Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

PostTalk: Schumer Denies Clinton Would Be a Drag
On the Democratic Ticket

Note: Please upgrade your Flash plug-in to view our enhanced content.


New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, the man charged with growing Senate Democrats' majority in 2008, dismissed concerns over the potential negative down-ballot effects of Hillary Rodham Clinton as his party's nominee, insisting he has seen first-hand the junior Senator's ability to persuade her skeptics.

"If anything in Upstate New York in late 1999, early 2000 when she just began to run the animus toward her, the negativity, the poll numbers were worse than they are in red states today," Schumer said, referencing Clinton's first Senate bid in 2000. "She wins them over."

He did acknowledge, however, that "in different parts of the country people are going to disagree with Hillary on gun control, maybe on taxes" but said that candidates running for the Senate "will not be afraid" to draw distinctions between themselves and the top of the Democratic ticket.

Schumer's comments came in an interview for PostTalk - washingtonpost.com's web interview program with newsmakers and lawmakers.

As chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, Schumer has watched the playing field for 2008 go from good - 22 Republicans up for re-election compared to just 12 Democrats - to great as four Republicans have decided against seeking re-election next fall.

Those developments have led some Democratic strategists to begin talking seriously -- albeit privately -- about the possibility of controlling 60 or more seats after next November -- a filibuster-proof majority that would constitute real legislative control in the chamber. (The last time either party had a 60-seat majority was in the 95th Congress -- 1977-1979 -- when Democrats controlled 61 seats.)

The expected retirement announcement of Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M,) later today will only add fuel to that fire. Domenici joins Republican Sens. Wayne Allard (Colo.), Chuck Hagel (Neb.) and John Warner (Va.) on the sidelines in 2008 and each of the seats are likely to play host to competitive contests between the parties. Democrats are also heavily targeting incumbents in New Hampshire, Maine, Oregon, Minnesota and making noise about challenges in North Carolina, Tennessee, Alaska and others.

Schumer, for one, insists it is far too early to speculate about 60 seats. "Picking up nine seats you would have to have the miracle of miracles," he said. "To pick up nine seats even under the best of circumstances is very, very difficult." (For those Schumerologists out there -- of which The Fix is one -- this kind of rhetoric is similar to what the New York Senator was saying about retaking the majority at this point in the 2006 cycle.)

While he downplays the possibility of huge Senate gains, Schumer does argue that the political environment continues to shape up in a way that is extremely beneficial for his party's chances across the country.

On Iraq, Schumer insisted that the American public now better understands where the two parties stand. "People have seen Democrats are trying and trying again and trying again to change the course of the war in Iraq and we are being blocked by the Republicans and the president," Schumer said. He added that the Republican Senators most "iffy" about continuing to support the president are those up for re-election in 2008, and he predicted one of two things will ultimately happen on Iraq. "Either enough Republican Senators will break with the president....or there will be an election in 2008 and the American people will make sure there is a change in Iraq."

On domestic issues, too, Schumer argued that the "Reagan shibboleth" of smaller government and lower taxes has been rejected by a public looking for government to provide them a hand up. "The wind is at our back," said Schumer. "The tectonic plates are moving."

By Chris Cillizza  |  October 4, 2007; 10:50 AM ET
Categories:  Senate  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Sen. Pete Domenici Expected to Retire
Next: N.M. Senate: Another Democratic Opportunity

Comments

bsimon,
"Well... I think the 'trickle down' nonsense fit in there somewhere too." When did the "tickle down nonsense" end? It's been close to 25 years. Did Clinton or either Bush roll back the upper end tax rate to pre-Reagan levels? A deficit does not matter. A huge deficit might. A huge permanent deficit does. Schumer is only responsible in that he is going to try to pay for huge and wide ranging government programs by raising taxes. That is the definition of "tax and spend". I have no defense of recent Republican fiscally conservative practices (or lack thereof). Little did any fiscal conservative think that "compassionate conservative" meant spending like a liberal without the slightest attempt to pay for it.

Posted by: Dave! | October 5, 2007 1:18 AM | Report abuse

rush rush zoukzouk

Posted by: rufus | October 4, 2007 10:18 PM | Report abuse

Why do the spineless always retreat? There have been those in the west who say the down tickets are definitely going to be hurt with Clinton on top.
It is a known fact that if Hillary is the nominee not only would she cause a polarization in her own party, with about half refusing to support her, but, she will lose both houses. She will loose any gains made in the west and solidify the republican south.
I do not see any up in a Hillary nomination except for the establishment foisting another loser on the party for yet another election.
Hillary gets the nomination and the republicans gain in the congress and hold the white house yet, the establishment in Washington refuse to see this and don't care.

Posted by: vwcat | October 4, 2007 9:07 PM | Report abuse

hey chris did you guys forget to report this?

By ALAN FRAM Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON Oct 3, 2007 (AP)
Font Size

E-mail
Print
Share


Released Oct 3
http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/client/act_dsp_pdf.cfm?name=mr071003-2topline.pdf&id=3668

Hillary Clinton 35
Obama 23

A new AP-Ipsos poll shows Clinton ahead of Obama 35-23 -- nowhere near the 33 point advantage shown in the ABC/Post poll. The Obama camp offers up some triumphant sarcasm. "A shockwave was sent through Washington late today as the AP released a poll showing that Obama halved Clinton's lead in national polling in just one day," the Obama camp says in a deadly serious press release (we swear this is as real as the Thompson memo above is fake) obtained exclusively by The Note.

Blacks are split down the middle over Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton in the presidential race, seeing both as on their side, a new poll says.
In the late September poll, Clinton led Obama among whites by 35 percent to 18 percent, Blacks were essentially evenly divided, 40 percent for Obama and 38 percent for Clinton. Among all Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents, Clinton led by 35 percent to 23 percent. All those measurements have been steady for months in the AP-Ipsos poll.
Faced with choosing between two potential White House firsts the first black president or the first female black women split 47 percent for Clinton, 37 percent for Obama. Clinton has led decisively among all women nationally.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=3685236

Released Oct 3
http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/client/act_dsp_pdf.cfm?name=mr071003-2topline.pdf&id=3668

Posted by: Anonymous | October 4, 2007 9:01 PM | Report abuse

Ann C. said: "According to a Military Times survey taken in September 2004, active-duty military personnel preferred President Bush to Kerry by about 73 percent to 18 percent. Sixty percent describe themselves as Republican and less than 10 percent call themselves Democrat (the same 10 percent that MSNBC has on its speed-dial). Even among the veterans, Republicans outnumber Democrats 46 percent to 22 percent."

So, let me get this straight: The men and women who put their lives on the line for the US preferred a draft-dodger to a decorated war hero by a margin of 4 to 1? I think this this tells us more about the effectiveness of smear campaigns than it does about people's loyalties. Why is it every time someone opposes this war people like you decry them as un or anti-American?? A person can be a patriot and disagree with bad policy and a bad war, surely.
Or are you really saying that only those who vote republican are 'real' Americans? Sounds very much like Communist China to me...

Posted by: Anthony | October 4, 2007 8:40 PM | Report abuse

Can we all stop ragging on Clinton and give her a break?

Posted by: alexis | October 4, 2007 7:38 PM | Report abuse

That's crazy jason. i clicked on your link, and saw this

"The premise of the Civil War storyline involves the introduction of a Superhuman Registration Act in the United States. Similar acts have been used as literary devices in Watchmen, Uncanny X-Men, DC: The New Frontier, Powers, and The Incredibles, though never on a scale such as permanently altering an entire pantheon of established pop culture icons. Millar has said:"


The watchmen. WHO WATHCES THE WATCHMEN? That's crazy, I was just talking abou tthat book yesterday. Crazy

Posted by: rufus | October 4, 2007 7:01 PM | Report abuse

JasonL you have tried every rational way, but rufus hasn't. Help is available to him, and it wouldn't cost him a cent.

Posted by: Elias | October 4, 2007 6:47 PM | Report abuse

A coward? Please, Rufus. Enough with the name calling. There isn't enough information for me to go on. Feel free to check out wikipedia for a decent synopsis of the events. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_War_%28comics%29

They're also available by download off of bittorrent somewhere, I'm sure.

I just can't understand why you refuse to act liek a normal person on this blog. We;ve tried every rational way of dealing with this issue. That's why I strongly suggest reform of the way commenting works. I'm just so tired of having to wade through BS and belittlement to get to the nuggets of decent conversation.

Posted by: JasonL | October 4, 2007 6:19 PM | Report abuse

How much stock do the Clintons own in Washington Post? It would be news if a conservative stalwart said that Hillary Clinton wouldn't be a drag on the ticket, but the Sr. Senator from New York, and Clinton supporter, pontificating this is just Clinton PR. WaPo isn't even feigning unbiased journalism any more when it comes to its Clinton coverage!

Posted by: Dawn | October 4, 2007 5:29 PM | Report abuse

the coward route, eh. Ok. That is your choice.

you see where I'm coming from? Do you hear me now?

Posted by: rufus | October 4, 2007 5:26 PM | Report abuse

"Refusing to fight back agaisnt his countryman. one is a patriot, one THINKS he's a patriot. But would a patriot attack his own countryman? And is iron man (the corporation) holding him back, for the good of money (the economy)?"
-Rufus
Unfortunately, that picture is not labeled with the comic it's from. Out of context I can't tell you what's going on there. I can tell you that U.S, Agent is a former soldier and most definitely a hero.
------------
P, I'm not saying she could win traditionally blue states and two more. There are more purple states than just Ohio and Florida and I think she can win them. And who says governing is hard with only a slight majority of electoral votes? Didn't seem to bother George W. Bush much. In fact, I believe he said he had "mandate" in 2001.

Posted by: JasonL | October 4, 2007 5:22 PM | Report abuse

"The 'Reagan shebboleth' is not that 'deficits don't matter'. Reagan was willing to endure a deficit in order to rebuild the military to fight the cold war because he believed that one was infinitely more important than the other."

Well... I think the 'trickle down' nonsense fit in there somewhere too.

"I don't think that Schumer is saying we should "live within our means". He is saying that he is going to raise taxes in order to pay for nationalized healthcare and that the era of big government is not over."

Ok. I might have projected some of my own ideas on Schumer, which is obviously silly. I'm all for low taxes, but I'm also for investing in our citizenry in order to save money down the road. I think that certain gov't expenditures will produce a better return than cutting taxes, but that there is a limit to what can be accomplished this way.

At the same time, I think the ongoing Repub claim about 'tax and spend' dems is more than a little disingenuous, given the GOP habit of borrowing & spending.

Posted by: bsimon | October 4, 2007 5:13 PM | Report abuse

Man, jason. I'm disappointed. Now you people now why I do waht I do. There is no rel conversation on this blog anyway. So why not post news articles that the gop is hiding from. What differance does it make if only gop'ers are parroting talking points all day. How do you grow doing that? You don't. That is the point. That is why I'm here. To help you think out of the box. To help you republicans grow. I saw what you need to hear, not waht you want to hear.

PEace. Have a good day everybody. I'll read the rush posts.

Posted by: rufus | October 4, 2007 5:03 PM | Report abuse

Herewith some of my problems with Clinton...

1) In my opinion, she believes in nothing except that she wants to be President. This is unprovable, so I won't try. But she has yet to show me anything that changes my opinion.

2) I, too, feel that she would not be considered a top candidate without Bill. I also have a problem with the Bush/Clinton dynasty issue. These again are my perception, which doesn't necessarily match that of others.

3) The Clintons seem to me to have the same issues regarding control and secrecy as the Bush administration. They use similar methods. I expect no change if a new administration uses the same methods, except for the labels. The secrecy is especially important to me, as I feel that democracy operates best by the light of day. Again, I'm dealing with my perceptions here, but I'll point to the GQ flap as an example.

There are more, but I'll stop here for now...

Posted by: J | October 4, 2007 4:59 PM | Report abuse

Cc posted the rush post. Finally. Go there so I can read your people's response. Let's talk about real topics of the day. Not huckabee, or comic books, although I'd like an answer. But since cc provided balance, after his arm was twisted. I'm done for the day. Don't be hypocrites. Don't let me win. Post your posts. How is the rush and movoen differant

Posted by: rufus | October 4, 2007 4:54 PM | Report abuse

JasonL,

It will be extemely difficult for Hillary Clinton to govern if she wins the "Blue States" plus Florida or Ohio. The democratic nominee has to be competitive in some of the "red states" to govern effectively. Because of the vitriol towards Hillary in the "red states" and "red districts" it will be extremely difficult for her be competitive, and presumably difficult for her to govern if she were to win the presidency.

The fact is there is a candidate who is qualified, accomplished, and not a Bush or Clinton. And he can be competitive in "red states." A candidate who has been speaking about the challenges confronting the U.S. in the coming decades.

Posted by: P | October 4, 2007 4:54 PM | Report abuse

I aplogize to the thread for trying to point out a Zouk hypocrisy, and in doing so provide a path for rufus to go so far afield on that it is mind boggling.

Again, my apologies.

Posted by: Grunt (PH) | October 4, 2007 4:52 PM | Report abuse

come on jason. I want real political conversation, as you people do. Answer my question and I'm done for the day. I promise.

Posted by: rufus | October 4, 2007 4:49 PM | Report abuse

Can't beat somebody with nobody
HRC wins
Only GWB could create such a mess to make it possible

Posted by: Anonymous | October 4, 2007 4:47 PM | Report abuse

i see cap america standing their. Refusing to fight back agaisnt his countryman. one is a patriot, one THINKS he's a patriot. But would a patriot attack his own countryman? And is iron man (the corporation) holding him back, for the good of money (the economy)?

That's it if you answer. Just trying to understand, kind sir :)

Posted by: rufus | October 4, 2007 4:46 PM | Report abuse

JasonL,

That is my point. Who you are married to or who your father is should only be a marginal consideration in electing a president. Likewise when applying to college or for a job. It should be about who you are and what you have accomplished not what a family member has done. Bill Clinton is not a merit. A merit is something you earn.

Meritocracy has long been what this country is about and what has distinguished the U.S. from most western European democracies. Furthermore, meritocracy has provided opportunity to the less fortunate and spawned immigration and emigration.

The NYTimes, Economist, and Wall Street Journal all reported on the dangers of the demise of meritocracy last year. This is a point that has largely been overlooked. Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign and George W. Bush's life are evidence of this problem. And I vehemently disagree that families like the Kennedys, Fords, and I'll throw in the Bushes are good for politics.

Posted by: P | October 4, 2007 4:45 PM | Report abuse

bsimon,
The 'Reagan shebboleth' is not that 'deficits don't matter'. Reagan was willing to endure a deficit in order to rebuild the military to fight the cold war because he believed that one was infinitely more important than the other. There is a difference between deficits that occur for temporary necessities (like wars - and yes, i know that Iraq was not a necessity) and permanent entitlements like nationalized healthcare. Now do I think that we taxpayers should be paying for at least some of these wars now? Yeah, I do. I don't think that Schumer is saying we should "live within our means". He is saying that he is going to raise taxes in order to pay for nationalized healthcare and that the era of big government is not over.

Posted by: Dave! | October 4, 2007 4:44 PM | Report abuse

"Sort of like turning militias into a modern army."

I hear you. Or mercanary armies into real armies? Sounds liek blackwater. Enlighten me jason. I have this piture on my computer right now. It holds political signifigance to me. I obviously have been wrong. What does it mean.

The second from the bottom.

Last marvel question if you answer. I need your comic gauidance as I don't read. Just trying to understand republicans better.

http://www.marvel.com/universe/U.S.Agent

Posted by: rufus | October 4, 2007 4:44 PM | Report abuse

"Back to the point: who's going to pay for all the spending from 2000 to 2008?"
Our descendent's most likely. There will come a time, even if we're more fiscally responsible now, when the interest on the principle is too much to handle. We spend an astounding amount of tax dollars every year paying off the interest now. The tax code needs to be made more progressive. We need to invest heavily in education. The budget needs to get balanced and stay balanced. Eventually, if we do these things we may be able to start reducing the principle.

Posted by: JasonL | October 4, 2007 4:44 PM | Report abuse

"Grow up? I'm not the old man that still reads comic books :)"
-Rufus

Touche. Passes the time, though. It's actually sort of interesting. I stopped reaing comics when I was a kid and recently got back into because I thought Civil War was a fascinating concept. A lot of the Marvel titles have really grown up with me. Mature themes, complex political, social, and philosophical ideas.

"what about iron man and the industrial machine going after the mutants?"
Actually it was less about mutants who were decimated following the events of House of M and more about the rest of the super hero community. Iron Man and the government's position was that super heroes should be trained and licensed so as to protect civilians and property and increase accountability. Sort of like turning militias into a modern army. Interesting stuff.

We're totally off topic now, but do you see how we've actually had a conversation here? You didn't call anyone a fascist or a traitor and I payed attention to you and answered your questions. Don't you think this is better? No one want's you be be silent. We respect your 1st amendment rights, but if you toned down the rhetoric and wrote clearly and concisely about the points you're trying to make you'll make more of a difference.

Posted by: JasonL | October 4, 2007 4:39 PM | Report abuse

just like bill O'rEIllt writes books for children. Marvel was an attempt to "Hook em while their young".

Propoganda for the kids. I know you know this Jason. Fascists. your time is up. You will be done for a generation .Your children and grandchildren will not be corporate slaves as you did. Why should we. The government is ours (the people's). Why should we be slaves to a party? Any party? They are OUR slaves. Time to make them remember that.

Posted by: rufus | October 4, 2007 4:37 PM | Report abuse

"JasonL,

Your comments are so troubling I don't know where to start. There is just a fundamental disconnect with your comments and reality.
"

To much comic books. WArped his mind. He thinks sean hannity and rush are superheros, incognito.

Keep you rhead in reality jason. Stay out of the comic world. It is not reality. Is was all a gop propoganda game starting in the 40's (ww2). It is not real. It is propoganda. I know you gop'ers love your marvel. But it is fake.

Posted by: rufus | October 4, 2007 4:33 PM | Report abuse

anon coward writes
"On domestic issues, too, Schumer argued that the "Reagan shibboleth" of smaller government and lower taxes has been rejected by a public looking for government to provide them a hand up

Hey Schumer whos going to pay the bill for this hand up?"

Mr 'Tax Me' aka Anonymous Coward, the question you fail to ask is "Who's going to pay for all the stuff we're buying on credit now?" What Mr Schumer is saying, I think, is that rather than borrowing money to live high on the hog, we should live within our means. The 'Reagan shebboleth' is that 'deficits don't matter'. They do matter. The reason Reagan got away with the 'deficits don't matter' fallacy is because inflation reduced the real cost of that borrowing, then the booming 90s generated growth in the economy and revenue. These days the Fed worries a lot about inflation - and tries to manage the money supply in order to keep inflation in check - which is one reason they waited to lower the overnight rate until the market was starting to panic.

Back to the point: who's going to pay for all the spending from 2000 to 2008?

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

Grow up? I'm not the old man that still reads comic books :)


what about iron man and the industrial machine going after the mutants? Should I post the stories of winter soldier, us agent, and captain america on this blog? Would that settle the arguement?

It is a comic book. I'll admit I haven't read a comic book in over 15 years. Grow up jason. Grow up :)

Posted by: rufus | October 4, 2007 4:29 PM | Report abuse

"That argument requires more than a 30 second timeframe to explain and thus makes it a losing argument in this day and age."

Sadly, I don't disagree.

Posted by: bsimon | October 4, 2007 4:23 PM | Report abuse

Democrats show their true colors of higher taxes

On domestic issues, too, Schumer argued that the "Reagan shibboleth" of smaller government and lower taxes has been rejected by a public looking for government to provide them a hand up

Hey Schumer whos going to pay the bill for this hand up?

Posted by: Tax me Tax me | October 4, 2007 4:21 PM | Report abuse

Your last post about meritocracy is what I was replying to. I'm saying that Clinton has merits. Bill is one of them.

As to the hypothetical, she probably wouldn't be a first tier candidate, but not for the reason you suggest. She got experience in politics, policy, public speaking, and other ares. That experience adds to her candidacy. Without it, she's not much different from Obama, who I like but I think is too inexperienced to be the President.

How would polls suddenly become irrelevant the day after she's nominated? The polls are based on how people would vote if she was nominated. Again, there haven't been major attacks on her character or policies yet but mud will fly on both sides.

As to abhorrent. Show me the states that are reasonably in play where Clinton loses because she's "abhorrent." quite the opposite, she leads in national polling and against every Republican running. She won't get votes in Red strongholds but no Democrat will.

Posted by: JasonL | October 4, 2007 4:20 PM | Report abuse

bsimon,
He listed a other events like the Blackwater shootings that did similar things. I'm not arguing that Biden's plan, in a reverse psychological sort of way, is not beneficial. I'm saying that Biden will not be successful making that case to a large number of the American people. That argument requires more than a 30 second timeframe to explain and thus makes it a losing argument in this day and age.

Posted by: Dave! | October 4, 2007 4:19 PM | Report abuse

JasonL,

Your comments are so troubling I don't know where to start. There is just a fundamental disconnect with your comments and reality.

Posted by: P | October 4, 2007 4:13 PM | Report abuse

Rufus, U.S. Agent was mostly around during the nineties I believe. As far as I know, he was only in the "Choosing Sides" portion of Civil War. You can learn more about U.S. Agent on wikipedia, I'm sure.

As to how Cap was killed:
"On his way to an arraignment at the Federal Courthouse in New York City, Captain America was shot in the right shoulder by a sniper's bullet. Several subsequent shots were fired point blank at Rogers by Sharon Carter, brainwashed by Dr. Faustus who was allied with the Red Skull. Sharon, unaware of her actions and concealed by the crowd during the shooting, escorted Rogers to the hospital while the Falcon and the Winter Soldier subdued the sniper, Crossbones (Brock Rumlow). Captain America was pronounced dead on arrival at Mercy Hospital. Sharon's memory was restored by a keyword spoken by the Red Skull's daughter, Sin (Sinthia Shmidt)."

Back to your behavior, what does Hannity and O'Reilly have to do with posting on the Fix. Sean Hannity isn't here. You're snot stopping him. You aren't convincing anyone to come around to your way of thinking, you're cluttering the comments section with stuff that we skip rather than read.

Grow up.

Posted by: JasonL | October 4, 2007 4:12 PM | Report abuse

dON'T GET ME WRONG. I AGREE THAT THIS KIND OF POLITICAL DIALOGUE IS BAD FOR THIS COUNTRY.

But I'm just showing you people why. If you would whine and cry for me to be silenced, with my 5 readers, why would you not think fox and rush should be silenced with their million sof listeners? With there, running the country at all.

Hypocrites?

Practice what you preach

Posted by: RUFUS | October 4, 2007 4:11 PM | Report abuse

"Cheslea would be short on experience at that point (not that that seems to matter to many). But does Jeb Bush work?"

There're always the Cheney girls.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 4, 2007 4:10 PM | Report abuse

Dave! writes
"And in order to help achieve those goals, it is beneficial to do things that push Iraqis towards expressing Iraqi sovereignty - could anybody be doing that better than Bush (he asks cynically)?"

But isn't Ignatius's point that the Bush policy hasn't successfully moved the Sunnis & Shia towards the solidarity that sovereignty requires? But that the Biden plan did exactly that - it inspired two groups that have been fighting each other to join together and say "Hey, you can't tell us what to do!" Biden has kids, perhaps he learned reverse psychology at home?

Posted by: bsimon | October 4, 2007 4:08 PM | Report abuse

JasonL,

See my last post re meritocracy. And I'll pose a question, its a hypothetical, I hope you don't mind answering. Would Hillary Clinton be in the "top tier" of candidates if she hadn't been married to Bill Clinton and first lady?

Second, you are deluding yourself if you don't think there is a large population of the national electorate who would be abhorrent to a Hillary Clinton presidency. I would suggest that the polls you are consulting will be irrelevant in the event of a Clinton nomination.

Posted by: P | October 4, 2007 4:08 PM | Report abuse

Pol Sci 101,
"Chelsea will be 36 in 2016. If you can show me that she is planning on running then, I'll accept Reason #2." Cheslea would be short on experience at that point (not that that seems to matter to many). But does Jeb Bush work?

Posted by: Dave! | October 4, 2007 4:07 PM | Report abuse

"Just to follow-up on JasonL's advice, rufus.

In case you haven't noticed, there is a group of sane reasonable regular posters finally fed-up enough with the shenanigans to petition Chris to put stricter requirements on who can post and how
"


So what. I'm fed up with rush fox hannity and o'reilly. You have power to stop me as I do them. And if you would silennce me, silence them also

Posted by: rufus | October 4, 2007 4:03 PM | Report abuse

:(

Who killed captain america then? I don't rad, I just read the stroy lines. Who is Us agent in the piture. Iron man is vote the registration, no? Does he represent "The Corporation". ISn't he part of the marvel illuminati?

Captain america would not be their leader going after mutants no. Trying to use waht I can. Cut me some slak. I'm making a point here. Let me use my allegories :). It's just a comic book writen by capitalists. Cut me some slack. I'm trying to speak on the level of you people. :)

Posted by: rufus | October 4, 2007 4:02 PM | Report abuse

P, I think it's difficult to logically assume that because she's a Clinton that matters more than her own qualifications. She's educated and experienced (I'll say it, you can form your own opinion).

Also, I'm not sure that we can really say that families holding important positions is really indicative of a shift to European dynamics. My parents are both smart, hard working and college educated. Likewise, I am smart(ish) and college educated. My father works for the federal government and I work in state government. Have we set up a civil service dynasty here? Kennedy's and Fords are important in politics. Nobody's freaking out about that.

What we're really seeing is that money begets education and influence. Education, influence, and money beget political success.

Posted by: JasonL | October 4, 2007 4:01 PM | Report abuse

bsimon,
"In other words, Bush & Ignatius share the same goals, but have differing ideas in how to achieve them." And in order to help achieve those goals, it is beneficial to do things that push Iraqis towards expressing Iraqi sovereignty - could anybody be doing that better than Bush (he asks cynically)?

Posted by: Dave! | October 4, 2007 4:01 PM | Report abuse

Just to follow-up on JasonL's advice, rufus.

In case you haven't noticed, there is a group of sane reasonable regular posters finally fed-up enough with the shenanigans to petition Chris to put stricter requirements on who can post and how.

The handwriting is on the wall. You would do well to read it!

If you continue to abuse the privilege of uncensored posting, all of us could lose it!

Posted by: Anonymous | October 4, 2007 4:01 PM | Report abuse

"Commendable effort to reason with MikeB, Colin.

But years ago MikeB saw "the sign post up ahead" and followed it.

He's a perfect fit here.
"

Their convo is goin gjust fine without peanut gallery comments. Post your posts. Read others. Peanut gallery snipes help no one unless you are talking abou tthe facts mentioned

Posted by: rufus | October 4, 2007 3:59 PM | Report abuse

P - Good point on the need for merit. Family should be no factor at all.

Gosh, I wish you hadn't mentioned the NYT postulation. Eeewww!

Posted by: Pol Sci 101 | October 4, 2007 3:53 PM | Report abuse

P, #2 is completely groundless. It's a logical fallacy to believe that any sort or "precedent" would be set by that.

#4 is also questionable. Her negatives have been pretty low. Now, the attack ads haven't started flying yet, but that will send negatives up on both candidates.

bsimon, is there any VP that you could add to a Clinton ticket to make voting D more palatable? Regardless of what we say here, is seems like she'll be the candidate. It's still hard to really say, but I think a betting man would put their money there right now.

Rufus, I'm going to establish my dork credentials here. Your post about the "Civil War" story arc in Marvel comics was totally off base.

The government wanted super heroes to register because a group of young, untrained heroes tried to take down a group of villains that was too much for them and they allowed one, Nitro, to blow up in front of a school causing the deaths of 100's of children and adults.

Captain America did fight back against this initiative. Winter Soldier (not the old Winter Soldier who was a villain but a new one that's actually Bucky) was working for Nick Fury. Winter Soldier didn't kill Cap.

While I'm talking to you, Rufus, lets go back to the point Blarg tried to get through to you. Your behavior on this blog ruins the experience for others. You're not the only one, but you're one of the loudest. Stop calling people names. Stop pasting large amounts of stuff into the comments. Act like an adult.

Posted by: JasonL | October 4, 2007 3:50 PM | Report abuse

Dave! writes
"The other part I found interesting is that [Ignatius] refered to the "Bush administration's failing policy". I might be missing something but isn't Bush's policy one of strong central government and Iraqi sovereignty? The kind of direction that he talks about for Iraq?"

I think Mr Ignatius's point is that the Bush policy is failing to achieve the strong central gov't and Iraqi sovereignty that is necessary before we can leave. In other words, Bush & Ignatius share the same goals, but have differing ideas in how to achieve them.

Posted by: bsimon | October 4, 2007 3:47 PM | Report abuse

fascists fascists everywhere

Posted by: rufus | October 4, 2007 3:46 PM | Report abuse

Commendable effort to reason with MikeB, Colin.

But years ago MikeB saw "the sign post up ahead" and followed it.

He's a perfect fit here.

Posted by: Rod Serling | October 4, 2007 3:45 PM | Report abuse

Poly Sci 101,

Your point about Bush 41 and 43 are well taken, however my point is only tangentially related to "Political Dynasty." The broader point is that of meritocracy or lack there of. Winning election to the highest and most prestigious office in the country should be about your accomplishments, experience, qualifications, and political adeptness. Being apart of a political family should only factor in marginally. The fact of the matter is the concept of the "American Dream" is under attack. I fear that this country will start to operate similar to the way western European countries operate.

Btw, I believe the NYTimes recently postulated the possibility of Chelsea Clinton entering political life in the not so distant future.

Posted by: P | October 4, 2007 3:43 PM | Report abuse

MikeB -- The "books" on Hillary Clinton that I suspect you're referring to utilized allegations leaked by whitewater investegators, despite the fact that the final report found no wrongdoing. Here's a brief CNN report on the so-called "filegate" controversy:

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/07/28/clinton.filegate/

You'll note that a separate congressional investigation, by the republican congress in 1996, also found no wrongdoing.

Similarly, although the prosecutor remained suspicious regarding Hillary's purported activities during "travelgate," he also found there wasn't sufficient evidence to charge her with anything:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/802335.stm

In short, despite the fact that ALL of the scandals you noted were investigated by a Republican appointed special prosecutor, who spent millions and millions of dollars doing nothing but hunt the Clintons, Hillary was never so much as charged with a single crime.

Jeez Mike, I don't even like Hillary but you're making me defend her. Will you just stick to the facts instead of repeating half-truths and rumors?

Posted by: Colin | October 4, 2007 3:39 PM | Report abuse

"Ignasius also said we should not try to force that plan on Iraq. "

Good point Dave! Countries are like people, hey will naturally resist things which are forced upon them.

Unfortunately, that also goes for Democracy. If a country is inclined towards what Democracy requires or ready for it, forcing it on them won't work.

Posted by: Pol Sci 301 | October 4, 2007 3:35 PM | Report abuse

Once again, Loudmouth proves he/she/it is a total dweeb!

Posted by: MikeB | October 4, 2007 3:33 PM | Report abuse

MikeB: "Almost NONE of the scandles around this pair have ever been resolved."

You mean with guilty pleas? Perhaps that's because most of the "scandles" were all smoke, and no fire.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | October 4, 2007 3:25 PM | Report abuse

P - Reason #2 is groundless, although a number of people have bought into.

Presidential elections in this country where a "2nd term" is not a factor, are unique unto themselves (mutually exclusive).

Plus, Bush 43 could not have been more different from Bush 41.

The Clintons are more likely to be like each other. If you don't like that, that's a valid reason. Dynasty is not.

Chelsea will be 36 in 2016. If you can show me that she is planning on running then, I'll accept Reason #2.

Posted by: Pol Sci 101 | October 4, 2007 3:24 PM | Report abuse

Colin - Go do a bit of reading. Not right wing web sites, but books on the CLinton's and the Clinton Presidency. Almost NONE of the scandles around this pair have ever been resolved. You don't have to be a Republican to have Hillary Clinton frighten the bejesus out of you. She is ruthless, corrupt, the worst sort of opportunist, and very bright...a dangerous combination.

Posted by: MikeB | October 4, 2007 3:19 PM | Report abuse

MikeB -- I think you've been reading right wing websites. There is PLENTY to criticize about the Clintons, but the so-called "unresolved scandals" you mentioned were ALL investigated during the Clinton presidency. Indeed, the majority of them were looked into by Ken Starr as part of his multimillion dollar witch hunt that found...wait for it...no wrong doing associated with any of the things you mentioned. Nada. Zilch. Zero.

Again, i think you're better than this MikeB. You're a smart guy who has legitimate policy beefs with Hillary. Why not focus on those without hurling baseless conspiracy theories that are nothign but right wing talking points?

Posted by: Colin | October 4, 2007 3:14 PM | Report abuse

bsimon,
I had not read Ignatius but after doing so he makes a good point. That said, a sound bite election is not going to lend itself to the subtleties of explaining that rejection of your plan is a good thing. Ignasius also said we should not try to force that plan on Iraq. The other part I found interesting is that he refered to the "Bush administration's failing policy". I might be missing something but isn't Bush's policy one of strong central government and Iraqi sovereignty? The kind of direction that he talks about for Iraq?

Posted by: Dave! | October 4, 2007 3:13 PM | Report abuse

just saw and opportunity to present an allegory. I don not know all abou teverything, nor do I pretend to . So sorry to have offened you.

You are a fascist zouk

Posted by: rufus | October 4, 2007 3:12 PM | Report abuse

Keep dreaming Sen. Schumer!

Hillary Clinton is not only a liability for the Democratic party - she is a liability for the whole country.

For the record, I am a liberal democrat who, like many of my stripe, cannot stand Hillary because she hasn't an ounce on integrity.

The idea that only GOPers hate Hillary is a myth.

Posted by: Lioness | October 4, 2007 3:07 PM | Report abuse

I am an independent and have voted Democrat in the last two presidential elections. I refuse to vote for Hillary Clinton if she is the nominee and here are my reasons:

1) She is not the most qualified or the best candidate.

Simply, Hillary Clinton has failed on every occasion to demonstrate the foresight and forward thinking required of a president at this point in American history. She has yet to reveal a plan for political reconciliation in Iraq or a plan to combat terrorism and nuclear proliferation. In fact, she never talks about these issues and avoids answering them when questioned. Further, she has yet to speak about the future of America's standing in the world in correlation to the rise of China, India, and Russia.

2) Bush...Clinton...Bush...Clinton

If Hillary Clinton is elected the last four presidents will have come from only 2 families. Two family rule would establish a dangerous precedent that potentially threatens the nature of American democracy.

3) She lacks experience.

Serving as first lady and 1 1/4 terms as a Senator do not make Hillary the most experienced candidate. Rather, I don't see how her previous political positions provide her with enough experience to run the country.

4) She is the most divisive Democrat.

After 8 years of Bush/Cheney, the country is greatly divided i.e. "red state" "blue state." Hillary Clinton would exasperate the country's division.

5) I have already concluded who is the best and most qualified candidate and will not vote for anyone else. I will write his name in if in fact he does not win the nomination.

Finally, I know a number of independents and Democrats who feel similarly and refuse to vote for Hillary Clinton.

Posted by: P | October 4, 2007 3:07 PM | Report abuse

Leave it to Zouk to use a term which so contrasts with his own lack of service to this country; "Winter Soldier".

[Rufus, with your Bettle Bailey comic book mentality, its no wonder you took it off in a totally different direction.]

The term is derived from Tom Paine's The Crisis (Dec. 1776) "These are the times that try men's souls: The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands it Now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman."

Winter Soldier was used by the V V A W (Vietnam Veterans Against The War) to describe those who stand up for their country in troubled times, in contrast to the Summer Soldiers and Sunshine Patriots - Chickenhawks and for the purpose of this blog, Zouk.

Posted by: Grunt (PH) | October 4, 2007 2:56 PM | Report abuse

"My guess is that a sizable number would look back fondly on Carter, Ford and LBJ too."

I'm looking back fondly on GHWB, but I didn't much care for him at the time.

Posted by: bsimon | October 4, 2007 2:54 PM | Report abuse

Judge C. Crater - That poll is a Democratic bucket of spit. Bill CLinton was a thief, a liar, and a very lazy President who lucked into some good economic times thanks to Robert Rubin. If not for that accident, he would have been impeached and removed from office. For the past two years, the DNC has been running on a rewritten history of the Clinton years. In a campaign, it wont take long for pundits to start point out the legacy of criminal conduct, scandles, attack politics, James Carville, etc. More than a few scandles surrounding Ms. Clinton have never been resolved - the Travel Office rrecords, the msiing FBI records that appeared a year later with her finger prints all over them, the cattle futures and similar "investment" deals, the ruthless personal attacks on opponents, her involvement with the Annita Hill smear campaign, and plenty more. You're being delussional and dangerously silly if you think Hillary CLinton is anything other than a craven, greedy opportunist that put Hillary first. A presidency under her would be a very dangerous thing and a complete and total disaster. It might just be a fitting end to this country, however. After the greed, dishonesty and incompitence of the Bush years, if people are so stupid as to elect someone even worse, this country couldn't survive even four years of Hillary. Ms. Clinton, "Chuckles" Schumer, and Chapaquidic "Kennedy" are just about the only people I can think of that make even George Bush look good.

Posted by: MikeB | October 4, 2007 2:53 PM | Report abuse

Progressive -- You keep saying Obama is unelectable, despite the fact that all the general election polling shows that he -- along with Clinton and Edwards -- would win every general election matchup. Do you have any response to that?

Also, a few days ago you argued that others were repeating "GOP attacks on Hillary." Yet two out of your three "reasons" that Obama can't get elected are the epitome of Nixon's southern strategy: playing up his race and his ethnic sounding name. Pretty ugly stuff, IMO.

Seriously buddy, why can't you be content to simply explain why you like Hillary BETTER. There's really no reason to irrationally try to argue she's the only Democrat that can win when empirical data shows the exact opposite. Unless, of course, you yourself actually believe that a person's race and name ought to disqualify them from being president.

Posted by: Colin | October 4, 2007 2:53 PM | Report abuse

Judge C. Crater,
One wonders what the approval rating on Truman would be today? Things always look better after time than at the moment. My guess is that a sizable number would look back fondly on Carter, Ford and LBJ too. But how nostalgia for WJC translates to money for HRC is something than needs more of an explanation, at least for me.

Posted by: Dave! | October 4, 2007 2:51 PM | Report abuse

Oops, make that '<'

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | October 4, 2007 2:47 PM | Report abuse

Rufus: (100-66.7)>45. What they say isn't worth spit. And I'm an Obama fan.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | October 4, 2007 2:46 PM | Report abuse

Dave! writes
"That plan got rejected the other day by both the Sunnis and Shiites. Those two groups really don't agree on much, but apparently they do on his plan. I'm not being critical of his plan (it's the best one of the Dem candidates IMO) but how is it going to play when one could easily say he is trying to force an American solution down the throats of Iraqis who, by an apparent majority, don't want it?"

Did you read Ignatius today? He calls that a positive development - that Biden's (nonbinding) plan is accidentally forcing a de-facto sovereignty on the Iraqis. Clearly, this is not the goal of the Biden plan. But its one of those unintended consequences, thankfully positive, thus far.

Regarding Biden as a Pres candidate, whatever his faults, I still find him a superior alternative to Sen Clinton.

Posted by: bsimon | October 4, 2007 2:46 PM | Report abuse

bsimon,
"I think Biden would also be a fine nominee."
First let me say that I like Biden in general. But his claim to fame for this election is his plan for Iraq. That plan got rejected the other day by both the Sunnis and Shiites. Those two groups really don't agree on much, but apparently they do on his plan. I'm not being critical of his plan (it's the best one of the Dem candidates IMO) but how is it going to play when one could easily say he is trying to force an American solution down the throats of Iraqis who, by an apparent majority, don't want it?

Posted by: Dave! | October 4, 2007 2:39 PM | Report abuse

"What makes you so sure she can't reach across the aisle to win Republican support? She has proven her ability to do that as a Senator."

"However, Bill and Hillary Clinton are SO VERY different from George W. Bush. They are smarter and they want to make government WORK for average people instead of outsourcing all functions to greedy and unaccountable corporate executives."


Progressive, Hillary has done almost nothing in the Senate except pretend to play nice with others. name anything she has actually accomplished. And the Clinton's won't know an average person if they tripped over one. They are very tied to big money and the corporate world. Hopefully the folk image Hillary tries to project won't fly.

Posted by: Zonker | October 4, 2007 2:38 PM | Report abuse

"Judge Denies Craig Motion to Revoke Plea

Oct 4 02:11 PM US/Eastern
By PATRICK CONDON
Associated Press Writer


View larger image


Hot New Photo Op: Sen. Craig's Airport Bathroom Stall

Denied: Judge Refuses To Revoke Larry Craig's Guilty Plea


MINNEAPOLIS (AP) - A Minnesota judge on Thursday rejected Sen. Larry Craig's bid to withdraw his guilty plea in an airport sex sting, a major setback in Craig's effort to clear his name and hang onto his Senate seat.
"Because the defendant's plea was accurate, voluntary and intelligent, and because the conviction is supported by the evidence ... the Defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea is denied," Hennepin County Judge Charles Porter wrote.

Craig can appeal Porter's ruling, but it wasn't immediately clear if he would.

"

r

Posted by: the gift that keeps on giving | October 4, 2007 2:37 PM | Report abuse

They say her negative rathings are somewhere like 45% judge. She is the only one the r's can beat. No other democrat other than pelosi or ted kenneddy for pete's sake, could the r's beat. Hillary they can beat. That is why the r's are pushing her

The r's are pushing her all day everyday. She is the gop candidate. If she wins the d nom. It is r vs r. That is the only way the r's can win. run agasint themselves.

"CLINTON HAS 33-POINT LEAD "

From drudge. Top stroy. Wake-up moderates. The republicans are choosing the d candidate for us.

Posted by: rufus | October 4, 2007 2:36 PM | Report abuse

"The new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds that a nostalgic two-thirds of Americans look back with approval on Bill Clinton's work as president -- double the 33 percent who approve of President Bush."


After I left my last job, they asked if my wife was available.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 4, 2007 2:36 PM | Report abuse

bsimon: fair enough. I don't participate in party activities, so I will withhold judgement on whether we can do better than Clinton until we know who her opponent is (assuming she is the nominee).

I'll leave it to the Dem party faithful to decide if she will be their standard-bearer.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | October 4, 2007 2:34 PM | Report abuse

As if you needed additional evidence that the opinions expressed on this blog aren't worth a bucket of warm spit.

"The new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds that a nostalgic two-thirds of Americans look back with approval on Bill Clinton's work as president -- double the 33 percent who approve of President Bush. That nostalgia may help to explain her surge in the polls (she's 33 percentage points ahead of her nearest rival, Barack Obama) and in fundraising ($3 million ahead of Obama in the latest quarter)."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/03/AR2007100302195.html?hpid=topnews

Sounds like the D base will REALLY be depressed if HRC is at the top of the ticket. In the immortal words of Daffy Duck, "What a bunch of maroons!"

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | October 4, 2007 2:30 PM | Report abuse

Mjames says
"Give me a reason to move back to Obama."

I'm not as much pro-Obama as anti-Hillary. I think Biden would also be a fine nominee. I think what the Dems need to do is figure out what they stand for, then find the appropriate candidate. Given that process, I think they would choose someone other than Sen Clinton.

Posted by: bsimon | October 4, 2007 2:25 PM | Report abuse

Loudon asks
""Another Clinton presidency will not only be bad for the country..."

bsimon, are you saying the first Clinton presidency was bad for the country?"

No, Loudon, I said, which you quoted, that ANOTHER Clinton presidency would be bad. It is not a judgement of Bill's administration, it is a prediction of what Hillary's would entail. I don't think she's qualified. I think she's too divisive. I think her claim that she 'knows how to fight them' is indicative of her willingness to focus on partisanship rather than good solutions.

Furthermore, I don't trust her. I think many of her votes in the Senate have been calculated not to produce the best outcome for the country, but to establish 'tough on terrorism' credentials for this election. I think her vote for the war was a calcualted move to appear hawkish, much like her recent vote for the Lieberman-Kyl resolution on Iran.

I think most of her supporters haven't fully thought through what she stands for & whether her positions are really the best ones for the country. In my opinion, they aren't. We can do better.

Posted by: bsimon | October 4, 2007 2:22 PM | Report abuse

"So, in a way, the problems you are hearing about is a direct result of the R's holding their party responsible."

JD, at the very least they are "holding their party responsible" in an extremely belated way with a lot of help from folks located to the left and the right of the R party.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | October 4, 2007 2:20 PM | Report abuse

Regressive - You are living in a fantasy world. Hillary Clinton is the single most devisive candidate we have had since Lincoln and would likely tear this country apart, just as Lincoln did. Unlike Lincoln, however, she isn't just a fanatic, she's a crook and in bed with the wealthy, corporations, and even foeign governments. You and similar feminist nutcases may like her, but let me assure you that something very close to half of the country flat out detests her and wouldn't vote for her no matter who her opponent is.

Posted by: MikeB | October 4, 2007 2:20 PM | Report abuse

Congress' job performance was approved by just 22 percent, continuing a steady decline in the public's assessment since Democrats took over in January. Unable to force Bush to wind down the Iraq war, just a quarter of Democrats gave a thumbs-up to Congress' work, compared to a fifth of Republicans and independents.

Congress' lowest approval reading in the poll had been 24 percent, recorded most recently in July.

AP-Ipsos polling began in December 2003.

President Truman's approval ratings of 23 percent in both 1951 and 1952 were the lowest ever recorded by the Gallup Poll. Congress' Gallup Poll low was 18 percent in 1992. (the clinton years)

The AP-Ipsos poll was conducted from Oct. 1-3 and involved telephone interviews with 1,005 adults. It had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.

you want low poll numbers - simple, elect the Dems.

Posted by: Fix bloggers respond to poll | October 4, 2007 2:16 PM | Report abuse

If we're going to talk about winter soldier. I've been read ing these marvel comics on-line to past time at work.

Captian america. The corporation wanted all "mutants" to be labeled and id'ed. Captain america was approached by the corporation to lead the attack agaisnt his own people. He refused. Someone took his place. He looked like captain america and thought he was a patriot. The corporation lead by iron man (robots' military complex) procedds to wage war agaisnt his own people. The real captain america, rather than fighting his people turns himself in. He goes to court for crimes agaisnt his country, although fascism is taking over. He is shot by the winter soldier coming out of the courrt house. Is that the soldiers rush is talkign about, or the opposite. Thanks for the opportunity to show you this allegory. The source means nothing. The word is what matters.

But check out the picture. It holds signifigance. You people are the traitors to the nation. Anyone that would choose party over country is a traitor. All I can do is fight you here. I would never do what you people would do. That is how you (and your party ) will lose.

The reason chrsitianity and REal chrsitians are invincable is because we love our enemies. you cannot win zouk. You have already lost.

http://www.marvel.com/universe/U.S.Agent

Second from the bottom. REspond if you got the balls.

Posted by: rufus | October 4, 2007 2:15 PM | Report abuse

Blackwater Copter Rescues Polish Ambassador A daring ambush of bombs and gunfire left Poland's ambassador pinned down in a burning vehicle today before being pulled to safety and airlifted by the embattled security firm Blackwater USA

Not phony Dem soldiers.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 4, 2007 2:13 PM | Report abuse

The "Reagan shibboleth"? Didn't Bill Clinton state that "the era of big government was over"? And quite honestly, if Schumer is going to use words like shibboleth in his argument for nationalized healthcare and the like, he should not get the communications director position should HRC become president. Besides, the shibboleth apparently ended in 2000.

The thing that really gets me is his statement "Either enough Republican Senators will break with the president....or there will be an election in 2008 and the American people will make sure there is a change in Iraq." How about a third choice of the people of Iraq making a change. Unlikely as it currently looks, the big old grin on Sen Schumer's face will disappear if there is progress in Iraq. But that possibility appears to not enter into the Senator's thinking. Being gleeful about your prospects based on the assumption that the US will continue to be mired in Iraq with no traction is quite a position to be in. Is the senator wishing daily for more bad news?

Posted by: Dave! | October 4, 2007 2:10 PM | Report abuse

Korean Leaders Issue Peace Call The leaders of North and South Korea have signed a joint declaration calling for a permanent peace deal on the Korean Peninsula

talk, talk, talk = lib failure
tough, tough, tough = Repub success

Posted by: blame bush | October 4, 2007 2:09 PM | Report abuse

Iraq Reconstruction Efforts Make Meaningful Progress More than 4,100 Iraqi reconstruction projects from 4,700 planned projects were completed at the end of fiscal 2007, and another 582 projects are ongoing

more effective than the Dem congress.

Posted by: surrender dorothy | October 4, 2007 2:08 PM | Report abuse

second from the bottom. That is you zouk. you hate your country. You hate REAL patriots. you hate everything this coutnry stands for. Sell-outs. hypocrites. You can never win zouk. Never.'

But I don't hate you. Like the picture I pity you. I love my country to much to hate my own countrymen. MAybe you gop'ers could learn from that. Rather than waging war on your own country for decades on end. I will never hurt you people like you would do to us. Look at the picture and respond. if you have the courage.

Posted by: rufus | October 4, 2007 2:07 PM | Report abuse

Ann C., then I take it that you do consider AWOL Air National Guard pilots as real soldiers. Correct?"

Waht about rush. Didn't he get of out the draft because he had a pimple on his bottom? Real patriots. AWOL. just like their mental. AWOL

Posted by: rufus | October 4, 2007 2:04 PM | Report abuse

It's not safe libign your lives for me facsits. I know you are used to living lives through external avatars. But I don't want you to worship me. I'm trying to break your chains so you don't need an avatar. I don't want to run your life zouk. Please stop obsessing. :)

It's not healthy

Posted by: rufus | October 4, 2007 2:02 PM | Report abuse

"Winter Soldier" YEah right. That would make you peopel captain america. Check out this photo zouk. Deep mental value. Jsut know you are the sell-out fascits. When you see it look at this. You got the corporate holding back the "fake" aptriot hating his countryman. THE REAL PATRIOT.

Check it out if you dare. America 2007. The corporation aligning with fascists, agasint america

second from the bottom. That is you zouk. you hate your country. You hate REAL patriots. you hate everything this coutnry stands for. Sell-outs. hypocrites. You can never win zouk. Never.

http://www.marvel.com/universe/U.S.Agent

Posted by: rufus | October 4, 2007 2:00 PM | Report abuse

bsimon: "Another Clinton presidency will not only be bad for the country..."

bsimon, are you saying the first Clinton presidency was bad for the country? Other than the dittohead brigade, most people believe that overall the first Clinton presidency was good for the country.

You seem to have some unusual insight into how this Clinton might perform as president. Perhaps you have some equally prescient insights into how the other leading candidates might perform? Assume a Democratic controlled Congress.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | October 4, 2007 1:59 PM | Report abuse

"but all phony soldiers seem to be Democrats."

Ann C., then I take it that you do consider AWOL Air National Guard pilots as real soldiers. Correct?

Posted by: Anonymous | October 4, 2007 1:58 PM | Report abuse

BSimon:

I was originally an Obama supporter and a Hillary skeptic, but am changing my position. In my opinion, Obama has been incredibly underwhelming. He cannot produce clear statements in debates, and he policy ideas are either vague, weak (e.g., his health care proposal), or over the top (e.g., bombing Pakistan). He seems to be campaigning on image rather than substance, and I fear that his image (i.e., being post-partisan) is not going to help him once the Republican attack machine starts. Finally, he does not perform particularly well in the head-to-head polls against the strongest Republicans, especially Guiliani.

Give me a reason to move back to Obama.

Posted by: Mjames | October 4, 2007 1:58 PM | Report abuse

Blarg, you're having a battle of the wits with an unarmed man. Leave it be.

JKrish, although I'm not Repub, I would suggest that the GOP is already suffering from hypocracy, hence why their numbers are down and '08 prospects grim. They're supposed to be the party that:

- restrains spending (continued deficits)
- law and order (immigration stance?)
- smaller gov (it's grown since Bush got in)
- ethics (Craig, Duke, etc)

So, in a way, the problems you are hearing about is a direct result of the R's holding their party responsible.

Posted by: JD | October 4, 2007 1:58 PM | Report abuse

To compare Hillary Clinton to George Bush is absurd. What makes you so sure she can't reach across the aisle to win Republican support? She has proven her ability to do that as a Senator. Perhaps the Republicans will only focus on undermining her instead of focusing on good public policy (remember their zeal to impeach Bill Clinton?). However, Bill and Hillary Clinton are SO VERY different from George W. Bush. They are smarter and they want to make government WORK for average people instead of outsourcing all functions to greedy and unaccountable corporate executives. They are MANAGERS, not ideologues. The country needs a good manager who knows how to make the government work. The right wing ideologues in the Bush administration gave us Brownie at FEMA and the list goes on and on.

Posted by: Progressive | October 4, 2007 1:58 PM | Report abuse

In a recent Democratic candidate's debate, John Edwards provided a shocking answer to a provocative question. He was asked about a controversy in Lexington, Massachusetts, where parents of second graders complained that their children had been exposed to a story in which two handsome princes got married to one another and lived happily ever after.

Edwards not only indicated he would have been pleased to see his own second grader exposed to any and all pro-gay propaganda, but offered a pathetic abdication of his role in providing values for his own kids:

"Even in second grade... I don't want to impose my view. Nobody made me God. I don't get to decide on behalf of my family or my children. I don't get to impose on them what I believe is right."

A leader who's so shaky in his values that he won't try to convey them to his kids can hardly expect to be an effective President who champions values for the nation at large.

Posted by: the non-values of the left | October 4, 2007 1:54 PM | Report abuse

With apologies to Helen Reddy:

I Am Rufus!

I am Rufus, hear me roar
With posts so disjointed that you ignore
And I told you all before
You're not going to throw me out the door
No one's ever gonna keep me down again

Oh yes, I know I'm wise
But it's you who bear the pain
Yes, you've paid the price
And I know nobody's gained
I am wrong
I am invisible (I fly)
I am Rufus

You can bend but never break me
And it only serves to make me
More determined to achieve my final goal
And I come back even stronger
I'm not coherent any longer
'cause you've deepened my conviction, I'm a Troll

Oh yes, I know I'm wise
But it's you who bear the pain
Yes, you've paid the price
And I know nobody's gained
I am wrong
I am invisible (I fly)
I am Rufus

I am Rufus watch me post
It's no competition, I post the most
As I spread my nonsense across the land
I have such an Ego
That I cause you to suffer so
Until I make all of you understand

Oh yes I know I'm wise
But it's you who bear the pain
Yes, you've paid the price
And I know nobody's gained
I am wrong
I am invisible (I fly)
I am Rufus

Posted by: Anonymous | October 4, 2007 1:54 PM | Report abuse

"Why should we feel these old farts? "

Fear

Why should we fear these old people?

"Why shoul dI feel them, people? They are done as a party"

Why should I fear?

You have no power. ALL POWER BACK TO THE PEOPLE. Scared yet zouk? you coward you. What, you didn't believe what I have been telling you people. Rush and O'liely are done. What will you do without your avatars?

Posted by: rufus | October 4, 2007 1:54 PM | Report abuse

In addition to famous fake soldiers promoted by the anti-war crowd, like Jesse MacBeth and "Winter Soldier" Al Hubbard, even liberals with actual military experience are constantly being caught in the middle of some liberal hoax.

Al Gore endlessly bragged to the media about his service in Vietnam. "I took my turn regularly on the perimeter in these little firebases out in the boonies. Something would move, we'd fire first and ask questions later," he told Vanity Fair. And then we found out Gore had a personal bodyguard in Vietnam, the most dangerous weapon he carried was a typewriter, and he left after three months. Although to his credit, Gore did not put in for a Purple Heart for the carpal tunnel syndrome he got from all that typing.

Speaking of which, John Kerry claimed to be a valiant, Purple Heart-deserving Vietnam veteran, who spent Christmas 1968 in Cambodia -- until he ran for president and more than 280 Swift Boat Veterans called him a liar. We've been waiting more than 20 months for Kerry to make good on his "Meet the Press" pledge to sign form 180, which would allow the military to release his records.

Then there was Bill Burkett, who gave CBS the phony National Guard documents; Scott Thomas Beauchamp, The New Republic's fantasist anti-war "Baghdad Diarist"; and Max Cleland, whose injuries were repeatedly and falsely described as a result of enemy fire.

Posted by: Rush is right | October 4, 2007 1:53 PM | Report abuse

The gop a puppets. Who pulls your strings. You people are fascist slaves. You are lost. Your party is doen for a generation. Why shoul dI feel them, people? They are done as a party. You think the 06 sweep was something? Just wait. Why should we feel these old farts? I care about their feelings like Bill O'Reilly and Rush care about liberals? Hypocrite gop. You are done. The only power yo uhave is the power I give you

"Rep. Issa makes a fool of himself during Blackwater hearing
By: John Amato @ 9:33 AM - PDT (guest blogged by Scarce)

Republican Darrell Issa (CA-49) continued his cheer-leading for disgraced controversial mercenary private contractor Blackwater USA yesterday at the House Oversight hearings. This time around it was the unintended comedic effect of Issa defending Blackwater from charges they are a Republican (r) company. As Chairman Waxman adroitly pointed out no one at the hearings had actually uttered those charges till Issa had brought it up but if the shoe fits...to laughs and guffaws from the audience.

Download (840) | Play (1213) Download (306) | Play (578)

Issa: I think you're exactly right. That in fact, being identified as [artisan Republican appears to have been what all companies do--ahhh--which is in fact operate to do the job they're doing in a non partisan way and I would hope that this committee and the public takes note that labeling some company as Republican oriented because of family members is inappropriate and I would hope we not do it again. And I yield back back.

Waxman: Well the only one that's done it is you. Maybe that's why all the Republicans are defending the company...

Nonetheless, this was a step up from the depths Issa had sunk to in February when he attacked widows of four private security forces who had the temerity to accuse Blackwater of failing to provide promised protections for their loved ones, and do so in Congressional Hearings. Quite the piece of work is Darrell Issa.

John Amato: Rep. Issa just learned that It's not a good thing to have rehearsed lines ready to go in a hearing and use them when they make you look like a laughing stock.
"

Posted by: rufus | October 4, 2007 1:52 PM | Report abuse

Liberals are hopping mad because Rush Limbaugh referred to phony soldiers as "phony soldiers." They claim he was accusing all Democrats in the military of being "phony."

True, all Democrats in the military are not phony soldiers, but all phony soldiers seem to be Democrats.

If we are to believe the self-descriptions of callers to talk radio and the typical soldier interviewed on MSNBC, the military is fairly bristling with Moveon.org types.

The reality is quite the opposite. While liberals have managed to worm themselves into every important institution in America, from the public schools to the CIA to charitable foundations, they are shamefully absent from the military.

As noted in that great book that came out this week, "If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans":

"According to a Military Times survey taken in September 2004, active-duty military personnel preferred President Bush to Kerry by about 73 percent to 18 percent. Sixty percent describe themselves as Republican and less than 10 percent call themselves Democrat (the same 10 percent that MSNBC has on its speed-dial). Even among the veterans, Republicans outnumber Democrats 46 percent to 22 percent."

Posted by: Ann C. | October 4, 2007 1:48 PM | Report abuse

More to the point, Progressive. I think Hillary will do to the Democrats what Bush has done to the Republicans. President Hillary Clinton, with a Democrat-controlled congress, will turn the tables on the GOP and use gov't for political revenge rather than using it to improve the lives of the people it allegedly represents. Make another Clinton the de-facto head of the party and you'll give the GOP something it doesn't have right now - a unifying issue around which to rally.

Another Clinton presidency will not only be bad for the country, it will be bad for the Democrats & good for the Republicans. Another Clinton presidency will reform the fractured coalition that used to be the GOP. Its sad that so many Dems not only can't see the obvious but in fact willfully ignore it.

Posted by: bsimon | October 4, 2007 1:45 PM | Report abuse

"The latest revelations of lawbreaking, torture and extremism
Much outrage has been provoked by the generally excellent New York Times article this morning revealing the Bush administration's recent violations of legal restrictions on the use of torture and other "severe interrogation techniques." And, in one sense, the outrage is both understandable and appropriate. Today's revelations involve the now-familiar, defining attributes of this administration -- claims of limitless presidential power, operating in total secrecy and with no oversight, breaking of laws at will, serial misleading of the Congress and the country and, most of all, the shattering of every previous moral and legal constraint on our national behavior.

But in another, more important, sense, this story reveals nothing new. As a country, we've known undeniably for almost two years now that we have a lawless government and a President who routinely orders our laws to be violated. His top officials have been repeatedly caught lying outright to Congress on the most critical questions we face. They have argued out in the open that the "constitutional duty" to defend the country means that nothing -- including our "laws" -- can limit what the President does.

It has long been known that we are torturing, holding detainees in secret prisons beyond the reach of law and civilization, sending detainees to the worst human rights abusers to be tortured, and subjecting them ourselves to all sorts of treatment which both our own laws and the treaties to which we are a party plainly prohibit. None of this is new.

And we have decided, collectively as a country, to do nothing about that. Quite the contrary, with regard to most of the revelations of lawbreaking and abuse, our political elite almost in unison has declared that such behavior is understandable, if not justifiable. And our elected representatives have chosen to remain largely in the dark about what was done and, when forced by court rulings or media revelations to act at all, they have endorsed and legalized this behavior -- not investigated, outlawed or punished it.
"

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/?last_story=/opinion/greenwald/2007/10/04/lawlessness/

Posted by: greenwald | October 4, 2007 1:44 PM | Report abuse

Well said simon. In order to fix the rpoblems that face our nation, we must hold both sides accountabile. We must fix the problems. Hillary is not the answer. To me, 3/4ths of the problem is the hypocricy of the gop. If they held their own to teh same standard we would have so many problems. The elft hold's the d's responsible for wha they do. Why does the right not? And how do they think they will remain a political party in post 9/11 america if they cannot? JD, enlighten me.

If your party refuses to hold their own accountable for anything, how can they expect to get elected? Are the elderly in this country that out of touch with reality?

Posted by: JKrish | October 4, 2007 1:43 PM | Report abuse

bsimon,

Hear, hear.

Is it too much to look for the candidate who we think will govern best?

After all, theoretically part of the job is actual governing. We seem to have lost sight of that little detail.

Posted by: J | October 4, 2007 1:43 PM | Report abuse

"Well, go ahead and stand on principle and ignore pragmatic political realities. You'll always be a noble loser. I'd rather win the White House for a Democrat"


That's the difference between you and me. I want what's best for the country. You apprently want what's best for a political party. Sorry, but its thinking like that that exacerbated the mess we're in now.

Posted by: bsimon | October 4, 2007 1:40 PM | Report abuse

"And since I decry the morons who clip-n-paste without attrib, here you go"

I decry the morons who defend the undefensable. I detest the morons who elected BUSH TWICE. It's your fault we're in the deep water as a nation. But point the finger tough guy. We all know the gop is incapable of taking any blame and accountability for anything you people do. POint the finger. But don't be surprised when it comes back on you

Posted by: rufus | October 4, 2007 1:37 PM | Report abuse

bsimon says: "Regarding his name and race, I would rather vote for a candidate that I think is the best person for a job, rather than vote against them on the assumption that the rest of america is too bigoted or slow-witted to do the same."

Well, go ahead and stand on principle and ignore pragmatic political realities. You'll always be a noble loser. I'd rather win the White House for a Democrat. Hillary may not be the perfect candidate, but she is far better than any of the Republicans, and she knows how to fight them when they do come after her with guns-a-blazing next spring/summer/fall.

Posted by: Progressive | October 4, 2007 1:32 PM | Report abuse

Progressive says
"Obama is not electable for three clear, interrelated reasons:"

After which he lists the Senator's alleged inexperience, his race and his name is the three disqualifiers. If Senator Obama is too inexperienced, you have to disqualify Clinton, Edwards, Romney & Giuliani on the same grounds.

Regarding his name and race, I would rather vote for a candidate that I think is the best person for a job, rather than vote against them on the assumption that the rest of america is too bigoted or slow-witted to do the same.

Really, Progressive, if these are the arguments the Clinton campaign has to trot out in order to scare up some votes, our country is in a sorrier state than I thought.

Posted by: bsimon | October 4, 2007 1:25 PM | Report abuse

And since I decry the morons who clip-n-paste without attrib, here you go

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/

and

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21114419/

Posted by: JD | October 4, 2007 1:25 PM | Report abuse

"The GOP is laying off Hillary now, in hopes that she gets the nomination."

Has anyone told Rudy that? He apparently didn't get that memo.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | October 4, 2007 1:25 PM | Report abuse

tbag, you mention that Rudy would be a drag for the Repubs. Not so, if you believe this posting from MSNBC's FirstRead:

...snip...

one can also argue that the stars are beginning to align for Giuliani. When you look inside the numbers, one finds that three-out-four GOP voters say their most important voting priority is either terrorism, taxes or health care-education. And Giuliani is the first choice of all these voters. Only among voters who say moral issues is their top voting priority (just 23 percent) does Rudy trail. It's always hard to see which comes first, a candidate who fits an electorate or an electorate that begins to conform to a frontrunner. Either way, the stars are aligning for Giuliani.

..snip... and then there's...

But Giuliani's support may actually be more substantial than his seven-point lead shows. He has overwhelmingly strong support among every demographic, particularly women, other than core conservative voters. But even those core conservatives view Giuliani positively, and so do those who indicate they will vote for other candidates.

Posted by: JD | October 4, 2007 1:24 PM | Report abuse

Sorry, cut off a bit early there (pun intended.)

Now, cutting off funding is not the goal, it is the *means*. Until a funding bill is presented with clear withdrawal requirements it will not be passed. In all likelyhood supplemental contingency or "bridge" funding to feed etc. the soldiers would be in force at the same time, just not enough to continue active operations.

I am not necessarily in favour of this particular plan but, again, misrepresenting it does no-one good.

Posted by: roo | October 4, 2007 1:23 PM | Report abuse

First off, I'm amazed that CC actually talked to a D. Wow! Congratulations on that.

Secondly, I'm also impressed at Schumer's knowledge of meteorology and geology: " "The wind is at our back," said Schumer. "The tectonic plates are moving." " Throw in a reference to subatomic structure - "The muons are splintering into quarks" - and he'd hit a bloody scientific trifecta.

Thirdly, the R base isn't going to be the only one 'galvanized' by the 2008 election. There's a little thing going on called the Iraq War - perhaps you've heard of it - that will bring out the D base and suppress the R base. All those R senators voting in unthinking lockstep with their unthinking President aren't going to fill voters with confidence that the war will end any time soon if they continue to elect R's. The kool-aid goes a long way but a coffin coming home from Iraq goes a lot further. Sending more young men into the maw of devouring war gets old; today's troops could have been 11-year olds in 2001.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | October 4, 2007 1:23 PM | Report abuse

vicupstate - You are right there! Think of Oregon! Gordon Smith is pretty weak right niw, but the Democratic nominee is another Party insider. Stick Hillary on top of the Presidential ticket and Smith is safe. As a former party worker I know a lot of Democrats, but outside of a few jutcase feminists, I don't know know *anyone* who will vote for Clinton. Most will either vote third party or stay home and, note to Scumbag's like Schumer, they WONT vote Democratic on the rest of the ticket! They are angry at you and will get even anrier as the mud starts to fly during the campaign. I wouldn't be a bit surprised to see Democrats *loose* seats.

Posted by: MikeB | October 4, 2007 1:22 PM | Report abuse

"The Democrats are just scared--for a reason, the media always fails them--"

Cope out. When did the meida become the most powerful entity in american politics. The d's are being cowards .My hope is Obama-Gore as a thrid party ticket. Not likely, but I can dream

Posted by: rufus | October 4, 2007 1:19 PM | Report abuse

Colin--"JD -- you know that it takes 60 votes in the Senate. Dems have 51 in their caucus and Lieberman votes with the GOP in Iraq. So no, Democrats actually can't cut off funding. But I think you already knew that."

You are thinking this the wrong way, Colin. The Republicans need 60 votes to pass a funding bill.

The Democrats are just scared--for a reason, the media always fails them--that they will be blamed for 'deserting the troops' or some nonsense instead of the president who cannot budget for any contingencies and in no case for more than a week ahead.

Posted by: roo | October 4, 2007 1:16 PM | Report abuse

"please, somebody, i need a job, or at least some weed, i have nothing better to do then this

Posted by: rufus | October 4, 2007 01:00 PM
"

Not me. Zouk is a fascist.

Posted by: rufus | October 4, 2007 1:13 PM | Report abuse

Jackb - Hillary is no prisoner, she is one of them, a wealthy hack and a con artist. You get utter moron like "progressive" here who don't care what she does, who will support her no matter what. I sincerely hope (and expect) she will go down in flames and take these neanderthals with her.

Posted by: MikeB | October 4, 2007 1:09 PM | Report abuse

"Does it make you a fascist to want people to behave with basic human decency?
"

We must have differant priorities. How does talking about mike huckabee do anything? Human decency? I say it is INDECENT for AMERICANS to make money off their own countrymen's death. Would you agree with that? I think it's "indecent" americans are getting spied on. I think it's indecent you people spend all day worrying about be and not posting your posts.

You may support the same candidate. But you are not grounded in reality, my friend. Dig your head in the sand. Attack liberals as the conservatives are asking the "moderateS" to do. But don't expect me to pity you. The right are fascists, You may or may not agree. But the moderates are selling out to the fascists. So which is worse? Forgive me if I don't pity you. If the gop wins the next election (of clinton) the only way to continue their war on america is the draft. Do you hear that. If the gop(clinton) wins the only way they can sustain the troops is a draft. My bother is 19. He would go garuntee'ed. He is becoming a liberal. He will not share my boy pat tillman's fate.

I went the army because I had no choice. The man that returned is not the man that left. My brother will not lost himslef to the alter of militiaristic fascism.

My grandpa, who has been lied to for decades, by rush and O'REIlly thinks he is being shown news everyday. Rush o'reilly and the right wing movement has destroyed my family. They choose party over country, but also party over blood. How can I save them? You tell me? Do you have an answer for me blarg? If not, I must do what I think is right.

Posted by: rufus | October 4, 2007 1:06 PM | Report abuse

I think 1 pm rufus was a fake rufus.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 4, 2007 1:02 PM | Report abuse

The Dems are falling for the argument that Hillary will 'win over' the anti-hillary crowd.

Time for a reality check. Hillary may have won Upstate NY but it was against very weak opponents and when Gore was carrying the state. Second, she may change minds in one-on-one campaigning in upstate NY, but the country is too big, for her have the same penetration of the electorate nationwide.

The GOP is laying off Hillary now, in hopes that she gets the nomination. Barack and Edwards have not taken the gloves off yet. That is why her numbers look so strong. Plus, the fact she has brought her 'A' game.

But come March when she is the nominee, the GOP will come out guns blazing. Her negatives will rise again. About that time, buyer's remorse will set in for the Dems, but it will be too late.

60 senate seats is do-able for the Dems in '08, but not with HRC at the top of the ticket. Think of Alaska, think of Nebraska. Any chances for ID, NC, TN, TX, OK or Miss. to join the list of contested seats evaporate with HRC at the top.

Winning 9 senate seats is not that unusual. The GOP gained 12 in '80. The Dems 8 in '86. The GOP 10 in 1994. "Nationialized" senate elections can produce big shifts. The potential for '08 to be such an election is substantial.

Posted by: vicupstate | October 4, 2007 1:02 PM | Report abuse

I am offended at the idea that I would vote for Hillary because I am a woman. Why would I want the same old thing we have, escept in female form, rather than something different? I am not going to vote for a female for the novelty of having a woman for president. I am going to vote on substantive issues. I am sad that other women might not.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 4, 2007 1:01 PM | Report abuse

please, somebody, i need a job, or at least some weed, i have nothing better to do then this

Posted by: rufus | October 4, 2007 1:00 PM | Report abuse

The Hillary bashers are at it again. But the reality is that millions of young, middle- and lower-class women have not voted in past elections, so turnout decided the elections of 2000, 2002, 2004, etc. Women are likely to be much more motivated to vote for Hillary, and to make history by electing the first woman President, and their participation will more than offset the turnout effect among the Hillary-haters in the conservative base.

As Bill Maher said, Republicans are trying to "trick Democrats into nominating the black guy." Obama is not electable for three clear, interrelated reasons:

1) He is too young and inexperienced to lead the U.S. in a dangerous world that requires tested, steady, proven leadership.

2) The electoral deck is stacked against a black candidate in the U.S.

3) In 2008, there is no way someone named "BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA" is going to get elected President. Republicans will use their Rove-smear-machine (a la "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth") to convince voters that his name sounds like a cross between "Saddam Hussein" and "Osama bin Laden." That might not work in 2012 or 2016, but 9/11 is still too fresh.

Taken together, those three factors are ample evidence that if Obama is the Democratic presidential nominee, the Republicans will retain the White House in 2008, pretty much regardless of who they nominate.

When voters select a President, the deciding factor is much more about "character" than individual "issues" or "policy positions." I like Obama, and believe he has the character to be a good President, but he needs to be in the Senate for at least two terms, or serve as Governor of Illinois to gain executive experience, before he is perceived as tested and qualified enough to be President.

You might think the health-care-reform fiasco of '93-'94 works as an argument against Hillary, but polls show that voters view that experience and her subsequent career as adding to her qualifications for the presidency. Hillary was smeared by the insurance & drug companies when she tried to reform the health care system, but she learned lessons from that character-building defeat. She has bounced back and voters respect her for that (plus, the system is worse than ever, so people realize she was right and the insurance/drug lobby was dead wrong). That's the kind of character-building experience at the federal level that Obama simply does not possess, regardless of "number of years in the Senate."

Posted by: Progressive | October 4, 2007 12:58 PM | Report abuse

fascists fascists everywhere

Posted by: rufus | October 4, 2007 12:58 PM | Report abuse

Where your seltive outrage gop?

"Fox News' attack on the honor and integrity of our war generals
Fox accuses the generals of "betraying" their own soldiers and putting their reputations and careers ahead of the lives of U.S. soldiers "

Posted by: rufus | October 4, 2007 12:57 PM | Report abuse

No, Rufus, I wouldn't "silence" you. I'd prefer that you took friendly advice from other people who are passionate about politics, and behaved in a way appropriate to a public forum. But as you've proven time and again, you're incapable of moderating your own behavior. So I have to ask the moderators of this site to keep order and enforce their own rules. Sorry you have such a problem with that.

If you're in a movie theater and someone starts loudly screaming, do you accept that? Or do you ask that person to leave? If the person refuses to leave, you'd probably want the manager to come in and get rid of the person, because they're ruining the environment for everyone. Is that a violation of liberal principles somehow? Does it make you a fascist to want people to behave with basic human decency?

Posted by: Blarg | October 4, 2007 12:56 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is a prisoner of Wall St, The Israel Lobby, and the Special Interests she kow-tows too. All dangerous comments at a time when Archbishop Tutu has been banned by a Catholic University for denouncing Israel's treatment of Palestinians. Thank goodness foe Amy Goosman, Democracy Now, and others who dare to say what The Lobby censors in our major media.

Posted by: Jackb | October 4, 2007 12:54 PM | Report abuse

Does what I just posted sound like what this country was founded on. How was the right able to turn "liberals" into the bad guys? We founded this county for pete's sake. When did these fascists take over? The red scare of the fifties?

This is what the country was founded on. Not slavery or corporate slavery. Not christianity. Liberalism

"The Enlightenment (French: Siècle des Lumières; German: Aufklärung;Italian: Illuminismo); was an sixteenth-century movement in European and American philosophy, or the longer period including the Age of Reason. The term can more narrowly refer to the intellectual movement of The Enlightenment, which advocated reason as the primary basis of authority. Developing in France, Britain and Germany, its sphere of influence also included Austria, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Russia, Scandinavia, Spain and, in fact, the whole of Europe. Many of the United States' Founding Fathers were also heavily influenced by Enlightenment-era ideas, particularly in the religious sphere (deism) and, in parallel with classical liberalism, in the political sphere (which had a major influence on its Bill of Rights, in parallel with the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen).

The Enlightenment is generally agreed to have ended around the year 1800 and the beginning of the Napoleonic Wars (1804-15). However, some historians argue that the revolution of knowledge commenced by Newton, and in a climate of increasing disaffection with repressive rule, Enlightenment thinkers believed that systematic thinking might be applied to all areas of human activity, carried into the governmental sphere in their explorations of the individual, society and the state. Its leaders believed they could lead their states to progress after a long period of tradition, irrationality, superstition, and tyranny which they imputed to the Middle Ages. The movement helped create the intellectual framework for the American and French Revolutions, Poland's Constitution of May 3, 1791, the Latin American independence movement, the Greek national independence movement and the later Balkan independence movements against the Ottoman Empire, and led to the rise of classical liberalism, democracy, and capitalism.

The Enlightenment Period receives modern attention as a central model for many movements in the modern period. Another important movement in 18th century philosophy, closely related to it, focused on belief and piety. Some of its proponents, such as George Berkeley, attempted to demonstrate rationally the existence of a supreme being. Piety and belief in this period were integral to the exploration of natural philosophy and ethics, in addition to political theories of the age. However, prominent Enlightenment philosophers such as Thomas Paine, Voltaire, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and David Hume questioned and attacked the existing institutions of both Church and State. The 19th century also saw a continued rise of empiricist ideas and their application to political economy, government and sciences such as physics, chemistry and biology.

The boundaries of the Enlightenment cover much of the seventeenth century as well, though others term the previous era the "Age of Reason." For the present purposes, these two eras are split; however, it is acceptable to think of them joined as one long period.

Europe had been ravaged by religious wars; when peace in the political situation had been restored, after the Peace of Westphalia and the English Civil War, an intellectual upheaval overturned the accepted belief that mysticism and revelation are the primary sources of knowledge and wisdom--which was blamed for fomenting political instability. Instead (according to those that split the two periods), the Age of Reason sought to establish axiomatic philosophy and absolutism as foundations for knowledge and stability. Epistemology, in the writings of Michel de Montaigne and René Descartes, was based on extreme skepticism and inquiry into the nature of "knowledge." The goal of a philosophy based on self-evident axioms reached its height with Baruch (Benedictus de) Spinoza's Ethics, which expounded a pantheistic view of the universe where God and Nature were one. This idea then became central to the Enlightenment from Newton through to Jefferson. The ideas of Pascal, Leibniz, Galileo and other philosophers of the previous period also contributed to and greatly influenced the Enlightenment; for instance, according to E. Cassirer, Leibniz's treatise On Wisdom "... identified the central concept of the Enlightenment and sketched its theoretical programme" (Cassirer 1979: 121-23). There was a wave of change across European thinking, exemplified by Newton's natural philosophy, which combined mathematics of axiomatic proof with mechanics of physical observation, a coherent system of verifiable predictions, which set the tone for what followed Newton's Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica in the century after

The Age of Enlightenment is also prominent in the history of Judaism, perhaps because of its conjunction with increased social acceptance of Jews in some western European states, especially those who were not orthodox or who converted to the officially sanctioned version of Christianity.

"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment

Posted by: rufus | October 4, 2007 12:52 PM | Report abuse

So read that tough guy. Are you still a liberal?

Posted by: rufus | October 4, 2007 12:49 PM | Report abuse

But the fact that would would silence me proves you are not a liberal, does it not?

Enlighten me. What does libeal mean? Are you a liberal? If you say so. But I disagree.

"Liberalism refers to a broad array of related ideas and theories of government that consider individual liberty to be the most important political goal.[1] Liberalism has its roots in the Western Age of Enlightenment.

Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. Different forms of liberalism may propose very different policies, but they are generally united by their support for a number of principles, including extensive freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market or mixed economy, and a transparent system of government.[2] All liberals - as well as some adherents of other political ideologies - support the form of government known as liberal democracy, with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law.[3]

Liberalism rejected many foundational assumptions that dominated most earlier theories of government, such as the Divine Right of Kings, hereditary status, and established religion. Social progressivism, the belief that traditions do not carry any inherent value and social practices ought to be continuously adjusted for the greater benefit of humanity, is a common component of liberal ideology. Liberalism is also strongly associated with the belief that human society should be organized in accordance with certain unchangeable and inviolable rights. Different schools of liberalism are based on different conceptions of human rights, but there are some rights that all liberals support, including rights to life, liberty, and property.

Within liberalism, there are two major currents of thought that often compete over the use of the term "liberal" and have been known to clash on many issues. Classical liberals emphasize free private enterprise, individual property rights, laissez-faire economic policy, and freedom of contract, and oppose the welfare state. Classical liberals support equality before the law, but hold that economic inequality, arising from competition in the free market, does not justify wealth redistribution by governments. [4] Social liberals advocate a greater degree of government influence to protect individual rights (in a broad sense), often in the form of anti-discrimination laws. Social liberals support universal education, and many also support the provision of welfare, including benefits for the unemployed, housing for the homeless, and medical care for the sick, all supported by progressive taxation
"

Posted by: rufus | October 4, 2007 12:48 PM | Report abuse

"Rufus, I've said this many times before, and you still don't understand it. I'm going to try again, in the hope that you have some ability to read and comprehend what other people say, and aren't a complete narcissist or sociopath. And yes, I'm prepared to be disappointed."

Sorry. AFter these smear attack I wasn't able to read the rest of the post. Try again. Show some respect. Maybe I'll read what you have to say. But probably not. post your posts cry baby coward

Posted by: rufus | October 4, 2007 12:46 PM | Report abuse

Ut oh mark and blarg. What will you cowards do?

"O'Reilly continuing Radio Factor another "season" to combat "farleft Internet insanity"
Reported by Chrish - Wed 10:35 PMO'Reilly plugged his radio show tonight in hisTalking Points Memo, 10/03/07, saying he was extending the show another season and told viewers they could become billoreillyDOTcom premium members and hear it on the website or on satellite radio since "many of you are working." Ahem. Most of O'Reilly's viewers are retired and over 70 and probably do neither 'net nor satellite, and wonder why anyone would pay to hear a radio show anyway? But this was merely a way to promote himself and provide a segue into his favorite topic: how awful the farleft and Democrats are.
"

Posted by: rufus | October 4, 2007 12:44 PM | Report abuse

Rufus, I've said this many times before, and you still don't understand it. I'm going to try again, in the hope that you have some ability to read and comprehend what other people say, and aren't a complete narcissist or sociopath. And yes, I'm prepared to be disappointed.

I am not a Republican. I am a Democrat. I am a particularly liberal Democrat. I donate money to liberal causes. In 2004, I voted for Dennis Kucinich. I currently support Barack Obama, the same candidate you support. I have never seen any evidence that you are more liberal than I am, or than many other people here are. The fact that I personally dislike your posting style does not mean that I disagree with you politically. Do you understand?

Posted by: Blarg | October 4, 2007 12:44 PM | Report abuse

MikeB -- I would suggest reading bsimon's post regarding what not funding anything would do practically. Redeployment needs to be orderly or even worse caos will result. Come on -- you know that's true. Just think about it for a second.

Posted by: Colin | October 4, 2007 12:44 PM | Report abuse

"I hate these people that smear for a living"

Then proced to smear the heck of them. The differance? The left is speaking the truth. The right are lying hypocrite attack dogs. Fascists

"Discussion About Limbaugh Controversy Used To Smear Democrats/MoveOn/Media Matters
Reported by Ellen - Thu 3:48 AMIn typical FOX News fashion, on last night's (10/3/07) Hannity & Colmes, the Rush Limbaugh "phony soldiers" controversy was used to promote attacks on Democrats, MoveOn.org and Media Matters while mostly skirting the issue of what Limbaugh said, his regular tactics of smearing those with whom he disagrees, and as Media Matters put it, his revisionist history of explanations for his remarks. "Fair and balanced" Hannity & Colmes had no MoveOn defenders, no representative from Media Matters nor any Democratic spokesperson on the panel to respond to the attacks. With video.
"

http://www.newshounds.us/

Posted by: rufus | October 4, 2007 12:44 PM | Report abuse

what they do with their country is their problem. Don't make believe this is about anthing other than selling their oil. That is agaisnt international law, by the way.

Posted by: rufus | October 4, 2007 12:41 PM | Report abuse

Rob, This is close to what many of us have been saying all along. The Democrats could have stopped the war in Iraq at any time since they were elected by simply refusing to pass *any* federal spending bill until the war was defunded and the troops headed home. Instead, they have used this as a political gimmick with which to beat Bush and the Republican's over the head. Schumer was one of the authors of this "strategy". Of course, in order to do this, he had to cynically stand back and *know* that hundreds of ypoung men would die and suffer wounds while his ploy played out - but THAT is exactly what he and the Democratic leadership are doing. Chris, Move On has called them on this. Liberals have been pointing the finger at Schumer and Clinton and Kennedy and Reid about this, too. Where is the forum that addresses this? Instead of silly discussion of insult to troops by some doped up talk show host host has been, lets have a discussion about the down and dirty manipulations of public opinion by the Democrats and by Bush and his team. If you want to contribute something valuable to the political discussion this year, let's really open it up and show the world what kind of cynical, amoral scumbags we have as leaders of both parties.

Posted by: MikeB | October 4, 2007 12:40 PM | Report abuse

Like how the british pulled out of america simon?

Posted by: rufus | October 4, 2007 12:40 PM | Report abuse

This might be a case of Schumer having his cake and eating it too.

Yes, HRC MIGHT help the GOP bring out its voters. The problem is that there are MORE Dem voters now. The Bush GOP is incredibly unpopular.

So the GOP base might come out, but there's less for the GOP to count on otherwise.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | October 4, 2007 12:40 PM | Report abuse

Rob writes
"Colin (12:09) -- they don't need to pass anything to defund the war. They just need to *not* pass the funding bill. That doesn't even require a majority, only enough to filibuster."

While that is certainly true, the Dem leadership doesn't have the cojones to pull off such a move, mostly because they are scared of being portrayed as against-the-troops. Though frankly, this doesn't bother me, as a precipitous, immediate withdrawl (as would be caused by a complete cut of funding) is the one idea worse than Bush's 'stay there forever' plan.

Posted by: bsimon | October 4, 2007 12:39 PM | Report abuse

"Limbaugh offering inconsistent explanations for "phony soldiers" comment
Summary: Responding to criticism of his "phony soldiers" comments, Rush Limbaugh again asserted that he had been referring to multiple military imposters -- including Jesse MacBeth -- rather than service members or former service members with whom he disagrees. Limbaugh described MacBeth as "the man I was referring to and others like him as 'phony soldiers.' " But immediately after the controversy erupted over his comments, Limbaugh twice claimed that he was "talking about one soldier with that 'phony soldier' comment, Jesse MacBeth."

On the October 2 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, responding to criticism of his September 26 comments characterizing service members who advocate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq as "phony soldiers," Rush Limbaugh again asserted that he had been referring to multiple military imposters -- including Jesse MacBeth -- rather than service members or former service members with whom he disagrees. Limbaugh asserted: "The next ruse the left is saying: 'He couldn't have been talking about MacBeth because he used the plural. He said "phony soldiers." He didn't say phony "soldier." ' " Limbaugh continued: "Again, this is a willful and missing of the context of this program. We have discussed many of these phony soldiers over the course of the past few months. We discuss them constantly. MacBeth was just the latest." Earlier in the program, Limbaugh described MacBeth as "the man I was referring to and others like him as 'phony soldiers.' " But immediately after the controversy erupted over his comments, Limbaugh offered a different explanation, inconsistent with his claim to have been referring to MacBeth "and others like him": As Media Matters for America documented, during the September 28 broadcast of his show, Limbaugh twice claimed that rather than speaking generally of soldiers who support withdrawal from Iraq, he was "talking about one soldier with that 'phony soldier' comment, Jesse MacBeth." Indeed, the transcript (subscription required) of the September 28 broadcast that is posted on Limbaugh's site shows Limbaugh asserting: "I was talking about one soldier with that phony soldier comment, Jesse MacBeth. [emphasis in original]"

Further, to support his contention that he had been talking about "one soldier ... Jesse MacBeth," during his September 28 broadcast, Limbaugh purported to air the "entire" segment in question from the September 26 broadcast of his show. In fact, as Media Matters noted, the clip he then aired had been edited. Excised from the clip was a full 1 minute and 35 seconds of the 1 minute and 50 second discussion that occurred between Limbaugh's original "phony soldiers" comment and his reference to MacBeth. Also, the transcript of the first segment of the first hour of his September 28 broadcast posted on Limbaugh's website, which Limbaugh described as being the "anatomy of a smear," does not provide any notation or ellipsis to indicate that there is, in fact, a break in the transcript of the September 26 clip.

Later in the September 28 broadcast, in response to a caller's question, "But you did say 'soldiers' in plural, though, didn't you?" Limbaugh asserted: "Yes, because there have been a number of these people, but they were not active duty -- I was not talking about anti-war, active duty troops. I was talking about people who've been exposed as frauds who never served in Iraq but claimed to have seen all these atrocities, [unintelligible]."

As the blog Crooks and Liars noted, during his September 28 broadcast, Limbaugh also expanded the group of "phony soldiers" to include Vietnam veteran Rep. John P. Murtha (D-PA) and Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp, who is currently serving in Iraq. In asserting that he was originally "talking about a genuine phony soldier," Limbaugh went on to state: "And by the way, Jesse MacBeth's not the only one. How about this guy Scott Thomas who was writing fraudulent, phony things in The New Republic about atrocities he saw that never happened? How about Jack Murtha blanketly accepting the notion that Marines at Haditha engaged in wanton murder of innocent children and civilians?"

From the October 2 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:

LIMBAUGH: Many of you have said, "You ought to sue." I can't, folks. I'm a public figure. It's part of the process. Can't. It's not doable. There are other ways of dealing with this. I was shocked when I heard Senator [Tom] Harkin [D-IA] say it, and I've thought about what he actually said, and I'm blown away. He attributes to me referencing seven soldiers in a New York Times story that I had never, ever referenced. I never have done so, until this very moment on this program. Now, there are also some people who are talking about this story. CNN did a story yesterday afternoon accepting the Harry Reid-Media Matters -- founded by Hillary Clinton -- premise. There have been others who have done so, and not one of them has gone into detail about Jesse MacBeth, the man I was referring to and others like him as "phony soldiers." So let me again detail for you Jesse MacBeth, because this is the celebrity the anti-war left props up and loves. Army Ranger, he said, a 23-year-old corporal. He said he won a Purple Heart. He said he was afflicted with post-traumatic stress disorder from tours in Afghanistan and Iraq -- and what made Army Ranger Jesse MacBeth a hero to the left wing was his "courage," in their view, off the battlefield. Without regard to consequences, MacBeth told the world -- and his remarks were printed and reprinted in Arabic all over the Middle East and the Internet.

He told the world about abuses he had witnessed in Iraq: American soldiers killing unarmed civilians, hundreds of men, women, and even children, hanging them in mosques. That's one gruesome account translated into Arabic, spread widely across the Internet, MacBeth described the horrors this way: "We would burn the bodies, and we would hang their bodies from the rafters in the mosque." This is who I was discussing, and everybody in the drive-by media reporting on this knows this is who I was discussing. ABC reported on this man two days before I began this very commentary a week ago yesterday, a week ago Monday, ABC World News Tonight did the story. And still the drive-by media who are talking about this do not detail for anybody who Jesse MacBeth is. Well, here's the grand finale: Jesse MacBeth -- a poster boy of the anti-war left, heralded as a hero -- had his day in court. He was sentenced to five months in jail, three years' probation for falsifying a Department of Veterans Affairs claim. His Army's discharge record as well. Yes, MacBeth was in the Army -- for 44 days. He washed out of boot camp. He is not an Army Ranger. He is not a corporal. He never won the Purple Heart. He was never in combat to witness the horrors he claimed to have seen, but don't look for any retractions from the left.

Don't look for any TV ads about this guy from the left, not from the anti-war left, the anti-military drive-by media, or the Arabic websites that spread his lies about the troops, because fiction -- fiction, ladies and gentlemen, fiction is what serves the purpose of the anti-war left, from Tom Harkin to Harry Reid, to these groups that prop up phony soldiers, like Jesse MacBeth, groups like The New Republic, which run phony accounts from soldiers in Iraq lying about what they've seen. These are the heroes to the anti-war left. Fiction is what serves their purpose. The truth is just too inconvenient. The next ruse the left is saying: "He couldn't have been talking about MacBeth because he used the plural. He said 'phony soldiers.' He didn't say 'phony soldier.' " Again, this is a willful and missing of the context of this program. We have discussed many of these phony soldiers over the course of the past few months. We discuss them constantly. MacBeth was just the latest. I have a press release here from the United States attorney's office, the Western District, State of Washington, September 21st of this year. Headline: "Northwest Crackdown on Fake Veterans in Operation Stolen Valor -- Phony vets scam more than 1.4 million and damage image of honorable veterans."

--M.G.
"

Posted by: http://mediamatters.org/items/200710030008?f=h_top | October 4, 2007 12:31 PM | Report abuse

wouldn't rudy be a drag for the republicans - the taliban branch of the party will sit home or vote third party (27% per today's stories)if he's the nominee

Posted by: tbag | October 4, 2007 12:29 PM | Report abuse

Colin (12:09) -- they don't need to pass anything to defund the war. They just need to *not* pass the funding bill. That doesn't even require a majority, only enough to filibuster.

Posted by: Rob | October 4, 2007 12:21 PM | Report abuse

"Countdown: Veteran Responds To Limbaugh Comparing Him To Suicide Bomber
By: Logan Murphy @ 7:15 PM - PDT Tonight on Countdown Staff Sgt. Brian McGough, who appeared in the latest Vote Vets Ad, talked with Keith Olbermann about Rush Limbaugh's latest attack on him and our troops by comparing him to a suicide bomber. McGough makes no bones about his feelings toward the cowardly Limbaugh and his disgusting statement, telling Keith: "it makes me mad down to a place where I can't even think to describe."

Download (3168) | Play (3743) Download (1192) | Play (1850)

As Christy puts it, el Rushbo kicked the wrong hornets nest by going after Vote Vets. We're going to hammer on him continuously as long as he continues this rabid assault on our troops and veterans. General Wesley Clark has a petition to have Limbaugh dumped from Armed Forces Radio, you can sign it here. McGough is the real deal, you'll want to watch this clip.

Olbermann: "...On a personal level, is there anything you'd like to say or add to this whole mess?"

McGough: "I'd really like to say, and to reiterate I said before, ask me, or any of the members of VoteVets.org to come on your program and talk to you and to tell you how we feel. Don't just talk bad about us and then we say hey, that's not right, try to talk bad about us again -- and think before you open your mouth."
"

But I'm the bad guy. What have I said worse than this?

Posted by: http://www.crooksandliars.com/ | October 4, 2007 12:18 PM | Report abuse

"Countdown: Veteran Responds To Limbaugh Comparing Him To Suicide Bomber
By: Logan Murphy @ 7:15 PM - PDT Tonight on Countdown Staff Sgt. Brian McGough, who appeared in the latest Vote Vets Ad, talked with Keith Olbermann about Rush Limbaugh's latest attack on him and our troops by comparing him to a suicide bomber. McGough makes no bones about his feelings toward the cowardly Limbaugh and his disgusting statement, telling Keith: "it makes me mad down to a place where I can't even think to describe."

Download (3168) | Play (3743) Download (1192) | Play (1850)

As Christy puts it, el Rushbo kicked the wrong hornets nest by going after Vote Vets. We're going to hammer on him continuously as long as he continues this rabid assault on our troops and veterans. General Wesley Clark has a petition to have Limbaugh dumped from Armed Forces Radio, you can sign it here. McGough is the real deal, you'll want to watch this clip.

Olbermann: "...On a personal level, is there anything you'd like to say or add to this whole mess?"

McGough: "I'd really like to say, and to reiterate I said before, ask me, or any of the members of VoteVets.org to come on your program and talk to you and to tell you how we feel. Don't just talk bad about us and then we say hey, that's not right, try to talk bad about us again -- and think before you open your mouth."
"

But I'm the bad guy. What have I said worse than this?

Posted by: http://www.crooksandliars.com/ | October 4, 2007 12:18 PM | Report abuse

JasonL writes
"I think that the point is that Clinton may (emphasis on "may") have a lesser effect down ticket than Bush does.

I think '08 is really more of a referendum on the Republican party than on the Democrats, whoever they are."


I agree, though have to clarify.

I think that, yes, 2008 is a referendum on the GOP. I think that GOP supporters are so fed up with the Bush administration, that many will stay home in the absence of a GOP break from the Bush legacy (a la the Gingrich proposal).

However, I think the right has done an effective enough job demonizing Hillary for the last 15 years that she is the most effective Get Out the Vote force the GOP could hope for in 2008.

In other words, Hillary has been so villified that her effect on traditional voters will be to drive them to the polls, where they'll vote a straight ticket against her. Sen Schumer is delusional if he thinks this won't be a very real effect of a Clinton nomination.

Posted by: bsimon | October 4, 2007 12:17 PM | Report abuse

Bush, Congress Hit New Lows in AP Poll

Oct 4 11:29 AM US/Eastern



WASHINGTON (AP) - Public approval for President Bush and Congress has sunk to the lowest levels ever recorded in The Associated Press-Ipsos poll.
Only 31 percent said they approve of the job Bush is doing, according to the survey released on Thursday. Though his positive ratings have hovered at about that range since last year, his lowest previous approval in the AP-Ipsos survey was 32 percent, which was recorded several times, most recently in June. That is virtually even with the latest reading.

"


But I;m the bad guy for trying to pull your moderate heads out of the sand? While you talk about mike huckabee or something else that has no bearing on politics in america circa 2007. You better hope cc silecnes me. Cause I'm not leaving. Just to spite you gop hypocrites I'm saying. I'm not changing. The only way it changes is if CC starts censuring progressive voices. He very may well do that. But enough with trying to make people feel sorry about you. You people are responsible for the last 15 years of the destruction of this country. I did vote in the yale plan fascists. You republcians did. And you talk about how much money you are making off teh deaths of my brothers and sisters in arms. So forgive me if I don't pity you.

Posted by: rufus | October 4, 2007 12:15 PM | Report abuse

Just saw that Romney raised 10 million and donated another 8.5 million to his campaign. That means that he has donated (oh wait 'loaned') 17.5 million to his campaign. He also has spent over 50 million already. Let that sink in for a minute. 50 MILLION is what he has SPENT, and he is fourth in national polls and only has 25% in Iowa and NH. I don't know a ton about campaign spending but I know that if I had 50 million I would be higher then 25% in Iowa. Heck he could have given every registered republican in Iowa 500 bucks and still saved money I bet.

Posted by: Andy R | October 4, 2007 12:14 PM | Report abuse

But the differance between me and your republcain puppets is I actually speak the truth. We can't have that can we cow folk? The street only runs one way. No wonder your party is done for a generation.

Posted by: rufus | October 4, 2007 12:12 PM | Report abuse

cc, Why did you write hit pieces and attack the moveon ad multiple times, yet zero mention for the rush comments? Why are you covering up the news? If people want a site with republcians lies and propoganda they have several options. I thought you were going to be balanced? I guess not. To much money lying for the republcians.

Posted by: rufus | October 4, 2007 12:11 PM | Report abuse

Mark, simon, boko, blarg. You republcians are both cowards AND hypocrites. You scream for me to be silecned, yet I do the same thing as fox. Yet you come here and defend them daily. You all are no tonly cowards, but you are hypocrites. Instead of posting your posts you work up letters to censure me? Cowards.

I thouht you were leaving mark. Why the crying and complaining? Who's stoppin gyou people from posting? Nobody. Yet you would try and get cc to silecne me. No wonder you rparty is done. You people are hypocrites. Let's test it out shall we? Let's see if you whining and crying effected cc.

Posted by: rufus | October 4, 2007 12:09 PM | Report abuse

12:01 -- see my above post. The GOP has filibustered attempts to pass redeployment bills. Heck, they even filibustered the Webb amendment that would have required equal time stateside to time spent in Iraq.

Posted by: Colin | October 4, 2007 12:09 PM | Report abuse

Wow, I'm not a huge George Will fan, but that's an interesting article.

But really, is he saying anything that a person with some background in Econ doesn't know? The US has moved to a service and skill based economy. Education is necessary to provide the most highly paid of those services and skills. Free trade doesn't eliminate as many jobs as MikeB and various pundits would have you believe, but it does reduce the price of many goods for everyone.

Goolsbee sounds like a nice guy, but I don't think he's really breaking any new ground here.

Posted by: JasonL | October 4, 2007 12:08 PM | Report abuse

I believe the last poll (Clinton having the second lowest unfavorable rating of the two major parties) has made this question moot.

Posted by: toby | October 4, 2007 12:04 PM | Report abuse

The Democrats in Congress are political COWARDS!!! The '06 campaign promises to stop the war have been PROVEN to be TOTAL LIES!!! They have the power to defund the war and they refuse to use it because they are afraid to lose their seats. What's few more dead soliders if it means keeping your majority, right Chucky? YOU MAKE ME SICK.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 4, 2007 12:01 PM | Report abuse

I'd love to see Dobson and his group start a third party, for several reasons.

1. It will get the religious right to move away from the Republican Party. I think this would have a very positive effect on the Republicans by getting rid of some of the crazier elements of the party. Maybe it'll make room for more old-school conservatives and libertarians, if the party is no longer ruled by gay marriage and abortion.

2. This new party would probably start advocating for changes to election laws that support independent candidates. That would be a very good thing, as it would help lead to more independent parties and an end to our two-party system. And unless there's a large group with some clout advocating for these changes, they aren't going to happen.

3. It will cause the Democrats to win. (Not as interesting as the other reasons, but at least I'm honest.)

Posted by: Blarg | October 4, 2007 11:59 AM | Report abuse

So does the Senator expect to have it both ways - that Clinton wouldn't affect down-ticket races, but Bush does?
-bsimon

I think that the point is that Clinton may (emphasis on "may") have a lesser effect down ticket than Bush does.

I think '08 is really more of a referendum on the Republican party than on the Democrats, whoever they are.

Posted by: JasonL | October 4, 2007 11:52 AM | Report abuse

JD -- you know that it takes 60 votes in the Senate. Dems have 51 in their caucus and Lieberman votes with the GOP in Iraq. So no, Democrats actually can't cut off funding. But I think you already knew that.

Blarg - I agree that the third party candidate matters and that whoever it is will in all likelihood never get 14%. Still, I think the poll is pretty interesting. Even if Rudy loses 5-7% to a third party candidate, that would change the entire complexion of the race and almost ensure that he would lose swingstates. Make no mistake though -- I'd prefer that the Dem candidate be Obama so that we don't even need any help.

Posted by: Colin | October 4, 2007 11:47 AM | Report abuse

For someone living outside of NY, its hard to imagine anyone taking this bloviating fool seriously.

Posted by: Cornax | October 4, 2007 11:46 AM | Report abuse

Will you be asking John Ensign about each of the potential GOP nominees, or will you continue your negative focus on Dems only?

Posted by: frank | October 4, 2007 11:45 AM | Report abuse

HEY LOL,

http://www.newyorkforhuckabee.blogspot.com

Guess you can't read the name of the state I'm from:

IT'S NEW YORK

Posted by: Peter | October 4, 2007 11:44 AM | Report abuse

Ok, last post for awhile. I just found this neat website, non-partisan polling and issues site, and thought I'd pass it along

http://www.pollingreport.com/index.html

Posted by: JD | October 4, 2007 11:41 AM | Report abuse

bsimon, I did read Will's piece (as I always do - the guy is brilliant and has such a facility with words).

I thought it was very interesting, him fawning over Obama's econ guru. The points he made were yet another reason why I think Obama is the best of the Democrat candidates.

Posted by: JD | October 4, 2007 11:39 AM | Report abuse

I found this quote interesting:

"People have seen Democrats are trying and trying again and trying again to change the course of the war in Iraq and we are being blocked by the Republicans and the president"

Um...don't the Democrats control Congress now? Can't they de-fund the troops? Or were they just saying what they thought the left wing and indies wanted to hear, in order to get elected?

No wonder the approval rating is so low.

Posted by: JD | October 4, 2007 11:37 AM | Report abuse

Chuck Shumer? Isn't he the Democratic insider that torpedo'd the run for Congress of genuine Iraq War hero Paul Hackett? Politcial insiders and hacks, Shumer and Reid cut off funds, threatened contributors, and otherwise wrecked Hackett's Ohio run for Congress in favor of Democratic insider and operative Sherrod Brown. (http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/2/14/112042.shtml?s=ic)

Shumer is one of those corrupt insiders that would support Hillary becasue she has guarranteeed him a place at the pigs trough supplied by her corporate owners. He is an embarrassing little toady who can blather all he wants about Clinton not harming Democrats. All that amount to, however, is spin, lies, and another shovel load of the same crap these "leaders" have been feeding us for years.


Posted by: MikeB | October 4, 2007 11:35 AM | Report abuse

Vote for her? Nofreakingway. Not in 2008 under ANY circumstances. Maybe...MAYBE...in 2012, if she governs in a way I deem responsible.

That said, there's no one on the GOP side I like right now either. May have to sit this one out.

Posted by: ANON | October 4, 2007 11:33 AM | Report abuse

Anon says
"Moderate Repubs I know said they'd vote for anyone over Clinton, even Nutjob Guiliani, though they find Obama appealing and might well vote for him."


Anyone else see George Will's piece this AM? He endorses Obama's economics advisor as being, not too bad, if we have to have a Dem president. Fairly interesting. Of course, an endorsement from Will is unlikely to help any Dem in the primaries...

Posted by: bsimon | October 4, 2007 11:31 AM | Report abuse

It amazes me that the press lets the Clinton campaign get away with these vague dismissals of a very serious problem. As I walk and phone my precinct, I hear again and again that people just don't like her... and these are Democrats. It is not everyone, but the percentage is large enough to worry me. 60 Senate seats for the Democrats? I really don't think so if she is at the top of the ticket. She will cause a backlash, especially in some parts of the country that will make it difficult for those in Congressional races. I just hope we stay even. I would prefer for the Clintons to face the issue, not dismiss it. Then perhaps she will understand what she is doing wrong.

Posted by: Buttons | October 4, 2007 11:29 AM | Report abuse

exactly, Blarg. There is too much baggage.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 4, 2007 11:25 AM | Report abuse

Wow, this post really goes along with annoiting Clinton the Democratic nominee! Just look at the title "Schumer denies Clinton will be a drag on the Democratic ticket." The voting hasn't started yet, folks!

In my view, whoever is on the ticket on the Republican and Democratic side will have an effect on the tickets. I mean, look at Bush vs. Kerry in 04'. Republicans gained 6 seats and lost 2, which ironically, could be the reverse this year or something close. Bush won SD, Fl., Ga., SC, NC and La. All of these states went Bush and elected Republican senators, including SD which dashed Daschle's political career into! In Ill., a rough state for R's due to the senator's retirement and scandals all across the R's in power, Dem. Barack Obama won a US senate seat from Ill. Kerry won Ill. easily. The 1 exception was Colorodo. Beer magnate Pete Coors lost to then Colo. state AG Ken Salazar in a very close race. President Bush, however, won Colorodo. Why? Coors was a beer magnate who did not have close ties with social conservatives, he made his living getting people loaded. On the other hand, social conservatives love Bush. But 1 exception out of 8? Yes, the Presidential nominee's have a direct impact down the ticket.

Posted by: reason | October 4, 2007 11:23 AM | Report abuse

Colin, that's interesting news, but I think a lot depends on that generic candidate. I doubt 14% of voters would really support anyone who's pro-life. If the pro-life candidate is weak in other ways (personality, background, electability, etc.) I think a lot of those people would end up voting Republican. The candidate matters.

...which brings me back to the topic of CC's post. Schumer doesn't get it. He says that people may disagree with Hillary on guns and taxes, but that won't hurt her. He misses the point. The issue isn't Hillary's stance on the issues, which is close enough to the other Democratic candidates. The issue is Hillary herself: Her name, her history, her personality, her scandals. That's what would be a drag on the ticket, not her stance on the issues.

Posted by: Blarg | October 4, 2007 11:21 AM | Report abuse

Interesting that many of Webb's voters in VA were Republican (as were Mark Warner's), and those are the types to vote against Hilary or for an Obama. There is a broad group of moderate conservatives out there who just have a knee-jerk against Clinton.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 4, 2007 11:20 AM | Report abuse

you are so right, Truth Hunter. I have heard those rumblings already. Moderate Repubs I know said they'd vote for anyone over Clinton, even Nutjob Guiliani, though they find Obama appealing and might well vote for him. The Dems are going to shoot themselves in the foot.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 4, 2007 11:15 AM | Report abuse

Slightly Off Topic, but it does relate to Hillary's chances:

Rasmussen has a poll out showing what a three-way matchup between Hillary, Rudy, and a Third-Party Pro-Life candidate would look like.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/27_of_republicans_would_vote_for_pro_life_third_party_instead_of_giuliani

Bottom line: Hillary - 46%
Rudy - 30%
Third-Party - 14%

Given that Rasmussen samples tend to skew towards the GOP and that Hillary galvanizes the GOP base like no other candidate, this is pretty striking. And it sounds like Dobson is very serious about a third party candidate if Rudy gets the GOP nomination.

Posted by: Colin | October 4, 2007 11:14 AM | Report abuse

I don't get the Clinton thing. The people in the polls seem to have drunk the Kool Aid. The most trustworthy? Do people have no memory? The most likely to work with other side? Who was polled? I just honestly have no idea what people answering were thinking to justify these answers. Even if you like her, you cannot seriously believe those answers.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 4, 2007 11:12 AM | Report abuse

Will Clinton be a net drag on the Democratic ticket? Hard to say. But,one thing seems crystal clear, she will be a "get-out-the-vote on steriods" for the GOP.

Schumer of course will whistle past the graveyard of pitfalls. But, if it develops that Hillary runs against Rudy.... it could be 2000 all over again.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth Hunter | October 4, 2007 11:10 AM | Report abuse

As expected, the first few posts are off-topic wastes of time...

I think 9 seats, at least now, seems quite possible. Democrats are generally ahead in the aforementioned states, and independents are leaning toward democratic this cycle. The Iraq war and poor domestic policy may have made Republicans into more than a short term minority...

Posted by: D | October 4, 2007 11:10 AM | Report abuse

'Sen. Schumer and Sen. Clinton are clearly the worst Senators New York has ever had.'

But you're not actually from NY, are you clown? They have hgih approval ratings here, so mind your freaking business.

Posted by: LOL | October 4, 2007 11:10 AM | Report abuse

Chuck is probably so excited that he can hardly stand it. 9 seat pick up isn't far fetched at all with NM, CO, VA, MN, NH, and OR as good chances some of them as locks if you ask me. The dems will just have to pick up three of ME, NE, AK, NC, or TN (which is a lonnnnnggg shot if you ask me) that is unless Alexander retires. Plus I think Mississippi will be an open seat too.

George Bush might have single handedly killed the GOP.

Posted by: Andy R | October 4, 2007 11:09 AM | Report abuse

Despite the similarity in rhetoric, I really don't see a 9 seat gain in the Senate. Maybe 5-8 seats but not 9.

Well done on using the word "shibboleth" in a sentence, Senator Schumer. The Scrabble win is yours, sir.

Posted by: JasonL | October 4, 2007 11:09 AM | Report abuse

"Schumer Denies Clinton Would Be a Drag
On the Democratic Ticket"


Of course he does. The Republican strategists pointed out that Bush wasn't on the ballot in 2006, which, while true, certainly didn't much help his party. I imagine if you asked, Sen Schumer would admit they'll try to tie GOP Senators up for reelection to the President, despite him, again, not being on the ballot. So does the Senator expect to have it both ways - that Clinton wouldn't affect down-ticket races, but Bush does?

Posted by: Bsimon | October 4, 2007 11:08 AM | Report abuse

for anyone who is interested in hearing Obama, he is in MD next week:

Maryland Countdown to Change
October 10, 2007, 5:00 p.m.
Prince George's Community College
301 Largo Road
Largo, MD 20774

Guest: $25
Student: $15
http://www.barackobama.com/

Posted by: JL | October 4, 2007 11:06 AM | Report abuse

Aaron Burr can rest easy. Sen. Schumer and Sen. Clinton are clearly the worst Senators New York has ever had.

http://www.newyorkforhuckabee.blogspot.com

Posted by: Peter | October 4, 2007 10:57 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company