Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

The Friday Line: Top 2008 Recruits

The Fix is in Chicago for the YearlyKos annual convention this weekend so we'll keep the introduction of The Line short and sweet.

Rather than look at the ten House races most likely to switch parties -- as we've done with our recent Lines -- we thought we would change it up a bit and give Fix readers our assessment of candidate recruitment to date.

Seven months into the cycle, both Democrats and Republicans have scored a handful of recruiting coups and met with their fair share of failures as well. House recruiting is ongoing so don't take the list below as a comprehensive look at all the best recruits. Many House races are still in their infancy as politicians continue to gauge the national atmospherics and their individual situations before making any final decisions.

The recruits on the Line were chosen based on a consideration of their candidate skills, fundraising ability, national party support and the type of district in which they are running. They are listed alphabetically.

Without further ado, let's get to those three words that bring a smile to The Fix's face every Friday....

To The Line!

Dean Andal, Republican for California's 11th District: GOPers believe the only reason they lost this seat in 2006 was because of the poor campaign run by former Rep. Richard Pombo (R-Calif.). Pombo won't run again and national GOP strategists believe Andal, a former state Assemblyman and former chairman of the Board of Equalization, is the right candidate to win the 11th district back. Andal started on the right foot, raising $288,000 in his first full quarter of fundraising. He'll also benefit from the Republican nature of the district, which went for President Bush by nine points in 2004, and the fact that his main potential primary opponent -- Assemblyman Guy Houston -- just decided against running on Thursday.

Kay Barnes, Democrat for Missouri's 6th District: Barnes has long been on the wish list of Democratic strategists who believe Rep. Sam Graves (R) has gotten a free pass since being elected to this northwestern Missouri seat in 2000. Barnes drew praise from both parties during her two terms as mayor of Kansas City and as a result of that service is a well known commodity in the district's dominant media market. Before Democrats get too excited, however, remember that President Bush carried the 6th district with 57 percent in 2004.

John Boccieri, Democrat for Ohio's 16th District: On paper, Boccieri is an ideal candidate to take on Rep. Ralph Regula (R) in the 16th. A sitting state senator, Boccieri played semi-pro baseball before joining the Air Force. The question is whether Boccieri will run be running against Regula, who has held the district since 1972, or for an open seat. Regula, who is 82, is at the head of almost every list of potential retirements we've seen. Regardless, Boccieri, who raised $156,000 between April 1 and June 30, will have a good chance to come to Congress.

Dave Cappiello, Republican for Connecticut's 5th District: The Fix got a chance to sitdown with Cappiello, a state Senator, recently in Washington. He came across as affable and able with a keen understanding of what it takes to win as a Republican in the northeast. He has spoken out in opposition to the current direction of the war in Iraq and is likely to continue to work to distance himself from the unpopular Administration. The 5th district, which takes in much of northwestern Connecticut, has a solid Republican base but has moved to the ideological left in recent years (Bush lost it by 1,100 votes in 2004). Rep. Chris Murphy (D) is a savvy politician who won't get surprised by Cappiello.

Steve Driehaus, Democrat for Ohio's 1st District: The minority whip in the Ohio state House, Driehaus is the candidate Democrats believe will -- finally -- defeat Rep. Steve Chabot (R) in the swing 1st District. Driehaus is off to a sound start, raising $166,000 in his first three months as a candidate and banking $157,000. Geography is everything for Driehaus; his electoral base is in the western part of the district and Democrats believe he can cut into Chabot's margins there. Chabot has been perennially targeted since winning the seat in 1994 and always manages to win.

John Gard, Republican for Wisconsin's 8th District: Republicans were very high on Gard, the former speaker of the state Assembly, in 2006 but watched in amazement as he lost an open seat race to now Rep. Steve Kagen (D). Kagen got off to a rough start in his first few months in office and the Green Bay district went for Bush by 11 points in 2004. Presidential year turnout should boost Gard assuming he can either avoid or dispense with a serious primary challenge.

Rick Goddard, Republican for Georgia's 8th District: Republicans have tried to convince Goddard to run in Georgia's 8th district for several cycles. He finally agreed and will take on Rep. Jim Marshall (D) next November. Goddard is a retired General in the Air Force and served as the commander of the Warner Robins base -- a military outpost in the district. Marshall, who seemed to have cemented the Macon-based seat since coming to Congress in 2002, won by less than 2,000 votes in 2006 against former Rep. Mac Collins (R) and is on shaky ground heading into 2008.

Jim Himes, Democrat for Connecticut's 4th District: Fundraising isn't everything in politics but it's close. So, when Himes, the chairman of the Greewich Democratic Committee, showed $353,000 raised in the 2nd quarter we were impressed. Yes, we know it's not that difficult to raise money in the wildly affluent 4th District, but it is still a very solid sum. Himes has cleared the primary field, another positive sign for national Democrats. Rep. Chris Shays (R) is the last Republican House member left in the upper northeast thanks to his willingness to buck his own party and the costliness of the New York City media market that covers the district. It looks like the incumbent is in for another tough and costly race in 2008. Can he withstand a continually deteriorating national environment?

Linda Stender, Democrat for New Jersey's 7th District: Retread candidates wouldn't typically make it into a Line on top recruits but Stender, a New Jersey Assemblywoman, is different. She ran an unexpectedly strong challenge to Rep. Mike Ferguson (R) in the 7th district in 2006, coming up less than 3,000 votes short of pulling a major upset. Because the district is reached by the incredibly expensive New York media market, the name identification built by Stender last time around could really help her in this contest. The district has a slight Republican tilt; Bush won it with 53 percent in 2004 and 49 percent four years earlier.

Sandy Treadwell, Republican for New York's 20th District: Treadwell is personally wealthy but what impressed us was that he went out and raised $340,000 between April 1 and June 30. As a former chairman of the state party and Secretary of State, Treadwell has all the connections he needs to be financially on par with freshman Rep. Kirstin Gillibrand. Registered Republicans outnumber registered Democrats in the Albany-area seat by 80,000, a figure that should help Treadwell. What won't help him is a crowded primary field and Gillibrand, a tremendously gifted fundraiser ($717,000 raised between April 1 and June 30), waiting in the wings.


By Chris Cillizza  |  August 3, 2007; 6:00 AM ET
Categories:  The Line  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: VIDEO: Handicapping Campaign 2008
Next: Obama's HQ

Comments

uysnvapi wscvnmxd aeqwxtd jnbqgla sudyglwep ntiavekcj zwqesanri http://www.dunsam.vobw.com

Posted by: lcsaoktej lwguanmjx | August 29, 2007 7:18 AM | Report abuse

fmwbjh nhdiwsgfo cmujptwx uzbcigdy cotprnwxm nkeyos mgznajkr

Posted by: uoxsnqvj xoztkih | August 29, 2007 7:16 AM | Report abuse

"Abortion: extremely pro-choice
Unions: pro card-check (ie, against secret ballots)
Gun rights: ban all handguns, and likely ban all guns period
Affirmative action: very pro affirmative action
Campaign Finance: for banning political speech"

Where is all of this written? Can you provide a link? These WaPo positions exist only in your fevered imagination, I'm afraid.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | August 6, 2007 10:11 AM | Report abuse

Regarding the actual post:

What about Jay Footlik, IL10?

Posted by: Anna | August 5, 2007 11:18 AM | Report abuse

Fascism incarnete. If you don't agree they will lie spin and discredit you. The gop is attempting to brand and remove any non-gop voices. Their soft revolution is turning real and tangible now.

MAjority rule, remember that. Don't go mcveigh or unabomber when the gop is swept from the politicaL LANDSCAPE

Posted by: rufus | August 4, 2007 8:32 PM | Report abuse

what happened here?

Posted by: VA | August 4, 2007 10:42 AM | Report abuse

One rufus/RUFUS at a time please, you're stepping on each other's toes.

So REMF, by your logic as an IIB you are no better than a murderer yourself.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 3, 2007 7:50 PM | Report abuse

What have you ever had to sacrafice zouk you coward. Tillman and his family paid the ultimate price for his country. That is something you would never understand. Your to scared to even put a name on you rposts for pete sake. You don't get to talk about real patriot's.

The gop is self/party/money over country.

How many of you gop buddies are going to sign-up for the army when obama is president? Not many I would presume. Tillman was agains the war. Signed up anyway to get teh real terrorists. And he was killed because he wasn't a mindless zombie. If I would have stayed in I would have suffered the same fate as Tillman. Show some respect for once in you life you coward, zouk

Posted by: rufus | August 3, 2007 7:50 PM | Report abuse

You know I was a 11B myself zouk the coward. You know I am from the same town as tillman. Please please don't mock this patriot. You can clown me and lie about me all day. Do not bad mouth this great american patriot you coward you

Posted by: rufus | August 3, 2007 7:44 PM | Report abuse

yES. As said above research. The army dr's thought the close proximity of shots on his head were starnge. They were all within 2 inches of each other, ON HIS FACE, not his back.

The dr's were not allowed to investigate any possible crime. The army them said he was killed You know what, research yourself. I I spell it out I am propogating

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

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

So that means it was 11B Infantry who murdered Tillman.

Why are you so proud of that then?

Posted by: Anonymous | August 3, 2007 7:40 PM | Report abuse

Pat Tillman WAS murdered - by his own comrades. Read the news much?

Posted by: Anonymous | August 3, 2007 7:37 PM | Report abuse

"Don't forget the murder and cover-up of my boy. Pat Tillman"

rufus, So, you're saying that Pat Tillman was murdered?

Posted by: Anonymous | August 3, 2007 7:24 PM | Report abuse

"Have to agree with you and the Professor.

Always said that Newt was 80% common sense and only 20% wacko."

You show your face gop. Newt is the devil:0.

I say 5% common sense 60% gop tool (party loyalist/liar) 35% wacko

Posted by: rufus | August 3, 2007 6:48 PM | Report abuse

I am likewise amused by proudtobeGOP's willingness to pay more at the pump -- which, as economists point out, functions like a tax -- in order to force social engineering & behavior modification.

Why the shift? Because Newt says so, apparently.

IMO, the government should use some tax dollars as venture capital for govt & private research. If a technology takes off, the govt gets a piece of the action -- which can supplement the tax base and/or keep costs to the public down, depending on the terms of licensing.

This is better than the typical corporate giveaways (like Taxol or the Internet backbone) that the govt typically conduct. It could instead help reduce health & infrastructure costs to the US public for the common good.

Posted by: Scott in PacNW | August 3, 2007 6:38 PM | Report abuse

I continue to be amused/amazed by the continual use of the word 'socialist' for progressive bloggers, Democrats & liberals in general.

Perhaps this is asking too much, but I strongly urge those of you misusing this term to FIND A DICTIONARY and look it up.

Posted by: Scott in PacNW | August 3, 2007 6:28 PM | Report abuse

Cassandra "Hear [sic] I absolutely agree with you"

I am so embarrassed to have made that grammatical mistake. I'm gettin' old, dear, what can I say...I agree with most of what you say, but I worry that Newt's solutions just seem to be corporate giveaways, with nothing promised in return. Kind of like, same old, same old. It all depends on who is getting the contracts, doesn't it? That's really the point. What kind of oversight will there be?

I'm in favor of giving businesses tax incentives to develop new solutions. Absolutely. I don't know anyone who is suggesting a 'government program.' Richard Branson of Virgin Airlines is a personal favorite of mine, by the way -- a real enterpreneur.

But the question is -- will the money and contracts go to entrenched incompetent well-connected lobbyists, or genuine entrepreneurs with promising solutions?

Posted by: Cassandra | August 3, 2007 6:12 PM | Report abuse

You're right, the WaPo doesn't slant left, nor do the writers. But just for fun, indulge me. Let's review their editorial stance on the basic 'tier 1' issues:

Abortion: extremely pro-choice
Unions: pro card-check (ie, against secret ballots)
Gun rights: ban all handguns, and likely ban all guns period
Affirmative action: very pro affirmative action
Campaign Finance: for banning political speech

You name the position, and WaPo is almost exclusively adopted the side the Democrats have taken. The only conservative position they've even considered coming halfway on is school choice. But you're right, it's silly to think that that means the *newspaper itself* could be described as 'liberal'. No sir. Not the Post.

Posted by: JD | August 3, 2007 5:52 PM | Report abuse

bsimon: nope, every once in a while proud stops being a dittohead and makes sense. That's why I still read her comments instead of scrolling past them.

Unfortunately, conservatism within the GOP is just as stone cold dead as Newt's chances in the general election. We found out yesterday that every R president since 1970 Nixon has run a deficit. That's pretty much the final nail in that coffin.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | August 3, 2007 5:44 PM | Report abuse

Loudon asks
"Just curious bsimon, are you implying that you sense we are going to see Clinton 44?"

It seemed like the shortest way to distinguish between the two. There are a lot of people who think we will see a Clinton 44, I fear such a future, and hope we don't live it. Ok, since its friday afternoon, I will now close with a tortured analogy.

The Hillary campaign is like a car wreck. You want to look away, but can't. Meanwhile, they teach in motorcycling & bicycling that you go where you are looking; in other words, if you don't want to hit a pothole or other obstacle, look at the path you want to take - and you'll go there. Looking at what we're trying to avoid is called 'target fixation' - and more often than not you'll steer right into what you're trying to avoid. I fear we are suffering target fixation with Hillary Clinton for President 2008.

Look elsewhere, before its too late.

Posted by: bsimon | August 3, 2007 5:41 PM | Report abuse

proudtobeGOP writes
" I am willing and ready to pay alot more at the pump, and I believe it starts with a willingness for all Americans to admit that we will be making sacrifices necessary for our country's best interests.

People -Stop with the whining and complaining every time the price of gas goes up. It should be much higher now!! Then maybe folks will think before buying a Suburban or an Excursion unless they can afford $300 to fill it up."


I just fell out of my chair.


Is someone else posting under your callsign?

Posted by: bsimon | August 3, 2007 5:36 PM | Report abuse

proud writes
"Gingrich argues that a program including cash prizes, targeted tax cuts and other economic incentives will lure business entrepreneurs to develop technology to tackle the climate ( and energy) problem."

Is a carbon market an effective or ineffective economic incentive? Apparently, in other parts of the world, carbon markets have created new economic activity and have spurred tech development as well. The way the Newt's proposal reads, it sounds like he wants to pass out handouts as 'incentive'. Its never quite made sense to me how the Conservatives are so eager to pull handouts from people, but turn around and pass them out to corporations. If people are supposed to take care of themselves & take some personal responsibility, shouldn't corporations do the same? If you're polluting, or sending greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, shouldn't it be your responsibility to clean up your own mess?

Posted by: bsimon | August 3, 2007 5:34 PM | Report abuse

proudtobeGOP writes
"Remaining on offense in the global war on terrorism is an effective and sustainable method, and our national security and strategic interests demand it."

When you say 'remaining on offense' do you mean continuing the current strategy of using the military to fight terrorism? If so, by what criteria are you claiming this strategy is effective and sustainable? The latest NIE implies that the strategy is not effective - despite our capturing or killing thousands of terrorists and/or insurgents, al Qaida is now as much a threat as it was in 2001. Then, if I'm not mistaken, the latest Bush nominee for the Joint Chiefs testified this week that the armed forces cannot sustain the current level of deployment. So, taken together, the current strategy is apparently neither effective nor sustainable. Given those data points, I'm not sure how you can rationally argue otherwise.

Posted by: bsimon | August 3, 2007 5:29 PM | Report abuse

Have to agree with you and the Professor.

Always said that Newt was 80% common sense and only 20% wacko.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 3, 2007 4:36 PM | Report abuse

Newt has the right idea, and if he's not conservative, I don't know who is.

Gingrich argues that a program including cash prizes, targeted tax cuts and other economic incentives will lure business entrepreneurs to develop technology to tackle the climate ( and energy) problem.

He said that type of program would be faster than a bureaucratic government program because it will avoid the rush of special interests to avoid regulation and costly litigation.

Gingrich said there must be a "green conservatism."

"There has to be a willingness to stand up and say, alright, here's the right way to solve these as seen by our values system," Gingrich said.

Gingrich said there needs to be more money available in the form of incentives to find better ways of bringing forward new technology.

"Regulation and litigation are the least effective" ways to get change.

http://www.newt.org/backpage.asp?art=4327

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | August 3, 2007 4:32 PM | Report abuse

proud - that sounds like GOP heresy.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 3, 2007 4:22 PM | Report abuse

Cassandra "Hear [sic] I absolutely agree with you"

Wow! Detante; and on a Friday, too! This calls for a drink.

Ii is well past time to get serious as a country on reducing our dependence on foreign oil. Two thirds of our oil consumption is in the transportation sector, and two thirds of that is gasoline.
The vast majority of Americans (93%) think it's a good idea to require the auto industry to make cars that get better gas mileage.

We need a substantive plan to incentivize production and use of cellulosic ethanol and biodiesel, and hybrid gasoline-electric vehicles.

All of this will come with a cost. As Mike likes to point out, and correctly so, the price of this change will be borne by the consumers for the most part. I am willing and ready to pay alot more at the pump, and I believe it starts with a willingness for all Americans to admit that we will be making sacrifices necessary for our country's best interests.

People -Stop with the whining and complaining every time the price of gas goes up. It should be much higher now!! Then maybe folks will think before buying a Suburban or an Excursion unless they can afford $300 to fill it up.

The govt. cannot be expected to foot the bill for all of that,(in addition to the socialized medicine system that dems want too.) We have to be realistic in what it will cost us, but I beleive the benefit of energy independence will be worth it.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | August 3, 2007 4:13 PM | Report abuse

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, STOP LUMPING LIBERALS WITH DEMOCRATS

Posted by: Anonymous | August 3, 2007 4:07 PM | Report abuse

Correction:

And I pity you because you just don't even know what its going to be like in the next 10 years. I'm not saying I do, but I can sure as hell guarantee that internal conflict in the United States will only increase. You faux-liberals won't be able to escape in your reclusive Potomac McMansion.

Posted by: And I pity you because you just. | August 3, 2007 4:02 PM | Report abuse

And nice job of setting up a false dichotomy. Its not just "Democrats" (with a capital D, you know the kind that Anne Coulter loves to lump everybody under with the assumption that they all support Hilary which is absolutely not true) who mobilize the Internet. What about the fascists, the anarachists, the socialists, the liberatarians? You're so blind and you don't even know what tidal waves of ideas are going to come. You're a tool of the corporate media. You're old and tired and scared. And I pity you because you just. Yes, maybe I'm the whiny young kid who's trying to make a point here, but the people my age are going to be cutting people like you up on the operating table, but why should we if you're just going to perpetuate this corporate capitalist state!


REVOLT! RIOT! FREEDOM FOR ALL MANKIND. GET THE HELL OUT OF DC FOR A CHANGE.

Posted by: hahahaha you'll never stop the class war | August 3, 2007 4:00 PM | Report abuse

"perhaps you are the moron. naturally anyone can use the internet. democrats have just been more sucessful moblizing on it. try to think. i know it's hard."

Oh no, you're not older than Ted Stevens, you're just a baby. Or a middle schooler.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 3, 2007 3:56 PM | Report abuse

"...the WaPo slants left in the vast majority of their editorial positions, a point that is unarguable"

Sorry, JD, I don't share your preconceived view of any part of the MSM that isn't called "Faux News." My take on CC is based solely on what he's written and how he writes it. Your wonderfully data-free perspective, and the rather kooky idea that CC's attendance at Kos says anything at all about him (what if Faux News sends a reporter? Will your world end?) suggests that what you think is unarguable and what isn't ends at the tip of your nose.

As far as my Nixon-goes-to-China comment, I cannot explain my use of it to someone who was apparently born without a sense of humor.

"WaPo slants left in the vast majority of their editorial positions..." No, the basic problem is that in your eyes reality has a pronounced liberal bias. And, therefore, objective news coverage of it will also appear to be liberal.

And as far as the "pre-emptive strike" idea, what, do you think that anyone besides us girls actually reads these comments?

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | August 3, 2007 3:37 PM | Report abuse

'You're a moron. The Internet is fair game for everybody and every ideology. That's the point. Jeez, are you older than Ted Stevens or what?'

this was written by Dionne, WaPo editorialist. perhaps you are the moron. naturally anyone can use the internet. democrats have just been more sucessful moblizing on it. try to think. i know it's hard.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 3, 2007 3:33 PM | Report abuse

"Democrats and liberals realized they needed a mobilizing force of their own but could not match Limbaugh's reach on the radio. Enter the Internet, and Markos Moulitsas."

You're a moron. The Internet is fair game for everybody and every ideology. That's the point. Jeez, are you older than Ted Stevens or what?

Posted by: donny jeffcoat | August 3, 2007 3:31 PM | Report abuse

'He has not made the case strongly enough, nor has he incentivized other energy sources strongly enough.'

Hear I absolutely agree with you. Our dpendence on Middle Eastern oil is our most serious weak spot. The problem is that corporations and foreigners have too muchh control over Congress - and that's the central issue.

we can't act in the our natiuonal interest becuase Detroit, Exxon and Saudi princes own our representatives -- and that won't change without campaign finance reform.

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

"on the subject of terrorism, we as a country have not yet figured out a better method of addressing that problem"

bsimon, I would argue that attempting to harken back to the 70's and calling for a "peace dividend" where billions of dollars now being spent on military defense are channeled into bloated social welfare programs is NOT the answer. The liberal MoveOn, YearlyKos agenda is not the answer. Remaining on offense in the global war on terrorism is an effective and sustainable method, and our national security and strategic interests demand it. I do agree with newt Ginrich who freely admits that all of this is only necessary because we have not made the acrifices necessary nationally to be free from our dependence on foreign oil.

I wholeheartedly agree that this is one of the failings of the Bush administration, to let this opportunity pass without a vigorous national effort led by the President. He has not made the case strongly enough, nor has he incentivized other energy sources strongly enough.

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

Bush's lawyers. They have a rebuttel for any agrument. Half of there defenses start with "clinton did".

And you wonder why Bush/Cheaney/Rove/Rumsfeild and so on haven't had ANY accountability during the republcian controlled congress. Listen to their arguments. They can defend bush for anything (in their minds). To bad reality doesn't agree with their agruments.

Old man, just becasue you make a claim or arguemetn doesn't mean you win the debate or conversation. Your point actually has to be BETTER than the next. Making points and attacking only wins favor with dittoheads WHO WANT TO AGREE WIHT YOU. Independants thinkers see though you. You cannot win a debate with discredit along.

It's like O'Reilly. Peeople ask him why he said this or taht. He asks them where they heard that and attacks the site for repeatting his words back to hit. AND THAT WORKS WITH YOU GOP'ERS? WOW. Are you fascsits or just plain stupid. Is you party up to no good or just plain morons unable to lead? It has to be one or the other. is the AG a liar or does he not know what's going on in his own department. I think it's both personally. I think you are fascsits AND unable to lead due to incompetance. Scary combo

Posted by: rufus | August 3, 2007 3:07 PM | Report abuse

bsimon: "Clinton 42's"

Just curious bsimon, are you implying that you sense we are going to see Clinton 44?

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | August 3, 2007 3:05 PM | Report abuse

"U.S. troops became overworked and demoralized, and many left the military or considered doing so."

As opposed to how they feel now, right? Not counting the 3,500 and counting who have "left the military" in pine boxes, of course.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | August 3, 2007 2:58 PM | Report abuse

I really can't discuss anything with you -- you are too lost in your delusional worldview and alternate realilty.

'If we return another Clinton to the White House, the military will be demoralized again.'

You think the military isn't demoralized now, with kids getting redeployed to Iraq 4 or 5 times? with over 3500 dead and an endless commitment ahead? With Donald Rumselfed's privatization [and shrinking the military] and using mercernaries hostile to our own troops-- and paying them much more? With inadequate armor and inferior vehicles? With extended tours and less time at home?

One yeah, and let me tell you about Bush/Cheney's anti-terorism commitment. Cheney was head of an 'anti-terror' task force. It never met.

And among the Justice Departrent's Top 10 priories under Ashcroft? Pornography, No 1. terrorism didn't even make the list.

Oh yeah, Condi rice delivers a memo Aug 6. - bin Ladin determined to strike in US> What jdoes bush do -- stay on vacation another month.

You people are simply ridiculous and pathetic.

Posted by: Cassandra | August 3, 2007 2:51 PM | Report abuse

proudtobeGOP writes
"Criminal prosecution of these terrorists didn't work out so well in retrospect."

Many things don't work out so well, in retrospect. Clinton criminal prosecution of terrorists failed from 1992 through 2000. Bush criminal prosecution of terrorists failed from Jan 2001 into September 2001. Come to think of it, criminal prosecution has failed - I think it was a recent Ignatius column that references one terrorist conviction from the crowd at Gitmo. One conviction. I take that back, it was not Ignatius, it was in the Obama speech in the prior thread. Moving on, the NIE from this summer says there now is as much danger from al Qaida as there was in 2001. In other words, the military prosecution has also failed. We've captured or killed literally thousands - if not tens of thousands - of terrorists and insurgents, and the threat is the same as it was 6 years ago. How does that work? Clearly something is going wrong.

It is not my intention to argue your point that another Clinton administration would not affect military morale - sadly I think you're right. On the larger point though, I think it is more important to recognize that whatever Clinton 42's failings were on the subject of terrorism, we as a country have not yet figured out a better method of addressing that problem.

Posted by: bsimon | August 3, 2007 2:51 PM | Report abuse

Obviously you feel that CC is diametrically opposed to the extremist ideology espoused by the KOS gang''

-- extremist ideology. LOL. Like populist democracy.

but that makes corporatists like you shake in their boots, doesn't it?

you want to talk about hateful invective, listen to rush, or hannity, or o'reilly.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 3, 2007 2:44 PM | Report abuse

You forgot Darcy Burner WA-8

Posted by: Will in Seattle | August 3, 2007 2:41 PM | Report abuse

"You complain that I want to attribute every single problem to bush, then you do precisely the same thinng to Bill Clinton."

Wrong again cassandra. I specifically mentioned Clinton's failure to kill Bin Laden when he had the chance. That is not attributing everything, it is atrributing ONE thing where attribution is fair. He admitted as much in a recent interview with Chris Wallace.

And to counter your weak argument that he didn't realize the threat of AlQaeda, I also seem to remember quite a few messages being sent by Bin Laden and his fellow jihadists during the Clinton years....like Khobar Towers, like the USS Cole, like WTC 1, like killing of American soldiers in Somalia, like the destruction of two U.S. embassies in Africa.

There were NIE warnings starting in 1995 about Bin Laden. But the Clinton administration sought to use prosecution and legal action; he treated these instances as a criminal act instead of terrorist attacks. That decision turned out to be a big mistake.

The 9/11 commission said "President Clinton's directive declared that the United States saw terrorism "as a potential threat to national security as well as a criminal act, and will apply all appropriate means to combat it. In doing so, the U.S. shall pursue vigorously efforts to deter and preempt, apprehend and prosecute, or assist other governments to prosecute individuals who perpetrate or plan to perpetrate such attacks."

Criminal prosecution of these terrorists didn't work out so well in retrospect.

If we return another Clinton to the White House, the military will be demoralized again.

"The Clinton defense team did not do a good job of managing military morale, taking too long to figure out how to distribute a demanding workload fairly and sustainably across a smaller force, due to a defense drawdown -- cutting military personnel by 15 percent more than the previous administration had planned.

As a consequence, U.S. troops became overworked and demoralized, and many left the military or considered doing so."

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20031101faessay82612/

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | August 3, 2007 2:36 PM | Report abuse

proud: "Bill Clinton failed to get BinLaden also when he had the chance, so stop saying it's all the fault of Bush. Hillary said we're safer now than pre 9/11. But trotsky is right, you libs will never acknowledge any good news or positive results from an R administration."

Please, you partisan troll, stop comparing the bin laden efforts pre and post 9/11. You people should be pretty embarrassed that we still haven't got him.

But hey, let's invade iran -- we know he's not there either! And since you and trotsky seem convinced that he's in pakistan, why haven't we invaded that country yet? Oh yeah, it's our "ally" and its troops are "looking for" him already.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | August 3, 2007 2:12 PM | Report abuse

Ok Judge, time for your 'read between the lines 101' lesson:

you said, "Is this your Nixon-goes-to-China moment?"

Obviously you feel that CC is diametrically opposed to the extremist ideology espoused by the KOS gang. (and by the way, Liz, they are very far out of the Dem mainstream, from all the hate and invective I read on that site)

In a similar vein is your questioning as to why CC uses 2004 numbers (implying that he does so because 2006 is worse for the right wing, and he wants to paint a prettier picture for the right, and 'ignoring the bad smell' from the exec branch).

Again, nice try at the pre-emptive strike. My main point is what you subsequently admit, however; that you and others mistakenly feel that CC is center-right. I seriously doubt it. In fact, his attendance at KOS suggests the opposite. And we all know the WaPo slants left in the vast majority of their editorial positions, a point that is unarguable.

Posted by: JD | August 3, 2007 2:06 PM | Report abuse


"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
- G.W. Bush, 9/13/01

"I want justice...There's an old poster out West, as I recall, that said, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive,'"
- G.W. Bush, 9/17/01, UPI


"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts,
3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)

Posted by: Cassandra | August 3, 2007 2:04 PM | Report abuse

"Democrats and liberals realized they needed a mobilizing force of their own but could not match Limbaugh's reach on the radio. Enter the Internet, and Markos Moulitsas."

aND HENCE. tHE REPUBLICANS ATTEPMT TO MINIMIZE AND SILENCE THE INTERNET and consolidate news to a few sources ie fox rush svage drudge hannity ingram malkin coulter. Did I leave anyone out. Look at those names people. Public enemies 1-8. Their goal is to silence all that is not gop parroting. ie o'reilly's attacks on the koz, o'reilly silencing twista and ludacris. Oreilly and hannity silencing rosie. "Democrats are terrorists" Whya re these peopel still on the air. How have they not gone the Imus route. I guess it's becasue they are propogandist and slaves to their oil people. You can't go after teh advertisers is they are big oil and defense contractors like boeing and lockheed. Oil is at a all-time high defense contractors flowing to gopers like hotcakes. Rush hannity and o'reilly getting high ratings. This is why they thought they were untouchable. Not if they are more people strongly agaisnt you than strongly for you. I think the more people that listen of watch these propogandsits the fast they will be off the air.

Posted by: rufus | August 3, 2007 2:02 PM | Report abuse

'but I guess your'e too busy writing dumb cliches about Rush to notice.'

It's not a dumb cliche to say Limbaugh is a convicted drug addict. It's a fact. However to say that 'Libs' 'hate the military' is an absurd, childish generalization.

'Have you read the interview? Or do you just want to generalize and complain and attribute every single problem to GWB?

Bill Clinton failed to get BinLaden also when he had the chance,'

Do you realize how silly this is? You complain that I want to attribute every single problem to bush, then you do precisely the same thinng to Bill Clinton. Have you no self-awareness? You don't sound stupid like trotsky/zouk, so perhaps you can see what I'm saying.

Bill Clinton was president before 9/11... no one really had any idea how dangerous bin Ladin was. But after 9/11, there should have been all out effort to get him and stop him --but instead we went into Iraq, which had nothing to do with it. And after 7 years, we still haven't made a se3rious effort.If it was a dem president now, you'd be going nuts about it.

Don't you rmember bush saying he didn't know where bin ladin was, and he didn't care or think much about it"

I'll pull the quote if you want.

Posted by: Cassandra | August 3, 2007 2:01 PM | Report abuse

"you libs will never acknowledge any good news or positive results from an R administration."

Nor, does it seem that you will ever admit to an R administration's errors and mistakes.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 3, 2007 1:57 PM | Report abuse

Democratic candidates know they owe a debt to Moulitsas. They're paying homage to him because he has started to beat Limbaugh and O'Reilly at their own game. No wonder O'Reilly is so annoyed.

Posted by: x | August 3, 2007 1:48 PM | Report abuse

Democrats and liberals realized they needed a mobilizing force of their own but could not match Limbaugh's reach on the radio. Enter the Internet, and Markos Moulitsas.

An Army veteran, a former Republican, and the son of a Salvadoran mother and a Greek father, Moulitsas, 35, created his Daily Kos Web site on May 26, 2002 -- "in those dark days," as his site puts it, "when an oppressive and war-crazed administration suppressed all dissent as unpatriotic and treasonous." Daily Kos took off because so many Democrats shared Moulitsas's view of the second President Bush.

Daily Kos is often described as liberal, but it is, more than anything, partisan. Its core assumption is that ideological conservatives made the Republican Party their vehicle and rallied in lock step against Democrats. The party of FDR and JFK needed to find the same discipline. The key litmus tests for Kos and his many allies in the blogosphere involve not long lists of issues developed by the American Civil Liberties Union or the AFL-CIO, but loyalty in standing up against Bush and doing what's necessary to build a Democratic majority.

And just as Limbaugh aroused passionate opposition on the left, so has Kos become the object of conservative rage. In the lead-up to Moulitsas's Chicago gathering, Fox News's Bill O'Reilly, a right-wing showman who knows a threat when he sees one, has gone after Kos. "There's no question that the most vile stuff imaginable is posted on this hate site and others like it," O'Reilly said Tuesday.

Personally, I dislike the use of obscenity on the Web, and many online posts are way too nasty. But the right wing, suddenly so concerned with the niceties of political discourse, did not worry much about what its militants say about Clinton, Al Gore or John Kerry. Limbaugh even blamed the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, on a president who had been out of office for eight months. I'm still waiting for his apology.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 3, 2007 1:47 PM | Report abuse

Cassandra writes "There you go with your dumb cliches. Maybe if you'd listen to something beside Rush, you'd have a clue... "

Nevermind the fact that I was quoting and providing a link above to the interview with a Natl. Geographic reporter on the PBS New Hour w/Jim Lehrer, but I guess your'e too busy writing dumb cliches about Rush to notice.

Have you read the interview? Or do you just want to generalize and complain and attribute every single problem to GWB?

Bill Clinton failed to get BinLaden also when he had the chance, so stop saying it's all the fault of Bush. Hillary said we're safer now than pre 9/11. But trotsky is right, you libs will never acknowledge any good news or positive results from an R administration.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | August 3, 2007 1:44 PM | Report abuse

Perhaps you missed it, but Wednesday was the 19th anniversary of Rush Limbaugh's radio show. Limbaugh was celebrating his ripe old age, in media years, in the same week that liberal blog fans were trekking to Chicago for the YearlyKos convention. Therein lies one of the most important stories in American politics.

Make no mistake: From the beginning, Limbaugh was a revolutionary figure. He befuddled Democrats and the journalistic establishment because he was an up-to-date throwback. The large audience he won on the right marked the return in the United States of openly partisan mass media, a 19th-century phenomenon that had all but disappeared in the late 20th century.

Limbaugh is not primarily about information, though he freely uses even those bits that come his way courtesy of dreaded "liberal" media sources. His goal is mobilization, and he has been extremely good at it. He spawned conservative imitators in media markets all over the nation and aroused a faithful band of Dittoheads who despise all things liberal and Democratic.

Posted by: Dionne | August 3, 2007 1:44 PM | Report abuse


It's gotten catty out there. Jeri Thompson is a trophy wife, as is Cindy McCain. Michelle Obama is too offhand and irreverent when speaking of her husband, and Judith Giuliani is a puppy-stapling princess. Even Hillary Clinton was a focus, for wearing an outfit that suggested, however faintly, that underneath her clothing she may be naked, and have breasts.

Posted by: peggy noonan | August 3, 2007 1:34 PM | Report abuse

I don't remember the Dems pulling these kind of little kid cry baby tactics when they were the minority.

"n a massive flare-up of partisan tensions (video link courtesy Breitbart.tv), Republicans walked out on a House vote late Thursday night to protest what they believed to be Democratic maneuvers to reverse an unfavorable outcome for them.

The flap represents a complete breakdown in parliamentary procedure and a distinct low for the sometimes bitterly divided chamber because members of one party have rarely, if ever, walked off the floor without casting a vote.

The rancor erupted shortly before 11 p.m. as Rep. Michael R. McNulty (D-N.Y.) gaveled close the vote on a standard procedural measure with the outcome still in doubt.

Details remain
"

Fascsits. If you don't things your way, take your ball and go home. Screw the country, right gop. You people WILL get voted out. How will you continue to sabotage the government while watching from the sidlines.

Posted by: rufus | August 3, 2007 1:32 PM | Report abuse

Not sure how I feel about this. I don't like corruption.

But then again, I'm agaisnt the GOP tactics of, if you can't win cheat.

"Court rules against FBI in Jefferson raid


By: JOHN BRESNAHAN | 08/03/2007 11:13 AM
Blog: Court rules FBI raid last year was unconstitutional and seized docs must be returned to Jefferson."

Posted by: rufus | August 3, 2007 1:30 PM | Report abuse

NEW YORK (Reuters) - American Home Mortgage Investment Corp. plans to close most operations on Friday and said nearly 7,000 employees will lose their jobs as the lender becomes one of the biggest casualties of the U.S. housing downturn.

Experts said it is likely the Melville, New York-based company will have to seek bankruptcy protection, and no later than Monday.

In a statement, American Home on Thursday night confirmed earlier reports that it was ceasing most operations. The company said its employee base will be reduced to about 750 workers, down from the 7,409 it reported at the end of last year. The terminations are effective Friday.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 3, 2007 1:29 PM | Report abuse

7. You got the destruction of the DOJ and Supreame court.

8. you got the gop giving government position to partisan lackies.

9. You got the cheap skate tactis as far as supplying the military and taking care of them when they get home.

10. You got the housing issues

11. you got the scewed econmoy. The path to middle class that out parants and grand parents took is now closed.

Should I go on?

Posted by: rufus | August 3, 2007 1:25 PM | Report abuse

'Trotsky- Spot on as always. The lefties are now rallying behind Rambo Obama to start a new war in Pakistan, and to change the debate to "Bin Laden's in Waziristan and you guys are doing nothing". Wait, I thought the libs were anti-war?''

There you go with your dumb cliches. Maybe if you'd listen to something beside Rush, you'd have a clue... try talking to an actual Democrat sometime...

'Never mind the fact that since 9/11, Pakistan has deployed about 90,000 troops in its tribal regions, mostly in lawless North and South Waziristan, and has lost hundreds of troops in fighting with militants there.'

And so what? We've lost thousands. Mushareff is a military dictator and I don't give a damn what he says. He is either incompetent or in league with the terrorists.

And since when did we need to ask a foreign dictator's permission to protect American citizens? Since when do we think it's okay for dictator to muzzle our legislators? He can kiss my a*s.

Posted by: Cassandra | August 3, 2007 1:23 PM | Report abuse

The gop has more problems to shake a stick at. I will list for you GOP, becaue you obviyously aren't getting this from your sources.

1. You got the bungled leadership of the iraq war.

2. You got the terrorist stronger than ever, because of bush's fail policies.

3. You got the culture of corruption. Gop'ers going down left and right

4. You got the social conservaives issue. Foley vitters.

5. you got inepitude at home, in regaardles to katrina and OTHER disators at home.

6. You got the destruction of the Chrsitian church. They have been lied to and misled by a man they thought was a christian.

I could continue. I could go more in depth, but you get the idea. You party is done.

Now talk about a decade ago and the problems of clinton. That's what you do right. The clinton's did do most things right. What has the gop done right lately. And newt shutting the government down doesn't count, you saboturs

Posted by: rufus | August 3, 2007 1:20 PM | Report abuse

Award-winning author of Military Power: Explaining Victory and Defeat in Modern Battle. Former Associate Professor and Elihu Root Chair of Military Studies at the U.S. Army War College Strategic Studies Institute. Current work examines U.S. defense policy and strategy.
Expertise:
U.S. national security policy; military strategy and the conduct of war; technology in modern warfare; recent operations in the war on terror.
Experience:
Elihu Root Chair of Military Studies, U.S. Army War College, Strategic Studies Institute (2006); Associate Professor of National Security Studies, U.S. Army War College, Strategic Studies Institute (2001-2005); Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (1998-2002); research staff member, Institute for Defense Analyses (1987-97).
Honors:
Arthur Ross Book Award Silver Medal, Council on Foreign Relations (2005); Huntington Prize, Harvard University (2005); Koopman Prize, Institute for Operations Research and Management Science (2005); Madigan Award, Army War College Foundation (2005); U.S. Army Superior Civilian Service Medal (2003); Rist Prize, Military Operations Research Society (2000); Impact Prize, Military Operations Research Society (1999); Barchi Prize, Military Operations Research Society (1997).
Selected Publications:
"Seeing Baghdad, Thinking Saigon: The Perils of Refighting Vietnam in Iraq," Foreign Affairs (March/April 2006); "Allies, Air Power, and Modern Warfare,"International Security (Winter 2005-2006); Military Power: Explaining Victory and Defeat in Modern Battle (Princeton University Press, 2004); "Democracy and Military Effectiveness: A Deeper Look," Journal of Conflict Resolution (August 2004); "Afghanistan and the Future of Warfare," Foreign Affairs (March/April 2003); "Victory Misunderstood: What the Gulf War Tells Us About the Future of Conflict," International Security (Fall 1996); "Technology, Civil-Military Relations, and Warfare in the Developing World," Journal of Strategic Studies (June 1996).

Posted by: Anonymous | August 3, 2007 1:16 PM | Report abuse

"David Vitter

US Attorney firings

Scooter Libby commutation

That took about ten seconds to come up with."

Don't forget the murder and cover-up of my boy. Pat Tillman

Posted by: rufus | August 3, 2007 1:15 PM | Report abuse

Trotsky, the Rs did it twice to a Labor H approps bill back in 2005 when the Republican Whip operation fell apart. The dems did not scream foul as the Rs are now because the dems wanted the bill passed. Eventually it was. Amazing what can be accomplished when your priority is policy rather than bloodletting.

Posted by: Nichevo | August 3, 2007 1:14 PM | Report abuse

Beinart mentions that the Council for Foreign Relations' Senior Defense Fellow Stephen Biddle has argued and testified against leaving any residual forces in Iraq. Biddle's as credible and seasoned an expert as Michael O'Hanlon, and he works at the most establishment-oriented think tank in the country. Yet his testimony on the subject was never mentioned by the media, while O'Hanlon and Pollack, whose research in Iraq consisted of a tour planned by American officials and babysat by the American military, become a multi-day, critically important story. Again: Why? Why does O'Hanlon and Pollack's tepid shift towards support of the surge after a military-guided tour so vastly outweigh Biddles tough conclusions?

Posted by: Anonymous | August 3, 2007 1:14 PM | Report abuse

Does it makes sense to anybody else that these so called "war-hawks" are so quick to defend war with Iraq and Iran, but are ignore the real terroists? Does that strike anyone else as strange? The "war on terror" right.

This should show independant thinkers what this is about. Oil and defense contracts. There is a lot more money going to war with iran and iraq, than going after the real terrorists.

Posted by: rufus | August 3, 2007 1:13 PM | Report abuse

Just to refresh Trotsky's obviously drug-affected memory, here's the start of a list of times Repubs respond with "Clinton Clinton waa waa waa"

David Vitter

US Attorney firings

Scooter Libby commutation

That took about ten seconds to come up with.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | August 3, 2007 1:11 PM | Report abuse

"The issue is -- the actual terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 are in Pakistan -- not Iraq"

Trotsky- Spot on as always. The lefties are now rallying behind Rambo Obama to start a new war in Pakistan, and to change the debate to "Bin Laden's in Waziristan and you guys are doing nothing". Wait, I thought the libs were anti-war?

Never mind the fact that since 9/11, Pakistan has deployed about 90,000 troops in its tribal regions, mostly in lawless North and South Waziristan, and has lost hundreds of troops in fighting with militants there.

Responding to the Senator from Illinois, Pakistan Deputy Information Minister Tariq Azim said no foreign forces would be allowed to enter Pakistan, and called Obama irresponsible.

"I think those who make such statements are not aware of our contribution" in the fight on terrorism, he said.

Wow, that was helpful -thanks Barrack.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | August 3, 2007 1:10 PM | Report abuse

zouk is a fascist. Always pointing to clinton. What if they are closet R's like I think. Why did clinton pardon all those people before leaving office? We did they go through the impeachment process for nothing. Why is Ken starr's legal company DONATING to Clinton?

Clinton is a r. Without clinton to point to what would zouk and these other fascsits point to? How would they justify the treason of the last 8 years? They couldn't could they? They can't evven do it now.

Zouk thinks the gop still has a chance HAHAHAHHA.

You gotta pity him though, right? Deranged fascsit racist haters. Again zouk. What will you do without your avatars? Are you scared yet? Are you going to pull a mcveigh on us because, like an elementary school kid, things don't go EXACTLY as you want them. You children are a joke now. It would be funnier if you people wern't killing so many people and destroying the country so

Posted by: rufus | August 3, 2007 1:09 PM | Report abuse

zouk is a fascist. Always pointing to clinton. What if they are closet R's like I think. Why did clinton pardon all those people before leaving office? We did they go through the impeachment process for nothing. Why is Ken starr's legal company DONATING to Clinton?

Clinton is a r. Without clinton to point to what would zouk and these other fascsits point to? How would they justify the treason of the last 8 years? They couldn't could they? They can't evven do it now.

Zouk thinks the gop still has a chance HAHAHAHHA.

You gotta pity him though, right? Deranged fascsit facist haters. Again zouk. What will you do without your avatars? Are you scared yet? Are you going to pull a mcveigh on us because, like an elementary school kid, things don't go EXACTLY as you want them. You children are a joke now. It would be funnier if you people wern't killing so many people and destroying the country so

Posted by: rufus | August 3, 2007 1:08 PM | Report abuse

'Hence, we ignore you, as usual.'.. Meaning Trotsky/zouk and all his multiple personalities. Since he's on here all day, he bviously doesn't a job, but I'm not sure whether he's paid for this by the RNC or just a mental patient. Anyone else have any theories?

Posted by: Anonymous | August 3, 2007 1:08 PM | Report abuse

someone asks
"now that the economy, the war and most everything the Rs have done is heading in a positive direction, what loss or tragedy for America will you stake your election on?"

Well, such baseless claims are senseless, but nonetheless, I'll grab a couple quick headlines from google news' business page, from today we have:

US Economy: Job Gains Slow, Unemployment Rate Rises (Update3)
Bloomberg

Mortgage fallout, economic data weigh on Wall St
Reuters

Dow 13,388.30 -75.03 (-0.56% )

But yesterday's news said:
Earnings reports drive stocks' rally
Indianapolis Star

Then, of course, we know the Dow took a 5% hit last week, after setting records the week before.

So, to claim things are 'heading in a positive direction' we have to take things with a grain of salt. Is any positive indicator enough? For instance, if stability in Iraq is getting better, but still hasn't reached the stability we had in late 2003, is that 'positive' progress? If economic growth is positive, but at a slower-than-normal rate for a recovery period, is that 'positive' progress?

I guess it will be up to the voters to decide...

Posted by: bsimon | August 3, 2007 1:08 PM | Report abuse

Trotsky: "Hence, we ignore you, as usual."

Is that what you call a two-paragraph response? If you say so, numbnuts.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | August 3, 2007 1:07 PM | Report abuse

'I detest the American Military.'

OBVIOUSLY YOU DO, ZOUK, OR YOU'D BE IN IT, WOULDN'T YOU?

WHY AREN'T YOU IN IRAQ, ZOUK? WHY DO YOU SIT HERE ALL DAY TYPING UNDER DIFFERENT NAMES WHEN YOU COULD BE FIGHTING?

Posted by: Anonymous | August 3, 2007 1:04 PM | Report abuse

"EVERY time they get caught doing something wrong."


Loud and dumb voter, do you mean Scooter Libby - the single incident with an R conviction. Well in fact - Clinton did lie to a court, and it wasn't about misremembering. Let's compare the proposed punishment. This is about hypocrisy and unequal treatment under the law - not tit for tat.

but I know according to your morality all Rs are evil and all ds can do no wrong. It would be pointless to dispute much of anything with a zealot like you or your fellow moonbats. Hence, we ignore you, as usual.

Posted by: Trotsky | August 3, 2007 1:03 PM | Report abuse

BAGHDAD -- Despite President Bush's recent insistence that al Qaida in Iraq is the principal cause of this country's violence, senior American military officers here say Shiite Muslim militias are a bigger problem, and one that will persist.

"The longer-term threat to Iraq is potentially the Shiite militias," one senior military officer said, echoing concerns that other American officials raised in recent interviews with McClatchy Newspapers.

There's no sign of reconciliation between Sunni Muslims and Shiites, the rationale the Bush administration cites for increasing the number of U.S. troops in the country.

The Shiite Mahdi Army militia continues to drive Sunni residents from neighborhoods in Baghdad, a development that one American officer called "disappointing." Shiite politicians show little sympathy for the expelled Sunnis or interest in stopping the expulsions. In interviews, they argued that the drive against Sunnis is a justified response to Sunni campaigns to drive Shiites from their neighborhoods, a position that American military officers reject.

Some of America's new Sunni allies warn that once they've disposed of the religious extremists in their midst, they'll return to battling rival Shiites -- and American occupiers.

Meanwhile, Sunni politicians are boycotting the Shiite-led government of Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki and threatening to withdraw permanently if 12 demands aren't met, including an end to Shiite militias' infiltration of Iraqi security forces.

More alarming, American officers say that battles for supremacy among armed Shiite groups will be the next challenge, and that U.S. forces are likely to be drawn into those disputes. Already, the U.S. is taking sides, sending attack aircraft to back Iraqi security forces against radical cleric Muqtada al Sadr's Mahdi Army.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 3, 2007 1:02 PM | Report abuse

From now on. Anyone spouting what Bill O'REilly or Sean hannity said the night before, anybody who makes their issues your issues, you will be called. Dittoheads have no place on this site. Think for yourself for once dittoheads. You propogandist have a year, before being eliminated from the sphere. We're starting the elimination of dittohead thought today. FYI

What will you do without you dittohead avatars, you slaves?

Posted by: rufus | August 3, 2007 12:59 PM | Report abuse

I hate this country.

I disdain American Power.

I detest the American Military.

I promise to lose all wars,

If you promise to vote us in.


Democratic Promises 2008

Posted by: Harry Reid | August 3, 2007 12:59 PM | Report abuse

Fair enough, zouk sock puppets, the Republicans can run against "Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi." The Democrats will just have to run against "George Bush and Dick Cheney." Time will tell which will be more effective.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | August 3, 2007 12:58 PM | Report abuse

Anyone have ideas as to who could oppose KS Repub Senator Pat (Patsy) Roberts next year? He is a SHILL for the admin. Wouldn't even let the Intelligence Comm. meet to investigate intel failings ahead of 9-11. Rockefeller was extremely frustrated for years. Roberts needs to be defeated in 2008.

Posted by: ksdemocrat1 | August 3, 2007 12:58 PM | Report abuse

'Trotsky Writes: "Hey Libs, now that the economy, the war and most everything the Rs have done is heading in a positive direction'

LOL -- but really, actually scary. The delusional world these people live in -- amazing. Thank god their down to about a quarter of the population.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 3, 2007 12:58 PM | Report abuse

Anyone have ideas as to who could oppose KS Repub Senator Pat (Patsy) Roberts next year? He is a SHILL for the admin. Wouldn't even let the Intelligence Comm. meet to investigate intel failings ahead of 9-11. Rockefeller was extremely frustrated for years. Roberts needs to be defeated in 2008.

Posted by: ksdemocrat1 | August 3, 2007 12:57 PM | Report abuse

"You wanna buy time? I'm the seller of minutes. I give you every second low price. If I sold lies."

Posted by: nas | August 3, 2007 12:56 PM | Report abuse

All those lower case jobbies 'gotta lose to win Harry' are zouk's too.. classic obsession with Harry Reid... he even approvingly quotes Rush Limbuagh, the convicted junkie-- LOL. Well we always knew he was a dittohead.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 3, 2007 12:55 PM | Report abuse

"Heaven shines light on those, innocent to how the world goes."

"Do not speak to fools. They scorn the wisdom of your words"

"My heart is wise"

"This hurt comes from the honest WORD"

"Prisoners, rise rise rise"

Nas

Posted by: nas | August 3, 2007 12:53 PM | Report abuse

"but re-opening votes is not such an uncommon practice. Those votes also get extended from time to time as whips go around and round up votes. "

False - in fact it is so rare that the Dems promised to stop this practice after a single incident. They didn't. More Dem lies, from their poltroons and their leaders.

Posted by: Trotsky | August 3, 2007 12:53 PM | Report abuse

trotsky: "Second, when caught, pretend like everyone does it."

Kinda like how the Repubs cry "But, but, Bill Clinton ... waa waa" EVERY time they get caught doing something wrong.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | August 3, 2007 12:51 PM | Report abuse

Trotsky Writes: "Hey Libs, now that the economy, the war and most everything the Rs have done is heading in a positive direction, what loss or tragedy for America will you stake your election on? you are running out of people to surrender to."

Well they could always find a way to blame Bush for the bridge collapse, without even waiting for the bodies to be pulled out of the river.

Oh, wait.

Posted by: Mike | August 3, 2007 12:49 PM | Report abuse


'Fearing a drawdown of U.S. troops and equipment from Iraq amid escalating violence, the State Department is hiring its own private helicopter squad to ferry its personnel around the country.

Government military contractors Blackwater, DynCorp and Triple Canopy are the only three companies competing for the contract, possibly valued at more than $100 million a year for up to the next five years, sources tell ABC News.'

Blackwater, DynCorp and Triple Canopy all major R contributors, of course...

Posted by: Anonymous | August 3, 2007 12:49 PM | Report abuse

LOL look who shows up right after zouk's shift begins: his alter ego trotsky.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | August 3, 2007 12:48 PM | Report abuse

This is where your taxpayer money is going, but you're not allowed to know about it:

'The U.S. government continues to spend money in secret at record levels, according to a new analysis.

Total spending on classified programs -- secret weapons, spying operations, eavesdropping satellites and the like -- is expected to be around $31.9 billion next year, roughly on par with spending from the past two years, according to the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA), a Washington, D.C.-based defense think tank.

That "black budget," as it's known, covers the expenses for agencies like the CIA, the eavesdropping National Security Agency (NSA), the satellite-making National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) and the Defense Intelligence Agency.

It also pays for some of the controversial domestic intelligence operations that have come to light over the past few years, said Steven Aftergood, an expert in government secrecy and classification with the Federation of American Scientists.

"The CIA's black prison sites, the NSA's Terrorist Surveillance Program -- all of those are concealed within the Department of Defense's classified budget," Aftergood said. Although the CIA is not a Defense Department agency, its classified budget is included within the Pentagon's request to Congress, Aftergood explained.

The Defense Department does not release information on most of its black budget, so the nonpartisan CSBA compared budget totals in the Pentagon's 2008 spending request to the sum of the individual expenses it listed. The difference between the two figures, when totaled with the costs of secret programs identified in the request by code name only, made up the total, the group said.'

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/08/classified-spen.html

Posted by: Anonymous | August 3, 2007 12:47 PM | Report abuse

"Karen, I hate to break the news to you, but re-opening votes is not such an uncommon practice. Those votes also get extended from time to time as whips go around and round up votes."

And who perfected the art of holding votes open into the wee small hours until the leaders got what they wanted? Why the Republicans of course, over the period 1995-2007. Karen is an idiot.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | August 3, 2007 12:47 PM | Report abuse

Victory in '08 = Defeat in Iraq

Posted by: DEMS | August 3, 2007 12:46 PM | Report abuse

That's Bush's allies. Not americans. Their is a differance

Posted by: rufus | August 3, 2007 12:46 PM | Report abuse

the vote was deadlocked, btw...and of course i'm sure she never minded the totally illegal way the congress was run while R's were in power...


Note the Dem tactics here. first lie about the facts - the vote was not deadlocked. Second, when caught, pretend like everyone does it. don't cite any facts to back up your accusations. third smear the messenger and try to make them the subject.

textbook case of Lib sore-loser mentality.

Hey Libs, now that the economy, the war and most everything the Rs have done is heading in a positive direction, what loss or tragedy for America will you stake your election on? you are running out of people to surrender to.

you could always propose spending more money, raising taxes and gutting the military. Oh wait, that IS your default position.

Posted by: Trotsky | August 3, 2007 12:45 PM | Report abuse

Meanwhile, over at our 'democratic allies' -- the Saudis:

'The family of a 19-year-old Sri Lankan girl is pleading for her life after a Saudi Arabian court sentenced her to death by beheading.

The court found Rizana Nafeek, 19, guilty of murdering a child in her care while working in the country. Her family (parents pictured above) has appealed the sentence, and human rights groups are calling for the Saudi government to overturn it.

At 17, Rizana Nafeek was sent to Saudi Arabia after the tsunami to work as a maid and make money for her family in Sri Lanka. But after only a few weeks and no child care training, her employers put her in charge of their 4-month-old baby. The baby died, and Nafeek was charged with murder, tried without an attorney and sentenced to death.'

Posted by: Anonymous | August 3, 2007 12:43 PM | Report abuse

The second YearlyKos is a chance for the "netroots community" to share strategies on "expressing viewpoints" and "building consensus." By those standards, it seems like it should be a short conference. I imagine it goes something like this: So, are we going to continue to compare Bush to Hitler and call conservatives stupid, homophobic racists? Great, meeting adjourned, see ya next year! "

Stop watching O'Reilly. He is rotting your brain. Just becasue he has issues, doesn't make them your issue. If you can shut =down the ko's, whta will stop me from shutting down fox and Rush with their "Liberals are terrorists" chants?

Posted by: rufus | August 3, 2007 12:41 PM | Report abuse

"What happens if the Iraqi national political leaders start coming together and the Iraqi Parliament begins making great progress?"

And what happens if the Easter Bunny and the Gumdrop Fairy get together for a tea party with Mr. Ed and Francis the Talking Mule?

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | August 3, 2007 12:40 PM | Report abuse

Well, of course, it's complicated, proud. But so was Iraq, if not more so, and you don't seem to have a problem with going there.

The issue is -- the actual terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 are in Pakistan -- not Iraq -- and planning to attack us again. Aand Mushareff made a deal with them that he won't bother them.

And yet we're still sending them millions of dollars of aid -- for them to tell us the situation is 'complicated'. Well it's going to get even more complicated when another US city is hit because we've done absolutely nothing to stop it.

Posted by: Cassandra | August 3, 2007 12:39 PM | Report abuse

Karen, I hate to break the news to you, but re-opening votes is not such an uncommon practice. Those votes also get extended from time to time as whips go around and round up votes.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 3, 2007 12:38 PM | Report abuse

Rush Limbaugh and other conservative pundits have made the observation in recent years that for Democrats to win, America must lose. Their point is that with a Republican in the White House, good news on the economy, the war, and just about any other major issue, is good for Republicans and bad for Democrats.


We saw it with the economy. I remember Nancy Pelosi screeching in reaction to record economic growth at the end of 2003 asking, "Where are the jobs, Mr. President?" Unfortunately for her, and the opponents of the President, what followed her complaint about a lack of job growth was 46 straight months of job gains with over 8.2 million new jobs created since August 2003. Good news for America was bad news for Democrats.


Their tactic for dealing with good economic news, being that anytime there was progress on one front Democrats, and often the media, shifted their attention to an area where there was not so much good news to report, has been repeated in Iraq and the war on terror.


For many months we heard that the war in Iraq was a huge failure with the evidence cited including that parts of the country were being taken over by terrorists, that there was increasing violence between different factions within the country, that the Iraqi police and military were not stepping up and were not being trained quickly enough, and that there was lessening support across the country for the mission of coalition and Iraqi forces.


Now that it appears progress is being made on many of those fronts, with much of the credit going to efforts of the surge counteroffensive, the focus is being shifted to the national political arena in Iraq, which has not experienced the same progress that is being seen on the local level. There is little praise to be heard from most Democrats for the progress that has been made - only talk about the areas in which the same progress is not being realized.


I can't help but wonder what Democrats will do if the same thing happens in Iraq that happened with the economy. When the economy began showing growth as a result of the President's tax cuts, Democrats screamed that didn't matter - it was all about the jobs. ("Where are the jobs, Mr. President?") When job growth shortly followed other good economic news, the focus was shifted to the deficit. When the deficit began shrinking, even more quickly than the President had forecast, attention was shifted from the economy altogether to the war in Iraq.


What happens if the Iraqi national political leaders start coming together and the Iraqi Parliament begins making great progress? My guess is that instead of hearing praise from the Democrats for the success, we will see the goalposts being moved and attention being shifted yet again.


Posted by: gotta lose to win Harry | August 3, 2007 12:35 PM | Report abuse

Markos is just one of a slew of liberal bloggers who have been anointed by the media as influential and cutting-edge. Influential because they said so and cutting edge because their puerile ramblings are liberally sprinkled with the f-word. Other bloggers that have caught the media's eye include Ana Marie Cox (the original "Wonkette") and Arianna Huffington.

Arianna and Markos were absurdly hailed as serious rivals of DrudgeReport.com. Ana Marie was given a primo job at Time magazine. All three had book deals and were showered with glowing reviews in the New York Times, The Washington Post, Vanity Fair, USA Today, People, and The Village Voice. They were guests on respectable news shows like NBC's Meet the Press, ABC's Good Morning America and CNN's Reliable Sources, as well as non-respectable shows like MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann. In addition to excessive coverage, the media insisted these bloggers were rising stars and changing politics as we know it.

While their stature may have risen, their book sales did not. According to Nielsen Bookscan, Markos, Ana Marie and Arianna all had disappointing book sales despite their hype. In its first week of sales, Markos's book Crashing the Gate sold only 253 copies. Marie's Dog Days, a novel based on her blogging experiences in DC, sold just over 5,000 copies. Arianna has written two books since launching her blog and neither have made it to the New York Times' bestseller list. Her most recent was a feel-good bore titled, On Becoming Fearless, published in September 2006. It sold less than 27,000 copies despite massive mainstream media promotion and all of Arianna's rich friends.

Perhaps these numbers provide a truer picture of their online readership. Sure they can boast about inflated hits on their sites, but when it comes time to pay for content their fans aren't lining up in bookstores.

HuffingtonPost.com and DailyKos.com will never reach the depths of Drudge because they are the county fair freak shows. At some point, everyone - liberal and conservative, young and old - goes in to gawk at the freaks. On their way out, reasonable people will agree that while it might have been entertaining for a few seconds, it was also a waste of time (and money).

Posted by: welcome freaks | August 3, 2007 12:34 PM | Report abuse

Mike Allen, over at Politico, goes on his good pal Hugh Hewitt's show and gushes over how propagandists in Cheney's office are helping the military used the media 'shape public opnion' about the war. The media tour with O'Hanlon and Pollack was arranged by the military -- and swallowed whole by the corporate media:

Posted by: Anonymous | August 3, 2007 12:34 PM | Report abuse

'LOL some troll named Karen just called CC a DNC hack. Now that is funny!'

Hilarious... but then she also quotes Politico's Mike Allen [best pals with Hugh Hewitt and other rightwing nutcases] as a credible source.. the vote was deadlocked, btw...and of course i'm sure she never minded the totally illegal way the congress was run while R's were in power...

and of course, zouk's here--punches in right around noon, just like everyday, with one of his old faves..'cnn makes stuff up' with its gratuitous slap at harry reid,--- and additional comment-- hey zoukie, as regards the khyber pass, we have rather better technology than they did during the time of Alexander the Great....

Posted by: Cassandra | August 3, 2007 12:33 PM | Report abuse

The second YearlyKos is a chance for the "netroots community" to share strategies on "expressing viewpoints" and "building consensus." By those standards, it seems like it should be a short conference. I imagine it goes something like this: So, are we going to continue to compare Bush to Hitler and call conservatives stupid, homophobic racists? Great, meeting adjourned, see ya next year!

Posted by: Lisa | August 3, 2007 12:32 PM | Report abuse

Gaithersburg: Maffei is a good man. With the experience from 2006 under his belt, and if the Republican brand is still mud next year, he can take Walsh down.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | August 3, 2007 12:29 PM | Report abuse

Is the gop trsonous traitors or jsut plain stupid? Either you people are unable to lead or you are sabotuers. Which is it?

Posted by: rufus | August 3, 2007 12:27 PM | Report abuse

Results Old man. Not excuses. Blame blame blame. Why is bush responsible for nothing, in your eyes?

Posted by: rufus | August 3, 2007 12:24 PM | Report abuse

"You know, these are the same people that attacked Alexander the Great, you know, when he tried to go through the Khyber Pass. These people have been making life difficult for any outsider for a long, long time."

Posted by: additional comment | August 3, 2007 12:23 PM | Report abuse

LOL some troll named Karen just called CC a DNC hack. Now that is funny!

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | August 3, 2007 12:22 PM | Report abuse

yEAH Gaithersburg. The (R) is starting to look like a scarlett letter, isn't it.

R=Robot :) Just kidding. don't get your panties in a bunch.

Or am I?

Posted by: RUFUS | August 3, 2007 12:22 PM | Report abuse

"Maybe Pakistan ought to mind its own business, stop taking millions of dollars in US taxpayer money, and DO SOMETHING about the terrorists it continues to harbor....Exactly. They KNOW where they are, in Waziristan. It's time we turned up the rhetoric."

Sam & DCAustinite - Here's a link to an extremely pertinent interview that I saw on the News Hour last night about that region of Pakistan. It's a lot more complicated a situation than your generalizations make it out to be.

An excerpt: "The problem is that many of the forces, the Pakistani government army forces that are in Waziristan, are not Pashtun. They're Punjabis from another part of Pakistan, and they're regarded by the locals as foreigners basically encroaching in their territory.

And so I think that, among the rank-and-file, at least, I heard a real respect and sort of awe for the tenacity and the fighting skills of the people that they were trying to control. Among the commanders, one of the brigadiers that was leading us around described it as like trying to ride a bull to control these people, these tribal communities, because they just will not sit still for that."

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/asia/july-dec07/pakistan_08-02.html

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | August 3, 2007 12:21 PM | Report abuse

Dang, it's been a while since I've been in this comment section. I still see the che's cut/paste skills are in evidence. But VIVABush as well as the Condi-for-President shill are gone. Thank god.

----------

CC - watch NY 25 as an early bellweather for the election. It'll probably be a rematch between Republican (appropriator) Jim Walsh, the incumbent, and former staffer Democrat Dan Maffei. I think Maffei lost by less than 2,000 votes despite being outspent 2-1 and having to start from scratch insofar as name recognition is concerned.

Well, Maffei is back. He's roughly on par in terms of fundraising and cash on hand thanks to a good 1st quarter.

The district trends a tad Republican (I *think* it was R+3). But the Republican brand is looking like coal right now.

If Maffei wins, it's a bad night for any R in the northeast and whoever the R Presidential nominee is is going to be in trouble.

Posted by: Gaithersburg | August 3, 2007 12:14 PM | Report abuse

..senior American military officers here..
..one senior military officer said..
..a position that American military officers reject...
..Some of America's new Sunni allies ..
..American officers say that battles for supremacy among armed Shiite groups will be the next challenge..


Shhhh, its a secret who all these naysayers are - because we just make them up. CNN

Meanwhile, actual generals with names go on the record and are ignored. Dem politics. we must lose soon to gain senate seats. Victory in war spells defeat at the polls - harry Reid.

Posted by: CNN makes stuff up | August 3, 2007 12:03 PM | Report abuse

"Heaven shines light on those, innocent to how the world goes."

"Do not speak to fools. They scorn the wisdon of your words"

"My heart is wise"

"This hurt comes from the honest WORD"

"Prisoners, rise rise rise"

Nas

Posted by: RUFUS | August 3, 2007 12:00 PM | Report abuse

Odd how the Washington Post can't find a way to cover the Dems vote rigging in the house. A vote was gavelled done, the republicans won by one vote, and then they erase it from the record. What is wrong with the Washington Post when they can't report on a crime committed in the House of Representatives? We can see it on CSPAN and YouTube and read it on Politico, but the DNC hacks, Chris being the head hack, will censor the news to protect the corrupt democrats. Another low day in the life of those who consider themselves journalists, but who I hope are the reason for the increase number of unemployed. NOthing better than to imagine a Washington Post reporter on the unemployment line.

Posted by: Karen | August 3, 2007 11:55 AM | Report abuse

'Pakistan criticized U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama'

Maybe Pakistan ought to mind its own business, stop taking millions of dollars in US taxpayer money, and DO SOMETHING about the terrorists it continues to harbor.

Exactly. They KNOW where they are, in Waziristan. It's time we turned up the rhetoric. It makes Musharraf look good because he's standing up to shaitan, also, it does force him to engage the military in taking down foreigners in his country (which most of the Al Qaeda members are).

Posted by: DCAustinite | August 3, 2007 11:39 AM | Report abuse

Gingrich: War On Terror Is "Phony"
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich chastised recent Republican stewardship of the country, saying that the Bush Administration is waging a "phony war" on terrorism while the most effective strategy would be reducing dependence on foreign oil. "None of you should believe we are winning this war," Gingrich said to a gathering of conservative college students. "We were in charge for six years," he said, referring to the recent period when the GOP controlled the White House and both houses of Congress. "I don't think you can look and say that was a great success."

Posted by: shocker | August 3, 2007 11:35 AM | Report abuse

'Pakistan criticized U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama'

Maybe Pakistan ought to mind its own business, stop taking millions of dollars in US taxpayer money, and DO SOMETHING about the terrorists it continues to harbor.

Posted by: Sam | August 3, 2007 11:13 AM | Report abuse

BAGHDAD -- Despite President Bush's recent insistence that al Qaida in Iraq is the principal cause of this country's violence, senior American military officers here say Shiite Muslim militias are a bigger problem, and one that will persist even if al Qaida is defeated.

"The longer-term threat to Iraq is potentially the Shiite militias," one senior military officer said, echoing concerns that other American officials raised in recent interviews with McClatchy Newspapers.

There's no sign of reconciliation between Sunni Muslims and Shiites, the rationale the Bush administration cites for increasing the number of U.S. troops in the country.

The Shiite Mahdi Army militia continues to drive Sunni residents from neighborhoods in Baghdad, a development that one American officer called "disappointing." Shiite politicians show little sympathy for the expelled Sunnis or interest in stopping the expulsions. In interviews, they argued that the drive against Sunnis is a justified response to Sunni campaigns to drive Shiites from their neighborhoods, a position that American military officers reject.

Some of America's new Sunni allies warn that once they've disposed of the religious extremists in their midst, they'll return to battling rival Shiites -- and American occupiers.

Meanwhile, Sunni politicians are boycotting the Shiite-led government of Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki and threatening to withdraw permanently if 12 demands aren't met, including an end to Shiite militias' infiltration of Iraqi security forces.

More alarming, American officers say that battles for supremacy among armed Shiite groups will be the next challenge, and that U.S. forces are likely to be drawn into those disputes. Already, the U.S. is taking sides, sending attack aircraft to back Iraqi security forces against radical cleric Muqtada al Sadr's Mahdi Army.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 3, 2007 11:10 AM | Report abuse

'Oberstar said he'll press next year to increase the nation's annual funding for bridge construction and repair from $2 billion to $3 billion. He blamed President Bush for slashing Congress' highway spending bill last year by nearly $90 billion.'

'small government-tax cuts for the rich' = rotting infrastructure

Posted by: Anonymous | August 3, 2007 11:08 AM | Report abuse

"Look, the fact all the major presidential candidates are attending means that the Net roots, in a very short time, has earned its seat on the big table," said Simon Rosenberg, founder of the New Democrat Network, which serves as a bridge between centrist Democrats and progressive bloggers. "These days you can't have a dialogue in Democratic politics without talking about what the Net roots are thinking. And how fast they've risen from the periphery to the center is a big cultural change -- and everyone's grappling with it."

There is no one leader, the name of the convention notwithstanding, and it's a disparate, unorganized community that's almost impossible to categorize. While the leading bloggers are in their 20s and 30s, the rank-and-file are older, in their 40s and 50s. The common assumption is that the Net roots is monolithic and full of ideologues. It is neither. It is made up of people who are mostly interested in getting Democrats elected -- and making sure Democrats stay in power.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 3, 2007 11:05 AM | Report abuse

Yeah, you're right, I forgot to add that in there:

"Promise Keepers" - a bunch of crazy people who went bankrupt holding a bunch of rallies trying to get everyone to convert to evangelicalism

NRA - gun ownership is great but do they really need to have a convention about it

Focus on the Family - they run around trying to say who is Christian and who is not. Looks like a cult to me.

Republican National Convention - a bunch of white people pretending that there is diversity in the Republican Party, listening to scripted speeches that no one cares about, funded by a bunch of corrupt corporate lobbyists.

But "Yearly Kos" has to be the biggest joke of all time.

I am all for democracy and it's these people's constitutional right to assemble as they wish, but it's also my constitutional right to make fun of them for being a big joke.

Posted by: Dominic | August 3, 2007 11:03 AM | Report abuse

AMIDST A "CIVIL WAR"...

Iraqi officials were to greet the country's soccer team after it was triumphant over Saudi Arabia 1-0 in the Asian Soccer Cup.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 3, 2007 10:59 AM | Report abuse

Mike Allen, over at Politico, goes on his good pal Hugh Hewitt's show and gushes over how propagandists in Cheney's office are helping the military used the media 'shape public opnion' about the war. The media tour with O'Hanlon and Pollack was arranged by the military -- and swallowed whole by the corporate media:

MA: - because as you know, Steve was a very high official in the Vice President's office -

HH: Right.

MA: And he also went over to Iraq to look at the communications capabilities, and he came back with a number of recommendations about even some of the logistical things to help people get those stories out. Now I think the military's getting smarter about it, as you know. . . .

HH: Yeah.

MA: The military organized the O'Hanlon-Pollack tour, and I didn't know until I read your interview with Mike O'Hanlon that they'd had an interview with General Petraeus . . . .

HH: Right.

MA: That had not been reported before. That was very fascinating. But I think that shows you that the military's getting better at this.'

When Allen gushes that "the military's getting better at this," what he means by "this" is "media and political messaging about the war." As has been evident for months now, the U.S. military in Iraq has been devoting far more efforts to all sorts of propaganda campaigns designed to shape American public opinion about the war.

Many of those media management efforts by the ('absolutely nonpolitical') U.S. military have been shaped by the same individual responsible for media management in the Bush-Cheney '04 campaign and, subsequently, in Dick Cheney's office.

And it was as part of exactly that newly shaped campaign that -- to use Allen's words -- "the military organized the O'Hanlon-Pollack tour." During the U.S. media part of their "tour" after they returned from Iraq, O'Hanlon and Pollack tried to create the impression -- with the able help of their very-impressed media interviewers -- that they were intrepid war reporters who practically fought their way into the war zone and dug deep into the gritty realities of the front line and came back hardened and a bit shell-shocked but nonetheless so impressed by the military progress they saw first-hand that they had no choice but to admit that the Surge is Succeeding.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/?last_story=/opinion/greenwald/2007/08/03/hewitt_allen/

Posted by: the prpaganda machine | August 3, 2007 10:59 AM | Report abuse

Pakistan criticized U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama on Friday for saying that, if elected, he might order unilateral military strikes against terrorists hiding in this Islamic country.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 3, 2007 10:56 AM | Report abuse

"A big delusional freak show of self-important crazy people engaged in useless activities that are a colossal waste of time."

You sure hit the nail on the head Dominic, but you were really describing an NRA convention, a Promise Keepers gathering, a Focus on the Family event, and most accurately, the Republican National Convention.

Posted by: VA-dem | August 3, 2007 10:52 AM | Report abuse

'"Yearly Kos" - what a joke. No one cares. A big delusional freak show of self-important crazy people engaged in useless activities that are a colossal waste of time.'

Yeah, democracy. You rightwingers really really hate it, don't you?

Posted by: Anonymous | August 3, 2007 10:50 AM | Report abuse

Hawkish Michael O'Hanlon -- a quintessential Beltway foreign policy analyst who's been much maligned of late for saying the surge is working -- has now weighed in on the Obama-Hillary no-nukes flap.

His somewhat counterintuitive verdict? Obama was right:

Michael O'Hanlon, a Brookings Institution scholar, said Obama "clearly gave the right answer."

"He's certainly right to say you would never use a nuclear weapon to get Osama bin Laden," he said. He said that if intelligence officials were able to locate bin Laden with the precision required for a nuclear attack, they would also be able to catch or kill him by more conventional means that would not signal to the world that using nuclear force is acceptable.

Posted by: finally--sanity | August 3, 2007 10:49 AM | Report abuse

For uncensored news please bookmark;

www.wsws.org
www.takingaimradio.info
www.onlinejournal.com
otherside123.blogspot.com
www.globalresearch.ca

Rupert Murdoch takes over Wall Street Journal

By Jerry White
2 August 2007

The takeover of Dow Jones & Company by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation was finalized late Tuesday evening. The $5 billion deal will add the Wall Street Journal and other assets to Murdoch's worldwide media empire and lead to a further concentration of the media in the hands of a few super-rich individuals and vast conglomerates.

News Corporation, which is valued at $28 billion, already controls over 100 newspapers worldwide, including the Times of London, the Australian, the New York Post and the Chicago Sun-Times. It also owns the Fox television network in the US and Sky News in the UK and dozens of other media companies, ranging from film and home entertainment to satellite broadcasting, magazine and book publishing and the Internet, where it recently bought the social networking web site MySpace.

Several other media giants also made bids for Dow Jones, including General Electric Co. (owner of NBC and Universal Pictures), which attempted to form a group with Microsoft, IAC/InterActiveCorp's Barry Diller and Pearson PLC, owner of the Financial Times.

Murdoch, who is ranked 32nd in Forbes magazine's list of the richest 400 Americans, with a net worth of $7.7 billion, made the highest bid at $60 a share--or 67 percent higher than Dow Jones's share price of $36 when the offer became public.

The offer was enough to overcome opposition from certain members of the Bancroft family--which has controlled Dow Jones since 1902 and holds 64 percent of the shareholders' vote--who had complained Murdoch's brand of sensationalism would damage the newspaper's credibility.

Key family members, spurred by Dow Jones's board and financial advisers, decided to go for the deal, with the final sweetener apparently being an agreement by Murdoch to pay the $40 million the family had incurred in legal and banking expenses during its four-month effort to block the takeover. Merrill Lynch, known as an early supporter of the deal, was paid more than $18 million by Murdoch, raising questions about the impartiality of the financial services firm's advice from the beginning.

The takeover bid occurs in the wake of the recent sale of the Knight Ridder newspaper publishing chain and while the Tribune Company's sale is pending. The newspaper industry has been hard hit by falling readership and the growth of the Internet, which has opened up alternative means of accessing information. The shift in advertising dollars to the Web, particularly by technology companies and Wall Street firms, has severely hurt financial publications such as the Wall Street Journal.

According to industry analysts, Murdoch intends to lure readers and advertisers from the Journal's chief competitors--the New York Times and the Financial Times--by undercutting them on the price of advertising as well as broadening the newspaper's domestic and international news coverage. According to an article in the New York Times, "Mr. Murdoch's vision for Dow Jones would establish the Journal as the rival to The Times in setting the daily news agenda of the country."

For the rest please go to:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/aug2007/murd-a02.shtml

Posted by: che | August 3, 2007 10:38 AM | Report abuse

"Yearly Kos" - what a joke. No one cares. A big delusional freak show of self-important crazy people engaged in useless activities that are a colossal waste of time.

Posted by: Dominic | August 3, 2007 10:34 AM | Report abuse

WASHINGTON -- Congress struggled Thursday over giving the government more power to eavesdrop on suspected terrorists, bogged down by concerns about the man who would oversee the plan _ Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

Posted by: no credibility whatsoever | August 3, 2007 10:27 AM | Report abuse

'The Washington Post leads with word that a federal intelligence court declared that at least one part of the Bush administration's warrantless eavesdropping program is illegal.'

No kidding.

'John Edwards, who yesterday demanded Democratic candidates return any campaign donations from Rupert Murdoch and News Corp., himself earned at least $800,000 for a book published by one of the media mogul's companies.'

Without substantiations, that's simply a baseless smear.

Posted by: x | August 3, 2007 10:22 AM | Report abuse

The LAT fronts the Senate's approval of an expansion to the children's health insurance program by a 68-31 vote, which is more than enough to override Bush's promised veto.

Posted by: good news for poor kids | August 3, 2007 10:19 AM | Report abuse

John Edwards, who yesterday demanded Democratic candidates return any campaign donations from Rupert Murdoch and News Corp., himself earned at least $800,000 for a book published by one of the media mogul's companies.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 3, 2007 10:14 AM | Report abuse

Oh btw, CC. you might want to cover the waves Chris Dodd is making among the netroots. [Hmm--waves in the netroots -block that metaphor.]

He went on O'Reilly and pretty much crushed him. O'Reilly, like Limbaugh and Sean Hannity has been attacking and smearing the Daily Kos folks relentlessly lately, so you know they're scared. Nothing they fear more than informed citizens and grassroots activism [and fundraising].

Film here:
http://www.chrisdodd.com/

I don't read Kos much, but this is a legitimate populist gathering, which I think is good for democracy. Lot of young folks with lots of energy, interested in policy and politics. Why do you republicans fear this so much?

Posted by: drindl | August 3, 2007 10:09 AM | Report abuse

Quite a few reports came out about how July had the least number of casualties this year, or the least number of casualties since November.

According to the Iraq Coalition Casualty Count, July troop casualties, at 81, were at the same level as February and March.

http://icasualties.org/oif/

Posted by: Anonymous | August 3, 2007 9:59 AM | Report abuse


Since Bush's popular currently stands at 25%, CC, how does that affect your calculations?

Posted by: drindl | August 3, 2007 9:57 AM | Report abuse

CC, you don't seem to understand the changing demographics of certain districts, particularly in California. Pombo's district particularly, which used to be composed of gigantic ranches and wealthy landowners like himself whose families were entrenched in power for generations.

It is now mostly broken up into suburbs populated by folks mostly from LA and San Fran and the distinctly anti-environmental message from Pombo and his ilk in the R party is unlikely to ever play well there again.

Posted by: Sam | August 3, 2007 9:54 AM | Report abuse

"JCC, nice try at painting CC as a GOP shill."

JD, you're incredibly sensitive considering that I never even mentioned either the R's or the GOP. For the record I (and many others here) consider CC to be center-right. And I'm mostly just trying to pull on his leg.

"I'm sure some on this blog will yell that this is prima facie evidence that he's a liberal tool..."

No argument there.

"...mainly because Bush didn't run in 2006."

Too bad I can't type "DUH" in 144-point font as a response. Read between the lines of my original comment to find an answer to your subsequent comment.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | August 3, 2007 9:54 AM | Report abuse

Russert is a republican shill, along with rest of the MSM pundits, btw.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 3, 2007 9:47 AM | Report abuse

'Chris is attending/covering the socialist convention '

They aren't socialists -- they are democratic activists. That's like saying that a Club jfor Growth Meeting is a fascist convention. But then, perhaps it is.

Posted by: Liz | August 3, 2007 9:46 AM | Report abuse

(CNN) -- Nearly a quarter of the nation's roughly 600,000 major bridges carry more traffic than they were designed to bear, according to reports based on federal government data.


The Interstate 35W bridge collapsed into the Mississippi River during rush hour Wednesday.
more photos »

Experts said Thursday that the problem stems from a lack of money and leadership.

Federal Highway Administration data from 2006 shows that 24.5 percent of the nation's bridges longer than 20 feet were categorized as "structurally deficient" or "functionally obsolete" (data from Utah and New Mexico was from 2005).

"Our bridges are not in very good condition in this country," said Ruth Stidger, editor in chief of the trade publication Better Roads, which compiled the data.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 3, 2007 9:43 AM | Report abuse

JCC, nice try at painting CC as a GOP shill. I guess you had to say something, given that Chris is attending/covering the socialist convention in Chicago (and one that many of the Dem candidates will be appearing at). And I'm sure some on this blog will yell that this is prima facie evidence that he's a liberal tool; so Judge, nice pre-emptive strike.

Yes, he did quote 2004 instead of 2006 elections, mainly because Bush didn't run in 2006. I've seen many others, including Russert, talk in these terms when trying to determine the slant of a district; presidential election years are a better barometer when making that read.

Posted by: JD | August 3, 2007 9:25 AM | Report abuse

Man, CC, you'll be surrounded by more HuffPo contributors than a Democratic Socialists of America convention. I'm actually surprised/disappointed that you are not (currently) on the agenda (as far as I can tell).

Is this your Nixon-goes-to-China moment?

Still quoting 2004 stats, I see, and ignoring both 2006 and the really bad smell currently emanating from the Executive Branch. "Presidential year turnout should boost..." no one but D's at this point especially if Romney or Guiliani wins the nod and seriously depresses the down-ticket R vote.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | August 3, 2007 9:14 AM | Report abuse

Drake: I agree with your sentiment. I would be thrilled to eject Bush and his corrupt ilk from power, and I know that any of the leading Democratic contenders would represent an enormous improvement over him, but I still wish we had someone who was even more of a proven, moral leader.

Posted by: Paul | August 3, 2007 8:25 AM | Report abuse

In some cases you talk of dissatisfaction in the District. But where you do not (e.g.; Shay's race), unless there has been a demographic change why do you think "national trends" trump local politics?

Posted by: Mark in Austin | August 3, 2007 7:48 AM | Report abuse

Wow, I guess no good recruits between Missouri and California, huh? Is this a real reflection of the state of recruiting? Or a reflection of inside-beltway/east-coast-centric think?

Posted by: PM | August 3, 2007 7:25 AM | Report abuse

What are the chances that we can still find a gem of a presidential candidate?

Posted by: Drake | August 3, 2007 7:01 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company