Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Are Mississippi Democrats Preparing to Fight?

Hours after Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour (R) issued a statement declaring next November as the date for the special election to replace resigning Sen. Trent Lott (R), the state Democratic Party appears ready to challenge Barbour's reading of election law.

"We will wait for Senator Lott's official notice of resignation, when he will undoubtedly announce the exact date he will leave office," said Mississippi Democratic Party Chairman Wayne Dowdy in a statement released late Monday. "But if he does resign this calendar year we expect the governor to uphold the law and call a special election within 100 days. It is important that Mississippi be represented in Washington by a senator who was elected by the state's voters as soon as possible."

At issue is exactly when Lott will formally resign his seat. If he does so prior to Dec. 31, it seems from The Fix's reading of Mississippi election law (caveat: It will not surprise you to learn I am not a lawyer) that a special election would be triggered and set for sometime in the early spring. If the resignation becomes official sometime in 2008, then the special would fall on the same day as the November general election. (Read the relevant portion of the election code.)

Normally, it would be no major matter when Lott resigned. If stepping aside in early 2008 gave Republicans a better chance of holding the seat, then he would simply wait to submit his resignation. But a series of lobbying reform measures go into effect on Jan. 1, 2008 -- among them a provision that would double (from one year to two) the waiting period for former members of Congress to lobby their colleagues. Lott denies the lobbying reforms have anything to do with his calculation, but it's hard to understand why else the timing of his resignation would be as important to him as it seems to be.

The question now for both sides is how far Democrats are willing to push the envelope to test Barbour's reading of election law. If the governor refuses to back down, do they file suit in an attempt to overturn his reading of the law?

Even as this drama plays out, the candidate scramble is on in earnest.

Former state Attorney General Mike Moore (D) released a statement Monday evening sure to give Democrats hope. "Like most Mississippians I was surprised by Trent Lott's decision to resign from his Senate seat," Moore said. "As for me, I appreciate all the calls I have received from friends, colleagues, and supporters today encouraging me to run. I will make my decision soon."

Moore gained national prominence in the 1990s as a leader in the states' efforts to sue the U.S. tobacco industry. That effort paid off in a multi-billion-dollar settlement for the states, portions of which wound up in the hands of trial lawyers who helped the states prepare their suits.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) spoke with Moore last week about the remote possibility of a challenge to Sen. Thad Cochran (R) in 2008. Reid was out of the country Monday, but Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chairman Chuck Schumer (N.Y.) did speak with Moore after Lott's announcement.

Longtime Mississippi observers acknowledge they simply don't know what Moore will do. He has been mentioned for statewide office many, many times in recent years and has decided against it each and every time. But according to observers in the state, Moore has long cherished the idea of being a U.S. Senator, and it will be hard to pass up such a unique opening.

If Moore chooses not to run, an already tough race would become more difficult for Democrats. The lone Democratic statewide elected official -- state Attorney General Jim Hood -- won't be a candidate. Without Moore or Hood, former Gov. Ronnie Musgrove could emerge as the Democratic standardbearer. Former Rep. Ronnie Shows is also mentioned as a potential Democratic candidate.

The two most oft-mentioned names for Republicans are Rep. Roger Wicker and state Treasurer Tate Reeves.

By Chris Cillizza  |  November 27, 2007; 5:00 AM ET
Categories:  Senate  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: FixCam: Political Week In Preview
Next: Indiana: An Emerging Purple State?

Comments

This is crazy that politicians, having been elected to a given term of office, jump ship to give their chosen successors a leg up on taking over the position.

Better that the laws be changed so that an elected official who resigns in mid-term, for other than health reasons, would be replaced by the person who received the second highest number of votes in the election for that term of office.

Posted by: jimk8mr | December 31, 2007 5:31 PM | Report abuse

Why do the Republicans fear the Rule of Law so very much?

Why can't they just follow the law and respect it?

Posted by: WillSeattle | November 28, 2007 2:13 AM | Report abuse

dave said:

"Most Iraqis want us out of their country at some point. They also don't want us to leave abruptly and foster chaos. If the US could articulate a strategy to the Iraqi people of us leaving based on a set of commonly agreed upon security and political targets, the pressure would be there for the politicians to act."

Sounds good to me. It is also not very far from what Biden proposed tonight on Lehrer - take advantage of the "quiet" created by the surge and do the serious diplomatic work right now - he says the Sunnis and Shia will start up again when we "draw down" unless THEY have agreed to stand down
and now is our chance to get them to the table.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | November 27, 2007 11:05 PM | Report abuse

"buckidean, all - Rather intersting that everyone was taken in by the Clinton spin machine. They didn't disclose that THEY wrote the article critical of Zogby's methodology. Now, those poll results are all over the web and so is the phony critique. "

Sorry, brooks, but I didn't even read that Clinton article you are referring to. I debunked the crap zogby poll using info I came up with on my own, so I wasn't "taken in" by anything. Nice try to spin your way out a losing argument, though. Nothing you say changes the fact that zogby consisitently produces the worst and least reliable polls year after year. The only poll to predict a Bill Ritter loss on Election Eve '06?.....a race he won by 15 points?

Zogby!! LOL!!!!

You are the most ignorant person on this entire forum if you think a zogby online poll should be taken more seriously than Gallup, Rasmussen, SUSA, and Research 2000 polls - all of which have her leading by 5-9 points.

You're just plain stupid/delusional if you seriously believe at this point in time that Hillary Clinton trails Mitt Romney by 3 points when he has never before come within 10 points of her.

I guess extremely ignorant people like yourself are easily "taken in" by faulty polls that show your main man Mittens beating Hillary.

Posted by: buckidean | November 27, 2007 10:06 PM | Report abuse

buckidean - You obviously have some "issues" you need to work out. Any one critical of your fondness for the Queen Of Darkness, seems to attract your ire and overly rabid response. I suggest remedial reading and hgetting blind drunk in the evenings on beer. If you save the empty cans, they are worth a nickel each and will be all you can expect for your retirement savings with Clinton's outsourced economy. Cheers!

Posted by: mibrooks27 | November 27, 2007 8:09 PM | Report abuse

"You, on the other hand, are nothing more than road kill she will leave behind. Stop being a fool." - mibrooks27

I don't see how that is possible, seeing as how I am not invested her campaign in any way.....buuuut anywhoooo...... you've already shown that you are simply just going to ignore the fact that I am not a Hillary supporter but instead just a voice of reason trying to get you to back up some of your more ridiculous claims, which you still habe yet to do.

Worse than Robertson, eh? I didn't realize that Hillary blamed 9/11 on the gays and abortionists as well as called for the assasination of a foreign leader.

Oh, I forgot, those are just minor details to you.....facts will never get in the way of your rabid, mindless Hillary-bashing.

Posted by: buckidean | November 27, 2007 7:56 PM | Report abuse

"The only way Clinton can win is by depressing the votes of moderates and LIBERALS who loath her." - mibrooks27 (emphasis mine)

LOL! - The only way Hillary is going to win a general election is by depressing the votes of LIBERALS?!?! LOL!!!! Just where do you propose her votes are going to come from? Conservatives?!?!

Ok - it's offical - you're mentally retarded.

"Most, even LIBERALS, will vote Republican if they have a choice of anyone but Romney - Huckabee, McCain, even Thompson and Gulianni all tie or lead her." - mibrooks27

Liberals are going to vote for a candidate who wouldn't sign the SCHIP expansion into law versus Hillary, who would?

Liberals are going to vote for a candidate who will keep all of our troops presently in Iraq there forever, versus Hillary, who will pull out all but about 20,000 (meaning she pulls out 150,000 of them) to train the Iraqi army and protect the embassy????

Liberals are going to vote for someone like Giuliani who would appoint Scalia's and Alito's to the Supreme Court over Hillary who would appoint Souter's, Ginsberg's, and Breyer's????

Um....yeh.....I don't think so. Hillary may not be the liberals' first choice, but they are not all braindead like you - they are'nt going to cut off their noses to spite their faces in the general like you seem so resigned to do.

Where is the data/sources you are basing these completely idiotic statements on? Or are you just pulling them out your rear as always?

Posted by: buckidean | November 27, 2007 7:52 PM | Report abuse

buckidean, all - Rather intersting that everyone was taken in by the Clinton spin machine. They didn't disclose that THEY wrote the article critical of Zogby's methodology. Now, those poll results are all over the web and so is the phony critique. But the crtique isn't identified as having been written by the Clinton campaign! I wonder how many people are ebing fooled by them? Ignorance, it seems, has no bounds.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | November 27, 2007 7:50 PM | Report abuse

"buckidean - I stopped posting references for people like you when I discovered that you don't read them. You are one of the Clinton mob, obviously,"

Um.....as I've stated multiple times already - No I'm not.

I'm someone who likes to see people back up what they say, no matter whehter I share that person's feelings toward the pol they are attacking or not. Your reading comprehension skills leave a lot to be desired.

The fact that I am responding to your drivel right now eliminates your excuse for not posting this evidence, seeing as how your excuse was that I woudln't read it anyway.

So go ahead and post it.

Or what is your excuse now?

Posted by: buckidean | November 27, 2007 7:42 PM | Report abuse

claudialong: The showing of Janet Jacksons boob was only brought to our attention by the media that showed it thousands of times for rating purposes. For all media ratings are money. These folks don't care what is put out here for kids or anyone else to see as long as it does not violate laws on the books that are sometimes enforced. Mostly, things like this are not to any degree.

Posted by: lylepink | November 27, 2007 7:08 PM | Report abuse

All - A press release from Zogby on "that poll" and the Clinton attacks against it:


All is fair in love and war, the centuries-old proverb states. Politics is not included, but given the way the game is played in modern-day America, maybe it should be. That's the sense I had again this morning watching Mark Penn, the chief political strategist for Democrat Hillary Clinton, denigrate our latest Zogby Interactive survey simply because it showed his client in a bad light (Link to Latest Poll Number). Penn made the contention on the MSNBC morning news program hosted by Joe Scarborough (Link to Video)

Penn mischaracterized this latest online Zogby poll as our first interactive survey ever - a bizarre contention, since we have been developing and perfecting our Internet polling methodology for nearly a decade (Zogby Intreractive Methodology), and since Penn's company has been quietly requesting the results of such polls from Zogby for years. We always comply as part of our pledge to give public Zogby polling results to any and every candidate and campaign that asks for them. What is interesting is that no other campaign has made as many requests for Zogby polling data over the years than Penn has made on behalf of Clinton.

Because Mark Penn is a quality pollster himself, we chalk up his contention that our poll is "meaningless" as a knee-jerk reaction by a campaign under pressure coming down the stretch. Several other polls - Zogby surveys and others - have shown her national lead and her leads in early-voting states like Iowa and New Hampshire have shrunk. This is not unusual. These presidential contests usually tighten as the primaries and caucuses approach.

Fritz Wenzel
Director of Communications
Zogby International

Posted by: mibrooks27 | November 27, 2007 6:41 PM | Report abuse

bsimon,
"we shouldn't be hasty at declaring success, then see the country descend back into chaos as the surge is wound down."

Agreed. I think that at this point, every Dem (Lieberman notwithstanding) is looking to establish a date-based timeline for troop withdrawl. The Dem base has wanted immediate if not sooner withdrawl of troops(so has Ron Paul for that matter). So the question remains what should our draw down of troops be based on to get the best result? Instant, never, an artificial timeline or events on the ground?

- I think that instant is a recipe for disaster in Iraq although in some respects in the short-term at least, it works out well for us.
- Never is a long term recipe for disaster.
- I think the "we are leaving so you better get ready" artificial timeline theory has a sliver of truth to it but no substance - the Iraqis probably need some motivation to work through some issues but I don't think this is the best stick/carrot to use.
- The events on the ground dictating troop strength theoretically allows us to be flexible, tie achievement of the targets to troop strength, and could be, if done right, the motivating method needed to get the government going. Most Iraqis want us out of their country at some point. They also don't want us to leave abruptly and foster chaos. If the US could articulate a strategy to the Iraqi people of us leaving based on a set of commonly agreed upon security and political targets, the pressure would be there for the politicians to act. IMO, it's the best of 4 choices, some bad, some really bad.

Posted by: dave | November 27, 2007 6:36 PM | Report abuse

female Nick -- I agree with you. But as you said, it's a matter of age. My daughter was a kid then and it was depressing to watch the Mayor flaunt his mistresses so publicly. It wasn't the affairs so much as his flagrant disregard for his family.

But you're right, we are a puritanical and schizophrenic culture. That Janet Jackson was so roundly criticized when clothes for little girls today make them look like pint size hookers is both disconcerting and and cognitively dissonant.

Posted by: drindl | November 27, 2007 6:03 PM | Report abuse

These polls are showing what most of us expected by their getting tighter. The Iowa poll of 500 or so has/had been the lead story in a lot of the media for about a week now. I try and keep up with them on a daily basis, but there seems to be a new one coming along on a weekly basis, and the best way I've found so far is to take the Average of several of them. Most of them do not show the questions asked and in what order, for a lot depends on this in figuring out what each is about.

Posted by: lylepink | November 27, 2007 5:52 PM | Report abuse

dave writes
"More than if the Dems had had their way."

Depends on which dems, doesn't it? Part of the Dems problem has been a lack of cohesion - they each have an idea of what to do and can't seem to come up with one plan on which they all agree. Which is why there's one CiC. But I digress. There's really no way of knowing what should have been done instead, all we know is that we're not where we want to be. While the recent - relative - stability is certainly worth applauding, we shouldn't be hasty at declaring success, then see the country descend back into chaos as the surge is wound down.

Posted by: bsimon | November 27, 2007 5:43 PM | Report abuse

Mark, re: shielding children from discussions of sex-related matters -- I wasn't commenting on anyone's post in particular, though the thought was prompted by proudtobegop's question: "Which is worse? A politician who is on the "D.L." yet maintains his/her marriage for public appearances and to prevent the kids from overexposure to such tawdry things, or a Senator who proclaims their orientation openly and in doing so causes Americans to discuss these matters around the dinner table with their kids."

He goes on to say that the answer would depend on your party affiliation or leanings -- or something to that effect. But I think he's wrong. I think American's puritanical views have nothing to do with party.

Consider the public uproar over Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" a few years back. Something then about the millions of innocent kids who were watching the Super Bowl.

"My discomfort is about not role modeling stable marriage for children." I understand this, Mark, though it seems to me that this "role modeling" should come from within the home rather than from our politicians; they are far too removed from the children's consciousness to have any real effect as role models.

Granted, the Bill & Monica show was disgusting from all perspectives, but just remember who thought it was worthy of a multi-million dollar investigation and impeachment. You have them to blame for having had to discuss with your child, for I'm certain he and Hillary would have preferred the dress staying in the closet.


Posted by: femalenick | November 27, 2007 5:42 PM | Report abuse

well, dave, doesn't matter what targets or moving goalposts or whatever in iraq. we aren't leaving. bush has just set up an agreement with maliki to keep our troops there permanently to 'protect american businesses operating there' and 'Iraqi resources.'

Posted by: drindl | November 27, 2007 5:36 PM | Report abuse

'so instead they resort to personal attacks'

from koz -- he's unaware of the meaning of the word 'irony' you see.

Posted by: drindl | November 27, 2007 5:33 PM | Report abuse

bsimon,
"Remind me again how many targets teh Bush admin has yet hit - with or without moving them."

More than if the Dems had had their way. Those targets represent progress in Iraq, progress garnered because the US is there. While we don't know exactly what would have happened had we pulled out like the left base wanted, current theory held that it would have contributed to the civil war and there would have been no enforcement abilities to hold it in check.

Posted by: dave | November 27, 2007 5:21 PM | Report abuse

"do you want me to cast around for a job for you in Austin?"

:) Naw, I like the seasons too much. The mill pond across the street is covered with ice - I can't wait until my daughter is old enough to learn to skate. Women's hockey is huge up here, by the way.

The first day of single-digit temps can be rough - particularly when its unexpected. In Feb, after the annual deep-freeze, when it WARMS to 5° it feels Great!

Posted by: bsimon | November 27, 2007 5:04 PM | Report abuse

Its about 68F and very sunny - a chill November day.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | November 27, 2007 4:52 PM | Report abuse

bsimon, do you want me to cast around for a job for you in Austin?

Posted by: mark_in_austin | November 27, 2007 4:51 PM | Report abuse

Mark - it is that way because the Dems must avoid discusssing the issues. they are a loser with the voters. so instead they resort to personal attacks meant to divide and distract the voters from their liberal agenda.

then if any dirt emerges about a Dem, it is labled old news, as if clinton and scandel is expected. well, it is.

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 27, 2007 4:43 PM | Report abuse

"If I sound bitter its because I woke up to 5° temperatures this AM."

I can see how bitter cold temperatures can affect one's disposition! Does the brain freeze? Just kidding, bsimon.

Posted by: femalenick | November 27, 2007 4:40 PM | Report abuse

femalenick, I just saw your comment about shielding children from sex. I do not know to whom you were replying.

My discomfort is about not role modeling stable marriage for children. There are too many Giuliani type marriages [thank you, drindl, for the example] and too few that have the appearance of the Edwardses and the Romneys, to pick two persons I am unlikely to ever vote for but who, nevertheless, get points for role modeling
[Ghost-of-Seamus, I apologize in advance].
drindl had to deal with her daughter about RG, and I had to deal with two of mine during Clinton's Presidency.

It does not have to be that way.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | November 27, 2007 4:38 PM | Report abuse

"Snow people...mutter, mutter."

So says the sun-addled Texan. Grumble, grumble.

If I sound bitter its because I woke up to 5° temperatures this AM.

Posted by: bsimon | November 27, 2007 4:36 PM | Report abuse

We used to have dcAustinite and someone else in SF who were Horns, too. I have my suspicions about RadicalPatriot, too.

We were the most reasonable persons on the website south of bsimon and west of JimD. I do not understand how anybody could have taken offense to li' ol' us.

Snow people...mutter, mutter.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | November 27, 2007 4:20 PM | Report abuse

"ps-any chance your from a school not named university of texas?"

Questioon, jaymills1124: besides Mark_in_Austin and I, who are the other Longhorns on this blog?

And buckidean - I'm surprised you don't choose a school of closer proximity to make you gag, e.g., Michigan. We Longhorns save our gagging for the Aggies and Oklahoma.

For the record, I'm a staunch Hillary supporter. I also like Obama and want him to be president - just not now. The times, I believe, call for brass tax pragmatism, not idealism. I also really like Biden and Dodd, who, of all the Dems, are arguably the most qualified to be president. Unfortunately, neither has a prayer. Their showing in the polls is the only one that I can believe. All others are much too fluid, with the campaigns & their supporters touting the polls that show their candidates in the best light -- marketing and spin.

Posted by: femalenick | November 27, 2007 4:12 PM | Report abuse

buckidean - I stopped posting references for people like you when I discovered that you don't read them. You are one of the Clinton mob, obviously, and no amount of rational discussion will cause you to alter your lunatic beliefs.

But, remember, Hillary has a train of baggage a mile long and the amount of dirt that will simply bury this country in sh*t in the coming election will be YOUR fault. The only way Clinton can win is by depressing the votes of moderates and liberals who loath her. Every media outlet, every mainstream poll, shows that about half of all voters detest her and will not vote for her. Most, even liberals, will vote Republican if they have a choice of anyone but Romney - Huckabee, McCain, even Thompson and Gulianni all tie or lead her. Her campaign managers obviously want to run against Guliani because thye view him as having even more dirty laundry than her (hence, the London Times report about her campaign being a part of the various character assasinations of everyone but him). That stategy, may end up actually winning the general election, but will ultimately harm genuine progressives and Democratic candidates across the board. It will also so split the country that it will be all but ungovernable, except by even more dictitorial means used by Bush and his people. Make no mistake about it, Ms. Clinton cares for no one but Hillary, not the country, not liberals, not Democrats, not the poor and sick, and not the people of this country. If that is too harsh of an indictment for you to stomach, then you had better start thinking and reading about the gutter snipe you support. And, I said Hillary is WORSE than Bush and Pat Robertson; that is not hyperboly, either. She will say anything, do anything, be anything to achieve her blind ambitions for power and glory and money. You, on the other hand, are nothing more than road kill she will leave behind. Stop being a fool.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | November 27, 2007 3:57 PM | Report abuse

At 2:20 PM, EST, King of Zouk posted the following
mathematical riddle:

"fifty years and only two Dem presidents. no wonder why."

While MoreAndBetterPolls does not pretend to possess the King' s training in mathematics, MABP offers this possible solution. The "fifty years" of the King's conundrum are not those beginning November 28, 1957 and concluding November 27, 2007!

No - the answer to the King's absolutely brilliant puzzle is that Jackson and Van Buren were the first two Democratic presidents and thus, in 1838, only two democrats had served as Chief Executive since George Wshington's first election in 1789.

King of Zouk, you were stellar.

Posted by: MoreAndBetterPolls | November 27, 2007 3:52 PM | Report abuse

If you want to lose a war, who
better to deliver that message than a loser?
Jewish World Review, by Jack Kelly Original Article
Posted By: Ripper1 - 11/27/2007 12:19:19 PM Post Reply
In his weekly radio address, President Bush gave thanks for American servicemen "who risk their own lives to keep us safe." Democrats chose retired Army Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez to deliver a rebuttal. (Snip) If you want to lose a war, who better to deliver that message than a loser? Mr. Sanchez, who commanded U.S. troops in Iraq from June 2003 to June 2004, is a retired three star general instead of a serving four star general chiefly because the Abu Ghraib prison scandal happened on his watch.

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 27, 2007 3:51 PM | Report abuse

buckidean-no prob(thank god another big ten guy is in here)

bsimon-to translate zouk's blather i think he's saying, the goal posts have moved, dubya lowered the bar for achivement. not very encourging for iraq if you have to keep doing that every 3 or 4 months.

Posted by: jaymills1124 | November 27, 2007 3:46 PM | Report abuse

jaymills - thanks for the welcome, I've been here for quite a while, I just didn't post for a very long period. I am consequently well aware of zouk's reputation and his affinity for baseless rants.

I went to Ohio State....the mere thought of UT makes me gag. I'm just happy we came out on top the last time we played eachother in football. Nice city, though....been to Austin, it is pretty cool.

Posted by: buckidean | November 27, 2007 3:35 PM | Report abuse

"There is no way a politcian can win if 51% of voters wont support them and show up at the polls." - mibrooks27

Um.....first of all, show me where you get 51% from. A link, please. Last I saw it was about 40%, which is lower then the % of people who said they would never vote for Bush in '04.

Second of all, it is very possible for a politician to win even if 51% of voters say they won't vote for him/her - their opponent simply has to have an even higher level of core opposition. Fortunately for Hillary, this seems to be the case with ALL of the leading republican candidates, as she defeats them all in almost every valid poll of late. It seems Mittens and Giuliani are even less acceptable to voters than Hillary is.

Who can blame them?

Posted by: buckidean | November 27, 2007 3:28 PM | Report abuse

KoZ writes
"Based on your moving target requirments, I must assume that is your goal."


LOL!! You're the guy claiming success from the surge when less than half the metrics for success have shown any progress. 2007 had record US casualties - but overall violence is down, so you want to call it a success, despite zero political progress from the Iraqi 'government'.

Talk about moving targets! Remind me again how many targets teh Bush admin has yet hit - with or without moving them.

You're a comic genius.

Posted by: bsimon | November 27, 2007 3:26 PM | Report abuse

"Caludia, as I have said repeatedly, Clinton is a dirtbag, one of the most dangerous people in America. Hillary Clinton is our George W. Bush and Pat Robertson rolled up in one; we either stop her or she and the cool aide drinking nut cases that support her will drive the Democratic bus off a cliff." - mibrooks27

Hillary is like Pat Robertson? What?.......

brooks, this is the is the kind of Hillary-hating rhetoric that has gone well off the deep end and turns people off to you and your ilk. If you want to argue agianst Hillary - fine - but don't sund like such a whak-job lunatic in the process. I never thoguht I would live to hear someone liken Hillary to Pat Robertosn, of all people.

Posted by: buckidean | November 27, 2007 3:23 PM | Report abuse

zouk's winning hearts and minds(and losing bSource: IOL

Baquba, Iraq - A woman suicide bomber blew herself up as a US foot patrol passed in the city of Baquba, north of Baghdad, on Tuesday, killing one civilian and wounding seven, police said.

US military spokesperson Major Peggy Kageleiry confirmed the attack by a "female" bomber but had no immediate word on any casualties among US troops.

A Baquba police officer said the bomber struck the patrol in the city's central Al-Amin neighbourhood.

Insurgents have stepped up attacks in Baquba in recent weeks despite a joint US-Iraqi offensive against Al-Qaeda fighters in the areaadly) mean while back in iraq

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=123&art_id=nw20071127210456785C630232

by zouk's arguements, the surge is working, totally ignore the fact that suicide bombings is going on, and no political decisions on anything have happened, but yet zouk here wants to stay, my advice is everyone chips in a dollar so we can send him there. im willing to pony up 5 bucks anyone else?

Posted by: jaymills1124 | November 27, 2007 3:12 PM | Report abuse

And here's National Security Council staffer Brett McGurk:

"It sends a signal to the region ... that the United States is committed to Iraq for the long term -- that we're not packing up and leaving," McGurk said. "But that nature of our commitment over time will transition, as it should, and that we will have a normalized, bilateral relationship with Iraq."

Credit the administration with a sudden candor. For the first time in four years, it's admitting that its conception of a normal Iraq is one in which the U.S. military operates there forever and ever and ever. It's not quite 6 p.m. Are there any other conspiracy theories sure to arouse anti-American sentiment in the Middle East that the administration would like to confirm before quitting time?

Posted by: drindl | November 27, 2007 3:06 PM | Report abuse

buckiedean-if anyone hasnt welcomed you to the fix,let me be the first. this is probably the poll your looking for

http://www.gallup.com/poll/102862/Democratic-Candidates-Look-Good-Latest-2008-Trial-Heats.aspx

also dont mind zouk, considering he lost his a while back. like the last comment saying hillary will lower gas prices. notice he didnt post a link, either probably imagined or pulled from some far right site like freerepublic or worldnetdaily.

please continue posting here and enjoy your stay

ps-any chance your from a school not named university of texas?

Posted by: jaymills1124 | November 27, 2007 3:05 PM | Report abuse

femalenick - Interesting read! The Zogby Interactive has an error rate that is twic that of their old machine telephone polls. But, it still shows trends, and has been used throughout the current campaign and that trend has voters who say they will never ever vote for Clinton under any circumstances increasing rather dramatically. The current stat, averaged across polls, puts that at 51%. There is no way a politcian can win if 51% of voters wont support them and show up at the polls. So...what is up with the Clinton campaign? I think they ntend to bury voters in so much sh*t, making them so disguested with politics, that they don't show up at the polls...leaving only her nut cases and the reverse nutcases. That would indicate her campaigns whispering campaign against Romney, attacks on McCain and Huckabee - Romney's a drooling idiot, but a boy scout compared to Guliani.

The key is in this statement: "...But the performance of Zogby Interactive, the unit that conducts surveys online, demonstrates the dubious value of judging polls only by whether they pick winners correctly. As Zogby noted in a press release, its online polls identified 18 of 19 Senate winners correctly. But its predictions missed by an average of 8.6 percentage points in those polls...".

Posted by: mibrooks27 | November 27, 2007 3:02 PM | Report abuse

Let me get this straight - is there any measure of success you Libs will accept other than complete and utter retreat and defeat and the loss of the presidential election?

Based on your moving target requirments, I must assume that is your goal.

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 27, 2007 3:00 PM | Report abuse

Zouk-
Let me get this straight. The level of violence in Iraq circa 2005 is now a sign of success?

Posted by: bsimon | November 27, 2007 2:57 PM | Report abuse

I saw a very funny tape from last year before the election with hillary promising to lower gas prices if we elected Dems to the majority in congress. since then gas prices have gone up something like 55%.

so either Dems understand nothing about economics or they are liars or both. take your pick.

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 27, 2007 2:56 PM | Report abuse

buckidean writes
"It was an ONLINE poll, NOT a telephone poll. The methodology of the poll is crap. Teh sampling is crap. The wording is crap. Everything about Zogby, especially the online "polls", are CRAP."

My understanding of his online polls is that he gets a bunch of people to take his surveys, then restricts his population to get a scientifically valid sample. So, theoretically, even if he gets 90% self-identified Repubs, he'll only use enough of those folks to represent the normal GOP distribution in the US population.

Its not to say Zogby is any better or worse than other polling outfits, just that his methodology is different, but still attempts to obey the same long-established rules about creating a valid sample. His data is worth considering, along with the other polls. Most of them are irrelevant for point-in-time analysis, but more useful for determining trends.

In other words, Zogby might be 'wrong' to predict that HRC would lose to any Repub by exactly 5% if the election were held today. But the exact figure isn't as interesting as the comparison to his numbers from July that showed an HRC victory. What IS interesting - and a very valid lesson to take from his data - is that the trend shows softening (crumbling?) support for HRC. As people start paying more attention, do they find less to like in her? Or do the not think differently about her so much as they think differently about her rivals?

The danger in any of these polls is in asking the wrong questions of the data.

Posted by: bsimon | November 27, 2007 2:56 PM | Report abuse

you mean like Korea, Germany, Japan, Phillipines, etc.

Just how unaware are you Dems? do you read anything that resembles real news or just stick to Olbermann, Kruggman, Stewart and clinton? you Libs keep demonstrating that you simply can't be trusted with anything military. that your foreign policy of surrender and defeat and talk, talk, talk is clueless as it always has been. but you are not fooling anyone. even the simple minded voters know this and return Rs to the President every time. and will again.

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 27, 2007 2:52 PM | Report abuse

Fascinating read on the London Times about Hillary's campaign going "black" and her mud machine - http://timesonline.typepad.com/uselections/2007/11/history-accordi.html

It now is being reported that Hillary has been in conact with Matt Drudge! Caludia, as I have said repeatedly, Clinton is a dirtbag, one of the most dangerous people in America. Hillary Clinton is our George W. Bush and Pat Robertson rolled up in one; we either stop her or she and the cool aide drinking nut cases that support her will drive the Democratic bus off a cliff.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | November 27, 2007 2:50 PM | Report abuse

buckidean and milbrook27, you both might find the following article interesting.

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB116360961928023945-NgMgbTwNTEbcTx_C47luM8eH8lM_20071115.html

Posted by: femalenick | November 27, 2007 2:50 PM | Report abuse

"American and Iraqi governments will start talks early next year to bring about an end to the allied occupation by the close of Mr. Bush's presidency."


The negotiations will focus on when to declare the occupation has officially turned into a training exercise, whereby the US forces will move to permanent bases, that they will occupy - er, inhabit - for the forseeable future. This is a reversal of US policy, which until yesterday officially declared there would not be permanent US military bases in Iraq.

Posted by: bsimon | November 27, 2007 2:47 PM | Report abuse

"Hillary Defeatable By 5 GOP Frontrunners All five of the leading Republican presidential candidates would beat Democrat Hillary Clinton in a head-to-head match-up, according to a surprising new poll from Zogby International

Is anyone surprised by this?" - zouky

No. Zogby online polls are worth less than ice at the south pole. If you're looking for a more accurate poll, check out the Gallup poll that came out the day after. You'll be noticeably less thrilled with the results.

Posted by: buckidean | November 27, 2007 2:44 PM | Report abuse

Talks Are Set on Ending Battle of Iraq American and Iraqi governments will start talks early next year to bring about an end to the allied occupation by the close of Mr. Bush's presidency.

how dare a politician do what he promises. how will this make all Dems look?

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 27, 2007 2:40 PM | Report abuse

"When you have 51% of the country who said they would not vote for her under any circumstance." - bhoomes

Wow, the American people must hate the republican candidates (Mittens, Giuliani, McCain) even MORE if a woman that 51% of the country won't vote for (according to you, that is) is leading them ALL in the polls by at least 5%!!!

Probably just America's way of politely telling the GOP to find another candidate that dosen't suck , eh?

Posted by: buckidean | November 27, 2007 2:36 PM | Report abuse

First, I hate that the words "liberal" and "conservative" are so readily bandied -- by the media and the posters on this blog. The fact is that closer scrutiny of most people's views show that the applicability of the term is always issue specific. Republicans and Democrats alike should be upset that the words now often misrepresent their respective views. Not all "liberals" are for gay marriage any more than all "conservatives" being anti-abortion. So using the words as political labels serve only to kill rather than encourage thoughtful discussion.

Second, I think that we are way too uptight about sex in this country. I'm with Mark, Claudia, and others who believe that what happens behind closed doors with consenting adults is none of our business. But I don't understand this need to shelter children from discussions of sex and related matters. Granted, you have to factor in a child's age to determine the best way to discuss these matters, but I think that shielding them from the world is a disservice.

Posted by: femalenick | November 27, 2007 2:35 PM | Report abuse

'I think I was in the sun too long, the Libs are starting to make sense to me.'


yeah we had more US casualties in Iraq this year than ever before -- more deaths, more traumatic brain injuries, more amputees.

aah, the sweet smell of success. it smells a lot like rotting flesh, apparently.

Posted by: drindl | November 27, 2007 2:34 PM | Report abuse

"What you are blathering about is nothing more than a PR release by the Clinton campaign - that this selected group was interactive. Well, with Zogby polls, they always are! Cease exposing your ignorance of polling and statistical methods for all of the world to see." - mibrooks27

Wow, this drivel makes even less sense.

Sorry to burst your cue theory, but I didn't even know that the Clinton camp had released a press release on this poll.

I am basing my evaluation of tis CRAP poll based on other polls with wildly different results and the fact that zogby interactive polls have had such a dismal track record in the past. Nothing more. Nothigngless.

The only one revealing his ignorance is you. You must not pay attention to any of the polling on general election matchups AT ALL if a poll showing Mittens leading Hillary in the general didn't strike you as odd, considering he has never been within 10 points of her in ANY other poll so far:

Have a look and educate yourself:

http://www.pollster.com/ATrialHeatsALL.php

Posted by: buckidean | November 27, 2007 2:32 PM | Report abuse

If Lott wants to leave the senate to become a lobbyist, he can easily do that b/c Barbour can just schedule the election during the March 11 primary. Simple as that. R's will be at the polls, so it won't matter. It will just be turned into a partisan election, which will favor the Republican candidate if that happened.

Posted by: bryant_flier2006 | November 27, 2007 2:32 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton: 'I Was Deeply Involved With the Irish Peace Process.'

In the latest round of who's-got-the-real-experience-in-foreign-policy, Hillary Clinton tells ABC News:

Then she added a new line-- that she had a role in the Irish peace process. "I was deeply involved in the Irish peace process," Clinton said. "And I know it's frustrating. It took years before the Catholics and the Protestants before Sinn Fein and you know, the DUP would even talk to each other," she added referring to the once-warring parties.

I'll give Hillary Clinton a smidgen of credit - she did travel to the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland several times, and held meetings. She visited Belfast in 1995 and 1997, spoke at the University of Ulster. But much of her visit was lighter, more ceremonial roles, such as lighting the Christmas tree at Belfast City Hall. She read letters from Catholic and Protestant children hoping for peace. Nice gestures, but I'm not sure they could be cited as decisive factors.

this is the experience she is claiming - lighting trees and reading poetry.

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 27, 2007 2:30 PM | Report abuse

bsimon-unforutantely zouk is in what we like to call a "demgasim" he hasnt really commented on the topic, i would just let the little bugger waste bandwith. oh yeah and this-

I think I was in the sun too long, the Libs are starting to make sense to me.

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 27, 2007 01:52 PM

Posted by: jaymills1124 | November 27, 2007 2:28 PM | Report abuse

"but that Zogby poll was conducted like all Zogby polls, from a *selected* group of 1700 and some voters and is statistically valid." - mibrooks27

LOL! Another wingnut....here we go:

Sorry, bud, but you couldn't be more wrong.

It was an ONLINE poll, NOT a telephone poll. The methodology of the poll is crap. Teh sampling is crap. The wording is crap. Everything about Zogby, especially the online "polls", are CRAP.

IT is NOT statisitically valid. You obviously know nothing about the history of Zogby online polls and how incredibly INVLAID they have been in the past.

Oh, and by the way, I'm not a Hillary supporter (in the primary, at least), I was just pointing out how incredibly unreliable that Zogby poll is, and how only a fool would believe the results of a Zogby online interactive poll to be anything but trash.

Posted by: buckidean | November 27, 2007 2:24 PM | Report abuse

"Overall violence in key areas of Iraq has dropped to its lowest levels since the summer of 2005... Hey harry - is this what you meant by "the surge is a failure" ?"


So... Let me get this straight. The level of violence in Iraq circa 2005 is now a sign of success? Wasn't that the year that Rummy declared there was no such thing as an insurgency, just 'a couple dead-enders'?

Posted by: bsimon | November 27, 2007 2:24 PM | Report abuse

"Temperatures Have Fallen Since 1998"

Yet there's less ice in the Arctic than there was in 1997.

In other news, scientists have discovered that cold temperatures being the cause of ice is another long-held liberal myth recently debunked by the crack scientific team at newsmax.com & worldnetdaily.com.

Posted by: bsimon | November 27, 2007 2:20 PM | Report abuse

Last week, a series of reports by U.S. military officials in Iraq revealed the dramatic changes that have taken place there. A 55-percent drop in attacks since the surge offensive began nine months ago. Overall violence in key areas of Iraq has dropped to its lowest levels since the summer of 2005. Iraqi civilian casualties have also fallen, a staggering 60-percent drop since June, down 75 percent in Baghdad alone.

Hey harry - is this what you meant by "the surge is a failure" ?

Hey hillary - still suspending disbelief? do you beleive you are sinking in the polls? can you say Dean? Our varsity is going to tear up your JV team of Obama and edwards.

fifty years and only two Dem presidents. no wonder why.

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 27, 2007 2:20 PM | Report abuse

I think I was in the sun too long, the Libs are starting to make sense to me.

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 27, 2007 01:52 PM

yawn, still didnt answer the question. what do you think about the topic?

anyways back on topic(i know zouk is ignoring me) is there really anyone up to the task of running for the open seat? i hear former mike moore is interested. would MS make CC's senate line in the near future?

Posted by: jaymills1124 | November 27, 2007 2:20 PM | Report abuse

I see we have the "Hillary Lovers" on today in a big way. I can hardly wait until 20 Jan 09, when Hillary is sworn in as POTUS to see how many of you are not going to heard from. It really is shameful that supposeded well informed people could even think we/us Hillary supporters could be the least bit fooled by your tactics. We know you are scared to death of Hillary, for you know in your heart of hearts there is no way any of the repubs can beat her in the General election, and you are trying every way you can think of to stop her in the primary, just as I have said so many times, and how ACCURATE I have been all along.

Posted by: lylepink | November 27, 2007 2:18 PM | Report abuse

There you again Drindl, attibuting positions to me I do not hold. Just telling you the cold hard truth that no matter who wins next year we stll be Iraq in some capacity for decades to come. I would expect a young school girl not to understand this, but surley you don't believe if a dem wins next year we will be out of Iraq.

Posted by: vbhoomes | November 27, 2007 2:17 PM | Report abuse

So you Libs have found a talent you are good at - writing paragraph after paragraph without saying anything. Maybe that's why your books are always in the 50% off bin.

drindl - didn't slick willie promise that we would only be in bosnia for one year - back in 1998. you guessed it - still there - no progress to speak of and no motivating american interest. but since a Dem started it, who cares?

and I recall the fact that Bush proclaimed from day one that this would be hard, long struggle. I know when you Libs hear those words, you can only think about bill.

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 27, 2007 2:15 PM | Report abuse

proudtobeGOP writes
"it has everything to do with party affiliation."

Kindof like how you criticize the Dems for hypocrasy, but ignore the inherent conflict between small gov't/libertarian conservatives and social conservatives that want to regulate personal behavior and medical decisions?

proud, seems to me like there's enough hypocrasy to go around, you don't have to stick just one party with the label.

Posted by: bsimon | November 27, 2007 2:13 PM | Report abuse

Dem analysis - throw a dart at negativity and hope you hit something. targets - war, economy, civil rights, homelessness, tax policy, environment, health care for the poor, childrens lunches, etc.-all issues americans agree with,dunno about kids lunches but im sure the democrats have a platform for that

If it doesn't play in the press this month try again next month.-or better yet have a fake press brefing like the dem-oh wait thats the gop

Ignore any basis in reality.-BWAHH HA HA HA HA HA!!!!111! this coming from you?

Hey Libs, what happened to all the war press coverage? good news not fit your model?-well if its going so good, then why dont we withdraw? hmm?

We are not going to forget that you did everything you could to lose this war. we will not let you claim any credit for victory. Play the tape Harry.-ok who's this we thing? and right on time, your harry reid delusion kicked in.

I am still suspending disbelief that you will nominate hillary.-dont hold your breath, still didnt answer my question, hows that search for the next reagan going?

you know we can go on ad nauseum like this all day. here's a suggestion, how about you comment on topic? mmkay? i wanna know what you think about it. seems like everytime theres bad news about the gop you come in here with your pom poms screaming about some strawman. but i like this comment from you so every time you post im gonna post it too.

I think I was in the sun too long, the Libs are starting to make sense to me.

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 27, 2007 01:52 PM

Posted by: jaymills1124 | November 27, 2007 2:09 PM | Report abuse

I see the moonbats are still heavily populating this site.-ah yes more insults from the king, just so you know there are more sane conservative posters but most dont start a sentence with the word moonbat or lib.

but just for kicks, any of you moonbats care to take on any issues based on reason and logic. I know it is a lot to ask, probably beyond the pale.-logic was never your stong suit was it?

but perhaps you are right - ratings mean nothing when profit is evil. taxes are a good way to punish that evil and reward sloth. surrender and defeat is admirable since it costs money and stature. It all makes sense from the Lib point of view.-so what your saying is... ok im not sure what your saying, all i read was lib lib lib lib. you know debating with folks like marine mike or jd is enjoyable, you on the other hand is getting too easy

I think I was in the sun too long, the Libs are starting to make sense to me.

sorry slick, i didnt think you were making sense to begin with.


Posted by: jaymills1124 | November 27, 2007 2:00 PM | Report abuse

'Drindl no matter what any candidate may say, we will have troops in Iraq for decades to come(See Korea)Some in your party are total dupes and will believe anything.'

yes, i guess you would be one of them, because when the 'war' first started almost 5 years ago, folks like you were saying it would be over in 3 months and oil revenues would pay for it.

now you'r saying it's perfectly okay to spend trillions of dollars and many years and lives occupying a country that presents no dnager to us, so american corporations can do business there.

It's the New Normal. We were always at war with Oceania.

Posted by: drindl | November 27, 2007 1:59 PM | Report abuse

Dem analysis - throw a dart at negativity and hope you hit something. targets - war, economy, civil rights, homelessness, tax policy, environment, health care for the poor, childrens lunches, etc. If it doesn't play in the press this month try again next month. Ignore any basis in reality.

Hey Libs, what happened to all the war press coverage? good news not fit your model?

We are not going to forget that you did everything you could to lose this war. we will not let you claim any credit for victory. Play the tape Harry.

I am still suspending disbelief that you will nominate hillary.

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 27, 2007 1:58 PM | Report abuse

I see the moonbats are still heavily populating this site. but just for kicks, any of you moonbats care to take on any issues based on reason and logic. I know it is a lot to ask, probably beyond the pale.

but perhaps you are right - ratings mean nothing when profit is evil. taxes are a good way to punish that evil and reward sloth. surrender and defeat is admirable since it costs money and stature. It all makes sense from the Lib point of view.

I think I was in the sun too long, the Libs are starting to make sense to me.

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 27, 2007 1:52 PM | Report abuse

'maybe a mid east peace accord' - gee, tht's great. hadn't heard about it. link?

Kruggman has been predicting this for years now -- yes, subprime mortgage meltdown threatening the world's economy. Yes he did predict that for years -- no one listened.

Hey didha know an Enmirate bailed Citibank out and now owns a big chunk? How long before the oil princes own everything in america?

you never had an original thought in your life, let alone any convictions or principles.

Posted by: drindl | November 27, 2007 1:47 PM | Report abuse

"the richest percentage of the population give nothing to support the federal government "

Drindl - this statement alone disqualifies you from trying to argue from reason. fine if you want to base your entire being on female emotionalism and frantic over-the-top delusion.

But everyone knows who pays the taxes in this country.

Please do ignore me drindl, you are a loon. My thoughts are intended for bloggers who are capable of reason.

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 27, 2007 1:45 PM | Report abuse

Drindl no matter what any candidate may say, we will have troops in Iraq for decades to come(See Korea)Some in your party are total dupes and will believe anything. Personally I think the only person who is more hawkish than Hillary is McCain. Ah, I guess libs do love Wars afterall, all long as a Dem starts it.

Posted by: vbhoomes | November 27, 2007 1:43 PM | Report abuse

De Palma's Iraq Film Bombs Anti-American, anti-war film, Redacted, took in just $25,628 in its opening weekend in 15 theaters despite an A-list director, a huge wave of publicity and favorable reviews
-ok wiseguy then where are the conservative movies? hmmm?

lib,lib,lib,lib,lib,blah blah blah, do yourself a favor zouk give it a rest.

Posted by: jaymills1124 | November 27, 2007 1:40 PM | Report abuse

Are we prepared to fight?

Yes.

We will fight them on the beaches, we will fight them in the hedgerows, we will fight them in the forests, we will fight them in the mountains.

The Blue Wave is coming and it will be everywhere.

Nothing is safe.

Because, in the end, America stands for the core values of Truth, Justice, and the Middle Class way of life, no matter what the Republicants may lie to themselves about how we are for the ultra-rich and the powerful alone.

Posted by: WillSeattle | November 27, 2007 1:40 PM | Report abuse

zouk-1:18, your a little late, usally you would come in at noon, post your drive by comment about nothing and leave. are you feeling well buddy? just curious here. i mean really have you been right about anything?

this discussion is all moot-the fact that the fix-er are even talking about it pretty much ended that train of thought!

the idea that Miss or wyoming would elect a Dem is just fantasy-hi zouk, im sure you met senator jim webb of Virgina or possibly senator claire mckasill of missouri?

that is the same day that drindl acknowledges something good the bushies did - like maybe a mid east peace accord? Is today the day the sky falls? Kruggman has been predicting this for years now, eventually, he will get one thing right.-like you ever got anything right? wanna lay your kingship on the line for 2008?

I was most amused that Krazy Keith made it on the Simpsons. He has found his niche in the news world, guest broadcaster on a cartoon. Probably the best ratings he ever got.-while it was funny that keith olbermann was on the simpsons the other night, you fail to mention his other job on nbc, doing color commentary on sunday night football, unless everyone in america just shuts down the tv from 8 to 11 on sundays.

also saw the polls now put hillary as losing the nationals against just about every R.-also those same polls have obama and edwards beating just about every r, not to mention it was a online poll.

buyers remorse yet Libs?-gee dunno yet, hows that search for the next nixon..i mean reagan going?


Posted by: jaymills1124 | November 27, 2007 1:37 PM | Report abuse

De Palma's Iraq Film Bombs Anti-American, anti-war film, Redacted, took in just $25,628 in its opening weekend in 15 theaters despite an A-list director, a huge wave of publicity and favorable reviews

Lib movies, Lib books, Lib cable, Lib presidents, Lib radio, Lib legislation. always in the toilet.

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 27, 2007 1:36 PM | Report abuse

koz's last post proves that he really is possibly th most selfish and delusional human being on earth, except possibly Rudy himself, and that ignoring him is the only way to keep from losing your lunch.

It seems to me that our Democracy is in dire danger when the richest percentage of the population give nothing to support the federal government and are expected to vote for the politician who promises the most crony hand-outs, corporate welfare and bailouts, and government no-bid contracts.

Posted by: drindl | November 27, 2007 1:34 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Defeatable By 5 GOP Frontrunners All five of the leading Republican presidential candidates would beat Democrat Hillary Clinton in a head-to-head match-up, according to a surprising new poll from Zogby International

Is anyone surprised by this?

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 27, 2007 1:34 PM | Report abuse

Temperatures Have Fallen Since 1998 The latest US satellite figures show temperatures having fallen since 1998, declining in 2007 to a 1983 level - revised figures show 1943 was hottest year on record, not 1998

Another Lib mytyh in danger of reason

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 27, 2007 1:33 PM | Report abuse

KOZ - As for Hllary, I am a lot of Dem's can't stand her and wont vote for her no matter what. Then, there are a lot fo Dem's who will plug their nose and vote for her if the alternative is Guliani or Romney. I cannot think of a genuine liberal who is excited about Clinton, so your example is just plain wrong.

As for a Dem being elected in Miss. or Wyoming, it's rather like a Republican getting elected in Oregon. We elect them when the alternative is a corrupt Dem. - and, unfortunately, we have elected quite a few lately for precisely that reason. A decent moderate Dem. can win in Miss. when the alternative is another Lott or Bush. I don't know the D. or R. candidates in this race, but knowing the RNC, I'd bet that the R. is as corrupt as can be. If the Dem's aren't completely stupid and nominate an honest moderate to moderate liberal, I'd bet you lunch that they do win.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | November 27, 2007 1:29 PM | Report abuse

while back on Zouk island for Thanksgiving I read some Plato. He has four levels of knowledge. It reminded me of this blog.
Level 1 - ignorance
Level 2 - opinion
Level 3 - reason
Level 4 - intellect

Unfortunately, most Libs stop at level 2 and espouse policies and desires based on opinion and feeling. they fail to break through to the next level and incorporate any actual reason and logic into their views. In fact, most of the programs they have forced through since the 60s have been abject failures and they still want more.

On Zouk Isle I have began a thanksgiving tradition based on the US model. except on our island, the poor give thanks to the rich for paying for them all year long. It is sort of a reverse trick or treat. the poor go door to door and provide the rich with a nice dinner to say thanks for paying for all the bills all year long. It is really the only thanks the rich ever get. not so in the US where even after paying for everything, the rich are still demonized for political gain and the only question is, how much more can we get from you.

It seems to me that our Democracy is in dire danger when over half the population give nothing to support the federal government and are expected to vote for the politician who promises the most hand-outs.

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 27, 2007 1:28 PM | Report abuse

bsimon, you forgot to bring up Maryland's deal with the devil - when the heavily Democratic administration cut an even worse deal (worked out to ~$1,000/hr) with Peter Angelos. Even gave him enough $ to buy the O's from EBW's estate.

Of course, the fact that he kicked in mucho denairo to the Governor's war chest, as did the other trial lawyers in the coalition, had nothing to do with getting such a sweetheart deal.

Posted by: JD | November 27, 2007 1:28 PM | Report abuse

Does anyone here have any opinion on the agreement now being drawn up for permanent bases and a permanent occupation of Iraq? Cheney has said to some reporters OTR, that the permanent presence will be about 50,000.

Posted by: drindl | November 27, 2007 1:26 PM | Report abuse

KOZ wrote: "Her activites while there included riding elephants..."

So she *is* qualified for the job.

Posted by: novamatt | November 27, 2007 1:25 PM | Report abuse

The reason why people like Vitter and Craig get dinged for weird sex is the same reason Gore got dinged for having a five-figure electric bill. Walk the walk.

Posted by: novamatt | November 27, 2007 1:22 PM | Report abuse

this discussion is all moot. the idea that Miss or wyoming would elect a Dem is just fantasy. that is the same day that drindl acknowledges something good the bushies did - like maybe a mid east peace accord? Is today the day the sky falls? Kruggman has been predicting this for years now, eventually, he will get one thing right.

I was most amused that Krazy Keith made it on the Simpsons. He has found his niche in the news world, guest broadcaster on a cartoon. Probably the best ratings he ever got.

I also noticed that there has been some examination of hillary's WH experience. She visited 76 foreign countries. Her activites while there included riding elephants, ice skating, eating fancy meals, shopping, etc. Yes, that is the experience that we need from the next intern in the WH.

also saw the polls now put hillary as losing the nationals against just about every R.

buyers remorse yet Libs?

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 27, 2007 1:18 PM | Report abuse

'It becomes a feeding frenzy when any R politician has some moral lapse, '

it becomes that when any of them do --except Rudy, apparently. The MSM doesn't seem inclined to talk about it much.

Do you really not remember the several year feeding frenzy about Clinton's affair? that was the mother of feeding frenzies. Everyone from all media and both parties couldn't get in line fast enough to smear him -- especially the guys that were having affairs themselves.

You choose to twist and misrepresent what I said -- which was I don't give a damn what politicians do in PRIVATE. It's not my business if they are gay, straight, or go to prostitutes, or whatever. What i object to is flaunting it, like Rudy did, or trying to make the lives of other gay people miserable, like Larry Craig and almost all the other closeted gay republicans have.

Posted by: drindl | November 27, 2007 1:18 PM | Report abuse

"Which is worse? A politician who is on the "D.L." yet maintains his/her marriage for public appearances and to prevent the kids from overexposure to such tawdry things, or a Senator who proclaims their orientation openly and in doing so causes Americans to discuss these matters around the dinner table with their kids.

If the answer depends on party affiliation, then that is hypocrisy at it's worst." -Proud

I think the issue is not that he might have had or is still having homosexual affairs, it's that he regularly votes to deny the same rights to homosexuals that heterosexuals have.

That's hypocrisy to be bothered by. I don't care if he's gay. I think most Dems and Repubs here would agree. But to do one thing and espouse the opposite is sickening.

Posted by: JasonL_in_MD | November 27, 2007 1:16 PM | Report abuse

drindl- IMO, a politician would make that decision whether to be closeted or not, based on career ramifications, not on any sense of honor. Sure there are hypocrits on both sides of the aisle, but keeping things private is a matter of self preservation. It becomes a feeding frenzy when any R politician has some moral lapse, nevermind the fact that liberals supposedly don't make those judgements about others and promote diversity even in the grade school setting.

If 5 year olds can read about Heather having Two Mommies in the school library, then why should anyone be casting stones at politicians who may be gay. Which is it? Ok or not Ok? The liberal message is so confusing.
And it has everything to do with party affiliation.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | November 27, 2007 1:09 PM | Report abuse

bsimon-possibly, i would imagine chuck shumer and the DSCC is having a early new years party right about now. with the DSCC flushed with cash and the right canidate, the open MS seat might be winnable, provided the right dem nominee is chosen.

off topic but it relates to what i just said, did anyone hear about the recent zogby polls talking about hillary tanking against all potental gop nominees? this proves my point about hillary being the best get out the vote for the republicans in ages.

Posted by: jaymills1124 | November 27, 2007 1:09 PM | Report abuse

jaymills writes
"with now BOTH seats in missippi and wyoming up for grabs, this brings tally of gop seats to be defended is 24! i wonder if a possible 25th seat is going to open up?"

It certainly is a bizarre year; and not exactly one that most Rs are looking forward to - bluster aside.

Posted by: bsimon | November 27, 2007 1:00 PM | Report abuse

proud - oh, most of us liberals will admit that we have some real dirtbags and more than a few nutcases amoungst us. As for being genuinely thoughtful, both claudia and I and other liberals on this forum have had kind things to say about the integrity and just plain decency of Republicans like McCain and Huckabee. WE just don't like their policies and support decent and good liberals who have policies that we do agree with. Oh, and in the list of decent, genuine leaders I posted above, I forgot Kucinich, Pelosi, and Thompson.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | November 27, 2007 12:56 PM | Report abuse

PS: If Ann Coulter was a flaming lib, I would still like her because she's funny.'

only if you think jokes about poisoning judges and blowing up newspapers is funny.

'The actual honest-to-god heros, the truly decent men and women, like Obama, Edwards, Huckabee, McCain (I know, I don't like *any* of his policies, either, but what a decent guy), Biden, all get left out in the cold, ignored by the media and the Wall Street yuppies that fund what passes for politcial campaigns in this country.'

totally agree with you there, MikeB.

It has nothing to do with party affiliation, proud. I think it's far more honorable,if you're going to do such a thing, to keep it private. Try to protect your family. But then don't turn around and condemn it when others do it. It's the closet cases like Mr. Wide Stance and Vitter, and apparently Trent, who deal with prositutes and public rest rooms and then preach loudly on the evils of homosexuality that are hypcritical.

Posted by: drindl | November 27, 2007 12:51 PM | Report abuse

everyone-you know i have to throw my two cents in on this whole trent lott situation here. even i dont belive lott is resigning over some mythical sex scandal but mark is right. its his own buisness what he does behind closed doors(as long its not a underaged child or a barnyard animal) if anything he's trying to cash in on a lobbying job before the new rules kick in.

chalk it up to good ol greed.

anyways, with now BOTH seats in missippi and wyoming up for grabs, this brings tally of gop seats to be defended is 24! i wonder if a possible 25th seat is going to open up?

Posted by: jaymills1124 | November 27, 2007 12:48 PM | Report abuse

mark, You bring up an interesting point. The D party is supposed to be the all-inclusive free love party that holds diversity and freedom on social issues at the very top of it's platform. Except when the person in question is not a D, then personal attacks and namecalling are completely legit.

Which is worse? A politician who is on the "D.L." yet maintains his/her marriage for public appearances and to prevent the kids from overexposure to such tawdry things, or a Senator who proclaims their orientation openly and in doing so causes Americans to discuss these matters around the dinner table with their kids.

If the answer depends on party affiliation, then that is hypocrisy at it's worst.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | November 27, 2007 12:40 PM | Report abuse

claudia, I don't think mark wants to defend Guliani. Guliani is every bit as bad a person as Clinton (take your pick, either of them). But, so is Trent Lott, Barbour, Bush, Cheney, Bill Gates, and most of the garbage that passes for Amercian hero's. The actual honest-to-god heros, the truly decent men and women, like Obama, Edwards, Huckabee, McCain (I know, I don't like *any* of his policies, either, but what a decent guy), Biden, all get left out in the cold, ignored by the media and the Wall Street yuppies that fund what passes for politcial campaigns in this country.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | November 27, 2007 12:38 PM | Report abuse

Btw, this is how low the MSM is willing to go to discredit Hillary Clinton. The hatred, the vitriol, the slime, that establishment media will use to discredit her is quite ugly. I told you this would happen to whomever is the Dem frontrunn,er because it always does. The fact that it's a woman seems to take it to another level.

"On the November 18 edition of the NBC-syndicated Chris Matthews Show, host Chris Matthews teased a discussion by asking, " 'She Devil?' Republicans are absolutely demonizing [Sen.] Hillary Clinton [D-NY]." While he spoke, an image of Clinton appeared on screen with the words "She Devil?" below it. Later, an image of Clinton with devil horns appeared on screen while Matthews stated: "We did poll our people and asked 12 of our regular panelists, is it smart politics for Republicans to demonize Hillary Clinton, get real personal about it? Eleven say yes. Just one say, no, it's not smart."

Posted by: drindl | November 27, 2007 12:38 PM | Report abuse

Mr Buckdean: You just keep on believing in the Gallup poll or any other poll you may find. When you have 51% of the country who said they would not vote for her under any circumstance. Thats a polite way of telling dems they better find another candidate. Personally I like Obama but I believe the strongest candidate you could field would be Joe Biden. But I am confident all of Clinton supplicants and sycophants will get in lockstep behind Ms Clinton. Who knew just by living in the WH made you the most experienced. Calling Babs Bush.
PS: If Ann Coulter was a flaming lib, I would still like her because she's funny.

Posted by: vbhoomes | November 27, 2007 12:33 PM | Report abuse

'Point being: it would have been far more cost-effective for the AGs office to _hire_ enough staff to do the deal, rather than subcontracting the job out & giving a private firm a windfall.'

totally agree with you on all points, bsimon. and also with colin and mark. generally speaking, I dislike privatizing government functions because it usually costs the taxpayers far more and both cronyism and fraud and abuse seem quite bountiful today. But occasionally it's appropriate.

But the top firms that have the best track record can ask what they want -- and again, the state agreed to it, even though it looks pretty ridiculous to me. But this is the problem I have with privatized health care. The best doctors will charge the most [meaning only the wealthy can afford them] and the quacks will charge the least so the poor will get even worse care than now.

And Mark, how can you possibly mention Clinton, who at least tried to keep his affair private, and not mention Guiliani? My daughter had to grow up with Guiliani's ugly, sordid, and purposefully public affairs and divorces blasting from the TV for years. He methodically humiliated his wife and children as often as possible.

I simply told her he was a selfish, hateful man who couldn't love anyone but himself, and that I was sorry for his children--and that most people aren't like that. Which I still consider to be true.

Posted by: drindl | November 27, 2007 12:26 PM | Report abuse

One thing Barbour and Mississippi Republicans should ponder is the increased black turnout likely next November if Hillary or Obama is the D nominee. Ticket-splitting is pretty common among white folks in the deep South (check out, for instance, the partisan makeup of the Alabama and Mississippi state legislatures), so a certain number of conservative white Mississippians might well happily vote R for president and Mike Moore for the Senate. All those blacks who will be turning out to be a part of history aren't historically ticket-splitters though. If blacks vote their weight in MS, Moore or whoever wouldn't need to peel off all that many white votes to win. Unless MS Republicans feel really confident about their black voter suppression plans, the R candidate for Senate might well be safer in a low-turnout election, 11 months of incumbency notwithstanding.

Posted by: novamatt | November 27, 2007 12:13 PM | Report abuse

Continuing my tea break.

Some posters have alluded to the sexual innuendo about
Sen. Lott. I want to share a peculiarly personal acute insight into the obvious.

As someone who is enough of a libertarian to believe that PRIVATE sex between consenting adults is nobody else's business, I still have felt uncomfortable, especially in the context of raising four kids, with the PUBLIC discussion of marriages of the "newsworthy" that are wracked with infidelities. We want our kids to be products of happy marriages and to aspire to happy marriages. I believe, from the experience of a lifetime and a career in law, that fewer adults and many fewer children get hurt by faithful and exclusive marriages.

Parenting was just a little easier when the press did not expose us to JFK's serial adultery. But now we are where we are.

The entertainment/sports industry is dominated by childlike adults who make an enormous living play acting or playing the games of their youth. We know that our children must be aware of what passes for marriage in "People" magazine.

How do we explain to our children the Clintons, and the Vitters, and the Craigs? Do we tell them that their children were not hurt because their parents loved them? I think we actually ignore the articles, hope we will not be confronted by our children with the TV news, and hope we can make a better example in our own lives.

Because the press is going to publicize every rumor of indiscretion, I am more comfortable with the very discrete - but especially with the happily married - politician, all else held equal. And yes, I know, nothing else is ever "held equal".

Posted by: mark_in_austin | November 27, 2007 12:11 PM | Report abuse

colin, bsimon, jason -Hi.

Colin - I suggested earlier that under federal statutory notice rules, Lott could send his resignation to the clerk "effective 12:00 AM, January 1, 2008". He would have served, as permitted by S-1, through 2007, only [notice rules do not mandate that you give up even one second of allotted time]. bsimon suggested that might run afoul of "session" rules and I do not know. Do you?

Barbour would view that resignation as a 2008 resignation, allowing an 11-08 election in MS.
---------------------------------
bsimon, like colin and jason, I am predictably not outraged by contingent fees when the bottom line for the state is better than it would have been if the AG handled the case - and in TX, everybody in my profession knew that the ace trial firms
got the state a much better bottom line in the tobacco case than the AG would have. We did have a kickback scandal however. A buddy of the AG who was no ace got a slice of the fees from the big guns because the AG insisted. Ruined Morales' career and hastened the departure of the Ds from statewide politics.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | November 27, 2007 12:06 PM | Report abuse

bsimon -- that's a fair point, but the reality is that no comparable firm would have taken the litigation on under a straight billable hours arrangement. For a case of that magnitude, I would have likely made the same decision MN did, but can see your point and would likely agree in instances where the stakes were smaller. In the private realm, Corporation's GCs definitely are too quick to farm out work that their salaried employees are capable of doing. No doubt state entities frequently make the same mistake.

Posted by: _Colin | November 27, 2007 11:58 AM | Report abuse

"JasonL, count the zeroes."

F*ck! Yeah, totally didn't see that right.

F*ck.

[sarcasm]They may, MAY, have been slightly overcompensated. Just slightly. Only a little bit. [/sarcasm]

Posted by: JasonL_in_MD | November 27, 2007 11:53 AM | Report abuse

buckidean - You members of the rabid Clinton mob have never paid much attention to reality, but that Zogby poll was conducted like all Zogby polls, from a *selected* group of 1700 and some voters and is statistically valid. What you are blathering about is nothing more than a PR release by the Clinton campaign - that this selected group was interactive. Well, with Zogby polls, they always are! Cease exposing your ignorance of polling and statistical methods for all of the world to see. You are not doing anything other than spouting spin from the Clinton machine. It also needs to be known that ABC is reporting very much the same trend with their telephone polls.

The sad fact is, you Clinton nuts are driving the DNC off a cliff in much the same way that Evanglicals did with Bush and the RNC - even the polcieis of the candidates are the same.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | November 27, 2007 11:51 AM | Report abuse

"Looking back, sure maybe you would pick a lesser firm to handle the case"

I question whether its appropriate for the state to farm out work on a speculative basis. Perhaps if they need help, paying a normal billable rate would be more appropriate than encouraging firms to play the lawsuit lottery. Yes, RKMC took a risk in dedicating a lot of resources to the case & were compensated for it (I would say overcompensated); but should the state be encouraging such practices? My gut feel is that No, they should not.

Posted by: bsimon | November 27, 2007 11:47 AM | Report abuse

bsimon -- If I remember correctly, Ciresi -- who is running for Senate in MN right now, handled the Tobacco litigation in MN. He and his firm DID make a ton of money, but they also spent a TON of resources on the project for years. And, I might add, did a very good job representing the state.

Looking back, sure maybe you would pick a lesser firm to handle the case since we know who won and what kind of settlement was procured. But at the time, it was far from a sure thing that states were going to do as well as they did. In that context, do you really begrudge the state hiring a top notch firm to handle things? After all, you really do generally get what you pay for with lawyers, as with most things.

Of course, I'm obviously biased on issues like this and wouldn't pretend otherwise.

Posted by: _Colin | November 27, 2007 11:33 AM | Report abuse

To vbhoomes: I'm curious as to why you would even reference Ann Coulter. To do so nullifies any argument you might make. I don't even know any conservatives who give her any credence at this point.

Posted by: dcgrasso1 | November 27, 2007 11:13 AM | Report abuse

"Besides, they won (probably) billions of dollars. A half million is not a large chunk of that."

JasonL, count the zeroes. I don't know about MS, but in MN, the award was around $2 Billion, of which one firm collected nearly half a Billion in fees. Hey, maybe the state did know how much it would cost them ahead of time - but as a taxpayer, it offends me that they are spending the settlement that is due all Minnesotans on attorneys - nearly 25% of the settlement going to one firm? Then there's the hidden costs of how ever much time the AGs office spent on the issue, not to mention other subcontracted attorneys. Its offensive & wasteful, just like all the pork projects that people get upset about. Point being: it would have been far more cost-effective for the AGs office to _hire_ enough staff to do the deal, rather than subcontracting the job out & giving a private firm a windfall. People post here complaining about the riches earned by blackwater & halliburton, but when a legal firm pulls the same stunt they get all defensive. How about some consistency?

Posted by: bsimon | November 27, 2007 11:13 AM | Report abuse

You know, bsimon, as much as I regularly agree with you, I'm with Drindl on this one. Whe you hire a lawyer, you know exactly how much of the pie you're giving them. If they wanted someone who would take a smaller percentage of the awarded money they could. However, they chose this one. Besides, they won (probably) billions of dollars. A half million is not a large chunk of that.

Posted by: JasonL_in_MD | November 27, 2007 11:06 AM | Report abuse

"I starting to worry the dems may wise up and ditch the *itch with new zogby polls showing her losing to ALL republican nominees." - bhoomes

Yeh, bhoomes, there's a reason no one besides yourself pays any attention to Zogby ONLINE INTERACTIVE polls - they are complete f****** crap. Those polls were ridiculously off in 2004 and in 2006 was the ONLY poll that predicted Bill Ritter would lose in Colorado, a race he ended up WINNING by 15%. That's how incredibly bad they are.

You should pay much more attention tot he Gallup poll that came out the very next day after the Zogby poll that showed Clinton LEADING ALL OF THE TOP REPUBLICANS. Her closest competitor was Giuliani, who was five points behind her. Unfortunately for you and the rest of the right-wingers, Gallup is much mroe reliable.

Apparently you're not savvy enough to know that any poll that shows Hillary Clinton losing a general election matchup to Mitt Romney(LOL!!!) is junk.

Good luck trying to defeat Hillary in the general with either Mittens or Giuliani as you nominee - lol!

Posted by: buckidean | November 27, 2007 11:03 AM | Report abuse

Rep. Hastert also finally resigned yesterday, and the timing of that special election has ALSO become a subject of controversy. Details: http://www.campaigndiaries.com/2007/11/two-resignations-and-one-retirement.html

Posted by: campaigndiaries | November 27, 2007 10:45 AM | Report abuse

'Or an unreasonable overcharge? '

bsimon, I'm not saying that it doesn't sound like an awful lot of money for what they did. However, did not the state agree with the lawyer's terms before they contracted them? Or afterwords, did they complain or contest the charges?

If not, I don't see why CC or anyone else should bring it up, except as a gratuitous attempt to undermine the likely Dem candidate.

AS I said, no one forces you to hire a particular lawyer. It's a marketplace. If you think they are asking too much, you should hire someone else.

Posted by: drindl | November 27, 2007 10:42 AM | Report abuse

mark in austin writes
"I will guess that the cross construction with the Miss. statute, which has the same notice constructions, almost surely, will allow Barbour to eat his cake and have it, too."

Perhaps, but would it not also trap Lott until the notice takes effect on the first day of 2008 in which Congress is in session? Or does the provision create a 'donut hole' in time during which Sen Lott both no longer serves and his resignation officially does not take place?

Posted by: bsimon | November 27, 2007 10:27 AM | Report abuse

"Indeed. In fact, a standard republican talking point. Do you beleive lawyers should work for free? If the state didn't want to pay lawyers in this manner, why didn't they reach an agreement beforehand then? It seems that no one forced the state to hire the lawyers, did they?"

Claudia, you may recall we had this conversation last week. A MN law firm received ~ $445,000,000 for their efforts in the MN settlement with big tobacco. At $200/hr, that works out to 1112.5 man-years. A reasonable slice of the pie for valuable work performed on taxpayers' behalf? Or an unreasonable overcharge?

Posted by: bsimon | November 27, 2007 10:24 AM | Report abuse

Enough of Mississipi, CC.

For Biden fans:

ABC News' Brian Wheeler Reports: Senator Joe Biden, D-Del., released a statement Monday directly attacking both former Mayor Rudy Giuliani, R-N.Y., and Senator John McCain, R-Ariz., over their defense of the troop surge in Iraq.

"Yesterday's attempt by John McCain and Rudy Giuliani to defend the Bush-Cheney troop surge in Iraq totally misses the point - and is misleading to the American people. Security in Iraq is better, thanks in no small measure to our troops. But there is no evidence - none - that the surge is succeeding in achieving its stated objective: to allow Iraqis to come together politically," Biden said in the statement.

Posted by: drindl | November 27, 2007 10:09 AM | Report abuse

Where is the MSM decrying these guys as lacking patriotism? Don't they understand that it's our duty as americans to financially and militarily support every hopelessly inept dictator in the world? Don't they understand how happy we are to pay taxes and borrow endlessly to prop up corrupt politicians like Maliki and Mushariff?

'Two Republican senators said that unless Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki makes more political progress by January, the U.S. should consider pulling political or financial support for his government.

The stern warnings, coming from Sens. Lindsey Graham and Saxby Chambliss Monday, are an indication that while GOP patience on the war has ncreased this fall because of security gains made by the military, it isn't bottomless.

"I do expect them to deliver," Graham, R-S.C., said in a phone interview upon returning from a Thanksgiving trip to Iraq. "What would happen for me if there's no progress on reconciliation after the first of the year, I would be looking at ways to invest our money into groups that can deliver."

And I do have to wonder just exactly who these 'groups' are? Doesn't sound much like an elected government, does it? But we're not even pretending it's about democracy anymore, are we?

Posted by: drindl | November 27, 2007 9:18 AM | Report abuse

right bhoomes and if ann coulter had a v*gina she'd be a woman. and if she had a brain she'd be something other than a foul-mouthed, vile, lowlife scumbag whose worships Hitler, Stalin and Joseph McCarthy.

Posted by: drindl | November 27, 2007 8:49 AM | Report abuse

The thing is Capone, if Lott leaves after the end of the year then Gov. Barbour can just name someone to fill the seat until the election next November, which would obviously be a republican. That would give the new 'senator' a leg up since they would technically be an incumbent.

Posted by: AndyR3 | November 27, 2007 8:38 AM | Report abuse

http://www.towleroad.com/2007/11/is-a-male-escor.html

According to TowleRoad, Lott is resigning due to a scandal about to break between him and a male escort.

Posted by: adsaslll | November 27, 2007 8:35 AM | Report abuse

As they say "Timing is everything in Politics" Mike Moore would be in the odds on favorite if a moderate dem was the nominee but with Hillary at the top of ticket he' toast. I starting to worry the dems may wise up and ditch the *itch with new zogby polls showing her losing to ALL republican nominees. Its why we have been rooting for Hillary. But not to worry to much beacause as Ann Coulter so accurately noted IF DEMOCRATS HAD BRAINS THEY WOULD BE REPUBLICANS.

Posted by: vbhoomes | November 27, 2007 8:29 AM | Report abuse

Why wouldn't anyone from the state expect their Governor to uphold their own laws? It doesn't state that a special election be scheduled to suit any political party, which is what the Republicans apparently would like. If they are holding a primary on March 11th anyway, why wouldn't they fill this seat as soon as possible? Waiting another 8 months when the state and country are facing so many critical issues makes no sense.

Posted by: capone1 | November 27, 2007 8:18 AM | Report abuse

'second: chris, the following phrase: "portions of which wound up in the hands of trial lawyers who helped the states prepare their suits" seems like an unnecessary dig at lawyers'

Indeed. In fact, a standard republican talking point. Do you beleive lawyers should work for free? If the state didn't want to pay lawyers in this manner, why didn't they reach an agreement beforehand then? It seems that no one forced the state to hire the lawyers, did they?

Do you get paid for what you do?

Posted by: drindl | November 27, 2007 8:02 AM | Report abuse

Mark, Barbour shouldn't be eating any cake. Have you seen him lately, he really needs to watch his weight.

Thanks for clearing that up. If they do pull that one off I would still expect the Democrats to challenge it claiming that the 'spirit of the law' is not being upheld, and I have know idea if that would hold up in court or not.

Posted by: AndyR3 | November 27, 2007 7:55 AM | Report abuse

Andy, my first thought, uninformed by any reading of SB 1, was that Lott would take advantage of the two general statutory rules to help Barbour.

1] Usually, the last day of a period is not the day notice is effective: in other words, I suspect for Lott to not serve in 2008 he must resign effective 12:00 AM, Jan. 1, 2008, not effective 11:59:59 on Dec. 31, 2007; and/or:

2] Usually, notice that is due on a day that falls on a Federal holiday is not actually due until the following day.

I will guess that the cross construction with the Miss. statute, which has the same notice constructions, almost surely, will allow Barbour to eat his cake and have it, too.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | November 27, 2007 7:51 AM | Report abuse

By the way if the Democrats do fight Barbour on this one then I bet they try and get this election added to the March 11th primary. That would be within the hundred days and should be easy to do.

Posted by: AndyR3 | November 27, 2007 7:33 AM | Report abuse

I would be curious if anyone in Mississippi knows if Lott and Barbour like each other at all. Seems to me Barbour's announcement yesterday was a premptive strike against Lott basically saying 'if you bow out you better do it after the new year'.
I seriously doubt that Trent Lott cares one ioda what Barbour may think but if the GOP loses his seat in a special election and the Dems then get one step closer to 60 votes then Trent's power as a lobbyist is not gonna be worth a grain of salt come next January.

Posted by: AndyR3 | November 27, 2007 7:17 AM | Report abuse

first: dwightcollinsduarte, please use a spell-checker and learn proper grammar, it may help you get your (weak) point across.

second: chris, the following phrase: "portions of which wound up in the hands of trial lawyers who helped the states prepare their suits" seems like an unnecessary dig at lawyers. while i'm not one either (like you), unless they were pro-bono attorneys, of COURSE some money would wind up in their hands. it's called getting paid, like you and i both do for our jobs as well.

Posted by: IMGoph | November 27, 2007 6:46 AM | Report abuse

dems only interested in power, they could care less of the people and will tax the people to proverty if they could.

Posted by: dwightcollinsduarte | November 27, 2007 6:33 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company