Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

FixCam: The Week in Preview

Looking for the political guideposts in the week ahead? Click above. At work and can't listen? 1. Buy a pair of headphones. 2. Here's what you missed: The Gore-acle speaks to the United Nations today, former Sen. John Edwards (N.C.) continues his push for labor endorsements at the Change to Win convention Tuesday, the Democrats debate (again) at Dartmouth University on Wednesday and on Thursday Edwards is the guest at the first MTV/MYSpace townhall on the University of New Hampshire campus. Yours truly as well as MTV personalities Gideon Yago and Suchin Pak will co-moderate the event.

By Editors  |  September 24, 2007; 8:34 AM ET
Categories:  FixCam  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Indiana's Evan Bayh to Endorse Clinton
Next: IL-II: Another GOP Open Seat


Nice design. Lots of useful information! Please more updates npr 89

Posted by: Jessica | October 10, 2007 1:37 PM | Report abuse

5rdqoiolwcr 26nvz2g7owhfl [URL=] d03u6xhq2yk68mf [/URL] tg972fcnj8yg5

Posted by: bo98zc62g8 | October 6, 2007 8:42 AM | Report abuse

Have to agree Chris, low tech transcript is better for the web. Even at the UW our bandwidth gets sucked up with these things.

Posted by: Will in Seattle | September 25, 2007 6:54 PM | Report abuse

'petra2' writes:
I've always voted Republican in elections -- going all the way back to Reagan. And guess what, barring something unforeseen, I'm planning to pull the lever for Hillary in November of 2008 (and yes, folks, I know there's that little matter of her having to win the nomination). I like Obama, too, but he's frankly a bit too far to the left for me. John Edwards just seems tired, and all the Republicans running are incredible pander bears (pandering to the extreme right wing, that is). It is somewhat disconcerting to have yet another dynasty member as our next president. But the times we live in are too critical NOT to choose the best person for the job. I don't care if she's not warm, or not spontaneous, or not likable. Dogonnit, she's clearly the most polished, intelligent, hard-working, well-prepared, and competent candidate running. We can't settle for anything else. I'm personally hoping for a Hillary-Obama ticket in 2008.
'freespeak' writes:
The question is, can anyone stop Clinton?
I say, if they can, now is the time to step up to the plate. She just did five talk shows in one day and hit it out of the ballpark.
Batter up?
I'm a proud supporter of Hillary Clinton (and an Independent from New Hampshire).
I don't understand who these people are, who have these 'HORRIBLE' memories of the nation under the leadership of Bill Clinton.
When Clinton left office, 70% of the nation thought we were going in the right direction.
Currently, 70% of the nation thinks we're going in the WRONG direction.
The people who have bad memories of the Clinton years think Bush is doing' a heckuva job!
I get it.
'charly_n' writes:
After the 2006 midterm election, I think Hillary couldn't choose a more perfect year to run for president.
The whole country is now leaning toward Democrats. People are just so unhappy and fed up with the Republican Party which has controlled the country for almost 8 years now. Any Democrats (yes even Hillary) has better chance to win 2008 presidency than any republican. I don't see all these unhappy Americans who clearly want a change in direction in 2006 would vote for another republican again over Hillary.
In 2006, we all saw a lot of good republicans lost their seats to some never-heard-before Democrats because of this effect.
I'm certain that Hillary will prove everybody wrong and she will become the first woman President.
'jnurse' writes:
All you Hillary haters on here are just mad because your candidates have been getting stomped by her for almost a year now. Underestimate her at your own expense. The woman is brilliant, and more politically skilled than her husband. In the general election, she is going to do the Republicans, what she has done to her fellow Democrats for the past year, and that is make them luck unprepared to lead the free world. In November 08, voters are going to be faced with a choice: vote to make history with electing the first woman and also change the course of the past 8 years, or vote for more of the same with a boring white male who backs all of Bush's policies. I think that we have 51% of America that will vote for the former. If you disagree, just wait and see. Her campaign has been flawless, and will continue as such... Enjoy the shadow.
'winngerald' writes:
petera1, no one could say it better than you did! The Republicans view her as a "bogeyman" because she fights back against their smears...and because they have sunk way below their previous depths to a point where they have NO positives to run on...they depend on nothing more than the modern equivalent of inciting mobs with pitchforks and torches into voting AGAINST anything/anyone from gays to non-Christians to communism to deficits (at least until Darth Cheney declared that deficits are GOOD when they're run up by Republicans) to Bill Clinton. I think their formerly mindless followers are wising up to the fact that their party has not been their friend. The left-wing fringe Democrats are so desperate to put a rehabilitated image of "liberalism" on a pedestal that they aren't bothering to notice that the nation isn't becoming, necessarily, more "liberal" as much as it is becoming "anti-right-wing-conservative"...and they hang their hats on my--yes MY--Senator Obama to be their champion without bothering to look at his actual history here in Illinois. He is NOT exactly a "liberal", and he hasn't proven that he can LEAD, let alone be an executive. You can't base your entire candidacy on a) not supporting the Iraq invasion during your tenure in the Illinois State Senate (which can't even manage to do the State's business right now), and b) NOT being Hillary. Edwards would be in the single digits were it not for sympathy for his wife (if it weren't for her tragic cancer, she'd make a better candidate), and ALL of the Republican candidates are flip-flopping jokes worse than fish just pulled out of the water.
You are absolutely right in pointing out Hillary's reelection support in highly-Republican Upstate New York...THEY have had her representing them for almost 8 years, and their Republican support of her says all that needs to be said. Her Republican Senate colleagues speak highly of her, too...she is OBVIOUSLY NOT a polarizing figure, but the fringes in both parties still try to paint her as one for the very simple reason that they are trying to beat her in the upcoming elections...and because she DOES know what she's talking about and DOES have more than basic competence, the only way they can beat her is to plant the red herring that many people have preconceived notions of not liking her. They are TRYING to scare support away from her without letting people see her for herself...without her being filtered and framed by the fringes of both parties. And they seem to forget that Bush was reelected with some very high negatives...people are so numbed by the partisan sniping of the past 12 years and incompetence of the past 6 years that personal negatives don't matter to them nearly as much as much as intelligence and competence do.
I hope that these people start pulling their heads out of their backsides pretty darned quick...and stop living in the past...and stop spewing the old venom that no one is interested in hearing anymore. The Nation has work to do, and no one is better versed, better educated, and better qualified to lead it out of the Republican-created nightmare...ready to roll up sleeves and get to work on Day 1...than Hillary. And when she DOES get elected, I hope that the Republicans give her the deference due her as President that they never gave her husband but expected for his successor for the 8 years to which we have been subjugated. They had their chance, and they've perverted everything they've touched. It's time for a woman to clean the White House!
'jmmiller' writes:
"As a moderate Republican, I find the remarks about Hillary being too divisive either unreflective or disingenuous. Of all the Democratic candidates, she is the one I would consider voting for because she is the only one who takes seriously America's role in the wider world. It strikes me that a lot of the animosity towards her is from the far left that wants to return to the labor glory days of the 1930's. They're upset because she won't hew to the MoveOn orthodoxy. The netroots who are drunk now with their power better get some religion soon - a perception that the Democratic nominee is too closely associated with them will be poison in the general election."
'ogdeeds' writes:
jeez...get over it...for every nasty accusation hurled at Clinton, you can find an equally nasty (if that is how some choose to see it) issue in someone else. All this talk about her taking big $ from corporations, is what she does with it that matters. Mostly what I hear her talking about is helping families, children, and the middle class. And oh, by the way, she also has to be president to all those other groups (lawyers, lobbyists, teachers, carpenters, rich CEOs, etc., etc.)Which some of you may or may not like, you know, like other Americans? The last thing we need is another president who only wants to be president to his base. Clinton is inclusive, and will lead for the good of all Americans as well as putting our country back where we deserve to be....respected and (jealously) admired, both for our greatness, and for the goodness we represent...and let me tell you, goodness does not include invading other countries under the guise of "protecting America" - just so one uninformed and ideological president can play out his ideological fantasies of 'transforming the middle east'...what a joke (instead of going after bin laden, the one who attacked us on 9/11 - oops, sorry, some of you still believe Iraq was connected to 9/11) we need someone like Hillary...thoughtful, knowledgeable and smart.
'wesfromGA' writes:
One has to smile at all the "I'll never vote for her" postings. If you are a Republican you were never going to vote for her anyway, if you are one of the distinct minority of Hillary haters on the left of the Democratic Party the essential silliness of this position will soon become apparent if she gets the nod. On present evidence this seems highly likely much to the chagrin of Mr. Balz and the media world who want a horse race because it sells newspapers and air time which is why there is all the parsing in his piece although he accepts the most likely outcome. Absent a major slip up there seems little doubt she has it wrapped up. Contrary to some assertions above she does not do conspicuously worse than Edwards or Obama against any member of the Republican field. On the contrary she does better than either of them and while they have been stuck for months in the mid twenties and mid teens for months she has steadily improved her position and has now been sitting in the low forties for weeks. In Iowa she has come from behind and leads in most polls. Why? Because she is self evidently the best candidate. She has a formidable machine, plenty of money and a few more difficult to pin down advantages like Gender and the presence of Bill who is widely respected much to the chagrin of the right.
The right must have choked over their coffee when Greenspan recently gave Bill stellar grades and of course they responded as they always do by launch personal attacks (there's a typical example in today's post from Novak).
There is no question she is going to get the nomination and a 60% chance she's going to win the presidency. Even some right wingers like Karl Rove are gloomily admitting it.
All the negative comments about Hillary on this board are from disgruntled Republicans who do not have a great choice in their party and will elect a nominee called "none of the above" because Republicans will stay home in 2008.
What a stark contrast there is in the Republican nomination and the Democratic nomination campaigns. Republicans know fully well after G. W. Bush we can only have a Democratic President and its going to be Hillary this time!
People and the writer of this article give undue importance to the Iowa caucus. Isn't it time to break the back of this myth of Iowa's importance? They haven't picked a winner since 1976. And Clinton and Kerry won the democratic nominations without winning in Iowa. Enough with the rural pandering.
I fondly remember the Bill Clinton administration years as pretty good ones in spite of the personal attacks from the right. The personal problems were Bill's not Hillary's. She had to deal with him and the public and she did it expertly with a win as a junior Senator in NY and a re-election where she won 67% of the vote, with 58 of 62 counties including the MOSTly Republican "red" counties in upstate NY.
In the General election Hillary will beat the pants off any Republican nominee trying to keep us fighting the Iraq war.
People forget that Giuliani dropped out in that first Senate race not because of prostate cancer, but because he saw the writing on the wall, which was a certain defeat and an end to his political dreams.
We may have the re-match that we never had. Rudy vs. Hillary. Single point campaign of 9-11 against well rounded Hillary.
When Bill Clinton left the White House we were a nation at peace, we had a sizable surplus, we had a growing economy, and today he is the most popular politician in the nation if not the world.
Maybe that is not such a bad thing to return to. But the reality is that Hillary is not Bill. She is by all accounts smarter and definitely won't have the personal problems that Bill had. She is a master politician and is becoming a master speaker as attested to by looking at her in some of her live appearances and on yesterday's sweep of the Sunday news shows.
It is Hillary's time and it is the time for a woman to be the US President. It is time to break the highest glass ceiling in the US. I predict that many Republican women will join because they have said "I have never voted or never voted for a Democrat in my life, but if Hillary is the candidate and I have the chance to see a woman US President in my lifetime, Hillary will have my vote!"
People underestimate the positive change that will occur around the world in the way the United States is viewed when we elect Hillary. She will be symbol for women everywhere.
It's time to give up the sniping and for some women to stop venting their jealousy, which is really what it is when they complain not about her policies but about her personal choices as relates to Bill.
It's time to think about the nation and Hillary will be good for the nation and the world.
'jmartin' writes:
For people that say Hillary unelectable? Let's see.
In the September 2007 poll by NBC News and the Wall Street Journal, Hillary 49% vs. Rudy 42%. Hillary 50% vs. Fred Thompson 41%. Hillary 51% vs. Romney 38%.

September 2007 poll by CNN/Opinion Research Corp.: Hillary 50% vs. Rudy 46%, Hillary 55% vs. Fred Thompson 42%. Same poll, Obama 45% vs. Rudy 49%. Obama 53% vs. Fred Thompson 41%.

Inevitable? Perhaps not. Unelectable? Not that either.

Posted by: Ajay Jain, Dallas, USA | September 25, 2007 5:45 PM | Report abuse

Not surprised, a wiseacre answer.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 25, 2007 2:20 PM | Report abuse

No surprise, a wiseass answer.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 25, 2007 12:02 PM | Report abuse

Well, I'm not proud of this, but I served in the first Gulf War, locating "comfort women" for our troops.

Posted by: kingofzouk | September 24, 2007 8:47 PM | Report abuse

How about you just answer, zouk? Most of uswould be happy to 'go away' if you would just tell the truth about your service to the country...

Posted by: Sam | September 24, 2007 6:43 PM | Report abuse

"If I answer will you go away and not come back?",

That sounds fair.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 24, 2007 6:21 PM | Report abuse

I think I speak for all of us when I say that we will no longer lie down to be used, by Zouk and others, as symbols for "silence," "indecision," and "lack of certainty." We have a valuable contribution to make to the conversation, and, as crickets, we will NOT stop chirping until our views have been heard, acknowledged, and given due weight in the consideration of proposed policies.

Hey Hey - Ho Ho - Insecticide has got to go!

Posted by: Jiminy | September 24, 2007 6:00 PM | Report abuse

Rudy's corruption - crickets chirping

Hillary's corruption - need a bigger server

Posted by: Anonymous | September 24, 2007 5:40 PM | Report abuse

I don't see the long line of corruption attached to Rudy. Please document if you want to make this claim. all I ever heard was that some of his staff pulled seme stuff, that he probably couldn't even know about. It is not the same at all.

also rudy has executive experience, and successful at that. hillary has never done a thing in her life if you look at it objectively.

rudy didn't take the Arab money and kicked Smelly camal dung out of NY. He understands right and wrong. name one thing that hillary has done based on right and wrong and not on power/electibility. She danced with Arafet, Rudy evicted him.

Posted by: trotsky | September 24, 2007 5:22 PM | Report abuse

t' the other thing, I get a red sash for my white robe.'

I thought your robes were black, trotsky/zouk. styles change so much, don't they?

Posted by: Diane | September 24, 2007 5:12 PM | Report abuse

trotsky writes
"no Hsu is all hers and her other case is before the courts in CA now. Again - all hers. this is not an anomoly it is a way of life for them. It goes all the way back to Arkansas. Look at the newspapers on his run for governor - lots of scandel about fundraising and ethics."

You missed my point. That being: HRC & RG are two peas in a pod. Neither of them are presidential material, as they both have the same flaws, morally, ethically & experientially. They aren't even that different politically - she's a hawkish Dem, he's a liberal Repub.

We can do better!


Posted by: bsimon | September 24, 2007 5:11 PM | Report abuse

Diane, we don't have time for hate Radio, what with all the NRA meetings, the KKK rallies, the secret meetings to undermine democracy, the plotting to steal oil from Iraqis, the book burnings, home schooling, protesting at abortion clinics, lobbying for greed industry, trading securities on wall street and of course, the monthy vast right wing conspiracy conference. and then there's the hourly walk into town for church. I barely have time to beat the illegal yard workers.

Proud, see you at the next meeting. I am supposed to make sharpshooter this month and at the other thing, I get a red sash for my white robe.

Posted by: trotsky | September 24, 2007 5:03 PM | Report abuse

'How can a person like Trotsky hate one so viscerally, while endorsing the other so enthusiastically? I don't get it.'

trostsky/zouk has been conditioned by Hate Radio to Hate anyone with a 'D' beside theri name, that's all. As has 'proud.' Thee's no rational basis needed for pavlovian knee jerk reactions.

Posted by: Diane | September 24, 2007 4:52 PM | Report abuse

Osama: "Thus, you elected the Democratic Party for this purpose, but the Democrats haven't made a move worth mentioning. On the contrary, they continue to agree to the spending of tens of billions to continue the killing and war there." [

But, the reason the world's troublemakers use Democratic party talking points when skewering America is they know that their critique will get wide distribution in this.'

osam's using republican talking points, you moron.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 24, 2007 4:50 PM | Report abuse

'are largely based on her husband's administration "

no Hsu is all hers and her other case is before the courts in CA now. Again - all hers. this is not an anomoly it is a way of life for them. It goes all the way back to Arkansas. Look at the newspapers on his run for governor - lots of scandel about fundraising and ethics.

Posted by: trotsky | September 24, 2007 4:40 PM | Report abuse

Trotsky writes
"Please provide your "evidence" of rudy's power mad attitudes as i did with clinton. Or is that just another unfounded Dem talking point?"

I think its an independant talking point; if Dems have picked it up, their comments are derivative works. Your criticisms of Sen Clinton, while not entirely unfair, are largely based on her husband's administration - you try to paint her as guilty by association; though, given her penchant for claiming first lady experience as a valid qualifier for becoming President, that is not entirely unfair. Regarding Giuliani's hunger for power, the record shows a pretty authoritarian view of government. His 'law and order' credentials are based largely on creating a police state & squelching all resistance. I prefer a candidate that recognizes & values the first amendment, and the traditional protections of habeus corpus & other liberties guaranteed by our Constitution. Giuliani would apparently sacrifice these in favor of 'security' whether such sacrifice is necessary or not.

Posted by: bsimon | September 24, 2007 4:33 PM | Report abuse

If I answer will you go away and not come back?

Posted by: kingofzouk | September 24, 2007 4:28 PM | Report abuse

"It is just that there is no sense of shame, no right or wrong," - Zouk

That also applies to how Zouk handles the question as to what he has ever done to serve this country.

There is no shame if you were rejected Zouk, Pat Buchanan was also.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 24, 2007 4:11 PM | Report abuse

bsimon, i explained it very clearly. If you don't get it, further discusssion for you is pointless.

Please provide your "evidence" of rudy's power mad attitudes as i did with clinton. Or is that just another unfounded Dem talking point?

I think sand flea is hiding in a cave somewhere or dead.

Posted by: trotsky | September 24, 2007 4:00 PM | Report abuse

trotsky writes
"when pols cross the line between do-gooders and power hungry, they get on my S list."

He then goes on to post, at length, on the merits of Rudy Giuliani, who is possibly the most power hungry of them all - though perhaps Sen Clinton could vie for the top in that category.

Ironically, Sen Clinton is also nearly as hawkish as Mr Mayor. Others here, I think it was JD, noted that Clinton & Giuliani are relativly close, ideologically. How can a person like Trotsky hate one so viscerally, while endorsing the other so enthusiastically? I don't get it.

Posted by: bsimon | September 24, 2007 3:39 PM | Report abuse

zoukmadinejad- where is sand flea when we need him?

Osama: "Thus, you elected the Democratic Party for this purpose, but the Democrats haven't made a move worth mentioning. On the contrary, they continue to agree to the spending of tens of billions to continue the killing and war there." [Paging Cindy Sheehan! Osama is stealing your material]

But, the reason the world's troublemakers use Democratic party talking points when skewering America is they know that their critique will get wide distribution in this.

The fact is, they are counting on their allies on the western left to absorb their critique and then regurgitate it into harmless sounding bromides on the nightly news.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | September 24, 2007 3:39 PM | Report abuse

"I did not have uncordial relations with that General, General Betray-us."

Clinton - the other one

Can I wag a finger over the internet? wipe that smirk off your face.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 24, 2007 3:35 PM | Report abuse

dan, both sides on this blog have their over-the-top posters.

What I'm getting tired of, is the constant copy and pasting of long blurbs from other sites. I don't even bother to read them of course, but it tarnishes what should be an effective mechanism for the exchange of ideas.

Posted by: JD | September 24, 2007 3:33 PM | Report abuse

it's easy to assume she has no respect for the office, and is just a power-hungry b!tch.

Yes but there is more. the fact that there seems to be be no underlying morality there. that the answer always lies in the next set of polls. who takes a poll to find a place to go on vacation - the clintons. who votes for war, then tries to wriggle out and fashion an excuse later, refusing to apologize or admit error? who attacks the bimbos first and feigns ignorance of the husbands daliances?

It is just that there is no sense of shame, no right or wrong, just political expediency. who steals souvenirs from Air force one? who uses a loophole in the law to get massive donations from nefarious characters. It is always a clinton. who uses the IRS and FBI to gather info and prosecute political opponents?

some things are just plain wrong, regardless of loopholes. the clintons don't understand this and deserve approbriation for it.

Posted by: trotsky | September 24, 2007 3:32 PM | Report abuse

I ask all of you lib posters to stop criticizing my cousin, Zouk about the Middle East. He is right when he tells you that your soldiers over here do not count for anything more than being just pawns. They are pawns of The Great Satan and but puppets of your big businesses.

As to those other things that he says, he has been a little touched in the head since that Elephant stumbled and fell on him last November.

Posted by: Zoukmadinejad | September 24, 2007 3:29 PM | Report abuse

WALLACE: Senator, you have refused to criticize the ad about General Petraeus. And in fact, this week you voted against a Senate resolution denouncing it.

H.CLINTON:... I think it's clear I don't condone attacks on anyone who has served our country with distinction and with honor, and I have been very vocal in my support of and admiration for General Petraeus.

She doesn't condone attacks? Hell, she attacks them herself! She directly attacked Gen Petraeus' credibility right to his face in front of all the cameras, and came closer than any of her colleagues to calling the commander of the multinational forces in Iraq a liar.

Her definition of vocal support and admiration requires willing suspension of disbelief.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | September 24, 2007 3:26 PM | Report abuse

bsimon - I approach this from a process of elimination.

I can eliminate McCain (as my first choice in the primaries, I will vote for NOT-Hillary under any circumstance) because of his support for MCCain-Feingold. I deserve to have the opprotunity to assist the candidates I support and this compromises that. I also didn't like his non-support of the tax cuts, regardless of the reason (limit spending first). (I know many votes are hard to defend based on nuance.) I also didn't care for his gang of 14 when I thought we had the advantage. In all, I can't trust him to do the right thing once in office. his only strong suite, for me, is his war stance.

I never really cared much for Romney and I see him as a flip-flopper. not that there's anything wrong with that. On occasion, one needs to change a mind or two. but to go left to get elected in MA and then shift right for the national is just too much dancing for my taste. He also seems too slick for me. I don't get the sense he is answering from the heart (like a clinton) and is measuring every word.

Huckabee has a record of tax increase - gone. the other lesser candidates don't excite me too much.

that leaves Fred and rudy. I don't really know much about Fred and don't know how anyone could. and I do pay attention. Fred's record in the Senate is not that distinguished and he seems half-hearted in his efforts. I personally don't care that he was a lobbysit or at some time supported issue X. He is still a blank slate to me and it seems a little late to start filling in the blanks, he should have made this info known over the years.

that leaves me with rudy. there are several things about rudy I like a lot. He seems to be willing to talk off the cuff and does it quite ernestly and convincingly. He has a strong record of tax cuts, spending discipline and good sense on some issues. He has stated that he will pursue a strong foreign policy and I believe him.

there are some hesitations. I think he may have a tendency to go a little far in his pursuit of law and order. I am willing to allow a little over-zealousness in this day with its threats. I am not generally supportive of any restrictions on the 2nd amendment but undertand what must be done to get elected, much less lower crime, in NYC. I think he has learned his lesson.

I support his stance on Roe v Wade and don't want radical changes to this law. I am happy to have it slowly work its way through the courts and legislatures. this is not my issue.

I don't care about his presonal life, knowing many politicians who I would not want to marry or share a personal life. for the most part, all these families are dysfunctional. try living in two different homes, going out every night, sucking up to voters and contributors, getting paid very little for the responsibility entailed and then coming home to your wife and kids on occasion. not a good recipe for family values.

In summary: My issues are financial and security. I applaud Bush for one of them and revile him for the other. I think Rudy can go 2 for 2 in my book and compared to all other candidates, is the obvious choice for voters like me. I don't fret over social issues, having such abundant freedoms, I can only imagine them being whittled away, mostly financially, by a Dem.

I also appreciate that rudy will not be a punching bag like Bush always was. It may be stooping to the critics but occasionally you have to come out of your hole and fight back. Rudy will and he is practicle and appealing when he does.

so now the rest of you can see that I actually do consider these things in detail and have a rational basis for my beliefs. After examaning my argument, I hope you will all concur and rush out and donate to Rudy right away.

Posted by: trotsky | September 24, 2007 3:20 PM | Report abuse

Rudy calling for a 'ban' on criticism of Gen. Petreus. Here's his history, just so you know.

Rudy's singular assault on expression has, in fact, caused the Thomas Jefferson Center this year to create a new form of reproof -- the Lifetime Jefferson Muzzle. In the Mayor's case, the particulars are as chilling as they are novel. Notably, the Giuliani Administration has shown its disregard for -- or inadequate understanding of -- free speech principles by:

-refusing to permit more than 20 taxi drivers to assemble for a protest against proposed city pick-up and drop-off rules (a federal judge ruled that action unconstitutional);
-imposing strict licensing rules on sidewalk artists, and limiting severely the number of such artists who could display their work near the Metropolitan Museum of Art (a policy struck down by the federal court of appeals as a violation of artists' rights);
-imposing a $45 a day permit fee on street musicians, which a federal district judge held excessive and far beyond any actual city costs;
-barring city employees from talking to reporters without specific approval - a policy which the federal appeals court found in violation of public workers' free speech rights;
-directing the transit authority not to display on city buses ads bought by New York Magazine which contained a gentle if critical caricature of the mayor's quest for publicity (an order held by federal district and appeals courts to be in violation of the First Amendment);
-barring a Lutheran church group from demonstrating and conducting an AIDS education program in a city park (a ban which a New York state appellate court held in clear violation of free speech);

much more here:

Posted by: fyi | September 24, 2007 3:17 PM | Report abuse

'Well, I guess I can understand where the invective comes from.'

Really/ You can understand zouk hating every single 'Dem' and 'Lib' in America so much he spends his whole day on this blog, posting hatred every 4 minutes?

Posted by: dan | September 24, 2007 3:08 PM | Report abuse

Well, I guess I can understand where the invective comes from. Between travelgate, filegate, pardongate, whitewatergate, etc., it's easy to assume she has no respect for the office, and is just a power-hungry b!tch.

I guess I figure that most of them are like that these days. I'd like to see the Hitchhikers' Guide policy in effect - anyone who wants to be president probably should be barred from being president.

Posted by: JD | September 24, 2007 3:00 PM | Report abuse

trotsky/zouk like rudyy the best -- because he's the most vicious hater

Posted by: Anonymous | September 24, 2007 3:00 PM | Report abuse

JD - snap out of it man! Imagine listening to that cackle for the next four years. ''

This is their best shot -- they don't like Hillary's laugh? Now you realize how completely unhinged the gop base is, driven only by hatred.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 24, 2007 2:58 PM | Report abuse

trotsky, you seem to truly hate HRC. Not disagree with her positions (as I mostly do, btw), but actually HATE her as a human being, wish her harm. Why?''

because he's kingofzouk, JD, and he is obssessed with hate. Speicifically with hating all 'Dems' and 'Libs' -- not just Hillary. That's why he's on here all day, using different names, but always with the same message of hate.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 24, 2007 2:57 PM | Report abuse

duh, should be 'Who' not 'Why'.

Posted by: bsimon | September 24, 2007 2:51 PM | Report abuse

trotsky, you've given the litany of Dems you don't like. Why DO you like? I don't expect a Dem list; who's your man in the 08 Presidential race?

Posted by: bsimon | September 24, 2007 2:50 PM | Report abuse

I believe clinton to be a criminal. not the kind that doesn't harm others. how can you explain selling pardons? Renting out the WH? consult the long, long list. the problem with clinton is that if you ever get in her way, they will use any tactic to eliminate you. that is way more than policy differences. when pols cross the line between do-gooders and power hungry, they get on my S list.

I don't care for Pelosi's policies but think she is doing the job she is assigned. I don't think she is a criminal at the end of the day. I think Harry Reid is a crook and doesn't have the spine to do other than what the fickle winds dictate. I totally disagree with just about everything Dennis Kucinich ever said, but I think he is honest and admirable in his stances.

I find Kennedy deplorable, durbin to be detestable, Leahy to be power mad. the rest of them I may heartily disagree with (Schumer for one, who is a lying toad) but he is not a criminal and is playing his role. I actually find several Dems likeable - hoyer, Lewis, Rahm, Leibermann, etc.

there are also Rs I dont care much for, although usually for personality reasons rather than issues (McCain (issues), Romney), and I don't think individual personalities are too important. see schumer above.

but if you actually beleive a pol to be a criminal and you 100% disagree with their position as well, what should you do? Point out facts and hope the voters open their eyes.

Posted by: trotsky | September 24, 2007 2:28 PM | Report abuse

"Her laughing was a little staged, but disarming nonetheless."

JD - snap out of it man! Imagine listening to that cackle for the next four years. omg. A little staged? It was calculated and rehearsed, and totally fake! It wasn't disarming in the least; she used evey question as a platform by which to launch into the next talking point. And she's stealing right from Obama's playbook with all of the "the brioader question is" and "the argument is not ___, it is ___, and I want to talk about _____".

She uses the laugh to avoid answering questions; a tactic so obvious even the most inexperienced viewers can see right through it. Yeah, that's right, if extremely groomed, ambitious, calculating, poll-driven and serial liar is what you want in a president...then by all means vote Clinton.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | September 24, 2007 2:20 PM | Report abuse

trotsky, you seem to truly hate HRC. Not disagree with her positions (as I mostly do, btw), but actually HATE her as a human being, wish her harm. Why?

Mark, my gambling is restricted to craps, poker, and football; I know far too little to put $ on these races...In fact, Bill Frists's sleazeball move of mostly banning online poker is a big reason I've become more libertarian, as well as hope that something reasonably bad happens to Frist.

Posted by: JD | September 24, 2007 2:13 PM | Report abuse

Mark, JD - I would be extremely surprised if Hillary and Obama run together. They don't seem to like each other that much, and a ticket of the first woman/first African American might be exactly what the far right would want to run against. I still think there would probably be about an even chance that they would win, but it would get REALLY ugly first... sth our electoral system doesn't need, especially now when everyone is suspicious anyway. The GOP would try to begin the 2012 campaign IMMEDIATELY, and I think we need to have some effective government out of DC for at least a year before that starts; otherwise, we'll never even begin to address any of the problems everyone is worried about. (environment, deficit, Middle East, education, Russia/China, etc.)

Posted by: Bokonon | September 24, 2007 2:11 PM | Report abuse

Michael Scheuer, former chief of the OBL unit at the CIA's counterterrorist center sent ABC News an e-mail, claiming, "the core of the movie (Path to 9/11) is irrefutably true: the Clinton administration had 10 chances to capture or kill Bin Laden."

Gary Schroen, former CIA field agent who was the first American into Afghanistan after 9/11, said publicly, "...the movie is remarkably accurate." He also maintains that there were 13 such opportunities to capture Bin Laden. Lt. Col. Robert Patterson, chief White House military aide to President Clinton, said, "In terms of conveying how the Clinton administration handled its opportunities to get bin Laden, it's 100 percent factually correct... I was there with Clinton and Berger and watched the missed opportunities occur."

Bill Clinton commented, "I don't want any lies in there parading as truth, that's all." Now that's a refreshing change of pace, so major media outlets took up the chorus.

In fact, Wolf Blitzer provided Sandy Berger and William Cohen prime time on CNN in order to disparage the movie and demand that it be pulled off the air. None of them had in fact, viewed the film, which de facto prevented them from "lying" about it. In Berger's interview, Blitzer even failed to inquire about the 2003 incident, in which Berger stole original documents from the national archives, destroyed them, and then lied about it. It would have been a valuable and highly pertinent part of the interview, since Berger was in fact sent by Clinton, ostensibly to prepare for their testimony at the 9/11 Commission, and since Berger pled guilty to charges in April of 2005. Apparently there wasn't space to squeeze in a bit of worthwhile information, since interviewer and interviewee were set on discussing a movie both have admittedly not seen. In their own words, "only on CNN."

After a letter from Harry Reid and five other senators (again to Disney/ABC) threatening revocation of their station licenses if they didn't pull or re-cut the movie, and the urgings of Congresswoman Louise Slaughter, on the house floor, that we all "consider the backgrounds of the people behind this," ABC finally caved. It did indeed re-cut the scene in question and some other footage of Clinton testifying about Monica. All in all, about 3 minutes (of 'lies') were lost, but, thankfully, the battle was won. The Path to 9/11 had almost 28 million viewers over two nights, winning outright in the ratings on night two.

So the question remains, why has Disney/ABC not yet released the DVD?

Posted by: do not release the truth | September 24, 2007 2:06 PM | Report abuse

We need stakes and a stakeholder, of course.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | September 24, 2007 2:02 PM | Report abuse

Her laughing was a little staged, but disarming nonetheless

More like an evil cackle, her poll tested method of dealing with actual questions she'd rather avoid. and those narrow, evil eyes. Beats getting an ashtray thrown at you though.

Posted by: trotsky | September 24, 2007 2:01 PM | Report abuse

JD, I'll take the field against HRC-BO; I win if either is not in your predicted slot.

I posted on the previous thread that I essentially agreed with you about guns, but I added some explanations that I will not repeat here.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | September 24, 2007 2:01 PM | Report abuse

had good (but not rehearsed) answers

you have got to be on crack. why did every answer on every show sound exactly the same if they weren't rehearsed? I even noticed the little poll tested vernacular the clintons love so much - for example "extricate us from the unwinnable sectarian civil war"

Lib moonbats, please chant this phrase for the next 14 months.

Posted by: trotsky | September 24, 2007 1:58 PM | Report abuse

For the serious people out there...

Since someone already brought it up, I thought HRC was awesome on both Fox and Brinkley's show (it'll always be Brinkley's show, sry snuffelupagus...). She looked very presidential, had good (but not rehearsed) answers, and seemed very electable.

Her laughing was a little staged, but disarming nonetheless. I thought Chris Wallace's parting shot was actually pretty clever, certainly not mean spirited.

I've said it before, I'll say it again: HRC is the next president, with Obama as vice. You can make book on it.

Posted by: JD | September 24, 2007 1:52 PM | Report abuse

Proud - if she ever levels with the voters, she is toast. that is the way of the Libs. all promise, no action. any action is not possible to get through the congress - due to total ineptitude of Harry ried and the complete unpopularity of all the Lib ideas. In order to get elected in the first place, they must resort to obfuscation and deceit. Most of the marginal candidates ran as DINOs in a 6 year itch election. and those genuises thought their policies were liked. Even after the approval rating sank to 11 and still going lower, they think the voters like and agree with them.

you got to have a very thick skull and no room left inside to be a Dem these days.

I noticed Laura Ingrams book beat out Slick Willies. Ha ha. Dem market forces are weak, so weak they can't even peddle their lame books to the true believers. clinton - please follow the success pattern of Air america, CNN and the NYT. We revel in your demise. that is what happens when you prefer the government to make decision instead of the market.

all that truth on Fox is very disturbing to the MSM monopoly of "thought" (charitably called that nowadays).

Posted by: trotsky | September 24, 2007 1:52 PM | Report abuse

why proud2b a moron, your party won't speak to black people or brown people or gays or even their own base, the religious right, because they're terrified someone might ask them a real question.

in fact, as one of your own members noted, all they will do is speak at white country clubs.

'To say the cat's got Hillary's tongue doesn't begin to address the mystery of why someone who wants to be President can't speak spontaneously more often.'

so does the cat have the tongue of ALL your addle-brained, morally challenged candidates?

i see you and zouk of a thousand names and no life both are more scared of hillary winning that anyone else -- so she must be doing well.

and tell me, do you like the idea of bombing iran specifically so the whole world will turn on us with terrorist attacks? are all you gopers suicidal?

Posted by: dan | September 24, 2007 1:49 PM | Report abuse

Don't you guys ever get tired of this? Every day certain people are in here pasting articles from other sites. There's no analysis, no discussion, nothing but lame taglines like "hillary hypocrite" and "mitty's murderous mercenary advisor".

Is that fun for you? Do you find pasting articles written by other people to be a useful and interesting way to spend your time? Do you think you're accomplishing anything?

Posted by: Blarg | September 24, 2007 1:46 PM | Report abuse

'A Jewish lesbian at Daily Kos finds Ahmadinejad hot, despite his shortcomings.

God help us if the Hillary and her party really take that site seriously'

this is what zouk calls 'intelligent commentary'

god help us if his party stays in power..

Posted by: Anonymous | September 24, 2007 1:44 PM | Report abuse

Sometimes it seems her main flack Howard Wolfson is really the senator, since he does most of her talking. You know, Sen. Wolfson said yesterday.....that her husband would have no policy role in her Administration.

To say the cat's got Hillary's tongue doesn't begin to address the mystery of why someone who wants to be President can't speak spontaneously more often.

When the goin' gets tough, Clinton sends out a messenger or a carefully crafted printed statement. Is the Wizard of Oz behind the curtain?

Wolfson argues that she talks with reporters often. Granted, she has chats with reporters in primary states about local issues and she has an occasional sitdown with her favorite friendlies at The New York Times.

Sometimes reporters on the campaign trail can get close enough to shout out a question - if they can fight through the autograph seekers, schoolchildren and Secret Service agents.

But Clinton hasn't had a full-scale press conference since last January, of the kind where she takes questions on virtually any subject from any reporter. Clinton's hidey act seems to be unique among the major candidates.

"Sometimes she goes to great lengths to make sure she doesn't get cornered. As Daily News Washington reporter Michael McAuliff wrote on his blog last week when the Norman Hsu fund-raising scandal was boiling over: "How much did Hillary Clinton not want to answer questions this afternoon? Usually, when she needs to, she can use her Secret Service detail's security concerns to shield herself from reporters."

But with eight or nine reporters wanting to ask her questions, more muscle was needed, and it appeared. Wrote McAuliff, "Mysteriously, a phalanx of union men materialized just before her arrival and physically blocked reporters from getting close enough to ask a question."

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | September 24, 2007 1:40 PM | Report abuse

Hillary's Hypocrisy [Lisa Schiffren]

Notwithstanding her prodigious fundraising abilities, Hillary Clinton has always -- and I mean since the first round of post-Watergate options -- publicly favored public financing of elections. Yesterday, on the one talk show I watched (who could watch more and remain sane?), she parried Tim Russert's reasonable question about how it was that she took $800,000 from the on the lam Norman Hsu. At length she said, (to paraphrase) a) well, lots of people took money from him, b) we just missed the fact that he was a convicted criminal and c) the way to avoid this sort of thing is public (read: taxpayer) financed elections.

Just after the 1992 elections I had the dubious privilege of combing the prior decade's worth of Clinton tax records. In addition to the very funny itemized charitable deductions for each piece of used clothing, including Bill's vaunted briefs, was this notable fact: not once in the decade had Hillary bothered to check off the little box so that her dollar or two could go to election finance. Never. Just a little checkmark, from money she was already paying.

Not that anyone believes that she really wants taxpayer financed elections now, for herself, given the power of her virtual/marital incumbency to raise cash. But as students of human nature, isn't it comforting to know that she has been consistent in her belief that the rules she promulgates for others don't apply to her?

Posted by: hillary hypocrite | September 24, 2007 1:38 PM | Report abuse

A Jewish lesbian at Daily Kos finds Ahmadinejad hot, despite his shortcomings.

God help us if the Hillary and her party really take that site seriously

Posted by: Anonymous | September 24, 2007 1:37 PM | Report abuse

trotsky "My little Dem brain has such trouble staying on a single topic too long."

I'm sorry, I must have missed your insightful, on-topic commentary today.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 24, 2007 1:36 PM | Report abuse

From Ramadi, Michael Totten, in conversation with an American lieutenant colonel in Iraq:

"What's the most important thing Americans need to know about Iraq that they don't currently know?" I said.

"That we're fighting Al Qaeda," he said without hesitation. "[Abu Musab al] Zarqawi invented Al Qaeda in Iraq. The top leadership outside Iraq squawked and thought it was a bad idea. Then he blew up the Samarra mosque, triggered a civil war, and got the whole world's attention. Then the Al Qaeda leadership outside dumped huge amounts of money and people and arms into Anbar Province. They poured everything they had into this place. The battle against Americans in Anbar became their most important fight in the world. And they lost."

Posted by: bad news for Dems is good for US | September 24, 2007 1:34 PM | Report abuse

Ignorarant coward is busy filling the rufas void. What are the odds of two such total dimwits gathering in a single blog?

what this blog needs is more insults and more cut and pastes from Daily Kos. My little Dem brain has such trouble staying on a single topic too long.

Posted by: trotsky | September 24, 2007 1:33 PM | Report abuse

"Saturday September 22, 2007 08:15 EST
Former Clinton officials lobby for amnesty for FISA lawbreaking
(updated below)

Following up on Jim Risen's NYT article this week reporting that Congressional Democrats appeared likely to agree to some form of retroactive immunity for telecom companies which illegally enabled the Bush administration's warrantless eavesdropping on Americans (thus compelling dismissal most of the remaining lawsuits challenging the illegality of the eavesdropping), Newsweek's Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball reported the same thing:

Posted by: GREENWALD | September 24, 2007 1:25 PM | Report abuse

"The Republican Party has won two elections on the issue of fearmongering and terrorism," Hagel said. "[It's] going to try again."

Podhoretz has argued that "if we were to bomb the Iranians as I hope and pray we will...we'll unleash a wave of anti-Americanism all over the world that will make the anti-Americanism we've experienced so far look like a lovefest."

'Romney has a clear interest not condemning Blackwater. Cofer Black, vice chairman of Blackwater, currently serves as a Senior Adviser for 'counterterrorism and national security issues' on the Romney campaign.'

Posted by: the gop today --war profiteers and suicidal lunatics | September 24, 2007 1:24 PM | Report abuse

Romney, Advised By Blackwater's Vice Chairman, Stays Silent On Blackwater Shootings
Several presidential candidates have spoken out in support of tighter regulations governing private security contractors in Iraq after the recent shooting involving Blackwater USA.

Former Republican Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney has remained silent though. Not only has his campaign not issued a statement, but as the Politico reports, it has refused to even answer any questions:

Romney's campaign has declined to answer specific questions posed by Politico about issues central to the debate -- issues now being hashed out by Congress, the State Department and the Iraqi government. [...]

After the shooting, though, a Romney spokesman would not say whether Black has advised Romney on the use of security contractors in Iraq. Nor would he elaborate on Black's role in the campaign or answer specific questions about whether the U.S.'s level of oversight over security contractors is adequate.

Romney has a clear interest not condemning Blackwater. Cofer Black, vice chairman of Blackwater, currently serves as a Senior Adviser for counterterrorism and national security issues on the Romney campaign. From the April press release announcing that Black would be joining the campaign:

"I am pleased to welcome Cofer Black to our campaign. He has a long and impressive career dedicated to making America safer and more secure in the world," said Governor Romney. "Our country faces a new generation of challenges and Black's experience at the forefront of our nation's counterterrorism efforts will be a tremendous asset."

Posted by: mitty's murderous mercernary advisor | September 24, 2007 1:19 PM | Report abuse

proud writes
"My prediction...rufus is back by the end of the week."

I wouldn't bet against that. I wouldn't bet against rufus being back before the end of the day...

Posted by: bsimon | September 24, 2007 1:18 PM | Report abuse

Today, the Senate voted 72-25 to approve Sen. John Cornyn's (R-TX) bill criticizing's Gen. David Petraeus ad in the New York Times. The "sense of the Senate" resolution "strongly" condemns the "personal attacks on the honor and integrity of General Petraeus."

The senators who voted for Cornyn's bill have chastised the Senate for engaging in "a colossal waste of time" on "empty" and "meaningless resolutions." Some examples:

On Iraq debates/resolutions:

"Mr. President, we have nearly finished this little exhibition, which was staged, I assume, for the benefit of a briefly amused press corps and in deference to political activists opposed to the war." [Sen. John McCain, 7/18/07]

"We have just seen a procedure in the last 24 hours that was a colossal waste of time." [Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), 7/18/07]

"I want an open and honest debate, and not political posturing. I was sent here to take action, not waste time on non-binding and empty resolutions." [Sen. Craig Thomas (R-WY), 2/23/07]

Posted by: Anonymous | September 24, 2007 1:16 PM | Report abuse

'Today, Podhoretz's calls for bombing Iran are being echoed in the administration. According to Newsweek, Vice President Cheney considered a plan to allow Israel to conduct missile strikes against Iran "in an effort to draw a military response from Iran, which could in turn spark a U.S. offensive against targets in the Islamic Republic."

Podhoretz has argued that "if we were to bomb the Iranians as I hope and pray we will...we'll unleash a wave of anti-Americanism all over the world that will make the anti-Americanism we've experienced so far look like a lovefest." By enlisting Podhoretz's advice, President Bush is demonstrating that there isn't any idea too radical for him to consider.'

we'll unleash a wave of anti-Americanism all over the world that will make the anti-Americanism we've experienced so far look like a lovefest.'

think about this for a moment -- this is what the rightwingers want -- to enrage the rest of the world and unleash waves of terror attacks on americans. now you understand that they are completely insane, and that they want to destroy this countrty.

Posted by: the age of total insanity | September 24, 2007 1:14 PM | Report abuse

'Greenspan: Because Of Oil, Saddam Was 'Far More Important To Get Out Than Bin Laden'

In his new memoir, The Age of Turbulence, former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan writes that he is "saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil." Greenspan later clarified his remark in an interview with the Washington Post, saying that while oil was not "the administration's motive," it was "essential" to remove Saddam Hussein because of it.

In an interview with Charlie Rose last week, Greenspan went even further in his defense of the Iraq war, saying it was "far more important to get" Saddam Hussein "out than bin Laden":

ALAN GREENSPAN: People do not realize in this country, for example, how tenuous our ties to international energy are. That is, we on a daily basis require continuous flow. If that flow is shut off, it causes catastrophic effects in the industrial world. And it's that which made him far more important to get out than bin Laden'

in other words, protecting 'industry' is more important than protectng 'people' -- but we knew that all along, didn't we?

Posted by: Anonymous | September 24, 2007 1:11 PM | Report abuse

ORANGE, Calif. -- Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney cast himself as more businessman than politician Sunday, as the one-time venture capitalist tried to differentiate himself from his rivals during his first townhall meeting in California.

Taking questions from an audience of 500 in a conservative tract area just south of reliably Democratic Los Angeles, the former Massachusetts governor repeatedly contrast himself with "Washington politicians" and said he has the distance from the Beltway to be a uniter, not a divider.

"I'm not in this race for the next step in my political career. I don't have a political career, to tell you the truth," Romney said during a stop at Chapman University

Posted by: LOL that's for sure | September 24, 2007 1:09 PM | Report abuse

Wow. According to rufus "The right is forcing the democrats to run hillary"

Who knew??

Well, adios dufus. Although you've used this same ploy before, I'm going to hope you're being forthright this time. Just one question....why now? after you got the nod last week from CC on your wag the blog entry?

My prediction...rufus is back by the end of the week.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | September 24, 2007 1:06 PM | Report abuse

I've often compared Creationists to flat earthers. Both show a comparable ignorance of modern science. Sherri Shepherd, new co-host of The View, says she doesn't "believe in evolution, period." As the above video shows, her ignorance isn't limited to evolution as she doesn't know whether the earth is flat or round.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 24, 2007 1:06 PM | Report abuse

'Bush invites Freepers to White House.
Last week, President Bush invited members of DC chapter of the right-wing website, along with other conservative groups, to the White House for a picnic. According to a posting about the event on Free Republic, "President spent what seemed like two hours meeting with everyone who wanted to speak with him."

Fox News's Bill O'Reilly said in July that the comments on the site are "vile, hateful stuff."

Freepers are straight out Nazis - Aryan Brother, Stormfront, the White Supremacist party. This is who Bush invites to the White House. The days of fascist rule are creeping up on us.

Posted by: we're cons -- and nazis too | September 24, 2007 1:04 PM | Report abuse

"The details, she said, would be worked out by Democratic legislators that rule over health-care policy, people like Sen. Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts and New York Rep. Charlie Rangel."

Hilarious. It's a well-known fact that a mention of Ted Kennedy makes the average Republican's face turn beet-red with rage. I'm not sure how Rangel got in there; maybe he's being groomed to be the next Evil Liberal Boogyman when Kennedy retires.

Good thing the article didn't mention Michael Moore also, or there might have been rage-induced heart attacks among Republicans everywhere! And that would be a tragedy. Considering how terrible this country's healthcare system is, most of those people would end up dead.

Posted by: Blarg | September 24, 2007 1:04 PM | Report abuse

A lightning rod for international criticism, the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, not long ago appeared headed for closure. President Bush and his top advisors said they wanted to shutter the controversial lockup.

But the latest attempt to shut it down is facing collapse: The detention facility has been embraced by many Republicans as a potent political symbol in their quest to seize the terrorism issue ahead of next year's elections...

..."It's a Republican litmus test this year," complained Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel, one of the few GOP lawmakers calling for the swift closure of Guantanamo.

"The Republican Party has won two elections on the issue of fearmongering and terrorism," Hagel said. "[It's] going to try again."

Posted by: we're cons, hate and fear is all we have.. | September 24, 2007 1:01 PM | Report abuse

'(CNN) -- President Bush criticized Congress for dragging its feet on spending bills during a speech Monday before business leaders at the White House.'


Posted by: Anonymous | September 24, 2007 12:59 PM | Report abuse

'I hung out at the schoolyard all day in preparation for your arrival.'

no surprise to me you hang out at the schoolyard, zouk. aside from typing on this blog, what else do you do?

Posted by: Anonymous | September 24, 2007 12:57 PM | Report abuse

In her second try at wholesale reform, Clinton says she's learned from her past mistakes. But for all her centrist-sounding makeovers and political camouflage, she remains a big-government liberal to the core. Her latest plan would put the all-powerful federal bureaucracy in charge of our private health-care system, lock, stock and barrel.

The elements of an expanding government regulatory nightmare are all here: massive government subsidies, higher income taxes and employer mandates to provide employee health-care coverage no matter what the costs, a sweeping mandate that requires all Americans to buy insurance and a regulatory takeover of the health-care system from the states by the feds.

"With each passing day, the collectivist nightmare that is a Hillary Clinton presidency is crystallizing with frightening clarity," said Club for Growth president Pat Toomey.

The plan she has proposed provides scant details, preferring to paint her campaign proposal with a broad brush. The details, she said, would be worked out by Democratic legislators that rule over health-care policy, people like Sen. Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts and New York Rep. Charlie Rangel.

But even at this early stage, her plan is riddled with ominous signs that HillaryCare II could be just as bad as the ill-fated plan of 1994 that many in her party could not stomach.

How much would it cost taxpayers? Clinton's price tag is $110 billion a year, but analysts say her plan will cost a lot more than that. A similar plan offered by Sen. John Kerry in his 2004 presidential campaign would have cost about $1.5 trillion over 10 years at a minimum.

Posted by: no facts, we're Libs | September 24, 2007 12:57 PM | Report abuse

When a recent poll disclosed that the approval rate of Congress was only about half as high as President Bush's 29%, many people were shocked. I was one of those people. Frankly, I couldn't imagine why the number was as high as it was.

So far as I'm concerned, contempt of Congress shouldn't be a crime, it should be an obligation.

Posted by: Burt | September 24, 2007 12:56 PM | Report abuse

LEXINGTON, Ky. -- Kentucky's Alcoholic Beverage Control executive director apologized and offered to resign Monday after police said he drank, drove and stumbled during his sobriety test Saturday night.

Chris Lilly is charged with driving under the influence after he was arrested near Lexington Saturday night.

A police citation showed Lilly was pulled over on U.S. 27 outside Nicholasville because his Ford Explorer was missing a headlight, and because he was weaving and driving slowly.

Police said Lilly smelled of alcohol, lost his balance during a sobriety test and recorded a Breathalyzer reading of 0.181.

Gov. Ernie Fletcher appointed Lilly to the executive director position last year.

Posted by: More gop clowns | September 24, 2007 12:56 PM | Report abuse

Thank goodness you're here zouk. i have nothing to offer here except patrolling for you. I hung out at the schoolyard all day in preparation for your arrival.

In closing I would just like to say - you smell.

We moonbats don't want to talk issues, we only deal with insults and chanting. go moveon/hillary/NYT!

Posted by: Anonymous | September 24, 2007 12:54 PM | Report abuse

As a simple point of clarification. It is Dartmouth "College," NOT "University."
PS: I have no affiliation with Dartmouth.

Posted by: noah | September 24, 2007 12:54 PM | Report abuse

Hi, I'm in 9th grade'

i would have thought probably 1st or 2nd, zouk..

Posted by: Anonymous | September 24, 2007 12:51 PM | Report abuse

"Or were they actually prescient, albeit in an ironic way? Will Schwarzeneggar's style be a new direction for Republicans nationally?"

Wouldn't that be nice? I think the country would do quite well with a healthy dose of moderate politics from both sides of the aisle.

Posted by: JasonL | September 24, 2007 12:41 PM | Report abuse

Well, you now, I think that she, you know, cackled a little too much and never really, you know, answered a question. and then there was the, you know, avoiding of the reality of her, you know, complicity with moveon. and of course the lies about, you know, her health care plan, which is free. don't forget that she is going to surrender immediately if you can, you know, beleive what she says this week, or more like, you know, what the most recent polls say.

Posted by: Hi, I'm in 9th grade | September 24, 2007 12:35 PM | Report abuse

howl/trotsky/zouk-- a wholly owned subsidiary of the kook wing of the drudge/coulter/swiftboat party

how many names will you use to bash hillary today, zouk? how many hundreds of posts?

Posted by: Anonymous | September 24, 2007 12:34 PM | Report abuse

I loved Chris Wallace's parting shot to Hillary. "Give my love to the president." This was a Lady Macbeth moment as her eyes narrowed and she cackled as she remembered full well her wayward husband's melt-down on this show. I'm quite sure that Hillary will never darken the doors of Fox News Sunday or any other show again.

Posted by: Howl, howl | September 24, 2007 12:28 PM | Report abuse

Liz writes
"I read the linked article and [Gore] was mentioned very secondarily to AHnold."

Its not the point you're making, but the Governator's involvement in addressing climate change is very interesting, to me. When he was elected, a lot of GOPers were touting him as the new leadership of the GOP; some even were talking up the idea of a Constitutional amendment to allow a foreign-born President. Are they now backing off support for the Governator, as he's shown a willingness to both address climate change and work with Dems to further his various policy initiatives? Or were they actually prescient, albeit in an ironic way? Will Schwarzeneggar's style be a new direction for Republicans nationally?

Posted by: bsimon | September 24, 2007 12:27 PM | Report abuse

trotsky/zouk-- a wholly owned subsidiary of the kook wing of the drudge/coulter/swiftboat party

Posted by: Anonymous | September 24, 2007 12:24 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is set to crush her opponents on Wednesday at the debate. She is rolling along perfectly after her great performances on sunday. She really looks unstoppable.

Posted by: mpp | September 24, 2007 12:19 PM | Report abuse

I thought Osama bin laden was entering the race after his last speech. he was very hard to distinguish from the other lefty loons.

I think hillary has lying down to such an art it is virtually impossible to tell when she is doing it now. Her babbling on MTP on sunday was the most boring non-event I have seen in a long while. she has this not-answering down to a clintonian science. she seems to be a wholly owned subsidiary of the kook wing of the moveon/NYT party now.

Posted by: trotsky | September 24, 2007 12:16 PM | Report abuse

'I thought fox and the gop where saying Ahmadinejad is the democratic nominee?'

Personally I think Osama is a republican strategist. He seems to release a scary tape just before every election. Rove must love him.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 24, 2007 12:03 PM | Report abuse

"Military is 'baiting' insurgents in Iraq
Snipers describe classified program

A Pentagon group has encouraged some U.S. military snipers in Iraq to target suspected insurgents by scattering pieces of "bait," such as detonation cords, plastic explosives and ammunition, and then killing Iraqis who pick up the items, according to military court documents.

The classified program was described in investigative documents related to recently filed murder charges against three snipers who are accused of planting evidence on Iraqis they killed.

"Baiting is putting an object out there that we know they will use, with the intention of destroying the enemy," Capt. Matthew P. Didier, the leader of an elite sniper scout platoon attached to the 1st Battalion of the 501st Infantry Regiment, said in a sworn statement. "Basically, we would put an item out there and watch it. If someone found the item, picked it up and attempted to leave with the item, we would engage the individual as I saw this as a sign they would use the item against U.S. Forces."

Posted by: This entrapment will get ya killed. | September 24, 2007 12:02 PM | Report abuse

' they were going on saying how it made rudy normal.' The beltway babblers apparently have no notion of what 'normal' is, spartan. Most of us who actually work for a living don't take calls from our spouses when we are with a group, because it is very rude.

But apparently, DC pundits don't do much but go to cocktail parties so perhaps they don't ever learn basic etiquette.

Posted by: drindl | September 24, 2007 11:49 AM | Report abuse

I thought fox and the gop where saying Ahmadinejad is the democratic nominee?

Posted by: Jim in DC | September 24, 2007 11:47 AM | Report abuse

'As for Obama, a senior White House official said the freshman senator from Illinois was "capable" of the intellectual rigor needed to win the presidency but instead relies too heavily on his easy charm.

"It's sort of like, 'that's all I need to get by,' which bespeaks sort of a condescending attitude towards the voters," said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity. "And a laziness, an intellectual laziness."

Umm. Obama 'Lazy'? this from the administration featuring President D-? President Drunk For the First 40 years of His Life?

A little racism anyone? A little bit of 'that lazy n*gger?' It's not too subtle.

Posted by: Jane | September 24, 2007 11:43 AM | Report abuse

Why are you hostile to Al Gore? This is a serious question. I read the linked article and he was mentioned very secondarily to AHnold. What is with you? If you want to be a sarcastic, snarky adolescent, why not spread it around a little like Maureen Dowd does?

Posted by: liz | September 24, 2007 11:42 AM | Report abuse

The battle among GOP pols to see who can most successfully milk Ahmadinejad's New York visit for political gain continues apace today with a new radio ad just released by the Romney campaign. It claims that he's "leading the opposition" to the Iranian President's visit. Give it a listen:

In Romney's new ad, touting himself as the scourge of all president's of Iran, he's got this hilarious line, saying he did "what was right, not what was politically correct" in refusing to provide security last year for a visit of former Iranian Pres. Khatami to Harvard last year.'

Of course Khatami was a reformer who pulled Iran closer to the US and democracy, so I guess Mitty thought exposing him to danger so that Iran couuld drift further to the right was a good idea.

Or, more likely, neither Mitty nor anyone in the base has a freaking clue what goes on in the world.

Posted by: Sam | September 24, 2007 11:40 AM | Report abuse

I'm still puzzled by why he would pull this kind of stunt.

Posted by: drindl | September 24, 2007 11:23 AM

well drindl, you just answered your own question. its a cheap stunt. i was nauseated when i was watching this week on abc and they were going on saying how it made rudy normal. just more beltway would figure that rudy would have an answering service or at least been taught about the vibrate function on cell phones.

anyways, hows everyone? what i missed?

Posted by: spartan | September 24, 2007 11:36 AM | Report abuse

someone mentioned he has pulled this gimick before, as an effort to look like a blue-collar hen-pecked, 'ordinary joe' husband.'

I just find this bizarre, bsimon. I read about the other call. It''s a set-up, a gimmick. What do they think they are, George and Gracie? [younger posters will probably have no idea what I'm talking about. But what I mean is, it's a like a vaudeville routine--completely phony. Maybe Rodney Dnagerfield is mmore to the point.

But why would Rudy think a bunch of macho guys would be impressed by him being henpecked? Wouldn't one think the reaction would be the opposite?

I'm still puzzled by why he would pull this kind of stunt.

Posted by: drindl | September 24, 2007 11:23 AM | Report abuse

tO ANY AND ALL THAT WANT ME SILENCED. To everybody who thinks only the right should have a voice in this country. You have won a small battle. i am done blogging. Rejoice, everyone who is for the silencing of free speech, and is for fascism. The right is forcing Clinton on the nation. I had hope the people would not be for it. The right is forcing the democrats to run hillary. The democractic/republican party has made it's choice. It choose more of the same. We will get the same partisan bickering for four years. At that time we will revisit this again. The GOP/Democratic party bought themselves four more years of fascist rule. They choose fascism over democracy.

The political conversation is slighted so that only conservatives opinon is heard. And the left are now crazies and voice-less. You win. I'm going back under ground. I hope you are satisfied. silence the left. Just know everything you claim to be for, you are not. Free speech, democracy, republic, right AND left.

A new thrid party will burst on the scene in the next four years. It will be for the constitution. It will be a party of the people. Watch for it.

But you win. you have tilted the conversation so much to your side it is not possible for me to make any leway in this format. The government is so one sided, for republicans, they are forcing the opposition parties candidate. Does anyone see anything wrong with this?

You win. you silenced one socialist. Congradulations. Now continue destroying the country gop. Force your will down everyone's throughts. put a camera on every corner. Listen to every conversation. Just know you have used your time foolishly and selfishly.

One party rule is slavery. You may have won this small battle. You may tilt the agrument so much the other side no longer exists. But we still will exist. I will always hold the feeling I profressed here. Whether I am silenced or now i will hold these feelings. Just becasue I am no longer allowed TO SPEAK, doesn't mean that I don't hold these feelings in my head and close to my heart.

"If you can't win cheat". That is your motto. You have destroyed the media the justice depart our foreign relations, economices and you label me the bad guy. Much like Nizon had his share of public enemies (John Lennon, MLK). Were they the problem? Or where they pointing to the problem?

You win short term gop. Toast it up. Congradulate yourself. Real americans and real patriots should be crying at what has befallen us. Not laughin, not making a mockery of the public conversation.

so peace. One last time remember what I told you people. It's for real this time. The hope I had for this nation, given by the 06 elections, has been crushed by the republicans succesfully choosin gthe oppositions party for them. Sad day. goo dluck all. I wasn't lying to you. Watch for the book. Watch for the new party.



Peace. You will hear from me again. Not on this blog though. You wasted the time we had. You used your time unwisely.

Posted by: RUFUS | September 24, 2007 11:02 AM

Posted by: I'm done here.All fascists rejoice. | September 24, 2007 11:23 AM | Report abuse

Today is Vertical Day!

Go to to find out more.

Posted by: Peter | September 24, 2007 11:20 AM | Report abuse

'You're both idiots. I'm pretty sure I don't even need to explain my rationale... '

Typical con 'thought' process: I'll call you an idiot, even though I'm not coherent enough to explain why..

Posted by: Anonymous | September 24, 2007 11:19 AM | Report abuse

"At work and can't listen? 1. Buy a pair of headphones"

I already have music playing through my headphones. In any case, they don't solve the BANDWIDTH problem.

devon writes
"I'd rather see a transcript of what the NRA crowd heard when Rudy took a long phone call from his wifey in the middle of a speech to them."

Devon- NPR broadcast the segment, which wasn't 'long'. He picked up the phone, told her he was speaking to the NRA, asked her if she wanted to say hello, then wrapped up the call. On 'The Trail' blog someone mentioned he has pulled this gimick before, as an effort to look like a blue-collar hen-pecked, 'ordinary joe' husband. It comes off as rude and arrogant, to me, but then I'm bothered when people are supposed to be in a meeting with me & take a personal call instead. Perhaps the NRA crowd doesn't value their time as much.

Posted by: bsimon | September 24, 2007 10:58 AM | Report abuse

This worth a look; funnier the second time around when the context becomes more obvious.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | September 24, 2007 10:33 AM | Report abuse


Posted by: claudialong | September 24, 2007 10:05 AM | Report abuse

"Devon" and "**"...

You're both idiots. I'm pretty sure I don't even need to explain my rationale... because all the non-idiots on here will immediately nod their heads in agreement.

Posted by: Tony Story | September 24, 2007 10:04 AM | Report abuse

'Q Why do you have to have private contractors who have, on the face of it, a lousy record?

MS. PERINO: Well, I think that there is because -- because -- I think that is because there is a need. I don't know why it was originally set up that way....'

try privatizatio, ms. perino. try crony capitalism. try war profiteerig. try kickbacks and campaign contributions...

Posted by: uh... uhh.... uhhh. | September 24, 2007 9:51 AM | Report abuse

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki certainly sees it that way. Yesterday, he framedthe Blackwater incident in terms of national pride: "The Iraqi government is responsible for its citizens, and it cannot be accepted for a security company to carry out a killing. There are serious challenges to the sovereignty of Iraq."

It's not hard to understand why Maliki would say that. On at least six prior occasions, the Iraqi government complained to U.S. officials about Blackwater's itchy trigger fingers, but the U.S. did next to nothing in response, The Washington Post reports. Some of the incidents resulted in deadly force being used.

Tensions escalated over a series of incidents beginning last Dec. 24, when a Blackwater employee allegedly shot and killed a bodyguard for Iraqi Vice President Adel Abdul Mahdi inside Baghdad's Green Zone. It remains unclear how the Blackwater employee was able to leave Iraq after the incident, which triggered a Justice Department investigation. No charges have been filed.

On May 24, a Blackwater team shot and killed an Iraqi driver outside the Interior Ministry gate. The incident triggered an armed standoff between Interior Ministry commandos and the Blackwater guards, who later told U.S. Embassy officials that the driver had veered too close to their convoy. Blackwater refused to give the guards' names or details of the incident to the Iraqis. The State Department said it planned to conduct an investigation, but no results have been announced.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 24, 2007 9:49 AM | Report abuse

Over the weekend, the Iraqi Interior Ministry released details of its investigation into the shooting incident last Sunday involving operatives of the private security firm. In addition to eyewitness testimony, the ministry says it has a videotape of Blackwater guards opening fire on civilians at Baghdad's Nisour Square after a nearby car failed to heed a traffic policeman's order to stop. The tape, recorded by cameras at the nearby National Police Command Center, which resulted in the deaths of 11 Iraqis and threw gasoline on the explosive issue of legal immunity for U.S. security contractors.

The Interior Ministry said it will refer the Blackwater case to Iraqi courts for criminal charges.

That creates another test for U.S.-Iraqi relations: before disbanding in 2004, the Coalition Provisional Authority passed an edict, known as Order 17, absolving U.S. security contractors from Iraqi prosecution, thereby depriving Iraq of any ability to rein in security firms accused of lawless behavior.

If a Blackwater prosecution goes forward, the U.S. will be acknowledging that Order 17 is annulled, and security firms will be subject to prosecution from an Iraqi legal system that most outside observers acknowledge is, at best, in its infancy. To put the U.S.'s choice starkly, it's this: either accept a kangaroo court or humiliate the U.S.'s alleged partners in the Iraqi government.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 24, 2007 9:48 AM | Report abuse

' At work and can't listen? 1. Buy a pair of headphones'

--because that really looks like you're working then. what a dumb*ss comment from a Beltway Bubblehead.

Posted by: ** | September 24, 2007 9:42 AM | Report abuse

That Giuliani article on the front page (excerpted, but not attributed, in the 9:01 post) is very interesting. It details how Giuliani ignored terrorism and called it a law enforcement issue until 2004, when he started campaigning for Bush. Here's my favorite quote:

"Giuliani, through his campaign, declined to discuss his record on terrorism. But supporters say he gained unique insight into the issue when he witnessed people jumping from the twin towers and was almost trapped in a nearby building when the South Tower collapsed."

Absolutely ridiculous! Giuliani claims that he knows how to fight terrorism because he watched people die in a terrorist attack, and was endangered in that attack. So what? There are thousands of people who survived 9/11 and were in more danger than Giuliani. Do they also have "unique insight" into terrorism? Should we elect them too?

I'm glad the Post is calling Giuliani out on this. I don't understand how he gets away with calling himself a big terrorism expert; he has absolutely no meaningful experience with terrorism.

Posted by: Blarg | September 24, 2007 9:41 AM | Report abuse

I wonder when Gore will be endorsing someone.
Well, it should be a fun week.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 24, 2007 9:03 AM | Report abuse

But for most of Giuliani's career as a Department of Justice official, prosecutor and New York's chief executive, terrorism was a narrow aspect of his broader crime-fighting agenda, which was dominated by drug dealers, white-collar criminals and the Mafia. Giuliani expressed confidence that Islamic extremism could be contained through vigorous investigation by law enforcement agencies and prosecution in the court system -- the same approach he now condemns.


The Post then offers a long list of examples:

-Before 9/11, he rarely spoke of terrorism, and always framed it as a law enforcement issue. He continued to frame it as such even in the immediate aftermath.

-As mayor, he didn't seem to take terrorism seriously, and placed his emergency command center in the World Trade Center, against the advice of his his top staffers.

-In the 1990s, he opposed publicizing anti terror exercises and opposed labeling as terrorism smaller acts of Islamic violence.

-In 1997, when a Palestinian man shot a New Jersey lawyer at the top of Empire State Building, he refused to call it an act of terrorism, even though the shooter left a note full of hatred of "Zionists" and their American supporters, including a wish to attack what he perceived to be their center: New York

-When authorities worked to foil a millennium terrorism plot, he warned against letting fear have the upper hand: a stark contrast to his current efforts to fully exploit such fear for political benefit.

Posted by: rudy the flipflopper and phony | September 24, 2007 9:01 AM | Report abuse

Well if he hadn't taken the call she might have told everyone about their hookups during his last (second) marriage, and why he had NYC's command post built in the WTC when it was such an obvious target that had already been attacked.

Posted by: light_bearer | September 24, 2007 9:01 AM | Report abuse

If you're too lazy to write it down, CC, a lot of us ain't going to bother.

Me, I'd rather see a transcript of what the NRA crowd heard when Rudy took a long phone call from his wifey in the middle of a speech to them. What incredibly selfishness and need wold make a woman call a man under those circumstances? What a demanding b*tch. and he takes the call -- and rudely ignores the audience.

It sure proved who wears the pants in that family. what a wimp he is.

Posted by: devon | September 24, 2007 8:43 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company