Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Poll Tries to Measure Colbert Effect

You don't need The Fix to state the obvious: Stephen Colbert is everywhere right now.

Stephen Colbert
Does candidate Colbert hurt any particular Democrat or Republican? (Bloomberg)

Following the announcement of his presidential ambitions last week, Colbert has chalked up quite a run of political coverage, capping the week with an appearance on ultimate establishment Washington TV show: "Meet the Press".

And now, we have national poll results detailing Colbert's chances -- and, no, we aren't kidding.

Public Opinion Strategies, a Republican polling firm, recently completed a national poll of 1,000 likely 2008 voters that included Colbert's name in both the GOP and Democratic primaries. (He has announced his plans to run in both the Democratic and Republican primaries.) In the field from Oct. 18-21, the survey has a 5 percent margin of error.

In the Democratic primary, Colbert takes 2.3 percent of the vote -- good for fifth place behind Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (40 percent), Sen. Barack Obama (19 percent), former Sen. John Edwards (12 percent) and Sen. Joe Biden (2.7 percent. Colbert finished ahead of Gov. Bill Richardson (2.1 percent), Rep. Dennis Kucinich (2.1 percent) and former Sen. Mike Gravel (less than 1 percent).

He was less lucky in the Republican field, where he took less than 1 percent of the vote behind even longshot candidates like Reps. Tom Tancredo and Ron Paul. Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani led the Republican field with 29 percent, followed by former Gov. Mitt Romney at 12 percent, former Sen. Fred Thompson (11 percent) and Sen. John McCain (10 percent).

"It's clear that Colbert's truthiness image and 'I am America' message has serious resonance among Democrats," said Neil Newhouse, a POS partner.

Yes, we know that Colbert's bid is satire and nothing more. But anyone who follows politics as closely as we do knows that it even serious politics often devolves into theater of the absurd. So why shouldn't Colbert be another actor in the real 2008 race?

For even more on Colbert and his impact (or lack thereof) on the race, check out Fix Friend Josh Green's piece over at the Atlantic Online. Good stuff.

By Chris Cillizza  |  October 22, 2007; 2:10 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: McCain Shines at Latest GOP Debate
Next: FixCam: Week In Preview

Comments

I've been following this on GlobalGrind.com, I cannot believe he 1) is really running, and 2) people would vote for him...this election is turning into a joke more and more every da.

Posted by: hiphophustler82 | October 24, 2007 6:52 PM | Report abuse

Maybe the Dems at the bottom of the list should assess thier viability as candidates. Why is Gravel still getting air time? At least Richardson is a serious Veep candidate.

www.prtini.com

Posted by: heather1062 | October 23, 2007 5:24 PM | Report abuse

If Steven C wants to win, he just needs to do a photo op at the US-Mexican border in San Diego and say he will take all the $500 million in Mexican drug war money (a waste) and use it to rebuild the infrastructure in Southern California instead.

"President Fox, Tear Down This Wall!" ... I can hear it now.

It has the air of truthiness in it.

Posted by: WillSeattle | October 23, 2007 4:58 PM | Report abuse

Good point about Sen. Dodd.

But if he gets 1 percent in the Red Bushie party, that means he's competitive with Ron Paul.

Posted by: WillSeattle | October 23, 2007 4:54 PM | Report abuse

Even if it is a joke poll, all candidates should be included. Senator and Candidate Christopher Dodd was not mentioned in the Democratic field.

Posted by: amandajfoster | October 23, 2007 2:11 PM | Report abuse

dispensing with the ambulatory school of permissiveness as his theatre guide he loped onto the podium and said:


"sometimes you get what you want, and sometimes it gets you."


freezing voids of plenty ammassed inertia and descended on the froids of dexterity...


bleached nodules of glory await you son...


hold 'em tight.


.

Posted by: afraidofme | October 22, 2007 7:31 PM | Report abuse

I like Chris Floyd, Rufus. He's done some great stuff.
As for colbert, I will seriously write him in if my party continues in this koolaid haze and nominates Hillary.
She is the one candidate I refuse to vote for.

Posted by: vwcat | October 22, 2007 7:27 PM | Report abuse

"So this is where we've come to, one year after the people spoke at the ballot box, fighting through government propaganda, media distortions, pundit scorn, terrorist scares -- and the Karl Rove vote-skewing, vote-suppressing, vote-stealing machine -- to deliver a strong call for a new direction, for an end to war and torture and tyranny and corruption and lies. They believed -- perhaps for the last time -- that their vote might make a difference, that the "consent of the governed" might still retain some meaning.

So they turned to the only serious alternative the system provided: the Democrats. And this is what they got: more war, more torture, more tyranny, more corruption, more lies.

What should the people believe now? What should they hope for from the system now? And what new nightmares await them in the second year of this perverse union between a power-drunk president and a cowardly, corrupted, complicit "opposition"?

-- Chris Floyd

"

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 22, 2007 6:53 PM | Report abuse

checking his spanner for ticks

and

resisting the desire to sit and speak with hedgehogs flocking to him he bit off a piece

of his apple and gave it to the crowd of apertinent shearers of deftness.

smiling at me, nothing but blue skys...

....take me home...helena montana.

Posted by: afraidofme | October 22, 2007 6:39 PM | Report abuse

there is but one choice here,

I must admit that there is no other way to do this.

see yah.

.

Posted by: afraidofme | October 22, 2007 6:33 PM | Report abuse

????????????????????

Screw the patriot act cronies. Speak in english. Screw them if they want to record. This is america. The patriot act cronie sell-outs should not scare US. We should scare them. We are the patriots. We have truth on our side. Do not fear them. Put the fear, in them.

Post your mind afraid. What's up homie?

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 22, 2007 6:28 PM | Report abuse

deforming the platform of aggression to include carefully scripted performances of


hello world the angrophobic dereliction of passionate

persistance became....gleepent.

perfidy,

madame toussant.

.

Posted by: afraidofme | October 22, 2007 6:25 PM | Report abuse

distince presence allows one to predict the next few words...

and allows one to entrap the others thought process.


in order to succeed on te must have a significant amout of effort insnared in whatever it is that fish eat.

Posted by: afraidofme | October 22, 2007 6:23 PM | Report abuse

"Summary: Noting that a Fox News text-message poll following the October 21 Republican presidential debate put Ron Paul in first place, Sean Hannity said, "Oh, this poll -- you've got all your supporters calling." Paul responded: "What, you mean your own poll isn't any good?" Hannity then said: "No, it's just a lot of fun." But Hannity has previously touted the results of the same type of text-message poll when those results were favorable for President Bush: In January, Hannity noted several times that "85 percent" of viewers who voted by text message said that Bush did an "excellent" job in his State of the Union address.
"

http://mediamatters.org/items/200710220006?f=h_side

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 22, 2007 6:21 PM | Report abuse

"Hannity dismissed Fox text-message polls as "just a lot of fun" when results favored Paul, but not when results favored Bush"

Select polls? Or fascist propognada?

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 22, 2007 6:20 PM | Report abuse

squelching pishes of friendliness...
sheffert.


mylonesian apprendages of kelping


carefulgrepping allows one to attain priesthood.

.

Posted by: afraidofme | October 22, 2007 6:19 PM | Report abuse

the question is how to step out of the existing paradigm so strongly that the world follows suit...

presence of destruction, encircling annoyances....crushing shallow waves.

the question is how to step out of the

Posted by: afraidofme | October 22, 2007 6:17 PM | Report abuse

questing for a farthing he stumbled out into a nightengale frenzy....

tossed between pillows of moistness
fresh with rose petals...

severance as a journey into sweetness...leaning just touching before

distance

Posted by: afraidofme | October 22, 2007 6:15 PM | Report abuse

"The are afraidofme."

i MEAN tHEY ARE. They are afraid. not of you. but of the truth you post. That is good. Make them fear truth. What is a man/woman that fears truth? Are they are liar? Can a liar be a christian? No. regardless of what the flase prophets tell you.

Credibility. What is a newsperson with zero credibility? Are they then a propogandist? Yes.

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 22, 2007 6:09 PM | Report abuse

I like economy of movement...

sometimes the shadow of a knife can cut.

.

Posted by: afraidofme | October 22, 2007 6:02 PM | Report abuse

The are afraidofme. The gop is a party of cowards. they hide from their own shadow. If you start talking truths, what do they do? Run and hide.

You should watch posting to much truth. To muc truth only runs them off. They want to propogate here. They don't want things of relevane. But that is the problem with politics in this coutnry. How cna you possibly knwo what's going on if you hide your head in the sand? You can't. you hear that gop.

Do you rthing afraid. don't stop. Get as many people as you can. they love to point at ratings and polls. Go into the world. Get as many people turned on to the facts as possible. Only truth can save us. There is truth and those trying to silence us.

But the generation X and later are not as dumb as our fathers and grandfathers. They were lazy. They were scared. The gop got them all worked up, thinking the red's were coming for them. propoganda. Lies. Inside baseball.


do your thing afraid. Get em. don't let anyone stop ya. As many people as possible. on as many blogs as possible. Bringing as much truth as possible. That is the only way to win.

"We must explode the truth, onto the world."

If the children only knew. We need to save them before it's not to late. Before we lose them to the same monster that took our ancestors. Fear doesn't exist. Fear is the only power the gop and their sell-out freinds have. The only power they have is the power WE give them. Fear doesn't exist. We got em. do your thing boy

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 22, 2007 5:59 PM | Report abuse

Then, regarding a purported Gates meeting with a key Israeli intelligence officer who had linked Gates to both the 1980 Iran-hostage scandal and the later Iraq-gate operations, Gates denied that the meeting ever took place. To prove it, Gates supplied Boren and Tenet with an airtight alibi - for the wrong day.

In 1991, when I pointed out this date discrepancy to the Senate Intelligence Committee staff, they agreed that they had the wrong day but then told me that they had simply decided to take Gates at his word that he had not met the Israeli intelligence officer, Ari Ben-Menashe.

New Evidence

Since 1991, however, new evidence has emerged supporting the plausibility of Ben-Menashe's claims.

In January 1993, the Russian government sent then-Rep. Lee Hamilton a report describing what the KGB's intelligence files revealed about the history of secret U.S. arms sales to Iran.

According to this Russian report, CIA officer Gates joined then-vice presidential candidate George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan's campaign chief William Casey in a clandestine meeting with Iranian representatives in Paris in October 1980.

At the time, President Jimmy Carter was trying to gain the freedom of 52 American hostages in Iran whose continued captivity sank Carter's hopes for reelection. The hostages weren't freed until immediately after Reagan and Bush were sworn in on Jan. 20, 1981.

Though the Russian report contradicted long-standing denials by Gates and Bush about the Paris trip, Hamilton never subjected the report to a thorough examination, nor did he release it to the public. He simply filed it away in unpublished records of a House task force he had headed. [I discovered the Russian report a couple of years later.]

In another blow to Gates's credibility in January 1995, Howard Teicher, who had served on President Reagan's National Security Council staff in the 1980s, submitted a sworn affidavit detailing the work of Gates and his boss, then-CIA Director Casey, in arranging arms supplies through Chilean arms dealer Carlos Cardoen for the Iraqis.

Again, the Teicher affidavit was never seriously investigated, in part because it complicated a federal prosecution of a private company, Teledyne Industries, which had supplied explosives to Cardoen.

When Justice Department lawyers couldn't readily find documents that Teicher said should be in the Reagan archives, the lawyers questioned Teicher's credibility, ignoring the fact that in 1986, NSC aide Oliver North conducted a massive "shredding party" of NSC records about secret policies in the Middle East and Central America.

Posted by: afraidofme | October 22, 2007 5:48 PM | Report abuse

PArty over coutnry used to be called treason. Where are the coutnries leaders to hold them to account? you know the gop is unalbe to police their own. Does the responsibility then fall to the democrats, or law enforcment?

I say the laws should be set and their for all. The r's would say it is up to the dem's to catch them.

Fascists. treason is treason. Whether I, or anonymous posters, catch you, or the law. The only differance is what is done with the traitors. since the gop took over, there has been no law. Were back in the old wild west. Can we play by those rules, gop? You do. Can I be lawless cowboy also? I can't can I. your party is done for a generation. In 08, or 12, we get our country back. do not fight your countrymen gop. Get back in the closet. Lay low. The foudners are taking our coutnry back.

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 22, 2007 5:47 PM | Report abuse

Bill Clinton was a RHODES Scholar.

I didn't know that was a Yale school...


you should probably search on


bush crime family, nazis

there are over 2 MILLION LISTINGS

but if you don't know the connection between


Castro's assassination attempt/Bay of Pigs

JFK assassination

WaterGate

Iran Contra

October Surprise

Aghan/Iraq occupations

you're useless.


because it's a repeating pattern. felons playing with felons because they have already all commited the same crimes together....

thus the refrain "Cronies"


thugs/felons/crooks/liars/thieves


lying a***oles

.

Posted by: afraidofme | October 22, 2007 5:44 PM | Report abuse

"Donald Gregg and Robert Gates were National Security Council officials to whom speculation of a role attached. Shackley and Gregg had reported to Bush Sr. in the past, and would do so again. After losing the race in 1980, Carter suggested that Gregg might have leaked classified information to Bush during the campaign."

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 22, 2007 5:42 PM | Report abuse

Robert M. Gates, went to Paris with William Casey

then CIA Director...

to arrange for the release of the IRAN HOSTAGES after the Regan Election.


Jimmy Carter was butxxed by the CIA.


what the f**k? is that legal?

.

Posted by: afraidofme | October 22, 2007 5:40 PM | Report abuse

Beware of clinton. Beware of the yale plan. What happened to dean? What happened to kerry? Lienerman? Beware of teh yale plan. Clinton is carrying on the legacy.

What really scares me. i go to goolge. I type in Yale. The wiki listing used to come up. Everything up until today. Now gone. i have to go to wiki and type yale. THEY'RE ON TO ME AAAAHHHHHHHH.

A chrsitian fears no man. Least of all the fascists. If god is with me, who can be agasint me?

"All U.S. presidents since 1989 have been Yale graduates, namely George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton (who attended the University's Law School along with his wife, New York Senator Hillary Clinton), and George W. Bush, and Vice President Dick Cheney, (although he did not graduate). Many of the 2004 presidential candidates attended Yale: Bush, John Kerry, Howard Dean, and Joe Lieberman.

Other Yale-educated presidents were William Howard Taft (B.A.) and Gerald Ford (LL.B). Alumni also include several Supreme Court justices, including current Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.
"

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

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 22, 2007 5:40 PM | Report abuse

what does the Secreatry of Defense have to do with October Suprise?

Stephen.

Posted by: afraidofme | October 22, 2007 5:38 PM | Report abuse

in my opinion

Kerry threw the election to bush...


a bonobo chimp could have won against...bush


.

Posted by: afraidofme | October 22, 2007 5:36 PM | Report abuse

October Surprise

For those that don't know what this is. Very pertinant.

see any similarities?

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

"An October surprise is American political jargon describing a news event with the potential to influence the outcome of an election, particularly one for the presidency. It is so called because Election Day in the U.S. is the Tuesday after the first Monday in November, and events shortly before the election have greater potential to swing votes. Most of the time, the term is used to label actions of a sitting president, especially with regard to military or foreign policy matters, but it can also apply to news stories unfavorable to the incumbent administration. "Historically, news outlets avoid investigative pieces critical of candidates within days of an election to avoid appearing partisan." [1] Particularly since the 1980 election, the term has been pre-emptively used to discredit late-campaign news by one side or the other.

1968 Humphrey vs. Nixon


1972 Nixon vs. McGovern


1980 Carter vs. Reagan


[edit] 1992 Bush vs. Clinton

2000 Gore vs. Bush

2003 California recall election

2004 Bush vs. Kerry"


Fascists.


"The October Surprise conspiracy was an alleged plot that claimed representatives of the 1980 Ronald Reagan presidential campaign had conspired with Islamic Republic of Iran to delay the release of 52 Americans held hostage in Tehran until after the 1980 U.S. Presidential election. In exchange for their cooperation, the United States would supply weapons to Iran as well as unfreeze Iran's monetary assets being held by the US government.

Jimmy Carter had been attempting to deal with the Iran hostage crisis and the hostile regime of the Ayatollah Khomeini for nearly a year. Those who assert that a deal was made allege that certain Republicans with CIA connections, including George H. W. Bush, arranged to have the hostages held through October, until Reagan could defeat Carter in early November, and then be released, thereby preventing an "October surprise" from the Carter administration in which the hostages would be released shortly before the election. The hostages were released the day of Reagan's inauguration, twenty minutes after his inaugural address.

After 12 years of news reports looking into the alleged conspiracy, both houses of the US Congress held separate inquiries into the issue, and journalists from sources such as Newsweek and The New Republic looked into the charges. Both Congressional inquires, as well as the majority of investigative reports, found the evidence to be insufficient. Nevertheless, several individuals, most notably Former Iranian President Abolhassan Bani-Sadr and Former Reagan-Bush Campaign and White House Staffer Barbara Honegger, continue to claim otherwise.
"

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

Tahnks for that opening bra

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 22, 2007 5:33 PM | Report abuse

One was us selling weaopns to iran, our supposed enemy, to fight in the middle east. Cause turmoil. Stir up animosities. Basically setting the stage for the first iraq war, for oil. Also to supply south americans with the means to overthrow their govenment. Telling others how to govern their nation ,you know the routine.

The war on drugs on the other hand was all here in america. To take resources from the things the gop does not like and put that money into things the gop does like. In the process all OUR resources are bogged down. Nothing cahnges. The "Government can do nothing right " gop wins both ways. It's america that loses. Fascists. Their party is done for a generation. We will take our resources back. Put them into social programs. That is the gop's biggest fear. THat is how the gop is eliminated from politics. Through improving the country. Isn't that what a governmnet is supposed to do? Improve the coutnry. So if they are invested in the countries defeat, if they make sure we can't pass anything substancial, are they then saboturs to the nation? Is sabotage for personal or party gain, treason? If not when did the word treason take on a new meaning? When did treason become a political platform? No matter how you spin it gop. We know see you. We are not as stupid as our parents and grandparents.

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 22, 2007 5:29 PM | Report abuse

same players.

.

Posted by: afraidofme | October 22, 2007 5:28 PM | Report abuse

what is the connection with

Castro's assassination attempt/Bay of Pigs

JFK assassination

WaterGate

Iran Contra

October Surprise

Aghan/Iraq occupations?


.

Posted by: afraidofme | October 22, 2007 5:26 PM | Report abuse

what am I?

if I were going to put a label on you, it would be...

noise in the crowd...

Posted by: afraidofme | October 22, 2007 5:24 PM | Report abuse

The iran contra affair is a differant beast than the "war on drugs". Two differant travesties. One treason. The other one, well treason, I guess: )

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 22, 2007 5:22 PM | Report abuse

zouk is a fascist

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 22, 2007 5:21 PM | Report abuse

"Pajamas Media removed both Kucinich and Paul from this week's straw poll and last week's. Their reasoning? The people voting for Ron Paul depressed the people voting for other candidates, and they weren't voting any more.

Reminds me of the Kremlin. Don't like someone? Delete them from the ballot. It's just sick and hypocritical. I wonder how the Ron Paul people feel about that? These Neo-con 24%ers just can't deal with the fact that there is plenty of anti-war sentiment in the GOP ranks.
"

Pajamas media indeed.

www.crooksandliars.com

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 22, 2007 5:21 PM | Report abuse

actually,

money to Iran Contra thugs...


I doubt very much that Republicans got much drug money...


you are full of shyyte.


.

Posted by: afraidofme | October 22, 2007 5:19 PM | Report abuse

destruction of patterning can not be presupposed...

if you exist with expectations youcannotsee...

crepe

Posted by: afraidofme | October 22, 2007 5:17 PM | Report abuse

"Just as the Iran-Contra scandal evolved to include drug smuggling, the Iraq War also is closely related to drug smuggling. While the Bush regime has so far managed to keep the drug smuggling aspects of the war from reaching the media, evidence is beginning to emerge"

In the "war on drugs". Bush 41 brought the drugs in to fight. Why? Money to republcains. Money taken from the governmetn and put into law enforcement. If we legalize weed, only weed, studies have shown america saves 41 billion. that's billion with a B. I think it would be larger. Take into account the jails. Take into account law enforement stop harrasing and go after criminals. Take into account illegal smugglers would have no income and have to go home. It's all a shame. It's all a hoax. The gop is a party of fascists and saboturs.

Afganistan sells more heroine now than they ever have. Bush opened up another market. Another drug market that is.

Why do the republcains do this? think on it for a second. As said above. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

41 billion would end hunger WORLDWIDE three times over AND pay for health care in america. It's about resources. Follow the money. Then you find the REAL criminals.

It's simple econmics. Not rocket science. The "war on drugs", the brought the drugs in to fight them. The "war on terror", they bring the terror to us to fight. Why? It happens every time a republcain gets the presidency. They create a bad guy and they wage war. They do it for money.

Fascists. They have waged war agaisnt their own country. the gop is the party of traitors and sell-outs. Your tiem is almost up/

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 22, 2007 5:17 PM | Report abuse

your work lacks insight.

as an aside you need ot let go of mimicking and simply be yourself...

no one can do what I do....unless they try...with the same reasons in mind...I work for you, not for me...


I work to give you you


not my viewpoints.

feeding is not the same thing as teaching gardening...

learn to garden.

quit needing to be fed....observe freedom choose that

aggravation avoidance is the anethema of beauty...

beauty is a crocus pressing through the snow

because it can't wait.


I Quit the paradise I existed within,

descending to the earth plane to explain the miracle of beingness to the frogs of love.

Swiveling, I beheld the pregnant pause of her friendliknees winking at me.

I bent over to pick up the cliche I had dropped, all was silent as I moved towards the open skies....

Buttressingmy personal alliances were a pair of dove coats, within swaining distance....pearls


Water drifted underneath the fog of my awareness, a pinnacle of doubt swimming towards me...

I threw my bowl softly to the winds, it's emptyness filling the skies...and began tossing a fragrant stick into the water....she lunged for it.

Afro Mercy

It became apparent something was occuring that she had no prior knowledge of, thank gawd....


Pleasant kissing of the muse speckled the egg of her puissance....

melting all resistance to the understanding of the naked absence of malice.

Lifting her brows with pernicious twisting I pastime with her beauty affording me glances...

.

Posted by: afraidofme | October 22, 2007 5:15 PM | Report abuse

Differant political landscape than it was 30 years ago. i wasn't born yet. LAugh it up. But I have to assume.

No party has been put on front street this much in my lifetime, as the gop. And rightfully so. It's eliminate one of the parties time. Either will do. As long as we have a new party, I don't care which of the currents are gone. I would prefer the r's of course. I'm not sure who the democrats are representing right now, based on their approval ratings. At least the r's have a vison. It may be oppresive and fascist, but at least they stick to it. What do the democrats represent?

Thrid party, 2012. Till then we are just thredding water.

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 22, 2007 5:10 PM | Report abuse

whoops, that's Paulsen.

Posted by: AlaninMissoula | October 22, 2007 5:05 PM | Report abuse

what are the MEN AND WOMEN IN IRAQ DYING AND LOSING BODY PARTS FOR??????

OIL and drug trafficking...

AND !!!,

are the United States Soldiers getting a cut, of _t_h_a_t_

____________________ M O N E Y ? _____________________no

no, they are getting their legs blown off, getting medals of honor and waiting two years to be declared disabled as they lose homes that they can't make mortgage payments on.

READ THIS:
Just as the Iran-Contra scandal evolved to include drug smuggling, the Iraq War also is closely related to drug smuggling. While the Bush regime has so far managed to keep the drug smuggling aspects of the war from reaching the media, evidence is beginning to emerge. The evidence comes largely from a former FBI translator turned whistle-blower, Sibel Edmonds. Hired to translate intercepted messages soon after 9/11 this Turkish lady first blew the whistle on the FBI for dragging its feet. She has state emphatically that she has seen documents that prove the Bush administration was fully aware of the terrorist attack before 9/11. While ATTORNEY GENERAL JOHN ASHCROFT, has imposed a gag order on her, this courageous lady has only been able to speak in generalized terms. However, she has repeatedly stated that when viewed as an international drug smuggling operation the picture becomes clear.

Sibel Edmonds has provided a huge clue in her generalized statements, a clue that points directly at the BUSH FAMILY and DICK CHENEY. Haliburton the oil services company formerly headed by CHENEY has a long history of involvement in drug smuggling and gunrunning especially through its Brown and Root subsidiary. Brown and Root also has a long history of providing cover for CIA agents. In the late 1970s Brown and Root was implicated in drug smuggling and gunrunning from oil platforms in the Gulf of Mexico built by Brown and Root and using ships owned by Brown and Root. In the 1990s Brown and Root was implicated in smuggling heroin to Europe through Russia. The heroin originated in Laos.

The Russian incident surfaced in 1995 after thieves stole sacks of heroin concealed as sugar from a rail container leased by Alfa Echo. Authorities were alerted to the problem after residents of Khabarovsk, a Siberian city became intoxicated from consuming the heroin. Alfa Echo is part of the Russian Alfa group of companies controlled by Mikhail Fridman and Pyotr Aven. The FSB, the Russian equivalent of the FBI firmly proved a solid link between Alfa Tyumen and drug smuggling. The drug smuggling route was further exposed after the Ministry of Internal Affairs raided Alfa Eko buildings and found drugs and other compromising documentation. Under Cheney's leadership of Haliburton, Brown and Root received a taxpayer insured loan through the Export-Import Bank of $292 million dollars for Brown and Root to refurbish a Siberian oil field owned by Alfa Tyumen. The Alfa Bank is also implicated in money laundering for the Colombian cocaine cartels.

THERE IS $80 BILLION IN UNRECORDED PROFITS IN THE FIRST STEP OF AFGHANI OPIUM COLLECTION, refinement...three steps later it could be worth $400 BILLION, in unrecorded profits...

Posted by: afraidofme | October 22, 2007 5:05 PM | Report abuse

Is anyone else reminded of comedian Pat Paulson's run for president three decades back? Paulson was a political comedian that was part of the Smothers Brothers Comedy hour pulled from the airwaves in spite of its popularity for being too political.

Posted by: AlaninMissoula | October 22, 2007 5:00 PM | Report abuse

hello Stephen, maybe you can check this out...

Monday, June 25, 2007

Blackwater Mercenaries on the USA-Mexico Border

By Nancy Conroy

In San Diego County, California, a firestorm has erupted over plans to build a Blackwater mercenary training camp in the hills behind Potrero, a remote area east of the city. The residents of San Diego are opposing the idea on the grounds that firing ranges are noisy and mercenaries would be undesirable neighbors. So far the controversy has been a localized, "not in my backyard," type of debate involving planning commissions and citizen's action groups.

Americans tend to think in an American way, and therefore nobody seems to have noticed that the location of this camp is right on the US-Mexico border, just a few miles from Tecate.

From an international perspective, there are a number of geopolitical reasons that could explain why this border location was selected. This is probably not merely an issue for the local planning commission, given that the idea of mercenaries along the border has broader international implications.

...

The presence of Blackwater in Iraq has generated controversy over the concept of an "outsourced" war, using mercenaries instead of regular US troops. The mercenaries do not answer to US military commanders, their conduct is not governed by the Geneva Convention, and they answer only to the people who are signing their paychecks.


A Blackwater camp on the border may be a covert attempt to militarize the border without going through congressional oversight or public debate. A so-called "training camp" could probably also function as an operational base. Perhaps Blackwater will obtain government contracts to patrol the border, gradually edging out US agents and putting border security into the hands of a private army away from public scrutiny.
.....


The proposed training camp is located near

international drug supply routes,

controlled by the Sinaloa Cartel.


The remote, mountainous terrain is like Afghanistan, where Blackwater has years of experience running covert operations.

Six miles from the proposed Blackwater camp, northern Mexico has a serious problem with "Men in Black" who coincidentally look, dress, and act just like the Blackwater people. In Mexico, the Men in Black are kidnappers, corrupt police officers, fake federal agents, or Zetas, a narco-paramilitary group. Although Americans may still be swallowing the argument that Blackwater is a "military auxiliary" outfit, the Mexicans are not fooled about who the Men in Black are, what they do, and who they work for. That these same people are now camped out on the US border, or are somehow involved in border enforcement, will lack credibility in Mexico.

http://www.mexidata.info/id1416.html


you might also check this out,


SEARCH on

Gary Webb, Parry, Letter of Understanding, CIA, DOJ

read the letter of understanding. the DoJ gave the CIA permission to drug traffick and use the proceeds, without record keeping or fear of prosecution in Central and South America and AFGHANISTAN [ the HEROIN CAPITOL OF THE WORLD! ]


think any of those $BILLIONS$ OF DOLLARS IN DRUG MONEY FIND THEIR WAY INTO bushCO and CRONY pockets?????

wonder why bush wanted AMNESTY w/no background checks for _ILLEGALS_ a few months ago????

how does Latino paramilitary deathsquads in the Border Patrol sound to you AMERICA ???

it would make it cheaper and safer for bushCO and CRONYs to bring drugs, weapons and other contra band in country...


think of it as hellping out your owners AMERICA !!!!

they own you, you don't have a fricking choice.

.

Posted by: afraidofme | October 22, 2007 4:58 PM | Report abuse

Lieberman as VP would have not been so bad because Gore, unlike Bush, was perfectly capable of handling the duties of the office of the president himself.

Posted by: Spectator2 | October 22, 2007 4:58 PM | Report abuse

"Beck: "[A] handful of people who hte America ... are losing their homes in a foest fre today""

http://mediamatters.org/items/200710220003?f=h_latest

That's your boy gop. HAd to shorten the words for the thought police fascists, but you get the idea.

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 22, 2007 4:57 PM | Report abuse

It is funny that people like Colbert will actually try to run for president for publicity's sake. It is surprising that Hilary Clinton has 40% of the votes. Where is her competition?

Posted by: shakensparco | October 22, 2007 4:49 PM | Report abuse

Well said bsimon. Voting for party over candidates ( the gop imo) got us in this mess. The lesser of two evils is middle ground slavery. I wish each side had two compleatly visons. compleatly differant. Like ....... two seperate parties.

We now have two differant sides of the same fascist coin. To change the broken political system we need a new coin. If only to keep both current parties honest. Like i've said, if only pepsi and ckoe existed as drinks, why would they change? Why woudl they improve? They wouldn't. They would try and corner the market so we didn't have any other choices. the same is true with politics.

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 22, 2007 4:48 PM | Report abuse

"Beck: "[A] handful of people who hate America ... are losing their homes in a forest fire today""

http://mediamatters.org/items/200710220003?f=h_latest

That's your boy gop. You are keeping him and those like him on tv. Why do you fascists hate your country so much? Why not leave if you hate freedom?

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 22, 2007 4:45 PM | Report abuse

Blarg writes
"Until that system changes, third-party candidates will always be spoilers."

And, in that context, third-party candidates serve an important role. There is a minority of voters that refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils (or the greater). Give us candidates that we can vote for, rather than counting on driving up your opponent's negatives high enough to win on fear.

In MN we sent an extremely liberal man to the Senate twice (and nearly a 3rd time when he tragically died), not because MN is extremely liberal, but because he was a compelling, inspiring candidate. Concurrently, we had Republican (and one Independant) governors & both Repubs and a Dem in the other Senate seat.

The Wellstone lesson should be that if you nominate a compelling, inspiring candidate, swing voters will support him or her. When you give us a wishy-washy candidate paying more attention to focus groups and polls than their base convictions, we'll start looking for compelling 3rd party alternatives.

Posted by: bsimon | October 22, 2007 4:44 PM | Report abuse

Why not write about something substantive? We can entertain ourselves.

Posted by: msmellick | October 22, 2007 4:42 PM | Report abuse

"It doesn't say more Dems are disaffected, mibrooks. It says more Dems watch Comedy Central"

nICE LOGIC. So you will be voting for bill o'reilly/rush/hannity as a write in candidate? Man, I don't know how jerry seinfelid didn't win the 2000 election over bush. Jennifer aniston could have really put up a fight against bush. She was on freinds. People watch her on tv and laugh.

I guess that qualifies her for running the country. The gop argeuments make zero sense. how is fred thompson qualified to run the country? He's a nixon lackie. Because he's on tv. I sincerly hope the rest of the country is not as lost of the clones (republicans)

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 22, 2007 4:36 PM | Report abuse

I feel that the greatest contributor to Gore's loss in 2000 was our electoral system, which caused a vote for Nader to be a vote against Gore. In a better vote-counting system (instant-runoff, ranking of candidates by preference, Condorcet voting, etc.), it would have been possible to support Nader without effectively supporting Bush.

Until that system changes, third-party candidates will always be spoilers. But the system supports both major parties, so it's not likely to change any time soon.

Posted by: Blarg | October 22, 2007 4:32 PM | Report abuse

You're right bsimon, about half of illegals are here overstaying their visas.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5485917

The wall won't fix this problem. We'll need to track all arrivals and departures and actually catch people who overstay.

On Jindal, graduate school applications are due at least 9 months before enrollment, so his mom most have thought about her studies first. Whether there was a conscious effort to use him as an achor baby, we'll never know.

Posted by: urban4 | October 22, 2007 4:27 PM | Report abuse

"I still think Gore would have been a terrific president."

I don't disagree. But that doesn't change the reality that another candidate made a better pitch to enough people that he didn't win. Yes, it sucks. Blaming Nader is misplaced. Dem primary votes should remember 2000 before they decide Hillary is the best candidate for 2008.

Posted by: bsimon | October 22, 2007 4:11 PM | Report abuse

urban4 writes
"As far as I know, Jindal's parents came to the US legally. The isssue is with illegals who use anchor babies to claim citizenship."

The article I read said his mother was here for grad school. He was born 6 months after their arrival, which means he came with them from India. How is it any different if a visitor from say, Mexico, comes on a guest visa and has an 'anchor' baby? The loaded term 'anchor baby' implies people were here illegally at the time of the birth - which is not necessarily the case. It's another example of the overheated rhetoric about the issue; like the presumption that we need better border security because so many people are allegedly walking through the desert. But how many arrive legally and choose not to return home before their visa expires?

Posted by: bsimon | October 22, 2007 4:08 PM | Report abuse

I am assuming the majority of them otherwise would have voted for Gore, because that is what the polling indicated. Nader peeled votes largely from Gore the same way Perot peeled votes largely from Bush 41.

And my point is that I bet a lot of those Nader voters, at any rate more than 500, now see themselves as being wrong rather than Gore. The reality that he was the better alternative has been quite starkly illustrated for them. While I have not seen polls on this subject, I do know, as Claudia noted, that you did not hear a lot from Nader supporters in 2004, unless they were urging people not to vote for him again.

Posted by: Jenn2 | October 22, 2007 4:07 PM | Report abuse

I still think Gore would have been a terrific president. Lieberman, though repellent now, was not that bad before he iwfe became a loybbists for the defense and bankin gindustries.

Posted by: drindl | October 22, 2007 4:04 PM | Report abuse

"I'm not going to blame those who chose an effective and intelligent vice president from a popular administration for running him in 2000. He won the votes of the majority of the population, and I don't think any other Democratic candidate in 2000 could have done that."

In blaming the Nader voters you are assuming they would have otherwise voted for Gore. My point is that he failed to convince them he was the better alternative. The problem was in the sales pitch, not in the buying decision.

Posted by: bsimon | October 22, 2007 4:02 PM | Report abuse

I have often thought of the 2000 election as being like the sinking of the Titanic. If you change any one factor -- enough lifeboats; fewer telegraphs home; better weather; the iceberg hitting in a different location; another ship being closer, etc. -- they all would have mitigated the disaster. There were many bad things about the 2000 election, and yes, Lieberman was about as lame a choice as you could have picked. I wince every time I hear that DINO doing his Deputy Dawg impression. That doesn't mean that the other factors aren't there! Nader got 97,000 votes, from people generally considered to be sympathetic to liberal/progressive causes, in a state Gore lost by less than 500 votes. He is not off the hook just because he was not the only factor.

Posted by: Jenn2 | October 22, 2007 4:02 PM | Report abuse

I'm not going to blame those who chose an effective and intelligent vice president from a popular administration for running him in 2000. He won the votes of the majority of the population, and I don't think any other Democratic candidate in 2000 could have done that.

Kerry is a different matter, but Nader wasn't a factor in 2004 for exactly the reasons I am upset with him now.

Posted by: Jenn2 | October 22, 2007 3:55 PM | Report abuse

As far as I know, Jindal's parents came to the US legally. The isssue is with illegals who use anchor babies to claim citizenship. Chalk this mess up to Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush who all failed to enforce the immigration laws regardless of party affiliation.

Posted by: urban4 | October 22, 2007 3:54 PM | Report abuse

And, come to think of it, blame Gore himself, for selecting Lieberman as a running mate. Can you imagine what 8 years of Lieberman as VP would be like? Granted, not like Cheney, but still, the man is delusional. What on earth was Gore thinking?!? And Kerry picking the pretty boy? The Dems should be ashamed of themselves, not only for failing to beat Bush twice, but for now imagining that Bill's wife could be the same kind of President he was. Certainly she could be a better president than we have now, but the bar should be a bit higher, should it not?

Posted by: bsimon | October 22, 2007 3:53 PM | Report abuse

Thanks, Claudia. I know a Nader voter too. She got "outed" at a Dan Savage reading, and he was not kind. She was regretful even though she didn't live in a swing state. Penance enough.

I know those answers were kind of flip, but it is a thread about Colbert. To be more serious, I just don't see a big push for a third party from the progressive side this time, and I don't see Colbert getting a lot of votes, either. The stakes are too high.

Posted by: Jenn2 | October 22, 2007 3:51 PM | Report abuse

It doesn't say more Dems are disaffected, mibrooks. It says more Dems watch Comedy Central.

But surely we knew this already.

Posted by: Skip_Lively | October 22, 2007 3:50 PM | Report abuse

Jenn2 writes
"[I]f they maintained that it was worth it to get 8 years of Bush so that they could vote their conscience, I would give them their choice of Iraq or Guantanamo. In eight years, they could come back and we could have the conversation again."

Oh Supreme Rodent, perhaps if your party had nominated a better candidate in 2000 - or 2004 - we wouldn't have suffered through the last 8 years. Blame not those who chose Nader over Gore, blame those who chose Gore (and Kerry) as the nominee(s).

Posted by: bsimon | October 22, 2007 3:50 PM | Report abuse

Should Bobby Jindal, an 'anchor baby' -- be booted too? After all, he's taking the job of Louisiana government from a real American...

Posted by: drindl | October 22, 2007 3:49 PM | Report abuse

'But if they maintained that it was worth it to get 8 years of Bush so that they could vote their conscience, I would give them their choice of Iraq or Guantanamo. '

I enjoy your posts. I did know one person who voted for Nader. She was beligerant at first, but as things kept continuing to degenerate, she eventually was penitant. Nader was actually wanting to run again this time, but even his former supporters wanted nothing to do with him...

Posted by: drindl | October 22, 2007 3:43 PM | Report abuse

I like it! The fact that Colbert takes 2.3% of Democratic voters (placing him in 5th place) says A LOT about how disaffected Democratic voters are. Jenn2, like me in the past, is expressing concern about Naderite and other voters fleeing the Democrats and tossing the election into the garbage. Well, if Clinton or some other "free traitor" is the nominee, that's where it belongs. And, as for the Kennedy's, Senator Kennedy inserted a dirty little provision into the recently defeated immigration bill that would ahve removed all caps for "guest workers", meaning everyone (except for public employees) would have to compete for scarse jobs with cheap foreign workers.

Oh, and a little snippet from an article in my local newspaper; one to go alog with all of those sob stories about illegal's with anchor babies being booted. An elderly couple were killed by a hit and run driver, an illegal:
Dallas Leroy Vance awoke Saturday at Legacy Emanuel Hospital & Health Center in Portland to learn that his wife of 52 years, Marilyn Joyce Vance, had died of extensive head injuries suffered in a hit-and-run crash Tuesday in North Bend.

The 72-year-old retired police officer learned that U.S. marshals had tracked down and arrested a suspect earlier that day in California. He also learned that he could be in a wheelchair for the rest of his life.

He couldn't speak, his sister-in-law, Shirley Farnsworth, said, but he let them know that he no longer wanted his respirator.

He died about 4 a.m. Sunday, she said.

"They were probably the most devoted couple I ever knew," Farnsworth said of the Springfield couple, whom friends called "Dal" and "Mamie" and whose six grandchildren called "Papa" and "Grammie."

U.S. marshals arrested 30-year-old Noe Garcia Moncada without incident on Saturday morning in Tustin, Calif., as he left his sister's apartment.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | October 22, 2007 3:41 PM | Report abuse

Blarg, if you read the Atlantic piece CC links to, I would say the tone is that Colbert represents a threat closer to that of Pat Paulsen than Nader.

Posted by: Jenn2 | October 22, 2007 3:35 PM | Report abuse

No, no, no, there were too many people voting for Nader. Like 96,600 too many.

I would like to be a Divine Being and interview the Florida Nader voters. Possibly I would take the form of Weingarten's deity, a giant hamster. I forget the name, it was cute. I would sit them down over some vegan soy lattes or boiled tofu or something and make them explain to me their voting choice in 2000, and whether they still thought it was worth it. If they admitted the error of their ways and were penitent, I would grant them my Divine Forgiveness. But if they maintained that it was worth it to get 8 years of Bush so that they could vote their conscience, I would give them their choice of Iraq or Guantanamo. In eight years, they could come back and we could have the conversation again.

Posted by: Jenn2 | October 22, 2007 3:31 PM | Report abuse

tjmaness, I haven't heard of Colbert running anywhere but South Carolina. His standing in national polls doesn't matter.

I love the Colbert Report, and I watch it every day. But I hope that nobody actually votes for Colbert. The people of SC, unlike those of us in most states, actually have a say in the presidential nomination process. I hate to think of them wasting their votes on a comedian, instead of the candidate they'd prefer as president. I suppose a vote for Colbert could be a "none of the above" protest vote, but that vote could still be better spent on a real minor candidate. Our democratic system is enough of a joke already, without people wasting votes on novelty candidates.

Posted by: Blarg | October 22, 2007 3:27 PM | Report abuse

Here is one for the Colbert-factor. Anybody who polls less than Colbert should seriously consider quitting the race.

Posted by: urban4 | October 22, 2007 3:22 PM | Report abuse

I was under the impression that Colbert was only registering in the SC primary. Has that changed?

Posted by: tjmaness | October 22, 2007 3:08 PM | Report abuse

"The prospect of a Democratic victory in 2006 was for many people the last, flickering hope that the degradation of the republic could be arrested and reversed within the ordinary bounds of the political system. This was always a fantasy, given the strong bipartisan nature and decades-long cultivation of greed, arrogance and militarism that has now come to its fullest bloom in the Bush administration. But desperation can crack the shell of the most hardened cynic, and no doubt there were few who did not harbor somewhere deep inside at least a small grain of hope against hope that a slap-down at the polls would give the Bush gang pause and confound its worst depredations.

One year on, we can all see how the Democrats have made a mockery of those dreams. Their epic levels of unpopularity are richly deserved. At every step they evoke the remarks of the emperor Tiberius, who, after yet another round of groveling acquiescence from the once-powerful Roman Senate, dismissed them with muttered contempt: "Men fit to be slaves." The record of the present Congress provides copious and irrefutable evidence for this judgment.
"

Chris Floyd

Sorry, last one. They are writing my thoughts down for me. They articulate much better tha i could. Sorry last one. I know. Everything is my fault. Sorry. Now continue talking about comedians

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 22, 2007 3:08 PM | Report abuse

"Democrats' year of living disastrously
Outrage follows outrage, surrender follows surrender: Every day the unreality of our political discourse worsens, even as the reality on the ground grows more bitter and uncontainable. As we approach the anniversary of the Democrats' recapture of Congress -- an event that was supposed to mark the repudiation of the Bush administration's lawless, blood-soaked enterprise -- it is undeniable that the situation is actually worse now than before.
"

Chris Floyd

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 22, 2007 3:04 PM | Report abuse

'Let James Dobson and Ron Paul splinter the R's this time'

Let's hear it for 'em... i'm liken it.

Agree with Judge, CC -- interview Colbert!

Posted by: drindl | October 22, 2007 3:04 PM | Report abuse

So we can't have a third party because ralph nader, a decade ago, didn't get enough votes?

So if there was a better candidate? What abotu a more organized party?

Any other enlightening posts like jen's?

Her's leaves much to be disired. NAder didn't get enough votes. So it's all about the votes, then? What about representation? Is that what a representative is? So the fascist machine "owns" our government then? Still don't get your arguement.

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 22, 2007 3:03 PM | Report abuse

Jenn2 writes
"I get, what 61% of Republicans picking a candidate among those choices. I am sensing some dissatisfaction with the options."

That's a good point. Add in a few percent for Huckabee & the longest shots and you have maybe 75% of respondents making a selection - which puts 25% at 'none of the above'. Seems like a huge number to be undecided. Then again, the Dems' numbers only appear to come up to 80% or so...

Posted by: bsimon | October 22, 2007 3:01 PM | Report abuse

Regardless of labels, the Republican Party has been taken over by a faction that simply rejects those core American principles, and in many -- perhaps most cases -- the Beltway leadership of the Democratic Party is either indifferent to them or actively complicit in their erosion. Although it is not always evident, there is a strong, pervasive and -- I believe -- growing anger towards the never-ending assault on our basic political values. Irrespective of the source, any meaningful actions designed to defend those principles -- such as Sen. Dodd's "hold" announcement this week and Rep. Paul's bill -- ought to be applauded.
"

greenwald.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/?last_story=/opinion/greenwald/2007/10/22/Democrats/

And teh rufus's of the world fighting for us. don't forget us :)

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 22, 2007 2:59 PM | Report abuse

The last time there was all this grumbling about the need for a third party, Ralph Nader got 97,000 votes in Florida. No thanks. Let James Dobson and Ron Paul splinter the R's this time. To paraphrase Office Space, why should we change? They're the ones that suck.

Posted by: Jenn2 | October 22, 2007 2:59 PM | Report abuse

What coutnry are we living in? I haven't heard any responses today. What happened to us and how did the fascists steal our coutnry from us. Why doens't anyone care. I am a young man, 27. Why did we willingly give our country to the fascists? Was it for protection? What happened in the 70's that stole our country from us and made you people not want to fight for it? Enlighten me, please.

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 22, 2007 2:57 PM | Report abuse

"GG: One of the questions I really want to ask is this: you referred earlier to the long history of abuse that pre-dated FISA and that gave rise to the bipartisan consensus that we needed judicial oversight on governmental eavesdropping. But one of the things that baffles me about Congressional willingness to amend FISA is that it doesn't seem as though they know very much about whether there have been abuses or really what has been done at all during the five years that the Bush administration was eavesdropping secretly and without warrants.

As a member of the House Intelligence Committee: And here I'm not asking you to tell me what you know that's classified obviously, but I just would like to know: do you know, have you been able to find out or have you been given classified briefings, about which Americans were eavesdropped on, how they were selected for warrantless eavesdropping, what was done with that information? Are you aware of the answers to those questions?

RH: I have been on the Intelligence Committee for 5 years now and there's still an awful lot that I and everyone else on the Committee learns from the press. It is not the way it should be. I'm all for you guys in the press -- I appreciate what the press and the blogosphere does - but we shouldn't have to learn about intelligence -- we on the Intelligence Committee shouldn't have to learn about intelligence from people on the outside, and yet, that has not infrequently been the case.

Now, have we had classified briefings on these things? Sure we have. At first, the President -- when he started his surveillance program -- he evidently told a few members of Congress. And then when the New York Times broke the story -- which, by the way, occurred just two weeks after I went to the NSA and said: "I'm here for you to explain to me that our government is not spying on Americans." And they gave me this long song and dance. Only 2 weeks later did I learn from the New York Times that in fact we were spying on Americans.

And after that, then, the administration had to brief Congress, but my guess is it's still only partial. We haven't had the full story. I'm still seeing things in the newspaper in the last week that my colleagues and I have not been briefed on.

"

greenwald

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 22, 2007 2:55 PM | Report abuse

cc couldn't get colbert, judge. Come on man. :)

Even though colbert is a joke and on comedy central he still brings more heat than cc. Colbert, a comedian, along with Jon Stewat has done more to restore democracy in the last five years than ANYBODY in congress or the administration. AND HE"S A COPMEDIAN FOR PETE'S sake. Make's you kind of sad of our "leaders" doesn't it.

Colbert is already higher than most r's and some dems. That says much more abou tboth parties than it does about colbert. HE is a comedian for pete's sake. And he is in the middle of politics? Why? Because no one is doing their job on capital hill. We may have fought in the 60's, but at least their was representtaion of both sides. How about now? What is congress's approval rating now? Is it in single digits yet.

We need a new party. Who has it? Any suggestions? the green peace party? What else you got out there america. Whatever you got, we need it. NOW.

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 22, 2007 2:53 PM | Report abuse

I get, what 61% of Republicans picking a candidate among those choices. I am sensing some dissatisfaction with the options. What with their less-than-finely-tuned sense of irony and subtlety, I bet if some of the base could just stay up long enough to watch Colbert, he would be their guy!

Posted by: Jenn2 | October 22, 2007 2:49 PM | Report abuse

Geez, CC, why don't you interview Colbert? Now that would be a video I'd enjoy watching.

Posted by: judgeccrater | October 22, 2007 2:43 PM | Report abuse

Just like with the illegals. Reward law breaking, like regan with his first amnesty in 1984. What price has the gop paid, other than votes and losing the majority, for their lawlessness? That was teh american people's rejection.

Really what price have they paid. A lot of them are making fortunes. What sacrafice have they made? Nothing. If we were a nation of laws their would be a price to pay. If we have two seperate parties in this coutnry their would be a price to pay. I pray for that day. Give me another independant party. Anything, is better than two sides to the same coin. If there was another option, neither party would stand a chance. they no longer represent the american people. The tiem has come to find a party that does. Both current parties need to be put out of power legally. Taht will change their tune. That wil force them to do the will of the people, wouldn't it. All their power would be pretty weak if they were no longer n office, making laws to protect themselves. What if our politicains made laws that were the opposite. Rather than protecting politicains what if our laws were to protect the american people. It is not as far-fetched as it seems. this used to be the case. Who stole our government and why? Think on that.

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 22, 2007 2:34 PM | Report abuse

RE: Why is anyone surprised that Louisiana elected a Republican?

Excuse me for stating the painfully obvious, but many of us predicted this very thing happening - and not because Dem. Gov. Blanco took such a political hit after Katrina.

But because Bush's deliberate response - or lack thereof - to Katrina effectively wiped out the biggest segment of voting Democrats in Louisiana.

And now a Republican with virtually no opposition gets a whopping 53%?

If New Orleans hadn't been left to flounder and die, hopw likely is it that this would have happened?

Duh.

Posted by: roooth | October 22, 2007 2:33 PM | Report abuse

'But anyone who follows politics as closely as we do knows that it even serious politics often devolves into theater of the absurd.'

Often? It's never anything but anymore. Chceck this out-- Rudy's law partner is the son of the guy being put forth as AG nominee. Wonder if he gets confirmed if th Kerik investigation will jusst disappear...

'Rudy Giuliani's law partner has been assigned an interesting task: Protect Rudy from the ticking time bomb known as Bernie Kerik. The partner, Marc Mukasey, has taken on the job of keeping a close eye on the criminal investigation into Kerik, which threatens to erupt at any time and damage Rudy's Presidential campaign.

To that end, Mukasey, the son of AG nominee Michael Mukasey, has even blocked witnesses who might be helpful to Kerik -- but who are loyal to Rudy -- from offering their testimony on behalf of Rudy's embattled former commish. Sources tell the New York Post that Mukasey's effort "shows Giuliani's concern with how the legal fate of his former NYPD and correction commissioner could affect his presidential campaign'

http://www.nypost.com/seven/10222007/news/regionalnews/giuliani_bern_shield.htm

The NY Post btw, is a rightwing Murdoch pub..

Posted by: drindl | October 22, 2007 2:29 PM | Report abuse

Just as now, the lawbreaking banks insisted that they must be protected from the devastating consequences of their lawbreaking -- claims that Kennedy and Katzenbach easily destroyed. After all, the banks -- like the telecoms now -- were the ones who chose to break the law, knowing that it was illegal, because they perceived there to be great economic benefit in doing so. To then grant them amnesty would be to reward lawbreaking. "

greenwald

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/?last_story=/opinion/greenwald/2007/10/22/Democrats/

How far this great nation has fallen. We used to be a coutnry of laws. He who has the money makes the laws. Is that what we have fallen to? And if so how can we get justice in this coutnry now? Is it justice if you can buy your way out of trouble by changing the laws. Is it justice that the laws are determined by which party you are in? What if you are in no party, do you get justice? do the poor get justice? Explain your doublethink gop.

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 22, 2007 2:24 PM | Report abuse

Come on. Let's be serious here. Is bill o'reilly of rush going to win the opposition ticket? Let's be serious here.


"Sunday October 21, 2007 09:39 EST
Robert Kennedy speaks out against Retroactive Immunity
The very idea of "retroactive immunity" for lawbreaking corporations is so radical, so repugnant to the most basic principles of the "rule of law," that only one prior attempt can be found in recent history (at least from my research): the efforts by some in Congress in 1965 to enact a law retroactively legalizing the mergers by six large banks which clearly -- as a federal court found -- were illegal under our nation's antitrust laws.

The banks knew when they merged that they were almost certainly violating anti-trust laws. But they did it anyway. And when courts began ruling that their behavior was illegal, they ran to Congress to demand that a law be passed granting them amnesty, claiming that the consequences would be ruinous if they were held accountable under the law.

But the very concept of retroactive amnesty -- the idea that corporations could break the law and then have Congress pass a special law legalizing their lawbreaking conduct -- was so profoundly offensive to Sen. Robert Kennedy (who had been the Attorney General when the banks broke the law with their mergers), as well as then-Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach, that they engaged in extraordinary efforts to try to put a stop to this Congressional travesty:
"

Greenwald

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 22, 2007 2:19 PM | Report abuse

People voted for Ah-nuld for governor. Hell, people voted for Gary Coleman for governor. Even if this is satire, maybe it will get a few more college kids interested in politics. But if people actually switch their positions from any of the other candidates to Colbert then we will have shown what a sad state our society is in

Posted by: riff_raff17 | October 22, 2007 2:19 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company