Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Doolittle Says He Will Run, "Period."

California Rep. John Doolittle's defiant pronouncement that he will seek re-election to the House in 2008 has to send shivers down the spines of savvy Republican strategists.

For months, political operatives have been acting as though Doolittle's retirement is a foregone conclusion due to a series of ethics questions that continue to dog him.

Two members of the Republican House leadership pointedly refused to endorse him earlier this week and several serious primary challengers have already emerged.

If Doolittle makes good on his promise to seek re-election he could wind up as the GOP nominee due to his name identification in the district and the distinct possibility that the anti-Doolittle vote would be split among several candidates.

Doolittle as the Republican nominee also virtually assures that 2006 Democratic nominee Charlie Brown will be the next Congressman from the 4th District, despite the seat's underlying Republicanism.

Brown was little known and underfunded in 2006 -- a problem he won't have next November assuming Doolittle is on the ballot.

We're still skeptical that Doolittle ultimately follows through on his pledge to seek re-election but today is not a good day for party strategists.

By Editors  |  September 7, 2007; 5:21 PM ET
Categories:  House , Republican Party  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: The Line: Ranking the House Races (and FixCam)
Next: Sen. Hagel Won't Seek Reelection in 2008


I read that Doolittle was offered a plea deal last April. After he turned-down the offer, US DOJ raided his VA home. I also read that no FBI agent would raid a sitting member of Congress' home without first obtaining approval from the US Attorney General. For Gonzales to have approved the raid suggests the case against another Republican, Doolittle, already was rather sound.

In good time the time behind bars offered by US DOJ likely will seem like a jiffy in contrast to what Doolittle ultimately gets after a trial conviction! He and the other members/former members of Congress offered plea deals last April were behind earmarks that outright selected the contractors to fill the earmark contracts. Such contracts were apart of controversial programs such as the NSA Surveillance programs. I read last month that US DOJ has a task force convening to review the NSA surveillance programs, as well as I know first hand that there are other separate US DOJ investigations that arose from the sleazy earmarks.

By fighting instead of accepting plea deals, the related investigations will conclude and the damages of Doolittle and other members/former members of Congress' earmarks will become known and shared with prosecutors bringing corruption charges against Doolittle and the others offered plea deals. The damages will be provided as evidence to secure convictions for far greater charges than the plea deals would have included and in fact, result in US DOJ learning of more crimes to bring charges-on. Such damages, too, will be provided to sentencing judges to multiply the number of years these members of Congress would spend in jail, had they otherwise simply just accepted the plea deals offered.

The investigation into Doolittle's relationship with Abramoff began in 2004. Doolittle doesn't stand a chance at being reelected next year because the odds are greatest that by 1/1/09 when he would start a next term, he'll be laid-up in jail!

Posted by: Anonymous | September 10, 2007 7:10 PM | Report abuse

Interesting that Doolittle is running for re-election. Not good for the GOP, either. Hopefully gov. Schwarzanegger can get behind someone in the primary to defeat Doolittle and win in November. Otherwise, a democrat may well win this district. That is, unless Doolitte is able to prove his innocence.

Posted by: reason | September 10, 2007 2:50 PM | Report abuse

Thanks, blarg and bsimon, for being the resident sane software folks.

You get to call MikeB on his "statistics" as the prize.

I am watching Petraeus, now.

After lunch, I probably ought to get some work done. See y'all later.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | September 10, 2007 1:56 PM | Report abuse

Blarg writes
"That's why I started arguing with MikeB to begin with; he claimed that the salaries for software engineers are half of what they were 10 years ago, and I thought that was bogus."

I, once, had that argument with him too. I've since learned to ignore him, mostly. Though I will say my compensation has been flat for the last couple years. After the run-up in the 90s and early 00s, I can't really complain about the level at which its flattened...

Posted by: bsimon | September 10, 2007 11:03 AM | Report abuse

lyle says
"thought you might be interested in knowing that our "MikeB", that has posted lies about me on this thread, was using another name on the thread I mentioned. No big deal."

Got it. Sorry about the confusion. I think MikeB might have found 'MikeB' easier to type on the forums where you type your name, vs. the other moniker that is his Wash Post login. I put that in a different category than posting to one thread with multiple names.

Posted by: bsimon | September 10, 2007 10:59 AM | Report abuse

Mark, I think you were mixing up Bokonon and I. I've never discussed national service with you. (While I like the idea of requiring some non-military national service, I think the bureaucracy required for it would be prohibitive. And can you imagine the reaction from angry teenagers and parents?)

I am, however, a software engineer. That's why I started arguing with MikeB to begin with; he claimed that the salaries for software engineers are half of what they were 10 years ago, and I thought that was bogus. He had no numbers to back up his claims, so he accused me of being a paid political operative telling lies to discredit him.

Posted by: Blarg | September 10, 2007 9:25 AM | Report abuse

bsimon: I have no problem with your views on anything, I was only pointing out on the other thread you made a comment, and you were the only name I recognized, and thought you might be interested in knowing that our "MikeB", that has posted lies about me on this thread, was using another name on the thread I mentioned. No big deal.

Posted by: lylepink | September 10, 2007 1:41 AM | Report abuse

lyle was talking about the running misrepresentations of him by MikeB, that someone, but not you, called MikeB on.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 9, 2007 11:32 PM | Report abuse

lylepink writes
"I seemed to recall someone, I think it was bsimon, pointing out the blatent lies, about me personally, and would not apologize."

I'm not sure if I'm being thanked or criticized. Did I point out someone else's blatant lies that were not apologized for, or did I (allegedly) post lies about you and never apologize? If you are not certain, perhaps you shouldn't name names.

Regarding your question on the other thread. The only thing I agree with MikeB about, in his post there, is that the Dem leadership is light on leadership. Regarding his strong feelings against immigrants and H1-B visas, I do not agree.

I have certainly made regular comments expressing my distaste for Sen Clinton as a Presidential candidate - perhaps you have mistaken those for personal attacks on you.

Posted by: bsimon | September 9, 2007 10:52 PM | Report abuse

Mark - KOZ has always seemed to be a Washington operative to me, living in Northern Virginia. He's in love with Tom Davis, but probably lives in Jim Moran's district.

I believe that in 2006 a couple of times he mentioned doing consulting type work. I've also noticed that periodically there seem to be KOZ posts like the old ones, more well crafted, wittier and less vituperative, though there's always a "lib" or "moonbat" somewhere.

You may be correct that there may be more than one KOZ now.

If KOZ does live in Northern Virginia it must be galling him to see it become more and more Democratic. It may have been Democratic decades ago, but that was Byrd-Democrat, and was really "to the Right" Republican. Then when the political realignment within Virginia took place, it became legitimate Republican. Now, that's all being pushed to the outter suburbs in Loudon and Prince William Counties, and even Loudon isn't safe Republican territory anymore. KOZ's nightmares are coming true.

Time to get off. I have an Orioles' game to watch.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 9, 2007 1:24 PM | Report abuse

I again thank you, |, for sending me to Cohen's blog, which I now visit regularly. Previously, I gave you credit for this, but not knowing, of course, which | you were.

I read this blog long before I began to participate [I finally gave up trial practice so that I could have more of a life and I ended up blogging...who knew?], and I remember KOZ as wittier, and more willing to engage, before Thanksgiving, last year. The current KOZ claims more personal knowledge of R Congressmen, on occasion, so I wonder if he is the same person. This KOZ seems to use the "insider" claim to bolster his positions. He also quotes Von Mises and his followers. I am trying to remember if the "old" KOZ did that.

And you keep on postin' too.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | September 9, 2007 12:38 PM | Report abuse

"I think you are the | who tries to tweak Zouk"

Mark, I don't try to tweak Zouk. I gave up on that after he came back after November 2006 and became more rabidly partisan and condescending. I simply take shots at him when I think that they are deserved. (I don't bother with all of the pseudonyms he began using) I'm one of the ones who suspects that he may be paid to spend so much time here trying to disrupt threads. To me, rufus is a lost radical who doesn't realize that it's not 1972.

I haven't tweaked you intentionally. You're posts are too well-developed logically. You try to have reasoned discourse based on a logical thought process. Although I did suggest that you look at Cohen's Bench Conference blog, but that was meant as a positive suggestion, not a tweak.

Zouk (and others) surprise me that they still think the "anonymous poster" is a single person. Hardly. I also find hilarious that they call the anonymous posters "ignorant cowards" while most of them are using pseudonyms (multiple ones in some cases). Kind of ironic, don't you think?

With respect to the "engineer" comments. I've lived with, have relatives who are, and work with engineers of various scientific disciplines. You'll note that I used the term "stereotype," as I know that with everything else not all members of any one group act the same. However, I have noticed over the years that engineers (of all scientific disciplines) much prefer the rigid "scientific method" to the looser methods which are inherent to politics and to an extent sociology. They have trouble dealing with things that do not act according to the laws which they determine should apply - which makes politics so troubling for them. In MikeB's case Ron Paul is ideal for him right now because Paul is raging against the system, as MikeB is predestined to do. Perot was probably the MikeB favorite in 1992 - "those idiots can't get anything right."

I don't believe that I've ever made any comments on universal service. I happen to believe in it (and have advocated it for over 35 years) because it would instill in everybody a sense of ownership in this country which peaked in WW II and has been steadily declining since then. I have to admit that I have no idea how to implement it, other than use the Dept. of Defense as a template.

Keep on postin' !

Posted by: Anonymous | September 9, 2007 11:05 AM | Report abuse

Mark in Austin: I seem to recall something about a joke made by Hillary at a fundraiser, and this has been used by opponents of outsourseing jobs to India, mainly in the telemarketing field. and even here where I live, they are begging for workers with a starting wage of $10.00 an hour with health care benefits. No, I did not take offense in any way, A discussion of FACTS and TRUTH is very important to me, and that didn't amount to a hill of beans. There certainly is no threat for any EE I know of losing their jobs to those annoying telemarketing folks.

Posted by: lylepink | September 8, 2007 11:35 PM | Report abuse

I am not gay!

Posted by: John Doolittle | September 8, 2007 8:46 PM | Report abuse

Mark, well-said. I can listen to just about any argument as long as it is presented in a way that makes sense, or could have some logical foundation, whether or not I actually agree. I too think that MikeB's reactions are shaded by emotion and informed by the personal experience of both him and people he knows, and without having had a similar experience myself, I can't condemn his opinions, although I often disagree. It seems to me that disagreement is almost the whole point of this or any other political discussion - as long as it is at least somewhat respectful of the other person and his/her opinion, that's how you exchange information. There are of course certain partisans who join a discussion with their minds already closed to new information, no matter what it is, and they are generally a damper on things (cough, zouk) but for the most part, exposure to other peoples' ideas/opinions makes you that much better-informed, even if the information only helps you decide that you were right all along to oppose whatever it is you're discussing.

btw I'm not a software engineer - I work in publishing.

Posted by: Bokonon | September 8, 2007 5:07 PM | Report abuse

Mark in Austin: The anon 01:48 PM post sums it up pretty well. The "rufus and Zouk" types are at least good for a laugh sometimes and no one takes them seriously. When I came across the "MikeB" aka...I seemed to recall someone, I think it was bsimon, pointing out the blatent lies, about me personally, and would not apologize. I did a little research, limited by my being a fairly new computer user and knowledge of how to do so.This poster had been doing the same thing, spewing his hatred for Hillary as far back as February of this year, that I have found. For a long time I have pointed out inaccurate statements by anyone, when they are so blatent, and would expect others to do the same. Thanks for your concern.

Posted by: lylepink | September 8, 2007 4:38 PM | Report abuse

|, you cite excellent examples of MikeB's
intolerance, inaccuracy, and spitefulness, especially toward lyle. I try to coax reason from MikeB - and sometimes I do. He is very emotional, but I do not think he tries to take over the thread as his own bully pulpit like Zouk and sometimes, Rufus, and sometimes anonymous cut-and-paster, who I do not think is you.

Respectfully, I would no more accuse him of being narrow-minded because he is an engineer than I would accuse Colin of being anything because he is a lawyer, or JimD because he is a retired officer. I think Bokonon is a software engineer and he is always thoughtful. bsimon may be a "tecchie", too.

I suspect what you [and I, frankly] find to be narrow and spiteful in MikeB is entirely emotional, and in no way professional.

I think you are the | who tries to tweak Zouk. Good luck with that! I think you have also tweaked me, but with some cause: Was it not you who called me on my suggestion that "national service" should be mandatory? It may have been Blarg or Boko. I am 64, after all.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | September 8, 2007 4:11 PM | Report abuse

all of you, meet me in the mens room, tap twice

Posted by: Wide Stance | September 8, 2007 2:02 PM | Report abuse

Mark - I don't question MikeB's intelligence, but he sees the world with blinders on.

He fits the stereotype of the engineer:

I don't understand why nobodyelse understands this when I do; it cannot be me that's wrong, it has to be them!

He blames the immigrant Indians and Pakistanis for employment problems as well the politicians. Do you blame somebody for coming to this country legally because they want to be better off? He does.

He comes up with out of context "Founding Father quote" justifications for the Right to Bear Arms. I don't mind rational positions on either side. His are not logically developed from a basic premise.

He rants about his son's treatment by the Army and the VA; and not surprisingly, 1 + 1 in the rants do not add up to 2 when you know the systems and processes.

He says that CNN did a piece on his son, yet when you ask where it can be found, he insults you and tells you to go find it yourself (a couple of clues might nice).

He makes all sorts of charges about lylpink which are just stupid to begin with if you have read lylepink's posts; and when lylpink points out the errors, MikeB refuses to acknowledege being wrong, much less apologize.

MikeB is out somewhere between Earth orbit and Venus. He is obviously intelligent, but it's also pretty obvious that the dude has "issues." A rufus of another stripe.

I find MikeB's prejudice and unfounded venom a bit much at times.

It was no surprise at all the other day when MikeB said that he now supports Ron Paul. He should stick to Science. MikeB's out of his element when it comes to Politics and Sociology.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 8, 2007 1:48 PM | Report abuse

Actually Dolittle received under 50% of the vote in 2006. Gov. Terminator received 72.2% of the vote in District 4, so the voters know exactly who they are votng for/against. If he runs....kiss the seat buh-bye.

Congressional District 4

Charlie Brown, DEM 126,999 45.9%

John T. Doolittle, REP 135,818 49.1%

Dan Warren, LIB 14,076 5.0%

Governor - District 4

Phil Angelides-Dem: 64,144 22.8%

Arnold Schwarzenegger-Rep: 203,190 72.2%

Minor Party Candidates: 5%

Posted by: Just the Fact's Ma'am | September 8, 2007 12:47 PM | Report abuse

After the attacks, Giuliani did his best work in front of a microphone, speaking simply and honestly to the city and the nation. Ground zero, on the other hand, is the site of his worst failure.

That's saying a great deal when you consider that this is the man whose crack plan for disaster response involved building the city emergency command center in one of the towers of the best-known terrorist targets in the nation.

But think about this: In the final months of his mayoralty, Giuliani went to ground zero 41 times, with whatever visiting statesman, movie star or sports hero who happened to be in town. He would walk them around the edge of the disaster zone and retell the story of 9/11. They could see ironworkers and crane operators dismantling the ruins and emergency workers looking for remains of the victims. Beneath those workers, the still-burning wreckage coughed up benzene and PCB's and asbestos. The city had received many reports about the danger of that air. Looking down, Giuliani could see that very few people -- except the health supervisors -- were wearing protective gear. And he did nothing about it.

Now, some of those workers have gotten sick. Since thousands of them have filed lawsuits, it's not likely that there will be any coming to terms with the numbers soon. The city has not even acknowledged that James Zadroga, a 34-year-old New York City police detective who died in January 2006, was killed by what his family said was more than 400 hours put in at the site. But a New Jersey coroner found that Zadroga died from a disease caused by his exposure to the ground zero dust. A widower, he left behind an orphaned 5-year-old daughter who is being raised by her grandparents.

Posted by: rudy's criminally incompetent | September 8, 2007 12:31 PM | Report abuse

It's not an 'ethics' issue, CC -- it's a criminal matter, relating to Abramoff. Do you really not know the difference?

'Rep. John Doolittle (R-CA) declared that the FBI is trying to intimidate his wife and him in the ongoing corruption investigation. Experts seem to think Rep. Doolittle may have been offered a plea agreement:

Rep. John Doolittle said Wednesday that the Justice Department tried to get him to admit to a crime before FBI agents raided his house looking for evidence in connection with the Jack Abramoff political corruption scandal. '

Posted by: Cassanda | September 8, 2007 12:09 PM | Report abuse

In a preview of his report to Congress next week, Gen. David H. Petraeus yesterday expressed disappointment in the lack of progress toward political reconciliation in Iraq. Administration officials said he wants to return to Washington for another assessment in six months to allow more time for Iraqi politics.

While "many of us had hoped this summer would be a time of tangible political progress," Petraeus said in a letter addressed to "Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, Coast Guardsmen, and Civilians" serving in Iraq that "it has not worked out as we had hoped."

and another 6 months and another and another and another

Posted by: this is success? | September 8, 2007 12:07 PM | Report abuse

Doolittle, what a joke. He'll lose. Voters are catching on that they can't trust the GOP. Another piece on Romney made me chuckle today:

Posted by: suzenews | September 8, 2007 10:33 AM | Report abuse

hi lyle -

I am not bsimon, of course, but I hope you do not mind.

Our very own MikeB does post elsewhere using his email moniker where it is required.

If you will recall, he mentioned his patents by number some time ago. I looked them up and became satisfied that he is indeed a talented inventor and engineer and I, of course, learned his identity in so doing.

I have remained more respectful than many on this blog because I know other electrical engineers and computer scientists in his shoes and I empathize.

I have also called him on what I thought was his overhype or misuse of a citation.

Take the following as an insight into MikeB and my many EE friends and not as a political chastisement of HRC, please.

From his perspective, when HRC told an Indian and Indian-American audience that she could win the Senate seat from Punjab, that was NOT funny. That clip alone could lose HRC thousands of votes in a general election in hight tech communities like Austin, if replayed by Rs in the days before an election.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | September 8, 2007 9:28 AM | Report abuse

bsimon: Check my September 7, 2007 at 02:39 PM post on The Trail thread and see if you understand what I am talking about. Let me know.

Posted by: lylepink | September 8, 2007 6:53 AM | Report abuse

Chris, in 2006 Doolittle beat Charlie Brown by only 3 points, when Brown was, as you say, "little known and underfunded." This district may have exhibited "underlying Republicanism" in the past, but it is unlikely to do so again for many years, whether the GOP candidate is Doolittle or Doonothing.

Posted by: Robert Silvey | September 8, 2007 1:04 AM | Report abuse

Ohio guy: I'd include NY-29, Randy Kuhl. And OH-16, Regula. VA-2, Drake.

I don't see AK switching.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | September 8, 2007 12:53 AM | Report abuse

Yes, 5:53pm, I am back in Seattle now, which is actually further north than Montreal where I was. I love it here even though, all else being equal, I saw that most things are better in Canada than the US. (Our banking and postal systems are notable exceptions--Americans don't realize what a good deal USPS is)

Sen. Vitter patronized prostitutes in both DC and New Orleans. I guess that's ok for politicians who build their career on championing "family values". Likewise seeking anonymous sex in airport bathrooms when you have a spouse and children.

This is the same kind of nonsense we heard last cycle about how the Republicans were going to gain House, Senate, and Governor seats. Especially how Michael Steele, Lynn Swann, and Ken Blackwell were going to get elected. How many times did we have to hear how ridiculous it was to think Ted Strickland or Sherrod Brown could win?? I'm sorry some of you folks on the right just don't like the truth. Maybe Governor Blackwell can console you.

Truth Hunter--it was the Democrats who blocked unsafe Mexican trucks from our highways. Go back and look at the record.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | September 8, 2007 12:44 AM | Report abuse

Sorry, Adam C, but to the great regret of many of the posters to this blog (R's and D's) Jefferson has already been re-elected. Vitter will likely be relected as well, believe it or not. That's Louisiana for you! Doolittle, on the other hand....

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | September 7, 2007 10:42 PM | Report abuse

As long as Congressman William "$90,000 in his freezer" Jefferson (D-LA) is in Congress, Democrats might want to focus on pushing him out before casting the first stone.

Posted by: Adam C | September 7, 2007 9:46 PM | Report abuse

The Democrats can stay positive during the election cycle because the news of GOP corruption and incompetnece will keep them in the news. Craig and Doolittle are the gifts that keep giving.

Posted by: Isiah | September 7, 2007 9:36 PM | Report abuse



Posted by: SpacePirate | September 7, 2007 8:38 PM | Report abuse

Truth Hunter - I don't really know what to tell ya there. I'm with you on the whole immigration issue. It's crazy how porous our borders are and how the federal government seems not to care at all, and even imprisons it's own border security guards for committing the cardinal sin of shooting a Mexican drug smuggler (who by the way was given immunity) who had crossed the borcer illegally in order to sell illegal substances in this country. Boggles the mind and boils the blood.

As for Reid and Pelosi, however, they have been EXCELLENT leaders so far, IMHO. Especially Reid - he has a razor-thin margin with which to govern but continually uses his far superior knowledge of Senate rules and procedure and far superior political skills to run circles around that clown McConnell.

As for Pelosi, she is responsible for the House passing many important reform bills that would not have passed if republicans were still in charge. Unfortunately, far too few of the bills passed by the House have become law b/c republicans in the Senate are literally about to break the RECORD for highest # of fillibusters ever in one session of Conress.

I don't think people give them enough credit for all of the good they have done and all of the BAD things they have prevented Bush from doing to further irreperably damage this country.

Posted by: Ohio guy | September 7, 2007 8:31 PM | Report abuse

Ohio guy, That's an awesome list. Now, please convince me the Dems would use their clout wisely. I have no confidence in Pelosi or Reid for that matter, they are too much insider pols, and much too cozy with Bush and his immigration/border security policies.

Allowing Mexican trucks to freely roam the U.S. without security or safety checks of any kind and taking driving jobs Americans will do.... what's that? I'm disgusted with the whole bunch on both sides.

Posted by: Truth Hunter | September 7, 2007 8:12 PM | Report abuse

Just for fun, let's all make a list of the Republican-held House seats that the Democrats have at least a decent shot of taking over in '08. Off the top of my head I can think of:


Posted by: Ohio guy | September 7, 2007 7:49 PM | Report abuse

George.... Guess you are way behind the news curve. Vitter admitted using prostitutes after his name was disclosed by a prostitute ring. Here is a link:

It's not just the "charge," it's the "family values" hypocrisy of the GOP. Dems don't need to smear, the Repubs "caught in the act" are doing that on their own.

Posted by: Truth Hunter | September 7, 2007 7:41 PM | Report abuse


Absolutely. Freakin'. Hilarious.

As this cycle began, I thought the Democrats would probably break even in House seats gained/lost or maybe at best score a net gain of 3-5 seats or so. However, given the continuous parade of incredibly bad news for Republicans, poll after poll being released that shows how strongly Americans disapprove of Republicans in Congress, President Bush continualy dragging down the Republican brand and electoral prosepects, and the DCCC's MASSIVE cash advantage over the NRCC, it now presently seems that the Democrats will have a net gain of anywhere from 15-25 House seats in the '08 elections.

Posted by: Ohio guy | September 7, 2007 7:28 PM | Report abuse

All you clinton haters out there. I have not heard you mention her man norman hsu at all. Why is that? Is the gop backing hillary clinton on the sly? Fox sure seems to. The MSM seems to. That says to me she is the corporate candidate (teh gop candidate). Haven't heard to much about him in the tv news.

Why is that? I thought you gop'ers would be all over that. Who would you point to if you didn't have clinton? How would you combat the last 15 years of your rule?

Posted by: rufus | September 7, 2007 6:52 PM | Report abuse

Sorry don't want roo to call the copyright police on me for not posting the source. Sorry roo. You can call the patriot act cronies if you feel slighted.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 7, 2007 6:48 PM | Report abuse

"The need for social reinforcement runs so deeply in authoritarians, they will
believe someone who says what they want to hear even if you tell them they should
not. I have several times asked students or parents to judge the sincerity of a university
student who wrote arguments either condemning, or supporting, homosexuals. But
some subjects were told the student had been assigned to condemn (or support)
homosexuals as part of a philosophy test to see how well the student could make up
arguments for anything, on the spot. Other subjects were told the student could choose
to write on either side of the issue, and had chosen to make the case she did.
Obviously, you can't tell anything about the real opinions of someone who was
assigned the point of view of her essay. But high RWAs believed that the antihomosexual
essay that a student was forced to write reflected that student's personal
views almost as much as when a student had chosen this point of view. In other words,
as in the previous experiments, the authoritarians ignored the circumstances and
believed the student really meant what she had been assigned to say--when they liked
what she said."

Posted by: rufus | September 7, 2007 6:47 PM | Report abuse

I will not. Do that :)

I will do what I choose. Not follow orders from lying propogating fascsits. Are you scared because the sheep had to listen to Paul this week? aRe you scared because you can no longer hide behind willfull ignorance. :)

So sad so sad. Your party is done zouky. And your mother was a who*** :) Personal attacks is the game. I can play to. THoguh I prefer to destroy you with facts and truths.

Posted by: rufus | September 7, 2007 6:25 PM | Report abuse

rufus, get out of here and go back to the other thread!

Posted by: Anonymous | September 7, 2007 6:09 PM | Report abuse

Don't blame an anonymous poster george. Vitter and craig "smeared" themsleves.

I know you goper's are unable to hold anybody accountable but BJ getting men, but let's interject some form of reality here.

Posted by: rufus | September 7, 2007 6:01 PM | Report abuse

Good. Good luck doolittle. :)

Posted by: rufus | September 7, 2007 5:59 PM | Report abuse

I forget, what has Vitter actually been convicted of or even charged with?

I think it's nothing.

Keep smearing liberal, keep smearing,

Posted by: George | September 7, 2007 5:59 PM | Report abuse

Sandwich, good to hear from you. Have you come back from the Great White North?

Posted by: Anonymous | September 7, 2007 5:53 PM | Report abuse

The OH poll continues the interesting bifurcation of results in which Edwards far outscores Clinton against Rs, but trails her badly among Ds. I can imagine explanations, but surely the pollsters themselves have analyzed this.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | September 7, 2007 5:45 PM | Report abuse

Sandwich: thanks for the link. I'm particularly interested in comments like "Hillary Rodham Clinton has opened up her biggest lead yet, as the New York senator's favorability rating tops 50 percent for the first time." How does that happen? Is 'favorability' now defined as how she looks versus all the other GOP candidates or the D candidates? It's an interesting evolution.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | September 7, 2007 5:41 PM | Report abuse

And a new poll finds Democrats beating Republicans in 11 of 12 presidential matchips in Ohio:

Courts reigning in the Patriot Act, Congress making real improvements for college affordability--the good news just keeps on coming!

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | September 7, 2007 5:38 PM | Report abuse

And the GOP continues to self-destruct. Hey, with Vitter as an example of who gets to hang around in Congress why should either Craig or Doolittle quit?

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | September 7, 2007 5:37 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company