportunity for profit?

Bokonon then says we need the environmental regulations that restrict capacity. Well if restricting capacity is a good thing, why dont you tell that to Harry Reid, who says lack of capacity causes the high prices. You will admit that the high prices are worth it, why wont Reid and Pelosi? You make my point. They are being dishonest by pandering to both gas consumers and environmentalists, whose interests conflict.

Bokonon also says "-Actually, that is a contradiction. If they were ignorant, they would be honest in their belief." No, they are ignorant about economics because they think that shutting down a refinery is in the best economic interest of the person who shuts it down, when that is false. They are being dishonest when they leave out the fact that environmental regulations which they support is what restricts refining capacity.

You are right about the grammar and punctuation issues. Stick to those and study up on economics.

If business is greedy as you say, then they would build refineries to make money. If Exxon is as greedy as you say, then they would not voluntarily shut down a refinery, as Reid suggests. This is why your arguments are false.

At least you admit that the cost of higher gas prices is worth it because of the environments benefits. I wish Reid, Pelosi, Hillary, Obama and Edwards would say that, but they won't.


Posted by: Razorback | May 17, 2007 12:42 PM | Report abuse

'16 out of 34 posts today already for ignorant coward' how amazingly simply your are zouky to think it is all one person. it isn't. many people post anonymously, for various reasons.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 17, 2007 12:39 PM | Report abuse

Debate moderator Brian Williams, the respected NBC news anchor, posed the same question to all participants: How would you respond to another attack on the United States by al-Qaida terrorists?

Hillary Clinton lost not a breath. Retaliate, she said. The president must "retaliate." The president must "focus on those who have attacked us and do everything we can to destroy them."

Barack Obama replied in the vogue of the Democrats' white-flag wing. He brought up hurricane Katrina - for openers. He talked about the importance of having first responders in place. In what clearly would be a national emergency, he concentrated on the victims and ignored the villains. What he didn't talk about is hitting back.

Almost to a man, the other candidates chimed in with Mr. Obama's soft answer. All in all, across the field, it was mush from the wimps.

Contrast that to Hillary Clinton's unequivocal message. With her, the commander-in-chief had spoken.

Though hardly reported by the media, Hillary Clinton's hard-line answer reflected in opinion polls almost immediately. Her ratings rose and Barack Obama's sank. The shift is so clear, loud talk about him getting the nomination subsided to the level of whisper.

Barack Obama may not have the opportunity to deepen his understanding of what makes Americans tick. He has been in the U.S. Senate for just two years and his political experience is grounded at the state legislature level.

In Orangeburg, S.C., it was there for all to see. Arguably, he disqualified himself as a leader or, at best, proved he's not ready for prime time.

Americans may hate war, but there has never been any doubt that they hit back when attacked at home. Hillary Clinton knows that and Barack Obama has yet to learn it.

http://thechronicleherald.ca/Opinion/835862.html

Posted by: Anonymous | May 17, 2007 12:36 PM | Report abuse

"Oh well, hopefully you can score a random interview with someone important. Mark Sanford would be great.
Posted by: Judge C. Crater | May 15, 2007 06:07 PM"

Can I call 'em or what?

"....Sanford in an interview in his office in the state capitol. 'There are three imperfect top runners on the Democratic side, but you don't see the same level of inspection and introspection of those candidates because the mood over there is more ebullient.' "

Last time I checked none of the candidates on either side were God so 'imperfect' is a label as redundant as 'human.' This reaction "party blindness:" you can't see something (like inspection or introspection) when you aren't looking for it. The best example was when posters came around saying "I don't know have any idea what Kerry stands for" because they couldn't be bothered to find out. Sanford is taking his ignorance and using it as a means of disparaging the D's.

"Of course, Sanford also refused to make a Sherman-esque pronouncement about the vice presidency. 'Anybody who says 'I wouldn't even talk to them' isn't telling the truth,' said Sanford. 'Of course I'd take the call. Does that mean that is where I aimed? No. Do I think there is a remote chance of that lightning bolt striking? No.' "

He handled you pretty well on that one, CC.

"On policy matters, Sanford was outspoken in the run-up to Tuesday night's debate about the dearth of candidates willing to address the massive growth in government spending over the past few years of Republican rule."

Good for Sanford. One of the reasons why I like him: he does a better job of calling a spade a spade. And this is also probably why he hasn't endorsed McCain: he has aided the R's in spending like a drunken sailor. McCain's current preaching about deficit spending only proves that he's a liar given his 6 years of previous silence on this issue.

" 'The way you guarantee to lose is if you are the party of Iraq," said Sanford, adding: 'The conversation that will take place on Iraq and the Middle East has to be tempered.' "

I agree with the first part (the R's are doing a great job of this currently) but have no idea what the second part means. Was there a follow-up?

"The best way to do that, according to Sanford, is to engage voters in a 'comprehensive conversation' of how American can better compete in the world.' "

Is this disconnected from the previous statement? What does our need to "compete in the world" have to do with Iraq?

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | May 17, 2007 12:33 PM | Report abuse

MarkinAustin- many hawks say that Baker-Hamilton was a wasted effort that advocated a shameful American retreat.

The Wall Street Journal's editorial page described the report as a "strategic muddle"; despite their bipartisan effort, they failed to present a formula for victory.

In addition, many, including Duncan Hunter (who imo is the best total-package candidate on the R side but may not gain 1st tier status until later), agree that
the policy-making decisions about Iraq should not be considered to be devolving to a nonelected group put together essentially for the purpose of advising the president.

I don't support timelines for troop withdrawl, as in Gelb-Biden where withdrawl of most U.S. forces from Iraq by 2008 would be required. Also, the idea of mandated UN involvement to keep the peace after a required regional non-aggression pact is almost laughable. Oversight from the U.N. Security Council on Oil-for-Food was such a debacle, I don't see why we should trust that they can accomplish anything anymore.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | May 17, 2007 12:26 PM | Report abuse

Democrats are wielding a heavy hand on the House Rules Committee, committing many of the procedural sins for which they condemned Republicans during their 12 years in power.

So far this year, Democrats have frequently prevented Republicans from offering amendments, limited debate in the committee and, just last week, maneuvered around chamber rules to protect a $23 million project for Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.).

On Wednesday, Democrats suggested changing the House rules to limit the minority's right to offer motions to recommit bills back to committee -- violating a protection that has been in place since 1822.

Much of this heavy-handedness is standard procedure in the House, where the majority has every right to dominate, but it contradicts the many campaign promises Democratic leaders made last year to run a cleaner, more open Congress.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 17, 2007 12:25 PM | Report abuse

16 out of 34 posts today already for ignorant coward. that is in only two hours. that is an average of every eight minutes. a new record. Most astonishing is that not one intelligent thing was said in all those posts.

Look at me, I'm ignorant coward. I can have a blog argument all by myself. I come here early, stay all day, post every four minutes and manage to say nothing.

and every one filled with spite and hate. such is the loony left these days, full of anguish and venting it every which way.

Posted by: blah blah | May 17, 2007 12:23 PM | Report abuse

Marine commanders Charles Krulak and Joseph Hoar in the Post: Torture betrays us too.

Posted by: support the troops--don't torture | May 17, 2007 12:12 PM | Report abuse

"Although of course, if you work in Iraq as a civilian contractor that is also a contributor to republicans [which is, of course, all of them] then the president is willing to pay you [from the taxpayer's wallets, of course] up to $200,000 a year, for doing the same work as one of our soldiers."

And that's not good enough. Now the poor contractors are claiming that it's unfair that the GI's in the Combat Zone receive their pay tax free, while the contractors have to pay incomes tax on their pay.

The worse part is that this hubris wasn't dismissed out of hand. It is being taken seriously by both Republican and Democrat legislators from the Washington area. There are members of Congress pushing to have contractor's income earned in a Combat Zone made tax free.

Let's put our minds together, and we may be able to come up other ways to screw the GI's in Iraq and Afghanistan even more?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 17, 2007 12:11 PM | Report abuse

proudtobeGOP writes
"Too bad the dems can't rally around their strongest candidate either."

True enough. Though the zogby poll I saw had 75% of Dems backing one of the front runners vs. 60% for the GOP. There's an arugable point over whether one of the Dem top 3 is the 'strongest candidate'; but if we grant that assumption, its interesting that the GOP, by comparison, isn't really drawn to any of their candidates - 40% don't support any of the top candidates, none of which is leading the pack. By comparison, the Dems only show 25% supporting none of the above or fringe candidates. Perhaps that distinction is not as significant as I see it.

Posted by: bsimon | May 17, 2007 12:09 PM | Report abuse

Jane wrote
"Tthey won't. The wingers..."

And I stopped reading.

Posted by: bsimon | May 17, 2007 12:05 PM | Report abuse

'WASHINGTON _ Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani reported a whopping $16.1 million in earned income over the past 16 months.'

and how much do you want to be it's all in government contracts? your money, folks.

Posted by: wow | May 17, 2007 12:03 PM | Report abuse

Mark in Austin - Going back to a comment you made yesterday.

Always take Brit Hume with a grain (make it a truckload) of salt. He lost all objective credibility when as a White House correspondent, he was the tennis partner of Bush 41, the President he was supposed to be covering.

Hume is a lap dog for the Right. Very little comes out of his mouth that isn't calculated to produce a very specific response.

Beware Hume!

Posted by: Anonymous | May 17, 2007 12:03 PM | Report abuse

"Cooper uses the word "They", probably in reference to "big oil", but he fails to recognize that anyone, not just big oil, can be in the refinery business."

-anyone who has the money and the expertise, which limits it to a handful of people, which brings us right back to that group of people referred to collectively as 'big oil.' Also, English rules require that the final quotation mark follow the final punctuation of a sentence.

"The most common element of liberal ignorance on economics is that the lump all of 'big bidness' together. For example, if you think you take a hit when buying gas, think of JB Hunt's bill to fill up 11,000 trucks, or American airlines bill to fill up 600 jets. If 'gouging' is going on, JB Hunt is among the victims."

-I would be very very surprised if JB Hunt is paying the same price per gallon paid by everyday motorists. I would guess that the amount purchased by Hunt or an airline would make possible volume discounts. Also, I would guess that any company buying fuel in that amount would have a contract with the supplier, and that the supplier would have to provide a lower bid than other suppliers in order to win the contract.

"Cooper and Reid both seem to think that you can get rich by restricting capacity... This would be true if price was the only factor, but profits are not dependent on price, but PRICE x VOLUME."

-You forgot "DEMAND." With our economy structured the way it is, the level of demand for fuel grows constantly. Higher prices / greater volume can slow the rate of growth, but the fact is that more consumers consistently use more oil.

"Whoever has a refinery that is down is taking it in the shorts, making NO profit. Reid's idiotic theory requires greedy Exxon shut down a refinery (at a huge loss) in order to help greedy Shell."

-As stated above, the level of demand is such that no matter how many refineries are open or closed, fossil fuel will be a profitable commodity to a greater or lesser extent. Also, if one of a company's refineries is down, the product of the others is by definition that much more in demand. Shed no tears for Shell and Exxon.

"Also the different blends of gasoline mandated by environmentsl regulations require retooling of refineries right before the summer driving season. So what is the real problem? Why arEn't refineriES being built? Envirnomental regulations. It takes too long and costs to much. When R's try to relax those regulations, dihonest liberals say they are trying to help "big oil".

- First of all, there is an "s" in "diShonest."
Secondly, those environmental regulations are highly necessary and long overdue. Thirdly, by trying to circumvent them, those in the pocket of the fossil fuels lobbyists are proclaiming themselves willing to place an abundance of oil - and thus campaign contributions for them - over the health of the environment we all depend on.
Finally, "R's" means "belonging to R." If you meant "more than one R," the apostrophe is incorrect.

"Why can't they just say we have to pay more to protect the envirnoment, and the higher cost is worth it?"

-several Democrats and others who see the long view have said this.

"This is why the Dem presidentials have been silent about gas prices."

-I assume by "Dem presidentials" you mean "Democratic candidates for president." And actually, they haven't been silent.

"So there you have it. A lot of facts and arguments"

-Just arguments. Not many facts.

"that no leftist will even try to rebut"

-I just did.

"that shows"

-Wrong form of the verb "to show." When used with a plural subject (such as "facts" and "arguments" - notice, no apostrophe) the correct form is "show," not "shows."

"that libs"

-Here, you do need the apostrophe - "libs'" - to convey the meaning "comments originating from more than one lib."

"comments on gas prices are both ignorant of basic econmics and dishonest."

-Actually, that is a contradiction. If they were ignorant, they would be honest in their belief. If they were dishonest, that would indicate that they were aware of the truth. The truth here is that those opposed to subsidies for big oil are both honest and aware of the skewing of our national budget to benefit the wealthy at the expense of everyone else.

Posted by: Bokonon | May 17, 2007 12:01 PM | Report abuse

Kevin, it is also likely that Sanford would support Warner's approach.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | May 17, 2007 12:00 PM | Report abuse

What Giuliani did, in effect, was to borrow Falwell's attack on liberals and aim it at Ron Paul. It was the kind of Republican indignation usually reserved for straw men, for caricatures of Democratic views.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 17, 2007 12:00 PM | Report abuse

Razorback wrote
"Check out these 2 exerpts from following from article posted by the moonbat..."

And I stopped reading.

Posted by: bsimon | May 17, 2007 11:59 AM | Report abuse

Mr. Comey, the former No. 2 official in the Justice Department, said the crisis began when he refused to sign a presidential order reauthorizing the program, which allowed monitoring of telephone calls and e-mail of people inside the United States.

He said he made his decision after the department's Office of Legal Counsel, based on an extensive review, concluded that the program did not comply with the law. At the time, Mr. Comey was acting attorney general because Mr. Ashcroft had been hospitalized for emergency gall bladder surgery.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 17, 2007 11:57 AM | Report abuse

Cooper...fails to recognize that anyone, not just big oil, can be in the refinery business. - Razorback

"Anybody", like us right?

If you'll let me borrow a few of your billions of dollars Hog Boy, I'll build one.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 17, 2007 11:55 AM | Report abuse

Kevin, let me offer a more generous view of Sanford's Iraq remark.

It could be read as advice to get "unstuck" on assuming that our own military can pacify a large country without internal and neighbor support - it could be read as a plea for the Rs to move toward the Iraq Study Group emphasis on pressuring the Iraqi government to reach out to the Sunnis and to provide basic services, and endorsing its view that diplomatic engagement of hostile states is a good thing. It does not have to be read as either a call to soft pedal Iraq or a call to withdraw American troops other than within a diplomatic scheme.

And here are more ideas that a Sanford might back - they come from a "regular poster" here - JD has previously suggested a Kurdish strategy [move our troops north and let the feuding Arabs settle their own differences]. He has also posited the notion that the Pres. will decide to withdraw from Iraq next summer, to salvage the election for the Rs and deprive the Ds of their "issue".

These are the kinds of ideas that a Republican with an ear to the ground might be able to conscientiously support or discuss, without continually calling for sending our overstretched Army and Marines to Hell-in-a-Sandbasket.

PS - ProudToBeGOP, if you are tuned in today, why do you think that both Baker-Hamilton and Gelb-Biden, which use substantial troop deployments as part of a diplomatic full court press, are "defeatist?" You told me that about 2 weeks ago and I have not had the opportunity to follow up with you.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | May 17, 2007 11:52 AM | Report abuse

I'm not on here all day long. I come here occassionally and scroll down and see your name, over and over and over, spewing the same crap you say, at great length, every single day.

Posted by: Jane | May 17, 2007 11:45 AM | Report abuse

Still unspoken, for the most part: Mr. Giuliani's delicate family situation. His campaign Web site includes nothing about his children, with whom he has strained relations. They are, in effect, banished from "Rudy's Story" (the heading of the biographical section on the Web site).

His children became inconvenient to his enormous ambitions, so he simply 'disappeared' them from his life.

Posted by: R family values | May 17, 2007 11:41 AM | Report abuse

Jane, have you considered how stupid it is for your to rant and type about others ranting and typing?

Posted by: Razorback | May 17, 2007 11:41 AM | Report abuse

'If they can raise enough money on the Internet, the ad could air on television later.'

Tthey won't. The wingers are too busy ranting and typing to actually DO anything -- and they certainly aren't going to spend one cent to do anything to help anyone.

Posted by: Jane | May 17, 2007 11:36 AM | Report abuse

US President Tim Kalemkarian, US Senate Tim Kalemkarian, US House Tim Kalemkarian: best major candidate.

Posted by: anonymous | May 17, 2007 11:34 AM | Report abuse

'An influential group of former military leaders who have lost faith in President Bush's war leadership launched their second round of television advertisements this week targeting House and Senate Republicans whose 2008 reelections could hinge on the public's view of Iraq.

To fight back, a pro-war group plans to post an Internet ad on Thursday accusing Democratic leaders of abandoning the war on terrorism. If they can raise enough money on the Internet, the ad could air on television later.

The striking imbalance of power between the competing Iraq advocacy teams offers a stark illustration of how isolated President Bush and his White House team have become on the signature issue of his administration.

Bush's weakened position explains why Congress has been willing to repeatedly challenge the White House on paying for the war.

In previous showdowns with Democrats, the White House could count on a united Republican caucus to rally around its position, deep-pocketed allies to finance attacks against critics and closely coordinated grass-roots lobbying efforts with friendly outside organizations.

Now divisions over future Iraq policy and distraction caused by the early start of the 2008 presidential campaign appear to have broken what once was the Bush White House juggernaut.

The president is on defense, trying to avoid making major concessions to an undaunted Democratic Congress. The White House's most effective communicator on Capitol Hill hails from the Pentagon, not the West Wing.

The formidable network of talk show hosts and conservative grass-roots organizations that once could bully opponents into silence are now either no-shows or not effective. And the party's congressional campaign committees charged with protecting House and Senate incumbents are either too badly in debt or too pressed to save campaign cash to put up a defense.'

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0507/4009.html

Posted by: Anonymous | May 17, 2007 11:33 AM | Report abuse

Blarg is right, I think its a good bill too, but I support the Reid and Pelosi Iraq bill too.

Blarg is also right about Repubs losing fewer seats because of lack of oversight. I think the Dems are at risk now on the oversight issue when they replace oversight with soundbite publicity stunts like the Pat Tillman thing.

Posted by: Razorback | May 17, 2007 11:32 AM | Report abuse

Who reads the long winded comments anyway? Not me. I just skip over them.

Posted by: Lee | May 17, 2007 11:29 AM | Report abuse

Troops don't need bigger pay raises, White House budget officials said Wednesday in a statement of administration policy laying out objections to the House version of the 2008 defense authorization bill.

The House Armed Services Committee recommends a 3.5 percent pay increase for 2008, and increases in 2009 through 2012 that equal private-sector pay raises.

The slightly bigger military raises are intended to reduce the gap between military and civilian pay that stands at about 3.9 percent today. Under the bill, HR 1585, the pay gap would be reduced to 1.4 percent after the Jan. 1, 2012, pay increase.

Bush budget officials said the administration "strongly opposes" both the 3.5 percent raise for 2008 and the follow-on increases, calling extra pay increases "unnecessary."

Although of course, if you work in Iraq as a civilian contractor that is also a contributor to republicans [which is, of course, all of them] then the president is willing to pay you [from the taxpayer's wallets, of course] up to $200,000 a year, for doing the same work as one of our soldiers.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 17, 2007 11:26 AM | Report abuse

Too bad the dems can't rally around their strongest candidate either.

No sense pining for your new Planet Earth guru, libs... Al Gore has now decided that he has "fallen out of love with politics".

Meanwhile, the D frontrunner continues the legacy of the party with her voted-for-it-before-I-voted-against-it platform...

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton voted Wednesday to advance legislation cutting off money for the Iraq war, then refused to pledge to support the measure if it came to a vote, then said she would.

So many votes to explain, so little time.


Posted by: proudtobeGOP | May 17, 2007 11:26 AM | Report abuse

That Republican Iraq bill sounds like a great idea. Even supporters of the war should back it. If the Iraqi government isn't making any progress, then that's a problem, and we should do something about it. And if the Iraqi government doesn't want us in their country, then it's hard to justify staying.

It would have been nice if Congressional Republicans had passed this bill some time in the last few years. Maybe they would have lost fewer seats that way.

Posted by: Blarg | May 17, 2007 11:26 AM | Report abuse

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- For the first time, the Senate is expected to vote Wednesday on a Republican measure that would force President Bush to report to Congress how he intends to revise U.S. strategy if the Iraqi government fails to meet certain benchmarks.

The vote will be largely symbolic but significant because it represents growing Republican frustration about the war.

A top GOP leadership aide described the vote as a "pressure valve" release designed to allow senators to vent their concerns about the lack of progress in Iraq.

"There's a lot of sentiment in our conference that you can't force order and democracy on people who don't want it. It (the lack of progress) is having an impact on us," the GOP aide said.

Sponsored by Sen. John Warner, R-Virginia, and written with the help of several mostly moderate Republicans who have been uneasy about the direction of the war for some time, the measure would require the president to submit two reports to Congress -- one on July 15, 2008 and the other on September 15, 2008. If the reports show "unsatisfactory" progress, President Bush would have to inform the Congress of "revisions to the political, economic, regional, and military components" of his strategy. He would also have to include the "advisability of implementing aspects" of the Iraq Study Group's recommendations and suspend about $3 billion in economic aide to Iraq.

In addition, the measure says the president "shall" remove all U.S. forces if the Iraqi parliament carries through on its threat and passes a resolution directing U.S. troops to leave that country -- something Republican leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, told CNN Sunday the U.S. would gladly do.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 17, 2007 11:21 AM | Report abuse

Why don't you either rebut the argument, accept the argument or admit that you don't know enough about it to do either? And if you don't know enough about it to do either, shut up.

Posted by: Razorback | May 17, 2007 11:17 AM | Report abuse

'Christine Todd Whitman, the former administrator at the Environmental Protection Agency, has refused to testify before a congressional subcommittee, regarding the government's handling of the air quality at the World Trade Center site following the 9/11 attacks.'

i see razorback is hear, with his usual prepared corporate remarks, to lie and obfuscate withi his phony industry talking points -- to defend to the death the right of multinational oil giants to r*ape americans at the pump.

atta boy, razor, i presume you'll be with us every minute today, to try to destroy any rational conversation that people might have, to flog your corporate talking points?

Any prestense that you have a job is a joke at this point.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 17, 2007 11:14 AM | Report abuse

I am waiting for Fred Thompson to get in. If he does, I am for him.

Posted by: Razorback | May 17, 2007 11:10 AM | Report abuse

Check out these 2 exerpts from following from article posted by the moonbat who cannot write his/her/its own stuff:

"They have no interest in building spare capacity because that would undermine their pricing power," Mark Cooper, research director for the Consumer Federation of America, said prior to a hearing by a House Judiciary Committee antitrust panel in Washington Wednesday."

"But he said the domestic refining industry has continued to consolidate, allowing operators to shun building refineries, run existing ones at full throttle and thus cause many of the accidents and outages the nation has experienced over the last few months."

These 2 excerpts point out just about everything that is idiotic and dishonest when liberals talk about gas prices. (Pompous lecturers who complain about name calling please note that the following paragraphs show that the names are accurate descriptions.)

First, what is accurate about the article is that it focuses on the real problem with gas prices: refinery capacity. Harry Reid also recognizes the importance of refinery capacity.

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN0848216120070508?feedType=RSS

Now for the ignorance and dishonesty part.

Cooper uses the word "They", probably in reference to "big oil", but he fails to recognize that anyone, not just big oil, can be in the refinery business. The most common element of liberal ignorance on economics is that the lump all of "big bidness" together. For example, if you think you take a hit when buying gas, think of JB Hunt's bill to fill up 11,000 trucks, or American airlines bill to fill up 600 jets. If "gouging" is going on, JB Hunt is among the victims. The same refiners who refine gas also refine diesel fuel and aviation fuel. Why havnt they built additional refinery capacity?

Cooper and Reid both seem to think that you can get rich by restricting capacity, because it makes prices go up. This violates basic notions of economics. This would be true if price was the only factor, but profits are not dependent on price, but PRICE x VOLUME. Restricting VOLUME hurts profits. Reid's comments are particularly ignorant. Whoever has a refinery that is down is taking it in the shorts, making NO profit. Reid's idiotic theory requires greedy Exxon shut down a refinery (at a huge loss) in order to help greedy Shell.

Also the different blends of gasoline mandated by environmentsl regulations require retooling of refineries right before the summer driving season.

So what is the real problem? Why arnt refinering being built? Envirnomental regulations. It takes too long and costs to much. When R's try to relax those regulations, dihonest liberals say they are trying to help "big oil". Yes, it helps big oil to add capacity, but as Cooper and Ried understand, adding refinery capacity helps consumers.

Why can't Harry Reid and other liberals be honest about it? Why can't they just say we have to pay more to protect the envirnoment, and the higher cost is worth it? Why must they pander in a contradictory way?

Imagine what the price would be when you add all the global warming taxes to the mix. This is why the Dem presidentials have been silent about gas prices.

So there you have it. A lot of facts and arguments that no leftist will even try to rebut that shows that libs comments on gas prices are both ignorant of basic econmics and dishonest.

Posted by: Razorback | May 17, 2007 11:04 AM | Report abuse

bsimon, that poll result could be that it's just too damn early to care. Primaries are 8 months away. Soooo much can happen between now and then.

Why 'emotionally invest' in a candidate at this point?

Posted by: JD | May 17, 2007 11:03 AM | Report abuse

Sanford is waiting for his kids to get a little older so he can run with his son Lamont.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 17, 2007 11:03 AM | Report abuse

I want to leave an irrelevant comment too

Posted by: Anonymous | May 17, 2007 10:51 AM | Report abuse

The way you guarantee to lose is if you are the party of Iraq," said Sanford, adding: "The conversation that will take place on Iraq and the Middle East has to be tempered."

Meaning, change the subject. To anything you can. Look over there, it's bin ladin! Run, hide! The sky is falling! The terrists, the big scary bad guys are coming! They have dark skin and beards - they look different, they must be evil! Be afraid -- be very afraid!

Posted by: Kevin | May 17, 2007 10:45 AM | Report abuse

I saw elsewhere that a new zogby poll has the GOP top three each around 20%, leaving 40% either undecided or supporting one of the fringe candidates. Could that many people be waiting for an F.Thompson/Gingrich entry into the race?

Posted by: bsimon | May 17, 2007 10:42 AM | Report abuse

BAGHDAD Police prevented press photographers and camera operators from filming the scene of a bombing yesterday under a new policy blocking coverage of the devastating explosions that have become a hallmark of the violence in the country.

To enforce an order that a group of journalists leave Tayaran Square, where the bombing occurred, police fired several shots, reporters said.

Brig. Gen. Abdel Karim Khalaf, the operations director at the Interior Ministry, said this weekend that Iraq's government has decided to bar press photographers and cameramen from the scene of bombings. '

Now watch one of our super 'patriot' trolls come out to declare what a great idea censorship is [the same people who so fervently believe in the govrnment's right to spy on any american citizen, anytime]... why do the wingers hate democracy and the constitution so much?

Posted by: 'democracy' in iraq | May 17, 2007 10:40 AM | Report abuse

NEW YORK What's going on? Gallup reports today a new low in its regular "satisfaction" index. Only 25% of Americans now say they are satisfied with the state of their country -- the lowest ever measured.

"Since Gallup first asked this question in 1979, the average percentage of Americans saying they are satisfied with conditions in the country is 43%."

Posted by: Anonymous | May 17, 2007 10:34 AM | Report abuse

McCain never stops pandering...
http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by: p | May 17, 2007 10:34 AM | Report abuse

Sanford doesn't want VP this year because he knows that the Democrats are going to win this election. The best thing for a young up and coming republican such as Sanford would be to keep his head down and in 2012 come out as the "saviour" of the party and run for President.
He would run as a sort of Populist republican who listens to the people over his party. Now that is all a load of crap but it would sell BIG time in places like NH, Iowa, and of course SC.

Posted by: Andy R | May 17, 2007 10:33 AM | Report abuse

On the day presidential senior adviser Karl Rove administered a tongue-lashing to a Republican congressman, disturbing news about his former executive assistant was spread on Capitol Hill. GOP House members learned that Susan Ralston is requesting immunity to testify before Democratic Rep. Henry Waxman's investigating committee.

She was an assistant to Jack Abramoff, Washington super-lobbyist and Republican fundraiser, in 2001 when he recommended her for the top job with Rove as he entered the White House. As Rove's gatekeeper, Susan Bonzon Ralston became special assistant to the president and the highest-ranking Filipino American in the administration. For Waxman, she is a link between the disgraced, imprisoned Abramoff and Rove.

Posted by: novak | May 17, 2007 10:28 AM | Report abuse

William: Your sales commission payment will have to be late this week. Not enough people are going to our site.

Posted by: Solid | May 17, 2007 10:23 AM | Report abuse

There have been nearly 1000 signing statements made by Bush. These were meant, not to clarify the law, but actually to replace the intent of the law and to create new law - a direct contravention of the Constitution.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 17, 2007 10:22 AM | Report abuse

In March 2004, President Bush's warrantless domestic spying program was temporarily suspended after then-acting Attorney General James Comey refused to sign onto an extension of the program, citing an "extensive review" by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, stating "that the program did not comply with the law." In "gripping testimony" yesterday before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Comey revealed extraordinary details about the efforts made by Alberto Gonzales and Andrew Card -- then-White House counsel and chief of staff, respectively -- to persuade John Ashcroft to overrule Comey, even as Ashcroft was debilitated in an intensive care unit with pancreatitis. The Washington Post calls Comey's "account of Bush administration lawlessness so shocking it would have been unbelievable coming from a less reputable source." Indeed, Comey's revelations confirm the worst fears about Gonzales's dangerously flawed judgment, and provide further evidence of the administration's -- including the President's -- contempt for basic legal restraints.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 17, 2007 10:20 AM | Report abuse

... and the best presidential coverage is on http://www.solidpolitics.com

Posted by: William | May 17, 2007 10:16 AM | Report abuse

Oh yeah, and Obama killed a guy once just to watch him die.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 17, 2007 10:09 AM | Report abuse

And I heard that John Edwards likes to drown puppies. And Hillary likes to eat babies.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 17, 2007 10:08 AM | Report abuse

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Big Oil went on the defensive Wednesday, getting grilled before a House panel and denying accusations that mismanagement and a lack of competition are the reasons behind this spring's record gasoline prices.

Gas prices hit $3.10 a gallon Wednesday, according to AAA. It's the fourth record day in a row, and the surge has been attributed to low gasoline supplies caused by a lack of refining capacity.

"They have no interest in building spare capacity because that would undermine their pricing power," Mark Cooper, research director for the Consumer Federation of America, said prior to a hearing by a House Judiciary Committee antitrust panel in Washington Wednesday.

At the hearing, monitored on television in New York, Cooper was just as blunt.

"This is a picture of fundamental market failure," he said. "And Congress and the administration have stood by and done nothing to help consumers."

Cooper pointed to the record earnings at oil companies and said in any other industry this would attract new businesses.

But he said the domestic refining industry has continued to consolidate, allowing operators to shun building refineries, run existing ones at full throttle and thus cause many of the accidents and outages the nation has experienced over the last few months.

"This is just mismanagement," he said. "But they get away with it because there is no competitive discipline."

Posted by: Anonymous | May 17, 2007 9:58 AM | Report abuse

Arizona Senator John McCain got things rolling with a statement released just minutes after the announcement that the man who for many years was the face of evangelical politics in America had died from an apparent heart attack at age 73.

" 'I join the students, faculty, and staff of Liberty University and Americans of all faiths in mourning the loss of Reverend Jerry Falwell,' said McCain. 'Dr. Falwell was a man of distinguished accomplishment who devoted his life to serving his faith and country.'

"Distinguished accomplishment? Would that be when Falwell regularly featured segregationists Lester Maddox and George Wallace on his Old Time Gospel Hour television program in the 1960s? When he condemned the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and referred to the civil rights movement as 'the civil wrongs movement'? When he opposed sanctions against South Africa's apartheid regime in the 1980s? When he produced an infomercial in the 1990s accusing President Clinton of orchestrating murders of journalists and political critics, even though he would eventually admit that 'I do not know the accuracy of the claims'? When he attacked Teletubbies character Tinky Winky as a gay recruitment tool? When he asserted that the Antichrist 'must be, of necessity, a Jewish male'?"

Posted by: Anonymous | May 17, 2007 9:50 AM | Report abuse

So no one in the republican party minds that Rudy became a PR adviser to the saudis after 9/11?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 17, 2007 9:40 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company