Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Friday Senate Line

The second-quarter fundraising reports provided lots of good news for Senate Democrats who are already decidedly optimistic about their chances of expanding their majority in 2008.

Democratic Reps. Mark Udall (Colo.) and Tom Allen (Me.) both raised more than $1 million in the second quarter and banked in excess of $2 million. Comedian Al Franken (D-Minn.) raised $300,000 more than Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.) from April 1 to June 30.

Meanwhile Republican Sens. Chuck Hagel (Neb.) and John Warner (Va.) -- among others -- did nothing to quiet retirement rumors by raising relatively small sums in the second quarter.

And the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee enjoys a HUGE fundraising edge over the National Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee -- $20.4 million to $5.5 million in the bank at the end of June. That wide gap is almost certain to help Democrats widen the playing field next November and limit Republican opportunities.

All in all, the news is bleak for Senate Republicans. The best thing for them is that it is July 2007 rather than July 2008.

Remember that the number one ranked race is the most likely to switch party control next November. The comments section awaits your kudos and critiques.

To the Line!

10. Kentucky (Currently R): The Republican party is struggling in the Bluegrass State thanks in large part to the ethical problems surrounding Gov. Ernie Fletcher (R). Fletcher looks like a likely loser in his bid for re-election this fall and if Democrats take back the governor's mansion it may well embolden a serious candidate to take on Sen. Mitch McConnell (R). The names being bandied about at the moment -- businessmen Charlie Owen and Bruce Lunsford, state Attorney General Greg Stumbo, and unsuccessful House candidate Andrew Horne -- aren't exactly the A-team. Who would be? Rep. Ben Chandler. But he seems unlikely to give up a safe House seat for a race against McConnell. Still, the state and national political dynamics are perilous for even a politician as savvy as McConnell. (Previous ranking: N/A)

9. South Dakota (Currently D): Democrats insist that Sen. Tim Johnson (D) is itching to get back to work this fall and is all but certain to run for re-election. We don't have any reason to doubt it. But, the reality is that even the most optimistic Democrats acknowledge that Johnson has been slowed by his emergency brain surgery. While we believe Johnson is intending to run for re-election, we also believe that he won't be able to make a final decision until he is back at work tests himself against the rigors of being a U.S. senator. If Johnson decides he's not up to the job, an open seat would immediately favor Republicans with Gov. Mike Rounds (R), the likeliest candidate. (Previous ranking: 9)

8. Nebraska (R): Does anyone really think Sen. Chuck Hagel (R) is planning to run for re-election? He was outraised two-to-one in the second quarter of the year by likely primary challenger and state Attorney General Jon Bruning (R), and Hagel continues to show no urgency in announcing a decision on his political future. The truth is that the decision may have already have been made for Hagel. The incumbent's outspoken opposition to the war in Iraq puts him out of step with the average Nebraska primary voter and Bruning is a serious candidate and legitimate alternative. Of course, if Hagel opts out, Bruning may find himself pushed aside for former governor and current U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns, who is widely seen by national Republicans as their strongest general election candidate. Omaha Mayor Mike Fahey seems inclined to run in an open seat and former Sen. Bob Kerrey and 2006 House candidate Scott Kleeb have also floated their names. (Previous ranking: 8)

7. Oregon (R): This race drops a slot on the Line but from what we hear from Democrats it may be moving up in the coming months. After failing to convince Rep. Pete DeFazio to run, national Democrats had worked to keep a lid on their recruiting process. But now state House Speaker Jeff Merkley has emerged as a potential candidate and party strategists are clearly enthused about the prospect of his candidacy. Merkley's profile is intriguing; he served as a analyst at the Pentagon during the Reagan Administration. Merkley is expected to decide whether to run by the end of the month, a timeline that explains the release of a DSCC poll that showed incumbent Gordon Smith's job approval at 37 approve/54 disapprove, and just one-third of voters saying they would definitely vote to re-elect the incumbent. Given Oregon's Democratic bent, this race has real potential. But, until we see a solid Democrat recruit in the contest and raising money, we can't push it up the Line. (Previous ranking: 6)

6. Virginia (R): Two things happened over the last week that should cause Republicans some agitation. First, Sen. John Warner (R) reported raising just $71,000 in the second quarter. While a major improvement over the $500 Warner raised in the first quarter of the year, the second quarter sum seems to indicate that Warner is ready to step aside. Second, former Gov. Jim Gilmore dropped out of the Republican presidential race and immediately expressed interest in running for office again in the Commonwealth. Gilmore's decision likely eliminates any chance that Rep. Tom Davis would have a clear path in the Republican primary if the seat comes open. Meanwhile, former Gov. Mark Warner (D) still seems a likely candidate in an open seat race. If he runs, Democrats have an immediate edge considering the former governor's popularity and the state's toss up nature. (Previous ranking: 7)

5. Minnesota (R): For some reason, Democrats aren't as enthused about this race as they are about the contests that appear ahead of it on the Line. Comedian Al Franken has shown he is serious about his challenge to Coleman but he faces a stiff test from 2000 Senate candidate Mike Ciresi in next year's Democratic convention. And, although Coleman is a Republican Democrats love to hate, the truth is that he is also a very savvy politician who is well aware of the peril he finds himself in. Coleman banked nearly $4 million at the end of June, a testament to his diligence in connecting with donors over the past few years. Despite Minnesota's Democratic lean, this is not an easy race for Democrats. Of couse, if the political environment is anything close to where it was in 2006 in Minnesota, it may not matter who runs. (Previous ranking: 5)

4. Maine (R): As we mentioned above, we were impressed by Tom Allen's fundraising haul in the second quarter. The fact that he has only $600,000 less on hand than Sen. Susan Collins (R) means that the two will likely be at financial parity throughout the race -- always a good sign for a challenger candidate. Republicans acknowledge that Allen is the best candidate Democrats could get to challenge Collins but simply don't believe the incumbent is all that vulnerable. Voters in Maine seem to know Collins as a moderate and she is quite well liked. The big question in this race is how much of an impact does the national environment have on Collins? Does the "R" after her name drop her down a point or two? Or five points? That could be the difference between winning and losing. (Previous ranking: 4)

3. Louisiana (D): Sen. Mary Landrieu remains the only Democratic incumbent in serious re-election jeopardy next year. Why? Because Louisiana has been trending Republican over the past several decades (in 2004 the state elected the first Republican to the Senate since Reconstruction) and Hurrican Katrina displaced an as-yet-unknown segment of the Democratic base. The good news for Landrieu is that Republicans don't have a candidate yet and aren't likely to have one until after this fall's governor's race. In the meantime, Landrieu is, smartly, stockpiling campaign cash. She ended June with $2.8 million in the bank after raising $1.3 million over the past three months. (Previous ranking: 3)

2. New Hampshire (R): If former Gov. Jeanne Shaheen (D) has any interest in serving in the Senate, it would seem tough for her to bypass a race against Sen. John Sununu (R) in 2008. An independent poll conducted earlier this month showed Shaheen with a whopping 56 percent to 34 percent lead over Sununu. As troubling for the Republican incumbent is the fact that President Bush and the war in Iraq are incredibly unpopular in the Granite State. Sununu is doing his best to distance himself from Bush but it may be too little, too late. If Shaheen gets into the race -- she is expected to make a decision this fall -- this race is likely to vault into the number one slot on the Line. (Previous ranking: 2)

1. Colorado (R): After a lackluster first fundraising quarter, Rep. Mark Udall got on the ball and broke the $1 million mark over the past three months -- affirming his status as the favorite for the seat being vacated by Sen. Wayne Allard (R) in 2008. But, quietly, former Rep. Bob Schaffer (R) put together a solid second quarter of his own, raised more than $700,000 and banking $683,000. It's easy to forget after the gains Democrats have made in Colorado in the last two elections that Republicans still have a registration advantage of 100,000 or so. We continue to believe Schaffer will be a stronger candidate than many people believe. The race favors Udall but not by all that wide a margin. (Previous ranking: 1)

By Chris Cillizza  |  July 20, 2007; 7:30 AM ET
Categories:  Senate , The Line  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: The Thompson Effect
Next: Understanding Ames

Comments

gqvxo jdmxapnzc bxnacoeld ympuodlkc shaw hovubwxym cngrtxlo http://www.ohnqfg.rdscyflp.com

Posted by: qneuhz yrvmjzedi | August 14, 2007 2:21 AM | Report abuse

gqvxo jdmxapnzc bxnacoeld ympuodlkc shaw hovubwxym cngrtxlo http://www.ohnqfg.rdscyflp.com

Posted by: qneuhz yrvmjzedi | August 14, 2007 2:20 AM | Report abuse

dnwe faswhrvg ygzhrxn yeipkcnvm uxskyhw bzvmano gbdp

Posted by: hzmbu bgmkx | August 14, 2007 2:19 AM | Report abuse

Whether or not Texas is competitive will depend mainly on two factors.

First, Hillary at the top of the ticket will substantially undercut the whole Democratic ticket here in Texas (just as Giuliani at the top of the Republican ticket would sink that ticket among a certain subset of Texas Republicans). How both parties get their vote out in Texas will depend in large part on the presidential nominees. The Democrat would benefit from an Edwards vs. Giuliani race, and Cornyn would benefit from a Hillary vs. Thompson race.

Second, the Democratic nominee will make a big difference. Texas Democrats have come to understand that they will be disappointed (again) if they expect the national party to help with statewide elections. If the Democratic nominee is going to go anywhere, he'll have to do it by himself. Noriega is essentially re-running Barbara Radnofsky's shoe-string budget campaign, and Watts is raising funds from contributors at a rate unprecedented in Texas for over a decade (over $1 million in just a month), and he's matching the funds he's raised with his personal fortune to the tune of $10 million. Also, Watts is to the right of the Democratic Party activists on social issues, but he's in the dead center on those issues when measured against the general election voters here in Texas. Noriega, on the other hand, is on the left of the Democratic Party with respect to immigration issues, and he's well outside the Texas mainstream on these immigration issues. On other matters besides immigration and social issues, Watts and Noriega are both fairly middle-of-the-road Democrats. Between the funding advantage and the greater potential for ideological crossover appeal, Watts is a much bigger threat in the general election. Ironically, some of the same factors which make Watts a bigger general election threat may make him vulnerable in the primary.

With the right combination of nominees for president and senate, Texas could become surprisingly competitive. If that perfect storm doesn't materialize, Cornyn will be re-elected.

Posted by: Progressive Texan | July 25, 2007 12:42 PM | Report abuse

I largely agree with CC's line, but I would have New Mexico ranked at No. 10 -- not Kentucky. Pete Domenici was strongly implicated in the U.S. Attorney scandal, a scandal which will continue to percolate and perhaps roil so long as Attorney General Gonzales remains in office. Mitch McConnell has the added heft of being Minority Leader, Domenici does not. Domenici is also rumored to have serious health problems. And New Mexico is FAR more of a swing state than solidly Republican Kentucky.

Posted by: Ogre Mage | July 22, 2007 8:22 PM | Report abuse

It is interesting to speculate on whether any of the handful of moderate Republican Senators left, especially those from New England, might switch.

They might go at least halfway and go independant. Shelby of Alabama and Campbell of Colorado went to the GOP after it was clear that the trend was going that way after the 1994 elections. There is certainly an advantage to being in the majority party in the Senate. And moderates would have little ideological difficults with being Democrats, since the trend there has be to moderation.

But being an Independent can also be a powerful place, though one may miss out on key committee chairmanships.

It appears that the "realignment" the GOP crowed about when old Southern Democrats retired and were placed by conservative GOP, is going the other way in New England.

New England used to be as solid Republican as the South used to be solid Democrat. Now the GOP is controlled by one wing of the party and the moderate "economic" Republicans are finding themselves unwelcome. The GOP has all but totally captured the South, but they may be losing their old traditional territory in New England.

"Realignment" may be coming around full swing.

Posted by: Alan in Missoula | July 21, 2007 12:50 PM | Report abuse

Personally, I think that this is perhaps the most accurate analyses made to date. I would move McConnell back to the number 11 spot and replace him with Liddy Dole, who could be seriously challenged by some of the losers from the democratic gubernatorial primary. The only way that South Dakota goes red is if (a) Gov Mike Rounds enters the race and (b) tim johnson retires, because I don't think that Herseth would give up her house seat in a presidential election year. Hagel's seat could get copetitive in an anti republican environment but is a little bit of wishful thinking. Smith's seat, on the other hand, is a great opportunity for a pickup assuming that the Demshave a stellar candidate. though their first three choices (and all of their house members) have declined, the state house speaker could provide a formidable challenge to smith. In Virginia, I think that Warner is just delaying his retirement announcement so as to favor Tom Davis in the race for the Republican nomination. If Mark Warner or Tim Kaine runs, this goes blue. the analysis for Minnesota is dead on because it is hard to tell just how much support Al Franken can actually muster. In Maine, if Collins continues her indecision over the war in Iraq, her approvals will decline and Allen will win. Now, Mary Landrieu has never had an easy reelection but with stable approval ratings and Bobby Jindal running for governor, she may perform better than expected. The David vitter scandal will boost her performance. Basically if Shaheen enters the race, Sununu is toast. Colorado is essentially lost, especially if it is contested on the presidential level. I think that Pete Domenici and Ted Stevens may deserve mention because of the many scandals surrounding the two. All in all it depends on the atmospher of election day 2008.


Posted by: b.k. | July 21, 2007 12:14 PM | Report abuse

http://www.jimgilliam.com/2004/10/the_osexxxy_factor.php

"The O'Sexxxy Factor
October 14, 2004 6:00 PM


So Bill got slapped with a sexual harassment lawsuit, and his performance today on the Factor and earlier on Regis' show indicate he's resigned himself to well, resigning. It seems O'Reilly knows he's toast, and it's just a matter of time.

But none of this should be surprising to Factor viewers, he's telegraphed his sordid sexual desires for years on his show, all you had to do was watch.

To commemorate the beginning of the end of Mr. O'Reilly's career, here's my 5 minute video, The O'Sexxxy Factor. Quicktime (8MB) or Windows Media (12 MB) It's great. You'll love it, but it's definitely not safe for work."

Posted by: fox is done with the big head | July 20, 2007 6:37 PM | Report abuse

What does simpons and family guy have against rupert murdoch and Fox "news"? Must be serious since he pays their bills

"NEW YORK In an interview in this coming Sunday's New York Times Magazine, Matt Groening, creator of "The Simpsons," declares that while he gets along well with Rupert Murdoch -- who owns the network that airs the TV show -- he doesn't want him to buy the Wall Street Journal.

"I think he owns enough," Groening says. But he recalls Murdoch being "gracious every time I've met him" and even going along with his animated appearance on the show with the entrance line, "I'm Rupert Murdoch, the billionaire tyrant."

"The Simpsons Movie" opens next week.

According to an early review, the movie at one point includes a "news crawl" along the bottom of the screen, which reads: "Watch 'Are You Smarter Than a Celebrity?' on Fox. That's right, we even advertise our shows during movies now."

Groening also explains why he makes Arnold Schwarzenegger president in the movie ("We needed a president that would make peope laugh") and admits he has never voted for a winning president in real life "with the exception of Al Gore."

He also discloses that movie will reveal which state Springfield is actually in by showing what borders it -- including Maine and Kentucky."

Posted by: fox even hates fox :) | July 20, 2007 6:33 PM | Report abuse

how many billions has bush paid pakistan to house his buddy bin laden again? Where are the results?

I guess none of that matters if zouk here is making moeny. Soulless fascists.

Posted by: rufus | July 20, 2007 6:12 PM | Report abuse

Congranulations. Enjoy that money at the expense of my brothers. I hope guilt (GOd) ripes your mental to shreds.

I don't care about little pieces of paper so that commetn is nothing to me. Moz

Are you trying to hurt my feelings by sayign the dow is up? HAHAHAHHAHA.

What are you hoping to accomplish? What does that havfe to do with anything. What about this

How many billion have we WASTED in iraq again? Where is that money coming from? MArs?

Posted by: rufus | July 20, 2007 6:06 PM | Report abuse

"The Democrat Party. Fighting tooth and nail to make you less safe."

LOL. That's why, after 7 years of republican rule, al-queda is stronger than ever now, after operating unchallenged in pakistan and afghanistan for several years now, and prepared for another devastating attack on US soil.

You will reap what you sow, zouk.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 6:04 PM | Report abuse

Dow Jones breaks 14,000 mark
July 20, 2007

The Dow Jones Industrial Average, boosted by strong profits, yesterday hit the 14,000 barrier barely two months after breaking through 13,000 for the first time.

Such a rapid ascent of the century-old blue-chip index has not been seen since the halcyon days of the early 2000 technology boom.

Yesterday's 82.19 point rise in the Dow lifted it past the 14,000 milestone by only a hair's breadth -- it ended at 14,000.41 for the day -- but the Dow swept aside potential obstacles such as bad news on subprime mortgages and near-record oil prices to get there.

Posted by: just for u dufus | July 20, 2007 5:58 PM | Report abuse

It's your president making us less safe not the dems. The last 7 years have made us less safe. Nice try defelecting the critisim. To bad it only works with dittohead fox viewers. Now people know they are propogandists. Just becuse you make a statement doesn't make it true. Just because you attack doesn't mean you win the agrument. You win a debate with better points. Something the GOP dittoheads STILL don't understand.

"'We're Less Safe,' Say Counterterrorism Experts
By Monisha Bansal
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
September 28, 2006

(CNSNews.com) - Echoing recent statements by congressional Democrats, conservative counterterrorism experts Wednesday said the United States is "less safe" today than before Sept. 11, 2001. But White House Press Secretary Tony Snow continued to defend President Bush's position that the U.S. is safer now than before the worst terrorist attacks in the nation's history.

The National Intelligence Estimate, which reportedly concluded that the Iraq war has heightened Islamic radicalism and increased the threat of terrorism, was leaked Sunday. The report has been cited by many Democrats in their criticisms of the Bush administration's handling of the war.
"

Posted by: rufus | July 20, 2007 5:57 PM | Report abuse

To each his own. May be a broad mis-characterzation. Not as far as I would like, being a Strong democratic socialist.

I would also argue nobody is looking out for the middle class. Ther eis no middle class anymore.

Point taken though. I got a little excited:)

Posted by: rufus | July 20, 2007 5:49 PM | Report abuse

"The Democrat Party. Fighting tooth and nail to make you less safe."

Democrats last night voted down a protection provision that would ensure tipsters aren't being sued for reporting suspicious activity.

"We disarm ourselves when we succumb to political correctness - which encourages us to second guess our common sense and look the other way. It is an outrage that Pelosi and Reid would allow individuals to be punished when they come forward to protect us all."

If you see something, say something:

Nancy Pelosi's office: 202-225-4965
Reid's office: 202-224-3542

Posted by: dems incompetent on national security | July 20, 2007 5:47 PM | Report abuse

'Where as I would classify the current dem crop as SOFT democratic socialists.'

I would simply classify them as trying to support the middle class, and giving them a fair shake, as opposed to the republican's aim to redistribute wealth upwards.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 5:44 PM | Report abuse

What happened to the free speech and first amendment that Rush and hannity are crying about. "sounds like their trying to regulate the airwaves".

Your trying to boot me and I'm not even making any money off this. Unlike your idols who are making millions off the blood of my brothers and sisters.

You got a problem with my posts, prove me wrong. Or leave. Just please stop you whining

Posted by: rufus | July 20, 2007 5:38 PM | Report abuse

you got a problem? Stop whining and complaining and go elsewhere

Posted by: rufus | July 20, 2007 5:35 PM | Report abuse

Can rufas' multi-personality beat ignorant Kos koward's in postings per hour? not if every voice in his head works overtime. Of course Kos koward has the mechanism of cut and paste down to pit stop efficiency. It looks to be a good contest.

the battle of the moonbats

Posted by: read my libs | July 20, 2007 5:33 PM | Report abuse

:)

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 5:31 PM | Report abuse

" enemy of the United States"

Sound familar GOP. He must be a Bush

Posted by: rufus | July 20, 2007 5:29 PM | Report abuse

I am rufus; all of us.

Posted by: Sybil | July 20, 2007 5:28 PM | Report abuse

"Harriman Bank was the main Wall Street connection for German companies and the varied U.S. financial interests of Fritz Thyssen, who had been an early financial backer of the Nazi party until 1938, but who by 1939 had fled Germany and was bitterly denouncing Hitler. Business transactions for profit with Nazi Germany were not illegal when Hitler declared war on the United States (December 11, 1941), but, six days after the attack on Pearl Harbor, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed the Trading With the Enemy Act after it had been made public that U.S. companies were doing business with the declared enemy of the United States. On October 20, 1942, the U.S. government ordered the seizure of Nazi German banking operations in New York City. President Franklin Roosevelt's Alien Property Custodian, Leo T. Crowley, signed Vesting Order Number 248 seizing the property of Prescott Bush under the Trading with the Enemy Act. The order, published in obscure government record books and kept out of the news, cited only the Union Banking Corporation (UBC) connections with Von Thyssen. Fox News has reported that recently declassified material "The 4,000 Union Banking shares owned by the Dutch bank were registered in the names of the seven U.S. directors, according a document signed by Homer Jones, chief of the division of investigation and research of the Office of Alien Property Custodian, a World War II-era agency that no longer exists"[2]."

Posted by: cont. | July 20, 2007 5:26 PM | Report abuse

not to mention this. The gop IS a party of fascists yelling "I know you are but what am I"

Prescott bushhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prescott_Bush

"The New York Herald-Tribune referred to the German industrialist, Fritz Thyssen, as "Hitler's Angel" and mentioned Bush as an employee of the investment banking firm Thyssen used in the USA. The underlying importance is Hitler's known ideology; intelligent business partners like Bush and Thyssen and Harriman clearly knew who they were doing business with and were willing to do so. Thyssen's so-called "autobiography", I Paid Hitler, was published in the United States while Thyssen, who had broken with Hitler in 1939, was in a German Concentration Camp. . The book was in fact written by a journalist called Emery Reves, based partly on memoirs dictated by Thyssen, but containing much material invented or exaggerated by Reves. This book is the source of views about Thyssen, including the view that the German industrialists as a class supported and funded Hitler and put him into power. After the war Thyssen disputed the authenticity of this book, and this was upheld by the postwar denazification tribunal. Some records in the National Archives, including the Harriman papers, document the continued relationship of Brown Brothers Harriman with Thyssen and some of his German investments up until his 1951 death.[4] Investigator John Loftus has said, "As a former federal prosecutor, I would make a case for Prescott Bush, his father-in-law (George Walker) and Averell Harriman [to be prosecuted] for giving aid and comfort to the enemy. They remained on the boards of these companies knowing that they were of financial benefit to the nation of Germany." Two former slave laborers from Poland have filed suit in London against the government of the United States and the heirs of Prescott Bush in the amount of $40 billion. A class-action lawsuit filed in the U.S. in 2001 was dismissed based on the principle of state sovereignty.[5]"

Posted by: rufus | July 20, 2007 5:24 PM | Report abuse

The differance is, the nazi referance has credence when compared to the current GOP. Where as I would classify the current dem crop as SOFT democratic socialism.

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/51150/

1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy.(liberals/terrorist/activists/democrats)
2. Create a gulag.( guantonemo/secret euro prisons)
3. Develop a thug caste.(dittoheads/ex-military/cow folk)
4. Set up an internal surveillance system. (patriot act)
5. Harass citizens' groups.( fox and rush/right-wing attack machine attacking all dissenters)
6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release.(Guantonemo again, secret prisons)
7. Target key individuals.(right-wing attack machine attacking all dissent)
8. Control the press.( the entire tv media and ALL of radio. CNN Fox MSNBC(not counting olberman) Murdoch attempt to buy and control all mediums)
9. Dissent equals treason.( you are with us or against us)
10. Suspend the rule of law.( i don't recall. executive privledge)

Posted by: rufus | July 20, 2007 5:21 PM | Report abuse

Liberals forcing their views?

WOW. Like conservatives trying to BAN women's choice?

Hypocrite republcians. You are a joke zouk. I can't wait until the elections. Fun time. Just don't go on a shooting rampage when your party is done for a generation. Majority rule, remember. You cannot force conservatism on a free people. You are a fascist.

Posted by: rufus | July 20, 2007 5:18 PM | Report abuse

"it's vicious hate-mongering"

Yep, you can always tell a vicious hate monger by the excessive references to Hitler. for example:

"The rightwing in this country has justj gone off the freaking deep end. They really do sound like the nazis now -- and their leader is acting like Stalin.

Posted by: Sam | July 20, 2007 04:53 PM

Like Hitler, you mean? Look at any of Hitler's speeches, substitute the word 'liberal' for the word 'Jew' and you will find they are almost identical. It's been done.


Posted by: Sam | July 20, 2007 05:06 PM

2 for 2 Kos guy

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 5:18 PM | Report abuse

'liberals forcing their values on everyone else '

..because 'conservatives' would never DREAM of doing such a thing...

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 5:16 PM | Report abuse

This is Jocelyn Elders-101.

Actually the legislation in question was a state Senate measure last year that aimed to update Illinois' sex education standards with "medically accurate" information. At one point, the legislation included a provision to allow students from kindergarten through fifth grade to be added to the middle and high school students receiving sex education.

Obama was chairman of the Senate committee that voted along party lines to move along the measure, which ultimately went nowhere.

Alan Keyes asked him: "Well, I had noticed that, in your voting, you had voted, at one point, that sex education should begin in kindergarten, and you justified it by saying that it would be "age-appropriate" sex education.

But then on another vote, when they wanted to put internet filters on computers for the schools and in the libraries, you voted to oppose that, which made me wonder just exactly what you think is "age-appropriate."

For instance, do you think that, in the first and second grade, we ought to be teaching from books like Heather Has Two Mommies, where we will be presenting, whether or not parents agree with it, a lifestyle that many folks in the state of Illinois believe is not advisable? Is that the kind of sex education you mean? "


Obama said. 'If they ask a teacher 'where do babies come from,' that providing information that the fact is that it's not a stork is probably not an unhealthy thing.

Posted by: liberals forcing their values on everyone else | July 20, 2007 5:14 PM | Report abuse

One more point on fox's ratings. A lot of liberals watch O'REilly and Hannity because they want ammo against the GOP. Because WE want them off the air, I am helping your ratings. It's worth it. The pro's out weigh the cons.

How many conservatives watch Olberman, you think? Not countring bush's patriot cronie spies. I bet you could count them on one hand. Watching olberman would through their world off kilter. To much truth on NON-Fox "news' for DITTOHEADS to watch.

Posted by: rufus | July 20, 2007 5:12 PM | Report abuse

'Perhaps he thought it was obvious to any rational adult that 'age appropriate' for kindergartners would not include pornographic detail.'

Unfortunately, gopers are not rational adults.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 5:08 PM | Report abuse

proudgop is just having fantasies again. Like O'rEIlly with his questions to the NJ beauty queen.

proudGOP showed his pedifile face today.

Posted by: rufus | July 20, 2007 5:07 PM | Report abuse

'and ultimately we are discussing someone who makes thier living at hyperbole.'

Like Hitler, you mean? Look at any of Hitler's speeches, substitute the word 'liberal' for the word 'Jew' and you will find they are almost identical. It's been done.

It's not hyperbole, it's vicious hate-mongering, intended to stir up the lunatics -- like you, zouk. You people don't have anything but fear and hatred. That's all the motivates you.

Posted by: Sam | July 20, 2007 5:06 PM | Report abuse

proudtobeGOP writes
"He is the one who said 'age-appropriate sex ed for kindergartners'."

Perhaps he didn't think he needed to add a qualification that talking about inserting tab A into slot B to kindergartners was inappropriate. Perhaps he thought it was obvious to any rational adult that 'age appropriate' for kindergartners would not include pornographic detail.

Posted by: bsimon | July 20, 2007 5:05 PM | Report abuse

Who is bill maher?

"William Maher, Jr., (pronounced: /mɑɹ/) (born January 20, 1956) is an American comedian, actor, writer, and producer. He hosted the late-night television talk show Politically Incorrect on Comedy Central and ABC, and is currently the star of Real Time with Bill Maher on HBO. On June 1, 2006, he also began hosting an internet-exclusive talk show on Amazon.com entitled Amazon Fishbowl."

Who is ann coulter.

"Ann Coulter was born to John Vincent and Nell Husbands Martin Coulter. After her birth in New York City, the family moved to New Canaan, Connecticut, where Coulter and her two older brothers were raised. She has described her family as "upper middle class" and has termed her attorney father a "union buster".[5][6]

As an undergraduate at Cornell, Coulter helped found The Cornell Review,[7] and was a member of the Delta Gamma national women's fraternity.[8] She graduated cum laude from Cornell in 1984, and received her law degree from the University of Michigan Law School, where she achieved membership in the Order of the Coif and was an editor of the Michigan Law Review.[9] At Michigan, Coulter founded a local chapter of the Federalist Society and was trained at the National Journalism Center.[10][11]

After law school, Coulter served as a law clerk for Pasco Bowman II of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in Kansas City.[12] After a short time working in New York City in private practice, where she specialized in corporate law, Coulter left to work for the United States Senate Judiciary Committee after the Republican Party took control of Congress in 1994. She handled crime and immigration issues for Senator Spencer Abraham of Michigan, and helped craft legislation that made it easier to deport aliens convicted of felonies.[13] She later became a litigator with the Center For Individual Rights.[14]"

One is a comedian. One is a personal knee deep into poltics.

One is irrelevant funnyguy taht no one cares about.

One is the conservative standard bearer. You want you little girls to look up to Ann COulter? She is looked up to on the right.

Bill maher got fired from mainstream tv, went to HBO. Noproblem there. People want to watch him on cable that's fine. I've never seen his show. Fox continues to give coulter a platform.

What a joke. What a moronic comparision. A comedian and a judges puppy running republcian politics.

Your time is up GOP. YOu should use the next year fixing the damage YOU've done to this country, Not continuing to dig yourselves deeper.

Posted by: rufus | July 20, 2007 5:04 PM | Report abuse

you did it with all of them but here is one example - in her own words:

Here is my full sentence on "Good Morning America," which the media deceptively truncated, referring to a joke I told about Edwards six months ago that made liberals cry: "But about the same time, you know, Bill Maher was not joking and saying he wished Dick Cheney had been killed in a terrorist attack -- so I've learned my lesson: If I'm going to say anything about John Edwards in the future, I'll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot."

The usual nut Web sites posted a zillion denunciations of my appearance on "Good Morning America" immediately after I appeared Monday morning. But it didn't occur to any of them to simply lie about what I had said. No, it took them nearly 36 hours to concoct a version of that quote that included the Edwards part, but not the Maher part, or what English language speakers call: "the point."

so she simply repeated whay Maher had said before without any fanfare. Of course no one cares what he says so it went unnoticed. but when Ann simply repeats it, it gets edited and sent out to all the Kos groupies so they can begin foaming.

the one about Edwards being an english cigarette was likewise misquoted and was based on the Grays' anatomy PC patrol over attending rehab class for intolerance. I know you Libs have no sense of humor but really.

and ultimately we are discussing someone who makes thier living at hyperbole. Yet when practically all the Libs behave this way on a day to day basis, no one minds. Is that because you have no minds?

you don't see a flock of GOPS rushing to defend most of those "funny" statements. Yet about 1/3 of the population - the rabid libs, say essentially the same thing everday with little outrage - because they are so emotional and irrational, it has become standard fare for them to be like that. But a single con goes native and everyone jumps up and down.

Interesting that no Libs ever find fault with that behavior in their own ranks.

Posted by: Reid my Libs | July 20, 2007 4:58 PM | Report abuse


'Anonymous poster -- Help me here, how did I misrepresent Ann Coulter? If you want, I can find even more statements like the ones posted above.'

It's zouk. He's always professed a great love for Ann Coulter. He really is a sick human being, just llike she is.

Posted by: Sam | July 20, 2007 4:57 PM | Report abuse

proud: what exactly are you proud of these days? the number of perverts and philanderers in your party's ranks? your president's historically abysmal performance and ratings? your pathetic crop of presidential hopefuls? your party's rapidly shrinking chances of retaking either house of Congress?

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | July 20, 2007 4:55 PM | Report abuse

'UTLRA LIBERAL CROWD' -- people who want to help women prevent unplanned pregnancies.

The rightwing in this country has justj gone off the freaking deep end. They really do sound like the nazis now -- and their leader is acting like Stalin.

Posted by: Sam | July 20, 2007 4:53 PM | Report abuse

'Obama would be wiser to target that problem, imo, rather than throwing red meat at PP audiences who want their liberal agenda addressed.'

yes the liberal agenda of protectecting children from pedophiles. maybe all you gop stooges really ARE pedophiles.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 4:51 PM | Report abuse

Proud -- He was talking about a bill that he essentially wrote in Illinois, which I've now pointed out to you. To the extent he made ANY "mistake," it was in not explicitly describing the program in more detail. Since you now know what the substance of the program is, and given that he passed that program into law YEARS AGO, I think its quite clear that:

1. He didn't need handlers to walk any statements back. At most, they were clarifying a LONG HELD policy position that the vast majority of the public is comfortable with.

2. Mitt Romney, along with GOP pundits, are blatantly twising his position to score cheap political points.

Oh, and Planned Parenthood is not a "super liberal" organization in my book. At worst, 50% of the country supports abortion rights. A far larger portion supports access to birth control and prenatal care, which Planned Parenthood provides. That sounds pretty mainstream to me.

Posted by: Colin | July 20, 2007 4:50 PM | Report abuse

They're lying to you proudgop. Fox and hannity. They are making you their puppet. They play you fears like a fiddle. Stop watching fox. It's melting you brain away

Posted by: rufus | July 20, 2007 4:46 PM | Report abuse

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., told Planned Parenthood Tuesday that sex education for kindergarteners, as long as it is 'age-appropriate,' is 'the right thing to do.' 'But it's the right thing to do,' Obama continued, 'to provide age-appropriate sex education, science-based sex education in schools.""

That's not a "satement". That is a quote out of contect. How about the whole statement old man

Posted by: rufus | July 20, 2007 4:45 PM | Report abuse

Colin - I respectfully take issue with your statement. I am not mischaracterizing Obama's statement. Here is the original statement:

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., told Planned Parenthood Tuesday that sex education for kindergarteners, as long as it is 'age-appropriate,' is 'the right thing to do.' 'But it's the right thing to do,' Obama continued, 'to provide age-appropriate sex education, science-based sex education in schools."

Then, his own campaign had to 'respond' and retool his comments, because of the backlash.

I think he should be a lot more careful in his comments if he did not intend to mean sex ed in the usual sense or talking about where babies come from ..."storks", etc, as some of his staff tried to claim later.

He is the one who said 'age-appropriate sex ed for kindergartners'. That is different than adopting a violence and molestation-prevention instruction system.
That topic is not about sex or reproduction. He seemed to be lumping it all together, scatter-shot style because of the audience.

Did it matter to you that he was speaking to an ultra-liberal crowd, or does that not enter into your assessment of his remarks at all?

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | July 20, 2007 4:42 PM | Report abuse

Most people that live in republcina districts like mine say nothing. I call them on it. All business (with conservative owners) leaving fox on all day might help their ratings. Don't you think. It doesn't matter. Fox is done. Rupert Murdoch is not immortal. You party has a year. Good luck

Rather than wasting your time attack that which does not matter, you better do something to save the RNC. I would be worried about that if I were you

Posted by: rufus | July 20, 2007 4:41 PM | Report abuse

Anonymous poster -- Help me here, how did I misrepresent Ann Coulter? If you want, I can find even more statements like the ones posted above.

Posted by: Colin | July 20, 2007 4:38 PM | Report abuse

"There is plenty of room for principled disagreement with him or any other candidate, but this kind of slimy twisting of a completely non-controversial issue is just sad. And is really a perfect example of what is wrong with politics today. "

aS THEY SAY fnc HAS HUGE RATINGS. I've worked at places where they leave fox on all day. Were employee's can listen to rush and hannity ALL day.

I blame fox for the level of discourse. The old man (proudgop) was reciting that obama comment word for word from hannity last night. No context, to conversation, just an attack. Fox is done. I don't care about their ratings. You could put public execution on tv, it would have huge ratings. They should be given the same level of respect as a us weekly or national enquier. Bill O'REIlly is from inside editioon for pete's sake.

Fox and rush have done this to the country. Without these people's avatars what will they do? What if thye have to think for themseleves? What if their was no such thing as a dittohead?

Posted by: rufus | July 20, 2007 4:36 PM | Report abuse

"Reid my libs" -- First, "brilliant" new name.

You said: "The ann coulter who brought the words of each of them back to be revealed to the nation. when Libs lie and slander no one notices. It happens so often. When coulter points it out, the press selectively edits her comments and makes it seem like she originated the trash talk.

colin, how befuddled of you to miss the truth here. Have you been lunching with Kos Koward and rufas today?"

1. What are you talking about? Your first paragraph so mangles the English language I have no idea what you're talking about.

2. To the extent that you'r sticking up for Coulter, lets review the person we're talking about. Here are some choice quotes:

* "If I'm going to say anything about John Edwards in the future, I'll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot."

* "I was going to have a few comments about John Edwards but you have to go into rehab if you use the word fa***t. [gay slur]"

* "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building."

* "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war."

* "God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said, 'Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It's yours.':

* "I think there should be a literacy test and a poll tax for people to vote"

* "The swing voters---I like to refer to them as the idiot voters because they don't have set philosophical principles. You're either a liberal or you're a conservative if you have an IQ above a toaster."

Charming woman for sure. An DEFINITELY making a lot of solid, fact-based arguments when she says stuff like that.

Posted by: Colin | July 20, 2007 4:29 PM | Report abuse

I don't operate on animals so I won't need your help, elias.

Posted by: dufas1133 | July 20, 2007 4:28 PM | Report abuse

"You got anythign to say for youself today Elias. Or are you here to play the republcian game of discredit and sabotage?"

We help Vets with problems. Don't keep fooling yourself. Try us at http://www.va.gov/rcs/

Posted by: Elias | July 20, 2007 4:23 PM | Report abuse

proud - I wish the world were as you describe it, but because most pederasty in America occurs within the home, teaching kids how to ID and report sick behavior is really a conservative idea. Again, I wish that were not so, but if wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

Colin - I posted a query about our legal history for you at the Ames thread.

proud - I have now read a 1999 "Guardian" article describing Clark's role in the airfield incident with the Russians in Kosovo in critical terms. I am now temporarily more reserved in my praise than I was, but I will continue to try to get as much info about that story as I can.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | July 20, 2007 4:22 PM | Report abuse

But when people BLATANTLY misrepresent one side's position, as you've done today, that destroys any ability to rationally discuss how the country should move forward.

you mean like........


Is that the Ann Coulter who denigrated John Edwards son who died in a car accident, said she hoped Edwards was killed by terrorists, and attacked 9/11 widows? Or is that the Ann Coulter who thinks Joe McCarthy is a hero?

Posted by: colin has gone rufas | July 20, 2007 4:21 PM | Report abuse

Part II
proudtobeGOP writes
"Parents are the right people to instruct their little kids about innapropriate behavior. The problem of child molestation and pedophilia hasn't gotten worse because of lack of education in the primary schools, it has gotten worse because of the internet and the disgusting proflagration of pornography and exploitation of children that has occurred electronically all over the world."

On what basis do you make that claim? Are you aware that most such assaults on children are perpetrated by people known to the children? Have you considered that perhaps if a very young child is being touched inappropriately by someone in the home that having such discussions in school could bring the behavior to light so law enforcement can be notified? Or would you argue that what happens in the home should stay in the home?

The 'blame the internet' mindset is not only inaccurate, it ignores the very real problem of inappropriate sexual contact that happens in the home from both immediate and extended family.

Posted by: bsimon | July 20, 2007 4:20 PM | Report abuse

"I'm not scared. I'm a former Armyinfantry soldier."

You're the furthest thing from that.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 4:20 PM | Report abuse

Proud -- you misrepresented his point by implying he wanted to do anything OTHER than teach kids enough to know how to avoid pedophiles. Also, the bill he sponsored in Illinois explicitly allows parents to choose whether their children should participate in the program.

In light of those facts, do you really think your criticisms are fair? Again, I respect principled conservatives' world view and enjoy debating policy issues. But when people BLATANTLY misrepresent one side's position, as you've done today, that destroys any ability to rationally discuss how the country should move forward. I had thought highly enough of you that I didn't think you would resort to those kinds of tactics.

Posted by: Colin | July 20, 2007 4:15 PM | Report abuse

proudtobeGOP-
The argument you make appears to imply that Senator Obama is promoting sex ed of the variety "Insert Tab A into Socket B" when that's not at all what he was talking about. Does the distinction matter to you, or do you just want to tar him with the "promoting sex to kindergadeners" label regardless of its accuracy?

Posted by: bsimon | July 20, 2007 4:14 PM | Report abuse

Colin - I won't defend Romney, but his checking of a box on a PP questionaire about teaching sex ed was not specific to kindergartners, as opposed to Obama's statement.

I'm not "spreading garbage"; in fact, I used a direct quote from Obama, and I just happen to disagree with his liberal view that we should require kindergarten teachers to discuss this with 5-year old children in public schools.

Parents are the right people to instruct their little kids about innapropriate behavior. The problem of child molestation and pedophilia hasn't gotten worse because of lack of education in the primary schools, it has gotten worse because of the internet and the disgusting proflagration of pornography and exploitation of children that has occurred electronically all over the world.

Obama would be wiser to target that problem, imo, rather than throwing red meat at PP audiences who want their liberal agenda addressed.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | July 20, 2007 3:59 PM | Report abuse

The ann coulter who brought the words of each of them back to be revealed to the nation. when Libs lie and slander no one notices. It happens so often. When coulter points it out, the press selectively edits her comments and makes it seem like she originated the trash talk.

colin, how befuddled of you to miss the truth here. Have you been lunching with Kos Koward and rufas today?

Posted by: Reid my Libs | July 20, 2007 3:54 PM | Report abuse

Is that the Ann Coulter who denigrated John Edwards son who died in a car accident, said she hoped Edwards was killed by terrorists, and attacked 9/11 widows? Or is that the Ann Coulter who thinks Joe McCarthy is a hero?

Posted by: Colin | July 20, 2007 3:48 PM | Report abuse

It's rather like that Pentagon hack that criticised Ms. Clinton yesterday. Anyone who has been paying attention knows full well that Bush-Cheney have purged the Pentagon of every decent general we had. Now we have a collection of incompetent "yes men" and Bush lackies who parrot whatever the Nazi's in the Whitehouse want them to say. Morons. Stalin did this same thing just prior to the German invasion and look a the result. Bush has left this country defenseless, with no moral compass. Look at the way his supporters parse and play games with common sense programs advocated by Mr. Obama to aid children in avoiding sexual predators - they call it "sex education for kindergarteners" and try to score points of it. What a bunch of subhuman trash these sorry excuses for human beings are. We really do need prison camps, identify Bush supporters the way we did with the Nazi SS memebers, and lock these scumbags up.

Posted by: MikeB | July 20, 2007 3:46 PM | Report abuse

ROZ m asks, of Chris:
"what was the political environment in minnesota in 2006 that you think so affects this race?"

Chris is alluding to the grim reality for the GOP in MN in which only one Republican won statewide office: Gov Pawlenty, who won reelection. His DFL (Dem) opponent imploded in the days prior to the election; had that not happened it is not clear that Pawlenty would have been able to squeak out a second term. If 2008 looks like 2006, Senator Coleman will have a very hard time beating any Dem challenger.

A lot also depends on who the GOP nominates for President. In MN, McCain still has strong support. It is not at all clear that MN Republicans will go for a Giuliani or Romney for President. Without a compelling Presidential candidate & with Coleman's somewhat lackluster 1st term, will MN Republicans even show up to vote? Will MN Independant voters go for Coleman, the DFL challenger or the Independance Party candidate?

Recall that in winning his first term, Coleman beat Walter Mondale, who was a candidate for about a week, due to the untimely death of then-Incumbent Paul Wellstone. Since then, Senator Coleman has largely been an unapologetic supporter of President Bush. He has to walk a thin line over the next year in trying to distance himself from the President without looking like a political opportunist.

Posted by: bsimon | July 20, 2007 3:46 PM | Report abuse

In that bill, the term references teaching kids enough to know how to report/avoid pedophiles.

don't go in the oval office when bill is home. how hard is that?

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 3:41 PM | Report abuse

Thursday, Jul 05
June #'s: Program Ranker
I posted the Q2 ranker on Tuesday. Now here's the June ranker, with ratings for every weekday cable news show. Highlights:

> FNC has the top 5 (and 13 out of the top 15)

> Top dog Bill O'Reilly had a great month with 2,217,000 viewers, up from 1,954,000 in May

> Larry King placed sixth with 1,111,000 viewers, also up from May

> Lou Dobbs topped Anderson Cooper in total viewers, but Cooper had more younger viewers


http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/original/june07ranker.pdf

Oh there Keith is way down after all the Fox shows. In all fairness, he did beat deal or no deal and that commie Mathews who needs ann coulter to come on his show to display any sign of life.

Posted by: no mention of Keith | July 20, 2007 3:39 PM | Report abuse

Proud -- Obama was referencing a SPECIFIC BILL that he cosponsored in the Illinois legislature, so there actually is no ambiguity at all regarding what he meant about sex-ed for kindgarten aged children. In that bill, the term references teaching kids enough to know how to report/avoid pedophiles. ARE YOU AGAINST THAT?

Oh, and Romney -- who publicized this -- SUPPORTED THE SAME POLICY as governor of Mass. Which is simply the one millionth example that this guy will say ANYTHING to get elected.

Honestly, I'm really disapointed that you're spreading garbage like this about Obama. There is plenty of room for principled disagreement with him or any other candidate, but this kind of slimy twisting of a completely non-controversial issue is just sad. And is really a perfect example of what is wrong with politics today.

Posted by: Colin | July 20, 2007 3:36 PM | Report abuse

The Scoreboard: Tuesday, July 17
25-54 demographic: (LS)

Total day: FNC: 272 | CNN: 140 | MSNBC: 84 | HLN: 86 | CNBC: 69

Prime: FNC: 396 | CNN: 201 | MSNBC: 111 | HLN: 132 | CNBC: 48
5p: 6p: 7p: 8p: 9p: 10p: 11p:

FNC Gibson: Hume: Shep: O'Reilly: H&C: Greta: O'Reilly:
148 218 349 425 374 389 395

CNN Blitzer: Dobbs: Blitzer: YouTube: King: Cooper: Cooper:
162 208 180 163 216 224 186

MSNBC Hardball: Tucker: Brkng./HB: Countdo.: Abrams: Special: Reports:
104 49 129 172 70 91 222

HLN Prime: Prime: Beck: Grace: Beck: Grace: Showbiz:
30 37 93 184 88 125 133


Data by Nielsen Media Research. Live and same day (DVR) data.

Posted by: pesky facts looks like fox beats them all combined | July 20, 2007 3:31 PM | Report abuse

olberman the fastest growing audince on cable. te he

We went from 6 to 8 viewers this week - a 33% increase. the week before we went from 3 to 6 - a 100% increase. Next week we hope to get all 12 of the air america listeners to come over. That is so many we won't be able to count without toes.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 3:23 PM | Report abuse

PLEASE EXPLAIN this sentence you used in describing the minnesota senate race with franken, cirsi and coleman.
"Of couse, if the political environment is anything close to where it was in 2006 in Minnesota, it may not matter who runs."
what was the political environment in minnesota in 2006 that you think so affects this race?
by the way, in spite of coleman's strong bank account, i've read that franken outraised coleman in the 2nd quarter by more than $300,000. true?
thanx.

Posted by: ROZ m | July 20, 2007 3:19 PM | Report abuse

olberman the fastest growing audince on cable... try facts for a change, zouk..

'Best to stick with what you know - insults and idiocy.'

I'm sure you continue to take your own advice, zouk.

'That is the mark of an inexperienced rookie, not a leader from day 1 which is what we need in office.'

Well since none of the repugs running are anythiing but crooks and phonies, I guess you better change parties.

All you gopstooges know how to do is make sh*t up -- you don't have anything real to criticize about Dems so you continously spin these straw men and red herrings. That's a mark of your pathetic desperation. You just can't tell the truth. All you can do is lie, mischaracterize and smear. You have no honor, no dignity, no morals or ethics. You reek of fear and smear. You are a cancer on this country.

Posted by: Linda | July 20, 2007 3:11 PM | Report abuse

I must be on the right track if all you can do is TRY and attack my credibility all day. You GOp'ers have anything else to say about your parties downfall, other than reflection. Other than discredit divide and conquer. Why don't you start BRAVE ANONYMOUS poster with answering the above questions I asked.

Or keep attacking me. You lack of statements of your own or even coherant ideas show all independant thinkers reading what the GOP is about. Since you have nothign to say but attack me personally, I'll assume I'm on the right track. I (an anonymous poster) must be bigger than the issue. I'll do my job. You haters go ahead and keep attacking. I don't know what you hope to accomplish. Who are you trying to convince? Yourselves?

Your not pushing me off this webite. Only CC the propogandist can do that. Zouk stays, proudgop stays. I stay.

WHAT HAS GEORGE BUSH DONE RIGHT ( not counting no attacks) everyone knows he is in with the saudi's and he is trying to hold the country hostage with threats. I'm not scared. I'm a former Armyinfantry soldier. I'm down to die for my country and what it stands for. GOP?

Posted by: rufus | July 20, 2007 3:05 PM | Report abuse

Hey olbermann if you multiply your ratings by a factor of 10, you might catch up to the Factor. Same goes with your wit and intellect. I think both your viewers live on this site, so it is good that you are here to encourage them.

Posted by: Bill | July 20, 2007 3:02 PM | Report abuse

The issue is whether or not to require teachers to devote time specifically to the topic of sex ed in the kindergarten setting.

That is a bit different than "allowing teachers to say non-explicit but accurate things in response to children's questions" which they can do now.

Obama seems to be just making it up as he goes along, depending on the audience at hand. then his campsign staff has to go back and "clarify" and retool every statement. That is the mark of an inexperienced rookie, not a leader from day 1 which is what we need in office.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | July 20, 2007 3:01 PM | Report abuse

News for those talking about Liddy Dole here in NC. She ain't gonna lose. She is well funded, well liked and democrats are in for a tough year here in NC. With the conviction of state senate President Jim Black for bribery and other charges and Jim Nifong's liscense being stripped. The dems. image is that of slanderer's and criminals here in this state. Gov. Mike Easley appointed Jim Black, which will make it tougher for Lt. gov. Perdue to even win the democratic primary against st. treasurer Moore. If Perdue wins, Republican Graham likely returns the governor's mansion to the Republican party for the 1st time in a long time. If Moore wins, it's going to be very competitive b/t Graham and Moore. But Dole is in great shape for re-election.

I think the 2 senator's in the most trouble are Liendrieu and Sununu. Colorodo is an open seat, but it's an open seat Republican's can hold with Schaffer I believe. Udall is a boulder liberal not representative of the state. In South Dakota, Johnson's re-election prospect's will depend on his health. Other's will depend on retirement. Some other senator's could have tough re-elections, but should be able to pull off win's, if they all run for re-election.

Posted by: reason | July 20, 2007 2:59 PM | Report abuse

Its the moonbats on speed website.

Ignorant Kos Koward is up to a post every two minutes now. a record even for him. What may actually make the record books is that with all that ink, not a single intelligent thing has been transmitted. astounding. meanwhile rufas has conversations with himself. And IKK uses mutliple sock puppet names to argue with his alter ego. you see there are at least two of them inside his head - the dumb one and the crazy one. together they make a prefect Lib shill for Kos to manipulate.

The frustration of being ignored is certainly showing. the gops won't be pulled into a fight with an imbecile who pulls you down to their level then beats you with experience.

In case you are as dense as you seem - We ignore moonbats and hate-filled Kos kowards. Since bush is retiring you can continue to aim your mindless venom at zouk, calling all reasonable people by that name. As you must know, that zouk guy somehow transformed into enough voters to steal the last election from the unsuspecting Dim voters. No wonder he is king, he is magic. and all you nitwits combined still can't come up with a single argument to defeat him. Best to stick with what you know - insults and idiocy.

Posted by: Reid my Libs, lots of taxes | July 20, 2007 2:57 PM | Report abuse

"And in light of this, it is particularly moving to read our righteous condemnations over the past several years of those countries which failed to appreciate the need for prosecutorial independence. It seems that some particularly heinous dictatorships actually allow political leaders to shield themselves from prosecution, even when they commit crimes, by controlling prosecutors. Unfathomable."

Posted by: gop hypocrites | July 20, 2007 2:57 PM | Report abuse

Is the Pentagon muzzling Hillary? This is scary...
http://political-buzz.com/?p=268

Posted by: mpp | July 20, 2007 2:55 PM | Report abuse

The Bush administration has opened this Pandora's Box about Iraq. It has found its scapegoats: Hillary Clinton and us.

The lies and terror tactics with which it deluded this country into war -- they had nothing to do with the abomination that Iraq has become. It isn't Mr. Bush's fault.

The selection of the wrong war, in the wrong time, in the wrong place -- the most disastrous geopolitical tactic since Austria-Hungary attacked Serbia in 1914 and destroyed itself in the process -- that had nothing to do with the overwhelming crisis Iraq has become. It isn't Mr. Bush's fault.

The criminal lack of planning for the war -- the total "jump-off-a-bridge-and-hope-you-can-fly" tone to the failure to anticipate what would follow the deposing of Saddam Hussein -- that had nothing to do with the chaos in which Iraq has been enveloped. It isn't Mr. Bush's fault.

The utter, blinkered idiocy of "staying the course," of sending Americans to Iraq and sending them a second time, and a third and a fourth, until they get killed or maimed -- the utter de-prioritization of human life, simply so a politician can avoid having to admit a mistake -- that had nothing to do with the tens of thousand individual tragedies darkening the lives of American families, forever. It isn't Mr. Bush's fault.

The continuing, relentless, remorseless, corrupt and cynical insistence that this conflict somehow is defeating or containing or just engaging the people who attacked us on 9/11, the total "Alice Through the Looking Glass" quality that ignores that in Iraq, we have made the world safer for al-Qaida -- it isn't Mr. Bush's fault!

The fault, brought down, as if a sermon from this mount of hypocrisy and slaughter by a nearly anonymous undersecretary of defense, has tonight been laid on the doorstep of... Sen. Hillary Clinton and, by extension, at the doorstep of every American -- the now-vast majority of us -- who have dared to criticize this war or protest it or merely ask questions about it or simply, plaintively, innocently, honestly, plead, "Don't take my son; don't take my daughter."

Posted by: keith | July 20, 2007 2:54 PM | Report abuse

Glen Greenwald

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/?last_story=/opinion/greenwald/2007/07/20/russia/

"Bush's 2001 condemnation of Russia's human rights abuses
(updated below)

In February, 2001, the Bush State Department issued a highly critical report documenting Russia's human rights abuses, both domestically and with regard to its treatment of foreign detainees. I found the document randomly today while searching for something else. Among the Russian moral outrages we protested:

* Authorities continued to infringe on citizens' privacy rights. Government technical regulations that require Internet service providers and telecommunications companies to invest in equipment that enables the [Foreign Security Service] to monitor Internet traffic, telephone calls, and pagers without judicial approval caused serious concern.

However, in response to a challenge by a St. Petersburg journalist, the Supreme Court ruled in September that the FSB is required to obtain and show court approval to telecommunications companies before it can proceed to initiate surveillance. Past practices raised questions among many observers about whether the FSB would abide by this ruling.

* Lengthy pretrial detention remained a serious problem. Institutions such as the Ministry of Internal Affairs have attempted to educate officers about safeguarding human rights during law enforcement activities through training provided by other countries; however, such institutions remain largely unreformed and have not yet adopted practices fully consistent with standards of law enforcement in a democratic society.

* Article 21 of the Constitution prohibits torture, violence, and other brutal or humiliating treatment or punishment; however, there are credible reports that law enforcement personnel regularly use torture to coerce confessions from suspects and that the Government does not hold most of the torturers accountable for their actions.

There were credible reports that Government and separatist forces in Chechnya tortured detainees. There are also claims of abuse of psychiatry by authorities.

Institutions such as the Ministry of Internal Affairs have begun to educate officers about safeguarding human rights during law enforcement activities through training provided by other countries but remain largely unreformed and have not yet adopted practices fully consistent with law enforcement in a democratic society. Since torture has never been defined in a subsequent law or the Criminal Code and is only mentioned in the Constitution, it is difficult to charge perpetrators.

* According to Human Rights Watch's (HRW) report on torture in Russia released in November 1999, torture by police officers usually occurs within the first few hours or days of arrest and usually takes one of four forms: beatings with fists, batons, or other objects; asphyxiation using gas masks or bags (sometimes filled with mace); electric shocks; or suspension of body parts (e.g. suspending a victim from the wrists, which are tied together behind the back). Allegations of torture are difficult to substantiate because of lack of access by medical professionals and because the techniques used often leave few or no permanent physical traces.

* Russian authorities took measures in two "espionage" cases involving foreigners who worked with Russians and obtained information the authorities considered sensitive. In both cases, proceedings took place behind closed doors and the defendants and their attorneys encountered difficulties in learning the details of the charges.

* One "case was characterized by serious violations of due process". . . . Indictments cited classified decrees that were made available to [the defendant]'s defense team only at the beginning of the trial, which finally commenced in October 1998, nearly 3 years after Nikitin's detention.

*While the President made statements about the need for a "dictatorship of law," the Government has not institutionalized the rule of law required to protect human rights. Most abuses occur at lower levels, but government officials do not investigate the majority of cases of abuse and rarely dismiss or discipline the perpetrators.

* There were reports of Government involvement in politically motivated disappearances in Chechnya. According to credible reports, units of the Government were involved in the detention and the temporary disappearance of journalist Andrey Babitskiy in January. The Government at first denied any knowledge of Babitskiy's whereabouts, but after considerable international pressure officials asserted that the journalist was in the custody of "local Chechens" . . . . Journalists and human rights activists believe Babitskiy was targeted by the Government for his critical reports on the conflict in Chechnya (see here and here).

*The NGO Memorial claimed in October that the total number of detainees had exceeded 15,000 persons. Many of these persons disappeared, but the majority were bought back by relatives. Memorial estimated that the number of individuals unaccounted for was somewhere between several hundred to one thousand (see here and here and here).

* The concentration of ownership of major media organizations -- already a serious threat to editorial independence in 1999 -- increased during the year. . . . . Continuing financial difficulties exacerbated this problem during the year . . . Although advertising revenues began to return to 1998 levels, they did not do so completely. As a result, the media's autonomy and concomitant ability to act as a watchdog remained weak.

* Internet experts and right-to-privacy advocates say that interagency technical regulations called SORM-2 (SORM is the Russian acronym for System for Operational Investigative Measures), which were issued by the Ministry of Communications, the FSB, the Federal Agency of Government Communications and Information, and other agencies present a serious threat to privacy rights, and violate the Civil Code, the Constitution, and international norms. SORM-2 is an amendment to SORM telecommunications regulations. The original SORM, issued in 1995, granted security services the power to monitor all telecommunications transmissions for investigative purposes. It required a warrant to carry out such monitoring, in accordance with the Constitution and other provisions of the law. SORM-2 extends to the FSB the same kind of monitoring power over Internet communication that it had for telecommunication, but without ensuring judicial oversight.

Internet service providers were required to install, at their own expense, a device that routes all Internet traffic to an FSB terminal. Those providers that did not comply with the requirements faced either loss of their licenses or denial of their license renewal. While SORM-2 framers claim that the regulation does not violate the Constitution or the Civil Code because it still requires a court order, right to privacy advocates say that there is no mechanism to ensure that a warrant is obtained before the FSB accesses private information. There appears to be no mechanism to prevent unauthorized FSB access to Internet traffic without a warrant.

What monsters. Thankfully, the U.S. has the moral credibility to vigorously condemn such totalitarian and abusive practices. "

Posted by: The GOP the party of hypocrites | July 20, 2007 2:53 PM | Report abuse

It's not just shameless hackery, it is dangerous hackery. It is, in a very real sense, putting young people's lives at risk.

Of course, there is no political benefit to someone like Romney speaking the truth, even if he understands it. Just listen to the mindless applause he receives to that ridiculous wingnut rhetoric. That's how you win support from the GOP base, so for a hack like Mitt, that's the way to go, common sense be damned.

Posted by: stupidest people in the universe | July 20, 2007 2:52 PM | Report abuse

The GOP is the party of hypocrites

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 2:50 PM | Report abuse


Former Gov. Mitt Romney attacked Sen. Barack Obama yesterday for purportedly wanting sex education in kindergarten.

It turns out, Romney himself once indicated support for the same sort of sex-ed approach -- "age-appropriate" -- that Obama backs.

In a Planned Parenthood questionnaire he filled out during his 2002 gubernatorial run, Romney checked 'yes' to a question asking, "Do you support the teaching of responsible, age-appropriate, factually accurate health and sexuality education, including information about both abstinence and contraception, in public schools?"

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 2:49 PM | Report abuse

Sorry the above nameless post was a submissionn error on CC's side :)

Posted by: rufus | July 20, 2007 2:46 PM | Report abuse

In case anybody this we are NOT living under a fascist dictator.

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/51150/

1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy.(liberals/terrorist/activists/democrats)
2. Create a gulag.( guantonemo/secret euro prisons)
3. Develop a thug caste.(dittoheads/ex-military/cow folk)
4. Set up an internal surveillance system. (patriot act)
5. Harass citizens' groups.( fox and rush/right-wing attack machine attacking all dissenters)
6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release.(Guantonemo again, secret prisons)
7. Target key individuals.(right-wing attack machine attacking all dissent)
8. Control the press.( the entire tv media and ALL of radio. CNN Fox MSNBC(not counting olberman) Murdoch attempt to buy and control all mediams)
9. Dissent equals treason.( you are with us or against us)
10. Suspend the rule of law.( i don't recall. executive privledge)

Posted by: rufus1133 | July 20, 2007 2:45 PM | Report abuse

Maybe Pretty Mitty's a pedophile too. It is interesting that he has never, ever criticized polygamy in the fundamentalist Mormon church and the pedophila and incest that go along with it.

There is a community of close to 80,000 fundamentalists who forcibly marry 13 year old girls to their 40 year old uncles. So maybe Mitty wants little kids to be naive...

Criticizing Obama for wanting to protect children from pedophiles just goes to show you how morally bankrupt they actually are. Sickening hypocrites.

Posted by: Linda | July 20, 2007 2:45 PM | Report abuse

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/51150/

1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy.(liberals/terrorist/activists/democrats)
2. Create a gulag.( guantonemo/secret euro prisons)
3. Develop a thug caste.(dittoheads/ex-military/cow folk)
4. Set up an internal surveillance system. (patriot act)
5. Harass citizens' groups.( fox and rush/right-wing attack machine attacking all dissenters)
6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release.(Guantonemo again, secret prisons)
7. Target key individuals.(right-wing attack machine attacking all dissent)
8. Control the press.( the entire tv media and ALL of radio. CNN Fox MSNBC(not counting olberman) Murdoch attempt to buy and control all mediams)
9. Dissent equals treason.( you are with us or against us)
10. Suspend the rule of law.( i don't recall. executive privledge)

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 2:44 PM | Report abuse

To say nothing of dishonest, right-wing politicians. Enter Mitt Romney:

'ROMNEY: How much sex education is appropriate for a five-year-old? In my view, "zero" is the right amount [applause].'

I wonder if it ever occurred to Slick-Dancin' Mitt that age-appropriate sex education would actually help children to keep from drowning in that "ocean of filth" he keeps talking about -- and helps to keep them from becoming prey for predators.

This is to say nothing of the fact that Rommey is completely misrepresenting Obama's comments on sex education. In a broader sense, this approach is counterproductive to the goal of keeping kids safe.

Posted by: Linda | July 20, 2007 2:41 PM | Report abuse

The state legislation Obama supported in Illinois, which contained an "opt out" provision for parents, envisioned teaching kindergarteners about "inappropriate touching," according to Obama's presidential campaign.

So let's review. Obama favors allowing teachers to say non-explicit but accurate things in response to children's questions, and only then in accordance with guidelines developed on "a case by case basis by local communities and local school boards" and with a provision allowing parents to opt out. He also favors teaching young children about "inappropriate touching" so as to prevent and/or identify cases of child abuse.

Needless to say, these are eminently reasonable positions, ones probably supported by most parents (I know I would have no problem with such a policy). Yet ABC decides to run with an intentionally provocative and totally misleading headline--Sex Ed for Kindergarteners 'Right Thing to Do,' Says Obama--with the obvious purpose of turning a total non-story into something that will attract lots of traffic from dishonest right-wing bloggers.

Posted by: for the dishonest gopies | July 20, 2007 2:39 PM | Report abuse

Quick question GOP. The silence will be deafening. You ready?

If the patriot act was legit, and really going after ONLY terrorist. Why will they not release the domestice names? Not to the american people. But to congress. to somebody. What do they have to hide?

If they did nothing wrong in the MURDER of Pat TIllman. Why claim executive privledge to stop the truth from coming out.

your refusal to answer will show all independant thinkers here what you fascists are really about.

The gop'ers and Bush's lawyers here are not as dumb as they let on, people. They are fascists scared to show their faces. If they do they have no seat in politics. So what do they do instead. Lie lie spin discredit.

They have to. The GOP has no choice. If they talk about what they are really about. We have a one aprty system. I say throw them out. Get as many real parties as necessary. ultra left ultra right. Middle. Where else in CAPITALISM are you better off with LESS choices? If their were only coke and pepsi what if you didn't like either. What would you do? Go thristy?

Posted by: rufus | July 20, 2007 2:37 PM | Report abuse

al-Qaeda has, the NIE says, "safehaven in the Pakistan Federal Administrative Tribal Areas." That much is no longer controversial among counterterrorism experts. But what the description neglects -- again, at least in the unclassified, introductory section -- is that al-Qaeda has a broader infrastructure inside the parts of Pakistan that General Pervez Musharraf controls as well. Josh Meyer in the Los Angeles Times takes a look at how deeply the jihadist infrastructure is burrowed:

In recent years, U.S. intelligence and counter-terrorism officials who focus on South Asia say they have watched with growing concern as Al Qaeda has moved men, money and recruiting and training operations into Pakistani cities such as Quetta and Karachi as well as less populated areas.
Militant Islamists are still a minority in Pakistan, commanding allegiance of a little more than 10% of the population, judging by election results. But Al Qaeda has been able to widen its sway throughout the country by strengthening alliances with fundamentalist religious groups, charities, criminal gangs, elements of the government security forces and even some political officials, these officials said.

Bin Laden's network also has strengthened ties to groups fighting for control of Kashmir, most of which is held by India, a broadly popular cause throughout Pakistan that has the backing of the government and military.

"It is a much bigger problem than just saying it is a bunch of tribal Islamists in the fringe areas," said Bruce Riedel, a South Asia expert who served at the CIA, National Security Council and Pentagon and retired last year after 30 years of counterterrorism and policymaking experience.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 2:36 PM | Report abuse

Earlier this week, Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) said the Vitter scandal should have "a full airing" and noted that there is an open criminal investigation into the escort service that Vitter acknowledged calling.

Melanie Sloan, Executive Director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, said yesterday, "Senator Vitter's solicitation of at least one prostitute was not merely, as he has stated, 'a serious sin,' it was a violation of criminal law."

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 2:33 PM | Report abuse

When Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) replaced former Rep. Bob Livingston (R-LA) -- who "abruptly resigned after disclosures of numerous affairs" in 1998 -- he argued that an extramarital affair was grounds for resignation:

"I think Livingston's stepping down makes a very powerful argument that Clinton should resign as well and move beyond this mess," he said. [Atlanta Journal and Constitution, 12/20/98]

Calling Vitter a "hypocrite-in-chief," TriCities.com writes today, "If U.S. Sen. David Vitter, R-La., were one-quarter the man he claims to be, he would resign his office over links to a D.C. escort service." The op-ed continues, "Vitter is a bigger hypocrite than most," noting his prior criticisms of Clinton. "Vitter is the worst kind of a politician: A man who hoists himself upon a family-values pedestal and condemns others who don't ascend with him."

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 2:32 PM | Report abuse

your right Linda. We used to be a country of laws. We ARE living under a fascist dictator right now. That is a fact. Everybody knows it they are just scared. They are scared their every more is being watched by the patriot act. So rather than saying the same thing as me and others on this site, they keep their mouths shut. Until election time.

Fascism ends in 08

Posted by: rufus | July 20, 2007 2:31 PM | Report abuse

'..kiddie on summer break?

go play with your little friends.. get out and get a life. maybe you can hook up with obama..he can give you some sex ed'

wow zouk, you a chickenhawk AND a pedophile? Pretty funny, too -- you telling someone to get out and get a life. you're on here every single day, every single minute. You are one sick puppy.

Posted by: Sam | July 20, 2007 2:31 PM | Report abuse

You got anythign to say for youself today Elias. Or are you here to play the republcian game of discredit and sabotage?

Posted by: rufus | July 20, 2007 2:29 PM | Report abuse

Bush's use of the the military pay raise as a cudgel to bash his political opponents is dishonest and hypocritical. In May, he threatened to veto a House defense spending bill over the exact same 3.5 percent pay increase that he is now touting:

Bush budget officials said the administration "strongly opposes" both the 3.5 percent raise for 2008 and the follow-on increases, calling extra pay increases "unnecessary."

Democratic leaders in the House wrote to Bush at the time urging him to reconsider his veto threat.

In a speech, Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-PA), an Iraq war veteran, said that Bush's veto threat was tantamount to the President of the United States saying, "Thank you for your service to your country, but that's too much of a pay increase."

A majority of the Senate is ready and willing to pass the defense bill, but conservatives carrying water for the White House's stay-the-course Iraq strategy are determined to stand in the way.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 2:28 PM | Report abuse

Headline currently on the Post's website: Clinton's Neckline Takes a Dip!

God help us, if the hemline rises.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 2:28 PM | Report abuse

The conflict is heating up. Clinton is now calling the Pentagon's dismissal of her request for plans for withdrawal "outrageous and offensive." Money quote: "I deeply resent the administration's continuing effort to impugn the patriotism of those of us who are asking hard questions." ... It was, in my view, a grotesque over-reach from a Cheney protege at the Pentagon. Here's the dumb-ass, offensive letter. Memo to the Pentagon: senators are not the enemy, and asking for accountability is not treason.

Posted by: Andrew Sullivan, conservative | July 20, 2007 2:26 PM | Report abuse

..kiddie on summer break?

go play with your little friends.. get out and get a life. maybe you can hook up with obama..he can give you some sex ed

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 2:26 PM | Report abuse

A rogue presidency: In claiming executive privilege, Bush argues that he can define the scope and limits of his own powers - When Congress subpoenas someone, they have to show up. If they work for the president, they can claim executive privilege or cite the 5th Amendment, but they can't blow off a subpoena. If someone does, it's within Congress' power to hold that person in contempt and refer the matter to the Justice Department to uphold the law. Given the recent conflict, the White House has come up with a "creative" approach to the justice system.... Let's cut to the chase: the president and his team are arguing that once the White House claims executive privilege, there is no recourse. The president is accountable to literally no one -- not the Congress, whose subpoenas can be ignored, or the federal judiciary, which can't hear a case that cannot be filed. We're talking about what is, in effect, a dictator.

Posted by: Linda | July 20, 2007 2:25 PM | Report abuse

rufus/REMF, If you have more than one personality, we can help all of them.

1-800-905-4675 (Eastern) and 1-866-496-8838 (Pacific).

Posted by: Elias | July 20, 2007 2:25 PM | Report abuse

Reed is a total phony. I had long assumed, as most people probably did, that he came up through the Christian Right, a conservative Christian who got into politics through religion. He sure does look the part, doesn't he? This, of course, is not true. He wasn't "born again" until 1983, long after he had committed himself to Republican politics and proved himself to be a ruthless, unprincipled operative. He helped to create the Christian Coalition, it didn't create him. In fact, the Christian Right doesn't really exist independently of the Party, it is a wholly owned subsidiary, consciously created and nurtured as a Republican voting block.
(Morton Blackwell famously gave the Moral Majority its name.) Ralph Reed is now entering electoral politics himself, making the big move. A very cynical and dangerous man.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 2:24 PM | Report abuse

(continuing to ignore anon/ignorant coward)

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | July 20, 2007 2:23 PM | Report abuse

"Some other obvious vet doesn't challenge your service, he just asks whether or not you have a CIB. A real infantryman would answer in a heartbeat. You refuse to."

See what I mean. Like clockwork. Everytime Imention it. clockwork. Am I hear to spoon feed you gop'ers. Am I hear to run around and answer your questions? AM I a slave to you? No.

Is zouk answering the above questions. Quid pro quo, I told zouk. He telle me what Bush has done right I will answer his question. I'm not givin gyou something for nothing. I want you goper's to show your face. Obviously you feel bush has done things right. What are they?

I just want you racist fasicts money loving goper's to show your face. Quid pro quo. Zouk answers my question I answer his. I'm not a slave to you. Obviously a "real" infantryman wouldn't answer on demand, BECAUSE I'm NOT.

Posted by: rufus | July 20, 2007 2:23 PM | Report abuse

rufus

seriously do you spend your entire day posting and repeating the same garbage over and over again? maybe some little

Posted by: todd | July 20, 2007 2:23 PM | Report abuse


Norquist, as most people know is a great admirer of Stalin's tactics. He's quoted as saying to Reed back in the College Republican days:

[Stalin] was running the personnel department while Trotsky was fighting the White Army. When push came to shove for control of the Soviet Union, Stalin won. Trotsky got an ice ax through his skull, while Stalin became head of the Soviet Union. He understood that personnel is policy.


To that end, Norquist more than anyone else has ensured through carefully constructed alliances that movement ideologues like himself peppered the Republican power structure to the extent that over time, they have come to define it. This is why people like John Bolton, who has no more business being a diplomat than the Rude Pundit does, have become mainstream Republicans, even though they are clearly radical. He has made sure that Republicans are interdependent on each other through money and influence and that the money and influence flow through him and his allies.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 2:23 PM | Report abuse

The modern Republican party is the party of the College Republicans. All the rightwing revolutionary jackasses got their start there and they are still going strong. Why, I saw Ralph Reed the notorious Christian backstabber just the other day on TV again. (The only time these people disappear from the political scene is during their jail terms.)

Back in a more innocent time (two years ago) when I was still young and naive, I wrote about them:

Jack Abramoff, Ralph Reed and Grover Norquist came together as a power in the College Republicans during the Reagan years. Blackwell, Rove, Atwater, and many other powerful operatives and strategists had cut their teeth there, as well, but these guys came in at the beginning of the heady Reagan years and they were fueled by the belief that they were on the permanent winning side of history. The triumverate of Norquist, Abramoff and Reed is legendary --- and they are all implicated in the burgeoning Jack Abramoff/Tom DeLay scandal.

They have come to represent the three most important wings of the modern conservative movement --- the Christian Right (Reed), the movement ideologues (Norquist) and the big money boys (Abramoff.) They are the Republican party. And they are all corrupt.

Posted by: SAM | July 20, 2007 2:21 PM | Report abuse

Rick Perlstein has been writing about what he calls "E. coli conservatism" for a while over at his blog the Big Con, where, among other things, he's chronicling the increasing incidence of ... sinkholes. That's right, these days it's quite common to be driving or walking along a street in Anytown USA and be suddenly sucked into the ground because of the neglected infrastructure of our towns and cities. You can read about it in local papers every day. Wednesday he wrote:


We've warned here again and again about the decrepitude of our underground infrastructure, about what happens when a nation consecrates itself to no higher domestic goal than the cutting of taxes. New York had a Republican mayor, in fact, who now spends his days boasting that he cut taxes 23 times. Cut spending, too, he's proud to say.
This is the legacy of the past 25 years of neglect. We shouldn't be relieved when we see a huge cloud of smoke and dust and find that it isn't "terrorism." It's a warning as important as a magenta terror alert or the rumblings of Michael Chertoff's gut. There is a price to pay for this free lunch the conservatives have been selling for the past 30 years and the bill is coming due.

Watch your step.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 2:20 PM | Report abuse

I never thought I'd see the day when it would be considered good news that a part of New York City was paralyzed, only one person died and there doesn't seem to be any asbestos floating around in the air as a result. (Or maybe not.) The problem is that it is actually very bad news and not just because of the death but because it is a sign of the rapidly decaying infrastructure that has been ignored during the conservative era in favor of free-market religion and the wonder-working powers of tax cuts.

Wednesday, in New York, a pipe installed in 1924 finally gave way and ended up killing someone. Imagine that. They built things to last in those days, but I doubt anyone ever dreamed that they would have to last for nearly a century.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 2:19 PM | Report abuse

We the Lib party of america, desire tolose a war and win an election at all costs. that president bush who is a (insert noun) is too dumb to win. He only beat us twice because (insert excuse). He tricked us into war by saying (insert lie). We don't really want to surrender we prefer to (insert word meaning give up). See the difference? Once we're elected to the majority we promise to (insert vague empty promises). this will only cost (insert low dollar amount). and afterwards all the problems (insert list of ailments) will be cured. vote for us.

Posted by: Mad Libs | July 20, 2007 2:18 PM | Report abuse

Not going to work Old man. You are parroting line for line Hannity's show last night. That is the 5 second clip they showed. Context please.

I'll tell you waht's appropriate. I have a six year old. I also worked at a camp for troubled youth who were arrested for molestation (not lying)You ready?

No touching in you private parts front and back. THAT IS BAD. ARe you against that. Obviously you are because your trying to make it a topic of discussion. Why? What stake do you have in that. Are you a pedifile. Do you think Obama might be agianst that and in turn YOU. If so you SHOULD BE in jail. Child molsetation is bad.

Posted by: rufus | July 20, 2007 2:17 PM | Report abuse

AS USUAL, THE REPUBLICAN PEDOPHILES AND CHICKENHAWKS JUST KEEP PEDDLING THEIR LIES AND SMEARS...

ANSWER ME ZOUK -- WHY AREN'T YOU IN THE MILITARY.

ANSWER ME GOPIE -- ARE YOU A PEDOPHILE?

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 2:16 PM | Report abuse

"Every time I mention I was Army 11B I get "You weren't in the military" From zouk." - rufus/REMF

No, Dude, it's obvious it's not Zouk; he avoids all questions about his service like they were The Plague.

Some other obvious vet doesn't challenge your service, he just asks whether or not you have a CIB. A real infantryman would answer in a heartbeat. You refuse to.

We're here to help you with that and your other problems. Vet Center staff are available toll free during normal business hours at 1-800-905-4675 (Eastern) and 1-866-496-8838 (Pacific).

Give us a call!

Posted by: Elias | July 20, 2007 2:12 PM | Report abuse

"What else do you think is on (Acting) President Cheney's to-do list?"

I don't even waht to think about it. Those are going to be some LONG hours. :)

I'll be watching them. Hopefully this isn't a hostile take-over. The only way the GOP is not eliminated from political discourse in 08 is if they don't hold the elections. I wouldn't put it past Cheaney. I smell a rat also.

DO YOU HEAR ME GEORGE BUSH (AND HIS PATRIOT ACT CRONIES) WE'RE watching you :)

Posted by: rufus1133 | July 20, 2007 2:11 PM | Report abuse

We Libs want to reeducate your kids, starting young when they are most pliable. they NEED to know all about gays and Lesbos and peds. Parents have no business in this. for that reason we prefer to call it sex education and pretend as if it is just telling them "don't let others touch your privates". What we really want to teach them is that pretty much anything goes, especially in our party - the party of NO morals. If we can convert the entire nation to a bunch of deviants, we will start to appear normal. the public schools are so bad at actual education, maybe if we expand thier charter, they will find something they can do - like encourage kindergartners to experiment.

Maybe somneone should have told willie not to let other's touch his.

Posted by: read my libs | July 20, 2007 2:06 PM | Report abuse

What Obama actually said, before his handlers go ahold of him was that sex ed should be taught in kindergarten, that it was "the right thing to do."

Then he clarified afterwards and said it should be age-appropriate. Excuse me, but what, exactly, is age-appropriate sex ed for a 5 year old?

Parents have always taught and will continue to teach their own kindergarten-age children about their bodies and what is innapropriate touching. We don't need the public schools to do it. That is absolutely absurd.

His campaign's back-pedaling shows that he was merely pandering to the audience at Planned Parenthood. The whole idea of bringing up some "stork" reference is ridiculous. Total b.s.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | July 20, 2007 2:02 PM | Report abuse

On July 13, 2007, I visited Section 60 of Arlington National Cemetery, where the bodies of American soldiers killed in Iraq were freshly interred. Afterwards, I headed across the street to the Sheraton National Hotel, owned by right-wing Korean cult leader Sun Myung-Moon, to meet some of the war's most fervent supporters at the College Republican National Convention.

In conversations with at least twenty College Republicans about the war in Iraq, I listened as they lip-synched discredited cant about "fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here." Many of the young GOP cadres I met described the so-called "war on terror" as nothing less than the cause of their time.

Yet when I asked these College Repulicans why they were not participating in this historical cause, they immediately went into contortions. Asthma. Bad knees from playing catcher in high school. "Medical reasons." "It's not for me." These were some of the excuses College Republicans offered for why they could not fight them "over there." Like the current Republican leaders who skipped out on Vietnam, the GOP's next generation would rather cheerlead from the sidelines for the war in Iraq while other, less privileged young men and women fight and die.

Along with videographer Thomas Shomaker, I captured a vivid portrait of the hypocritical mentality of the next generation of Republican leaders. See for yourself.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-blumenthal/generation-chickenhawk-t_b_56676.html

ANSWER ZOUK -- WHY AREN'T YOU IN THE MILITARY?

Posted by: for you, R chickenhawks. | July 20, 2007 2:02 PM | Report abuse

"(4) I confess some difficulty here in becoming particularly outraged over this latest theory. There is nothing new here. As has long been known, this administration believes themselves to reside above and beyond the reach of the law. What else would they need to do in order to make that as clear as can be? They got caught red-handed committing multiple felonies -- by eavesdropping on Americans in precisely the way the law we enacted 30 years ago prohibited -- and they not only admitted it, but vowed to continue to break our laws, and asserted the right to do so. And nothing happened.

This latest assertion of power -- to literally block U.S. Attorneys from prosecuting executive branch employees -- is but another reflection of the lawlessness prevailing in our country, not a new revelation. We know the administration breaks laws with impunity and believes it can. That is no longer in question. The only real question is what, if anything, we are willing to do about that.

Yes, it is true that, as various Democratic statements are claiming, this theory poses a constitutional crisis since, yet again, the President declares the other two branches of government impotent and himself omnipotent. But we have had such a crisis for the last five years. We have just chosen to ignore it, to acquiesce to it, to allow it to fester."

Posted by: greenwald | July 20, 2007 2:02 PM | Report abuse

Be Afraid, Be very, very afraid. This headline is now running at CNN as a Breaking News flash ...

President Bush temporarily will transfer power to Vice President Dick Cheney while Bush has a colonoscopy Saturday.
So making Dick Cheney acting president for maybe an hour or two. Hmmm. Checklist. 1. Invade Iran. 2. Rule Pat Leahy 'Special Legislative Enemy Combatant' ...

What else do you think is on (Acting) President Cheney's to-do list?

Posted by: Josh | July 20, 2007 2:00 PM | Report abuse

I don't ahte you proudgop. I know the world passed you by. I know your world is now Rush's/Hannity's/Fox's world. I don't hate you. You have been lied to and propogated agaisnt for decades. It's not (compleatly) your fault. I blame the propogandist. They have a year or less left. What will you do without your avatars?

Posted by: rufus1133 | July 20, 2007 1:59 PM | Report abuse

The Party of Chickenhawks and Pedophiles... now there's a winning platform.

Posted by: Sam | July 20, 2007 1:58 PM | Report abuse

So you know (because O'REilly will not mention it) he was charged with sexual harrassment. Apperantly the tape is out there. He settled out of court because he knew it would bring him down. That's why he is always going after child molesters.

It's like him calling the daily koz fascists. He is a joke, like you proudgop/zouk. It is elementary school tricks (which you parrot so well) "I know you are but what am I"

Posted by: rufus | July 20, 2007 1:56 PM | Report abuse

Hey Chris,

The more the election season nears, the more and more I'm sure that Bob Schaffer will win in Colorado. He put up some terribly strong numbers for quarter 2 and he has really united the GOP in Colorado. Colorado always votes GOP for President so he'll have some help at the top of the ticket.

At the end of the day, I just think Udall may be too liberal for Colorado. It's still a pretty conservative state and Udall has an uphill climb to convince a majority to vote for a liberal.

My guess: Schaffer 52, Udall 47

Posted by: Colorado Dude | July 20, 2007 1:55 PM | Report abuse

'5 year olds should be recieiving sexual education in kindergarten, according to Barack Obama. (Is that a hope-inspiring platform, or what?)'

Sorry gopstooge, yet another rightwing straw man. Barack said children should be warned abot adults touching them inappropriately. No sane person, at least anyone other than a pedophile, should be against that.

Are you a pedophile? A lot of gopies sure seem to be...

Posted by: The Pedophile Party | July 20, 2007 1:54 PM | Report abuse

"5 year olds should be recieiving sexual education in kindergarten, according to Barack Obama. (Is that a hope-inspiring platform, or what?) "

Parrot hannity. That's all you got Old Man (proudgop). How is that relevant to anything said here today?

If you want a response. I will humor you. Even though I know you just repeat what you hear everyday on rush/hannity/o'reilly.

He wants to tell kids what is bad touck. What is unaccepable. Why to you have a problem with that? Are you a child molester? Are you doing things you should be a l O'Reilly/vitter. Trying to be like you avatars?

Posted by: rufus | July 20, 2007 1:53 PM | Report abuse

"Jim Webb who noted that there are more SAUDI foreign fighters in Iraq than their are Iranians and Iranian funded fighters, according to intelligence reports"

so if a Saudi kills and Iranian in Iraq, it is strictly a civil thing - no foreigners involved.

you see we libs don't like to get caught up in facts and other bothersome details, so instead we prefer to argue about semantics. We love changing vocabulary words to throw off the non-attentive. for example, in our Lib circles, if you want to kill defenseless pre-born children, we don't call it murder or infantacide, we call it a choice. Nifty huh? And if we want to win an election bad enough, we aim to find a way to blame the entire war on Bush, regardless of most of us voting for it some time ago. to get out of this prickly predicament, we can handily rename the word surrender and retreat. this time we call it redeployment. It still means surrender and retreat but our voters are so dumb, they don't notice.

We really scored big this week with a shallow ploy to seek votes. we pretended we were voting on ending the war, when in fact the amendment didn't say anything of the sort. We knew it wouldn't pass but expended great effort anyway, knowing the obliging jackels at the NYT and WaPo wouldn't dare print the truth and risk another election loss.

Instead of passing any laws or living up to our election promises, we go after investigations into legal activities like firing of attornies and pardons. Never mind that we Libs do this for the purpose of lining our pockets and no one minds.

so you see, life in lib lala land is pleasant as long as our ignorant and cowardly followers continue to swallow our lies without protest and as long as the pliable media continue to refuse to report any actual news. we have already decided that the war is lost, so why wait until Sept. We are fully prepared to surrender and lose right now. We will follow our yellow spineless leaders right down the road to infamy. See you there.

Posted by: read my libs | July 20, 2007 1:51 PM | Report abuse

Chris Cillizza-

Nothing is better than the Senate line. Too many house seats to think about, too many hypotheticals with the Presidency. The Senate is juuuust riiiight.

With that said:

True dat with Kentucky! Never forget what happened to Tom Daschle; McConnell's seat is threatened. Even the NY Times editorial page points out how Daschle lost his seat because of partisan obstructionism of a minority party....hmmm......who's doing that today?

As for Minnesota, this is a battle of looks! Franken the nerd versus Coleman the overbite!

New Hampshire should just get the number one spot. Sununu is like Mike DeWine. He does absolutely nothing. Difference is, Sununu's approval ratings have been in the pits for about 4 years now.

Landrieu, however, may actually lose, ending the Dems streak, unless memories of Katrina are revised/ignored by then. Jindal is riding high and his success will crossover to the senate race.

Posted by: jojo | July 20, 2007 1:44 PM | Report abuse

Chris Cilliza-

Nothing is better than the Senate line. Too many house seats to think about, too many hypotheticals with the Presidency. The Senate is juuuust riiiight.

With that said:

True dat with Kentucky! Never forget what happened to Tom Daschle; McConnell's seat is threatened. Even the NY Times editorial page points out how Daschle lost his seat because of partisan obstructionism of a minority party....hmmm......who's doing that today?

As for Minnesota, this is a battle of looks! Franken the nerd versus Coleman the overbite!

New Hampshire should just get the number one spot. Sununu is like Mike DeWine. He does absolutely nothing. Difference is, Sununu's approval ratings have been in the pits for about 4 years now.

Landrieu, however, may actually lose, ending the Dems streak, unless memories of Katrina are revised/ignored by then. Jindal is riding high and his success will crossover to the senate race.

Posted by: jojo | July 20, 2007 1:44 PM | Report abuse

What do libs define as a worthy cause?

5 year olds should be recieiving sexual education in kindergarten, according to Barack Obama. (Is that a hope-inspiring platform, or what?)

Preventing genocide in Iraq is not a worthy cause, however, according to the senator from Illinois.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | July 20, 2007 1:42 PM | Report abuse

I haven't figured out what's going on yet, but the headlines today are that Cheney is being made President this Saturday while Bush has a colonoscopy. Now, common sense tells us that a voluntary, minor medical procedure like a colonoscopy isn't something that usually happens on a Saturday. So, I figure something is up with those two crooks. Cheney pardons someone? Does a Lincoln with certain members of Congress (President Lincoln imprsoned memebers of Congress who disagreed with his Civil War policies), what? I smell a rat here. ANyone hearing anything?

Posted by: MikeB | July 20, 2007 1:36 PM | Report abuse

I say screw the surgerys. You are christians. Let nature take it's course.

Posted by: rufus | July 20, 2007 1:34 PM | Report abuse

dick Cheaney in power? Haven't tehre been an awful lot of cancer and or operations. Has anybody in the admistration NOT been in surgery or had cancer the last 2 years. Laura/cheaney/snow/bush

Trying to get sympathy or what?

don't scare me like that (cheaney). 1984. If he takes over it will be the worst of times and the worst of times.

Posted by: rufus1133 | July 20, 2007 1:32 PM | Report abuse

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/51150/

1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy.(liberals/terrorist/activists/democrats)
2. Create a gulag.( guantonemo/secret euro prisons)
3. Develop a thug caste.(dittoheads/ex-military/cow folk)
4. Set up an internal surveillance system. (patriot act)
5. Harass citizens' groups.( fox and rush/right-wing attack machine attacking all dissenters)
6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release.(Guantonemo again, secret prisons)
7. Target key individuals.(right-wing attack machine attacking all dissent)
8. Control the press.( the entire tv media and ALL of radio. CNN Fox MSNBC(not counting olberman) Murdoch attempt to buy and control all mediams)
9. Dissent equals treason.( you are with us or against us)
10. Suspend the rule of law.( i don't recall. executive privledge)

Posted by: Steps to fascism. Tried and failed by bush and his cow folk (dittohead) mafia | July 20, 2007 1:23 PM | Report abuse

President Bush will undergo a colonoscopy Saturday and temporarily hand presidential powers over to Duck Hunter Dick (known as Oil Slick Dick to his energy industry friends).

Snow told reporters Friday that Bush will have the procedure done at his Camp David, Md., mountaintop retreat. Because the President will be under the effects of anesthesia, he once again has elected to implement Section 3 of the 25th Amendment to the Constitution. Tricky Dick will serve as acting president until Bush notifies authorities that he is ready to reabuse his powers. Hide your ducks. Keep your eye on Leaky Dick!! He is expected to spend the time shredding documents and ordering US military special forces to cover up all evidence of his high crimes in office.

Tubb said two polyps were discovered during examinations in 1998 and 1999 while Bush was Executioner of Texas. That made Bush a prime candidate for rectal scrutiny.

Senior White House advisor Pastor Ted Haggard wished Bush the best with his rectum. The Presidential Prayer Team will be holding a national prayer for George Junior's colon on Sunday at 10 am.

Posted by: Colon Handover to Dick | July 20, 2007 1:22 PM | Report abuse

"Why? Because Louisiana has been trending Republican over the past several decades (in 2004 the state elected the first Republican to the Senate since Reconstruction) and Hurrican Katrina displaced an as-yet-unknown segment of the Democratic base."

There's one way to win a state. Right GOP. She is in trouble even though the repubs don't have a candidate yet? Because the poor people are displaced? WOW. Interesting point by the propogandist CC. Was he ever a lawyer for the RNC.

So flood out the dems in LA. Redistrict TExas so the r's have a better chance. And you still can't win. Pretty sad. Cheat all you want gop. You time is up. Use it wisely. Attacking reid/pelosi/hillary doesn't erase the last 20 years. YOu are done for a generation.

Go Obama Gore 08

Posted by: rufus1133 | July 20, 2007 1:17 PM | Report abuse

"Show me where treason is illegal". Right ZOuk. Didn't you say that to me one day. You can break any law you want as long as your lawyers LIE good enough? That is justice?

Posted by: rufus | July 20, 2007 1:13 PM | Report abuse

"The Bush administration decided to announce to Washington Post reporters Dan Eggen and Amy Goldstein its view that it has the power to block the Justice Department, and its U.S. Attorneys, from criminally prosecuting Executive Branch employees who refuse to comply with Congressional subpoenas, notwithstanding a statute enacted by the American people through their Congress requiring such prosecution where Congress issues a contempt citation. We do not know who specifically in the administration announced this obviously radical position because the Post courteously granted them a shield of anonymity to hide behind. "

Posted by: greenwald | July 20, 2007 1:08 PM | Report abuse

Bush's magical shield from criminal prosecution

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/07/20/executive_privilege/

Posted by: greenwald | July 20, 2007 1:07 PM | Report abuse

"DimDem" (if that's your name today):

You didn't actually provide any basis for your argument that Iraq is NOT in fact fighting a civil war. Lets see who thinks a Civil War already exists:

Colin Powell:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/29/powell.iraq/

A February NIE Report by the CIA:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/world/middle_east/6324767.stm

and Retired US Army General Barry McCaffrey, to name a few:

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/Iraq%20After%20action.pdf

Hmm, and lets see about your claim that we're REALLY fighting a proxy war with Iran. That charge, which Lindsey Graham tried to make on Meet the Press last weekend, was rather forcefully refuted by Jim Webb who noted that there are more SAUDI foreign fighters in Iraq than their are Iranians and Iranian funded fighters, according to intelligence reports. I assume, based upon your previous statements, that you therefore think we should invade Saudi Arabia?

Again, feel free to ignore this post and instead post more nonsense -- probably under yet another new name.

Posted by: Colin | July 20, 2007 1:05 PM | Report abuse

dim dim = zouk. Obviously. He comes here all day posting garbage. Posting lies and attacks that have nothing to do with anything. All he while giggling like a 8 year old school girl. Like Bush he thinks this is funny. "as long as I'm making money of war". I don't think this is a joke. I don't think trading the blood or my brothers and sisters so he can line his pockets is funny. I think it's treason.

I'm not playing games here.

Posted by: rufus | July 20, 2007 1:03 PM | Report abuse

DimDem is just another one of those right wing cowards. They wave their made in CHina flags and listen to that adulterous dopper, Rush Limbaugh, who tells them they are sane and "moral". Liberals like me and my children are the ones that actually fight these stupid wars. One thing DimDum doesn't consider, however. SHe/it remains safe and fat and dumb over here....for now. Quite a lot of us, however, survive and are well trained, well armed ane very very p*ssed!

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 12:52 PM | Report abuse

I hear that mikeb. The dems may be trying to get bush before he's out of office. I don't care about that. As long as they go to prison, real time. I'm cool. i don't care if it takes 10 years of their stonewalling. As long as JSUTICE/LAW and Order is restored. Hopefully the dems don't back down on him after he's out of office. We need to think about the future. Make sure this treason never happens again.

Posted by: rufus | July 20, 2007 12:50 PM | Report abuse

See zoukie? You ain't fooling anyone. Everyone here knows you're a sniverling lily livered cowardly chickenhawk.

ANSWER US -- WHY AREN'T YOU IN THE MILITARY?

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 12:48 PM | Report abuse

OK, drooling contards, we're winning the war but Americans can't go out in public in Baghdad. Sure, that makes sense.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | July 20, 2007 12:37 PM | Report abuse

Bush was "not at all weary or anguished" and in fact was "very energized," wrote Michael Barone of U.S. News & World Report. He was "as confident and upbeat as ever," observed Rich Lowry of National Review. "Far from being beleaguered, Bush was assertive and good-humored," according to David Brooks of the New York Times.

Excuse me? I guess he must be in an even better mood since the feckless Iraqi government announced its decision to take the whole month of August off while U.S. troops continue fighting and dying in Baghdad's 130-degree summer heat.

Posted by: why aren't you in the military zouk? | July 20, 2007 12:37 PM | Report abuse

It needs to be asked again, this time of DimDem (althought I suspect his name really should be DimDim or better yet, DumbDumb): WHY ARE YOU SERVING IN THIS WAR THAT YOU SO BELIEVE IN? There is still plenty of time for you to volunteer and get "in the action" over there? I would think that a sniveling coward like you would love to join in at the last minute and try to co-opt some of the glory for yourself from the real hero men and women of the military? So I ask again WHY ARE YOU NOT OVER IN IRAQ SERVING IN THIS GREAT WAR?

Posted by: Jackson | July 20, 2007 12:35 PM | Report abuse

One hopes the leader of the free world hasn't really, truly lost touch with objective reality. But one does have to wonder.

Last week, George W. Bush invited nine conservative pundits to the White House for what amounted to a pep talk, with the president providing the pep. Somehow I was left off the list -- must have been an oversight. But some columnists who attended have been writing about the meeting or describing it to colleagues, and their accounts are downright scary.

E. J. Dionne Jr.:
Making The Poor Visible

David R. Cameron:
A Radioactive Case

Charles Krauthammer:
The 20 Percent Solution

Eugene Robinson:
Bush's Cognitive Dissonance

National Review's Kate O'Beirne, who joined the presidential chat in the Roosevelt Room, told me that the most striking thing was the president's incongruously sunny demeanor. Bush's approval ratings are well below freezing, the nation is sooooo finished with his foolish and tragic war, many of his remaining allies in Congress have given notice that come September they plan to leave the Decider alone in his private Alamo -- and the president remains optimistic and upbeat.

Posted by: people are dying-- he thinks it's funnty | July 20, 2007 12:34 PM | Report abuse

"...Obama and Edwards...Both..want more government spending..." to end poverty. Linda, KOZ, et al, please forgive the cynical reply, but it costs MONEY to feed people, to provide them with medical care and housing, to educate their children, etc. It takes government action to ensure that employers pay them, the vast majority of them being **WORKING** poor, and treat them decently. Maybe you think some Fairy Godmother does this, or perhaps you believe its one of your Fundimentalist miracles. The adults here realize, however, that it take hard work and money. Your whacked out churches aren't going to do what's right. Private business certainly isn't...it created this mess to begin with. Neither is Rush Limbaught, the neanderthals at Fox, nor silly twits like Hannidy or Bush Patriots. Now, we WILL do these things, someday, and we can either take that money from YOU or from the swine that make money off Bush and his lunactic policies. It's up to you, really. Vote for Romney or some other right wing whack job and continue the very policies that have created the 40 million uninsured, the 60 million children who don't have enough to eat, the uncounted millions who have lost their jobs due to outsourcing and cheap alien labor, and things will get so bad that this country just might collapse. It will, however, become so expensive to fix the mess he leavces behind that your taxes will become truely painful. In the meanwhile, don't insult our intelligence by spouting the nonsense you hear on Fox News.

As for "ignorant Democrats", it's interesting that you bring it up. I noted with interest that ost of the Senate and House weren't notified about an intelligence briefing on Iraq that too place yesterday. Oh, the Whitehouse "claims" they were notified and someone there did send out faxes about the meeting, but it was after hours, AFTER the Senators and their staff had left for the day, notifying them of an early morning meeting the next day. Furthermore, the Bush Whitehouse is now claiming that executive priviledge applies to any and all Congressional investigations, too. So Congress wont be allowed to interview anyone at the Whitehouse or justice department or Pentagon with regards to the firing of those U.S. Attoney's, with regards to the latest faked intelligence about the Al Qaida boggyman, about spending irregularities, etc. This Whitehouse and its staff, it is now become apparent, has been engaged in a series of criminal activities, for which they could go to prison. They are stonewalling investigations of those wrong doings and doing everything in their power to prevent COngress doing it's COnstitutional duty. If any of this is allowed to stand, you wont have a country left in ewhich you can publically blather your ignorance.

Posted by: MikeB | July 20, 2007 12:32 PM | Report abuse

I see the steller intellectual skills of the Libs are on full display here today. Most amusing. do any of you walk upright yet?

Posted by: DimDem | July 20, 2007 12:31 PM | Report abuse

misdirection. This is not about Kerry or murth. Got anything else coward

Posted by: rufus | July 20, 2007 12:31 PM | Report abuse

A $1.2 billion program to deploy new radiation monitors to screen trucks, cars and cargo containers for signs of nuclear devices has been delayed by questions over whether Department of Homeland Security officials misled Congress about the effectiveness of the detectors.

Posted by: feel safer yet? | July 20, 2007 12:31 PM | Report abuse

I know enough to see that you can't fight a war in Iraq from your position in okinowa. this was resoundly laughed out of the building when he said it. Are you that daft?

will you accept a bigger bribe, just later like Murtha? do you have strange inconsistencies in your military record like murtha? Are you the king of earmarks like murtha? do most normal people consider you pretty much nuts, like Murtha? forget that last one, we do.


Why has that war hero Kohn Kerry still not released his military record, as he promised to do years ago? What is he hiding - the truth? Are you Libs allergic to truth or something?

Posted by: DimDem | July 20, 2007 12:28 PM | Report abuse

' a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country'

EVER HEAR OF THE SHIA AND SUNNI, ZOUK? I GUESS NOT, SINCE YOU SPEND YOUR DAY TYPING INSTEAD OF FIGHTING.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 12:28 PM | Report abuse

First Toyko Rosie, now Okinowa Murtha. And you wonder why so may people are angry at the GOP. You are fascists. "Dissent equals treason" To a fascist. Free people reject facsim. You are a luaghing stock zouk. I can't wait to see you crying like Bohner is is pretty little pink shirt.

Steps to fascism. Tried and failed by zouk and the GOP. HAHAHAHHA


http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/51150/

1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy.(liberals/terrorist/activists/democrats)
2. Create a gulag.( guantonemo/secret euro prisons)
3. Develop a thug caste.(dittoheads/ex-military/cow folk)
4. Set up an internal surveillance system. (patriot act)
5. Harass citizens' groups.( fox and rush/right-wing attack machine attacking all dissenters)
6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release.(Guantonemo again, secret prisons)
7. Target key individuals.(right-wing attack machine attacking all dissent)
8. Control the press.( the entire tv media and ALL of radio. CNN Fox MSNBC(not counting olberman) Murdoch attempt to buy and control all mediams)
9. Dissent equals treason.( you are with us or against us)
10. Suspend the rule of law.( i don't recall. executive privledge)

Posted by: rufus1133 | July 20, 2007 12:24 PM | Report abuse

On Iran's support for the enemy: "It has remained very substantial. . . . Iran has indeed provided substantial funding, training, equipping, arming, and even direction, in some cases, to what are called the special groups or secret cells affiliated with the militia of Muqtada al-Sadr."


who to believe? the general in charge of our Army and who lives there and gets daily briefings or......ignorant kos koward who gets all his news and views from ultra-liberal hate websites.

Tough call but I think I'll go with the general.

Posted by: DimDem | July 20, 2007 12:22 PM | Report abuse

"Okinowa Murtha"


How dare you? Your party is done. you thinkn you know more about the military than John Murtha? Your party is done

Posted by: rufus | July 20, 2007 12:20 PM | Report abuse

make that...

it is a proxy war between the USA and the enemies of civilization supported by Iran, Syria and al queda.

Posted by: DimDem | July 20, 2007 12:17 PM | Report abuse

IF I TYPE IN ALL CAPS WILL SOMEONE OUT THERE THINK I HAVE AN OUNCE OF SENSE? PLEASE? IF NOT, I WILL RUN OVER TO DAILY KOS AND GET SOME FRESH IDEAS TO WOW YOU ALL. I JUST LOVE TO HATE AND BETWEEN KOS AND FIX, I CAN KEEP BUSY ALL DAY. MY EMPLOYER DOESN'T MIND. HE IS USED TO ZERO OUTPUT FROM DOLTS LIKE ME.

IGNORANT KOS KOWARD

Posted by: ikk | July 20, 2007 12:14 PM | Report abuse

Main Entry: civil war
Function: noun
Date: 15th century
: a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country


Real simple colin, and this has been said before - ITS NOT A CIVIL WAR. That terminology is Libs efforts at redefining the situation so as to look like they are not total losers and utmost cowards, like redeploy. who is so stupid to be fooled by this? Okinowa Murtha?

it is a proxy war between the USA and the enemies of civilization supported by Iraq, Syria and al queda. Occassionally some civilians get in the way or join in the fight. most of the fighters/instigaters in Iraq and Afganistan are foreigners.

Are you as obtuse and simple as Rufas or ignorant Kos koward? your chanting is making me think you are not as smart as you think you are. Of course that is accurate for Libs across the board.

this assumption that you zealous Libs know anything about the war, much less more than the generals and politicians is ludicrous. your opinion is based strictly on a power grab for an election you know you can't win based on any actual issues, just like always. Pitiful to see a once proud and effective political party be taken over by a bunch of left-wing loonies like Kos, huff et al.

Posted by: DimDem | July 20, 2007 12:08 PM | Report abuse

You can't claim to be a christian choosing party (or anything) above GOd. You can't be a patriot choosing party or self over country. That is called treason GOP.

Posted by: rufus1133 | July 20, 2007 12:05 PM | Report abuse

FORWARD OPERATING BASE LOYALTY, Iraq (AP) -- Army Spc. Christopher D. Kube was memorialized Thursday in a packed theater at this outpost in east Baghdad. Another fallen soldier. Another reminder, far from the public spotlight, of the grief that hits not only families of this war's casualties but also their comrades in arms

He was 18.

WHY AREN'T YOU IN THE MILITARY ZOUK, YOU SNIVELING CHICKENHAWK COWARD.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 12:03 PM | Report abuse

A stark assessment came via video link from the Iraqi capital when Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador, told the committee that Iraq is gripped by fear and struggling to meet security and political goals by September.

"If there is one word I would use to sum up the atmosphere in Iraq -- on the streets, in the countryside, in the neighborhoods and at the national level -- that word would be 'fear,"' Crocker said. "For Iraq to move forward at any level, that fear is going to have to be replaced with some level of trust and confidence.

Posted by: 4 YEARS, 3000 DEAD, 500 BILLION LATER | July 20, 2007 12:01 PM | Report abuse

'From what we've heard from Petraeus -- and contrary to the parade of pundits and politicians urging us to withdraw -- it seems we're winning this war.'

LOL -- WHY AREN'T YOU IN THE MILITARY ZOUK?

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 11:57 AM | Report abuse


If Giuliani has a draft problem, Romney's may be even worse. The former Massachusetts governor, whose supporters object strenuously to any discussion of his religious beliefs, got his military service deferred thanks to the Mormon church.

Like Giuliani and millions of other young American men at the time, Romney started out with student deferments. But he left Stanford after only two semesters in 1966 and would have become eligible for the draft -- except that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in Michigan, his home state, provided him with a fresh deferment as a missionary. According to an excellent investigative series that appeared last month in the Boston Globe, that deferment, which described Romney as a "minister of religion or divinity student," protected him from the draft between July 1966 and February 1969, when he enrolled in Brigham Young University to complete his undergraduate degree. Mormons in each state could select a limited number of young men upon whom to confer missionary status during the Vietnam years, and Romney was fortunate enough to be chosen. (Coincidentally, or possibly not, Mitt's father, George W. Romney, was governor of Michigan at the time.)

Posted by: oretty mitty the fey | July 20, 2007 11:55 AM | Report abuse

Here's just a taste of what Petraeus said:

• On progress in the war: "(W)e have achieved what we believe is a reasonable degree of tactical momentum on the ground, gains against the principal near-term threat, al-Qaida Iraq, and also gains against what is another near-term threat, and also potentially the long-term threat: Shia militia extremists."

• On fighting al-Qaida: "(We have seen) the detention, or the capture or killing of (a) number of leaders that we have taken out in recent months . . . and the progress in terms of just clearing areas of them. . . . So there has been considerable progress against them."

• On Iran's support for the enemy: "It has remained very substantial. . . . Iran has indeed provided substantial funding, training, equipping, arming, and even direction, in some cases, to what are called the special groups or secret cells affiliated with the militia of Muqtada al-Sadr."

• On our troops: "Our (military) leaders get it, our soldiers get it, they are these flexible, adaptable, thoughtful, culturally astute, and by and large, leaders and soldiers and Marines, and they are showing that on a daily basis here."

As we said, balanced. But read for yourself. The entire extraordinary interview can be found at hughhewitt.townhall.com. As you'll see, Petraeus is no Pollyanna. He knows things aren't perfect. He wants to get things right.

But it's also clear from his remarks we've made significant progress in recent months in stabilizing major parts of Iraq. The surge seems to be working.

Petraeus is doing an incredible job and deserves America's support. So do the 160,000 troops now in Iraq who risk their lives daily in the war on terror -- even as some in Congress would pull the rug out from under them, making us all less safe.

From what we've heard from Petraeus -- and contrary to the parade of pundits and politicians urging us to withdraw -- it seems we're winning this war.

Maybe it's time the word got out.

Posted by: david | July 20, 2007 11:53 AM | Report abuse

The Nebraska bombshell.... former Sen. Bob Kerrey may run. That's news, at least to me. Does Nebraska still love him, or do they feel deserted?

Heard today that the "Fredheads" are getting impatient with his tiptoeing through the decision-process tulips...

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth Hunter | July 20, 2007 11:53 AM | Report abuse

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/51150/

1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy.(liberals/terrorist/activists/democrats)
2. Create a gulag.( guantonemo/secret euro prisons)
3. Develop a thug caste.(dittoheads/ex-military/cow folk)
4. Set up an internal surveillance system. (patriot act)
5. Harass citizens' groups.( fox and rush/right-wing attack machine attacking all dissenters)
6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release.(Guantonemo again, secret prisons)
7. Target key individuals.(right-wing attack machine attacking all dissent)
8. Control the press.( the entire tv media and ALL of radio. CNN Fox MSNBC(not counting olberman) Murdoch attempt to buy and control all mediams)
9. Dissent equals treason.( you are with us or against us)
10. Suspend the rule of law.( i don't recall. executive privledge)

Posted by: Your GOP attempt at fascism is failing | July 20, 2007 11:53 AM | Report abuse


Rudy has always confined his enthusiasm for war to podium speeches and position papers. Born in 1944, young Rudy was highly eligible for military service when he reached his 20s during the Vietnam War. He did not volunteer for combat -- as Kerry did -- and instead found a highly creative way to dodge the draft.

During his years as an undergraduate at Manhattan College and then at New York University Law School, Giuliani qualified for a student deferment. Upon graduation from law school in 1968, he lost that temporary deferment and his draft status reverted to 1-A, the designation awarded to those most qualified for induction into the Army.

At the same time, Giuliani won a clerkship with federal Judge Lloyd McMahon in the fabled Southern District of New York, where he would become the United States attorney. He naturally had no desire to trade his ticket on the legal profession's fast track for latrine duty in the jungle. So he quickly applied for another deferment based on his judicial clerkship. This time the Selective Service System denied his claim.

That was when the desperate Giuliani prevailed upon his boss to write to the draft board, asking them to grant him a fresh deferment and reclassification as an "essential" civilian employee. As the great tabloid columnist Jimmy Breslin noted 20 years later, during the former prosecutor's first campaign for mayor: "Giuliani did not attend the war in Vietnam because federal Judge Lloyd MacMahon [sic] wrote a letter to the draft board in 1969 and got him out. Giuliani was a law clerk for MacMahon, who at the time was hearing Selective Service cases. MacMahon's letter to Giuliani's draft board stated that Giuliani was so necessary as a law clerk that he could not be allowed to get shot at in Vietnam."

His clerkship ended the following year but his luck held firm. By then President Nixon had transformed the Selective Service into a lottery system, and despite Rudy's renewed 1-A status, he drew a high lottery number and was never drafted.

Posted by: rudy the coward | July 20, 2007 11:53 AM | Report abuse

GET EM'. :)

Posted by: rufus | July 20, 2007 11:50 AM | Report abuse

uly 20, 2007 | Nothing unites the Republican candidates for president or excites the conservative base more than their bellicose barking about war and confrontation. The GOP presidential debates often sound like a tough-man competition, with Rudolph Giuliani denouncing the "cut-and-run" Democrats, Mitt Romney demanding a double-size Guantánamo detention camp, and the rest of the pack struggling to keep pace with the snarling alpha dogs.

Yet while their rhetoric is invariably loud and aggressive, none of these martial orators has seen a day of military service -- except for John McCain, whose prospects are rapidly deflating, and Duncan Hunter, whose campaign never got enough air for a single balloon. Unfortunately for those two decorated veterans, their party seems to prefer its hawks to be of the chicken variety.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 11:49 AM | Report abuse

CBS/NYT Poll: 66% Say Congress Shouldn't Fund War Without Timetable For Withdrawal

Posted by: democracy | July 20, 2007 11:47 AM | Report abuse

Hannity's Insanity

Hannity on the war and immigration- this is the narrow mind of Reputricans

Mr. Hannity thank-you for your interview - given your reputation of never answering any questions I consider this interview a great honor.

Interviewer: Mr. Hannity, every government study shows that undocumented workers are paying billions into Social Security and the general tax fund, in addition to property taxes, sales taxes, and endless fees, but you continue to say they do not pay taxes, what are your sources?

Hannity: Why can't Mexicans even make good American tacos? feigned laugh

Interviewer: Mr. Hannity, in housing markets like Dallas, if you deport the undocumented workers, mortgage companies will collapse as a result of the abandoned homes, how this a good thing?

Hannity: Why can't Mexicans even make good American tacos? feigned laugh

Interviewer: Mr. Hannity, if you deport 12 million people it is believed it will devastate the housing industry, the car industry, leave women without child support, families on welfare - Mr. Hannity, have you researched any studies which look at the negative economic impact deporting 12 million people would have on the US Economy?

Hannity: Why can't Mexicans even make good American tacos? feigned laugh

Interviewer: Border Patrol agents in Texas are opposed to your wall because while patrolling the Rio Grande, it will leave them pinned up against wall for drug dealers to shoot at them like ducks in a tub, how is this a good policy?

Hannity: Why can't Mexicans even make good American tacos? feigned laugh

Interviewer: A man whose wife was killed in Iraq asked you at one of your freedom concerts how bringing his wife home in a body bag protected her and her children? How did you respond to her question?

Hannity: Why can't Mexicans even make good American tacos? feigned laugh

Interviewer: Mr. Hannity, while you tell your listens to hold up immigration reform until you get what you want on the undocumented workers, are you not in fact denying our Border Patrol Officers the resources they need to secure the border and in fact leaving the border wide open?

Hannity: Why can't Mexicans even make good American tacos? feigned laugh

Interviewer: Mr. Hannity, how is you holding up funds for border security until you get what you want with the undocumented workers any different than the Democrats holding up funding for the troops until they get Bush to begin to withdraw the troops?

Hannity: Why can't Mexicans even make good American tacos? feigned laugh

http://balancingtheissues.com/Hannity'sInsanity.htm

Posted by: Bobby Wightman-Cervantes | July 20, 2007 11:47 AM | Report abuse

Hey Anonymous -- want to respond to my question, or do you prefer to spew forth drivel without engaging? For your convenience, let me summarize my point:

1. Our Military already won the war and performed superbly doing so.

2. Our Military cannot resolve a Civil War.

3. In light of the above, explain to me how it possibly makes sense to keep 160,000+ troops in Iraq.

Posted by: Colin | July 20, 2007 11:46 AM | Report abuse

I DARE ANY OF YOU WHO SUPPORT CONTINUING SENDING OUR TROOPS TO UNNECESSARY DEATH TO TELL US WHY YOU AREN'T IN THE MILITARY YOURSELF.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 11:42 AM | Report abuse

Once you all come around to the idea that every problem is caused by Libs, and can be solved by
privatizing everything
outlawing disagreement with conservatives
drilling for oil in each National Park
executing philosophists,
OB/GYN doctors,
all geologists not working for
the fossil fuel industry,
naturalists,
environmental scientists,
feminists,
anyone who remembers the '60s,
illegal aliens not employed by
Republicans as domestics,
anyone not believing in the
literal truth of the Bible,
anyone not believing in the
primacy of the free market,
any male with long hair,
any female with a crew cut,
anyone who can read, pronounce,
and define correctly more than
10 words of more than three
syllables,
and so on.*

*This is an incomplete list. To suggest additions, visit http://www.bowbeforezouk.com

Posted by: we never accept resposibility, we blame Libs | July 20, 2007 11:38 AM | Report abuse

"YOU NEVER ANSWER, CHICKENHAWK -- WHY AREN'T YOU IN THE MILITARY? SNIVELING COWARD."

Thank you. Every time I mention I was Army 11B I get "You weren't in the military" From zouk. Good question blank poster. Why aren't you over their zouk next to you boy GEORGE bush. You people LOVE war sitting over here making money off it. Let's see how much you LOOOOVVVVEEE war when there are bombs going off next to your face.

Support the troops. Give them a plan for victory. Bring them home

Posted by: rufus1133 | July 20, 2007 11:35 AM | Report abuse

Leadership: It's pathetic when a major political party holds a pajama party to publicize its desire to surrender during a war. But it's even worse when such shenanigans drown out a vital message from a real leader.
In the end, it was a cheap PR stunt that came undone when the Senate voted not to cut off debate on a proposal to begin withdrawing troops within 120 days.

Such maneuvers have earned the Democrat-led Congress the American public's contempt. They've rewarded this Congress with a 14% approval rating -- the lowest ever.

Unfortunately, the noise from Congress' pajama-clad know-nothings drowned out a truly important voice in this debate: that of Gen. David Petraeus. In case you don't know, he's the innovative commander who is spearheading our war effort in Iraq and the "surge" of 28,500 additional troops.


Here's just a taste of what Petraeus said:

• On progress in the war: "(W)e have achieved what we believe is a reasonable degree of tactical momentum on the ground, gains against the principal near-term threat, al-Qaida Iraq, and also gains against what is another near-term threat, and also potentially the long-term threat: Shia militia extremists."

• On fighting al-Qaida: "(We have seen) the detention, or the capture or killing of (a) number of leaders that we have taken out in recent months . . . and the progress in terms of just clearing areas of them. . . . So there has been considerable progress against them."

• On Iran's support for the enemy: "It has remained very substantial. . . . Iran has indeed provided substantial funding, training, equipping, arming, and even direction, in some cases, to what are called the special groups or secret cells affiliated with the militia of Muqtada al-Sadr."

• On our troops: "Our (military) leaders get it, our soldiers get it, they are these flexible, adaptable, thoughtful, culturally astute, and by and large, leaders and soldiers and Marines, and they are showing that on a daily basis here."

As we said, balanced. But read for yourself. The entire extraordinary interview can be found at hughhewitt.townhall.com. As you'll see, Petraeus is no Pollyanna. He knows things aren't perfect. He wants to get things right.

But it's also clear from his remarks we've made significant progress in recent months in stabilizing major parts of Iraq. The surge seems to be working.

Petraeus is doing an incredible job and deserves America's support. So do the 160,000 troops now in Iraq who risk their lives daily in the war on terror -- even as some in Congress would pull the rug out from under them, making us all less safe.

From what we've heard from Petraeus -- and contrary to the parade of pundits and politicians urging us to withdraw -- it seems we're winning this war.

Maybe it's time the word got out.

Posted by: good news for US is bad for Libs | July 20, 2007 11:35 AM | Report abuse

Obama Hits Back At Romney On Sex Ed
Barack Obama is firing back at Mitt Romney's attacks on him, over allegations by Romney that Obama supports sex education for kindergartners, when all he had spoken about was teaching about to be wary of 'inappropriate touching. Citing his own concerns as the father of two daughters, ages six and nine, Obama said, "Of course, part of the coarsening of that culture is when politicians try to demagogue issues to score cheap political points." He later added, "Certainly, what we shouldn't do is engage in hypocrisy," a possible allusion to Romney's own support of age-appropriate sex
education standards when he was Governor of Massachusetts.

Posted by: PRETTY MITTY'S HYPOCRISY | July 20, 2007 11:31 AM | Report abuse

In fact, "redeployment" is a euphemism for flight from the battlefield. And we should no more expect an al Qaeda that won in Iraq to stop from pressing on to Kuwait or Saudi Arabia than we should imagine that a defeated U.S. military could rally and hold the line in the Gulf. Would the IEDs, the suicide bombers, the Internet videos of beheadings, the explosions in schools and mosques cease because they now would have to relocate across the border into Kuwait or Saudi Arabia?

In essence, the American military would be reconstituted for a generation -- and recognized as such by our enemies -- as a two-pronged force of air and sea power. The army at best would stay capable of fighting non-existent conventional wars but acknowledged as incapable of putting down increasingly frequent insurgencies. If Vietnam, Beirut, or Mogadishu left doubt as to the seriousness of American guarantees, Iraq would confirm that it is a dangerous thing to ally oneself with an American government and military. Aside from realignment in the Middle East, South Korea, Taiwan, and the Philippines would have to make the necessary "readjustments."

The "surge" would be our high-water mark, a sort of 21st-century Pickett's charge, after which skilled retreat, consolidation, holding the line, and redeployment would be the accepted mission of American arms.

It is not easy securing Iraq, but if we decide to quit and "redeploy," Americans should at least accept that the effort to stabilize Iraq was a crushing military defeat, that our generation established a precedent of withdrawing an entire army group from combat operations on the battlefield, and that the consequences will be better known even to our enemies than they are to us.

Posted by: VDH | July 20, 2007 11:30 AM | Report abuse

YOU NEVER ANSWER, CHICKENHAWK -- WHY AREN'T YOU IN THE MILITARY? SNIVELING COWARD.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 11:29 AM | Report abuse

Same Poll: Republicans Unpopular, Democrats Ahead -- And Huge Majority Want A Timetable
Some more figures from the same New York Times/CBS show that the Republican Party is in bad shape nationally. A generic Democrat beats a generic Republican for president by a 47%-32% margin, and the GOP's favorable/unfavorable rating is at 38%-56%, compared to the Democratic Party's 52%-41% rating. Meanwhile, a decisive majority of Americans say Congress should require a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq in funding bills: 61% say all funding should be blocked, 8% say no funding should be allowed at all, and only 28% say all funding should be allowed without conditions.

Posted by: ** | July 20, 2007 11:27 AM | Report abuse

As you probably know, on Monday TPMmuckraker's Laura McGann broke the story of Sen. Lisa Murkowski's (R-AK) sweetheart land deal with a big Alaska political contributor, Bob Penney, who's also involved in the investigation of fellow Sen. Stevens (R-AK). It's what everyone seems to be talking about in Alaska today and perhaps soon in Washington too.

Yesterday the Anchorage Daily News picked up Laura's story. And at this point it's really quite clear that Murkowski got an illegal gift to the tune of possibly $150,000.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 11:26 AM | Report abuse

Ignorant Kos koward - why aren't you in group therapy?

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 11:25 AM | Report abuse

we never/zoukie --

WHY AREN'T YOU IN THE MILITARY? TOO TIRED FROM JACKING OFF OVER HARRY REID'S PICTURE?

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 11:24 AM | Report abuse

Obama not's "executing" anybody. Does a woman have a choice in your fascist repub world. Do dr's have a say. Or is it politicains. Pass the buck. Blame blame blame.

Misdirection. Abortions? That's important today? 7/20/07. Abortions are the topic of discusion? I guess anything to talk the talk off the incompetant fascist republicans right? Sabotage the conversation with that which doesn't matter. That's what you do GOP. The GOP is a fish out of water rolling around, taking it's last breath. Attacking and passing the buck is your last grasp for air. You jhave a year. Then your party will go the way of the whigs. Good luck. You are irrelevant in a year. Use the year wisely. Do. Don't attack that which has no bearing. It only puts you in the hole, deeper, that you have dug YOURSELVES in.

Posted by: rufus | July 20, 2007 11:22 AM | Report abuse

'Ask yourself: Would a government that has lied us into two wars and is working to lie us into an attack on Iran shrink from staging "terrorist" attacks in order to remove opposition to its agenda?

Only a diehard minority believes in the honesty and integrity of the Bush-Cheney administration and in the truthfulness of the corporate media.

Hitler, who never achieved majority support in a German election, used the Reichstag fire to fan hysteria and push through the Enabling Act, which made him dictator. Determined tyrants never require majority support in order to overthrow constitutional orders.

The American constitutional system is near to being overthrown. Are coming "terrorist" events of which Chertoff warns and Santorum promises the means for overthrowing our constitutional democracy?'

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 11:22 AM | Report abuse

just kill them/zoukie

ANSWER US -- WHY AREN'T YOU IN THE MILITARY?

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

Capitol Hill (CNSNews.com) - Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) on Thursday blamed the Republican minority for sinking congressional approval ratings, calling recent poll results "a referendum on Republican obstructionism." Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) blamed President Bush.

Schumer told reporters that Republicans - who earlier this week blocked a Democratic amendment that would have mandated a troop withdrawal from Iraq, and who in June blocked a comprehensive immigration reform bill - are frustrating Americans who are hungry for change.

A Zogby telephone poll released Thursday showed approval of Congress "continues to plummet" and now sits at just 14 percent. Eighty-three percent of respondents gave Congress negative marks. The polling organization credited the low numbers to the "acrimonious scrimmage over immigration reform" in June.

"The American people are demanding change," Schumer said. "The one thing standing in the way is the Republicans in the Senate."

Reid echoed Schumer's frustration with Republicans but was also quick to blame Bush.

"When you have a president who is so unpopular ... it really reflects poorly on Congress," Reid said. "None of them [congressional approval ratings] are real high and we acknowledge that, but most of it relates to the unpopularity of the president."

Bush's job approval ratings in Zogby polls have been in the low and mid-30s since October 2006. This week it stood at 34 percent.

Reid's contention, however, jarred with the view of the polling company, which described Bush's job approval rating as having "stabilized" while saying that "opinion of the work Congress is doing continues to plummet."

The current congressional rating is eight points lower today than it was for the Republican-controlled Congress just one week before Republicans lost control of both houses of Congress in the November 2006 elections.

Posted by: we never accept blame, we're Libs | July 20, 2007 11:20 AM | Report abuse

John/zoukie -- transparent moron, soooo in love with Harry Reid, can't stop thinking about him, all day long.

ANSWER ZOUKIE, WHY AREN'T YOU IN THE MILITARY?

Why do you sit here typing all day when you could be out 'winning the war' you're so crazy about.

Every single war supporter who comes on here and talking about winning -- that isn't in the military -- owes the rest of us an explanation.

I don't want to hear what you think about the war -- I WANT TO KNOW WHY YOU AREN'T FIGHTING IT.

Posted by: Jane | July 20, 2007 11:19 AM | Report abuse

B husain Obama the executioner

In a speech on Tuesday, Barack Obama told his audience that the 2008 presidential election would answer the question: "What kind of America will our daughters grow up in?" What, one might wonder, does he want to protect our daughters from? An oversexualized culture? Predators on the Internet? Alas, no. Mr. Obama was addressing a Planned Parenthood convention and worried that if the wrong person got into the White House, our daughters might grow up in a country without . . . partial-birth abortions

Posted by: just kill them | July 20, 2007 11:18 AM | Report abuse

So Jeff Merkley is thinking of taking on Gordon Smith in Oregon? I'm certainly no fam of Smith's, but Merkley is going to have to overcome the "Who's he?" factor. He may be the House Speaker, but he's only held that office since the beginning of the year, and his name recognition is not very high in the state. The fact that he was a Pentagon analyst in the Reagan administration is more likely to work against him in indigo Portland, where any DLC-ish Democrat is viewed with great suspicion. However much I'd like to see Smith unseated, it's not going to be easy to do, particularly with him tacking with the antiwar Democrats during the past few months. Oregons like their Senators moderate, of whatever party, and Smith fits the mold of Hatfield/Packwood-style middle-of-the-road Republicans.

Posted by: BZ | July 20, 2007 11:17 AM | Report abuse

rIGHT jOHN. eVERYTHING IS THE DEMOCRATS FAUKT. tHE LAST 15 YEARS. All democrats. Right.

Pass the buck. It's all you have left. You people need to look in the mirror. Who elected Bush and his FASCIST administration twice? It wasn't me. Look in the mirror if you people want to blame someone. Reid and pelosi have been in for a few months. All I hear on this sites are attacks on them and hillary. All day. Place the BLAME where it's due. Look in the mirror.

Posted by: RUFUS | July 20, 2007 11:16 AM | Report abuse

So Reid had a terrible week. He looked like a boob and a buffoon. Yet the week was also an undeniable triumph for him- for two reasons. One is cynical, and one is even more cynical.

The first cynical reason is that elected Democrats in Washington believe it helps them politically to talk constantly about the war and to look as though they're taking steps to end it.

Reid knew full well that his all-night jam was going to end in failure. But by staging the fight, he threw some red meat to his party's hysterical anti-war wing - thereby ensuring its fealty, its loyalty and the easy flow of its money into Democratic coffers.

Even more cynically, he was able to stage the all-night session precisely because he knew Republicans wouldn't let the proposal come to a vote. The 120-day proposal isn't a serious effort to end the war: It's just a feel-good, symbolic gesture. Democrats don't have to take any responsibility for it because it will never get beyond the gesture stage.

So Reid tells the American people and the anti-war Democrats that he's doing everything he can to try and end the war while knowing full well that nothing he's doing actually matters.

That's canny. So in losing, he kind of won. Even so, somebody quicker on his feet and faster with a quip could have managed to play the same political game without looking quite so much like a dope.

Posted by: dopes R us | July 20, 2007 11:15 AM | Report abuse

In conventional terms, Reid stage-managed a disaster on Tuesday when he had the Senate stay up all night to debate the Iraq war in preparation for a vote on a bill to start withdrawing troops in three months.

What Reid did came to naught. He failed to get a vote on the bill he wanted. He acted peeved and peevish. He retaliated against those who'd opposed him by refusing to allow a vote on a bill to increase pay for military personnel serving in Iraq, which is politically stupid any way you look at it (not to mention morally questionable).

What's more, Reid handled the whole business like a rank amateur, not like a seasoned politico and parliamentarian, which is what the Senate majority leader is supposed to be.

First he called the all-nighter a "stunt" - not exactly the language you want to use when you're claiming to be focusing on the most important issue of our time.

Second, there were incongruous notes of good cheer and sophomoric excitement amid the supposedly profound sorrow and anger attending the war debate - boxes of pizza filled with yummy cheesy goodness; senators giddily toting their toothbrushes to work; cots delivered so senators could rest in a "nap room."

Reid acted simultaneously as though the all-night talkathon was a college rush party and an incredible hardship on those poor, poor senators.

Posted by: John | July 20, 2007 11:13 AM | Report abuse

:)

Posted by: RUFUS | July 20, 2007 11:12 AM | Report abuse

i see London, I see France
I see Rufus' underpants!

Posted by: kingofzouk | July 20, 2007 11:09 AM | Report abuse

Who benefits from all this fundraising? The media. Why is the media so focused on fundraising? Your guess is as good as mine.

Posted by: Katharine | July 20, 2007 11:07 AM | Report abuse

Who saw Bill O'Reilly last night. "I don't attack people EVERYDAY. I'm not a vile propogandist. I' not a fascist. Daily Koz are fascsits. You call me a fascsit? I know you are but what am I."

Fricking fascsits republicans. First liberals are traitors, then un-american, then socailists, now fascists. I guess keep hurling labels until one takes. Not going to work. He has a couple months. The fascists republcian's cannot spin this around on liberals. You cannot plave the blame of the last ten years on the democrats. People that are in the know know better. It just shows his face.

"I know you are but what am I." Fricking republicans. Elementary school children.

Posted by: rufus1133 | July 20, 2007 11:04 AM | Report abuse

Michael Zouk says: "(A)ll they've (Democrats) done since is rant about the war in Iraq, talk about raising taxes, and go on a witch hunt in an attempt to find something -- anything - illegal in the firing of a handful of U. S. Attorneys who got the boot from the Justice Department when the president exercised his constitutional right to right to fire them without explanation. This provides a glimpse into their utter incompetence as lawmakers."

-Actually, the Democratic House has passed their entire agenda. It has been tied up procedurally by obstructionist Republicans in the Senate. "This provides a glimpse into their utter incompetence as lawmakers."

Hawkins Zouk asks: "Furthermore, have liberals really considered the consequences of having Democrats in Washington decide to lose a war that our generals in Iraq and a significant portion of the American public still believe we can win?"

-This is a war against a poorly-defined enemy, for reasons which have proven to be false, which has cost the American taxpayer over half a trillion - with a "tr" - dollars, and to what end? Over 70% of Iraqis surveyed would rather the US left TODAY. So if we're not fighting for them, and Iraq had no nukes etc., and Iraq was not part of 09.11, why are we there? to provide easy targets for the terrorists who only arrived in Iraq AFTER we allowed them to?

He goes on:

"Five years down the line, is it really going to be healthy to have a large percentage of the American public believing, with good reason, that the Democratic Party deliberately allowed Al-Qaeda to defeat American troops because it would help the Dems politically?"

And I repeat - the situation in reality is that Bush Cheney + Rumsfeld DELIBERATELY allowed al Qaeda the opportunity to establish themselves in Iraq because following 09.11, they believed that Bush had to be seen as taking decisive action against "the ter'rists," never mind that they had no defensible reason for doing so. Furthermore, intercepted statements indicate the we are doing precisely what bin Laden WANTS us to do... fueling anti-American sentiment across the Arab world. It's good for Qaeda recruiting, and it advances his agenda of a semi-global Islamic caliphate... one which, because Bush took his eye off the ball in Pakistan, is now perilously close to being a nuclear-armed threat.

Posted by: Meet the Zouks, a modern Stone Age family | July 20, 2007 11:01 AM | Report abuse

My apologies for not posting a working link to the blog I referenced:

http://senatus.wordpress.com

Posted by: Publius | July 20, 2007 11:01 AM | Report abuse

Texas - Yes that is a state in these here United States - we are not the smartest Americans but we are too a State.

Sentor John Cornyn- Reputrican appoval ratings are constantly in the low 40%

http://www.khou.com/news/state/stories/khou070709_rm_wattscampaignfunds.5b7927f1.html

His possible Democratic opponent, with money raised so far 1.1 million plus the 10 million of his own money he has pledge so far - that puts him at 11.1 million dollars for a senate race wherein the incumbent has an approval rating in the low 40%

Now I realize we Texans are not all that bright and our math skills are questionable - but Texas appears to be a trouble spot for the Reputricans

Cornyn has managed to offend everyone but the whites in the middle

http://balancingtheissues.com/cornyn.htm

IT IS TIME FOR AMERICANS TO DUMP SYMBOLIC BODY BAGS AT THE DOOR STEP OF EVERY US SENATOR BLOCKING A VOTE ON ENDING THE WAR

http://balancingtheissues.com/Hannity'sInsanity.htm

Chris- why does the WPO not consider Texas a serious race?

Posted by: Bobby Wightman-Cervantes | July 20, 2007 10:55 AM | Report abuse

I never do get an answer from Iraq war supporters to this question, but I'll ask it again. How can Democrats "lose a war" that our military won years ago? The only issue now is whether we try to force the militar to continue policing a CIVIL WAR.

Posted by: Colin | July 20, 2007 10:55 AM | Report abuse

This talk about fundraising is quite intriguing. However, I personally feel that sometimes uninformed voters see early fundraising numbers as a harbinger for a "good" candidate. Though it is sometimes painful, or time-consuming to do, a responsible citizenry has the obligation to keep themselves informed on the actual merits of the candidates, via their voting records and bill sponsorship. Snippets of these comments are usually available on the major news networks, but oftentimes the context is completely lost. I applaud the industry for thriving in the fair market. They are, after all only providing what is demanded. If we, as a society demand more information, they will gladly provide. One way to stay abreast of the actual goings-on in the Senate or House is to watch C-SPAN who covers almost every minute of every Senate and House session. Another alternative is to read blogs (www.senatus.wordpress.com is a constantly updated blog covering the Senate) where the information is condensed, but context is maintained. This is not to say that this commentor is perfectly informed. Just that he knows the importance of such an aspiration.

Posted by: Publius | July 20, 2007 10:51 AM | Report abuse

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4i1Wd8p-ivw

Its official, edwards is a laughingstock. Laugh along.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 10:49 AM | Report abuse

hey michael/ reagan/ hawken/zoukie--

WHY AREN'T YOU IN THE MILITARY?

too busy obsessing/dreaming about Harry Reid?

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 10:41 AM | Report abuse

Ending poverty is certainly a noble goal -- but from the policy proposals Obama and Edwards offered, it appears neither has a clue about how to go about it. Both men want more government spending, as if adding a few billion more to the $11 trillion that has been spent on poverty programs since President Lyndon Johnson first initiated the War on Poverty in 1964 would finally produce the desired results. Worse, some of the proposals they offered would likely harm poor families, not help them.

Posted by: Linda | July 20, 2007 10:41 AM | Report abuse

The Evil One says:

"100% of primates are more intelligent than ignorant Kos koward."

Yes, but neocons aren't primates. They may not be capable of rational decision-making. Some scientists say that they have demonstrated tool-using behavior, but the jury's still out.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 10:41 AM | Report abuse

Think about it. If another 9/11-type "security failure" were not in the works, why would Homeland Security czar Chertoff go to the trouble of convincing the Chicago Tribune that Americans have become complacent about terrorist threats and that he has "a gut feeling" that America will soon be hit hard?

Why would Republican warmonger Rick Santorum say on the Hugh Hewitt radio show that "between now and November, a lot of things are going to happen, and I believe that by this time next year, the American public's (sic) going to have a very different view of this war."

Throughout its existence the US government has staged incidents that the government then used in behalf of purposes that it could not otherwise have pursued. According to a number of writers, false flag operations have been routinely used by the Israeli state. During the Czarist era in Russia, the secret police would set off bombs in order to arrest those the secret police regarded as troublesome. Hitler was a dramatic orchestrator of false flag operations. False flag operations are a commonplace tool of governments.

Ask yourself: Would a government that has lied us into two wars and is working to lie us into an attack on Iran shrink from staging "terrorist" attacks in order to remove opposition to its agenda?

Only a diehard minority believes in the honesty and integrity of the Bush-Cheney administration and in the truthfulness of the corporate media.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 10:38 AM | Report abuse

One thinks of March 1975. Liberal New York Times columnist Anthony Lewis scoffed at warnings of a coming bloodbath in Southeast Asia. "Some will find the whole bloodbath debate unreal. What future possibility could be more terrible than the reality of what is happening to Cambodia now?" Most Democrats agreed with Lewis.

Six weeks later, the last Americans lifted off in helicopters from the roof of the U.S. embassy in Saigon, leaving hundreds of panicked South Vietnamese immediately behind and an entire region to the mercy of the communists. The scene was similar in Phnom Penh. The torture and murder spree that followed left millions of corpses. The psychological effect on America -- despite dozens of declarations that the Vietnam Syndrome is dead -- has not yet been transcended.

Posted by: history repeats | July 20, 2007 10:37 AM | Report abuse

'Unless Congress immediately impeaches Bush and Cheney, a year from now the US could be a dictatorial police state at war with Iran.

Bush has put in place all the necessary measures for dictatorship in the form of "executive orders" that are triggered whenever Bush declares a national emergency. Recent statements by Homeland Security Chief Michael Chertoff, former Republican senator Rick Santorum and others suggest that Americans might expect a series of staged, or false flag, "terrorist" events in the near future.

Many attentive people believe that the reason the Bush administration will not bow to expert advice and public opinion and begin withdrawing US troops from Iraq is that the administration intends to rescue its unpopular position with false flag operations that can be used to expand the war to Iran.

Too much is going wrong for the Bush administration: the failure of its Middle East wars, Republican senators jumping ship, Turkish troops massed on northern Iraq's border poised for an invasion to deal with Kurds, and a majority of Americans favoring the impeachment of Cheney and a near-majority favoring Bush's impeachment. The Bush administration desperately needs dramatic events to scare the American people and the Congress back in line with the militarist-police state that Bush and Cheney have fostered.

William Norman Grigg recently wrote that the GOP is "praying for a terrorist strike" to save the party from electoral wipeout in 2008.
Chertoff, Cheney, the neocon nazis, and Mossad would have no qualms about saving the bacon for the Republicans, who have enabled Bush to start two unjustified wars, with Iran waiting in the wings to be attacked in a third war.'

--former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration, former Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review

Posted by: Paul Craig Roberts | July 20, 2007 10:37 AM | Report abuse

Furthermore, have liberals really considered the consequences of having Democrats in Washington decide to lose a war that our generals in Iraq and a significant portion of the American public still believe we can win? Five years down the line, is it really going to be healthy to have a large percentage of the American public believing, with good reason, that the Democratic Party deliberately allowed Al-Qaeda to defeat American troops because it would help the Dems politically? If you think the political atmosphere is poisonous today, just wait until Iraq erupts into genocide and madness, while Al-Qaeda is crowing about their victory over America, and everyone knows that the Democrats made it happen.

Long story short, having the United States lose a winnable war in Iraq would be a disaster all the way around and that's why I would implore Democrats in Congress to put their country ahead of petty political concerns for once, to help avert the disaster they're setting us up for in Iraq.

Posted by: Hawkins | July 20, 2007 10:35 AM | Report abuse

According to The Politico, it then later developed that the $1 million earmark was for the benefit of Mrs. Pelosi's bosom buddy, and fellow crusader against congressional corruption, one Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa.

It later turned out that the Center is a nonprofit technological consulting firm. The Politico noted that "A brief search of campaign finance records shows CTC President and CEO Daniel R. DeVos, of alternately Central City and Johnstown, Pa. has contributed $7,000 to Murtha's reelection campaign since April 2002."

Flake moved to eliminate the funds destined for a group nobody could be sure existed, but the House rejected his attempt to strike the funds, 326-98. The Visclosky bill also breezed through, 312-112.

So much for Mrs. Pelosi's crusade against congressional corruption.

Posted by: m reagan | July 20, 2007 10:32 AM | Report abuse

When the Democrats took control of Congress they couldn't wait to tell America how much they were going to accomplish.

That was seven months ago, and all they've done since is rant about the war in Iraq, talk about raising taxes, and go on a witch hunt in an attempt to find something -- anything - illegal in the firing of a handful of U. S. Attorneys who got the boot from the Justice Department when the president exercised his constitutional right to right to fire them without explanation. This provides a glimpse into their utter incompetence as lawmakers.

Posted by: Michael | July 20, 2007 10:31 AM | Report abuse

In case you've been wondering who would play George C. Scott's role of the mad Air Force General if they every did a remake of Dr. Strangelove, I think Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson just volunteered.

You see, after chatting with his buddy Tony Snow, Gerson figured out that if we just started rounding up the thousands of Iranians who, being next door neighbors and friendly with their fellow Shia in the al-Maliki government, are legally in Iraq, and just started bombing "Syria's Ho Chi Minh Trail of terrorists" to interdict the North Vietnamese Army Saudis and North Africans invading Iraq, America can finally get its manhood back.

Time to rev up the B-52s on Diego Garcia for some good ole "carpet" bombing. I guess we'll just write off these people.

The neocons who advise and control the Bush/Cheney White House are completely insane; if that gang isn't removed from power soon, they'll have the entire Middle East in flames and get thousands of US soldiers, contractors and aid workers killed.

Posted by: Christy | July 20, 2007 10:29 AM | Report abuse

Hey zoukie, chickenhawk, why aren't YOU in the military?

WHY?

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 10:28 AM | Report abuse

I am not surprised that the Bush haters like Sullivan and Cole are outraged that General Petraeus would be interviewed by an admirer of the president, or that the anti-war extremists like Greenwald, Yglesias and the others cannot disguise their contempt for the military (though they think their attack on General Petraeus' integrity won't identify them as anti-military.)

I'm not surprised that new media journalists producing interviews of a sort far superior to what MSM serves up in one minute sound bytes excites the anger of folks who prefer their defeatist agendas advanced by a dominant MSM. They don't want the Beltway-Manhattan media elites to lose their monopoly on "important" interviews as that means instead of Democratic journalists like Tim Russert, George Stephanopoulos and Chris Matthews asking defeat-slanted questions, new media outlets will step in and allow serious people to make extended arguments about the stakes in Iraq and the state of the various battles in the broader war on terror.

And I'm not surprised that the unmistakable signs of the tactical success of the surge has the gang breaking out in the sweats at the prospect of a change in some of the public's view of Iraq. There's a long time between now and November, 2008, and continued progress in Iraq and Afghanistan will leave the defeatist Democrats exposed as wholly unqualified to steward the national security of the United States.

What surprises me is that the extremists have fallen so deeply into their own narrative that they are wholly unaware of how their call for strict control of the news and their slander of the widely and rightly admired extraordinary hero that is General Petraeus exposes them to the public as deeply unbalanced, anti-intellectual and far, far removed from the mainstream of America. This disconnection from ordinary Americans is always obvious when a leftist resorts to the most foul sorts of profanity and vulgarity, but the rage that bubbles and erupts again and again is the sort of eye-opener that not even friends can ignore for very long. The demands for the Fairness Doctrine's return displayed the same sort of zealotry in the attempt to shut down voices not in keeping with their own. The illiberal reflexiveness of the left tells you all you need to know about how they would govern if they ever got close to power.

And any member of the military who speaks candidly about the necessity of victory and with confidence in our forces and with facts about their increasing success is going to get slimed by the extremists, even if it is General Petraeus. That's just the cost of defending the country these days -exposure to all the many dangers war brings, and a relentless smear campaign from the very people you are keeping safe from terrorists and the religious extremists who would stone them the first week they had power over them

The ear-splitting shrieks of outrage at General Petraeus' interview with me should be a huge signal that this is what the anti-war extremists fear most: The calm presentation of facts at length by those in a position to know them, engaged in an interview the unpredictability of which makes the exchange interesting

Allowing the know-nothing, anti-intellectual fringe to block the flow of information to the American public via invective, slander and scorn that would be to keep the best, most compelling testimony from the public at a time when they need it most.

Posted by: hugh | July 20, 2007 10:27 AM | Report abuse

All the major corporate media have run stories on Edwards haricuts for weeks now -- why has not a single one covered Romney's expensive beauty regimen? My, he's a pretty thing, and so pampered:

'The perception that Mitt Romney is some sort of pretty-boy was burnished earlier this week when reports emerged that he spent $300 in campaign funds for makeup "consulting" this year.

It turns out Romney has maintained an expensive beauty regimen for years.

A RAW STORY analysis of Romney's campaign finance records during his time as Massachusetts governor shows he spent nearly $2,000 on makeup artists. The personal-beautification spending was divided over six sessions to three separate companies. Individual makeup jobs ranged in price from $180 to $690.

After reports emerged in April that Democratic candidate John Edwards spent $400 for a haircut, the media jumped on the story. But strangely, not Romney's makeup.

Romney himself was quick to join the Edwards-bashing bandwagon, telling Massachusetts reporters that he paid no more than $50 for a trim.

"You know I think John Edwards was right. There are two Americas. There is the America where people pay $400 for a haircut and then there is everybody else," Romney said.

Romney's first make-up expense dates back to April of 2002, when he listed a $400 expenditure on "make up for convention." It's an apparent reference to Romney's speech that month to the Massachusetts Republican convention when he was formally anointed as the GOP's gubernatorial candidate.

Posted by: Jane | July 20, 2007 10:26 AM | Report abuse

I think list is spot on Chris. I think Republicans will definately be on the defensive in 2008. I agree that Landrieu and Collins probably aren't as vulnerable as we'd like to think, but they're spots on the list are still warranted. I was surprised to not see New Mexico on the list. Also, Texas might at least warrant a mention due to Cornyn's weak presence in the state and his challengers (sorry I forget his name) willingness to plop down millions for the campaign.

Posted by: Poligeek88 | July 20, 2007 10:22 AM | Report abuse

President Bush yesterday rejected entreaties by his Republican allies that he compromise with Democrats on legislation to renew a popular program that provides health coverage to poor children.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 10:20 AM | Report abuse

The Pope is a primate. You're on early today, zoukie.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 10:19 AM | Report abuse

On July 13, 2007, I visited Section 60 of Arlington National Cemetery, where the bodies of American soldiers killed in Iraq were freshly interred. Afterwards, I headed across the street to the Sheraton National Hotel, owned by right-wing Korean cult leader Sun Myung-Moon, to meet some of the war's most fervent supporters at the College Republican National Convention.

In conversations with at least twenty College Republicans about the war in Iraq, I listened as they lip-synched discredited cant about "fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here." Many of the young GOP cadres I met described the so-called "war on terror" as nothing less than the cause of their time.

Yet when I asked these College Repulicans why they were not participating in this historical cause, they immediately went into contortions. Asthma. Bad knees from playing catcher in high school. "Medical reasons." "It's not for me." These were some of the excuses College Republicans offered for why they could not fight them "over there." Like the current Republican leaders who skipped out on Vietnam, the GOP's next generation would rather cheerlead from the sidelines for the war in Iraq while other, less privileged young men and women fight and die.

Along with videographer Thomas Shomaker, I captured a vivid portrait of the hypocritical mentality of the next generation of Republican leaders. See for yourself.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-blumenthal/generation-chickenhawk-t_b_56676.html

Posted by: Max Blumenthall | July 20, 2007 10:18 AM | Report abuse

100% of primates are more intelligent than ignorant Kos koward

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 10:16 AM | Report abuse

Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Jon Kyl (R-AZ) raced to the television cameras this afternoon to offer hyperbolic attacks against Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, following Reid's decision to pull the entire Defense Authorization bill from consideration. McCain and Kyl were quick to dishonestly politicize Reid's maneuver, after obstructing passage of the bill over opposition to an Iraq redeployment amendment.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 10:13 AM | Report abuse

On Tuesday, the administration released its latest National Intelligence Report, asserting that al Qaeda has "regenerated key elements of its Homeland attack capability" and is leveraging "the contacts and capabilities" gained via the Iraq war.

In today's USA Today, White House spokesperson Tony Snow pens an op-ed denying the intelligence report's conclusions, making disingenuous and historically false claims about the war in Iraq. Below is a rebuttal of his key myths:

SNOW: "We never argued that [Hussein] played a role 9/11; political opponents manufactured the claim."

FACT: The resolution authorizing force stated,"[m]embers of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks...that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq."

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 10:11 AM | Report abuse

regarding Sen Coleman's reelection bid, I tend to think he's going to have a rought time of it. On the one hand, he's apparently raised the 2nd most money of any Replican Senator facing reelection in 2008, but that's largely PAC money, for which he will be (and already is being) criticized. Of course, Franken's money comes largely from Hollywood, for which he is also being criticized. I think MN voters would get behind a local independant voice, the trouble being that no such voice has yet shown up.

This seat was once held by a principled, extremely liberal political science professor who came out of the ranks of rank-and-file party activists to win the seat, primarily due to his passion. Wellstone was far more liberal than most Minnesotans, but won & retained the seat on his principled stances - you couldn't help but respect the guy. I think a similar candidate could take the seat this year, if such a person were to run. At this point, neither big name candidate, nor Ciresi, are very inspiring to voters.

Posted by: bsimon | July 20, 2007 10:09 AM | Report abuse

77 percent of Iraqis want the U.S. troops to withdraw within a year.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 10:08 AM | Report abuse

You forgot executive privilege and the so-called "Terrorist Surveillance Progam". Even Abu Ghraib couldn't cost Unchecked Dear Leader Arbusto the election. Get ready for a Jeb or President Neil Bush. And if the polls continue to reflect Bush's low character, expect more Mel Carnahans, Paul Wellstones and Tim Johnsons. God bless Florida-style "Democracy".

Posted by: Ann Richards | July 20, 2007 10:08 AM | Report abuse

According to a new Congressional Research Service report, the war in Iraq has cost $450 billion to date. Further, if Congress approves the Bush administration's latest supplemental funding request, the total cost of the war will exceed $550 billion by October 1 of this year -- fully ten times greater than the Bush administration naively predicted in February 2003.

The report also details the costs of the war in Afghanistan -- $127 billion -- and other Department of Defense War on Terror expenditures -- $28 billion. The CRS also notes approximately $5 billion dollars that cannot be "allocated." In total, the "Global War on Terror" has cost $610 billion.

Other notable findings of the report:

Costs Rose Sharply In 2007: "[W]ar appropriations rose steeply in FY2007. DOD received $165.8 billion for war costs in FY2007 -- about 40% more than the previous year. ... VA medical costs for [Iraq/Afghanistan] veterans will be about $1 billion, according to CRS estimates" in 2007.

$12 Billion Per Month: "For the first half of FY2007, CRS estimates that [Defense Department's] average monthly obligations for contracts and pay are running about $12 billion per month, well above the estimated $8.7 billion in FY2006."

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 10:07 AM | Report abuse

Although the military commanders vowed to produce the September report on time, Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno said he would need "at least until November" to get a full picture of the situation on the ground. In addition, Crocker asked Congress not to place so much emphasis on the benchmarks, which, he admitted, Iraqi lawmakers are unlikely to meet.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 10:03 AM | Report abuse

'The Wall Street Journal tops its world-wide newsbox with, and the Los Angeles Times top non-local story is devoted to, the video conferences that lawmakers had with top military officials in Iraq and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker, who said they need more time beyond the much-awaited September report to assess whether the current strategy is working. The WSJ focuses on how it is clear that U.S. commanders have already "mapped out plans" to continue with the surge into next year.'

And the year after that, and after that... wonder what they'll use for troops once the current ones are all dead from exhaustion or suicide after 5 or 6 or 7 tours of duty one after another?

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 10:02 AM | Report abuse

Chris writes, about Sen Hagel:
"The truth is that the decision may have already have been made for Hagel. The incumbent's outspoken opposition to the war in Iraq puts him out of step with the average Nebraska primary voter"

Apparently all the remaining supporters of the Bush plan for Iraq are GOP primary voters in Nebraska.

Seriously, are there so many people in Nebraska that still support the war in Iraq that an incumbent Senator is in danger of losing a primary? That shocks me.

Posted by: bsimon | July 20, 2007 9:59 AM | Report abuse

A McConnell defeat wouldn't mean the death of the GOP, but it would be a gigantic symbolic reversal of the GOP's dominance following the reelection of Bush and the Republicans' defeat of Tom Daschle in South Dakota.

I agree with keeping an eye on North Carolina. Despite the state's clear Republican leanings, at the state level the Democratic party has remained dominant. Dole is vulnerable to a well-waged challenge, but she will likely be helped by the Republican presidential candidate topping the ballot.

Posted by: Peter in OH | July 20, 2007 9:55 AM | Report abuse

JEP, the average Nebraskan Republcian Primary voter probably does support the war. The real question is how many of those people still exist.

Posted by: Andy R | July 20, 2007 9:49 AM | Report abuse

While I agree that Susan Collins is an independent voice in Maine and generally well liked by her constituents, the Democrats are running exactly the right guy in Tom Allen who is equally independent and well liked. He also has huge name recognition in the state for someone who has not held a state wide office (partly because being mayor of the state's largest city and then representative of its most populated area goes far in a small state such as Maine). This race will likely come down to a referendum on the state of the Republican party in November of '08.

Posted by: Drew | July 20, 2007 9:46 AM | Report abuse

"The incumbent's outspoken opposition to the war in Iraq puts him out of step with the average Nebraska primary voter..."

have you spoken with any Nebraskans lately, Chris?

MOST of them think this war is a mistake.

Hagel is still thinking "Presidential." With the war as the issue, and the other Republicans all missing the public cue, Hagel may have more of a formula for success than you are suggesting, in terms of the Republican Party.

If enough of Hagel's born-again constituents start to realize he's been right about this war all along, and they also realize he matches all their other "moral issues" like a glove on a hand, they might start supporting him as their candidate..

The ONLY place Hagel differs from the rest of the hyena pack is about the war, and if public sentiment keeps changing, even in the reddest states you'll see candidates like Hagel fitting into the game, who could not compete before.

Posted by: JEP | July 20, 2007 9:38 AM | Report abuse

The line looks good to me except I don't think Landrieu is in as much trouble as you make it out to be. With the recent Vitter debacle I just don't see the GOP putting a real challenger out there. Taken with the fact that she has done a pretty decent job of keeping Katrina and the rebuilding of New Orleans in the minds of Americans. And by the way it is completely ridiculous that New Orleans is not the Number one domestic concern of this nation.

I agree with Judge too that if McConnel loses then that will be the death kneel of the Grand Old Party.

Susan Collins isn't in much trouble if you ask me. She is a pretty independent voice in the Senate and if is hard too paint her as a partisan type of politician. Plus they don't call them Mainiacs for nothing.

Posted by: Andy R | July 20, 2007 9:26 AM | Report abuse

What I find most interesting about the Strategic Vision poll is that 77% of Republicans noted that President Bush is not a conservative in the same "mode" as Ronald Reagan, which may come as a shock to many observers who still retain the bad memories, for t hat is exactly what he is, an activist for corporate welfare, warmongering, and selling the people of this country a vision of the world upside down.

Conservatives, of course, are always talking about the necessity to return to a world that never was, an Eden once upon a time of little or no government, where markets functioned smoothly to give everyone what s/he needed in perfect accordance with talent and merit, a society devoid of gross social injustice, wars, crime, or even monopolies. Apparently a capacity for astonishing delusions is a requisite in the conservative affiliation

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 9:24 AM | Report abuse

North Carolina should definitely be on this list. Dole's approvals are under 50% and she has been with Bush nearly 100% of the time.

She is definitely vulnerable to the right candidate.

Posted by: Will | July 20, 2007 9:24 AM | Report abuse

A recent analysis by the Gallup Poll showed energy as Americans' fourth most-important priority for Washington, below Iraq, terrorism and national security, and the economy.


'The analysis also showed Americans prefer energy conservation over more production, and that a large majority also favors tightening emissions standards and developing alternative sources of energy.

When asked to rate the importance of issues in voting for a presidential candidate next year, 43 percent of Americans said gas prices would be "extremely important," according to a May poll by Opinion Research Corporation. The percentage was tied with health care and below Iraq, terrorism and education.'

Posted by: paying attention, candidates? | July 20, 2007 9:19 AM | Report abuse

15,000 firefighters battling 1,000 new fires reported since Monday--a startling record.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 9:16 AM | Report abuse

Good stuff, Cillizza. Your senate predictions are clearly the best on the internets.
I think McConnell will get a competitive race. He's gotten a lot of the wrong kind of attention lately, and Kentucky is very anti-Bush and anti-Iraq War right now. The Republican brand isn't doing so well either.
North Carolina didn't make your top 10, but I think you should keep Dole's race in mind. State Representative Grier Martin has been mentioned as a possible challenger, because he did well in a poll against Dole. Dole is very vulnerable to the out-of-touch Washington insider attack. When Rep. Brad Miller briefly considered running, he portrayed Dole as a carpetbagger.
In Oregon it looks like Jeff Merkley will run. He has an excellent chance of defeating Gordon Smith.
If Al Franken can raise that much money, you're right, it may not matter if national Democrats are very enthusiastic about his candidacy.

Posted by: cilerder86 | July 20, 2007 8:45 AM | Report abuse

"a serious candidate to take on Sen. Mitch McConnell (R). "

If McConnell loses that would be the world turned upside down, wouldn't it? Ouch.

If the D's take the WH next year will Collins switch parties?

Speaking of the WH race, did anyone else see the polling numbers in SC this morning on CNN (I don't have a link, sorry)? Looks like the average white voter there prefers Edwards over both Obama and HRC. Draw your own conclusions. This supports my contention regarding Edwards' VP suitability.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | July 20, 2007 8:16 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company