Network News

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

The Fix Takes Questions

I was online on this morning for washingtonpost.com's daily politics Web chat.

Read the transcript here

Since there were a bunch of questions I didn't get to in the chat, I thought I would use The Fix to answer a few more.  Here goes:

New York, N.Y.: In your recent corruption roundup, you set up some ground rules that you'll only deal with current members of Congress or governors. Yet, you broke your own rules by including Rep Frank Ballance (D) who resigned in June, 2004. You omitted Connecticut Governor John Rowland (R) who also resigned in June, 2004. Why break your own rules for one but not the other?

The only thing I can think of is that you made a list and found that there are a lot more Republicans than Democrats on the list. So in an effort to appeared unbiased, you had to find another Democrat.

Cillizza: This was an editorial mixup.  In my original post, Ballance was not included since, as you rightly point out, he is not a sitting member of Congress.  After an edit, Ballance was unnecessarily included for, frankly, balance. I did not read the final edit and therefore was unaware that Ballance had been added to the list. I apologize for my editor's error (he's been flogged).  And let no man (or woman) say The Fix opposes full disclosure.

Washington, D.C.: So, what's the story with the New Jersey Senate appointment? Are Menendez's ethics "issues" going to kill him? Or his ties to the Hudson County "machine"? Or both? Either way, I feel a primary coming on!

Cillizza: From what I hear, an announcement from Corzine could come as soon as tomorrow, and Menendez is still the name most mentioned.  The only other person who might have a shot in Rep. Rob Andrews, who is a favorite of the southern New Jersey political establishment.

If Menendez gets it, Republicans will make a major issue out of his status at the "boss" of Hudson County.  Controversy has been swirling around Menendez since it became clear he might get the Senate appointment. The fact that there has been no smoking gun means one of two things: either one doesn't exist or Republicans are waiting to spring it on him until after he become Corzine's official pick.

As for the potential for a Democratic primary, I am skeptical.  Andrews and Rep. Frank Pallone (D) have floated the possibility they would pursue a primary challenge if they did not get the appointment, but that seems to me more about positioning than any real pledge to make the race.

New York, N.Y.: Hi and thanks for taking questions. I'm wondering what your take on Gilchrest's relative success in the Calif. special election means for the future of immigration as a campaign issue for the 2006 elections?

Cillizza: I think the jury is still out on the potency of immigration as an issue in 2006 and 2008. Gilchrist's 25 percent shows that there is an element of the voting public who see immigration as their number one voting issue. But California is not necessarily representative of the nation as a whole on the immigration issue.  Can it resonate in places like Maine and Minnesota where immigration (illegal or otherwise) is less of an issue? I don't know.

Canton, Ohio: do you think that Paul Hackett can win his primary race against Sherrod Brown to run against Mike Dewine in Ohio?

Cillizza: I do.  Hackett is an unorthodox candidate who remains relatively untested in the political arena.  But, his near-miss race candidacy in the Oh-02 special election in August showed that he has a way of connecting with voters. Sherrod Brown seems likely to be the establishment candidate and starts the race with more money and more name ID than Hackett.  But, this is shaping up to be a dogfight.

-- Chris Cillizza

By Chris Cillizza  |  December 7, 2005; 12:00 PM ET
Categories:  Fix Notes  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Parsing the Polls on Tom DeLay and Georgia's 8th District
Next: Mark Warner Steps Into the Arena

Comments

Every single one of Merna's screeds ends in a pejorative slap against the Democrats. She is an inflexible jingoist and apologist for anything Republican. Hopefully, her soapbox will crack under the weight of her BS. If she's going to continue firehosing us with this nonsense, at least she could keep it brief and within the margins of credulity.

As she froths with such venom and hatred in every post, I worry a bit about Merna. Actually, that's not exactly true; I really wonder for whom she's working. Makes you wonder, doesn't it? Try drinking a little less Haterade, Merna, it's destroying your innards.

Posted by: rhino | February 3, 2006 3:23 PM | Report abuse

"If our concern is humanitarian, why are we doing nothing in the 40-some other nations run by dictators? Probably because we don't care about non-white people, and they're not sitting on large oil reserves."

by Concerned Citizen

Posted by: Salient POint | December 10, 2005 8:19 PM | Report abuse

There is no person that is the enemy....it is the ideology that dehumanizes and sseeks to cover the foetal smell of it's insensitivity that needs to be exposed so that it can mature into soil.

Posted by: She's not the enemy, she's a dupe | December 10, 2005 8:17 PM | Report abuse

Merna, you have yet to answer any of my questions. You claimed that the Supreme Court was sooooo liberal, yet you can't seem to reconcile that with the fact that 7 of them are Republican appointees, and 5 voted to install Bush as president against the will of the American voters.

You also claimed that the "war on terrorism" was a war on the whole "West", yet you can't explain why the other Western nations are avoiding us to the extent possible. Clearly they don't see it as we do; at a minimum they think our "solutions" are wrong even if they do feel equally under attack as the US, which they obviously don't. Of a couple dozen leading Western nations, only Britain is also in Iraq or has passed any law remotely resembling the Patriot Act. Bush's approval ratings in other Western countries are many points lower than in the US--he's pretty thoroughly hated outside the country. Poland is the sole exception, but that's not a Western nation. You can have your opinion that other Western nations should think as we do about this "war" on terrorism, but clearly they do not. That disproves your point about how we face an outright attack on all Western civilization. Canada, for example, has yet to experience any terrorist attack. Know why? Because Canada doesn't run around the world screwing up other countries' governments, ruining their nations and telling their people what to do. Funny how that works, eh?

54% of all foreign aid in the world does NOT come from the US, that is just laughable. We spend a fraction of 1% of our annual budget on foreign aid, and rank somewhere around 40th in our giving on a per capita basis. The most generous countries per capita are in Scandanavia. We are probably the stingiest Western nation when it comes to foreign aid.

Saddam's murder of innocent Iraqis justifies American murder of 200,000 innocent Iraqis? What religion do you belong to? Obviously not one that agrees with "Two wrongs don't make a right". You can't dodge the issue like that. And our reason for going to war in Iraq never had anything to do with humanitarian concern for Iraqis. We went there on the pretext that they had weapons of mass destruction and posed a threat to the US. It's now abundantly clear to most Americans, as it was to thinking Americans in 2002, that Iraq never had WMDs and never posed a threat to the US. If our concern is humanitarian, why are we doing nothing in the 40-some other nations run by dictators? Probably because we don't care about non-white people, and they're not sitting on large oil reserves.

You make all kinds of outrageous claims with no evidence to support them. That's why you have no credibility around here.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | December 10, 2005 4:18 AM | Report abuse

Hey Merna, apparently you could use some of those NCLB English classes yourself. Sandwich is spelled with no T, for starters. If the Democrats hate No Child Left Behind so much, how come they almost unanimously voted for it? (90-8 in the Senate, with as many NO votes coming from Republicans as Democrats) And if you love it so much, why have Bush and the Republicans underfunded it to the tune of over $10 billion?? Too busy frittering away $200B on a useless war in Iraq or $2 trillion on tax cuts for the ultra-rich?

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | December 10, 2005 3:59 AM | Report abuse

Time to get some new brain cells. 'Parently the ones running the country got the same old same old in mind. And it aint chew thet they thanking 'bout.

Posted by: Helo cheese boots | December 9, 2005 10:24 PM | Report abuse

There is a deployment of US resources and citizens by the feudal rulers to contain a resource that they need to make sure that their deals don't fall thru. You are serfs, are treated as such and don't know any better 'cause you can't look past the hype and see that you're being treated poorly....your husband doesn't love you, hitting you in the face and knocking you down the stairs is not the same as loving you....you're in an abusive relationship....get rid of them.

Posted by: There is no war. | December 9, 2005 3:08 PM | Report abuse

There is a deployment of US resources and citizens by the feudal rulers to contain a resource that they need to make sure that their deals don't fall thru. You are serfs, are treated as such and don't know any better 'cause you can't look past the hype and see that you're being treated poorly....your husband doesn't love you, hitting you in the face and knocking you down the stairs is not the same as loving you....you're in an abusive relationship....get rid of them.

Posted by: There is no war. | December 9, 2005 3:07 PM | Report abuse

There is a deployment of US resources and citizens by the feudal rulers to contain a resource that they need to make sure that their deals don't fall thru. You are serfs, are treated as such and don't know any better 'cause you can't look past the hype and see that you're being treated poorly....your husband doesn't love you, hitting you in the face and knocking you down the stairs is not the same as loving you....you're in an abusive relationship....get rid of them.

Posted by: There is no war. | December 9, 2005 3:07 PM | Report abuse

There is a deployment of US resources and citizens by the feudal rulers to contain a resource that they need to make sure that their deals don't fall thru. You are serfs, are treated as such and don't know any better 'cause you can't look past the hype and see that you're being treated poorly....your husband doesn't love you, hitting you in the face and knocking you down the stairs is not the same as loving you....you're in an abusive relationship....get rid of them.

Posted by: There is no war. | December 9, 2005 3:07 PM | Report abuse

What to do in to prepare for terrorist acts: duct tape and plastic sheeting anyone? They're really afraid aren't they?

The so called Patriot Act disables our Bill of Rights.....catch a clue.

Posted by: Patriotism? | December 9, 2005 3:06 PM | Report abuse

What to do in to prepare for terrorist acts: duct tape and plastic sheeting anyone? They're really afraid aren't they?

The so called Patriot Act disables our Bill of Rights.....catch a clue.

Posted by: Patriotism? | December 9, 2005 3:01 PM | Report abuse

What terrorists......if the President believed in terrorists would not the HOME/FATHER Lund security actually have done something during the time it's been in place besides making airplane trips an arduous process.

Saying the level is red green orange or yellow is not the same thing as making it harder to get into the United States....there was no terrorist threat, if there were your government would have acted like it....in someplace other than the news and the polls.

There are millions of illegal immagrants a year getting into the United States, where are all of the terrorists? There may be terrorists now, since we've made such a debacle of world relationships....

Whatis in place in the United States is that there is is a massive delusion that you have a group of people taking care of you and protecting you. They sell you homophobia/fear-of-gun-control/patriotism and so forth as family values while decreasing your standard of living and trading the United States away to the highest bidder and call it smart. It is for them, they don't just live in the United States, they're international...but you're not....you get the country you're willing to settle for. If you can't tell the difference between shit and shinola, guess what you'll be eating.

You are losing control of your country and talking about topics given to you by your lousy parents to keep you busy....go watch television while your mother and I spend your future.

Posted by: Terrorists? | December 9, 2005 2:55 PM | Report abuse

There are no real republicans or democrats. They make bargains among themeselves that benefit them....not you. Rising health care losses, pensions, salaries being meted out against 3rd world competitors as a reasonable part of the process. Outsourcing that benefits company owners not employees.....CAPITOL One in Fredricksburg VA moves it's operations to bangalore two years ago....300 loose their jobs in VA...thank gawd it's not me....the most common reaction.

Hello dumbasses. Who do you think makes money and has their investments secured by the middle east resource containment that you are calling a war? Europe does. The United States gets it's oil from Venezuela....all of the Alaskan Oil goes to Japan....threatening drilling in Alaska is a simple threat that allows bullies to get an emotional reaction that allows them to push through what they really want to without risking anything.

When you finally get it that you're being led by appealing to emotions so that they and being told not to examine the bottom line....then you'll actually be acting like grown-ups. There is no this-party that-party going on really there is a collusion to use resources to back your monied leaders. Leaders as in the sense that they know how to get you to trade up from your current level of life by getting you to pay more while getting less....shysters, Wizards of Oz..........and the only gold on their road is what they put in their pockets...you're too busy working longer hours for less, unless you're federal, to notice.

Using the Saudi people is mutually beneficial for the affluent, not for you. The Saudis currently own about as much property as the state of Massachusetts. Can you own Saudi property? How much property can you own in Japan? The Japanese are the dominant landowners in Hawaii, how much land can you own outright in Germany?

The affluent don't care about the citizens regardless of what party they belong to. Talking about this or that party is similar to a child that has parents that have no intention of taking care of it talking about what powerful parents they have.....they have lousy parents regardless of how powerful and influential they are.

Your citizens are in declining number that have health care, retirement, college ability and the number of working poor and those below the poverty level is increasing, foodstamps cut by so many million, service sector jobs are replacing blue collar and white collar jobs and being counted as equivalent, 4,000,000 christmas jobs are added and counted as if they were actually employment by the pollsters, the middle class is disappearing, while you argure about bullshit.

This might as well by Germany 1938 for all the awareness that I see floating around and the AntiChrist-ians who have a personal relationship with satan are running your electorial process.....and talking about church is state and you can't buy a clue....sheesh. It's almost like Andy Griffith coming out of Arkansas in the 50's to look at the level of gullibility in the American people...."and they are calling it football," says Andy marveling at the complex running back and forth that he's a never seed before...

Posted by: Those democrats, those republicans....what are you a bunch of morons? | December 9, 2005 2:42 PM | Report abuse

Merna - Someone with way too much time on her hands and no intellect or discernment to use it productively...

Posted by: davido | December 8, 2005 2:05 PM | Report abuse

Merna - Someone with wat too much time on her hands and no intellect or discernment to use it productively...

Posted by: davido | December 8, 2005 1:59 PM | Report abuse

Merna,
Rumsfailed didn't care about those Iraqi children being murdered when he was gladhanding Saddam back in the 80's, when Reagan gave him weapons he used to kill his own people and the Kurds. The 9/11 commission didn't find political pressure to manipulate data because they weren't chartered to look into that aspect. What has George Bush and his religious extremists supporters ever done that was good for America or the world? Not a single thing. Everything they touch they destroy. Iraq is the center for terrorism because Bush made it so with his illegal invasion. If he's so determined to win the war on terrorism, why hasn't he caught Bin Forgotten? Instead Al Queda has grown and bombed several countries since then. You need to pull your head out of your butt and stop believing the GOP bull. Bush couldn't find his way out of a wet paper bag with a road map without Rove and Cheney telling him what to do. If you support a Prez and VP who promotes torture, that says alot about you.

Posted by: KAS | December 8, 2005 11:40 AM | Report abuse

I love Merna....1st of all the REpublicans are for the poor and minorities way more than the Democrats. You think Charlie Rangel cares more about the disinfranchised than Tom DeLay? I think not. I whole heartedly beleive that the democrats especially minorities in the House could care less about the plight of their fellow minorities and Congressmen like Tom DeLay, and the scores of other Republicans that would lay down their lives for the misfortunate of the self created ghetto. I mean what do you people want? Merna has hit it right on the head, the Terrorists are every where and until we secure Iraq, the Terrorists won't believe that the Red, White, and Blue mean business. Big Business. Republicans are great for our country and so is WAR! We need WAR! WAR on Drugs, Terror, and anything else that might not have NASCAR pumping through it. For once I would like to see the wussie-esque Democrats not waver on the issues and try to paint the Republicans as the Devil. Sure the REpublicans might get fat over some campaign contributions, but as I said earlier, that's their right as the Elite in society. if you don't like it, go to Yale, work on Wall Street, and get into the political game. Otherwise shut up and wait for your WELFARE check!

Republicans=YOUR BOSS!

Posted by: thomasreport.com | December 8, 2005 10:02 AM | Report abuse

When it comes right down to it, the Democrats and their consstant lies are more resposible for the deaths of American service-personnel than the war is.
When Tommy Franks took us through Iraq so swiftly, even while the Democrats were whining aabout being bogged-down and the impending refugee crsis (which never materialized to their dismay), the terrorissts supporting states that surrounded Iraq were trimbling.
Because of our actions in Afghanistan and Iraq we were able to find out about and stop the H.Q Khan nuclear balck-market. Libya capitulated, Syria and Iraq were making overtures of friendship,and cooperation with the U.S.
Iran went so far as to allow inspectors into their until then very secret nuclear facilities.

Then the Democrats started their full-blown assault on the President and the war. Our enemies decided they no longer had to fear the U.S. They would wait in defiance an see if the Democrats would suceed in getting rid of George Bush for them.
They would go on with their support of the terror groups while waiting for what they saw as a divided Americaa to implode.

Everytime the Democrats ratchet up their rhetoric the terrorists ratchet up their attacks on both our personnel and the Iraqi civilians.

The Democraats have the blood of many on their seditious hands.

Posted by: Merna | December 7, 2005 8:22 PM | Report abuse

StephenMpls,
The point is not tit-for-tat on political corruption.
The point is that the media goes out of its way to alledge wrong-doing by Republicans, while covering up indictments and convictions of Democrats.
This is nothing short of censoring news to the American people.
You have a problem with the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
The American people no longer trust the media as we have caught them in so many lies, and found them guilty of selectively-editing documents to show a distored view of the facts.
That iss why so many blogs have been created to get the truth about the state of the nation and the distortions of the press to those who seek the truth.
Blogs like Newsbusters (which can be accesed by a link at Drudge) and Powerline where daily you can see who in the media is lying and who is not.
News online at sites like Drudge, Cnsnews and Newsmax.

Posted by: Merna | December 7, 2005 7:47 PM | Report abuse

Sandwitch,

Maybe they should care as 54% of all aid given in the entire world comes from the United States.
Without us, they starve.

Maybe they should care as their nations and countrys are under seige by Islamo-Fascsts.

Maybe you forgot that is was Republican Bill Frist that first brought the genocide in Darfur to public attention? Frist who has long had a hospital in Darfur helping the poor in that region?
Unlike his Democratic opposites he did not publicize his good works for political gain.
When the genocide in Darfur and the slave trade from the same region came out the Dem's and their media surrogates said there was no genocide, there was no slave-trade, no rapes and murders by Arab-Muslims.
Just like they have ignored the oil-for-food scandal in the U.N., the sex-scandal in the U.N. they ignored Darfur until the massacres were too many and too bloody to be hidden from the public anymore.

The Democrats are consistently making fools of those who blindly follow them.
Their discorse is designed to arrouse your passions of hate in order to keep you blinded from the facts.

You complain of alledged deaths in Iraq at our hands, but how about the hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians slaughtered by Saddam?
I have never heard any liberal shed a tear for one child tortured by Saddam much less the 200 children he buried alive. Infants to aged about twelve lined up in a trench and sand pushed in over them as they cried for their mama's and begged for someone to pull them out as the sand closed in around them.
I heard liberals cry over the alledged looting of a Museum, but not over the hundreds of maimed children that our guy freed from Saddams childrens prison. Children who were tortured and maimed, often in front of their parents, in order to keep their parents loyal to him.

Like your Democratic Party masters you lie and distort. We kill terrorists, we do not mourn their passing, we encourage it.

Posted by: Merna | December 7, 2005 7:03 PM | Report abuse

Sandwitchman,

Still fighting the 2000 election battle? You are either to lazy to read or just don't care about the truth.
If we had the purple finger rule here in America, bush would have won by a landsslide.

How about snowbird-gate? 175,000 New Yorkers registed to vote and voted, in both New York and Florida?
68% of which registered as Democrats, 20% registered as independants and 12 % registered as Republicans.
My guess is the 20% and the 12% were the Democrats whose little gray cells were not yet completely impared.

Haven't you figured out yet that the reason the Dem's don't want voting reform and a national voter regestration is so that they can continue to rig elections?
I get a belly laugh everytime I hear about Carter certifying elections abroad, as his own boys were caught buying votes with federaal funds.
Did you ever stop to think that if Daily and Lyndon Johnson had not arranged such successful ballot-box stuffing, getting Kennedy the presidency, we might never have gone to war in Vietnam? It was John Kennedy's brain-child, which Johnson could not win as he could not give control to the Military.
The Dem's slime machine was in full trot, making sure that a Republican president did not win a war that his two democratic predecessors could not win.

Read "It didn't start with Watergate" by Victor Lasky 1977, Dial Press.

It will give you a blow by blow play of the Dem's bag of dirty tricks which they used then to sabotage a war and bring down aa president that they are rycycling in an attempt to do the same thing to this pressident and this war.

Posted by: Merna | December 7, 2005 6:36 PM | Report abuse

why do the Democrat hate "No child left behind"?

Because this program gives poor and minority children the same access to a quality education that the children of wealthy familys have.

It requires progress and tutoring for those children not making progress. It requires a teacher to be proficient in the field they teach. It provides vouchers for children who are in failing schools so that these children will be able to get a quality education elsewhere.

That is exactly why the Democrats hate it. If they keep the poor and minoritys uneducated, they will be more likely to swallow the Democratic lies and vote for Democratic candidates.

The Democrats don't want to give the poor and minoritys a hand up, they want to put their foot on their heads and keep them in their place.

Posted by: Merna | December 7, 2005 6:07 PM | Report abuse

Chris. About this thing called "balance" ("fair and balanced"?) which you mention above. I'm not sure I understand how it works (what it means). When high-profile members of The Republican University "holier-than-thou" team are (or seem to be) sliming themselves, does the "a balance principle of reporting" require you find members of Democrat University's "a-better-moral-compass" team who might have strayed off the straight and narrow. Or is there something "unbalanced" about always trying to show "every tit has a tat".

I remember how journalist put up Clinton front-and-center for his trying to hide his hank-panky, but I do not remember how the "balance principle" came into play then. Is this balance concept a relatively new thing? If I remember right, that Honorable Henry Hyde (who was leading the "moral" charge against Clinton) had his own hanky-panky problem. If I am not mistaken, Hyde not only engaged in some extra- curricular activities but he also had a child on the sly, a child whose very existance dear Henry tried to hide. I don't remember any effort on the part of journalists -- in the name of balance -- to expouse the hypocracy involved in Henry Hyde's family-values transgressions. Perhaps the balance prinicple is to be appy selectively -- depending on whose ox's is "behaving badly". Chris,when do you bring the principle into play?

And how is the idea to be applied in other fields. For example, in the name of "balance" should give equal time to "the world is flat theory" when teaching "the world is 'round'". Should "balance" inform our reporting on "global warming"? "The health risks of mecury or PVC"? "Darwin"? "Peak Oil"? "Or whether progress being made in Iraq"?

Chris. What is your own motto? "Truth speaks to power" or "Balance speaks to truth"

There seem to have been a fairly large number of ethical lapses among members the regressive right recently. When reporting on these lapses, do believe you have an obligation (do you feel the need) to find examples people-behaving-badly on the other side of isle(sp?). If so, why?

Posted by: StephenMpls | December 7, 2005 6:07 PM | Report abuse

Right Merna, 5 liberal Supreme Court justices put George Bush in the White House. Keep on drinkin' that Kool-Aid...

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | December 7, 2005 5:53 PM | Report abuse

Hey Merna: If the "terrorist war" is being waged on the whole West and not just the United States, how come other Western countries oppose the war in Iraq, don't have laws resembling the Patriot Act, and think the US under Bush has generally gone overboard? Why should the world care so much about 3000 dead Americans when we have killed 200,000 innocent Iraqis, 300,000 innocent people have been slaughtered in the Darfur genocide, and some 125,000 people were left dead by the tsunami last year? Not to mention the deaths from the recent earthquake in Pakistan.

The entire idea of "9/11" is a joke to most of the world. The only way you can act like 3000 American deaths should concern the world more than all of these others is to believe that Americans' lives are more valuable than anyone else's. Somehow, I remember being taught that god saw all people equally.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | December 7, 2005 5:51 PM | Report abuse

I have to pretty much agree with Norm. I find that the media often creates a false sense of "balance" that is actually skewed in favour of the right. Just as one example, take NBC Nightly News' "Fleecing of America" series. They make no effort to distinguish between public and private sector fleecings, implying that they are all government-related. And on the flip side, they have no similar features championing the anonymous workhorse politicians and bureaucrats who root out corruption or overspending, or find new ways to save the government (i.e. the public) money. Is one really news more than the other? Even if the answer is yes, the series leaves viewers with a cumulative impression that government is wasteful, corrupt and lacking in basic common sense. There may be some truth to this impression, but not nearly as much as NBC leaves people thinking.

Based on what Chris said, this instance of it is not his fault, so I don't blame him for it. But I do know that reporters in general are notoriously lazy (I mean come on, many of us suspected--and were proven right after he dropped out--that McCain was getting glowing press in 2000 in no small part because he fed reporters the best food), and often adhere to journalistic tenets in a superficial way rather than a deep, substantive one.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | December 7, 2005 5:43 PM | Report abuse


Since the liberal members of the Supreme court unleashed the communist edict on the stats right to take private property for any reason the state desires, cases have been pringing up all over the country where greedy city, county and state officials are taking private property to install upscale private developments in order to increase their tax-base.

Right now in Florida, a Democratic Mayor has instituted such an eminent domain quest on an area of 6,000 private citizens homes and businesses.
Why take thsir homes aand businesses? so he can put in up-scale condo's and a yachting facility.

So much for the Democrats hollow cry's of protecting the little guy.

The little guy is the Democrats prey of choice.

Posted by: Merna | December 7, 2005 5:35 PM | Report abuse

The Dem's are always blaming Republicans for crawling into bed with the Saudi's, yet it was Franklin D. Roosevelt (D) who, as the first president to do so, in Feb. of 1945 promised king Abdul Aziz of Saudi Arabia that the US would establish a military protectorate over his country in return for priviliged access to Saudi oil.

When the liberal members of the Supreme court band together to deny American citizens their right to own private property in the infamous New London Conn. case, it was for Pfizer Drug company to build a resort facility. the members of the board of directors are almost all Democrats.
If you take the time to research the board-of -directors of the major corporations of America, you will find the majority of the board members and chairmans are Democrats.
More smoke and mirrors from the Dem's, to the people they decry big-business and yet they are in bed with big business in many cases these board members are members of previous Democratic administrations.

Like a Judas goat the Democrats lead the ignorant, the uninformed and the idologocially elite to the slaughter.

The main-stream media is a ready and willing coconspirtor in th duping of America, some do ti on purpose, some through laziness; unwilling to do the research to find the truth.

Posted by: Merna | December 7, 2005 5:02 PM | Report abuse

The terrorists have initiated a war without mercy on not only this nation but on the whole of the west.
If one reads the whole 9/11 report, Delfur report, Kay report, we see a much different picture than what the Dem's are painting.
We find that bin-Laden's host in the Sudan Turabi, brokered a deal between Saddam and radical Islamist already in Iraq attacking Saddam, to allie themselvess with bin-Laden and discontinue attacking Saddam and attack the Kurdss Saddam's enemies instead.
This deal paved the way for meetings mentioned in the 9/11 report where Saddam offered bin-Laden safe harbor and bin-Laden asked for space to build training camps in Iraq.
These and many more meeting between al-Qaeda and Saddam are facts printed in the 9/11 report. The dem's stick their heads in the sand and say " we have no evidence that these meeting were ever acted upon."
Is that the type of logic you are willing to bet your live and the lives of your famlies on?
After 9/11 could we afford to wait until our country was a mass of burnt and pock-marked wreckage to act?
Kay said "the Iraq we found was even more dangerious than we had even thought" Kay stated at the congressional hearing that terrorists have free reign in Saddam's Iraq, and with the level of decay and corruption in saddam's government that it was only a matter of time before a terrorist willing to buy and an official ready to sell got together on Saaddams weapons of mass destruction and their systems blue-prints.
Delfur and Kay reported that the weaponizing of anthrax was still being worked on and prefected, even up to the run-up of the war. Programs for the liquifing of anthrax and advanced arial delivery systems were at their apex.
War-heads were being designed to deliver this liquified anthrax on long-range missles.

The Dem's know this, they know the corruption of the United nation oli-for-food program, they know the kick-backs and bribes that kept Saddm rich and buying weapons while he starved the Iraqi people.
Oscar Wyatt, former coastal Corp. Chairman, oil-mogal, Jimmy Carters pal, who donated over #500,000. to the campagins of Democratssince 1989, who opposed the 1991 Operation Desert Storm, had a long time relationship with Saddam and did business with Moammar Gadhafi, and who in 1997 announced that he would retire and lobby to lift sanctions against Iraq and Libya, has been indicted in the oil-for-food scandal.

Jamie Gorelick, 9/11 commission member, member of the Clinton Justice Department whose memo showed her personal responsibility in putting up the wall between agency information sharing, whose aid was responsible for blocking intelligence from the Able Danger Military Intelligence group from reaching the 9/11 commission, is on the board of directors, and owns stock in Schlumberger LTD, along with John Deutsch former Clinton CIA director also on the board of directors of Schlumberger. Schlumberger did oil-rig service for Saddam's Iraq under the oil-for-food scam.
Who is Schlumbergers main competitor? Halliburton. So, the war exposed Schlumberger, and lost their lucrative business with Saddam and this business went to Haliburton, could this be the real reason the Dem's hate Haliburton?

Interestingly enough, Schlumberger now has closed their French facility at Montrouge France and now has contracts with Hugo Chavez's Venezualla. Could Chavez have new found friends in the Democratic party that have encouraged his very vocal hate for the Bush administration?
If so, are the Democrats endangering the oil supply of this nation, maybe even going so far as to manipulate our oild suppy at-time-of-war for political gain?

the American people need to see the Democratic party for th Trojan Horse that it is.


the Dem's are corrupt to the bone and seem to be willing to do anything in their power to bring down this president and if need be this nation in the process in order to gain power for themselves.

Posted by: Merna | December 7, 2005 4:26 PM | Report abuse

fighting to undermine our war effort by sabotaging a sitting president at-time-of-war

Why do you guys always type this out as "sitting-president-in-a-time-of-war"?

Just call him "King" and be done with it.

Posted by: MillionthMonkey | December 7, 2005 3:49 PM | Report abuse

A memo from Senate minority leader Harry Reid to Gov. Blanco (D-LA) was on the news today. It detaild how Reid assured Blanco that the full power of the Democratic slime machine would be brought out fast and hard to aid her in coving the failings of she and Nagon during Katrina and shift the blame onto the Bush adminisstration and FEMA.
Another piece of evidence that the Dem's are all about political power, even at the expense of citizens lives and welfare.
While we are trying to fight the war on terror we have the whole of the Democratic party leadership fighting to undermine our war effort by sabotaging a sitting president at-time-of-war.
They are constantly subverting this nations security by wasing time and money on their petty quest for power.
They trot out anything with a medal on it's chest that is willing to betray his country in order to undermine our Millatary and personell. During the war in Afghanistan it was John Kerry and max Cleland running from one left-wing media mouth-piece to the next crying how the war was unwinable, how we were nation building, now we have the disgraceful Merthaa and Dicks whining the same party-line
Benidict Arnold was also a decorated Military man until he too in the middle of a war decided to change sides and aid the enemy.
The Democratic party has become a cadre of ticks and paarasites on the lifes blood of this nation.

Posted by: Merna | December 7, 2005 3:35 PM | Report abuse

The president never lied about anything. The Dem's are lying about everything.
* The Senate Committee on intelligence issued a unanimous bipartisan report in July of 2004 clearing the administration of charges of manufacturing or manipulation of pre-war intelligence.
* The Rob-Silverman report, partially named for co-chairman and former Democratic Senator Charles Robb (D-Va) concluded there was "no evidence of political pressure to influence the pressure to influence the intelligence community's pre-war assessment of Iraq's weapons programs."
* the final United Nations report upon existing Iraq concluded Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.

The Dem's know this and yet they continue to lie for what they hope will be political gain.
They now lie that they did not see the same intelligence that the president did, yet Mr Delfur said that if they had seen the daily briefs they would had seen an even more alarming picture coming out of Iraq than the National Intelligence estimate painted. By the way, only a handful of Dem's who had access to the N.I.E. ever bothered to go and read it when it was made available to them.
So what does that make them? Lying, lazy opportunist.

Posted by: Merna | December 7, 2005 3:16 PM | Report abuse

Hackett would be a much more attractive candidate going in a re-match with Mean Jean Schmidt.

Brown is a sitting US Congressman who has statewide name recognition. Also, Brown is a marquis name in Ohio state politics.

Too many candidates have tried to jump into the deep end of the pool in Sentorial politics in Ohio without the requisite preparation -I'm thinking of Joel Hyatt (no previous office), Mary Boyle (former county commissioner in Cuyahoga-Cleveland) and Eric Fingerhut (state senator and former one term congressman).

All overeached and were beaten badly.

Posted by: RMill | December 7, 2005 3:04 PM | Report abuse


Nancy Pelosi was convicted by the FEC for doing exactly what she hypocritically accuses Tom DeLay of having done.
In state politics, four Dem'ss indicted for bribe taking, including the uncle of harold Ford. Both the past and present state treaasurers of the State of New Mexico have been indicted for racketeering. Sen Byron Dorgan (D-ND) the top Dem on the Indian affairs committee accepted nearly $95,000 in Abramoff related monies between 2001 and 2004 and held a political fund-raiser in a stadium sky-box leased to Abraamoff. Harry Reid's leadership-fund has accepted Abramoff funding.
Murtha, said the Army is broken, if it is he Tom harkin (D-IA), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), and Daniel Inouye (D-HI) who in 2003 led the Senate Defense appropriatiosn,broke it.
Murtha spearheaded 175 Million dollar appropriation out of the DOD budget for brest-cancer research. All tolled the Dem's have pushed 1.5 billion of the DOD budget to BCRR, for brest-cancer research.
I have nothing aginst cancer-research but it should not be funded with monies that are to provide armor and vest for our Military and to provide a defense for this Nation.
This just shows once again how little the Dem's care about the Military and our national Defense.
The Dem's are the culture of corruption.

Posted by: Anonymous | December 7, 2005 2:57 PM | Report abuse

What's the big deal? We at the Thomas Report believe that political corruption is necessary for the political ecosystem to remain intact. Seriously, why go to YLS or HLS and not get your share of the take? Why know the law and not break it? It's the whistle blowers of the USA that are the problem. This country was founded and prospered off of the blood, sweat, and tears of the aristocracy and I find it utter reprehensable that people of this country question the methods of politicians getting the job done.

The Asst. Slang Whanger

Posted by: deputyaidetotheasstslangwhanger-in-chief | December 7, 2005 2:17 PM | Report abuse

Chris,

I see the blinders have finally come off, the scales have dropped from your eyes and you can now see the truth about Paul Hackett's impending triumph. He is a leader for the 21st Century. If only we could find a Hackett in your home state of Connecticut to primary that awful Joe Lieberman!

Remember: Sherrod Brown -- He just can't Hack-it!

Posted by: Dr. Justice | December 7, 2005 2:01 PM | Report abuse

Adding Balance for balance is the kind of spineless garbage from today's mainstream media that pulls it to the right and causes it to loose credibility. If there are no Democrats in office with out a scandal over their heads then the media should say so and no go cherry picking outside of the parameters of the analysis to achieve "balance". A better way would be to look at data from the early 90's (say fall of 1993) in comparison and see if the in power Democrats were as sandal ridden as the current in power Republicans and if the then out of power Republicans were as squeaky clean as the current out of power Democrats. If the Democrats still come out looking better, then the media should just come out and say so as those are the facts.

Posted by: Norm | December 7, 2005 1:24 PM | Report abuse

George W. Bush started an ill-timed and disastrous war by lying to the American people and to the Congress; he has run a budget surplus into a severe deficit; he has consistently and unconscionably favored the wealthy and corporations over the rights and needs of the population; he has destroyed trust and confidence in, and good will toward, the United States around the globe; he has ignored global warming to the world's detriment; he has wantonly broken our treaty obligations; he has condoned torture of prisoners; he has attempted to create a theocracy in the United States; he has appointed incompetent cronies to positions of vital national importance.

Would someone please get caught giving him a blow job so we can impeach him?

Posted by: slangwhanger-in-chief | December 7, 2005 12:55 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company