Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Hot September for Senate Races

Laboring through the doldrums of August? Just remember, we're only three weeks away from what is shaping up as the most pivotal month of the cycle for determining the Senate playing field.

Why? At least three Republican Senators are expected to announce whether or not they will run for re-election between September and November, a top-tier Democratic challenger will decide whether or not to run in New Hampshire and Republicans' best hope in Louisiana will be faced with a very tough choice.

Below we break down each of the scenarios and place our bet on what will happen. What is your wager?

Virginia: Sen. John Warner (R) has set a drop-dead deadline of September to decide whether to seek a sixth term. Rep. Tom Davis (R) isn't taking any chances, having already stowed more than $1 million in the bank if the seat comes open. Davis may not be able to avoid a conservative primary challenge in the figure of former Gov. Jim Gilmore (R). The Democratic side is far clearer with former Gov. Mark Warner the party's strongest candidate by far. Mark Warner is clearly interested in the race and has begun talking to advisers about his political future. Our Bet: Warner (John) retires and Warner (Mark) runs creating a top pickup opportunity for Democrats.

New Hampshire: Former Gov. Jeanne Shaheen (D) will make up her mind on whether to seek a rematch against Sen. John Sununu (R) by the end of September. We hear Shaheen is leaning toward the race and her husband, Bill, is telling supporters there is a 70 percent chance she will run, according to the one and only Bob Novak. And why shouldn't she? Every independent poll shows Shaheen leading Sununu, often by double digit margins. Portsmouth Mayor Steve Marchand (D) has said he would leave the race if Shaheen got in. Former congressional candidate Katrina Swett (D) hasn't made that same pledge but would come under heavy pressure from the party establishment to do so. Our Bet: Shaheen runs and Sununu has the race of his political life.

Nebraska: Give Sen. Chuck Hagel (R) this: he keeps you guessing. Hagel held a nationally covered press conference in March to announce he had nothing to announce. At that time Hagel said he would make a decision "later this year" on whether to run for re-election, run for president or retire. Hagel has since said he will use the August recess to ponder his future. Hagel's decision may not matter at all when it comes to the Senate race, where state Attorney General Jon Bruning (R) seems to be in the primary race to stay and nearly doubled Hagel's cash intake over the past three months. If Hagel goes, Democrats have two serious candidates waiting in the wings: former Sen. Bob Kerrey and Omaha Mayor Mike Fahey. Either would make this a competitive race. Our Bet: Hagel retires. But does Kerrey get the right of first refusal even if Fahey is the stronger candidate?

Louisiana: National Republicans seem settled on state Treasurer John Kennedyas their candidate against Sen. Mary Landrieu (D) in 2008. Two potential problems with that scenario: first, Kennedy is a Democrat at the moment and second, Kennedy may decide that a run for state Attorney General in 2007 is the better race for him. (The current attorney general, Charles Foti, has been embroiled in a controversy after he accused two nurses and a doctor of killing patients in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina; a grand jury declined to indict the three caregivers.) Kennedy has to choose a race by Sept. 6, the filing deadline for Louisiana's 2007 state elections. Our Bet: Who knows? Louisiana is an alternate political universe that we've never totally understood.

Mississippi: Ok. So Sen. Thad Cochran (R) has said he won't make a decision until November. But we're throwing him in this post anyway because political junkies (including yours truly) have been waiting for an open seat race in Mississippi for the last two cycles. at the start of the 2004 cycle Sen. Trent Lott (R) looked to be a certain bet for retirement, but he decided to stick it out and -- lo and behold -- he's now the minority whip. (God bless second chances in politics.) Now the speculation centers on Cochran. If Cochran does retire, Rep. Chip Pickering (R) will likely leap at the chance he has been waiting on for the last four years. Democrats believe former state Attorney General Mike Moore (D) -- without question their strongest candidate -- would run. Our Bet: Cochran stays....no matter when he decides to announce it.

By Chris Cillizza  |  August 7, 2007; 11:30 AM ET
Categories:  Senate  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: The Fix: Social Networker
Next: AFL-CIO Forum Preview: The Big 3

Comments

My bet: Seven GOP seats are vulnerable if Hagel retires: ME, NH, MN, NE, CO, OR, VA, SD and LA. And who knows what is going to happen in New Mexico, whether Dominici would retire or not.

Posted by: George Chell | September 1, 2007 7:00 PM | Report abuse

Mike--I will be happy to provide links for you when I get back to unrestricted access. In the meanwhile, if you are genuinely interested in the issue, Google News would be a good start, "iraq oil revenue" a good search term. You will see the U.S.-crafted oil bill stalling amid concerns of exploitation by the oil companies.

Posted by: roo | August 8, 2007 2:12 PM | Report abuse

Mike, would you please comment on my post to you from 9:56P last night? I wonder if we are seeing the same sets of problems in Iraq but disagreeing as to how many of them we can solve.

In a sea of dragons, my post was not intended to be, and was not, unfriendly. On the new Huckabee thread I asked you about Romney - not baiting there, either.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | August 8, 2007 10:45 AM | Report abuse

I see Gomer Pyle is up and at 'em early today.

Sha-ZAM! GAW-LEE, Sgt. Carter! Where's my beard, Lou-Ann Poovey?

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | August 8, 2007 9:10 AM | Report abuse

I see Gomer Pyle is up and at 'em early today.

Sha-ZAM! GAW-LEE, Sgt. Carter! Where's my beardm Lou-Ann Poovey?

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | August 8, 2007 9:10 AM | Report abuse

Roo-- something doesn't become true just because you say it.

Classic liberal-speak.

If I were going to "steal" your bag of doghnuts, I wouldn't break into your house, kill your Dad, elect a better one, and demand that you have law and order and equitable doghnut distribution among your family.

I would break in and take it.

Duh.

Also, see Kuwait example above.

Don't just post a 2 line claim Roo - it doesn't make you look smart.

Posted by: Mike | August 8, 2007 7:37 AM | Report abuse

Mike--We ARE trying to steal their oil. It is this thing they call "stealth" which involves the appearance of propriety where actions are in fact inappropriate.

Fortunately the oil bill has stalled for now when folks started catching on.

Posted by: roo | August 7, 2007 11:22 PM | Report abuse

LOL Cubicle Man? Oohh that smarts, Mikey.

I see some posters ripped through you like Patton after the Normandy breakout. Really sliced you up good.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | August 7, 2007 10:20 PM | Report abuse

Hi Mike -

I am going to bore you but bear with me.

I see the following problems in Iraq, in no particular order.

1. Al Qaeda in Iraq.
2. Shia 3 way war in the south as the Brits leave.
3. Sunni - Shia war in and around Bagdad.
4. Turk - Kurd tension in the north.
5. Bad weak central government.
6. Sucky infrastructure.
7. Wasted money, lost weapons, and the like.
8. Mehdi Army.
9. Iran meddling, offering weapons.
10. Saudi support for Sunni insurgents.
11. Syrian support for Sunni insurgents and
pestering Kurds, too.
12. Oil is in the north and south not the middle.
13., 14., and 15. - for you to add.

I think we can deal with 1,4,7,9, 10, and 11, and that we cannot fix 2,3,5,6,and 8.

I heard Richard Holbrooke say we needed to solve the stuff we can deal with, but that as lamentable as is the prospect that Sunni - Shia wars and Bagdad will become bloodbaths, they are not threats to our
national interest. This does mean talking to Syria and Iran. There is stuff they want from us. There is stuff we want from them. And the Saudis are supposed to be our allies.

We have been the strong right arm of Iranian foreign policy for too long, having disposed of their enemies the Taliban and Saddam. Hobrooke says Iran has a very bad government and there might not be any productive negotiations.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | August 7, 2007 9:56 PM | Report abuse

Iraq: Purpose

-WMD's. Hindsight is 20/20, come on let's be reasonable. CIA director G. Tenet, a Clintonian, even said he thought they were there.

-Freedom for the oppressed. There's no question Saddam was, himself, a weapon of mass destruction to many innocent lives.

-Democracy. Human beings, by virtue of being born, deserve certain rights, including the right to vote. Democracy is inherently a good thing. It took us nearly 20 years to establish ours. 5-6 Years isn't so bad.

-Regional stability. Imagine, a pro-US democracy located in the middle east. Imagine, Baghdad becoming a safe, tourist destination some day. WOW. Don't you want to see mesopotamia?

-Combat terrorism. Stated above.

Iraq: Plan

-Surge like we haven't surged before
-Kill or capture every terrorist in sight
[fight an actual WAR]
-Close the border (we agree)
-Train the Iraqi army/police force (we agree)
-Ensure passage of equitable oil laws
-Begin slow withdrawal (we agree)
-Maintain anti-terrorist detachment (see Hillary)

The idea is, withdrawal is not a function of TIME, but rather, a function of PROGRESS.


Regarding OIL.

Did we go to war for oil? Let's think about that.

First Gulf War - why didn't we say, "hey look Kuwait, we'll save you from Saddam, so long as you promise us $25 oil for eternity"? Because that's not how we do things.

If we wanted their oil, why don't we just steal it, rather than insisting that the market control it rather than a dictator? Because that's now how we do things.

Is OIL a major consideration in regional stability and policy? Yes. Do you like driving to work? Yes.

Funny thing, the same people who hate oil and want to punish oil companies for providing us with the energy we so desperately need are the people who stand in the way of nuke power, which is safer than anything there is (witness the trapped coal miners -- a worse accident than any US Nuke accident).

What do you think about nuclear power?

Posted by: Mike | August 7, 2007 9:30 PM | Report abuse

Point 1: I disagree. Bin Laden is not the only brain. AQ is so global, so decentralized, that killing him won't dent it.


Point 2: Here's where you just blatantly ignore/deny it:

ME: "In WAR, you engage the enemy, wherever you can, and kill him, as much as you can.

That is exactly what we're doing in Iraq."

YOU:"-thats where we differ, the true enemy is in the tribal areas of pakistan"


Point 4: I don't claim to be an expert - but I also don't make claims that I couldn't possibly know, without any evidence other than what kos and moveon tell me like Cubicle Man Loudon does.


Point 5: Firefighters. I guess what I'm saying is this. If you're son is a firefighter, "supporting" him doesn't mean asking him to not fight a fire.

In the same way, to claim "support" for the troops means "not putting them in harms way" is misleading. We sign up to be in harm's way, to defend the rights of cubible-man-quarterback-Loudoun.

"Supporting" your fire-fighter son means praying for him, encouraging him, donating to his fire dept., and defending and honoring him for the hero he is.


Now, you have said something that I find easy to agree with!

The President's definition of the mission.

There shouldn't be any confusion on this.

It's his job to tell us all what the mission is.

So, on that front, you're right - the President has not MADE THE CASE TO THE PEOPLE.

But I don't think that means congress can/should manage a war...

More to come

Posted by: Mike | August 7, 2007 8:48 PM | Report abuse

"if you feel that we are winning in iraq, isnt it time to let the iraq's control their destiny? not micromanage it like we are doing right now?"

Now THAT'S a good question.

The short answer is, we're in the process of winning, but we still haven't won. But I believe we will. And when we do, you're right - get our boys home.

I'll have a longer response after I eat.

Posted by: Mike | August 7, 2007 8:36 PM | Report abuse

Convince me the mission *should* change, then, that it *has*. I'm not convinced.
-missed one. ok fine what were the mission going into iraq?

1)keeping wmd's out of terrorist hands:unfortunately none was there. i guess no one in the white house ever played poker

2)depose saddam hussain-check. ill give you that. but i feel even more uncomforable giving iraq over to iran to be a proxy state.

3)install a democratically elected government: first and second round of elections gave the shia a good sized majority, the sunni boycotted the first and participated in the second. and now its falling apart. and i forgot to mention they are on vacation too.

3)fight AQ in iraq:ah yes bait them in to a battle field of our choosing. where we are strangers to it and they have a cultual advantage. good job. maybe we should send in the 10th mountain division and a a few special forces groups back into afganistan to hunt for binladin.

simplistic yes, and i could have said oil but thats more of a kneejerk answer.

now here's how i would change it.

1-withdrawl 1/3 of our forces, begin reparing the infrastructure.(no more private contractors doing the work.) change from warfighting to peace keeping and disarm the millitas

2-train the armies, put emphasis on counter terrorism.

3-secure the borders(its funny since we cant secure outs but thats another post) a good portion of the terrorists killing our soliders are actually saudi-not iranian but im sure they have some shenanigans going on too. find them kill them or capture them and get info. dead men tell no tales.


from what i gather your policy would be

1-get em all
2-hold elections
3-?????
4-PROFIT!!!

that really doesnt sound like a plan to me.

Posted by: spartan | August 7, 2007 7:37 PM | Report abuse

^^^last post by me sorry bout that

Posted by: spartan | August 7, 2007 7:20 PM | Report abuse

mike-ah i see you come back finally-ok game on.

Example 1: I say, Bin Laden is not the heart of AQ. He can easily be replaced.

You say, no he can't.
-fine quote where i said that. my reasoning is that you take out the brain of AQ. also i read your starfish quote,interesting but i prefer a hydra analogy. cut off one arm and another takes it place. aim for the head and AQ takes years to find a replacement.

Example 2: I say, we are inviting terrorists to Iraq, and then sending them to their rightful death.

You say, no we're not.
-now your just putting words in my mouth. quote me where i said that.

Example 4: I call Cubicle-Man a quarterback.

You say, I should join the military.
-ok, but i still want to know your qualifications on the matter other than you have a bumper sticker saying support the troops.

Example 5: I compare withdrawal in the name of the troops to firefighter's cowardace in the face of a burning building. [this was obviously over your head]

You say, you're right - no one in their right mind would tell a firefighter not to put out a fire, proving my point.
-thanks, but you missed mine. comparing firefighters and the millitary are two different animals. now supporting the troops go further than just putting a bumper sticker on your car. what have you done other than debate some guy on the finer points of the war?

and thank you for answering my questions by the way.
That's obvious. Bring them home. Fortunately, you, I, Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, etc. don't define the mission. The President does.
-well thats simple then the president defines the mission. but what if the president doesnt(like now) then it fall on to congress to change it for him. nice of you agreeing with me mike.

Enforcement of laws and protection of individual rights, as guaranteed by the constitution. How about you?
-admirable, but i gave you a answer a week or two back. nice of you to finally answer.

that's what you call a leading question. There are assumptions built in to the question, CNN style. I'll debate about the assumptions, but I'm not going to answer a leading question. Try to figure out a way to ask a fair question and get back to me.
-so in other words no. but you insist in debating me fox style then ill re-phrase it in so that you can under stand it.

if you feel that we are winning in iraq, isnt it time to let the iraq's control their destiny? not micromanage it like we are doing right now?

Posted by: Anonymous | August 7, 2007 7:17 PM | Report abuse

Regarding: "Mark Warner is clearly interested in the race and has begun talking to advisers about his political future."

I've heard this elsewhere and can not find a source for this. Do you have a footnote? Is this just hearsay?

-fink

Posted by: fink | August 7, 2007 7:12 PM | Report abuse

Hey. They're stealing my lines :)

http://www.crooksandliars.com/


"Novak: I'm Taking My Toys And Leaving!

In a radio interview with Diane Rehm this morning, right-wing columnist Robert Novak tried to assert his conservative credentials by distancing himself from the Bush White House. "I don't support this administration," he said.

"The president's cut me off the list of conservative columnists that are invited there." He added, "They consider me a lot of trouble."

It would be unsurprising if the White House considered Novak "trouble," given his unscrupulous journalistic ethics. But nothing in Novak's previous comments has suggested anything but a close relationship with the White House. Just recently, he said he "never enjoyed such a good source inside the White House" as Karl Rove.

It appears Novak is simply sour over the fact he wasn't given a 110-minute sit-down interview with President Bush like his counterpart at the New York Times, David Brooks.

"

Posted by: rufus | August 7, 2007 7:06 PM | Report abuse

I know he has the right to post. He doesn't have the right to call people names (without cause). I didn't start the verbal battle today. I was just defedning myself. Read the last hour. Look at the lies and half-truths he posted. He has the right to post them. The rtest of us don't have to pretend he is not lying , or call him on his lies.

I want him to voice his opinion. He just needs to be ready for the backlash. I wish the gop'ers on this site WOULD attack my points. It would be funny to me. The problem is, THEY can't. Rather it's name calling of "Ignore him".

I DO practice what I preach. HEre it is. I'll make a rule for once. Ready.

Everybody posts what they want. Anybody can call out or challenge the POINTS one makes. Nobody results ot accustions and name calling or discreditting.

Now let's see if the gop'ers follow the rules :)

Posted by: RUFUS | August 7, 2007 7:02 PM | Report abuse

Spartan -- You have managed to give half-answers, at best, assertions, at worst.


Example 1: I say, Bin Laden is not the heart of AQ. He can easily be replaced.

You say, no he can't.

Example 2: I say, we are inviting terrorists to Iraq, and then sending them to their rightful death.

You say, no we're not.

Example 3: I say, if you don't understand the enemy, you shouldn't lead the fight against them.

You say, you do understand the enemy.

Then you prove that you don't.


Example 4: I call Cubicle-Man a quarterback.

You say, I should join the military.

*cough* oh, it gets better.


Example 5: I compare withdrawal in the name of the troops to firefighter's cowardace in the face of a burning building. [this was obviously over your head]

You say, you're right - no one in their right mind would tell a firefighter not to put out a fire, proving my point.

Thanks.


Now I'll actually answer the only things worth answering you wrote:

What happens when the mission changes?

-That's obvious. Bring them home. Fortunately, you, I, Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, etc. don't define the mission. The President does.

-Convince me the mission *should* change, then, that it *has*. I'm not convinced.

1.) What do you stand for politically?

Enforcement of laws and protection of individual rights, as guaranteed by the constitution. How about you?


2.) if we won in iraq then wouldnt you agree then we should declare victory? if not can you at least give a reason of staying in the middle of a civil war?

- that's what you call a leading question. There are assumptions built in to the question, CNN style. I'll debate about the assumptions, but I'm not going to answer a leading question. Try to figure out a way to ask a fair question and get back to me.

Posted by: Mike | August 7, 2007 6:59 PM | Report abuse

Judge C. Crater: Put your glasses on and read my outrage!!. The in quote remarks at the start of your post is my outrage that others are using. I have been one of the most outspoken critics of this war and this Administration since I started posting here about a year ago. Yes!! I do believe this Administration has and continues to commit "TREASON". Mike: Your list is so STUPID it does not require more than one word "STUPID".

Posted by: lylepink | August 7, 2007 6:59 PM | Report abuse

nevermind spartan. I misread his quotes as yours. I'm sorry. I'm logging off today. I'm going home. To much of mike's gop propoganda making my head spin. Maybe that's the point.

Good luck all.

"DON'T. DON'T DON'T. DON'T BELIEVE THE HYPE."

Posted by: rufus | August 7, 2007 6:56 PM | Report abuse

not at all rufus,although you might want to chill out on mike. he's got a right to be here, he should expect his remarks shredded into pieces.

you see folks thats how you debate. lay off the name calling, and debate them point by point, make them defend their points. as soon as someone like zouk or mike or razorback starts in with the name calling, thats the fall back point of the desperate and you know they lost the argument.

i just wish the democrats in the house and senate would take that advice. oh well

Posted by: spartan | August 7, 2007 6:55 PM | Report abuse

wAit a second saprtan. You tricked me. You did not shoot his agruments down, like a sane person would do but defended him

I recant my last post :) No disrespect. do you. keep posting your posts.

Posted by: rufus | August 7, 2007 6:53 PM | Report abuse

not at all spartan. Thank you for takign the time. I wasn't even going to give his arguements any credance.

Thank you for shootin ghis lies down one by one.

Posted by: rufus | August 7, 2007 6:49 PM | Report abuse

sorry for the long post everyone. i just got back from looking at blu-ray players for my den, but what mike said was too good to pass up.

Posted by: spartan | August 7, 2007 6:47 PM | Report abuse

"If you really think the constitution is under assault, pick up a rifle."

Against who. My own countrymen? No thank you. I AM this country. You are agaisnt it, like I and others have said. I'm not going to hurt you mike. Don't fear us. We're just going to vote you out, for good. No need for violence. MAybe the country will embrace your people's lies and propoganda. I doubt. But if they do I STILL won't pick up a rifle as you say.

MAjority rule, rememebr. If your propoganda succeds I will merly flee the country. If you follow me, then it's on.l I just hope it doesn't go that far. I hoep the american people reject your fascism. The last election bought this great country 2 years. If you don't like this country or what WE stand for, I suggest YOU leave. You propogandist you

Posted by: rufus | August 7, 2007 6:43 PM | Report abuse

you know mike this is funny,really its funny. i really dont know where to start but let me take a crack at it....

Bin Laden is not the heart of Al Qaeda in the same way that your heart circulates blood through your body.
-gee really, so he's not the founder of al Qaeda along with his capo's. and i guess bush didnt say he wanted him dead or alive right? want me to find said quote?

In WAR, you engage the enemy, wherever you can, and kill him, as much as you can.

That is exactly what we're doing in Iraq.

-thats where we differ, the true enemy is in the tribal areas of pakistan. you harrass the enemy where he lives, not down the street as you seem to think. now if you can connect saddam and binladin together(please do enquiring minds do want to know) then do so.

This fundamental misunderstanding of our ENEMY precludes liberals from being qualified enough to lead our nation, especially in war.

-oh sure, the great liberal boogeyman misunderstands the enemy. ok slick if we did whats AQ from attacking us anyway,if were tied up in iraq?

then you go on and say this....

You're nothing but an armchair quarterback in the world of fighting terror and protecting Americans.
-projection, can you give your qualifications on the middle east, milltary and international affairs,along with counter-terrorism? any more than i claim to be an actual spartan. if anything its mere speculation on your part. if you really want to influence the war effort i invite you to join(or re join) the armed forces.

Besides, millionaire's don't concern me as much as BILLIONAIRES named George Soros.
-you know what concerns me, not billionares like george soros, im more concerned with iraq, and terrorism. please dont change the subject just because you dont like the man politically

lylepink - by that logic, you should stop fire fighters from risking their lives to put out a fire.
-um do you see anyone screaming we shouldnt send firemen to fight fires? please stop it with the strawmen already.

The function of the military is to wage wars (there are other functions too).

But to bring them home, to "save them" from waging wars, is not "supporting" them.
-we agree on that, but what happens when the mission changes, what do we do then? change the mission parameters or "stay the course"? you change the mission from a war footing to a peace keeping role, and its not happening. in fact we are arming the various millitas now.

and i seem to remember a few questions that you never answered in another thread..
1)what do you stand for politically.
2)if we won in iraq then wouldnt you agree then we should declare victory? if not can you at least give a reason of staying in the middle of a civil war?

Posted by: spartan | August 7, 2007 6:40 PM | Report abuse

"The function of the military is to wage wars"

A lie. As said above. The PURPOSE of the military is to defend us from ALL enemies foregin AND domestic. Not to wage wars for profit. Who is the real soldier Mike, me or you. Who really supports the troops? Who are the traitors?

Posted by: rufus | August 7, 2007 6:30 PM | Report abuse

Don't tell me what I should and shouldn't be doing, as if those standards somehow don't equally apply to you. If you really think the constitution is under assault, pick up a rifle.

"We made Iraq a battleground, when it already was elswhere, and more favorable to us."

I'm dying to know where this "elsewhere" is located, other than your imagination.

Have you ever been to the mountains of Afghanistan? Is the conflict between the red army and the Afghans lost on you, or do you just not remember it?

"if we go, the terrorists get thrown out by the Iraqis"

This point is interesting, but also not based in reality. You're giving the Iraqi government too much credit, even for a retreatist [never though I'd say that]!

They are just now governing themselves, with limited success. It's going to take a long time. The terrorists will NOT be thrown out. That's a pipe dream.

Posted by: Mike | August 7, 2007 6:28 PM | Report abuse

"Also Mike, you took an oath that you will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic."

Wow. Blank poster. True. True.

The gop military men (not ALL mind you. gop'ers like mike and proud who continue to be bush's lawyers)have went agaisnt this pledge. They have choose party over country. They have chose outside influences over country. That IS treason

Posted by: rufus | August 7, 2007 6:28 PM | Report abuse

"The function of the military is to wage wars"

The wars our military fight are supposed to be legitimate. Iraq is the furthest thing from a legitimate war that this country has ever been engaged in.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 7, 2007 6:26 PM | Report abuse

"Treason" comes to mind. "High crimes and misdemeanors" does as well. Yet you say NOTHING about this. "

WHAT!!

WWhoooaaa. Judge?

You are the man. I know I liked you for a reason :)

Posted by: rufus | August 7, 2007 6:24 PM | Report abuse

You're right Loudoun - for a cubicle man who's in it for the entertainment, the taunting, and the name-calling, that was indeed "the best post of the day".

Posted by: Mike | August 7, 2007 6:22 PM | Report abuse

Am I kidding you. No, I'm deadly serious.

What I said was, the battleground wasn't Iraq. We made Iraq a battleground, when it already was elswhere, and more favorable to us.

In case you didn't read it fully, my point is that if we go, the terrorists get thrown out by the Iraqis. Why should we have any more U. S. soldiers die in the cross fire of the Iraq Civil War, when they could be fighting the terrorists in places such as, oh, Afghanistan.

Also Mike, you took an oath that you will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic.

Why are you collaborating in the assualt on the Constitution by our domestic elected officials? You're supposed to be defending the Constitution!

Posted by: Anonymous | August 7, 2007 6:20 PM | Report abuse

"BTW Mike - That comment about Soros may indicate that they've done to you, what they did to Mitt's father."

Best post of the day!!!!

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | August 7, 2007 6:17 PM | Report abuse

"By getting the troops out of Iraq ASAP, you are supporting the enemy, and you are not patrotic when you do not support the troops by calling for their leaving Iraq"

If calling for them to leave Iraq is not patriotic, what is arming their enemy with 190,000 weapons absolutely free of charge? "Treason" comes to mind. "High crimes and misdemeanors" does as well. Yet you say NOTHING about this. A WILDLY selective ignorance of facts on the ground for the sake of flowery, totally subjective questions of patriotism. A true supporter of the troops (rather than someone who USES them like a piece of toilet paper for convenient political ends) would be expressing their outrage. Where's yours?

**crickets**

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | August 7, 2007 6:17 PM | Report abuse

"To support the troops means saving their lives and limbs in every possible way."

lylepink - by that logic, you should stop fire fighters from risking their lives to put out a fire.

You should stop vets from taking risky animals.

You should stop Southwest Airlines pilots from flying at night.

You should ask police not to engage an armed robber.

Supporting the military does not mean bringing them home.

The function of the military is to wage wars (there are other functions too).

But to bring them home, to "save them" from waging wars, is not "supporting" them.

Don't be offended by that. I'm offended by you thinking you "support" by mandating defeat.

Posted by: Mike | August 7, 2007 6:14 PM | Report abuse

Most of the comments about Iraq has been on target. I will pick the comment that offends me the most by quoting close to what is said and why. "By getting the troops out of Iraq ASAP, you are supporting the enemy, and you are not patrotic when you do not support the troops by calling for their leaving Iraq". I have been opposed to this war from the start, and to this day believe it was done for oil/money. The key players for this war were, by my estimate, no more than 10 [ten] people. By going back and looking for the reasons given, each and every one, to my knowledge, have been proven false. My arguement has been "To support the troops means saving their lives and limbs in every possible way." This has not been done.

Posted by: lylepink | August 7, 2007 6:05 PM | Report abuse

"No kidding Mike. The terrorists weren't there until the "Bring "em on!" challenge. Which was after we had won militarily."

Never before have I seen someone absolutely agree with 2 basic premises of an argument, but dispute the logical conclusion.

p1: There was no battle ground prior to Iraq (except places like, oh, I don't know, NY CITY)

p2: Since Iraq is the battleground, the terrorists are going there to fight us. And we're killing them en masse.

C: 'We created a mess and should leave.'

Are you kidding me?

Posted by: Mike | August 7, 2007 6:05 PM | Report abuse

Turn your porch light on tonight! Rufus is out there.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 7, 2007 6:03 PM | Report abuse

I post my truths. I go after gop falshoods and misdirection. But I never tell you gop'ers not to post it. Without your lies and propoganda I would not be able to show independant thinkers you are liars :).

Without you being fascsits, I would not be able to show independant thinkers you are fascists. Keep doing you Mike. I'll keep doing me. Just don't try and control me or others. You cannot force conservatism on a free people. Forcing your views on another people is not freedom, America IS.

I'm not trying to force you gop'ers to be or say anything. I am merly showing independant thinkers what you are about and hoping they will see the light. I'm hoping I reach that one person who who be a catalyst of change.

Do you Mike. Without the fascsits ruining this country who would I be against. O that's right I would not be here. I would be living my life free of politics. YOur people brought me in Mike. Now you must deal with the results.

Once the gop is wiped away I will be gone. Like the watchmen, I cannot battle evil if there is no evil.

The future is now. We're going to change the game for the better. Either help or sabotage. The choice is yours. You do you, I'll do me :)

Posted by: rufus | August 7, 2007 6:00 PM | Report abuse

BTW Mike - That comment about Soros may indicate that they've done to you, what they did to Mitt's father.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 7, 2007 5:58 PM | Report abuse

Mark -- Thanks for breaking it down Aggie style. Sometimes you Longhorn types talk right past us.

Obama is taking heat from the right (in my opinion) for the following 4 reasons.

1. His sudden aggressive posture seems hypocritical. What was it Mitt said about his Jane Fonda 1-week transformation?

2. Though the scenario he laid out makes sense [to a degree (see 3 & 4)], it seems like he's just trying to score political points.

3. We don't generally invade the sov. of our allies. [We can probably count on our allies to help us kill a terrorist.]

4. We don't generally invade the sov. of our allies -- Especially when those allies are unstable governments, presiding over a nuclear-armed Islamic nation.

Now, I am definitely willing to concede to you that when I hear Sean Hannity, et al, talking about what an idiot this guys is for even suggesting such a thing, that there is a hint of hypocricy involved there.

But the main issue is his underlying assumption that we would have to go THROUGH Pakistan, rather than stand WITH them if we had actionable intelligence.

No need for a freshmen senator to "stir up the hornet's nest" like that, just to prove he is a foreign policy wiz-kid.

Posted by: Mike | August 7, 2007 5:58 PM | Report abuse

"The Iraqis aren't the enemy. The terrorists are.

The terrorists fighting us in Iraq aren't even from Iraq."

No kidding Mike. The terrorists weren't there until the "Bring "em on!" challenge. Which was after we had won militarily.

We created that mess. However, if we leave the Iraqis will boot their butts out; and if we have to face them elsewhere it won't be in the middle of somebody else's Civil War.

Quite frankly, as a Marines Corps officer I'm amazed and disappointed at the simplicity of your positions. If you want to be the Point Platoon every time just for the sake of making contact, then your positions serve your purpose well. You're the one who asks How High? even if it's an idiot who's giving you the command Jump! (that sort of describes the rationalizing we still see on why we're in Iraq).

God man, if you really want to be a leader of men, look around and see what so many of the retired Generals and Admirals have had to say about this disaster; which they couldn't say while they were on Active Duty. And process that, instead of the pap which the Pentagon and Fox put out. Those loyal soldiers and sailors are not "libs" by any means.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 7, 2007 5:54 PM | Report abuse

I want you to say whatever you want mike. I want you to voice YOUR opinion as loudly and agressivly as you want.

What I do not what is for you to tell me wha tI should be doing. Or how I'm lying (when I'm telling the truth). Or tell OTHERS not to listen to me.

BReak the jarhead slave mentality. Be an individual. Let others be individuals. you don't want to go agaisnt me today. Take it easy. It's been a good day without you trolls in here lying spinning and discreditting.

Posted by: rufus | August 7, 2007 5:54 PM | Report abuse

Have your opinion. Just don't tell me not to mention my service while doing it yourself. Why is that so hard to understand. Doublethink newspeak 1984.

Thick skulls, you people

Posted by: rufus | August 7, 2007 5:51 PM | Report abuse

I see your game. You just want to sit there in the safety of your cubicle and be the only one in the world entitled to an opinion.

Because I wear a uniform, I am not quite as entitled to an opinion as you are.

You don't make me sick.

I would lay down my life for you, regardless of your political leanings.

Even though you aparently don't deem me worthy of having an opinion.

I would fight for you and your freedom to be an idiot.

Posted by: Mike | August 7, 2007 5:49 PM | Report abuse

Ok Aggie - I see that I was uncharacteristically emotional.

1] Is not hot pursuit of terrorists a good idea, just as it was for pirates, their closest analogs in international law?

2] Granting the somewhat undiplomatic phrasing, was not Obama's point that we should pursue OBL just like GWB's?

3] And why is that criticized from the
right?

Posted by: Mark in Austin | August 7, 2007 5:48 PM | Report abuse

"I just finished reading a biography of WW II General Terry Allen. Absolutely zero mention of his political leanings, because he didn't have any. He was a true warrior. "

Country first in a military man's life USED to be the motto. Truth first used to be a journalist. How did this change. Mike and gop'er s would try and point the finger.

The gop switched on us. To me personally it amounts to treason. Choosing anything about coutry, such as party. how did thye used to handle this benidict arnold like treason in the old days?

I say bring back real punishment for the GOP'S treason. I don't want the old law. I would settle for 30 years each

Posted by: rufus | August 7, 2007 5:47 PM | Report abuse

Mike: "Loudoun -- if you think Bin Laden is the only millionaire in the world who also hates America, you're an idiot.

I didn't know that needed to be said.

Besides, millionaire's don't concern me as much as BILLIONAIRES named George Soros."

1. How many other millionaires/billionaires/whatever have financed operations like 9/11?

2. Your more scared of George Soros than Osama Bin Laden? Wow, you are seriously ill. Completely off your rocker.

I just finished reading a biography of WW II General Terry Allen. Absolutely zero mention of his political leanings, because he didn't have any. He was a true warrior.

To compare the likes of him with the likes of little partisans like you who wrap yourselves in the american flag makes me sick.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | August 7, 2007 5:42 PM | Report abuse

Loudoun -- if you think Bin Laden is the only millionaire in the world who also hates America, you're an idiot.

I didn't know that needed to be said.

Besides, millionaire's don't concern me as much as BILLIONAIRES named George Soros.

Posted by: Mike | August 7, 2007 5:36 PM | Report abuse

Do you see the hypocrite GOp'ers now voter? I can't say I was in the army. I would be using my military experiance to give my political points credance. But you you are GOOP you can do it.

The road runs one way I guess. I get attacked every single time I bring it up. Hypocrites. I won't attak you for that Mike. I know MANY of you jarheads are dittohead zombie slaves. I just want to point out your gop hypocricy.

Again, GOP. If you want to make rules for others to follow. Try to at least follow them yourselves. That or stop making rules nad telling others how to live. I would prefer the latter. Either way the gop lookks like fools so I win both ways.

The gop will lose in the end. The american people on hip to your hypocricy and fascsim

Posted by: rufus | August 7, 2007 5:31 PM | Report abuse

Mike: "I never read your "credentials", but I've stated before that I am a Marine Corps Officer (which is why Rufus has occationally referred to me as a jarhead, which I don't take offense to). I don't throw this out there to change anyones minds or to make myself appear noble or anything -- just to point out that you can't exactly call me ignorant when it comes to fighting terrorists."

Sorry ace, but your inability to differentiate between Bin Laden and the rabble in Iraq certainly qualifies you as ignorant -- and I notice you haven't responded to my pointing out that rather massive flaw in your argument.

PS: Your aside about my "blogging" at work comes across as the pathetic bleatings of a little man who knows he is beaten. Not very impressive for a "Marine Corps Officer."

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | August 7, 2007 5:30 PM | Report abuse

Mike. If you feel so strongly, why are you fighting americans in this blog. Why not fight the people you see as terrorists?

Everything about iraq has been a disaster. Most americans now know iraq had nothing to do with the WOT. Oil. Defense contracts.

If you are with that, you are about treason. If you are not and with Bush's goal.

GO FIGHT THE "TERRORISTS" IN IRAQ THEN

Posted by: rufus | August 7, 2007 5:27 PM | Report abuse

Loudoun -- I never read your "credentials", but I've stated before that I am a Marine Corps Officer (which is why Rufus has occationally referred to me as a jarhead, which I don't take offense to). I don't throw this out there to change anyones minds or to make myself appear noble or anything -- just to point out that you can't exactly call me ignorant when it comes to fighting terrorists.

You're apparently a guy who blogs at work. Does your boss know you're wasting company time?

bsimon -- I liked your 2nd paragraph. I don't think any current politician fully understands the nature of the threat we face. You're right, it truly is a global war on terror. Establishing a battleground in Iraq is a good start, and we're piling up a large body count there. But it's not enough, which ought to terrify every American.


Mark -- I don't understand your question. Are you asking about the validity of the idea that we "should" or "can" take the fight to the terrorists, globally, and in a big way?

Posted by: Mike | August 7, 2007 5:24 PM | Report abuse

I would also list the Colorado Senate race which is wide open right now, after Wayne Allard announced his retirement. Looks like a fight between Congressman Mark Udall (D) and Bob Schafer (R) who lost a bitter primary to Pete Coors.

Posted by: Ben | August 7, 2007 5:20 PM | Report abuse

Mike: "You're nothing but an armchair quarterback in the world of fighting terror and protecting Americans."

LOL I'm an armchair quarterback but you're right there on the front lines, is that it?

Do you realize how stupid you look? Wait, don't bother answering that.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | August 7, 2007 5:15 PM | Report abuse

no body lives forever. We ll die someday. Not all countries are free. We had that once. We had freedom in AMerica.

Since the red scare of the fifties the FEAR in the GOP has slowly bleed most of our freedoms dry. Now only op clones are free, or are they

Posted by: rufus | August 7, 2007 5:12 PM | Report abuse

Loudoun -- As in the VA county? (Wouldn't be surprised)

You're nothing but an armchair quarterback in the world of fighting terror and protecting Americans.

And for that I'm deeply thankful.

I've learned my lesson, and will not waste my time dignifying your unwarranted attacks or unproven assertions.

You're no better than a Rufus, and will henceforth be ignored.

Troll.

Posted by: Mike | August 7, 2007 5:10 PM | Report abuse

Mike continues with the flat-out wrong arguments with
"All of you anti-Iraq retreat-a-thoners who say we aren't fighting terrorists because we're not bombing Pakistan or Afghanistan (enough) are operating under the [false] assumption that Al-Qaeda is a centralized organism with a beating heart."


I'm not sure that anyone's made the argument you state above. For instance, Senator Obama, when he says he'd order a strike on al Qaida leadership in Pakistan (if Pakistan wouldn't), would be finishing the job President Bush promised he'd do nearly 6 years ago, in pledging to bring in bin Laden 'dead or alive.'

To a limited degree though, you are correct, and I hope you understand the ramifications of your comment in light of the limited presence of al Qaida in Iraq. Point being: there is an organization in Iraq that is loosely affiliated with the main body of al Qaida, and even if we defeat them in Iraq, we will not have made an appreciable dent on their global threat. We will have amputated one of the starfish's arms, to use your metaphor. But, if you believe the people that wrote the latest NIE, anyway, there is still far more work to be done cleaning up the rest of al Qaida, which is based in Waziristan & operates worldwide.

Posted by: bsimon | August 7, 2007 5:09 PM | Report abuse

"Sorry, Mikey, but nonsensical drivel like you posted deserves ridicule, not an "argument," because you're obviously too simple-minded to understand the difference between the multi-millionaire Bin Laden, who can self-finance an operation like the 9/11 attacks, and the rabble fighting under the Al Qaeda banner in Iraq, who pose ZERO threat to the US."

That's right voter. These peopel are clueless. The GOP like to paint people like me as a coward because I want real accountability. Because I want a real goal. I, personally, am not scared of terrorsit. They have ak's we have rockets. Very large rockets. They have camel's we have jet's tanks, long distance weapons.

I say they are the cowards. The gop are the one's would would scape all our freedom because of these people. Who's the coward?

Posted by: rufus | August 7, 2007 5:09 PM | Report abuse

Mike - I am not going to defend Loudoun's name calling, or yours, or anyone else's. Loudoun called me a "simpleton", only last week, and admitted that he liked to make fun of Rufus and "contards". You call downsizing our forces in Iraq "cowardly", which is a real conversation killer, too.

So I have a real difficulty distinguishing President Bush's speech a week after 9-11 where he said we would go after these AQs wherever they are [which was a bold speech that I applauded] and Obama's speech.

And I do not think Obama has any particular grasp of foreign policy, but Richard Clarke had a hand in both the speeches I reference and both GWB and Bill Clinton essentially testified that was their policy, to the 9-11 Commission. By the way, they both testified they ordered hits on AQ and OBL contingent on DOD approval that their DODs vetoed, based on the intelligence not being precise enough.

Everybody on the right accuses Clinton of a "missed opportunity" and everybody on the left accuses GWB of a "missed opportunity" and I think it is political posturing in both instances. No President would fail to go after those terrorists if it could be done without huge collateral damage.

So I understand the fuss about Obama coming from the left, but JD and I were talking about how we did not understand the fuss coming from the right.

I'll also grant that Obama could have been more diplomatic and "assumed" Pakistan would cooperate, for the sake of not stirring a hornet's nest. But I am interested in the core principle that you can chase terrorists down just like you can chase down pirates.

Talk to me.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | August 7, 2007 5:07 PM | Report abuse

"Once we get out of Iraq, those Iraqis you consider to be our enemies won't care about us."

Another ignorant lib.

The Iraqis aren't the enemy. The terrorists are.

The terrorists fighting us in Iraq aren't even from Iraq.

Foreign-born terrorists are flooding into Iraq to be slaughtered by us.

That's the whole point.

And since you didn't bother leaving a name, I don't feel bad about calling a no-name retreat coward the MORON that he/she is.

http://ConservativeStandards.blogspot.com/

Posted by: Mike | August 7, 2007 5:03 PM | Report abuse

What HAS bush done right? Anybody?

crckets crickets.

And the d's are incompetant? The r's have done nothing right. All they've done in 8 years is blame. Blame the minority. now blame the majority. What have you done right?

You have shone your incompetance. I don't have to tell you all here, you have seen it. They have done nothing right but high stocks. Clinton did alright with stocks and had other accomplishments. What has bush done right? And you wonder why you are about to be irrelvant in american politics.

THOSE NOT FIT TO GOVERN, SHOULD NOT.

Posted by: JKRish | August 7, 2007 5:00 PM | Report abuse

Sorry, Mikey, but nonsensical drivel like you posted deserves ridicule, not an "argument," because you're obviously too simple-minded to understand the difference between the multi-millionaire Bin Laden, who can self-finance an operation like the 9/11 attacks, and the rabble fighting under the Al Qaeda banner in Iraq, who pose ZERO threat to the US.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | August 7, 2007 4:59 PM | Report abuse

rufus/REMF - always, Toy Soldier!

Posted by: Anonymous | August 7, 2007 4:58 PM | Report abuse

Mike -- The kooky part is that we're engaging the enemy in Iraq.

Once we get out of Iraq, those Iraqis you consider to be our enemies won't care about us.

The main force of the enemy is in Afghanistan and parts of Pakistan and will continue to be our enemy when we leave Iraq.

Leave yourself a note to check the history books in a few years to see what the historians consider to be kooky about our Crusade in the Middle East.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 7, 2007 4:56 PM | Report abuse

Gen. Wesley Clark

"But what we've got to do is create not an argument in the United States over the troops or their tactics, but raise the debate to the administration's strategies and policies in this region. Here's why: We can't succeed in Iraq with the numbers of troops, no matter how good they are, because you can't succeed in this war just by killing people or intimidating the opposition.

Dave Petraeus would be the first one to tell you that. The military's part of the solution. It's not the answer. The answer's the politics."

Soemthing the middle school children of the gop STILL don't get. Or they do and dont' care about their failures, becuase they are making such a high profit.

"What [President Bush and his administration] want to talk about is troops. They want to say they support our troops, and if we question the numbers of troops or their effectiveness, they want to say, 'You people don't support our troops. If you don't support our troops then you're not patriotic, and if you're not patriotic, then you don't have a voice.' I mean, that's what leaks out from everybody from Undersecretary Edelman and Vice President Cheney all the way down in every dialog.

When we argue about troops, what we're doing is we're playing on George Bush's home court. That's what he likes. Now, I'm not up here saying, 'Okay, let's go play on his court. Let's say he's only put 170,000 troops. The Democrats, we should put 270,000 troops in.' Listen, I would've done it if I'd had it at the beginning. I wouldn't have gone into the mission, but having the decision been made, it was clear we didn't, we've never had enough troops to do the job. But you're not going to change the policy by arguing about the troop strength. We've done it. We're on record. We want the troops home, but may I suggest that if we can raise the dialogue, take it away from George Bush's safe ground of troops and people in uniform and 'How dare you question these Generals and these people in uniform that are so patriotic,' and say, 'No, we're not questioning the Generals. Mr. President, we are questioning YOU, your administration, your leadership!'

I want you to say to President Bush, 'Mr. President, stop hiding behind Dave Petraeus and come out here and defend YOUR strategy! This is your war. You defend it.'

I mean, I've been there in uniform, and when your boss tells you, 'Go in there and do the best you can,' you do the best you can, and you try to make it work. And that's what Dave Petraeus is doing, but you can't win it with what Dave Petraeus is doing. The only person who can make a difference is the person who controls the overall strategy in the region.

We need your help. We need you to hammer on the theme of the strategy and the policies. Stop isolating people we disagree with. Start engaging. Come out with some real American leadership instead of simply leading by sending men and women in uniform into combat."

Rufus (Former Army Infantry Soldier 11B)

Posted by: rufus | August 7, 2007 4:55 PM | Report abuse

"This fundamental misunderstanding of our ENEMY precludes liberals from being qualified enough to lead our nation, especially in war."

WOW. After the last 15 years of republicna rule. WOW .YOu got balls mike. I'll give you that. Good thing you are now marginalized. Only dittoheads believe you people and your propoganda. Not that they believe it, but they are with the fascsim.

You people are still on step 3. The press in on step 7. The american people are on step 67. GEt your heads ou of republicna propoganda. They are leading you down the path of destruvtion, mike.

Rather than lying spinning and discredit why not try and fix the problems you peope lhave caused the last 15 years. It's your only hop.e If you continue on your propoganda charade I can't say I feel sorry for you. We are not a dictatorship, as much as you would like to be. Majority rule. REmember. Now get back in the closet for 30 years.

Posted by: rufus | August 7, 2007 4:45 PM | Report abuse

"Bin Laden is not the heart of Al Qaeda in the same way that your heart circulates blood through your body."

Tell us more about your allies. America's enemies.

If you remove someone's heart and brain, they fall.

Not that this would happen in this case. Just showing you your allegory is foolish.

Posted by: rufus | August 7, 2007 4:41 PM | Report abuse

Loudon -- don't bother making an argument. Resort to personal attacks just like the rest of your liberal kooks.

Posted by: Mike | August 7, 2007 4:40 PM | Report abuse

"Rufus we republicans are strange about that. We prefer to bomb our enemies not our allies."

Our enemies? Or america's enemies. Bush's allies are not americans, if you don't know. Bush and the current gop have tooken the road of treason. Whos is bush's allies? Pakistan? The same people we are paying to house bin laden and do nothing? The SAudi's? Bin laden and the peopel that attacked us on 9/11? Who Russia?

Again, Bush'/Gop allies are not american allies. They have alligned WITH OUR ENEMIES. Why? To keep us scared. To try and hide a connection to bush. To change the government to a fascsit state with a dictator head as leader.

And zouk. YOu wish I was multiple posters. Why? Is it because I am far to enlightened for one man? :)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2064157,00.html
And GOP. YOu are the fringe now. I'm mainstream. It took a lot of work but we have successfully marginalize the gop. Your party is done for a generation. Rather than blaming me look in the mirror.

Bush's step to fascsim

1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy

2. Create a gulag

3. Develop a thug caste

4. Set up an internal surveillance system

5. Harass citizens' groups

6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release

7. Target key individuals

8. Control the press

9. Dissent equals treason

10. Suspend the rule of law

Posted by: rufus | August 7, 2007 4:39 PM | Report abuse

And by the way Obama is an idiot for this public display of his imaginary muscle flexing.

Posted by: Mike | August 7, 2007 4:38 PM | Report abuse

LOL Mike: That is a mind-boggling post. To display such ignorance should disqualify you from voting, getting a driver's license, or even being allowed out of mommy's house.

Posted by: Spectator2 | August 7, 2007 4:38 PM | Report abuse

Regarding Obama, Pakistan, and general liberal stupidity:

Bin Laden is not the heart of Al Qaeda in the same way that your heart circulates blood through your body.

Killing him will not kill Al Qaeda.

All of you anti-Iraq retreat-a-thoners who say we aren't fighting terrorists because we're not bombing Pakistan or Afghanistan (enough) are operating under the [false] assumption that Al-Qaeda is a centralized organism with a beating heart.

Killing Bin Laden is like chopping off a piece of starfish. It is not vital to the organism, and it regenerates.

Even a piece of starfish can heal and regenerate a new body, just like these terrorists.

In WAR, you engage the enemy, wherever you can, and kill him, as much as you can.

That is exactly what we're doing in Iraq.

Do I want to kill Bin Laden? Absolutely.

But to call this war a mistake because we're not "focusing" on the "true terrorists" is mistaken, misled, and downright cowardly.

This fundamental misunderstanding of our ENEMY precludes liberals from being qualified enough to lead our nation, especially in war.

http://ConservativeStandards.blogspot.com/

Posted by: Mike | August 7, 2007 4:34 PM | Report abuse

bsimon: I'm not surprised that some of the more limp-wristed Democrats would not take such a "macho" position, but for self-proclaimed GOP hawks to make fun of Obama for this is just ridiculous. Those are the same people who make the spurious claim that Clinton refused a "silver platter" offer of Bin Laden, of course.

Anyone who thinks the Pakistanis are going to catch Bin Laden has his/her head up his/her butt. Stop and think WHY Bin Laden might choose to hole up in Pakistan, hmmm?

Posted by: Spectator2 | August 7, 2007 4:33 PM | Report abuse

You have to admit, Mark Warner's star is looking bright. Being talked about for Governor, Senator, and Vice President. If John retires, Mark will run for Senate. If he doesn't, Mark will hold off until the presidential nominee is clear. Pretty much anybody except maybe Edwards and Richardson will have need for a successful southern governor.

Posted by: Simon | August 7, 2007 4:24 PM | Report abuse

Loudon asks, of bhoomes
"you're in favor of once again outsourcing our hunt for bin laden, this time to our dependable allies the pakistanis?"

Loudon - your observation should not be limited to the GOP, I believe some Dems have also characterized Obama's position as one of bombing Pakistan. The question I prefer to ask:

Is it then your position to allow bin Laden to live peacefully in Pakistan, if they won't take him out? Because that's th alternative they propose - Obama said, given 'actionable' intelligence, he'd take out bin Laden, if Pakistan wouldn't. President Bush didn't step back from that position, because that's exactly what he'd do. Apparently Romney, and quite a few others, would not.

Posted by: bsimon | August 7, 2007 4:21 PM | Report abuse

bhoomes: "Rufus we republicans are strange about that. We prefer to bomb our enemies not our allies."

So, bhoomes, you're in favor of once again outsourcing our hunt for bin laden, this time to our dependable allies the pakistanis? Don't you people ever learn? Wait, don't bother answering that.

Posted by: Spectator2 | August 7, 2007 3:52 PM | Report abuse

What about Johanns in Nebraska? There was talk a few weeks ago on this blog. I think if Hagel retires, and Johanns runs, it's his to lose. But, he would probably win.

Posted by: kslogic | August 7, 2007 3:42 PM | Report abuse

bhoomes - B ware! Rufus appears to be a group of posters, out on the Far Left fringe.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 7, 2007 3:28 PM | Report abuse

Rufus we republicans are strange about that. We prefer to bomb our enemies not our allies.

Posted by: bhoomes | August 7, 2007 3:19 PM | Report abuse

Mark -- I agree with your sentiments on Huckabee, although I admit, I have been following him for a while. I hope he can get some momentum at/from Ames this weekend. I've seen a couple polls where he is beating McCain, with 7% (including F Thompson in the mix).

Posted by: Mike | August 7, 2007 3:12 PM | Report abuse

Mstessyue: You can go back to the 1950s when IKE made a statement about the "Vast military complex", it was true then and more than ever today. A lot of folks simply do not know these suppliers are only a few in number and are only reminded of them when the $100.00 toilet seats, or some other problem is found like the loss of some 190.000 weapons in Iraq. The media is amiss in reporting these things because to a large degree they are controlled by the same people.

Posted by: lylepink | August 7, 2007 3:05 PM | Report abuse

Kathleen Willey was the seriously good looking one.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 7, 2007 2:58 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, Mark, I like old Joe Biden even though he does talk to much. I think he well qualified and he has a good heart because I remember when they were staying up late in the Senate, he was willing to walk himself(senate tradition) so Old Strom Thurmond could go home. That shows character and I always remembered that about Joe. He put compassion ahead of party politics. He's a good guy in my book.

Posted by: bhoomes | August 7, 2007 2:54 PM | Report abuse

"No, I don't believe in nation building for Iran, I believe in blowing the hell out of terrorist training & nuclear sites and letting them pick up the pieces"


i HAVEN'T HEARD OF THE TOUGH talk from the r's yet. In terms of pakistan. They're all about iran. Fascists.

I did hear obama and richardson say they wanted to go to pakistan for the terrorists, not unlike afganistan. I DO hear the right attacking him as naive. Looks like you hssoul dside with the d's if you want the terrorist held accoutnable

Posted by: rufus | August 7, 2007 2:45 PM | Report abuse

As the competitions between presidential candidates increase and tense up, the candidates need to be reminded of the critical issues that still trouble our society today. Issue such as global poverty needs to be address by our candidates to each and to the general public. As one of the nation that has pledge to fulfill the goals of Millennium Development Project, whose goal is the elimination of world hunger and poverty, the Bush Administration has not shown any substantial action to bring this fundamental problem to a stop. According to the Borgen Project, dedicated to fighting and ending Poverty around the world, only $19 billion dollars are needed annually to stop world wide poverty, hunger and malnutrition. However, more than $340 billion dollars has been poured into this "war on terror." And each year, our country has a military budge of $522 billion dollars. It's time for a new leader who will be addressing an issue that affects 1.2 billion people everyday worldwide.

Posted by: Mstessyrue | August 7, 2007 2:22 PM | Report abuse

bhoomes - I now see that you answered all my previous ??s. Thanks.

I have leaned toward Biden and am an old McCain supporter. Thinking that McCain seems unlikely to be the R nominee and that Biden has even less chance to win the D nomination, I have started to pay attention to the others. I also thought Huckabee presented himself well on Sunday.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | August 7, 2007 2:14 PM | Report abuse

NonP: I still think Mark is among the top picks for VP that Hillary is considering, and he has been my top choice for a long time. This will depend on whether John decides to seek another term, and since they are close on a personal basis, I don't think Mark would run against him and my hopes for him to be the VP pick are increased. Va. is among the top states I am watching for POTUS and Senate. Your thoughts about this?

Posted by: lylepink | August 7, 2007 2:14 PM | Report abuse

No, I don't believe in nation building for Iran, I believe in blowing the hell out of terrorist training & nuclear sites and letting them pick up the pieces. Our mistake was not in taking out Saddam who was a threat to everyone. Our mistake was not setting a firm time when we would leave before we invaded as so we didn;'t look like we lost our will. A withdrawl like the dems want would leave an empowered Iran who would be grave danger to our future. Nobody has more American blood on their hands than Iran, and I am totally at lost how they can get away with it all these years without be military struck by us.

Posted by: bhoomes | August 7, 2007 2:13 PM | Report abuse

"I think Tom D will give him a real run for his money, seeing as his name recognition and popularity is strongest in what would be a Warner stronghold, Dem-leaning Northern Va."

let's not forget that warner did quite well in rural va when he ran governor.

Posted by: joebar | August 7, 2007 2:07 PM | Report abuse

Bhoomes, I have not been here since this morning but you have answered my first question: You think Huckabee did well and you support him for President.

My other questions to you were: whom do you think is the least incompetent D and with which D would you be least uncomfortable?

If I said Rs come in 5 flavors: pro-military, small biz-small gov-social moderate; globalist-big biz-big gov; social conservative, and neo-conservative I know you would be comfortable with pro-military. Would you be comfortable with any of the other flavors?

I see Huckabee as a small biz-small gov Baptist who is a social conservative who is compassionate, and blurs the lines with social moderates. I do not see him as strongly pro-military. Tutor me.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | August 7, 2007 2:05 PM | Report abuse

JimD, agreed. Not sure who would be the primary challenger (forget Gilmore, he's done), but Davis can't afford one, both for the idiological implications and financial drain it would represent.

Posted by: JD | August 7, 2007 2:00 PM | Report abuse

The republicans still think we are living by the old rules. Hey republicans!

The rules have changed. The internet and 9/11 changed the rules you have lived your life by. Adapt, change. If the gop continues on this treaosnous charade you will be eliminated from the political shpere within a year. The choice is your. Just know the old rules you have lived you lives on are outdated. The future is now

Posted by: rufus | August 7, 2007 1:57 PM | Report abuse

bhoomes, hi - I haven't noticed you here in ages (although my attendance is a bit spotty at times).

JD - Davis should do better than the typical Republican in Northern Virginia. However, if there is a tough primary challenge from the right, he could be forced to take some positions in the primary that would turn off NoVa swing voters. the primary could also leave some of the more conservative Republicans bitter and they could boycott the Senate vote in November.

Posted by: JimD in FL | August 7, 2007 1:51 PM | Report abuse

NonP, I would think that Warner would win NoVa, but to win Senator as a Dem, you have to crush in NoVa to make up for the conservative nature of the rest of Va. For those not from Va, we're almost like 2 states; Northern Va and the rest of Va.

Davis' strength, as a moderate repub, plays well in No Va. Plus federal employees like him, he's done quite a bit for their needs (no commuter tax, telecommuting, other things) when he chair of the Government Oversight committee.

And there's quite a few federal employees in Fairfax, Arlington, Alex.

Posted by: JD | August 7, 2007 1:46 PM | Report abuse

andy R, Kaine's victory was partially due to Warner coattails, I agree, but also because Kilgore ran an awful race. And a 52-46 victory isn't exactly a landslide.

I don't know if you're in NoVa, but I am, and I can say that Davis will run very strong here. If he can get the name recognition downstate, he's got potential to upend Warner; just having an 'R' after his name probably means he starts from 48% in places like Henrico, the Sh valley, and the lower piedmont.

Kaine, honestly, hasn't done all that much to be proud of. He hasn't screwed up much either; with a one term limit and a Repub legislature, it's really hard to get anything done on your agenda.

Posted by: JD | August 7, 2007 1:43 PM | Report abuse

It's not that the leaders don't have goals or ideals. It the corrupt media misrepresenting said ideals and or telling you "what they're really saying."

Like the huge "smackdown" between obama and hillary over talking with our enemies. The media has been destroyed. The function of the media has changed. Pure republcian propoganda. Pure divide and conquer politics. I agree with your challenge agaisn tthe gop, simon. I think the Democrats are a little closer. The gop seems to be split down the middle on many issues you mentioned. What are the dme's divided on?

Same goal, differant paths. The gop is fractured. They are doen as a major party for a generation.

Posted by: rufus | August 7, 2007 1:41 PM | Report abuse

JD -- Tom Davis is one of three Conrgessmen fron Northern Virginia. Mark Warner was Governor for the entire state, and lives in northern Virginia.

It would seem to me that Mark Warner would have the edge in Northern Virginia, plus the rest of the state.

Also, what effect will it have on Tom if JeanneMarie (Mrs. Davis) loses in November?

Posted by: NonP | August 7, 2007 1:38 PM | Report abuse

bhoomes, I didn't phrase my question very well. Rather than asking what I good Republican voter is, I meant what makes a good Republican candidate - which way is the party going? Your comment somewhat illustrates my point. Though I'd like to pick your brain more on the following sentence:

"I think we will win more than lose because I just believe the conservative idealogy and philsophy is the best for the long term welfare of the country."

Which conservative ideology & philosophy? Some conservatives argue for free trade & a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. Others want to shut the borders & incarcerate or deport all the illegals. Which position is conservative? In foreign policy, conservative used to mean defending our interests, but staying out of other conflicts - explicitly staying out of 'nation building' which was seen as a liberal passtime. Now some conservatives are arguing for proactively engaging - militarily - on other parts of the world in order to promote democracy. The old conservatism was for small government, yet the last Republican Congress set records for earmarks, and the government has grown.

Don't get me wrong, I think the Dems have plenty of problems too, not the least of which is an unclear agenda for the country. I see both parties as suffering from a lack of leadership and cohesive vision for their parties, or the country. So, as far as Republicans go, what do they stand for? I can't tell.

Posted by: bsimon | August 7, 2007 1:33 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for the update, JD and Andy. Since I don't care about Gilmore and don't live in Virginia, I forgot that he dropped out of the race already. But I still think it's strange that he's considering running for Senate now.

Posted by: Blarg | August 7, 2007 1:19 PM | Report abuse

It goes deeper than ceo's. It is the whole trickle down econmic method. The money has to trickle down for your system to work.

You say the country doesn't need to be changed, but that's what bush did. Everyone i know was getting paid when clinton was in office. There was a path to the middle class. Now we have rich and poor. The playing feild needs to be balanced.

A wise man once said. "A free society is a soceity when no man is a slave to another. The worker and the owner both exist on a basis of need for one another."

Posted by: rufus | August 7, 2007 1:16 PM | Report abuse

bsimon: A good republican is just somebody who pays attention to what is going in the party and someone who occasionaly makes donations to party and candidates and who shows up at the polls no matter the weather. I don;t see where the GOP is all that factured, we just lost one off year election and sure we will lose some more but I think we will win more than lose because I just believe the conservative idealogy and philsophy is the best for the long term welfare of the country. The progressives has help our country also but doing times of peril, we need a hawkish outlook. The one that sold me one Huckabee is he has a bit of "for the small guy" that I like. I'm a ecomonic conservative but I do believe some of the corporate CEO's pay and benefits is absurd. Nobody is that good to get what some of them get. I wouldn't do anything to change our system but I;m no fan of those overpaid CEO's. Come on, how much money do you need before it becomes sinful.

Posted by: bhoomes | August 7, 2007 1:11 PM | Report abuse

jd-acutally it was about 2 months ago if memory serves me correct. it just took this long for anyone to care. as for mark warner running for senate, i could see him winning espcially in the north virgina region. but thats depending on who's the dem nominee is. if it's hillary then he's on the short list.

Posted by: spartan | August 7, 2007 1:10 PM | Report abuse

"Presumably, the argument to voters in TV ads would be to "make your vote count" and bring the presidential candidates back to California, which has been so reliably Democratic in recent elections that it receives few postprimary visits from candidates in either party. The Democrats would likely counter by saying that Republicans are trying a backhanded way to corrupt the election. With the presidential nominations settled by the time the initiative would be put up to vote, expect big money to be spent on both sides trying to win over the wild cards of California politics--the millions of independents.

Congressional districts, whose lines are drawn by backroom deals, are a weak structure for picking a president. With only three or four of California's districts up for grabs (as a result of gerrymandering, which keeps them noncompetitive), the state would be visited by the candidates only slightly more often under the Hiltachk plan than under the status quo. And if the idea was somehow adopted nationally, it would mean competing for votes in only about 60 far-flung congressional districts--roughly 7 percent of the country. Everyone else's vote would not "count," if you want to look at it that way."


didn't corrupt Tom Delay also redistrict Texas to get more republican districts red. I smell a rat here. Texas california. If the gop can get those two they won't need much else. Fricking repbulcins. Not sure if the country can take anymore of this treason.

Posted by: A Red Play for The Golden State | August 7, 2007 1:08 PM | Report abuse

Blarg, he officially dropped out already, last week I think

Posted by: JD | August 7, 2007 1:06 PM | Report abuse

"Right now, every state except Nebraska and Maine awards all of its electoral votes to the popular-vote winner in that state. So in mammoth California, John Kerry beat George W. Bush and won all 55 electoral votes, more than one fifth of the 270 necessary for election.

Instead of laboring in vain to turn California Red, a clever lawyer for the state Republican Party thought of a gimmicky shortcut. Thomas Hiltachk, who specializes in ballot referenda that try to fool people in the titles and fine print, is sponsoring a ballot initiative for the June 3, 2008, California primary (which now falls four months after the state's presidential primary). The Presidential Election Reform Act would award the state's electoral votes based on who wins each congressional district. Had this idea been in effect in 2004, Bush would have won 22 electoral votes from California, about the same number awarded the winners of states like Illinois or Pennsylvania. In practical terms, adopting the initiative would mean that the Democratic candidate would likely have to win both Ohio and Florida in 2008 (instead of one or the other) to be elected.
"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20121791/site/newsweek/

Posted by: IF YOU CAN'T WIN, CHEAT | August 7, 2007 1:04 PM | Report abuse

hi anonyfool, thats for that bit of cOLD information.

Posted by: thats cOLD news | August 7, 2007 1:04 PM | Report abuse

Blarg,
Gilmore did drop out of the presidential race. Afterwards someone asked him about the senate and he was VERY noncommital about his plans. Obviously he can't do anything until John Warner retires but I can see him make a run at it. Although I agree his political capitol is spent.

I disagree with JD that Davis has any chance against Mark Warner. This is a guy who last election Hand-picked his succesor and put him into office. He is really well liked in virginia statewide and if he doesn't run will be on the short list for VPs for the presidential election.

Posted by: Andy R | August 7, 2007 1:04 PM | Report abuse

Just a quick refresher course lest we forget what has happened to many "friends"of
the Clintons.

1-James McDougal - Clinton 's convicted Whitewater partner died of an apparent heart
attack, while in solitary confinement. He was a key witness in Ken Starr's
investigation.


2 -Mary Mahoney - A former White House intern was murdered July 1997 at a Starbucks
Coffee Shop in Georgetown . The murder happened just after she was to go public with
her story of sexual harassment in the White House.


3- Vince Foster - Former White House counselor, and colleague of Hillary Clinton at
Little Rock's Rose Law firm. Died of a gunshot wound to the head, ruled a suicide.


4- Ron Brown - Secretary of Commerce and former DNC Chairman. Reported to have died
by impact in a plane crash. A pathologist close to the investigation reported that
there was a hole in the t op of Brown's skull resembling a gunshot wound. At the
time of his death Brown was being investigated, and spoke publicly of his
willingness to cut a deal with prosecutors. The rest of the people on the plane also
died. A few days later the air Traffic controller commited suicide.


5- C. Victor Raiser II - Raiser, a major player in the Clinton fund raising
organization died in a private plane crash in July 1992


6-Paul Tulley - Democratic National Committee Political Director found dead in a
hotel room in Little Rock, September 1992. Described by Clinton as a "Dear friend
and trusted advisor".


7-Ed Willey - Clinton fund raiser, found dead November 1993 deep in the woods in VA
of a gunshot wound to the head. Ruled a suicide. Ed Willey died on the same day his
wife Kathleen Will ey claimed Bill Clinton groped her in the oval office in the
White House. Ed Willey was involved in several Clinton fund raising events.


8-Jerry Parks - Head of Clinton's gubernatorial security team in Little Rock.
Gunned down in his car at a deserted intersection outside Little Rock. Park's son
said his father was building a dossier on Clinton. He allegedly threatened to reveal
this information. After he died the files were mysteriously removed from his house.


9-James Bunch - Died from a gunshot suicide. It was reported that he had a "Black
Book" of people which contained names of influential people who visited prostitutes
in Texas and Arkansas.


10-James Wilson - Was found dead in May 1993 from an apparent hanging suicide. He
was reported to have ties to Whitewater.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 7, 2007 12:59 PM | Report abuse

Have to add my grumpiness to what 'frank' said: Guiliani is an empty suit, policy-wise. Nice-sounding platitudes do not constitute policy. Why is the MSM giving him a free pass after they went after Obama for so long about this issue?

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | August 7, 2007 12:53 PM | Report abuse

Jim Gilmore is currently running for president. If he drops out of the presidential race to run for the Senate in Virginia, won't that open him up to a lot of criticism? The attack ads practically write themselves. ("We need a senator who really cares about our state, and isn't just running because he can't win the presidential primary.")

I admit that I know nothing about Virginia politics. But it seems strange to me for a presidential candidate to drop out of the race and then immediately run for a lesser office.

Posted by: Blarg | August 7, 2007 12:53 PM | Report abuse

Why so much coverage by Professional Political (like Chris Matthews and Jake Tapper) Journalists regarding Caroline Giuliani and NOTHING WHATSOEVER regarding Giuliani's assertion that he can increase funding for infrastructure by cutting taxes?

This is all just a big game for you Professionals, isn't it?

Posted by: frank | August 7, 2007 12:48 PM | Report abuse

and to add a few others, here are some top races that are sure to be barn burners in 2008.

kentucky-while it appears to be a safe repubican hold, the stench of corruption still holds sway. Larry Forgy is mulling a primary challange against Senator Mitch McConnell while State attorney general Greg Stumbo is going on the offense. it might be payback for ousting tim dashle back in 04.

Oklahoma-State senator Andrew Rice is now in the race and challenging Jim Inhofe.

alaska: theres a possiblity that ted stevens may not last till election day(if he's not in jail or retired by then) also Lisa Murkowski maybe in a bit of a jam too, if the stars line up then alaska could turn blue. could mike gravel want his old job back? (other than being a grumpy old man)

Texas-personally i got my eye on this one. john corynin is unpoupular in the lone star state. a strong challenge by either rick noriega or mikal watts could unseat him.

for more information on those races and more go to http://senate2008guru.blogspot.com/

i dont run that site but the guy who does, really knows his stuff.

Posted by: spartan | August 7, 2007 12:48 PM | Report abuse

bhoomes writes
"Also as a good republican, I have finally made up my mind and have decided to support the Huckster."

bhoomes, I'm serious when I ask: What makes a good Republican? From where I sit, it looks like the party doesn't have a cohesive plan at this point. I've long suspected that it will fracture into at least to factions, but am not yet sure on what the division will be. As a good Republican, what are your thoughts?

Posted by: bsimon | August 7, 2007 12:41 PM | Report abuse

"what's going on Judge"

Not much; trying to stay cool.

Colin: I think that's because about a third of Nebraska's population lives in Omaha. If he's a popular mayor (?), that gives Fahey serious bipartisan support.

bhoomes: glad you're also sick of Thompson's playing around. That made sense at first but it's getting ridiculous now.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | August 7, 2007 12:41 PM | Report abuse

Does anyone more versed in Nebraska politics know why CC is implying Kerrey isn't the strongest Dem challenger? It's hard for me to understand how a mayor would make a stronger candidate than a former governor and senator, even if the latter has been out of state for a bit.

Thoughts?

Posted by: Colin | August 7, 2007 12:32 PM | Report abuse

Sorry for that last post. There's not need for that.

Peace in the middle east.

Peace in America.

Peace.

"Join us and the world can live as one"

John Lennon

ONE WORLD ONE PEOPLE.

Posted by: rufus | August 7, 2007 12:32 PM | Report abuse

bhoomes, you are absolutely spot on:

"I think Gilmore is a spent political force just like McCain"

Incredibly apt analogy.

Although Mark W is still a powerful force here in Va, I think Tom D will give him a real run for his money, seeing as his name recognition and popularity is strongest in what would be a Warner stronghold, Dem-leaning Northern Va.

Posted by: JD | August 7, 2007 12:17 PM | Report abuse

Look slike the gop'ers are done with this site. I guess they got sick of defending the un-defendable. Good. Now we can all move forward.

what's going on Judge

Posted by: rufus | August 7, 2007 12:15 PM | Report abuse

Landrieu is safe in LA. The republicans have one pseudo-decent candidate in that state and that is Jindal. The problem is he is running for Governor.

In Nebraska, the guy Bruning doesn't have a chance. He looks like a sleazy car-salesman. Bob Kerrey would win in a walk with his work on the 9/11 commission. But I think in the end he will stay out of it.

And in NH Shahean is going to run. They had a nasty fight last time and I think she wants some pay-back.

Posted by: Andy R | August 7, 2007 12:12 PM | Report abuse

"Louisiana is an alternate political universe that we've never totally understood."

Amen to that!

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | August 7, 2007 12:06 PM | Report abuse

As a conservative, I would be more happy with Bob Kerry than I would with Hagel. I have no tolerance for RINO's and especially "Mr. I love to hear myself talk Hagel".
I think Gilmore is a spent political force just like McCain:
Also as a good republican, I have finally made up my mind and have decided to support the Huckster. I will be going to his web site to make a donation after this posting. I was leaning towards Fred Thompson earlier this summer but was totally turned off when I heard him on the Sean Hannity radio program and he told us we would just have to wait for an annoucement: FRED GET REAL; you want the job, not us, WE DON'T have to WAIT. Go back to your TV Show Mr. Primma Donna.

Posted by: bhoomes | August 7, 2007 12:03 PM | Report abuse

Have you done this analysis for Congress, as well? If so, where is it? If not, when will you do one?

Posted by: Washington, DC | August 7, 2007 12:02 PM | Report abuse

Over the wekend C-Span had a segment with Rep. Pickering's father (Federal Judge Charles Pickering) addressing a GOP group. In his talk he bounced between reality grounded ideas and concepts that are out there somewhere between Mars and Jupiter.

I hope the son is not emblematic of the father.

Heaven forbid! [Which seemed to be part of the Judge's philosophy.]

Posted by: NonP | August 7, 2007 11:55 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company