Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Thompson Reveals He Has Cancer

Fred Thompson -- the Hollywood actor, former Tennessee senator and rumored 2008 presidential candidate -- announced this morning that he was diagnosed with cancer more than two years ago. In an appearance on Fox News, Thompson said his cancer is in remission and that it should have no impact on his life expectancy.

Read Chris Cillizza's story here.

By washingtonpost.com Editors  |  April 11, 2007; 10:51 AM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Parsing the Polls: The Democrats' (Generic) Edge
Next: Biden: Bush's Iraq Policy Is Doomed

Comments

I too wish F. Thompson the best, but he had problems with anti-Invasion conservatives on the Invasion issue:

Here are three reasons NOT to allow Fred Thompson to become the GOP nominee for President, along with the below interview by Chris Wallace:

http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0307/0307nottofred.htm

http://profiles.numbersusa.com/improfile.php3?DistSend=TN&VIPID=743

http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Fred_Thompson.htm#Immigration

Fred Thompson to FOX's Chris Wallace:

THOMPSON: No, no, no, no.
WALLACE: Well, let me put up on the screen something that you said last year about illegals, and let's take a look at it. "You're going to have to, in some way, work out a deal where they can have some aspirations of citizenship but not make it so easy that it's unfair to the people waiting in line and abiding by the law."

Now, you said, "Look, it's just not realistic that we're going to round up 12 million people and ship them all out of the country."

THOMPSON: Well, that's true, as a general statement. We woke up one day after years of neglect and apparently discovered that we have somewhere between 12 million and 20 million illegal aliens in this country. So it became an impossible situation to deal with.

I mean, there's really no good solution. So what do you do? You have to start over. Well, I'm concerned about the next 12 million or 20 million. So that's why enforcement, and enforcement at the border, has to be primary.

I think most people feel disillusioned after 1986 when we had this deal offered to them before, and now we're insisting that, you know, we solve the security problem first, and then we'll talk about what to do with regard to other things - certainly no amnesty or nothing blanket like that.

But figure out some way to make some differentiation between the kind of people that we have here.

You know, if you have the right kind of policies, and you're not encouraging people to come here and encouraging them to stay once they're here, they'll go back, many of them, of their own volition, instead of having to, you know, load up moving vans and rounding people up. That's not going to happen."

*******************************************
Could we trust this man the way we trusted Bush?

For all you worried about not having a conservative to vote for and send money to, Tom Tancredo gave a great speech in Iowa over the weekend (before the mass musrder in VA took over the news). It was the strongest, most emotionally appealing and riveting speech I've ever heard from the good Congressman. He definitely has a money problem compared to Romney and others, but he is worthy of your consideration, as is Ron Paul.

Posted by: levotb | April 18, 2007 6:30 AM | Report abuse

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

Posted by: anonymous | April 17, 2007 3:51 PM | Report abuse

The longer the race continues without a bona-fide conservative leader to enter the Presidential nomination process, it appears that Tom Tancredo may actually be able to mobilize the base around immigration. That would be a sad day, if that happened. I wouldn't vote for him. I am still hoping for either gov. Perdue (Ga), gov. Perry (Tx) or gov. Riley (Alabama) will join the Presidential primary. I think Perdue would do a great job of solidifying the base. Sanford (SC) and gov. Pawlenty would make great candidates, but have already decided to back the candidacy of McCain. One of them would propably get the VP nod if McCain won. So Perdue or Riley would make great candidates. Sure, it would be tough against the organizations and money created by Guiliani, Romney and McCain but people's votes are still very much wide open. We have in that a flip flopper (Romney), a socially liberal Republican (Guiliani) and a real independent (McCain). I have to go with McCain, if I had to vote today. But we will see what happens.

Posted by: reason | April 11, 2007 11:05 PM | Report abuse

MikeB - You want to provide a link I'll be happy to go to CNN to find the story. Otherwise what am I supposed to search on "MikeB's Son"?

I bet I'll get a lot of hits on that.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 11, 2007 7:09 PM | Report abuse

Bobby W-C and MikeB: This has been a pretty good day for an exchange of ideas. I find it very hard for anyone that has any intellegence at all to continue to believe anything this bunch in The White House says. I have e-mail alerts from some of the major news outlets and it is getting so that seldom more than 3 or 4 hours passes during working hours that another out and out lie is reported. The alarming things go by with little or no comment, such as the Fairfax, Va. deal Tuesday, when I saw not one question the claim that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. Just in MSNBC cancels Imus.

Posted by: lylepink | April 11, 2007 7:04 PM | Report abuse

To quote Reagan, well here I go again. I was just looking over today's discussion and find that once again I have been nasty and abusive.

Apparently I also have a tendency to state my opinion without offering any objective proof to back it up, and then to base my argument on it. I understand that this is frustrating to all of you, and I'm sorry. I get carried away writing about politics as many of you have pointed out, but I want to be a participating member of this discussion.

And I admit that global warming is widely accepted by scientists of all races, nationalities, and political persuasions.
In fact, I admit that many of the policies and points of view I oppose are framed by intelligent and learned people. I may not always like them, but I don't have the background to criticize them without reference to a commonly recognized authority.

Don't be afraid to let me know when I am doing this! Together, we can establish a more informative and more respectful dialogue.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 11, 2007 6:35 PM | Report abuse

Anon Coward - I take it you can read? So go read the CNN story. He was on active duty. Got shot. Shipped home. Went to a military hostipal. The doc was incompetent and did nothing! He poassed out. We got paperwork filed and got him into the reserves. Paid doc and medical bills. He got well. Attended college for 2 years. VA never did get his GI Bill benefits straightened out. Recalled to active duty.
That plain enough for you? Bush's war is being fought on CREDIT. This swine is racking up a huge charge card bill that somebody is going to pay for, both in terms of budget deficits and human misery. YOU can count on the bill coming due - higher taxes, much higher taxes!, will be the least of it. ANd you no one to blame but yourselves and FOX and the other nausiating neoncon whack jobs like Dobson and Limbaugh and Hannidy. No whining hear? Just sign over your benefit check and send it in.

Posted by: MikeB | April 11, 2007 6:33 PM | Report abuse

"And. I would like it noted. WE, paid his medical bills." - MikeB

If your son was on Active Duty where did he receive medical treatment that you had to pay the bills? Was it your own choice not to use the available military facilities? Or, there were none close by?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 11, 2007 6:24 PM | Report abuse

"The principled stand taken by Rudy on abortion" - ?!?!?!?!?

His only principle is self-promotion. He was aggressively pro-choice as NY mayor, and he's not the kind of guy to change his mind because polls tell him to. Keep in mind, however, that he absolutely IS the kind of guy who would make statements and allow you to think that he had changed his mind. He is in no way prepared to be president.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 11, 2007 6:23 PM | Report abuse

back from the dentist, might need a cavity filled but no problem at all.
jd-thanks no problem.but hey if you want to debate other stuff im here.
lylepink-hey sorry about going off on you in one of the other threads, tell you what, if hillary wins i treat you to a steak dinner on inaguration day.deal?
mikeb-i have a sister who's in the reserves right now, and the thought of going to war for some jacked up reason scares me. sure it was her choice to join but having to leave her son and hubby to fight for a lie is maddening. i hope your son comes out of this.

and zouk-ok sunshine,let this be the last time i even adress you. i have not promoted any canidate, i have not insulted anyone on the board, ive posted all my facts with links and respected other peoples political view points. you on the other hand have insulted,belittle and out and out been a shameless promoter of everything right of center and far right. i will not respond to you or your lunatic rantings. and i call on everyone else to ignore you. just because you think you have a right to talk doesnt mean anyone is going to listen to you.

Posted by: spartan | April 11, 2007 6:18 PM | Report abuse

KOZ -- Here are some numbers about Fox News. Fox News views voted for George W. Bush by a margin of 88-7. Interesting that they are "fair and balanced" despite the fact that their audience is almost uniformally conservative. Interesting.

Bush and Cheney go to Fox News when they want to soft peddle a story. It's friendly territory. Democrats go onto Fox knowing that's the case, b/c it still makes sense to reach out to the folks who watch Fox news. But why should the DNC allow Fox to moderate one of its debates? It doesn't have any obligation to do that. In point of fact, it would be silly for them to do so b/c it perpetuates the myth that Fox is a neutral party. If they admitted what they really are, then that might be different. Since that will never happen, however, it's a moot point.

Posted by: Colin | April 11, 2007 6:08 PM | Report abuse

I repeat this because Thompson is the issue and it shows how the nut jobs on the right will keep America in the dark about anyone they like:

Fred Thompson at 3:45 central time on Hannity blamed Jordon for funding the people killing our people in Iraq - he meant to say Iran
- with the same breath he then stated how Pelosi got the message wrong from the Isaeli's to the Syrians

he does not know the difference between Iran and Jordon - and on a national radio show accuses one of our best friends in the area of funding the people killing our troops - how can this turkey be president?

Naturally that Great American Hannity said nothing in response to Thompson's mind boggling accusations against Jordon.

Hannity is all the proof anyone needs that America is lost in the wilderness - how can Hannity have a audience of more than 100 fools? Answer - American is lost


http://balancingtheissues.com/wilderness.htm

Bobby WIghtman-Cervantes
www.balancingtheissues.com


Posted by: Bobby Wightman-Cervantes | April 11, 2007 6:03 PM | Report abuse

Bobby Wightman-Cervantes - Yes, we wrote to the Post, NY Times, etc. The only media outlet that cared enough to verify our tribulations and print it was CNN. They actually did a nationwide investigation and came up with thousands of families in our position, with the same tales of woe, the same enormous medical bills, and all of the rest. Nice people there, and CNN has a tiny budget compared to the POST, but they at least *try* and dig up the facts and write about them whereas The Post merely prints White House press releases. Chris...aren't you just a bit embarrassed by your "rag"? Also, FYI, the Pentagon isn't announcing it, but virtually every family we know, with children or husbands who are inactive and active reserves, even Air Force, is being recalled to active duty. Something is "up" and I think that dimwit moron in the White House is planning on invading Iran. God help us.

Posted by: MikeB | April 11, 2007 6:00 PM | Report abuse

MikeB, once we declare war on Iran and Syria, even this clown koz won't be able to escape the draft. I expect he'll feel a little differently about the war then.

I honestly don't know why people here bother with him. He's obviously a brazen liar and propagandist -- and incredibly juvenile to boot.

Every time I come over here he's destroyed any semblance of intelligent discussion. So I seldom bother anymore.

Posted by: DJ | April 11, 2007 5:56 PM | Report abuse

kingofzouk--You have not addressed my points. Please review my posts and do so.

In the meanwhile, the logic presented in your last post is flawed. Your correlations are reversed (this is Statistics 101 stuff.)

Posted by: roo | April 11, 2007 5:54 PM | Report abuse

The reason were varied, but the younger son was recruited from medical school where he was studying nursing. The "hook" used by the recruiter was that the Army needed trained trama nurses becasue of the casulties. Of course, the Army made him a combat medic and sent him to the front lines. The other son enlisted becasue I had my job outsourced (actually for the third time - I'm an engineer - and something else we can all thank Bush for). So tell us, coward, you are such a strong Bushie, why haven't you volunteered?

Actually, the whole country was misled by Cheney, Bush and company. Since that ratbag twit Gate's announcement, every blog has been filled with posts from wives, parents, and even a few soldiers brave enough to risk the secret police of the military that reads their emails. Not one, not one post supported this move. The only people supporting this are a few gasbags, far right nuts and Fox News brainwashed zombies, that still hold out some faint hope that Bush hasn't been lying to them all along.

Posted by: MikeB | April 11, 2007 5:52 PM | Report abuse

Thompson got some good news today.

From http://www.solidpolitics.com

For the first time, Barack Obama beats all potential Republican challengers, according to a poll the Los Angeles Times will release tomorrow.... In primary matchups, Obama has closed to within 10 points of Hillary and Giuliani holds a double-digit lead over Fred Thompson.... John McCain runs third....

Posted by: William | April 11, 2007 5:49 PM | Report abuse

Hey Mike B have you taken the story of your son to the press - this is common that veterans are now paying for their own health care - even for wounds suffered in Iraq- here in Texas the VA is a complete disaster and Washington refuses to act

it is so bad next week I am suing them to get them to pay the bills for private care doctors they sent me to - key - they sent me to the private care doctor and now refuse to pay the bill-

I basically pay for my own medications - in Texas the VA has refused to pay for anything not generic - so if your med is not generic yet you basically have to pay for it yourself

The press is 100 % worthless in Texas - they find all of this not newsworthy

Bobby WC

Posted by: Bobby Wightman-Cervantes | April 11, 2007 5:42 PM | Report abuse

OK, in all seriuosness, I don't think they are chickens, just pandering to the base to get the nomination. sickening. compare to the principled stand taken by McCain on the war and Rudy on abortion. Agree or not, the difference is clear.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 11, 2007 5:36 PM | Report abuse

Why did they volunteer for the Army if they didn't want to fight? Is that like voting for the war before voting against it.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 11, 2007 5:32 PM | Report abuse

roo - you pulled a Dem. Declare victory and retreat. i responded to every point of your's responsibly and you provided no meat for your view - only fluff. so far we know:
1. you know what's best for us all in the way of news
2. you know how smart everyone is and its not as smart as you
3. Fox airs lies but everyone else is OK

I stated clearly and repeatedly that ratings are the only objective metric for TV. Since fox is dominating the ratings on cable news, it must be doing something right. could it be that the market has recognized the desire for actual news and unbiased, non-liberal ideas. After all those years of being force-fed lies and manipulations, the viewers said enough spin. I rightly assume that viewers are sophisticated and know their own preferences. they indicate this by not viewing MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC and switching over to Fox. Instead of lies and spin, now they can obtain facts, which is what news is supposed to deliver. this also explains the demise of the NYT and WaPo - the alternative source of information without political filter. this is a fairly common phenom in economics and can actually be shown with numbers. contrast this to your know-it-all attitude and arguement devoid of anything but your own ego. In the end the fox viewers will rightly beleive that the brave sir robin...I mean Obama et al chickened out and that this will be the approach they take as president and that they must lose as a result. the Dems on the other hand will be told it is some great philosophical stance against something sinister and those simpletons will believe it. sound familiar?

If you refuse to answer my points, you have lost due to admitting their correctness. Again.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 11, 2007 5:30 PM | Report abuse

Fred Thompson at 3:45 central time on Hannity blamed Jordon for funding the people killing our people in Iraq - he meant to say Iran
- with the same breath he then stated how Pelosi got the message wrong from the Isaeli's to the Syrians

he does not know the difference between Iran and Jordon - and on a national radio show accuses one of our best friends in the area of funding the people killing our troops - how can this turkey be president?

Naturally that Great American Hannity said nothing in response to Thompson's mind boggling accusations against Jordon.

Hannity is all the proof anyone needs that America is lost in the wilderness - how can Hannity have a audience of more than 100 fools? Answer - American is lost


http://balancingtheissues.com/wilderness.htm

Bobby WIghtman-Cervantes
www.balancingtheissues.com

Posted by: Bobby WIghtman-Cervantes | April 11, 2007 5:29 PM | Report abuse

Anonymous Coward - You will need to excuse me. I am angry. My younger son, due to come home next month from Iraq, after two tours of duty, has had his tour extended by three months. My older son, once wounded and a college student, was called up to active duty and is being shipped to Iraq next month. (And. I would like it noted. WE, paid his medical bills. Not your idiot war on a budget President nor the career minded spit and polish dogs taking up space at the Pentagon.) So, tell us, Mr. Armchair Patriot, how are you still so brain dead that you still support this stuffed shirt of a jack*ss of "president"? Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney, Ms. Rice, the whole lot of them are the worst criminal swine we have ever been burdoned with. Someday, even someone as shallow and stupid as yourself will come to recognize that. The problem is, you are born stupid and shallow and will undoubtedly repeat the same mistake again someday and inflict another "leader" on us like this cancerous swine we have now. The optimal solution would be to send you over there as Bush's cannon fodder, but you are too much of a coward and would continue to hide behind the anonymity of a post.

Posted by: MikeB | April 11, 2007 5:22 PM | Report abuse

kingofzouk--All you seem to have is strawmen and hyperbole.

koz--"roo - no numbers there - just opinion. I find that unacceptable as a metric. how do you know how smart anyone is? how do you know what interests them?"

Ratings.


koz--"Maybe you and I are just fools for spending so much time gathering news on things we can do nothing about. when was the last time any action you took effected policy or the law?"

Last week. That notwithstanding, gathering accurate information so that OTHERS may act is a perfectly valid pastime as well. If all you did was hang out on The Fix then you would be equally guilty of single-sourcing.


koz--"I find this arrogance typical of Libs who think they know what is best for everyone. now you are in charge of programming and ignoring ratings."

You just contradicted yourself. I may, indeed, be arrogant in thinking that everyone should have a measure of factual information regarding current (and historical) issues.

I doubt you will disagree there. You may disagree with me over the means how this is accomplished. But Anna Nicole's baby sure as hell is not the way.


koz--"I suppose Air America was broad and deep."

No, AA was crap. Not that it ever claimed to be unbiased.


koz--"I already stated my measure..."

No, you did not. Not that it has anything to do with the original topic anyway.

You are throwing obstructions to avoid discussing the real issue and I will cease to continue on this path.

I will respond to your posts on this as soon as you have addressed all the points I have made on this thread so far (the actual meat which you have thus far ignored with this fluff.)

If you refuse to answer my points, you have lost due to admitting their correctness. Again.

Posted by: roo | April 11, 2007 5:16 PM | Report abuse

jaa - we are talking about a job interview for the position of president which you compare to international dealings. Are you daft? your UN sensibilites have polluted your thinking. We simply don't negotiate with certain entities who offer us nothing in concession and have proclaimed our death as their goal. what will we talk to them about - firing squad or hanging? On the other hand, we have Dem candidates who refuse to debate on a popular network whose viewing population happens to be mostly contrary to their views. what better place to find voters. What better place to demonstrate your magnanamous behavior and your hope for the future. Or you could just chicken out and find some philosophical BS to try and cover it. fooling no one except the fools. Pandering same as always - no difference and no policies. Obama will suffer beginning now.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 11, 2007 5:15 PM | Report abuse

roo - no numbers there - just opinion. I find that unacceptable as a metric. how do you know how smart anyone is? how do you know what interests them? Maybe you and I are just fools for spending so much time gathering news on things we can do nothing about. when was the last time any action you took effected policy or the law? I find this arrogance typical of Libs who think they know what is best for everyone. now you are in charge of programming and ignoring ratings. I suppose Air America was broad and deep. Look what happened. come up with a measure or give up your opinionating. I already stated my measure which you refute for a reason which is unclear, other than elitism. Of course they don't have to debate. but it does make them look chicken to us Anna and Brittany fans.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 11, 2007 5:04 PM | Report abuse

I've got a question, KoZ:

How is Edwards and Obama refusing to the Fox debate (i.e. refusing to engage detractors from their ideologies) different from the Bush Administration's refusal to engage Islamic groups that espouse moderate nationalism, such as the Egyptian Brotherhood? Is the latter cowardice as well?

If you want to have it both ways, you'll have to be a bit less simplistic and vitriolic in your articulation of things.

Here's where I come down on this: Obama and Edwards are right to not go on Fox if they feel that Fox does not generally promote the sort of rigorous and fair journalistic environment that is consistent with their ideologies. This is also a case in which refusal to engage will have an effect: people won't be able to watch Obama and Edwards on Fox.

The Bush Administration should engage groups like the Egyptian Brotherhood or even the political arm of Hamas, because refusal to engage them only magnifies their power and dooms every peace strategy brokered without their participation to a gruesome and violent failure for the region.

Posted by: jaa3 | April 11, 2007 4:59 PM | Report abuse

Let me crystallise: the three main problems with the U.S. mainstream media are:

1. Lowest-denominator, "Internet Works By Magic" and "Anna Nicole Had Hair!!!! OMGWTFBBQ" reporting.

2. Agendas.

3. A public incapable of independently verifying news and even willing to attempt to obtain differing views on issues (single-source news which particularly with the above two is disastrous.)

Posted by: roo | April 11, 2007 4:58 PM | Report abuse

kingofzouk--"Roo- please describe what the metrics for a legitimate news organization is. I presume this would apply equally to CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, WaPo, NYT, Fox, BBC, al jezeera, etc.

I would naturally assume that the ratings would be a good clue since the market has a way of sorting out the nonsense from the facts."

No, the Market for television news is, by and large, idiots who turn the TV on to be told what to do and think. They do not have the capacity--for whatever reason--to be presented with the facts, several differing views of the same facts and then make an educated opinion based on former, let alone *change* that opinion when further information comes along.

With more and more means for people to educate themselves from multiple sources (viz. WWW) the stupider will the television news networks become. Eventually, of course, the idiots will get their single-source news from the Internet too. This is the current trend.

Any channel that spent more than 15 minutes on Anna Nicole Smith or Britney's Baldness is automatically disqualified.

Of the main news networks, BBC World is by far the best. SVT International is fairly good as is DW. Some of the Indian media is very good. Al-Jazeera English is not terrible, ranks about the same as the top U.S. reporting. All U.S. cable news stations are atrocious with the exception of Fox which is slightly worse (if you consider it to be news.)


kingofzouk--"Perhaps you might want to compare a more academic measure, such as provably wrong stories printed or aired"

No. I am sure journalistic scholars could further educate you but the key parts are integrity, topic choices, broadness AND depth of reporting and objectivity defined as verifying everything independently (as opposed to the current trend of just printing the opponent's talking points as a rebuttal to whatever topic is at hand.)


kingofzouk--"If not, I will resort to the generally accepted reason for the refusal - weak knees and pandering to the move-ons. not a good characteristic in the leader of the free world. this is the kind of rookie mistake I predicted for Obama. Let's see how the press runs with it."

These have nothing to do with eachother. Obama is refusing, on an individual basis, to partake in an FNC debate (which by definition should bear some semblance to legitimate news programming) because of a continued, malicious and intentionally dishonest propaganda campaign against him by this particular network. I am, actually, fairly certain he would be happy to try to accommodate an O'Reilly or Hannity appearance where the terms are clear.

The bottom line is that he has no responsibility or obligation to sweep FNC's insulting, unethical and malicious behaviour under the rug and pretend that they are a legitimate news station so far as he is concerned.

You are free to disagree about my assessment of FNC.

Posted by: roo | April 11, 2007 4:54 PM | Report abuse

This blog has a cancer. its MikeB.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 11, 2007 4:54 PM | Report abuse

Fox news rates well just like tabloid newspapers sell many more copies than broadsheets. Which deliver better quality news?

Big brother rates well too, does that make it a good show? Fox, tabloids and big brother all appeal to the lowest common denominator.

Posted by: Aussie view | April 11, 2007 4:53 PM | Report abuse

Aussie - it is how he portrayed these things to the public that is at issue. he takes a smidgeon of a fact and conflates it to suit his ego. the whole joke about him inventing the internet was clearly false. but the reaason it played is because he did that kind of thing so often. remember him claiming to hear the union way song as a child - a song that was written after he was grown. remember he was the inspiration for love story - denied by the writer. He faught in vietnam - as a photo-journalist behind the lines for 3 months. It is this history of exaggeration that stalks him. One by one they seem innocuous enough but all tolled, they indicate a pattern of aggrandizement and hyperbole. Just like the latest effort with the 20 foot rise in seas which has been widely discredited and scoffed at, among other things. but this is all such old news. Are your pitiful hopes really at stake in Al gore coming to rescue the Dems from certain electoral defeat? He stated that all scientists universally agree on global warming and that is it man made. He attempted to shut down debate with this tactic. It is far from clear that global warming, if pernicious, is man made. It is even less clear what to do about it. but you didn't hear that from Al. science is not determined by voting, it is the math. It only takes one mathematician to change the world.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 11, 2007 4:51 PM | Report abuse

This country has cancer. It's name is George W. Bush. Thuis is one cancer we had better defeat or it will kill us all.

Posted by: MikeB | April 11, 2007 4:50 PM | Report abuse

I have known people with lymphoma - both Hodgkins and non-Hodgkins - and of them, their life span was definitely affected - one was a high-school classmate who died at 33-34 and another a family friend who died in his mid-forties or so. The third one is in remission, but has only been ill for about 1.5 years. I HOPE he lives a long time, but it will take a 5 year remission before they will relax even a little bit. Given that, he can't say that this won't affect him. If elected, he would still be within that 5 year time-frame. Until then, he can't know it won't affect his life span. Besides - at his age, it is very difficult to say (that sounds very cold and I don't mean it that way). I hope he is well, but I think that it will take a while before we know that he is.

Posted by: star11 | April 11, 2007 4:49 PM | Report abuse

If move-on was simply hosting a debate among candidates, I think they should attend, assuming the audience doesn't yell out or the moderators don't ask ridiculous questions. I have never noticed the influence of the moderator. do you think the fox moderators would have asked ridiculous questions? do you think clinton was asked fair questions on fox - many don't. they were fair and went beyond the softballs on other networks. good job fox. Wipe that smirk off your face. Explain the ratings bonanza. I guess you could say that half the population is ignorant. you would be correct but with the addition of Fox news - less so. Ha. didn't see that one coming.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 11, 2007 4:41 PM | Report abuse

I mean the last unsigned post. :)

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 11, 2007 4:39 PM | Report abuse

"He lived in a five star hotel yet claimed he lived on a farm. He took credit for originating the Internet"

1. Gore lived and worked on the family farm in summer holidays.

2. Love the way you have changed it slightly after someone pulled you up on it...before you were saying he invented the internet, then you changed the wording. You have been shown up for this blatant lie about Gore saying he invented the internet time and time again. Time to put up or shut up.

I love the irony of you exaggerating his exaggerations.

Posted by: Aussie view | April 11, 2007 4:38 PM | Report abuse

lylepink - clinton lied under oath. He manipulated the system to his own ends. you are simplifying for partisan reasons. the man was a serial prevaricator. He got caught, as do all criminals who continue to break the law. Al Capone got nailed for tax evasion, do you think that was his worst crime? clinton ruined many people and created the stink that is in politics now, all for his own personal gains. he pardoned people for money. He sold secrets for donations. He subverted the laws to build his library. Defending him is not a task for the light hearted. He had such potential as a Dem and squandered it on his own selfish desires. He may be funny and entertaining and a master of politics, but he is NO role model of a president.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 11, 2007 4:35 PM | Report abuse

(the last post was mine)

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 11, 2007 4:35 PM | Report abuse

Zouk, you didn't answer my second question: Would you complain if the Republicans refused to attend a debate held by MoveOn.org? It seems to me they'd be perfectly justified in avoiding a forum where they were likely to be attacked by moderators and facing a hostile audience. Would you disagree?

Posted by: Blarg | April 11, 2007 4:35 PM | Report abuse

Thanks, JD--a welcome clarification. And I can't say I disagree with you. It may have been a tacky joke (and I still say it was crass) but if that is the reason to cancel a debate, then that seems petty to me. Tackiness and pettiness can abound on both sides, unfortunately.

Posted by: dc voter | April 11, 2007 4:34 PM | Report abuse

Roo- please describe what the metrics for a legitimate news organization is. I presume this would apply equally to CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, WaPo, NYT, Fox, BBC, al jezeera, etc.

I would naturally assume that the ratings would be a good clue since the market has a way of sorting out the nonsense from the facts. If this is so, your metric denotes a strong legitimacy for FOx and no support for MSNBC. Perhaps you might want to compare a more academic measure, such as provably wrong stories printed or aired - like Jayson blair, dan rather etc. I am happy to consider your arguement if you provide something other than your own opinion.

If not, I will resort to the generally accepted reason for the refusal - weak knees and pandering to the move-ons. not a good characteristic in the leader of the free world. this is the kind of rookie mistake I predicted for Obama. Let's see how the press runs with it.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 11, 2007 4:26 PM | Report abuse

roo - here's the reality in the 110th Congress that we are witnessing:

As the House of Representatives voted to deny our troops the support necessary to carry out their new mission, Democratic leaders smiled and cheered as the last votes were counted.

What were they celebrating? Defeat? Surrender?

In Iraq, only our enemies were cheering. A defeat for the United States is a cause for mourning not celebrating.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,265260,00.html

True, the reality shouldn't be sugar-coated; Gen. Petraeus said he was cautiously optimistic, and I'll take him at his word.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 11, 2007 4:23 PM | Report abuse

Blarg: I have heard Camille Paglia is a Lesbian and a Conservative, I have no idea, and just on the face of it, it doesn't make much sense. Dick Cheney has a lesbian daughter and no big deal has been made about that, but when a dem is cast that way it is a whole different matter. The idea of personal destruction being attempted to portray the Clintons, is just a tad out of line. The time and money spent to find out that Bubba got a bj in The Oval Office will, I am quite certain, go down as the worst waste of tax payers money in our history.

Posted by: lylepink | April 11, 2007 4:17 PM | Report abuse

Blarg - for just the reason that I stipulated - that you Libs don't believe anything unless another lib says it. I am offering support while advocating for change. I win both ways.

and if anyone thinks that Camille Paglia is a conservative or anything other than liberal, I suggest you discover who she votes for. She admits it, being the only honest liberal I can find. she is a Democrat. Just because she doesn't comply 100% with your Kos world view deosn't cancel that fact. I thought you were the big tent party. Where are the anti-abortion speakers at your convention?

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 11, 2007 4:15 PM | Report abuse

Wow, KOZ decided not to address either of my posts even though he was still on the board. Oh well, should have known better than to expect him/her to admit their error

Posted by: Colin | April 11, 2007 4:15 PM | Report abuse

dc voter, I think the joke was something like: "I understand that Bush is still hunting through the desert, trying to track down the 9/11 villian, you know, Obama" or something like that

The idea was, Bush isn't bright enough to differentiate between the two names, ha ha. I guess you could also argue there was a subtle (or not so subtle?) dig at Obama's name being similar to Osama, so they're probably similar in other ways, etc.

Neither interpretation is that big a deal, nor was it all that hilarious. It certainly wasn't reason enough to cancel a debate on a Fox channel; I think it was just a convenient excuse to thumb the eye of FoxNews, which makes the lefty blogosphere happy (as well as CNN and MSNBC, both pretty liberally slanted).

That's not to say they don't have a right to debate where and when they want - everyone does.

Posted by: JD | April 11, 2007 4:15 PM | Report abuse

proudtobeGOP--McCain is really sticking to his guns on this issue. To me it just seems that he is old-fashioned WRONG. His assessments do not seem to reflect the reality we are witnessing.

Posted by: roo | April 11, 2007 4:13 PM | Report abuse

kingofzouk--"how about he hears the sound of the left wing of the party attempting to stifle debate and punish fox. If he can't handle fox news how is he going to deal with Amajornutbag?"

To use a favourite phrase of the right, you are "prejudging."

It is not about being unable to "handle" Fox. It is about not allowing them to legitimatise themselves. You may disagree about it but Fox portrays themselves as a "Fair and Balanced News Network" which they are not. I, personally, think that Obama should not participate in any FNC programming that is falls in the supposed "news" category. He could and perhaps should go to O'Reilly or Hannity's programs instead. When FNC starts to act like a real news network (say, BBC World, not CNN/NBC/et al.), things can be re-evaluated.

Now, the truly surprising aspect of your argument is that the current administration's official protocol--which you have endorsed MANY times--is to not engage in talks with "rogue nations." How do you reconcile these two views?

You also reveal the typical tendency for oversimplification on the right. Black and white, no shades of grey, all oranges taste the same etc. Each situation should be handled separately. Refusing to legitimise Fox has absolutely no bearing on other decisions--let alone actual POLICY decisions instead of pittances like a propaganda network's ego.

Ahmadinejad (REALLY not that hard to spell, man) and his Iran are a separate matter and the proper course should be decided on individually. The current way is not working. The unconditional support of Israel is not working. The one-state solution is not working.

Posted by: roo | April 11, 2007 4:10 PM | Report abuse

Here's McCain's principled stance:

"Democrats who voted to authorize this war, and criticized the failed strategy that has led us to this perilous moment, have the same responsibility I do, to offer support when that failure is recognized and the right strategy is proposed and the right commanders take the field to implement it or, at the least, to offer an alternative strategy that has some relationship to reality," he said.

McCain also said he is willing to support Petraeus at his own political peril.

"Will this nation's elected leaders make the politically hard, but strategically vital decision to give Gen. Petraeus our full support and do what is necessary to succeed in Iraq? Or will we decide to take advantage of the public's frustration, accept defeat, and hope that whatever the cost to our security, the politics of defeat will work out better for us than our opponents?

"For my part, I would rather lose a campaign than a war," he said.

McCain singled out one Democratic presidential candidate, Sen. Barack Obama. McCain said when Bush vetoes the deadline for troop withdrawals, as he is expected to do, Democrats should take the Illinois Democrat's advice "and immediately pass a new bill to provide support to our troops in Iraq ... without substituting their partisan interests for those of our troops and our country."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,265260,00.html

Obama's reply:
"What we need today is a surge in honesty."

Is this a policy statement?

Is Obama really running for Commander in Chief, or for a board seat at the Mosquito Abatement District?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0704100429apr11,0,7634395,print.story?coll=chi-opinionfront-hed

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 11, 2007 3:56 PM | Report abuse

it occurs to me that the level of civility on this blog would be greatly enhanced if everybody just ignored kingofzouk. the discourse is starting to sound like a bunch of 8-year-olds taunting on a playground.

i'm just saying. i wandered over here from somewheres else, and now i'm wandering back. no enlightenment to be found today, i fear.

Posted by: b | April 11, 2007 3:51 PM | Report abuse

Zouk, if the source doesn't matter, then why did you start your post by pointing out (inaccurately, of course) that Paglia was a liberal? You didn't need to specify that. If only the content mattered, it wouldn't make a difference whether that article was written by Camille Paglia or Dick Cheney.

On the other topic that you're harping on constantly, would you complain if the Republicans refused to attend a debate held by MoveOn.org? It seems to me they'd be perfectly justified in avoiding a forum where they were likely to be attacked by moderators and facing a hostile audience. Would you disagree?

Posted by: Blarg | April 11, 2007 3:46 PM | Report abuse

JD, I'm curious -- and I mean this not to be difficult or argumentative, honest, but to try and understand -- how could such a joke be at Bush's expense? You mean because Bush hasn't found Obama yet? I guess I find it hard to swallow that Fox would want to bring any attention to Bush's failure in that regard, and the dig at Obama's name was much more blatant than anything related to Bush. Maybe this is also due to Obama's name being fodder for other jokes (especially his middle name) in less professional venues--none of which surprises me because I think that kind of fun-making happens on both sides. And I'm not saying it is right or wrong in all contexts. I just thought the "joke" was incredibly inappropriate and juvenile, especially in that context. But I admit I didn't hear the whole speech, just the clip most likely played on the Daily Show. I never would have pegged it for a Bush joke.

Posted by: dc voter | April 11, 2007 3:45 PM | Report abuse

JD, I'm curious -- and I mean this not to be difficult or argumentative, honest, but to try and understand -- how could such a joke be at Bush's expense? You mean because Bush hasn't found Obama yet? I guess I find it hard to swallow that Fox would want to bring any attention to Bush's failure in that regard, and the dig at Obama's name was much more blatant than anything related to Bush. Maybe this is also due to Obama's name being fodder for other jokes (especially his middle name) in less professional venues--none of which surprises me because I think that kind of fun-making happens on both sides. And I'm not saying it is right or wrong in all contexts. I just thought the "joke" was incredibly inappropriate and juvenile, especially in that context. But I admit I didn't hear the whole speech, just the clip most likely played on the Daily Show. I never would have pegged it for a Bush joke.

Posted by: dc voter | April 11, 2007 3:43 PM | Report abuse

colin - my point there and overall on this blog lately is that the originator of the idea is irrelevant. the idea should stand on its own regardless of source. when you immediately challenge the source, while ignoring the concept, you fall into the worst aspects of partisan bickering. This was the clinton method - destroy them personally and he left lots of carcasses along the way, even friends who got in the way or had to take a fall. now the 30 second shout-past-you shows have perfected this approach. but it is empty because it never gets to the details of the point being made, only who said what and what is their axe to grind. It is arguing for sissies who can't follow through on a thought. It adapts nicely to the blog forum with not-so-clever witticisms strewn about.

so ignoring the source - did al gore lose his credibility with his vastly exxaggerated movie? does he have a history of this behavior? can it be documented?

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 11, 2007 3:39 PM | Report abuse

roo - how about he hears the sound of the left wing of the party attempting to stifle debate and punish fox. If he can't handle fox news how is he going to deal with Amajornutbag? the cons have been putting up with this bias forever. We didn't go crying about it and may have lost the last election because of the drumbeat. If any adversity is enough to send you packing, maybe you should apply for a different job. It is not just cons who think this.

BTW - clinton paid lots of money and lost his law license. what was that for again? Hint - it wasn't for hiding an intern under the desk.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 11, 2007 3:27 PM | Report abuse

spartan: Recall how I have pointed out several times how a sentence or even a word can be used to distort anything. "Accuse your opponent of doing what you are doing, so that you will know what you are doing.". This is my own quote and was not stolen from anyone, simply something I have learned over the years. We all learn from each other if we take the time to listen instead of shooting our mouths off about someone or something we know little/nothing about.

Posted by: lylepink | April 11, 2007 3:25 PM | Report abuse

dc voter, the quote you remember was supposed to be a joke at Bush's expense, not Obama's.

Colin, I appreciate your civil tone (unlike so many of the crazies on this board, left and right). However I think you're wrong on some of your points - I've seen recent studies that actually say class size doesn't affect performance at all. Parental involvement is key. As for Charter schools - I'm ignoring those as they are not what I'm talking about. As for vouchers - it seems to me that if the market works *everywhere else*, why shouldn't it work for schools. I know that's not very socialist of me, but what the hell.

I agree teachers need to be compensated fairly for performance..and fired for poor performance, something the NEA is against. And if you don't think the NEA (and trial lawyers association...oh excuse me, they just changed their name to Institute for Justice or something equally Orwellian) aren't pulling the strings of the Dems, then you're in more denial than Franken is about getting a paycheck next month.

Posted by: JD | April 11, 2007 3:22 PM | Report abuse

Another fun distortion by KOZ. The Chicago Tribune is not "liberal" by any definition of the word. It's a traditionally right of center publication that endorsed Bush.

Take a look at their 2006 endorsements. In contested races, they always choose either the republican or a pro-business, centrist Democrat.

Nice try though.

Posted by: Colin | April 11, 2007 3:21 PM | Report abuse

Cowards always get violent when backed into a corner...

Posted by: Anonymous | April 11, 2007 3:18 PM | Report abuse

I was directed to Fred Hiatt's Washington Post editorial on Nancy Pelosi the other day. By the time I read the White House talking points he was spouting and got to the comments, there were already over 30 pages of them. It was apparent right off the bat that Freeperville and all of its related suburbs had been linked there early. Initially the comments largely were supportive of Hiatt with a good bit of typical angry GOP nastiness and sexism. All to be expected given the crowd that showed up. But then I noticed a trend. The further into the comments I got the more extreme the comments. I stopped reading around page 30-something to request a post be deleted. It was a heated comment charging Nancy with treason and demanding she be locked up for life. Little did I know, the fun had just begun.

I came back later to find 70 some pages of comments. The tone had also gotten much uglier. There were a lot of ugly sexist comments, anti-Jewish comments, and the now consensus that Nancy was a traitor deserving of jail. As disgusting to wade through as this was, it didn't prepare me for the commenter who claimed that Nancy deserved to die for betraying her country, along with the rest of the traitors in Congress. They were so emphatic on this point that they repeated it at the end of their post. So again, I requested a deletion. Going back it was only a few pages further on that a commenter stated that Nancy should be hung. By this point I needed a good hot shower.

I wanted to copy some of the offending posts to include in this diary but the WaPo editors disinfected the pile of trash overnight and all of the death threats were removed. I truly hope that they forwarded to Nancy's Secret Service detail as much information as possible regarding the posts and users who made them.

The whole experience caused me to do a bit of thinking on the bigger picture. It has been obvious for some time now that the administration is backed into a corner and appears to be getting desperate. The scandal-a-day syndrome, impending subpoenas, investigations everywhere based on substantial evidence of wrongdoing by administration officials, the Iraq funding standoff, Gonzogate, and more.

It occurred to me that this rising level of anger and threatening talk by the freeperazzi was merely a reflection of the current mindset of their hero george and his not-so-merry band of idiots. And it made me wonder just how far these dead-enders will really go in support of their failed fuhrer. And how far their failed fuhrer will go in trying to retain some semblance of relevance in his lameduckery.

I foresee a long, hot summer ... for all of us.

Posted by: creepy | April 11, 2007 3:16 PM | Report abuse

someone above quotes Iacocca as saying "We've got a gang of clueless bozos steering our ship of state right over a cliff..."

Is Iacocca a Flat-Earth guy now, or just guilty of mixing metaphors?

Posted by: bsimon | April 11, 2007 3:11 PM | Report abuse

'Thomas Paine once wrote that in absolute governments, the King is law, and in free nations, the Law is king.

The fundamental problem is not that Alberto Gonzales lied, prevaricated, misrepresented or played Pinocchio when he falsely stated he was not involved in the decisions to fire the U.S. attorneys. Those actions were wrong and appropriate grounds for removal, but there is much, much worse.

Alberto Gonzales is a second-tier-quality lawyer elevated to great heights by blind obedience to the concept of absolute power and the unwise president who claims it for himself on matters that grossly violate the American notion of the rule of law.'

Posted by: Anonymous | April 11, 2007 3:11 PM | Report abuse

zouk writes
" I already said that "they did it" is not an acceptable answer... Is that your best response that being chicken is acceptable because bush did it. are you going to campaign on the "bush did it" platform? cutting and pasting my own words and switching subject/object is ignorant coward's schtick. are you usurping now?"

You misunderstand. I am not defending the Dems, I am merely pointing out that you criticize Dems/Libs for doing exactly the same thing that your boys do. Its comical, that's all - the irony & hypocrasy, dig? To double the humor quotient, you're now rebutting the 'Clinton did it' defense as well. I recall your own use of that red herring, if I'm not mistaken. Its good to see you admit that such a defense is not only intellectually lazy, but irrelevant as well.

Posted by: bsimon | April 11, 2007 3:07 PM | Report abuse

Ooh, that's the best you can come up with? All you Fox/Limbaugh dittohead junkies and all you can do is say some boogeyman word you think connotes some evil that exists only in your own head. Daily kos is just a website, kiddies, not a monster. I don't go there, I read the newspapers, but even so it's got more credibility than the entire rightwing monolith put together -- especially your nutcase Messiah Moonie rag.

You folks might want to get up and do something -- you know, like join the military or something, instead of sitting around in your feety pajamas typing.

Posted by: Tara | April 11, 2007 3:07 PM | Report abuse

Didn't the Dems refuse to debate on Fox after the owner made the crass, crass comment about still looking for "Obama" as a blatant attempt at insult masked as humor to link Obama's name with Osama bin Laden? That's what I remember. I will try and find a link. To me, Republicans should refuse to debate on that channel too after that comment. To go after Obama because of his NAME is beyond below the belt--and completely devoid of anything substantive or on policy issues.

Posted by: dc voter | April 11, 2007 3:07 PM | Report abuse

What partisan cheerleading? I have talked about Imus and black leaders and the inherent cowarice of the Dem candidates. I also repond to challenges. I have offered no support of anything bush today and not stated anything non-factual about Dems. Is anything that goes against your Kos world-view partisan? that seems to indicate that you sir are the partisan cheerleader and it is further supported by your response in defense of al gore, clinton, etc.

so why don't you take YOUR own advice. you seem like you may be redeemable, not that you might see the light and vote properly, but might respond to reason on policy issues.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 11, 2007 3:03 PM | Report abuse

JD -- there actually are reasons for disagreeing with vouchers other than respecting teachers, who you apparently think are all "union overlords" for the Democratic party. Charter schools don't perform better on standardized tests than the schools at large. Same for voucher programs that don't have selective admission.

Guess what does increase student performence according to every study that's been done? Retaining teachers with experience (3 years is the threshold that matters), making sure that teachers are trained to teach the subjects they teach (sadly, that's not always the case), and lowering class sizes. We don't gear our education systems to do any of that.

Oh, and to address your charges of union pandering. Senator Obama, who I support, is open to a version of merit based pay for teachers and wants to - gasp - pay teachers in harder to fill subject areas (hard sciences, math) more so that we actually have qualified individuals teaching our kids.

Other than ideology, why would anyone be against a plan like that?

Posted by: Colin | April 11, 2007 3:02 PM | Report abuse

Roger that Spartan.

Brush those teeth!

Posted by: JD | April 11, 2007 3:02 PM | Report abuse

i almost feel like the koz in here today is not the real koz because he is so much more over the top and factually wrong than normal. and really, i just can't fathom comparing the clinton lies to the bush lies--besides the fact that bush has eliminated the very concept of due process in this country. i'm sure this koz's complaints of clinton's lies parallel a defense of scooter libby, who was actually convicted of lying under oath!

Posted by: hmm | April 11, 2007 3:01 PM | Report abuse

blarg-thanks, didnt think to look there but trying to convince zouk of something is like talking to a brick wall.

jd-another point i wanted to mention is there are single parents of all races that have to put up with all the garbage being thrown around in the media. when all a child's role model is either a arrogant wide reciver or a talentless pop star with no underware i really worry about the future. great talking to you jd i have to go to a dentist appointment in a half hour but ill leave you with this, government isnt the problem, its who's running it. you get the government you vote for

Posted by: spartan | April 11, 2007 3:00 PM | Report abuse

kingofzouk--"you deny that edwards and obama won't debate on Fox? Explain why if its not cowardice."

It is called a "principled stance." Something you loudly talk about but never seem to recognise in the wild.

Obama has a good reason to take a stand and refuse to aid Fox News: the continuous mischaracterisations of himself without any meaningful retractions (not that they would matter, they are always delivered with a *wink wink, nudge nudge* over on FNC anyway.)

There is the islamic terrorist angle, the christian terrorist angle, the black supremacist angle and then the simple, old, six-year-old tactic of finding amusement in a person's name although more sinister here since it attempts to tie him to a terrorist. All of this is intentional and malicious, not merely shoddy journalism (which, to this degree, should be enough to call in question their credentials for hosting a national debate of any kind anyway.)

That enough of an answer for you, kingofzouk? I eagerly await your acknowledgement or rebuttal.

I will let someone else explain Edwards.

Posted by: roo | April 11, 2007 2:59 PM | Report abuse

KOZ starts his global warming bash-fest off with this statement: "From a famed Liberal - Ouch"

He then criticizes me for pointing out that the person he cited describes herself as a libertarian that is against most government regulation.

Willful blindness or intentional spin? Either way, silly. Come on KOZ, you're better than that.

Posted by: Colin | April 11, 2007 2:58 PM | Report abuse

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp

Al Gore never said that he invented the Internet. He said that he "took the initiative in creating the Internet", which is true, because he helped fund the technology behind the Internet. Just like how Eisenhower created the interstate highway system, though he didn't actually invent the concept of highways or physically contribute to the construction.

The fact that zouk keeps repeating this blatant and ridiculous twisting of facts shows just what kind of person he is.

Posted by: Blarg | April 11, 2007 2:55 PM | Report abuse

They're running to be the most powerful leader in the world. They shouldn't dodge questioners who aren't handpicked and pre-adoring.


Even the liberal Trib agrees with me. Interesting.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0704100429apr11,0,7634395,print.story?coll=chi-opinionfront-hed

so the next question is do they want to lose the war because they are chickens about everything or is this an actual policy - a first for Obama, a refusal to admit any mistake ever by hillary and a cold calculated manipulation by edwards.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 11, 2007 2:50 PM | Report abuse

jd-actually i do support school vouchers, but you cant stop there. crime must also be addressed too. personally i think an agressive local/federal program to get rid of the guns and drug traffiking would also help. but its got to start with the parents first.

zouk-ok fine, but who says hillary is going to win? you must since your so worried about her winning. since i lived thru rampant corruption, selling of favors, no health care, lying, heavy-handed tactics of the bush admistration, i have a vested interest in seeing who comes next dem or rep. but if you want to comment about my opinion, then stop with the partisan cheerleading and ill take you serious. other than that im ignoring you as the shameless troll you are.

Posted by: spartan | April 11, 2007 2:50 PM | Report abuse

Strangely enough you hang out at Kos - more like perfectly predictable.

you seem to have skipped all the other stuff and concentrated on clinton's affair. so i guess if the rampant corruption, selling of favors, giant health care, lying, heavy-handed tactics etc. return in the hillary camp, you will be pleased.

you did attempt to spin al gore's credibility.

And I didn't see any debunking with anything other than vapid, empty opinion. that is sadly what Dems consider to be acceptable retorts to facts. and they often get away with it because the GOPS have become as spinless as the Dems have become dishonest. not me.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 11, 2007 2:41 PM | Report abuse

koz, you also chanted that the dems would lose midterms and didn't have a chance of winning one chamber of congress, let alone both--so i hope you like crow because you will be eating more of it in november '08.

Posted by: not anon | April 11, 2007 2:40 PM | Report abuse

Spartan, I see your point about the culture problems. The difference between you and I is: you choose to lament the circumstances the kids are forced into; I blame the willingness of the minority community to tolerate the one-parent and absentee-parent househould as normal (even celebrated). We're both right I guess. (PS I hope you're in favor of school voucher/choice programs, then, something much of the sleazeball Dem leadership has opposed as a sop to their union overlords)

As for Imus - I know he's said much worse in the past, I agree. I wonder what made this comment so different? It wasn't all that outrageous in the scheme of things. An otherwise slow news cycle, plus the Youtube/everyone connected influence I guess.

Posted by: JD | April 11, 2007 2:40 PM | Report abuse

When it comes to politics, former Chrysler CEO Lee Iacocca is generally not much of a player. When he has dabbled in politics, Iacocca is generally known for being a Republican -- he was close with Reagan, he endorsed Bush in 2000, and backed Dick DeVos' gubernatorial campaign in Michigan last year.

But if Iacocca's new book is any indication, the retired businessman seems to be moving in a different direction.

'Am I the only guy in this country who's fed up with what's happening? Where the hell is our outrage? We should be screaming bloody murder. We've got a gang of clueless bozos steering our ship of state right over a cliff, we've got corporate gangsters stealing us blind, and we can't even clean up after a hurricane much less build a hybrid car. But instead of getting mad, everyone sits around and nods their heads when the politicians say, "Stay the course."

Stay the course? You've got to be kidding. This is America, not the damned Titanic. I'll give you a sound bite: Throw the bums out!

You might think that I've gone off my rocker, and maybe I have. But someone has to speak up. I hardly recognize this country anymore. The President of the United States is given a free pass to ignore the Constitution, tap our phones, and lead us to war on a pack of lies. Congress responds to record deficits by passing a huge tax cut for the wealthy (thanks, but I don't need it).

The most famous business leaders are not the innovators but the guys in handcuffs. While we're fiddling in Iraq, the Middle East is burning and nobody seems to know what to do. And the press is waving pom-poms instead of asking hard questions. That's not the promise of America my parents and yours traveled across the ocean for. I've had enough. How about you?

I'll go a step further. You can't call yourself a patriot if you're not outraged.... Why are we in this mess? How did we end up with this crowd in Washington? Well, we voted for them -- or at least some of us did. But I'll tell you what we didn't do. We didn't agree to suspend the Constitution. We didn't agree to stop asking questions or demanding answers. Some of us are sick and tired of people who call free speech treason. Where I come from that's a dictatorship, not a democracy.'

Not bad for a guy whos a former Bush backer, don't you think?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 11, 2007 2:37 PM | Report abuse

spartan - you quoted me but failed to point out the blame you said I posted. nope just fond memories of my younger days when we could worry about blue dresses and cigars.

-ok fine, the 90's were bad for you, realizing that clinton had a affair outside his marrage. i posted how it was good for everyone else. just as i can come on here and rail on about how bad bush is.

spartan will debate over minor wording and spin to avoid the main point which is so obvious to the enlightened. I am beyond bickering with stooges.

-ok then why are you on here. i havent spun anything and most of the insults and half truths have been debunked. if you like me and other like minded posters will just ignore you and be forever in the dark with out your "enlightened"view point

If you have anything intelligent to say, I will consider it. Otherwise go back to Kos or hufington or the other kooky bastions of idiocy.
-strangely enough i hang out at kos, but i disagree with most of what he says but i dont parrot spin and talking points and insult people with different points of view. why dont you go fight anon you seem to be winning there

Posted by: spartan | April 11, 2007 2:32 PM | Report abuse

Life Imitates Satire

'This is truly DC-czarism, 'we can't figure out what the hell we're doing so let's appoint a new bubble on the flowchart' run amok. Instead of 'czar' maybe we can just call the person 'training wheels'? Someone to oversee wars, the Pentagon, the State Department and everything else? Don't we elect that person every four years?

JP says it reminds him of this November 2005 piece from The Onion ...

'In response to increasing criticism of his handling of the war in Iraq and the disaster in the Gulf Coast, as well as other issues, such as Social Security reform, the national deficit, and rising gas prices, President Bush is expected to appoint someone to run the U.S. as soon as Friday.'

I'm not sure I've ever seen a better sign -- though wrapped in a humorous package -- of why this president really can't be trusted to be in charge of anything and why the Republic is genuinely in peril as long as this pitiful goof remains in office. Bush wants to find a general to do his job for him. But he can't get anyone to agree to do it.'

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/

Why should anyone want to do the president's job for him? Hello?

Posted by: drindl | April 11, 2007 2:31 PM | Report abuse

bsimon, I already said that "they did it" is not an acceptable answer. besides these are candidates. the President gets the message out regardless of venue. Is that your best response that being chicken is acceptable because bush did it. are you going to campaign on the "bush did it" platform? cutting and pasting my own words and switching subject/object is ignorant coward's schtick. are you usurping now?

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 11, 2007 2:31 PM | Report abuse

Can't you see that Tara is a brainwashed Kos regular. why confront that simpleton? That chanting is why the Dems will lose next time - no ideas and very little thought. Still nothing constructive from that end of the party. don't hold your breath.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 11, 2007 2:27 PM | Report abuse

People will remember Clinton as a president who didn't live up to his full potential nor the dire predictions of Republicans. His dalliances were well known before election and he beat an incumbent president and a quirky billionaire with populist appeal. Remember the vote on his first budget when Dole and others all argued that's passage would bring financial collapse and deficits. Think of that next time you see the defaults of mortgages go up and up. He failed on health care but he tried and the next attempt might be easier because of him as unions, big business including auto companies and AARP have already supported health reform. If the American model is so good why hasn't a single major western country copied it while providing equal or slightly better medical outcomes and for less total percentage of GNP? He stumbled in Somalia which is the model W is working for create a mess then left office for others to clean up. He learned lesions and American air power, international partners, and guerillas defeated the Serbians with no American fatalities and that has led to a sullen peace in Kosovo, war crime convictions through out the former Yugoslavian and a vicious dictator dying while in jail. He attempted to kill Osama and made a full court press to bring peace to the Mid East that Arafat didn't have the political vision or physical courage to sign off on or even send a counter offer. After being investigated for years by the FBI, media, GOP, etc we learned that Bill Clinton could be a stranger to the truth and too friendly to women other than his wife. We also learned that he looks better than Rudy informing his second wife of their divorce during a press conference with her replacement present. McCain left the wife who stuck with him and raised their kids alone while he was a POW for a younger, richer model. Gingerich has confessed to having sex with a staffer during the impeachment that lead to the Democrats gaining historic if small gains in the Congress. Clinton is no saint, but he is not alone.
Clinton admitted global warming existed, did not preach small government while trying to fight birth control (plan B) abortion rights and stem cell. He was liberal conservative conserving the social support net with a weak hand politically. He did not advance the progressive cause as allow it to live for another day. If he was too liberal or not enough, government worked no major cities were destroyed and he presided over economic growth.
Now for progressives and true conservatives is the search for relevance. Bush has become the President of the Iraq war and the congressional GOP were the alibi party watching corruption at home and abroad widen while doing nothing. We must face maintaining our economic and political relevance while jobs leave for India and China, global warming increases and nuclear proliferation goes largely unchecked (Iran is not the only nation on the verge of nuclear weapons, look for Egypt and Saudi Arabia to follow). For conservatives it is how to maintain families while not preaching or mistaking evangelical Christians as the only Christians, repair a hollowed out military that can not care for it's own wounded while now accepting convicted felons on "a case by case basis", and realizing powers granted to one president for one cause can be given to another president for another cause (imagine the government using unrestrained wire taps for say the IRS)
For the left it remains to be seen how we raise incomes on the bottom, fight creating a permanent underclass while not ignoring personal responsibility and pathological behavior, balance the budget again while caring for an aging population, reform entitlements, and not promise a government program for every problem.

Posted by: Franco | April 11, 2007 2:24 PM | Report abuse

Zouk, once again, accuses the Libs/Dems of exactly what Bush/Cheney do...
"We only go to venues that appreciate and love us and won't try to distort our pure message."

Ironically, not even that strategy works for Cheney anymore - he can't even get a favorable audience in the most conservative county in the most conservative state. My God, when the Mormons give up on Bush & Cheney, their bottom truly has fallen out.

Posted by: bsimon | April 11, 2007 2:22 PM | Report abuse

By ALLISON HOFFMAN AP Writer. © 2007 AP. SAN DIEGO - A federal bankruptcy judge is threatening the Roman Catholic Diocese of San Diego with contempt for allegedly attempting to hide assets to avoid payment to clergy sexual abuse victims.

Posted by: social conservatives | April 11, 2007 2:22 PM | Report abuse

Calif. diocese threatened with contempt
Houston Chronicle - 3 hours ago
By ALLISON HOFFMAN AP Writer. © 2007 AP. SAN DIEGO - A federal bankruptcy judge is threatening the Roman Catholic Diocese of San Diego with contempt for allegedly attempting to hide assets to avoid payment to clergy sexual abuse victims.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 11, 2007 2:20 PM | Report abuse

re :"his asine campaign finance reform"

May I remind you that Fred Thompson was a strong supporter of the MCCain-Feingold.

Fred Thompson was one of only 4 Rs that broke ranks and supported John McCain over GWB in 2000.

McCain is the most conservative of the bunch right now. Don't disparage my politcal leanings please; if he does run Fred's not any more conservative than the others.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 11, 2007 2:19 PM | Report abuse

'The problem with the raw culture/nappy ho issues is the degradation of the family in the minority community, which is obviously what Imus was trying to imitate in his failed attempt at humor.'

by calling young black women wh*res?

In other words, it's all their fault. Imus didn't do anything wrong. Oh I see.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 11, 2007 2:18 PM | Report abuse

I see ignorant coward has crawled out to spew some insults and offer nothing of substance as usual. I will continue to ignore and not engage.

Is air America still on the radio after failing so miserably? Must be getting government grants because no one could make money with that tripe. On the other hand, fox news is leading in every single ratings available and has the top 40 shows or something like that on cable. so if the comparison were accurate, which I have just shown it is not, why wouldn't a candidate not want to reach the maximum audience unless they are yellow. More importantly how will they handle Al jezeera who is less well-known for truth then even CNN. you conveniently attack me and ignore the point as usual. you are weak and cowardly as your candidates seem to be.

spartan - you quoted me but failed to point out the blame you said I posted. nope just fond memories of my younger days when we could worry about blue dresses and cigars.

If you don't know by now that al gore is a serial exxagerator, there is very little I can do to correct your ignorance. he was a journalist in Nam and never saw action yet claimed he did. He lived in a five star hotel yet claimed he lived on a farm. He took credit for originating the Internet and being the idea behind love story. these are old and established facts, now part of history. Arguing with someone so dense is not worth my time. Everyone - even Camille knows his "truths" are lies or at least gross misrepresentations. He has created another documentary like Michael moore did - or more like a mockumentary based on no facts.

I predict ignorant coward will not be able to help himself and will cut and paste a portion of this, changing a few words and consider that a giant contribution to the debate. He will fill in with some choice insults. spartan will debate over minor wording and spin to avoid the main point which is so obvious to the enlightened. I am beyond bickering with stooges.

I missed the last few days but noticed the blog deteriorated into mostly spam with the help of these nimrods. If you have anything intelligent to say, I will consider it. Otherwise go back to Kos or hufington or the other kooky bastions of idiocy.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 11, 2007 2:17 PM | Report abuse

The problem with the raw culture/nappy ho issues is the degradation of the family in the minority community, which is obviously what Imus was trying to imitate in his failed attempt at humor. I don't blame Sharpton/Jackson, or the gov, or the media - I blame the parents of the mostly black rap community mailing it in instead of parenting. They could learn a lot from the Mormons.

jd, ok i kinda see your point , but from what i saw a few of those ladies were white.plus what imus said would be a minor gaffe,if this was the first time and it wasnt. he's been saying worse on and off the air for 40 years. also yes we could learn a few things from the mormons but you cant blame the actions of no talent rapper for the whole entire community. living the inner city is hard enough with little or no oppertunites except crime or sports. and with only one parent available, you wonder why most if not all african americans havent started burning down the suburbs yet? no one wants to live where theres a crackhouse every 3 houses. i could go on but some folks here wouldnt understand what its like. so leave it at that jd.

Posted by: spartan | April 11, 2007 2:14 PM | Report abuse

Lylepink, you said that Republicans donate money to Obama because they fear Hillary and want to have a weak Democratic candidate. bhoomes, a Republican, said that he donated money to Obama because he likes Obama. He said that he doesn't like Hillary, but not that he fears her. That doesn't prove your point at all.

Posted by: Blarg | April 11, 2007 2:07 PM | Report abuse

ALGIERS (Reuters) - Bombs killed 30 people in Algeria's capital on Wednesday, attacks claimed by al Qaeda that raised fears the north African oil exporter was slipping back into the intense political violence of the 1990s.

One of the blasts, believed to be a suicide bombing, ripped part of the facade off the prime minister's headquarters in the centre of Algiers. A second bomb hit Bab Ezzouar on its eastern outskirts, the official APS news agency said.

The Al Qaeda Organisation in the Islamic Maghreb claimed responsibility for the bombings in an Internet statement, in which it also claimed responsibility for attacks in neighboring Morocco and pictures of three "martyrs."

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

Posted by: Anonymous | April 11, 2007 2:04 PM | Report abuse

So Tara is against big Government spending. I guess voting for the Democrats will fix that problem. (Anyone see their current surrender bill in the house, that uses bribery? Says a lot about the so-called statesmanship of the Democratic caucus)

The problem with the raw culture/nappy ho issues is the degradation of the family in the minority community, which is obviously what Imus was trying to imitate in his failed attempt at humor. I don't blame Sharpton/Jackson, or the gov, or the media - I blame the parents of the mostly black rap community mailing it in instead of parenting. They could learn a lot from the Mormons.

And Progressive, maybe you're right and Thompson was just clearing the issue in advance; but I hope not. The stress of a campaign isn't conducive to an easy recovery from that disease. Same goes with Edwards' wife. Same for Tony Snow. Life's too short.

Posted by: JD | April 11, 2007 2:01 PM | Report abuse

ProudtobeGOP: Let's see, there is McCain voting against Bush's tax cuts, not to mention his asine campaign finance reform, as well as bashing Bush with his liberal media friends several years ago while comtemplating to join the dems, didn;t say McCain wasn't a great american, he is, but he ain't much of a republican and neither are you if you are supporting him. TARA: you insufferable wh*re, I served my country for twenty years while you were badmouthing your country. Get back in the kitchen where you belong and leave weighty matters to the men.

Posted by: bhoomes | April 11, 2007 1:59 PM | Report abuse

you deny that gore exxagerrates - you must be living in a cave
-i didnt, you were posting half truths and lies. first, al gore did serve in nam.the point about him inventing the internet was grossely exagerated.and the other stuff you posted was made up. and off topic i live in a pretty nice apartment. try again.
you deny that edwards and obama won't debate on Fox?
-"senator obama can you prove that you are not a al quadia sleeper agent?" why legimtize a network thats a propaganda machine for the repubicans? and by the way when's the air america sponored debate for the gop canidates?
Is syria the only place Dems will give an audience and provide policy?
-now your just being silly.
you misread what I said about the clintons - that we remember them
-ok here's what you really said

You know what people remember about the clinton presidency - interns, cigars, scandals, polling for policy, failed health care initiative, impeachment, ignoring terror threats, pardons, lincoln bedroom.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 11, 2007 01:14 PM

here's what i remember, partisan witch hunt, impeachment(his poll numbers went up by the way)chasing down terror threats, good economy and low crime. now try and focus on whats happening in the last 6 years.
you need to start seeing things in a more rounded way and take off your partisan blinders.
-take your own advice first.

Posted by: spartan | April 11, 2007 1:57 PM | Report abuse

So when are the Repubican candidates going to debate on Air America? I heard they refused.

Explain why if it is not cowardice...

Posted by: Anonymous | April 11, 2007 1:56 PM | Report abuse

'As John D. McKinnon writes in today's Wall Street Journal (subscription required): "The widespread use of private email accounts by some top White House officials is sparking a congressional probe into the practice and whether it violates a post-Nixon law requiring that White House deliberations be documented.

"A top lawmaker says outside email accounts were used in an attempt to avoid scrutiny; the White House says their purpose was to avoid using government resources for political activities, although they were used to discuss the firing of U.S. attorneys."

Most of the e-mail accounts at issue are on Republican National Committee servers. For instance: "Susan Ralston, until recently presidential adviser Karl Rove's assistant at the White House, appears to have used at least four outside email accounts: a 'gwb' domain account, a 'georgewbush.com' account, and an 'rnchq.org' account -- all run by the RNC -- plus an AOL account.

She once emailed lobbyist Jack Abramoff, 'I now have an RNC blackberry which you can use to e-mail me at any time. No security issues like my WH email.' . .

Posted by: Anonymous | April 11, 2007 1:54 PM | Report abuse

Just wondering where all the folks went that was dissing me pretty good a few days ago for what I said and bhoomes confirmed. My crystal ball is working so well I may have to put on sun glasses.

Posted by: lylepink | April 11, 2007 1:53 PM | Report abuse

'a poodle for raw intellect.'

even among the reams of idiocy you spout every day -- that's an interesting comment, if only because it reveals your true dittohead nature.

you're a republican party poodle... don't try to think, just jummp through hoops when you're told.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 11, 2007 1:47 PM | Report abuse

spartan - you deny that gore exxagerrates - you must be living in a cave. you deny that edwards and obama won't debate on Fox? Explain why if its not cowardice. how will they deal with detractors in the future, boycott them, how about the 250 some members of congress from the opposing party - give them the silent treatment? Is syria the only place Dems will give an audience and provide policy? you misread what I said about the clintons - that we remember them. I attributed no blame for anything. you need to start seeing things in a more rounded way and take off your partisan blinders.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 11, 2007 1:43 PM | Report abuse

bhoomes - I also like golden retrievers -so cute and dumb and lovable. but prefer a German shepard for the guard dog and a poodle for raw intellect.

"in the end she will lose steam" - when is this end, the window for the primaries is two or three weeks in January and ending Feb 5th when the giant primary will end the exercise. I think everything is pretty much on cruise control until then. Obama will reveal no policies, Edwards will continue to pander, Hillary will remain as tight as a drum. You all have all the information you need to make your choice, there is no additional data forthcoming.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 11, 2007 1:38 PM | Report abuse

sorry to hear that fred thompson has cancer. i know too many people that have it,but im glad its curable. if he runs the more the merrier.

-zouk: god man your becoming more shrill everyday. gore serial exaggerator? edwards and obama cowards? clinton? ok lets totally ignore the last 6-7 years of bush and the rubberstamp congress and blame clinton for everything. can you even take your self seriously for saying that?

Posted by: spartan | April 11, 2007 1:31 PM | Report abuse

"Just don't trust him but unlike 15 brits, he knew how to conduct himself as a POW. "

bhoomes - As you stated McCain proved himself to be trustworthy in service to our country as a much decorated Navy pilot with a 22-year military career.

Just wondering...
if he was trustworthy as a POW as you acknowledge, then how do you figure he isn't worthy of trust now , in putting the nation's best interests first?

You've already said you may vote for Barry Obama, so clearly it's not party line that you are using to form this opinion.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 11, 2007 1:30 PM | Report abuse

"We have allowed our youths to buy into a culture (hip hop) that has been perverted, corrupted and overtaken by prison culture. The music, attitude and behavior expressed in this culture is anti-black, anti-education, demeaning, self-destructive, pro-drug dealing and violent. .....

We all know where the real battleground is. We know that the gangsta rappers and their followers in the athletic world have far bigger platforms to negatively define us than some old white man with a bad radio show. There's no money and lots of danger in that battle, so Jesse and Al are going to sit it out."


http://www.kansascity.com/182/story/66339.html

Well, well, zouk is prescient.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 11, 2007 1:29 PM | Report abuse

Thompson's revelation means he ABSOLUTELY WILL RUN. Robert Dole survived a bout with prostate cancer in 1991, and it was barely mentioned when he was the Republican nominee in 1996. Thompson is just trying to get this issue out of the way, so he can start running.

Posted by: Progressive | April 11, 2007 1:26 PM | Report abuse

'the election of the liberal W.' ROFLOL!

You chickenhawks bit*ching about the 'cowardice' of the brits and so forth -- If only you would serve your country instead of TYPING, you could have the chance to get captured and show your fierce bravery!

And what we will remember about the bush presidency: IMPOTENCE, INCOMPETENCE, INCOHERENCE.

plus IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ, doing nothing about terrorist threats, going on a month's vacation just after getting BIN LADIN DETERMINED TO STRIKE IN US memo --
oh and KATRINA, Government spying, loss of privacy, trashing of hte Consitution, idiocy, BIG SPENDING, HUGE DEFICIT, kissing the a**es of the saudi princes, and oh yeah-- 9/11.

It's been a great 6 years, hasn't it?

Posted by: Tara | April 11, 2007 1:24 PM | Report abuse

Your right KOZ, forgot about those countries, we can count on them stay tough. I like Obama but just kidding about rooting for him over a republican. But I am not enthused about any of our candidates unless Fred gets in and his health holds out. Hillary would unify our party no matter who gets it(except fatboy Newt)but in the end she will lose steam and either Obama or Edwards would get the nomination. If Edwards got elected we could all count on him suing the terrorist. That would scare them, an ambulance chaser on their heels looking to add a few more rooms to his zillion square foot house. What's his carbon output?

Posted by: bhoomes | April 11, 2007 1:20 PM | Report abuse

'A man walking along the edge of a cliff slips and plummets toward jagged rocks and crashing surf, barely saving himself by clinging to the cliff's face. But the cliff is too steep to climb, so he shouts, "Is anyone up there?" A voice fills the sky -- God's voice -- saying: "Have faith and pray. If you have sufficient faith and pray well, you can let go and land gently, unhurt, amid the rocks and surf." The man ponders this promise, then shouts: "Is there anyone else up there?"

This is the "Anyone else up there?" phase of the campaign for the Republican presidential nomination, which explains the political flavor du jour, Fred Thompson, the former senator from Tennessee. Conservatives are dissatisfied with the array of candidates.'

Posted by: george will | April 11, 2007 1:15 PM | Report abuse

You know what people remember about the clinton presidency - interns, cigars, scandals, polling for policy, failed health care initiative, impeachment, ignoring terror threats, pardons, lincoln bedroom.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 11, 2007 1:14 PM | Report abuse

bhoomes: You made my day by saying you had given money to Obama. I was raked over the coals a few days ago for stating that it would not suprise me that some repubs would help him because you folks fear Hillary. Thanks much.

Posted by: lylepink | April 11, 2007 1:12 PM | Report abuse

AGHDAD -- Iraqi Cabinet ministers allied to radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr threatened Wednesday to quit the government to protest the prime minister's lack of support for a timetable for U.S. withdrawal, according to a statement.

Such a pullout by the very bloc that put Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in office could collapse his already perilously weak government. The threat comes two months into a U.S. effort to pacify Baghdad in order to give al-Maliki's government room to function.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 11, 2007 1:12 PM | Report abuse

Hello, bhoomes, haven't seen you here in a long time - of course I am not here myself as often as I used to be.

I think you must be responding to a JD post not a JimD post. My only post on this thread was about how I wish Thompson well but the situation reminds me of Paul Tsongas's candidacy in 1992 after a seemingly sucsessful battle with cancer.

Posted by: JimD in FL | April 11, 2007 1:10 PM | Report abuse

As Iraq observed the fourth anniversary of the fall of Saddam Hussein yesterday, the lead item on the White House Web site, under the heading "LATEST NEWS," was a photograph of Clifford the Big Red Dog at the annual Easter Egg Roll on the South Lawn.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 11, 2007 1:10 PM | Report abuse

'I don't question that our military is at a breaking point, I just question why.

We are experiencing record defense budgets and outlays, and yet we have exhausted our troops and worn out our gear.

I say we just aren't getting enough bang for our bucks, and a huge part of the problem is a military institution that is so bloated with support and dominated by a new industrial contractor class that it is increasingly challenged to produce combat power.'

Posted by: the real problem | April 11, 2007 1:07 PM | Report abuse

Bhoomes - don't forget the Aussies and the Danes and the Poles.

cowardice is catching all around. Brave obama and Edwards are too chicken to go on Fox news. how do you think they will respond to real threats if elected? "We only go to venues that appreciate and love us and won't try to distort our pure message."

Old hippes never die, they just smell like it. the 60's peaceniks are coming into power and are not forgetting the glory days of their youth.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 11, 2007 1:05 PM | Report abuse

I hope Fred Thompson is ok- i enjoy him on the show-though he actually doesn't have much of a role- sort of like the Senator he was- I don't remember any great things he did - but he looked nice in the part.

As to Cancer- someone forgot to mention that Rudy left a Senate race becasue of prostate cancer- maybe really becasue he was losing in the polls -but cancer was the given reason. Guess he has recovered and I'm glad as I wish no one ill. I hope he and this - is it 3rd wife- enjoy the money he is making from acting as a lobbyist for the likes of Venezuela and other fine nations- along with partners like Kerik- yes the one who will soon be indicted.

But the time has come to face reality. This will be a democratic year and no Fred Thompson, Tommy Thompson or Newt Gingrich will change that. The country is fed up with Bush and the reaction will be to elect a Democrat. They will remember all the trials and tribulations of the Clinton Presidency but more they will remember that we had a balanced budget, we weren't at war, we were working toward a Middle East settlement, and people around the world actually still liked us. What did Sally Field say when accepting her Oscar- They like me! They really like me!- well Bush and the Republicans can't say that and the Democrats will profit from that.

Posted by: peter | April 11, 2007 1:04 PM | Report abuse

Bobby - I clearly stated I did not know them but was musing at various characterizations of them. what does it matter whether the girls were black or white, dumb or smart, fat or thin? My point was that this incident is not indicitive of black difficulty. these girls or young women are not the problem with black america. Quite the contrary, they are what the rest should strive for. the whole thing seems to be an exercise in sharpton and Jackson indignation.
why aren't they indignant about the slaughter of 40,000 black and hispanic youths in the last five years. compare that complete waste to the indignation that is displayed over 3000 soldiers, who actually volunteered to be potentially killed defending their nation. how about those hussies join cosby in advocating some actual solutions to minority problems - school choice might be a good start.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 11, 2007 12:59 PM | Report abuse

JimD; I said several years ago McCain has no chance to be our nominee and that still stands. While he may be right about Iraq, I woudn't trust him to become a flaming lib if he got elected. Just don't trust him but unlike 15 brits, he knew how to conduct himself as a POW. What happen to John Bull, France has finally won the war with GB. They are now sissiefied and a bunch of wimps. Why would they treat those cowards like heroes, if that was me or you JimD wewould had rightfully been court-martialed. I guess they don't have a Code of Conduct in GB. What a shame, I use to have a lot of respect for the Brits, now it looks like we are the only ones with any backbones left.

Posted by: bhoomes | April 11, 2007 12:56 PM | Report abuse

KofZ obviously you did not listen to their interview - it was amazing to me how they turned the issue from race to women being called oh's - they were very articulate at multiple levels-

I'm sorry you have only met a hand few of jocks - I guess as a jock myself with a BA, MA Poli Sci, MEd-Teaching, and JD - I'm just not very bright

Posted by: Bobby Wightman-Cervantes | April 11, 2007 12:45 PM | Report abuse

Best of luck to Thompson. You wrote in your article that he will meet with people on Capitol Hii, next week, to seek support. Who, specifically, will he meet with?

Posted by: Rick | April 11, 2007 12:41 PM | Report abuse

Retired Military Brass To Meet With 2008 Hopefuls

A group of retired generals and admirals with backgrounds in combat operations, intelligence, law, and medicine will meet in Concord, N.H., with Democratic and Republican presidential candidates over the coming weekend to discuss U.S. detention and interrogation policies.

http://onthehillblog.blogspot.com/2007/04/retired-military-brass-to-meet-with.html

Posted by: Anonymous | April 11, 2007 12:29 PM | Report abuse

Mitt is the GOP's Joe Biden; neither can win. Both sides know it. The patient is dead, he just refuses to stop breathing.

McCain or Rudy are the ONLY options for the GOP. It's too late in the day for a prince on a white horse (now that Thompson's a probable no-run, or at least I hope he is for his health/stress level sake). Neither one of them is perfect, but both bring the law-n-order/strong defense street cred that is the #1 issue to primary voters.

Tommy Thompson is running for some Cabinet position again. Huckabee? Please, he's Chris Dodd, maybe with 1/3 less crazy thrown in.

Posted by: JD | April 11, 2007 12:18 PM | Report abuse

The point of blogs is that the users may take the topic anywhere they see fit.

On point - will Fred go on all sorts of talk shows, discuss his illness and then remind people that it is a private issue and has nothing to do with his campaign. then end with, I don't want any sympathy votes. how conniving and perplexing is that approach? I think not.

bobby - how do you know that female basketball players are intelligent. Most jocks I know are not that bright. I don't know them so would make no assumptions. they seem to be learning to play the victim card quite readily. Is that healthy for their future as citizens in a color-blind society. Isn't this one of the big problems of black society in general - one that jesse and al regularly manipulate to serve their own egos? How about they deal with the actual problems of black america - and its not found in a college basketball team. It is found in failing schools, gang violence, drugs, etc.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 11, 2007 12:16 PM | Report abuse

My sympathy and prayers go out to Fred Thompson. Remission can be a chancy thing. I remember Paul Tsongas running for president in 1992 after a bout with cancer caused him to resign from the Senate in 1983. He seemed to be in remission but the cancer returned and he died in January 1997. Had he been elected in 1992, he would have been incapacitated towards the end of his first term.

Incidentally he was running as a fiscal conservative/social liberal. He called Bill Clinton a "pander" bear for Clinton's refusal to address the deficit seriously in the campaign. It also accurately described Clinton's tendency to try to tell each group what he thought they wanted to hear.

Posted by: JimD in FL | April 11, 2007 12:10 PM | Report abuse

Real conservatives are no more. the election of the liberal W. was the beginning of the end for small government cons. The party sacrificed to win an election. bush stole liberal issues to take over the middle - repeating a tactic learned from clinton.

We seem to be so well off as a nation that throwing money at government doesn't bother many people any more - or does it? One can interpret the last election under many guises. I think the cons got sick of the spending. you think mods got sick of war. Lieberman refutes your claim. what about mine?

the interesting question is now will the Dems try to steal the middle with hillary or go with the losing tactic of obescience to the left? How badly do they want to win?

As far as the GOP goes, MaCain has only his war stance as a positive, the Feingold thing makes him unpalatable. Mitt is just another flip-flopping NE yankee. that leaves rudy who will get big mod support and leave the far right wing behind possibly. This is the lib dream (and endless editorial subject) but so far not translating into any actual numbers. the evangs don't want hillary or uber-lefty Obama or edwards. how bad do you want to win?

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 11, 2007 12:06 PM | Report abuse

zouk says "As usual you Dems attack the messenger and ignore the content of the article."

A strange introduction to a long post on Al Gore in a thread on Fred Thompson. Yo, Zouk, the content of the article is: Fred Thompson has cancer. Thanks for your reminder on topicality.

Posted by: bsimon | April 11, 2007 12:04 PM | Report abuse

BISIMON: Fred Thompson is really the only potential candidate all conservatives can get excited about, 1st thing, he's a winner and most likley defeat any dem nominee and most importantly, he would be a good President. I don't have a problem with Rudy but do not want him to get the nomination because it is clear to me the social conservatives in my party will stay home if Rudy is the guy. If Fred doesn't get in, then I think it will go to Mitt. Mitt against Hillary would win, but don;t think he could beat Obama. Frankly if Fred doesn;t get in, I may root for Obama. (Already gave him some money)Like most americans, policy is important but equally important is that you want to like the person in the oval office. Clinton would probably bring about a 2nd civil war. IMUS should had saved his remarks for her.

Posted by: bhoomes | April 11, 2007 12:03 PM | Report abuse

I wish Fred the best - I enjoy his character a lot - I am so so tired of this I'm a victim I have cancer con game by the politicians - I'm sorry but what about our troops - what about the deficit - what about China ownes our deficit -

I like Fred and I wish him the best but the timing of his announcement sounds like a con job - shame on you Fred.

America needs to find itself in this election - we are so lost and without a soul

http://balancingtheissues.com/wilderness.htm

The Imus incident raised an interesting issue - has black America finally reached the point that it is now standing up and saying "house servant no more." I hope so - How is this going to translate for Obama -

The women who were the objects of Imus words stood proud and showed what an empowered intellegent black women looks like - they showed American black women are now empowered (most of us new that already but then of course there are the Bidens and Clintons who are just waking up to this reality)

I am a Richardson supporter for now - but maybe Obama with the support of the black community can show us - no more - this could be good for America. maybe it will help guide us back to our roots of true freedom for all.

For the record - I support Imus although I have never heard his show - speach is too important to be censored - his speach has given us a discussion which is empowering to blacks in a new way - this is good and proof all speach - even speach in bad taste can lead to good things.

Posted by: Bobby Wightman-Cervantes | April 11, 2007 11:59 AM | Report abuse

As usual you Dems attack the messenger and ignore the content of the article. Just what is it about you Libs that you refuse to confront any arguements and simply go after the motivations or the credibility of the author.

the simple point of that post was that Al gore - the serial exxagerater, who invented the internet, starred in love story, fought in vietnam, worked on a farm and now, predicts 20 foot swells in Manhattan, is without credibility, based solely on his claims that all scientists agree with him. Is that true or not. disregard the source and deal with the actual issue.

If zouk states that Sandy Berger got off easy for stealing and destroying classified documents, does the fact that zouk said it take away from the concept?

this is the problem with Liberal (and some conservative) talking heads and by example, bloggers and activists. Stop saying clinton did it (or bush did it) to make it seem OK. the standard for acceptable must be evenly applied.

the fact that 45% of the sample recently stated outright that massive corruption will return with clinton as president, She's not fooling anyone. contrast this with all the manufactured scandals of the bush people. any large organization has some crumbs in it. what matters is if the head is rotten. I know many of you think bush is evil but there is scant proof of this and it sounds more and more like partisan spite.

so why does it matter if she is libertarian or empty-headed. the fact remains that Al gore is simply unbelievable. BTW, that article takes shots at both sides and is quite literate and interesting. Camille is a paid author, not a free-lance blogger, so the facts are on her side as to who is interesting and marketable.

And obstruction in the Senate is by design, and is not slimy. I elected those guys to stop those Dem proposals which will harm our country. If you want to get your treasonous laws through, find a way to elect a president and a 60 vote majority. the voters do not seem to agree with you these last 40 years.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 11, 2007 11:53 AM | Report abuse


• Army proposes extending tours in Iraq from a year to 15 months
• Red Cross report says conditions in Iraq "unbearable and unacceptable"

Posted by: Anonymous | April 11, 2007 11:50 AM | Report abuse

And you gotta love that sourcing -- 'the US miliary said' -- Really? All of them? That must have been very loud.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 11, 2007 11:49 AM | Report abuse

'AGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Iran is training Iraqi insurgents to assemble weapons, the U.S. military said Wednesday, while also providing some intelligence support for Sunni groups in Iraq.'

CNN just gives up. Just stops even trying to have any credibility in its desperate race to the bototm with Fox.

Iran is providing intelligence for Sunnis? So they can kill Iranian Shia, whom they are at war against?

This must be a direct feed from Dick Cheney. Because only he could be nuts enough to believe that we are THAT stupid.

But of course, some of you are, aren't you? You'd believe ANYTHING he said, no matter what a pathetic lie it is.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 11, 2007 11:47 AM | Report abuse

With F.Thompson effectively out, and The Newt coming out as a closet Green ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/10/AR2007041001457.html?nav=hcmodule ), the ranks of 'real' conservative options are rapidly dwindling for the GOP. Where, oh where, will that beleagured party turn??

Posted by: bsimon | April 11, 2007 11:44 AM | Report abuse

Funny thing, huh? When John Edwards announced he was going to continue to run even tho his wife had cancer, he was greeted by a hail of criticism by wingers here. but not a peep when Fred Thompson says the same thing.

Funny about that hypocrisy, isn't it? It just pops up all over the place these days.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 11, 2007 11:43 AM | Report abuse

Camille Paglia calls herself a libertarian but she sounds like a republican to me. A particularly idiotic republican, at that.

So your boy rudy says he supports keeping vegetative patients [like shiavo] alive, even against the wishes of their families--and that the gov should pay for it.

But he also supports abortion and says the gov shuold pay for poor women who want one.

Kind of like the flipflopping marathon worst of both worlds, wouldn't you say?

Posted by: Jack | April 11, 2007 11:41 AM | Report abuse

'Thompson said his cancer is in remission and that it should have no impact on his life expectancy.'

utter nonsense. it's not curable.

Camille Paglia a libera? Absurd. She's just some empty-headed pundit who'll say anything to get her name in priint.

Posted by: Tara | April 11, 2007 11:37 AM | Report abuse

KOZ -- you left out the part where she calls herself a libertarian about 5 times while she questions global warming. Sort of important info, no?

Posted by: Colin | April 11, 2007 11:37 AM | Report abuse

Yes, kingofpuke, they have not passed much (but they've still passed more that what you stupidly claimed). But it is hard to pass things in the Senate, what with the obstructionist tactics of the repubs. Obstructionist...that word should be familiar to the repubs...

The dems have shown that they are not much better running the show, but the repubs have shown that when placed in the same position as the dems were for the past decade, they will resort to the same slimy tactics.

Posted by: egb | April 11, 2007 11:26 AM | Report abuse

``We're doing really well,'' Reid said. ``This is in direct contrast to the do-nothing Congress'' under Republican control, he said. ``We've done a lot already and have a lot more to do.''

Haven't passed a thing in the Senate, but according to Reid that is quite an accomplishment. This is the most pitiful leader in Senate history.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 11, 2007 11:21 AM | Report abuse

JD says
"Poor guy. Best of luck to him."

Yup.

Now, on to politics.

Given the suddenly increased likelihood that F.Thompson will not enter the race, to whom will the 'real' conservatives turn in a GOP nominee? So far None of the Above is winning, with no obvious contenders to overtake that spot...

Posted by: bsimon | April 11, 2007 11:19 AM | Report abuse

No sympathy votes please.

From a famed Liberal - Ouch

"I was snorting with disgust at its manipulations and distortions and laughing at Gore's lugubrious sentimentality, which was painfully revelatory of his indecisive, self-thwarting character. When Gore told a congressional hearing last month that there is a universal consensus among scientists about global warming -- which is blatantly untrue -- he forfeited his own credibility."?

http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2007/04/11/global_warming/index3.html

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 11, 2007 11:16 AM | Report abuse

Poor guy. Best of luck to him.

Posted by: JD | April 11, 2007 11:04 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company