Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

The Line: 46 Days to Ky.'s Gubernatorial Primary!

Even The Fix finds it hard to believe that we're just about 6 weeks away from the first gubernatorial primary of the 2007-2008 election cycle. And that first one is going to be a doozy.

Kentucky Gov. Ernie Fletcher, the first Republican governor in the state since the early 1970s, is fighting for his political life against former Rep. Anne Northup in the May 22 GOP primary. On the Democratic side, seemingly every elected official in the state is running, with two(!) former lieutenant governors currently leading the pack. (That has to be some sort of historical first, right?)

Most Democrats believe Fletcher, who has battled a series of ethical scandals throughout his first term, is the easier candidate to face in the general election. Northup lost her reelection race in the 3rd district last November, but her base in the Louisville area could make it difficult for Democrats to build a statewide coalition.

While Kentucky heats up, the Bluegrass State is still nowhere near as hot as Louisiana, where Gov. Kathleen Blanco (D) decided to take a pass on a campaign for a second term, seemingly opening the door for former Sen. John Breaux (D) to step in and save the day for the party. But Breaux faces residency questions that don't look likely to be resolved anytime soon, and polling shows Rep. Bobby Jindal (R) with a wide lead even if Breaux does qualify for the ballot.

As always, the No. 1 ranked race below is the most likely to result in a party switch. The comments section awaits your kudos and critiques.

To the Line!

5. North Carolina (2008): Given North Carolina's Republican tendencies on the federal level and the fact that Gov. Mike Easley (D) is vacating the seat after eight years in office, it would seem that GOPers would be licking their chops at the opportunity to win this open seat. But most neutral observers believe the two strongest candidates are running for the Democratic nomination -- Lt. Gov. Beverly Perdue and state Treasurer Richard Moore. Several Republicans -- wealthy businessman Bill Graham, former state Supreme Court Justice Bob Orr and state Sens. Fred Smith and Robert Pittenger -- are running, but none is particularly well-known or appears to be generating much excitement. Any open seat in a state the 2008 Republican presidential nominee will almost certainly carry by a double-digit margin belongs on The Line, but the Democratic nominee will begin the general-election campaign as the favorite. (Previous ranking: 4)

4. Indiana (2008): Democrats got their man last month when Indianapolis architect Jim Schellinger formally announced his gubernatorial candidacy. Schellinger is making all the right early moves, including signing on the executive director of the state party to head his fundraising operation. Schellinger appears to be the preferred candidate of the party establishment, since he is a carbon copy (pro-growth, pro-business) of Indianapolis Mayor Bart Peterson (D). Even so, Schellinger seems likely to face a primary challenge. State Sen. Richard Young is already in the race, and former Rep. Jill Long Thompson is considering a bid. Long Thompson's recent attacks on Gov. Mitch Daniels's (R) plan to lease the Indiana Toll Road seems to suggest she is laying the groundwork for a candidacy. Daniels's numbers have bounced back somewhat and should be helped by an increased Republican turnout in a presidential year, but he is in for a serious race. (Previous ranking: 5)

3. Missouri (2008): Republicans insist that Gov. Matt Blunt's (R) reelection numbers are slowly but surely creeping upward. In a March survey conducted for Blunt's campaign by Linda DiVall, the governor's job-approval number was at 53 percent approve/41 percent disapprove -- up from 46/44 in a January poll done for the campaign. "While these numbers are obviously not where they need to be on Election Day, the consistent improvement is a sign that Governor Blunt will be in a much better position once the campaign begins next years," DiVall wrote in the polling memo. State Attorney General Jay Nixon will be the Democratic nominee and may receive a bit of a bump if, as expected, Missouri returns to its longtime status as a battleground state in the presidential race. The two campaigns are already attacking each other almost daily. This race looks likely to be the most expensive and nasty race of the 2008 governors cycle. (Previous ranking: 3)

2. Kentucky (2007): The Fix debated long and hard about moving Kentucky into the No. 1 slot, but uncertainty over which candidates will win the two parties' nominations kept it at No. 2. Gov. Fletcher is putting up a surprisingly game fight -- seeking to cast his ethical problems as the work of bullies looking to distract him from doing the work of the people of Kentucky. Fletcher's first ad set the stage for this message and drew rave reviews from many neutral observers. Plus, businessman Billy Harper (R) has gained some traction and appears to be siphoning off some of the anti-Fletcher vote that would otherwise go to Northup. On the Democratic side, it's tough to distinguish between the cavalcade of candidates, but the top tier appears to be former Lt. Govs. Steve Beshear and Steve Henry, as well as and wealthy businessman and 2003 gubernatorial candidate Bruce Lunsford. State Treasurer Jonathan Miller is running a sound campaign but is on the outside looking in at the moment. Still, with such a crowded field it's tough to predict how the race will shake out between now and May 22. (Previous ranking: 2)

1. Louisiana (2007): Blanco is out. Breaux is in (sort of). Democrats are gleeful. Republicans are stalwart. Who has the most reason to celebrate? We probably won't know until September at the earliest. That's when qualifying opens in the governor's race and -- presumably -- when a legal challenge will be brought against Breaux questioning whether he qualifies as a citizen of the state. In the meantime, state Attorney General Charles Foti (D) is expected to make a decision next week on whether or not he believes Breaux is a citizen (Breaux changed his voter registration to Maryland after leaving the Senate in 2004). If Foti rules in Breaux's favor, Republicans will cast it as political gamesmanship and brace for a legal challenge in the fall. It may be much ado over nothing, however, as a Southern Media & Opinion Research poll conducted in mid-March showed Republican Bobby Jindal with a 56 percent to 26 percent edge over Breaux. [And this is neither here nor there, but in terms of political satire, this is one of the best we've heard in a while.] (Previous ranking: 1)

By Chris Cillizza  |  April 6, 2007; 5:00 AM ET
Categories:  Governors , The Line  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Can McCain Win?
Next: Mitt Romney's Inner Circle

Comments

aspky qihy tbuxngjoe cdqyke xalc beft yanw http://www.odxkutis.lfzayxp.com

Posted by: abjhm scqlfxhzi | April 16, 2007 6:47 AM | Report abuse

nieypkr iwmyvoq huknv bzurtcya rqzncu xgvqkj krudco

Posted by: unyhb cyflia | April 16, 2007 6:47 AM | Report abuse

Kennedy poll shows governor's race wide open
April 9, 2007


By John Hill
jhillbr@gannett.com

BATON ROUGE - A new poll taken a week ago shows the Louisiana governor's race is wide open, with three out of four voters saying they are open to any candidate.

Pollster Verne Kennedy of Pensacola, Florida, who is polling for Republican businessman John Georges of Metairie, said 74 percent of those polled said they had not made a definite and final decision, but were open to examining the candidates who qualify.

Kennedy polled 600 voters from Thursday, March 29 through Tuesday, April 3 for Georges, a wealthy businessman who has said he will run for governor, but has not yet officially announced.

Only 22 percent of those polled said they had made a final decision in the race.

Kennedy said that is the rock hard base support for GOP front runner Bobby Jindal, a Metairie congressman. Jindal was staging a rematch of the 2003 runoff when Democrat Kathleen Blanco beat him by a 52-48 percent margin.

The race has changed since Blanco announced last month that she would not be a candidate for re-election.

"As long as Kathleen was in this thing, it was a reliving of 2003. It's wide open now," Kennedy said.

Although he did not release all the poll numbers, Kennedy and Georges said Jindal led the trial heat with 39 percent.

"Blanco's getting out has Jindal dropping like a lead balloon," said Georges.

Georges, 46, said he is a conservative Republican, but as a businessman he can strongly appeal to independent voters. He operates the state's largest independent grocery wholesaler, an offshore oil service company and an amusement corporation. He is a former member of the state Board of Regents for Higher Education and is a philanthropist.

Posted by: Randal | April 9, 2007 4:55 PM | Report abuse

Key points on LA Gov Race:
Jindal was born a United States Citizen in Baton Rouge, LA. His parents were from India (not native American "indian").

Commercials linking Jindal to Bush will not be as effective in LA as they would elsewhere. Read the Cook Report or Pew Surveys, LA is the ONLY state in the country that is trending more Republican over the last several years.

Polls show Jindal strong (very strong, with almost no undecided voters) against every potential challenger. (I know b/c I wrote some of the polls that have gone into the field).

William's comments above may sway a few backward people in NorthLA (the same ones that voted for David Duke), but Louisiana and the South is tired of that stereotype and the more William and his friends under the hood spout this vile, the more voters will backlash and support Jindal as a sign of a progresive "new South".

Yeah, his name is Piyush (not Boudreax Breaux), but why should that matter?

Some Democrats may (all should) be offended by the racist methods Democrat John Breaux's supporters are using to undermine Jindal, but considering that Democrats in the 2003 race got Blanco elected through "darkie" ads that made Jindal appear darker than he is, should just remind people that Democrats in the South were the strongest supporters of segregation in the 1960's too.

Posted by: LA resident | April 9, 2007 2:03 PM | Report abuse

"Saturday and Sunday, this weekend, we only had 10 [ten] of our troops killed."

Don't tell Zouk, he's convinced you guys are 'winning' the war...

Posted by: Aussie view | April 9, 2007 11:54 AM | Report abuse

April 9 (Bloomberg) -- Six American soldiers were killed in attacks in Iraq, the military said, as Shiites gathered to mark the fourth anniversary of the fall of Baghdad amid calls for more attacks on U.S. forces.

Thousands of Shiites headed for the city of Najaf today for an anti-American rally to mark the fall of Saddam Hussein, responding to a call from the cleric Moqtada al-Sadr who urged Iraq's army to unite with his militias against the U.S. military, the New York Times reported today. The U.S. force build-up in Iraq has shown little sign of success, the Times reported in a separate article.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 9, 2007 7:28 AM | Report abuse

Iraq again is showing "Improvement". Saturday and Sunday, this weekend, we only had 10 [ten] of our troops killed. I will check around the country for Mondays headlines and see if I can find anything that resembles what is actually going on there.

Posted by: lylepink | April 9, 2007 2:38 AM | Report abuse

I take myself extremely seriously, and all my point are good ones worth making at least twice.
I take myself extremely seriously, and all my point are good ones worth making at least twice.
I take myself extremely seriously, and all my point are good ones worth making at least twice.
I take myself extremely seriously, and all my point are good ones worth making at least twice.

Posted by: LookinMirrorMatt | April 8, 2007 11:58 PM | Report abuse

What about the governor's race in Washington State? With all the controversy and the narrow margin of victory, I would think that the Democratic Gov. Christine Gregoire would be high in the GOP's sights for 1008?

Posted by: Conan The Librarian | April 8, 2007 11:53 PM | Report abuse

Why don't you people ever talk about the topic Chris writes about? If you are true political junkies, you should hear enough about federal politics to not want to talk about it non-stop, and maybe pay attention to the way elections are going.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 8, 2007 8:32 PM | Report abuse

Anonymous--"So while we should try to keep things respectful and interesting, the point of this blog as I see it is to engage in interesting political conversations and debates with others who share your interest."

You are absolutely right. It is not a news aggregator.

Posted by: roo | April 8, 2007 8:17 PM | Report abuse

OK, people.

LIGHTEN UP. We are not solving the world's problems here, we are not beginning the next great American novel, and we are not participating in governmental decision-making. So while we should try to keep things respectful and interesting, the point of this blog as I see it is to engage in interesting political conversations and debates with others who share your interest. Does it hurt you to have to scroll down a page or two? If you are uninterested in what I or anyone else has to say or to link to, DON'T LOOK AT IT. Instead, say what you have to say, and then wait to see if anyone has any response to it. If they don't, or if their response(s) are funny or crude or off the point, you haven't lost anything.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 8, 2007 6:01 PM | Report abuse

Just saw this:

Tarheel says "We are starting to see the beginning of the end for Al Qaeda in Iraq. The locals have found out you never make a pact with the devil. He never keeps his part of the bargain."

The problem with that analogy is that it equates us with the Iraqis and Al Qaeda with the devil. But if we are complaining of a civil war situation, do you really think it becomes more safe when Al Qaeda does not keep its part of the bargain? After all, no one ever defeats the devil for very long.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 8, 2007 5:56 PM | Report abuse

I have always thought the local media, print and electronic, would serve their area in the best interest of the folk there, only taking a back seat to money. These past several years have proven me wrong in that I have tried to find, a difference in the coverage over a number of years, how this Administration has gotten the most favorable coverage, when in fact it has been the worst in the history of this country, with the Hoover Administration running not even a close second. Somehow "The Fear Factor" I mention so often, is involved, and I cannot figure out the why or what it is.

Posted by: lylepink | April 8, 2007 5:33 PM | Report abuse

OK, people.

INCLUDE SOURCES IN YOUR QUOTES.

If you post content produced by someone else, you MUST attribute the quote. Leaving it out is annoying (not to mention illegal.)

Or you can just go to blogger.com, start your own journal there and then link to it so I do not have to read THE SAME NEWS I ALREADY GOT EARLIER.

Chris, if you need people, I am sure there are volunteers for weeding out the spam in the comments.

Posted by: roo | April 8, 2007 5:32 PM | Report abuse

It's a shame lyle, that the media has made a mockery of the whole notion of a free press -- becuase now it is a bought press.

And the idea of it being 'liberal' is so laughable it's hard to comprehend that anyone beleives that... although 30 years of rightwing propaganda certainly helped. But that sort of thing was of course done in a much shorter time in nazi germany, where goebbels made sure every german household had a radio, and that all they could hear was governemtn propaganda. karl rove [whose father designed extermination chambers during WWII--in germany] along, with many movement 'conservatives' learned a lot from what goebbels and goering accomplished.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 8, 2007 4:52 PM | Report abuse

Good stuff Drindl, I don't doubt that, and despite the catastrophic last six years (and I don't say that lightly, but America's standing across the world has taken an almighty hit since Clinton left office) I still have great faith in your country. I pray it's a dem that gets elected,and if not, then a responsible,sane republican in the Gerald Ford mode (i was struggling there, i guess Lincoln was a republican though ;-))

Posted by: Aussie view | April 8, 2007 2:56 PM | Report abuse

The WaPo did a hit job on Speaker Pelosi that defies all reason. We could expect no less from the WaTimes and the WaPost appear to be trying to see if they can out-do The Times in their dem hit jobs. Most, if not all, of the Sunday Talk Shows made sure the "liberal" WaPost was their featured story. wapo illitercy and jane: Each and every major newspaper and all the Cable news shows ran the FALSE story about the dems cutting off funds for the troops, when in FACT they have passed the bill in the House and GW has stated he would veto it, so in reality it is GW that will be cutting off funds for our troops. This is just another example of how this White House has control of the media.

Posted by: lylepink | April 8, 2007 2:16 PM | Report abuse


WaPo: "President Bush used his Easter weekend radio address to suggest that while Americans are "blessed" to have so many brave, volunteer military service members, congressional Democrats are jeopardizing their safety by refusing to sign his $100 billion war funding bill."

Obviously, Democrats aren't refusing to sign anything. Democrats passed a bill that will fund the troops. Bush is threatening to veto this bill, thus denying the troops money, because he's refusing to back off an open-ended, accountability-free committed to Iraq. So who's endangering whose safety? Too bad the WaPo has to twist and demean itself so far to make dems look bad.

Posted by: wapo illiteracy | April 8, 2007 12:21 PM | Report abuse

'BAGHDAD - The renegade cleric Muqtada al-Sadr urged Iraqi forces to stop cooperating with the United States and told his guerrilla fighters to concentrate their attacks on American troops rather than Iraqis, according to a statement issued Sunday.'

hey zouk and tarheel and other gopies -- this is progress, right?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 8, 2007 12:17 PM | Report abuse

'There are moments when it seems our collective press has retrieved a bit of sense and decency, when the right wing noise machine is flailing around without a script, and when coverage of news events seems to be almost fair and balanced.

And then there are weeks like this, when CNN and the WaPo decided to turn Nancy Pelosi into enemy #1, without any real prompting from the noise machine, for reasons which they couldn't actually articulate.'

There's one scandal after another at the WH! All the republican candiates for prez are lousy! Iraq is going to hell, if not already there! So what does the 'liberal media' do? Find a Democrat to bash, of couirse. What else is new?

Posted by: Jane | April 8, 2007 12:16 PM | Report abuse

Monica Goodling had a problem. As senior counsel to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and Justice Department liaison to the White House, she no longer seemed to know what the truth was. She also must have been increasingly unclear about who her superiors were. This didn't used to be a problem for Goodling. Everything was once very certain: Her boss's truth was always the same as God's truth. Her boss was always either God or one of His staffers.

A 1995 graduate of Messiah College, an evangelical Christian school, and a 1999 graduate of Pat Robertson's Regent University Law School, Goodling is an improbable character for a political scandal. Her chief claim to professional fame appears to have been loyalty to the president and to the process of reshaping the Justice Department in his image (and, thus, His image).

Goodling is one of 150 graduates of Regent University who have served in this administration, as Regent's Web site proudly proclaims. Pretty impressive for a 29-year-old school. The university says that "approximately one out of every six Regent alumni is employed in some form of government work." And that's precisely what its founder desired. The school's motto is "Christian Leadership to Change the World." Former attorney general John Ashcroft teaches at Regent, and graduates have obtained senior positions in the Bush administration. The express goal is not only to tear down the wall between church and state in America but also to enmesh the two.

Jeffrey A. Brauch, the law school's dean, urges that students reflect upon "the critical role the Christian faith should play in our legal system." Jason Eige (Class of '99), senior assistant to Virginia Attorney General Bob McDonnell, puts it pithily in the alumni newsletter: "Your Résumé Is God's Instrument."

This legal worldview meshed perfectly with that of Ashcroft -- a devout Pentecostal who forbade use of the word "pride," as well as the phrase "no higher calling than public service," on documents bearing his signature. No surprise that, as he began transforming the Justice Department, the Goodlings looked good to him.

One of Ashcroft's most profound changes was to the Civil Rights Division, started in 1957 to fight racial discrimination in voting. Under Ashcroft, career lawyers were systematically fired or forced out and replaced by members of conservative or Christian groups or folks with no civil rights experience. In the five years after 2001, the Civil Rights Division brought no voting cases -- and only one employment case -- on behalf of an African American. Instead, the division took up the "civil rights" abuses of reverse discrimination -- claims of voter fraud or discrimination against Christians. On Feb. 20, Gonzales announced a new initiative called the First Freedom Project to carry out "even greater enforcement of religious rights for all Americans." In his view, the fight for a student's right to read a Bible in school is as urgent as the right to vote.'

packing the justice department with graduates of a cheesy, low rate christian college in order to deny voting rights to blacks and to force christianity on all of us... typical.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 8, 2007 12:12 PM | Report abuse

Of all the damage that the Bushies have done, perhaps the worst blow has been to the fundamental sense of ourselves as the nation that "gets things done." We built the Transcontinental Railroad. We put a man on the moon. Our Arsenal of Democracy won World Wars I & II.

Thanks to the arrogant, hapless Bushies, we are the nation that bellows "Mission Accomplished!" and then gets bogged down in a hopeless, ever-worsening quagmire. We are the nation that suffers a catastrophic loss of an entire region due to hurricane damage, and then flounders helplessly as millions of our fellow citizens give up hope. We are the nation that blusters that its "unacceptable for "evil-doers" to develop nuclear weapons, and then watches helplessly as they go right ahead anyway.

I'm convinced Bush is at 29% because voters perceive him as (increasingly) pathetic, deluded and ineffectual -- a toxic mash-up of Jimmy Carter and Richard Nixon.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 8, 2007 12:05 PM | Report abuse

'Shortly before leaving Moscow after four years covering Russia, I was granted a rare audience by a top Kremlin official. As we talked about Vladimir Putin and his relationship with President Bush, the Kremlin official compared the Bush team to the Bolsheviks and laughed at how secretive their White House appeared. "They've adopted some of our techniques with the press," he said.'

bush is similar to the bolsheviks in so many ways...

Posted by: Anonymous | April 8, 2007 11:54 AM | Report abuse

'It's about time someone took a closer look at the White House's vetting of Bernard Kerik. Shortly after his nomination was withdrawn, Kerik told New York magazine that "everything that's come out is stuff I either told the White House about or they already knew." The WP's reconstruction is helpful in showing exactly what White House aides did know about Kerik--including his shady financial deals, ethics violations, poor management skills, a deputy prosecuted for corruption, and links to organized crime.'

They forgot to mention the cheap affair he had with Judith Regan, the rightwing publisher, in a taxpayer-funded apartment that was suppoised to be used by 9/11 firefighters. Nice, huh? Just like rudy.

Posted by: rudy's main man bernie | April 8, 2007 11:52 AM | Report abuse

'Officials from a national firefighters unions say, among other complaints, that Giuliani failed to support modernized radios that might have spared the lives of more firefighters at the World Trade Center, and that he located the city's main emergency command center in the complex, even though it had been targeted by terrorists eight years earlier.'

This is what the people of NY know--that rudy was respnsible for unneccesary deaths on 9/11 becuase of his budget cuts, which were paid for by the families of our police and firefighters in lost lives. He is a criminal.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 8, 2007 11:40 AM | Report abuse


'Pope Benedict XVI decried suffering in much of the world in his Easter message, lamenting that "nothing positive" is happening in Iraq and voicing worry over unrest and instability in Afghanistan and bloodshed in parts of Africa and Asia. "How many wounds, how much suffering there is in the world," the pontiff said, delivering his traditional "Urbi et Orbi" Easter address.'

Posted by: Anonymous | April 8, 2007 11:27 AM | Report abuse

'Doing everything we can,' as nancy reagan whispered in reagan's ear in answer to a reporter's question... which he repeated, as he had been taught to do, becuase much of his time in office he was entirely senile due to alzheimer's, but that's what constitutes greatness in republican minds.

anyway, aussie... many of us are doing everything we can, volunteering, giving money, working our hearts out like we never have before, to prevent a greedy, ignorant, selfish war profiteers like rudy from being elected.

Posted by: drindl | April 8, 2007 11:26 AM | Report abuse

He then casually lumped Iran with Al Qaeda. "Their movement has already displayed more aggressive tendencies by coming here and killing us," he said.

Mr. Giuliani was asked in an interview to clarify that, inasmuch as Iran had no connection to the Sept. 11 attacks. Further, most of its people are Shiites, whereas Al Qaeda is an organization of Sunnis.

"They have a similar objective," he replied, "in their anger at the modern world."

Please America, do not vote this clown in, or anyone else with such an obvious lack of understanding of foreign policy. The world needs a US president who knows SOMETHING about the rest of the world. Al Gore or Bill Richardson would be fine by me, maybe even Joe Biden...

Posted by: Aussie view | April 8, 2007 4:28 AM | Report abuse

It has been a lonely quest. But I still seek the truth, the answer. It's been over 6 years now and still no one has ever answered my question.

Remember Melvin Jay Mel Reynolds, Democratic member of the United States House of Representatives from the state of Illinois from 1993 to 1995? In August 1994, he was indicted for having sex with a 16-year-old campaign volunteer. Despite the charges, he continued his campaign and was re-elected in November 1994 those forgiving Democratic voters. On August 22, 1995 he was convicted on 12 counts of sexual assault, obstruction of justice and solicitation of child pornography. He resigned his seat on October 1, 1995. Reynolds, who had a wife and a child at the time of the incident, was sentenced to five years in prison and expected to be released in 1998. However, in April 1997, he was convicted on 15 unrelated counts of bank fraud and lying to SEC investigators. These charges resulted in an additional sentence of 78 months in federal prison. Reynolds served all of his first sentence and served forty-two months in prison for the later charges. At that point, U.S. President Bill Clinton commuted his sentence.

Now my question has been for 6 years, Why would Bill Clinton commute the sentence of someone convicted of sexual assault of a 16-year-old and solicitation of child pornography?

Posted by: WaitingforAnswer | April 8, 2007 12:13 AM | Report abuse

Then again, I suppose he's turning into a regular O'Reilly! Just a lot more petty.

Posted by: some guy | April 7, 2007 10:46 PM | Report abuse

roo,

No, they didn't. They said 'conspiracy', not murder.

When she talked with Keith she was saying how she thought that his death was definitely exploited and covered up - she reckoned in order to both keep the unfortunate incident out of an already bleak situation as well as to exploit it for recruitment.

Keith more than once hinted that the death must have been intentional, but she kept brushing it off until he finally asked directly and she said, "I don't think we can go that far yet," and then added as an after thought, "but I guess we can't rule it out, can we."

Posted by: some guy | April 7, 2007 10:41 PM | Report abuse

Some guy--Actually, Pat Tillman's family originally raised those concerns:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/03/27/family.tillman/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

I am not entirely happy that Olbermann decided to ask about that particular aspect of this since I think we are on thin evidence there. But he did certainly not invent it himself.

Posted by: roo | April 7, 2007 10:07 PM | Report abuse

"Keith Olbermann of MSNBC"

lol, besides the obvious fact that his show is incredibly biased and one sided.

He actually questioned the mother of that soldier (the one who we now know was apparently killed by friendly fire) if there was any dount in her mind that her son had been 'intentionally murdered', though she kept brushing away the question seemingly embarrased by the thought.

Posted by: some guy | April 7, 2007 8:51 PM | Report abuse

Urgent news! Red states a generous, blue states are niggardly (stingy):

www.catalogueforphilanthropy.org

Posted by: Anonymous | April 7, 2007 8:42 PM | Report abuse

the liberal media LIE: Checking Print and Electronic media on a daily basis, I have been able to find very few that are acually reporting FACTS. The most accurate, IMO, is Lou Dobbs of CNN and Keith Olbermann of MSNBC. A prime example is the bashing of Nancy Pelosi, as you pointed out so well. This has been going on even before GW was appointed POTUS. The sad thing is we expect the media to at least provide accurate information on stories they report, but it is sadly lacking.

Posted by: lylepink | April 7, 2007 3:56 PM | Report abuse

People Think She Messed Up On This One'
This morning, NBC's Today Show ran a biased segment casting doubt on Pelosi's Syria trip. Every single question asked by anchor Matt Lauer was framed around conservative talking points. In his first question, Lauer claimed Pelosi has gotten off to a rough start because of criticisms from a baseless Washington Post editorial, Vice President Cheney, and the conservative editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal:

LAUER: Vice President Cheney called Nancy Pelosi's trip to Syria "bad behavior," a Washington Post editorial on Thursday called it "counter-productive and foolish," and an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal this morning goes a step further and suggests her trip may actually have been a felony, that it may have violated something called the Logan Act. Tim, is this the way the Democrats wanted to get off the mark in terms of foreign affairs?

With his second question, Lauer asserted that "a lot of people think [Pelosi] messed up on this one," and then asked "what's the impact for the Democrats overall?" Lauer never mentioned the fact that five Republicans -- Reps. Frank Wolf, Robert Aderholt, Joseph Pitts, David Hobson, and Darrell Issa -- visited Syria this week.

To wrap up the segment, Lauer suggested that Pelosi may be "seen as usurping presidential power in designing and implementing foreign policy," disregarding Rep. David Hobson's (R-OH) comments that the Pelosi-led delegation "reinforced the administration's positions."

Posted by: the liberal media LIE | April 7, 2007 2:41 PM | Report abuse

There was a lot of buzz today about a corruption case in Wisconsin from last year. A Bush-appointed US Attorney indicted a government bureaucrat in a case that implicated the state's Democratic governor. But yesterday a circuit court threw out the conviction saying the evidence against the convicted official was "beyond thin."

Indeed, the circuit court judges thought the case was so bogus that it's hard not to ask whether the US Attorney in this case, Steven Biskupic, might not be one of those "loyal Bushies" who kept his job because he knew that one of his jobs was getting Republicans elected. It prompts the question; but it's certainly too soon to say that's the case. And yet look at how Biskupic's number two and spokesperson responded when asked if the prosecution was politically motivated.

In an interview, Michelle Jacobs of the U.S. Attorney's Office in Milwaukee denied that the prosecution was politically motivated.
"I can tell you that from our perspective it was not, but that is as far as I'm going to go," said Jacobs, a first assistant U.S. attorney.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 7, 2007 2:38 PM | Report abuse

'Don't miss this New York Times piece, in which Rudy Giuliani reveals the paucity of foreign policy experience lurking behind the haze of 9/11 mythology that envelopes "America's Mayor." The best part comes at the very end:

As for Iran, Mr. Giuliani said that "in the long term," it might be "more dangerous than Iraq."

He then casually lumped Iran with Al Qaeda. "Their movement has already displayed more aggressive tendencies by coming here and killing us," he said.

Mr. Giuliani was asked in an interview to clarify that, inasmuch as Iran had no connection to the Sept. 11 attacks. Further, most of its people are Shiites, whereas Al Qaeda is an organization of Sunnis.

"They have a similar objective," he replied, "in their anger at the modern world."

what a clown. the iranians ARE the modern world. up until bush, the iranian young people loved this country, and their democracy movement was growing larger and had great potential. now, to advocate democracy is to be seen as a tool of bush and so the movement has been demoralized.

just one more way certain people are pushing so that war with iran is inevitable... and it's all about profits and business.

rudy's lack of foreign policy substance, his greed, his ignorance of the middle east, his retread bush policies, his naked ambiton, all guarantee that he will be just another bush. only worse.

Posted by: LOL | April 7, 2007 2:35 PM | Report abuse

I am hateful and care not at all about reaching a philosophical compromise with those more intelligent than am I.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 7, 2007 2:21 PM | Report abuse

Aw, them Dukes!

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 7, 2007 2:10 PM | Report abuse

a haiku:

Clinton
But not Bubba, other
Busybody broad
Unelectable

Posted by: lylepink | April 7, 2007 2:09 PM | Report abuse

The history of Iran and Iraq, and our involvement goes back in modern times to The Sha of Iran, where the US was involved in installing him and then getting rid of him. This pattern has been consistant over the years, as long as their leaders follow our orders, all is ok, then when they don't toe the line, we mount an effort to get rid of them.

Posted by: lylepink | April 7, 2007 2:09 PM | Report abuse

How the Post is helping bush/cheney foment a war on Iran:

The Reuters original:

"Iraqi army soldiers swept into the city of Diwaniya early this morning to disrupt militia activity and return security and stability of the volatile city back to the government of Iraq," the U.S. military said in a statement.

SCATTERED RESISTANCE

Bleichwehl said troops, facing scattered resistance, discovered a factory that produced "explosively formed penetrators" (EFPs), a particularly deadly type of explosive that can destroy a main battle tank and several weapons caches.'

Screen capture from Google --one hour ago:

'Iraqi, US forces sweep through volatile Iraqi city
Washington Post, DC - i hour ago
Bleichwehl said troops, facing scattered resistance, discovered a factory that produced "explosively formed penetrators" (EFPs), a particularly deadly type of explosive that can destroy a main battle tank and several weapons caches.'

Now go to story as it stands posted now. The above graf has been deleted, so that you will not know that the IEDs that the admin is accusing Iran of making, are actually being manufactured in Iraq. And thus, the compliant media once again spins the facts to help cheney perpetrate a war on iran, based on lies.

if you fall for this again, you are bigger suckers than I can even imagine.

Posted by: Jane | April 7, 2007 12:52 PM | Report abuse

In Watergate, "Deep Throat" counselled that the royal road to the scandal's source was to "follow the money." In the proliferating scandals of the Bush presidency, Congress is searching down a trail of records that did not exist in the time of Nixon: follow the emails.

The discovery of a hitherto unknown treasure-trove of emails buried by the Bush White House may prove to be as informative as Nixon's secret White House tapes. On 23 March 2007 the National Journal disclosed that Karl Rove does "about 95 percent" of his emails outside the White House system, instead using a Republican National Committee (RNC) account. What's more, Rove doesn't tap most of his messages on a White House computer, but rather on a BlackBerry provided by the RNC.

By this method, Rove and other White House aides evade the legally required archiving of official emails. The first glimmer of this dodge appeared in a small item buried in a January 2004 issue of U.S. News & World Report: "'I don't want my E-mail made public,' said one insider. As a result, many aides have shifted to Internet E-mail instead of the White House system. 'It's Yahoo!, baby,' says a Bushie."

The offshoring of White House records via RNC emails became apparent when an RNC domain, gwb43.com (referring to George W Bush, 43rd president), turned up in a batch of emails the White House gave to House and Senate committees in mid-March. Rove's deputy, Scott Jennings, former Bush legal counsel Harriet Miers and her deputies strangely had used gwb43.com as an email domain.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 7, 2007 12:44 PM | Report abuse

1953 UK and USA remove democratically elected government and replace with dictator (The Shah of Iran).
1957 USA sets up and trains Shah's secret police, SAVAK.
1979 Iran overthrows the Shah who flees to the USA.
After the USA refuses to return the Shah, Iran takes 52 USA embassy staff hostage for 444 days.
1980 USA and UK arm Iraq when it invades Iran.
USA fails to back UN condemnation of invasion.
1987 USA seizes Iranian ship in international waters.
1988 USA bombs oil facilities in Iran.
USA warship shoots down Iranian passenger plane killing 286 people.
1995 USA imposes sanctions on Iran.
2002 USA threatens Iran with regime change.
2007 USA takes 5 Iranian diplomats hostage in Iraq. (Jan 2007 - ?)
2007 Iran takes 15 UK sailors hostage for 13 days.

Posted by: the facts | April 7, 2007 12:22 PM | Report abuse

The real history of US, UK and Iran relations. All assertions fact-checked and meticulously sourced.

http://www.krysstal.com/democracy_iran.html

Posted by: Anonymous | April 7, 2007 12:20 PM | Report abuse

MSNBC has put together a slide-show offering a brief history of Iran. They've managed to go back further than 1979 - impressive for a mainstream outlet, whose memories usually begin with the Islamic revolution.

But, amazingly, they've contrived to ignore Mohammed Mossadeq, the democratically elected prime minister of Iran who in 1953 was overthrown in a UK/CIA-backed coup, which installed the brutal and corrupt Shah in his place. The overthrow of Mossadeq is probably, together with the 1979 Islamic revolution, the seminal moment in the history of 20th century Iran, and MSNBC has just wiped it out for political convenience. Mossadeq had dared to nationalise the Iranian oil industry at the expense of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (now British Petroleum), and such defiance could obviously not be tolerated by the masters of the world.

The slide-show also makes no mention of the fact that the U.S. supported Iraq in its aggression against Iran, which left up a million people dead on all sides.

The mainstream media has been caught, once again, shamelessly re-writing history in the interests of power. That MSNBC has completely obliterated the U.S.' history of aggression towards Iran at a time when the Bush administration is trying to drum up militaristic fervour amongst the population with a possible view to another imperialistic war against that country is an utter disgrace.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 7, 2007 12:18 PM | Report abuse

We've spent a lot of time laughing at John McCain's safe stroll through the Shorja market in Baghdad, but today it's Rep. Mike Pence's turn to be mocked for his asinine remark describing their shopping spree, complete with 100 American troops, 3 Black Hawk helicopters and 2 Apache gunships, as:

...like a normal outdoor market in Indiana in the summer time.

From today's Los Angeles Times, Baghdad in the Midwest cornfields, the story of a typical Indiana family enjoying a trip to the market:

My wife came into the living room wearing a Kevlar vest, helmet and night-vision goggles.

"What are you doing?" I asked.

"Have you completely forgotten, silly head? We're going to the market." [...]

Carol helped the boys get ready, putting on their sneakers and body armor. I phoned the Indiana National Guard so that they could radio the 434th Special Air Wing at Grissom Air Force Base, which in turn scrambled two F-14 Tomcats. Then we hopped in the wagon. [...]

The F-14s flew by low. Each of us activated our earpieces and hand-held mini walkie-talkies, agreed on a frequency, and I slowed the car to 15 mph as Carol and the boys opened the doors and rolled out, taking cover under shrubbery near the Bibb lettuce stand (the boys love salad!).

So far, so good. [...]

Carol, I noticed, had found cover behind the wall of a largely destroyed warehouse. A sniper had a bead on the glint from her eyeglasses, which the afternoon sunshine had caught (Indiana is known for its beautiful summers). [...]

A CBU-52B cluster bomb exploded to our left, and I hit the gas. We could see the boys ahead, waving flares in the dense smoke. I didn't stop the car completely. Kevin threw Chip in first, then jumped in himself.

"You kids have fun?" Carol asked.

"Yeah!" said Chip.

"He was holding a loaf of bread and it got blown out of his hand!"

"It was so awesome, Mum."

We all laughed. Really hard. That's how shopping is in Indiana in the summer. It's just fun. It's fun and safe and hopeful and full of warm and welcoming Indianans and insurgents and snipers and bombs.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 7, 2007 12:15 PM | Report abuse

Signs of dissent are appearing in the military. Last month, a career chief master sergeant in the Air Force wrote an opinion piece in the military newspaper Stars and Stripes opposing the war, and a busload of retired veterans and civilian activists toured military bases in the South, hoping to coax more support from active duty soldiers. Over the past month, more than 1,700 soldiers have signed an online Appeal for Redress -- www.appealforredress.org -- a legally sanctioned way for members of the military to oppose the war.

A couple of underground publications like GI Special at www.militaryproject.org, have sprung up online, and supportive troops have clandestinely dropped hard copies inside military barracks.

Last week, retired Marine Corps Lt. Col. Andrew Horne, who served in the Persian Gulf two years ago, rebutted President Bush's weekly radio address.

Said Horne: "The commander-in-chief has failed to properly lead the troops, and previous Congresses didn't ask the tough questions or demand accountability. The result is the mess we are in today."

Posted by: Anonymous | April 7, 2007 12:09 PM | Report abuse

tretched by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. military has not been able to stick to its goals on the amount of time troops get to spend at home between deployments.

On Monday, the Pentagon said it would send about 4,500 active duty troops to Iraq before they had spent even a year back at home. The Pentagon's goal for active-duty troops is two years at home for every one year deployed.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 7, 2007 12:07 PM | Report abuse

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Pentagon has identified some 14,000 National Guard soldiers who may go to Iraq as part of planning for deployments stretching as far as 2010, a senior U.S. defense official said on Friday.

Posted by: we'll be there for 30 years | April 7, 2007 12:05 PM | Report abuse

WASHINGTON, April 6 -- If the Democratic ascendance on Capitol Hill was supposed to usher in dark days for Republicans, it is hard to tell from talking to moderate ones like Mike Ferguson, who represents a suburban district in central New Jersey.

As the new Democrat-led House rushed to complete its business before adjourning for spring break this week, Representative Ferguson was marveling at the many bills that had been passed in Congress's first 100 days, including one that would make it easier for unions to organize and another that would increase the minimum wage.

"Under the Republican majority, those bills would have never gotten to the floor," he explained before heading back to his district. "Now they have been brought to the floor, and I've voted for them."

Mr. Ferguson's enthusiasm captures a peculiar political reality in the Capitol: many Republicans from swing districts in the Northeast are finding that life under Democratic rule has its advantages.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 7, 2007 12:01 PM | Report abuse

'In short order, John McCain has gone from Republican presidential front-runner to political death watch. On Wednesday, the Arizona senator kicks off a month of high-profile events, seeking a resurrection of sorts.

He badly needs it. Mr. McCain just reported raising $12.5 million for the first-quarter -- behind Republican rivals Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani, as well as Democrats Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards. Most analysts won't go so far as to bury Mr. McCain, citing his Republican rivals' own baggage: Both Mr. Romney and Mr. Giuliani are suspect among social conservatives for their records supporting abortion and gay rights, and gun control. But the one-time GOP front-runner clearly had a very bad week.

It began with reports of the heavily guarded senator shopping at a Baghdad market and declaring "things are better," and it ended with a New Hampshire poll showing Mr. McCain, the longtime leader in that first-primary state, now in a dead heat with Mr. Romney. Sandwiched in between were the stories of his money woes.

All of that makes next week -- and the next month -- critical to the survival of his candidacy. Mr. McCain's campaign scheduled three policy speeches in consecutive weeks, culminating April 25-27 with his "official" announcement tour through early nominating states of New Hampshire, Iowa and South Carolina and finally to his home state of Arizona. Wednesday's first speech, at the Virginia Military Institute, will showcase Mr. McCain's "commitment to winning the war in Iraq."

Trouble is, no one doubts Mr. McCain's commitment. But recent polls show the public is increasingly doubtful of the prospects of winning the war. And that, in turn, may be undercutting Mr. McCain's chances of winning the nomination.'

Posted by: WSJ | April 7, 2007 11:59 AM | Report abuse

'John McCain (R-Ariz.) will launch a high-profile effort next week to convince Americans that the Iraq war is winnable, embracing the unpopular conflict with renewed vigor as he attempts to reignite his stalling bid for the presidency.

With the Virginia Military Institute as a backdrop, McCain plans to argue in a speech on Wednesday that victory in Iraq is essential to American security and that President Bush's war machine is finally getting on track after four years, aides and advisers said.'

In other words, t's all about John McCain. He wants to use the dead bodies of our soliders as a prop for his campaign, that's all. Same as Bush. They simply use our troops as pawns. Too bad people can't seem to see this.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 7, 2007 11:49 AM | Report abuse

Breaux seems like a strong candidate for LA. I remember his family home was destroyed by Katrina, his roots and life's work are there.

I also remember that he is a consensus builder, something LA could certainly use.

Plus, he isn't a Bush "heck of a job Brownie" Republican. He seems much stronger than CC's #1 choice for a change.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth Hunter | April 7, 2007 11:29 AM | Report abuse

This last post is asking for a mind reader and I or no one has that ability.

Posted by: lylepink | April 7, 2007 1:38 AM | Report abuse

It's been over 6 years now and still no one has ever answered my question.

Remember Melvin Jay Mel Reynolds, Democratic member of the United States House of Representatives from the state of Illinois from 1993 to 1995? In August 1994, he was indicted for having sex with a 16-year-old campaign volunteer. Despite the charges, he continued his campaign and was re-elected in November 1994 those forgiving Democratic voters. On August 22, 1995 he was convicted on 12 counts of sexual assault, obstruction of justice and solicitation of child pornography. He resigned his seat on October 1, 1995. Reynolds, who had a wife and a child at the time of the incident, was sentenced to five years in prison and expected to be released in 1998. However, in April 1997, he was convicted on 15 unrelated counts of bank fraud and lying to SEC investigators. These charges resulted in an additional sentence of 78 months in federal prison. Reynolds served all of his first sentence and served forty-two months in prison for the later charges. At that point, U.S. President Bill Clinton commuted his sentence.

Now my question has been for 6 years, Why would Bill Clinton commute the sentence of someone convicted of sexual assault of a 16-year-old and solicitation of child pornography? Was it that he admired Mels ability to seduce a 16-year-old? After all Monica was a ripe old 22.

Posted by: WaitingforAnswer | April 7, 2007 1:18 AM | Report abuse

'Boo hoo roo - poor OPEC, can't use inflated prices to prop up their evil regimes. that must be a real blow to the liberal cause.'

oh helloo, saudi arabia is your friend, buddy, they love republicans, they kiss republicans like your president on the lips. your terrorist friends, the saudis.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 7, 2007 1:07 AM | Report abuse

Is there anyway to get rid posters who think their opinions are so important they have to post them multiple times? Give your ego a break. And what's with the youtube postings. Haven't you got an original thought? Go find a blog, you say. Did you even know what site this is? It's washingtonpost.com's Politics Blog. It is a Blog, you double posting youtube dependent.

Posted by: LookinMirrorMatt | April 7, 2007 1:02 AM | Report abuse

'Surely white people are entitled to be in charge in one place on earth, when everywhere else has fallen prey to multiculturalism and diversity, which foster high crime rates, immorality, lack of unity, and many other ills?''

you make me vomit, you overprivileged little white trash..

Posted by: Anonymous | April 7, 2007 12:59 AM | Report abuse

War bleeds Baghdad of its best

In 2003, a Baghdad woman named Hamdiyah al-Dulaimi had three sons -- the lights of her life. Now, she is living alone as a refugee in Syria. Baghdad is a city that is hemorrhaging its best and brightest -- doctors, professors and teachers called "the brain of Baghdad" -- while many of those left behind are brutalized and traumatized. Al-Dulaimi left behind the mayhem and madness after her sons were all dragged from her home and killed.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 7, 2007 12:56 AM | Report abuse

War bleeds Baghdad of its best

In 2003, a Baghdad woman named Hamdiyah al-Dulaimi had three sons -- the lights of her life. Now, she is living alone as a refugee in Syria. Baghdad is a city that is hemorrhaging its best and brightest -- doctors, professors and teachers called "the brain of Baghdad" -- while many of those left behind are brutalized and traumatized. Al-Dulaimi left behind the mayhem and madness after her sons were all dragged from her home and killed.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 7, 2007 12:54 AM | Report abuse

Here in the Tar Heel state of NC, Bill Graham does indeed have momentum. He also has a great organization in place to run for governor. It is true that NC voters see no connection between a Presidential election and governor's election. But, being that Liddy Dole is up for re-election this year, she and Graham are likely to help one another campaign. This could honestly help the Republicans win big in 08' here in NC. Regardless of what the liberal naysayers suggest, Dole is as safe as a cub behind it's mother. She may not be the favorite in ntl. politics, but she is a favorite here in the Tar Heel state. So I say to all you liberals who are hoping to beat her in 08', play the lottery with your money...your chances of winning would be much better!

Posted by: reason | April 6, 2007 11:27 PM | Report abuse

Can we do something about all the freaking trolling on this thread? Seriously - if you want to post your own news stories go to a blog or write a stupid Xanga - this is a comment thread. It's rude and annoying.

On a note that's related: Bruce Lunsford the "2003 gubernatorial candidate" currently in the KY gov race actually dropped out of the race at the last minute and endorsed the far-right a-hole that ended up being corrupt as sin, the Republican that is. If I'm not mistaken, he then endorsed the Republican in the 2004 Senate race, who was, by the way, senile. running now in the Democratic primary?

Video of Fletcher introducing Lunsford for his endorsement. "Shares our values." Yep, probably does.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddva6LTKbyk

Posted by: Matt | April 6, 2007 11:26 PM | Report abuse

Can we do something about all the freaking trolling on this thread? Seriously - if you want to post your own news stories go to a blog or write a stupid Xanga - this is a comment thread. It's rude and annoying.

On a note that's related: Bruce Lunsford the "2003 gubernatorial candidate" currently in the KY gov race actually dropped out of the race at the last minute and endorsed the far-right a-hole that ended up being corrupt as sin, the Republican that is. If I'm not mistaken, he then endorsed the Republican in the 2004 Senate race, who was, by the way, senile. running now in the Democratic primary?

Video of Fletcher introducing Lunsford for his endorsement. "Shares our values." Yep, probably does.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddva6LTKbyk

Posted by: Matt | April 6, 2007 11:25 PM | Report abuse

Extremely interesting post Zouk. You won't see that article from Australia in the American new media. Why not? This growing chism between the Sunnis and Al Qaeda will erupt with violence similar to Hamas and Fatah. This is common among many total control factions. It becomes who can I trust? Is my number one lieutenant planning to kill me? If they don't have any qualms about killing their own people, how can I trust them? We are starting to see the beginning of the end for Al Qaeda in Iraq. The locals have found out you never make a pact with the devil. He never keeps his part of the bargain.

For those of you who missed the article, here it is again. Thanks again, KOZ.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21517534-23109,00.html

Posted by: tarheel | April 6, 2007 11:15 PM | Report abuse

To me, I don't see how former Lt. Govs. Steve Henry and Steve Beshear could truly be the frontrunners. Beshear's running mate, St. Sen. Daniel Mongiardo, was the nominee for the U.S. Senate in 2004, losing to incumbent Jim Bunning 49% to 51%. Mongiardo only lost due to coattails from Bush's KY landslide. To me I think it hurts Beshear to have a running mate that eclipses you. Beshear served a term as Attorney General and one as Lt. Gov., but left office 20 years ago after losing a gubernatorial primary. Then a decade ago he challenged Mitch McConnell for reelection. To me his yesterdayness and running mate that eclipses him make his candidacy a rough sell. Henry has had ethics violations charges during his 2nd term as Lt. Gov., and I don't think the Dems could hope to beat a corrupt Governor (or not as corrupt Congresswoman) with a corrupt man. I've seen polls that showed Bruce Lunsford in the lead, I think his running mate also eclipses him (AG Greg Stumbo), but perhaps thats not as much of a problem as I think. He has the personal wealth to buy the nomination. However, in 2003, Lunsford ran a bitter primary campaign against then-AG Ben Chandler (now a congressman), and after dropping out, endorsed Spkr. Jody Richards (D). Once Chandler was nominated, Lunsford endorsed GOP Rep. Ernie Fletcher, who won. That makes many Dems hate him, but can his $ overcome that? I've always doubted it, and think he'd lose a runoff reguardless of $. And for the Dem primary, there will very likely be a runoff. Spkr. Richards was also reelected Spkr by the House in '05, only after promising he wouldn't run for Gov. again. He is running again, but (to me) seems he has a strong ticket. Who knows whether that false promise will really hurt him. Jonathan Miller, KY's 2-term State Treasurer, seems to be the candidate least flawed. He also has been portraying himself as the alternative to Lunsford and thus a frontrunner. That may be realistic, or it may be a strategy. I think it might work, in such a large field with many B candidates. Before it was concluded that the polling leads for Beshear and Henry are based on name recognition, and that seems likely, but odd since the primary is so close. When will the polls become less a reflection of name recognition? It seems they should have by now. On the GOP side, fmr. Rep. Anne Northup's biggest problem is Billy Harper. Harper's candidacy only cuts anti-Fletcher votes out of Northup's camp. Northup must either win 40%, or make sure nobody does, to try to force a runoff. If she can win the primary outright, or at least force a runoff, she will be nominee & the frontrunner in November. If Harper does well, the anti-Fletcher vote could be split & the Governor would be renominated as long as he could win 40% and avoid a runoff. Reguardless of who he was challenged by, Gov. Fletcher would lose any runoff primary. Fletcher would lose to any Democratic nominee besides for 2. If fmr. Lt. Gov. Steve Henry wins the Dem nomination, the Dems will be unable to attack Fletcher on his biggest weakness: corruption. If Bruce Lunsford's nominated, the Democratic base has little motivation to turn out, unless their anti-Fletcher passions override their anti-Lunsford passions. But they might feel they're are no differences between the two and note vote. The Dems wanna see the Gov. renominated regardlessly. I think the strongest GOP nominee would be Northup, and the strongest Dem nominee would probably be Miller. In the spirit of the line, I will do a KY line in order of candidates chances(in my view):
GOP
1. Northup
2. Fletcher
3. Harper
Dems
1. Miller
2. Richards
3. Beshear
4. Lunsford
5. Henry
6. Galbraith
7. Henseley

Posted by: J Perez | April 6, 2007 7:17 PM | Report abuse

roo - so you have no respect for your grandparents and traditional values?

Not that I'm surprised. Liberals usually don't have respect for anyone or loyalty to anyone. They would sacrice their own spouse and kids on the altar of progessivism and multiculturalism.

How despicable.

Posted by: William | April 6, 2007 6:47 PM | Report abuse

William--Hey, if old people are wise, you should definitely consult the pharaohs of Egypt. Those guys are REALLY old! Plus they were gods too so they really know what they are talking about.

Posted by: roo | April 6, 2007 6:35 PM | Report abuse

roo - I have no problem with Jindal being elected governor in Pennsylvania or Ohio or Oregon.

But for him to be governor of a Southern state just isn't proper, somehow.

Blarg, the South is perhaps the last remaining place on earth where white people still have sonme pride in who they are and their ancestors.

Of course, to liberals, all white people are evil and bad and must be brainwashed into drowning themselves in self-guilt.

I don't consider myself racist. I belief that all people are equal, and I have friends and acquaintances who are black, Hispanic, Asian, etc.

But at the same time, I have the right to be proud of my Southern heritage and the accomplishments of my ancestors.

I ask myself, would my grandfather have voted for Jindal?

And then I get my answer.

Old people are supposed to be wise, right?

The foundation of Southern culture and society is a white-dominated social structure.

Surely white people are entitled to be in charge in one place on earth, when everywhere else has fallen prey to multiculturalism and diversity, which foster high crime rates, immorality, lack of unity, and many other ills?

Posted by: William | April 6, 2007 6:09 PM | Report abuse

More thinkers and not doers

The objective of any military is to "Close with and destroy the enemy! And then to occupy their territory."

It's as simple as that.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 6, 2007 5:48 PM | Report abuse

Very interesting


The objective of military action is not to kill the enemy, but rather to break his will to fight.
If this thought is so obvious to our military leadership and extends to the lowest level Marines and Soldiers "stuck in Iraq" as John Kerry would say, why is this concept so foreign to the leadership of the Democrat Party? How can our media "experts" fail to understand this simple thought mastered by privates and corporals who didn't attend Ivy-League J-Schools?

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/04/a_new_yardstick.html

read the whole article for the implications of this wisdom.


Posted by: kingofzouk | April 6, 2007 5:40 PM | Report abuse

CRAWFORD, Texas - Iraq war protester Cindy Sheehan urged President George W. Bush to "end this madness" in Iraq on Friday in a march toward Bush's ranch. --SNIP-- Sheehan took advantage of a heavy media presence covering Bush's Easter weekend by leading an anti-war protest of about three dozen people in a march to the security checkpoint outside Bush's ranch.

I'll vote against the war for a small bribe, I'll protest the war if you pay my expenses. 36 whole protesters. Getting more pitiful by the minute.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 6, 2007 5:35 PM | Report abuse

roo - I didn't see your points. I exit about 6 every evening to run my island nation. I would be happy to take them on.

"AN influential Sunni Arab insurgent group has called on al-Qaeda in Iraq to "review" its behaviour in what is evidence of a growing rift between home- grown insurgents and al-Qaeda."

Its starting to come apart for the enemy. Imagine that - we win, they lose. how unliberal of a thought is that?

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21517534-23109,00.html

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 6, 2007 5:30 PM | Report abuse

kingofzouk--"While children will be participating in a Washington tradition next week rolling Easter eggs on the White House lawn, anti-war and human rights activists will be inviting others to join in an unusual new activity: an Easter cluster-bomb hunt."

Do you understand that in some parts of the world there are thousands of very real cluster bombs just waiting for very real little children to come by and be blown into very many very bloodly pieces.

Like, say, in Lebanon.

Posted by: roo | April 6, 2007 5:27 PM | Report abuse

MikeB says
"And, lylepink, if you want a woman as President, you would be hard pressed to find someone better than Ms. Pelosi. You would be hard pressed to find anyone who could match her intelligence, common sense, or talents."

Yikes. I'd take any Senator from Maine over Speaker Pelosi.

Posted by: bsimon | April 6, 2007 5:24 PM | Report abuse

"she couldn't even deliver a message from Israel without being officially corrected."

Strangely enough, Olmert was corrected by his spokes-person. Apparently Speaker Pelosi didn't say anything to the Syrians that Olmert didn't say to Pelosi. Strange, that.

Posted by: bsimon | April 6, 2007 5:23 PM | Report abuse

Boo hoo roo - poor OPEC, can't use inflated prices to prop up their evil regimes. that must be a real blow to the liberal cause.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 6, 2007 5:21 PM | Report abuse

kingofzouk--"...irrational moonbeam leftists..."

Hey, your right to call people names has been revoked.

You have failed to answer all my points from the last several days.

Either do so or admit that I am correct, then you may continue using childish names to draw attention away from your weaker argumentation.

Posted by: roo | April 6, 2007 5:17 PM | Report abuse

kingofzouk--"Those on the right think America is the last great hope of mankind."

The right-wing America is, definitely, not a "great hope" for the rest of us. It might be the last of mankind, though.

kingofzouk--"The fact that liberals have to lie about this country should convince any objective observer as to who's telling the truth. The left, for example, insists that we invaded Iraq for its oil. And, yet, even after all this time, not only have we not confiscated their oil fields, we haven't even used Iraqi oil revenue to finance, as I think we should, that country's reconstruction."

Are you aware of the egregiously advantageous deal that the oil companies worked out for governing the oil dispensement--outside OPEC, too.

The "Iraq war was just about oil" I see on this site are incredibly naive or disingenious. That said, the enormous war profiteering is deeply disconcerting and absolutely played SOME role in internal deliberations at least at the individual level.

Posted by: roo | April 6, 2007 5:11 PM | Report abuse

MikeB: There are a number of things we agree on, and the only thing I can think of at the moment is we disagree on Hillary. Nancy Pelosi is all you say and then some. What I have done is research Hillary every way I can with my limited knowledge of computers, and found a truely remarkable person in every way that is important to most of us.Remember I have only had this thing for a year and when I got it didn't even know how to turn it on. Only in the last six months or so have I been able to find things. I still don't know what cut and paste means, or how to use it. I think it is some way to run the mouse over something and then put it on as if you had typed it, I just don't know.

Posted by: lylepink | April 6, 2007 5:09 PM | Report abuse

Let's review the Dem congress' acomplishments so far:
1. passed no bills except min wage which is caught in committee, so really no new laws
2. tried to usurp CinC title for Generalissimo pelosi
3. tried to usurp Sec'y of state title for generalissimo pelosi
4. tried to raise taxes by $400B
5. renegged on promise to include minority
6. renegged on promise to limit voting time
7. renegged on promise not to defund troops
8. culture of corruption under new leadership
9. inventing fictitious scandals left and right to cover ineptitude of Reid and pelosi
10. Pelosi needs a bigger plane to fit her ego
11. five day work week - guffaw

So is there a single electoral promise that was kept?

I had no idea what fun it is to sit on the sidelines and snipe, as was done all last year by the noxious Libs. but the Dems make is so easy to find fault, they are swimming in it. I don't even need to make things up like Libs do.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 6, 2007 4:53 PM | Report abuse

Only on this site could a gathering of irrational moonbeam leftists support a trip by someone with delusions of granduer which has been roundly critized by even the most partisan and biased media. she couldn't even deliver a message from Israel without being officially corrected. that botox is taking its toll.

Consensus only matters in science in this strange part of the world. but is is most amusing to see your desperation to attach some sort of rebuttal to the idiocy. this is the beginning of a long slide downhill for Dems. Just wait until they try to send a clean military spending bill to bush and the outcry from the cave-and-run coalition. the party is going to have a psychological breakdown. Dean is in charge so it seems very fitting.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 6, 2007 4:41 PM | Report abuse

KOZ - What Nancy Peloski did was her Constitutional DUTY. She was not making policy, she was listening and attempting to jump start diplomatic efforts at a Middle East settlement between Israel and Syria. This is in stark contrast to what Denny Hassert did as Speaker. Then, he went on a South Amercian and Asian tour, with other Republican "leaders" and actually advised the leaders of those countries to deal directly with COngress, bypassing the Clinton White House altogether. Finally, least you think it passed our notice, Nancy Pelosi was part of a BIPARTISAN Congressional delegation. If you check your COnstitution - and I know you right wing fanatics don't much believe in the Constitution - the eXecutive Branch is NOT soley reponsible for making foreign policy!!!! That is the right and duty of the Senate AND the House approves or disapproves of that by choosing to fund it and otherwise exercising oversight. Given the long series of lies, half truth, the threats of military action, and all of the other nonsense originating from the Bush White House I've got to say "it's about time" someone started acting in the best intersts of this country. Thank YOU Nacy Pelosi!

(And, lylepink, if you want a woman as President, you would be hard pressed to find someone better than Ms. Pelosi. You would be hard pressed to find anyone who could match her intelligence, common sense, or talents.)

Posted by: MikeB | April 6, 2007 4:33 PM | Report abuse

blarg says
"John McCain visited a foreign government? But he's just a legislator! He should be thrown in jail!"

No, no, no. He just went to the market. There's this great stall there, where a woman makes hummus according to her grandmother's secret recipe - but she won't Fedex it, so you have to go in person.

Posted by: bsimon | April 6, 2007 4:30 PM | Report abuse

Wash Times says
"Indeed, few news organizations heeded Army Maj. Gen. Michael D. Barbero, the Joint Staff's deputy director for operations, who announced March 30 that attacks against Iraqi civilians were down 20 percent, civilian deaths down 30 percent nationwide and civilian death in Baghdad down by 50 percent"

That's great news. Surely we won't have to commit to keeping the troops there for another full year, year and a half.

Posted by: bsimon | April 6, 2007 4:28 PM | Report abuse

John McCain visited a foreign government? But he's just a legislator! He should be thrown in jail!

Posted by: Blarg | April 6, 2007 4:28 PM | Report abuse

Asked if she had discussed the lack of women on the council, she told reporters, "The issue has been brought up in our discussions with the Saudis on this trip."


I ma bringing SF values to the world. Hear me roar.

Posted by: General Pelosi | April 6, 2007 4:22 PM | Report abuse

"No-name coward" says the self-proclaimed king, spewing his insult from a computer monitor, under a pseudonym.

Posted by: The Kettle Black | April 6, 2007 4:18 PM | Report abuse

The kingofzouk/Colbert thing was flippin' funny. That would explain a lot. Probably a team of creators, one person couldn't have that much time on their hands.

Posted by: Crtr | April 6, 2007 4:17 PM | Report abuse

"Perhaps Pelosi and other foreign officials will understand this simple equation one day, after again failing to persuade Assad to sell Hizbullah out. Unfortunately, foreign bigwigs come to town, their domestic calculations in hand; then they leave, and we're left picking up the pieces. "

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=5&article_id=81211

It seems the local Lebonese didn't appreciate General pelosi's visit either. did all that plastic surgery squeeze her brain somehow?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 6, 2007 4:17 PM | Report abuse

While children will be participating in a Washington tradition next week rolling Easter eggs on the White House lawn, anti-war and human rights activists will be inviting others to join in an unusual new activity: an Easter cluster-bomb hunt.

you all have a sick sense of humor.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 6, 2007 4:15 PM | Report abuse

On his return earlier this week from a trip to Iraq, Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican, said the nation is not getting a "full picture" of obvious progress made by the U.S. in the country.
Indeed, few news organizations heeded Army Maj. Gen. Michael D. Barbero, the Joint Staff's deputy director for operations, who announced March 30 that attacks against Iraqi civilians were down 20 percent, civilian deaths down 30 percent nationwide and civilian death in Baghdad down by 50 percent.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20070405-114822-9240r.htm


Still some work to do but the truth is wriggling free of the death grip the media and Libs have had on it for the last few months.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 6, 2007 4:13 PM | Report abuse

Zouk Rule #3 - When being the last one out the door at the RNC, leave the PC and lights on to signify opposition to that loser (who was a winner, before he was a loser) Al Gore.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 6, 2007 4:12 PM | Report abuse

Zouk Rule #1 - Create History to fit the post

Zouk Rule #2 - When caught on anything (a falsehood, an inconsistency, anything)

a) Change the topic
b) Attack the poster who caught it
c) Both a) and b)
d) Just don't respond

Posted by: Anonymous | April 6, 2007 4:07 PM | Report abuse

Jindal can't win in Louisianan. No way...

Mitt Romney bloggers on Political Buzz Radio @ 6:30
http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by: m | April 6, 2007 4:07 PM | Report abuse

Oo! How DARE that filthy foreigner Jindal even dream of the American Dream?! Outrage! Get your hoods!

Posted by: roo | April 6, 2007 4:04 PM | Report abuse

I see the ignorant no-name coward is morphing into sybil-like personalites. none of them can confront any issues and prefer to just spew insults and avoid facts. all the lies the Dems have told are coming home to roost. It is now completely clear they intend to hand off this war to the jihadists if the voters will allow it. We won't. Playing around with tax increases is maddening enough but that didn't threaten our civilization. you all have been revealed for the charlatans you are through your minions Pelosi, Murtha, Kennedy, Reid, Sheehan, Jefferson, Frank, Hastings, Moran, leaky Leahy and the rest. this gang of crooks has led a once noble party down the path of doom. It only took a small experiment in granting them a little power to show how determined they are to ruin everything America stands for. thanks for making that so clear now even USA today and WaPo has figured it out.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 6, 2007 4:01 PM | Report abuse

Zouk: Do the Republican Congressmen who frequently visit with foreign leaders, including the leaders of Syria, also belong in jail? Or is this another double standard?

William: You're arguing that people shouldn't vote for Jindal because of his ethnic background. And to back that up, you're citing the fact that Jindal wouldn't have been liked by 19th-century Southerners. (Who, to put it delicately, weren't exactly paragons of racial tolerance.) Tell me again how you're not a racist.

Posted by: Blarg | April 6, 2007 3:59 PM | Report abuse

"Ignorant coward." Classy. Kingofzouk is obviously the Stephen Colbert-like avatar of a liberal activist attempting to advance his/her views by portraying conservatives as ridiculous. The hysterical ranting, blind obeisance to the party line, and self-adulation are an attempt to mock the stereotype of the empty vitriol of the current conservative leadership. The greatest failing of this ruse is excess; in reality even the most shrill partisan would maintain some degree of dignity so as to enhance credibility, in contrast with zouk.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 6, 2007 3:53 PM | Report abuse

kingofzouk 02:26PM: I do not usually respond to kooks but in your case of a flat out Bald Faced Lie I will. Keep up ypur pretense if you have nothing better to do, but at least try and get something correct, sometime.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 6, 2007 3:51 PM | Report abuse

We now know that slavery is an indefensible evil, and that Davis and the other Confederates were wrong to condone it and to own slaves, but back then, slavery was commonplace almost everywhere in the world, and abolitionists were widely considered to be radical and outside the mainstream.

Therefore, you can't really fault Davis for supporting something that was, in his society, completely acceptable, and that he grew up learning to support.

FYI, Davis did admit that slavery was wrong after the war.

Posted by: William | April 6, 2007 3:48 PM | Report abuse

Will somebody please keep posting in William's name?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 6, 2007 3:46 PM | Report abuse

Zouk he not yapping about the "haves", he's yapping about the "have mores" (see G. W. Bush)

Posted by: Anonymous | April 6, 2007 3:43 PM | Report abuse

"William, I think Jefferson Davis would have considered Breaux to be a Louisiana citizen. And he would have considered Bobby Jindal to be a slave."

I think your right about what Davis would consider Breaux.

As for Jindal, I don't think there were any Indian slaves.

In fact, the American Indians (Cherokee, etc) of Oklahoma opted to ally themselves with the South during the war.

This was for a couple for reasons.

First, many Cherokee and other Indians were slaveowners themselves, or at least condoned it.

Secondly, the Federal (Yankee) government had been encroaching on the Indians' territory and persecuting them.

The Confederates opposed empire building and imperialism, and were happy to let the Indians live unmolested in OK and other Western areas. The Indian tribes were even invited to send voting delegates to the Confederate Congress, and did so.

Finally, the Native Americans shared the Southern belief of limited government and self-determination (except for slaves.)

The South wanted to be free of the North and the Indians wanted to be free from the North too.

So Jeff Davis would not have made Jindal a slave. He would have recognized that Jindal is intelligent and talented and probably appointed him as ambassador to the American Indians, or ambassador to the real Indians (in India) or something.

Posted by: William | April 6, 2007 3:43 PM | Report abuse

Ms. Pelosi and her Congressional entourage spoke to President Assad on various issues, among other things saying, "We came in friendship, hope, and determined that the road to Damascus is a road to peace." She is certainly not the first member of Congress--of either party--to engage in this sort of behavior, but her position as a national leader, the wartime circumstances, the opposition to the trip from the White House, and the character of the regime she has chosen to approach make her behavior particularly inappropriate.
The Logan Act makes it a felony and provides for a prison sentence of up to three years for any American, "without authority of the United States," to communicate with a foreign government in an effort to influence that government's behavior on any "disputes or controversies with the United States."The U.S. is in the midst of two wars authorized by Congress. For Ms. Pelosi to flaunt the Constitution in these circumstances is not only shortsighted; it may well be a felony, as the Logan Act has been part of our criminal law for more than two centuries. Perhaps it is time to enforce the law."

Now the WSJ. I guess that sweeps it, we have a consensus - Pelosi belongs in jail.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009908

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 6, 2007 3:42 PM | Report abuse

There are, as John Edwards keeps insisting, two Americas. They just don't happen to be the two he keeps yapping about -- the rich and the poor, the haves and the have-nots. Instead, there are the liberals and the conservatives. The left regards America as a big bully that's out to oppress the rest of the world. Those on the right think America is the last great hope of mankind. The fact that liberals have to lie about this country should convince any objective observer as to who's telling the truth. The left, for example, insists that we invaded Iraq for its oil. And, yet, even after all this time, not only have we not confiscated their oil fields, we haven't even used Iraqi oil revenue to finance, as I think we should, that country's reconstruction.

http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/BurtPrelutsky/2007/04/06/more_observations_than_you_can_shake_a_stick_at

More points about Liberal lying. Maybe the momentum for truth is finally emerging. all the Dem lies from the last election have been revealed for those with eyes open.

Ignorant coward - you attempt at humor is disgusting.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 6, 2007 3:38 PM | Report abuse

You are right, William, that I would not when alive have considered Jindal a true Southerner. Of course not, I would have said. He's a darky. (SWISSSSH-CRACK!) Ow! I mean. "not a Caucasian." However, since death, I have been the, uh, recipient (SWISSSSH-CRACK!) Ow! The GRATEFUL recipient of some needed moral lessons. His ethnic background should have nothing to do with his fitness for office. You will probably be surprised when I tell you that if I were alive, I would... well... (SWISSSSH-CRACK!) Ow! I would CERTAINLY support his candidacy, him being conservative and for the wealthy and all. Breaux, on the other hand, is a Democrat who will vote for things like (mincing tone) 'fairness' and 'equality' and 'social services.' Not to mention taking the 'environmental crisis' seriously. (SWISSSSH-CRACK!) Ow! I mean, both candidates have defined ideas upon which they should be compared, rather than on racial grounds.

Painfully yours,

Condemned Soul #46378947789056 (the former 'Jefferson Davis')

Posted by: Jefferson Davis | April 6, 2007 3:31 PM | Report abuse

'Because they are not Speaker of the House. duh.'

duh indeed. like that has to do with it. if it were denmy hastert, see, it'd be fine.

Posted by: most irrelevant point of the day | April 6, 2007 3:27 PM | Report abuse

ASHINGTON -- Three Republican congressmen who parted with President Bush by meeting with Syrian leaders said Wednesday it is important to maintain a dialogue with a country the White House says sponsors terrorism.

"I don't care what the administration says on this. You've got to do what you think is in the best interest of your country," said Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va. "I want us to be successful in Iraq. I want us to clamp down on Hezbollah."

Posted by: Anonymous | April 6, 2007 3:26 PM | Report abuse

"See, the truth is emerging."

To Zouk, the truth is an opinion column that agrees with him.

William, I think Jefferson Davis would have considered Breaux to be a Louisiana citizen. And he would have considered Bobby Jindal to be a slave.

Posted by: Blarg | April 6, 2007 3:22 PM | Report abuse

"Because they are not Speaker"

So, it's okay for them to practice the same diplomacy, even though they are members of the Legislative Branch?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 6, 2007 3:20 PM | Report abuse

Anybody remember when the Navy fliers were being held by Syria and Ron Reagan couldn't get them released?

Wasn't it somebody outside the Executive Branch who, to the consternation of that Branch, practiced actual diplomacy and got them released at no cost to the U. S.?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 6, 2007 3:18 PM | Report abuse

Because they are not Speaker of the House. duh.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 6, 2007 3:17 PM | Report abuse

To Zouk and Boy Wonder - Please explain why all of the Republican Congressmen who immediately preceded or accompanied Pelosi are not included in your castigations.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 6, 2007 3:15 PM | Report abuse

"I have an idea. Let's consider whom Jefferson Davis, father of the South, would consider the true LA citizen."

Unless you live in Louisiana: It's none of your business!

Keep your ideas where they belong, up North.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 6, 2007 3:11 PM | Report abuse

Now Pelosi is trying to pretend she helped broker the release of the British sailors.

Regardless of what she thinks of the president, he was reelected in 2004 to be the leader and "spokesman" of the United States.

So its the perogative of HIS administration to formulate and conduct foreign policy, and not Pelosi.

She is undercutting and undermining the president by fraternizing with our enemies and opening up back channel negotiations.

If I were Bush I would teach her a real lesson.

Revoke her passport while she's in Syria and make here stay there for a few weeks.

Then, when she issues a public apology for her actions on TV, let her come back.

Humiliate her.

And if she tries to come back without a passport, have her handcuffed on charges of illegal entry the moment she sets foot on the Tarmac.

Posted by: William | April 6, 2007 3:10 PM | Report abuse

"Nevertheless, I say to you, that we are, have been, and continue to be victorious. Islamic forces are focused on Iraq and Afghanistan, and the fact that these lunatics are spending there own blood and treasure there, means that they cannot spend that capital attacking us here."

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=america_victorious_in_korea,_vietnam,_and_iraq&ns=PhilHarris&dt=04/06/2007&page=1


See, the truth is emerging.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 6, 2007 3:03 PM | Report abuse

Even the USA today thinks general pelosi is a fool:
"But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi crossed a line this week by visiting Syria, where she met with President Bashar Assad. She violated a long-held understanding that the United States should speak with one official voice abroad -- even if the country is deeply divided on foreign policy back home."


Is there any person out there who thinks this was a good idea? It seems there is a consensus that this was stupid. and this time it is in a non-science discipline where consensus actually matters.

All it took to defenestrate the Dems and show them to be the capitulate caucus was to let them take over for 2 short years. Now we know. no new laws from the new congress only new attempts at surrender. And there were attempts at big pork and tax increases. Some of us knew this would happen.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 6, 2007 2:58 PM | Report abuse

As far as NC is concerned, black NC voters are almost all Democrats, and even a lot of white Southerners here like to vote for conservative white Dems out of tradition, since they remember their parents were Democratic voters. But lately, the Dems have been in freefall here in NC due to scandals.


As far as Louisiana is concerned, it depends what definition of citizen you are using. TECHNICALLY, Breaux may have switched his citizenship to MD, but if you use a broader, more honest, definition, Breaux is way more of a LA citizen than Jindal.

Breaux's ancestors came to Louisiana in the 1700s, and many generations of his family have dedicated their lives to LA, and are buried there. His family has a long history of being loyal to LA, and serving LA.

Breaux himself served LA for 33 YEARS as a congressman and then senator.

Breaux still owns a home in LA (Crowley) and pays LA taxes.


Piyush "Bobby" Jindal, on the other hand, is the son of immigrants from India, and has a history of being a greedy, over-ambitious self promoter.

He probably dreams about being president one day.

Jindal, an Indian, is not from a family that has dedicated generations to LA. He has not served LA for 33 years.

And he only adopted the nickname "Bobby" to sound more American. His real first name is Piyush, though he tries to hide it.

I have an idea. Let's consider whom Jefferson Davis, father of the South, would consider the true LA citizen.

Hint: It's not Jindal.

Jindal's district is comprised of the well-to-do suburbs surrounding New Orleans and some nearby areas.

He has little to no appeal in the most rural Northern areas of the state. Take a look at a district map of LA. His small district is in the South-east of the state, and he would be hard-pressed to appeal to rural Northern voters.

It'll be a SAD day for the great state of Louisiana when they have to have Jindal as governor.

Go Breaux!

Posted by: William | April 6, 2007 2:56 PM | Report abuse

king of zouk says
"why use facts when the complicit media will let you get away with making things up."

Ah, the Dick Cheney approach.

Posted by: bsimon | April 6, 2007 2:51 PM | Report abuse

angrydoug - Of course the media does the bidding of the right wingnuts. Take a look at the jobs data that was released today. Now, the "news" is that there was a huge uptick in construction jobs, but anyone looking closely at the data will releazing that the data has been cooked. Two-thirds of construction trade trade jobs are occupied by illegal immigrants. That is a Commerse Department stat, by the way; most observers think 2/3 is way too low. So the uptick is for a bunch of low paid illegals. It all rather like the jobs numbers over the past several months touting the number of new high tech jobs being created but ignoring the fact that 9 out of every 10 of them goes to a Chinese or Indian "guest worker" on an H1B visa. All the press does is, without questioning anything, publish press releases from the "Bushies". If I were a newspaper reporter, I would find that rather embarrassing. The press is not much more than a craven collection of groupies surrounding whoever is in power. Right now that is serving the neocons and their corporate masters. Eventually, we will undergo some sort of swing to the left and they will likely equally well serve whatever the left tells them to publish. It wont be an improvement.

Posted by: MikeB | April 6, 2007 2:32 PM | Report abuse

"why use facts when...you get away with making things up."

That tactic works for you Zouk! Why should you begrudge others using it?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 6, 2007 2:32 PM | Report abuse

"No controlling legal authority"

How quickly and conveniently you forget.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 6, 2007 2:28 PM | Report abuse

"No controlling legal authority"

How quickly and conveniently you forget.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 6, 2007 2:28 PM | Report abuse

don't expect lylepink to rely upon any facts. when I asked her last week to post any fact we could agree on she basically said that facts don't matter. I beleive this is pretty much the startegy of the entire Lib coalition - to end the influence of facts on the public debate.

why use facts when the complicit media will let you get away with making things up. for example - global warming, AG firing scandal, plame outing, CinC responsibilites compared to those of congress, etc. If the facts on these issues were ever revealed, the Dems would be forced to hang their heads in shame, if they can ever figure out what that FEELING is.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 6, 2007 2:26 PM | Report abuse

If you people really want to post news stories from other web sites, get your own blog. It is nice you think your stories are more important, but it is out of place.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 6, 2007 2:24 PM | Report abuse

You know that they don't have much behind their point when they have to use Rosie O'Donnell as an example.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 6, 2007 2:18 PM | Report abuse

lylepink, I don't see how you can say the mass media are in cahoots with the GOP. Most major outlets have a mild left-wing bias. Note Rosie O'Donnell is on a major network and Rush Limbaugh is not, to cite one example. You seem upset that we'll have a $1 or $2 billion presidential election. Note that over the following four years the government will spend about $12,000 billion out of $45,000 to $50,000 billion of economic output. That's quite a small portion, and it'd be smaller still if us small-government conservatives would have our way.

Posted by: angrydoug | April 6, 2007 2:05 PM | Report abuse

First, a note to WaPo...if the comments section isn't going to be regulated in some fashion you might as well not have it. About 10 of the 60 comments here have anything to do with the topic. The rest are ads for blogs. I like reading the comments on the topic, but it's a waste to slog through the rest of this crap.

Now -- NC. In 2004, Bush won NC big, Mike Easley won bigger. The Republican running for governor isn't very likely to get much of a bump. In fact, I'd suggest the opposite might be the case; namely that the Democratic presidential candidate might get a bump from the Democratic gubernatorial nominee (and quite possibly the Democratic Senate nominee going against a beatable Elizabeth Dole). Certainly, parts of this state are hard-core Republican, but not as much as you might think. The Democrat running for president probably won't win NC, but it may be closer than you'd expect.

Posted by: adam | April 6, 2007 1:46 PM | Report abuse

Andy R: You describe "Liberal" very well, and that is the true meaning. The problem over the years has been the Media, in cohoots with the GOP, to distort, lie and all the words used to describe it as something evil, if not worse. I jokingly made a remark about watching the news on my fridge, just to show how some folks will believe anything. Everything you said is true. MONEY is the driving force behind all of this along with Power, and what is easily understood that Power is not gained but with MONEY.

Posted by: lylepink | April 6, 2007 1:44 PM | Report abuse

You know lylepink I am happy to be called a liberal.
To me it means that I care about other people not just my own financial success. It also means that I understand that when we go to War that my taxes will go up and that I might have to make some sacrifices. I am ok with that since I am not making the ultimate sacrifice that the soldiers in Iraq and Afganistan are. Also it means that I want well-funded schools, and clean parks, and publicly funded campaigns so that ideas and not money determine our leaders.
It also means that I think all people should have equal rights no matter if they are gay, black, hispanic, a woman or whatever.

Liberal also means that when someone else is infringing on these rights in this country or abroad then we should force them to stop, and if that means that we commit the awesome force of our military then so be it.

Posted by: Andy R | April 6, 2007 12:56 PM | Report abuse


WASHINGTON -- Three Republican congressmen who parted with President Bush by meeting with Syrian leaders said Wednesday it is important to maintain a dialogue with a country the White House says sponsors terrorism.

"I don't care what the administration says on this. You've got to do what you think is in the best interest of your country," said Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va. "I want us to be successful in Iraq. I want us to clamp down on Hezbollah."

Posted by: Anonymous | April 6, 2007 12:53 PM | Report abuse

That night, Brian Ross of ABC News reported that, since 2005, the U.S. has "encouraged and advised" Jundullah, a Pakistani tribal terrorist group, led by a former Taliban fighter and drug smuggler, which has been launching guerrilla raids into Baluchi areas of Iran. These incursions involve kidnappings and terror bombings of civilians, as well as the murder (recorded on video) of Iranian prisoners.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 6, 2007 12:47 PM | Report abuse

'I see the paranoia of hillary has spread to her minions and the vast right wing conspiracy is still in effect. I had no idea that the ultra-lib WaPo was in on it now'

only a further demonstration of the lies of the right. Fred Hiatt is very far right. always has been. the wapo is a corporate funnel for the right, although thee are occasional columnists who are fair. just another attempt to smear Democrats and obfuscate the facts.

but that's what you makke a career out of, isn't it? since you post approximately every 4 minutes or more, you can't really have a job if this isn't it, can you?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 6, 2007 12:46 PM | Report abuse

Again, notice how the dreaded word "Liberal" is always, yes always, brought into play when the far right wing is losing the arguement.

Posted by: lylepink | April 6, 2007 12:26 PM | Report abuse

Archbishop Weighs In Against Senate Stem Cell Bill
The archbishop of Philadelphia is urging senators to reject an upcoming bill would liberalize federal support for stem cell research.

http://onthehillblog.blogspot.com/2007/04/archbishop-weighs-in-against-senate.html

Posted by: Anonymous | April 6, 2007 12:22 PM | Report abuse

You know what they say lylepink,
'Never let the truth get in the way of a good story'

Posted by: Andy R | April 6, 2007 12:18 PM | Report abuse

this is what the "far right wing" editors at the WaPo had to say about General Pelosi:
"The Washington Post declared Pelosi's defense of her trip to Syria "ludicrous" and said: "As any diplomat with knowledge of the region could have told Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Assad is a corrupt thug whose overriding priority at the moment is not peace with Israel but heading off U.N. charges that he orchestrated the murder of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq al-Hariri. The really striking development here is the attempt by a Democratic congressional leader to substitute her own foreign policy for that of a sitting Republican president. Two weeks ago Ms. Pelosi rammed legislation through the House of Representatives that would strip Mr. Bush of his authority as commander in chief to manage troop movements in Iraq. Now she is attempting to introduce a new Middle East policy that directly conflicts with that of the president. We have found much to criticize in Mr. Bush's military strategy and regional diplomacy. But Ms. Pelosi's attempt to establish a shadow presidency is not only counterproductive, it is foolish."

I see the paranoia of hillary has spread to her minions and the vast right wing conspiracy is still in effect. I had no idea that the ultra-lib WaPo was in on it now. Maybe what Pelosi did was really stupid and you dufuses just don't get it, ever consider that?

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 6, 2007 12:15 PM | Report abuse


On Tuesday, meeting with the press in the White House Rose Garden, the President responded to a question about House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's visit to Syria this way: "[P]hoto opportunities and/or meetings with President Assad lead the Assad government to believe they're part of the mainstream of the international community, when, in fact, they're a state sponsor of terror." There should, he added to the assembled reporters, be no meetings with state sponsors of terror.

That night, Brian Ross of ABC News reported that, since 2005, the U.S. has "encouraged and advised" Jundullah, a Pakistani tribal terrorist group, led by a former Taliban fighter and drug smuggler, which has been launching guerrilla raids into Baluchi areas of Iran. These incursions involve kidnappings and terror bombings of civilians, as well as the murder (recorded on video) of Iranian prisoners.

Posted by: US sponsors terrorists | April 6, 2007 12:08 PM | Report abuse

Blarg: You may have noticed where the trashing of Pelosi is coming from. Just in case, the far right wing, led by Dickie himself, has been on an all attack that is yet again filled with lies and half truths. I am among a growing number of folks that are beginning to believe that the truth is somehow, someway, something that Dick Cheney will not speak. He is at a point that he has even been telling lies about the lies he has already told.

Posted by: lylepink | April 6, 2007 12:07 PM | Report abuse

Today, Tony Blair called the attack that killed four British soldiers yesterday an act of terrorism. You didn't see that wrong. Yes, now attacking soldiers is also an act of terrorism. So, that's it. It's official. The word "terrorism" no longer means anything.

The whole point of labeling something a terrorist act was that it targeted civilians, and hence, was particularly heinous. Of course, this is a relatively recent definition since the fire bombing of Dresden and Tokyo targeted civilians, to say the least. And to say that the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki also targeted civilians is a dramatic understatement.

I'm not saying we shouldn't have used the weapons we did in World War II. And I'm definitely not saying that attacking the British troops was acceptable. The loss of those four young lives is a tragedy. But if you call it terrorism to attack our troops now, there is no conceivable definition of terrorism that makes sense anymore.

Unless, of course, we just wanted to confirm what has unofficially been true for some time now. We pretty much call our enemies terrorists. And if our allies do the same exact thing we call them militants or soldiers or even freedom fighters. Does there get to be a point when the hypocrisy is a little too much to bear? And if it does, can anyone really argue we're not at that point?

Posted by: cenk | April 6, 2007 12:02 PM | Report abuse

More than six years after the Clintons left the White House, nearly half of the respondents in a new poll - 45 percent - worry that if they return, they could bring "high levels of corruption" with them. A Zogby International poll released Thursday in Washington highlights in particular concerns about former President Bill Clinton's ability to "behave honestly in the White House" if his wife, Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) is elected president in 2008.

See, the truth will emerge over time. The smart half of the country is already aware.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 6, 2007 12:01 PM | Report abuse

Drindl: as usual, you're reading my mind. Obama has many similarities to Bobby Kennedy in terms of his idealism, sincerity and intelligence. Those kinds of people, when placed squarely in the public eye, somehow draw the attentions of truly deranged individuals who shouldn't be allowed access to firearms. Mark David Chapman and John Hinckley come to mind.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | April 6, 2007 12:00 PM | Report abuse

'The United States fears that the next September 11-style attack on America could be launched by Muslims from Britain or Europe who feel "second-class citizens" and alienated by a "colonial legacy", according to the US Homeland Security chief.

In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, Michael Chertoff, who arrives in Britain tomorrow for talks with John Reid, the Home Secretary, said the US was determined to build extra defences against so-called "clean skin" terrorists from Europe.'

--time for the draft! we need to invade europe and canada and mexico...

Posted by: Steven | April 6, 2007 11:59 AM | Report abuse

WASHINGTON -- Three Republican congressmen who parted with President Bush by meeting with Syrian leaders said Wednesday it is important to maintain a dialogue with a country the White House says sponsors terrorism.

"I don't care what the administration says on this. You've got to do what you think is in the best interest of your country," said Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va. "I want us to be successful in Iraq. I want us to clamp down on Hezbollah."

Bush sharply criticized House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., for leading a delegation to meet with Syria's president, Bashar Assad.

The White House, however, stayed quiet about a similar trip just a few days earlier by Wolf and GOP Reps. Robert Aderholt of Alabama and Joseph Pitts of Pennsylvania.'

Posted by: Anonymous | April 6, 2007 11:55 AM | Report abuse


'Elliott Abrams is a convicted felon from the first Bush Administration, who knuckle-walks the State Deparment instead of a prison cell because W's Daddy pardoned him along with Caspar Weinberger and other Administration officials in the last days of his Presidency.

(HW Bush continues to assert that he always honored his office!). As part of his well-known concern for rehabilitating convicted felons, George W. appointed Elliott to a position in the State Department that does not require Senate approval.

Elliott is a radical rightwing zealot who opposes a genuine two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict. He is willing for other peoples' children to die holding on to the West Bank for Israel (and, I am told, his relatives).

Elliott's title ["Deputy National Security Advisor for Global Democracy Strategy"], however, does not even begin to explain his role. He and Cheney are the two principals advising Bush on foreign policy. At the beginning of the Israeli-Lebanon conflict this summer, I learned, Elliott was in Jerusalem letting the Defense Minister know that he had a "green light" to attack Syria. Remember, that is when there was more than a little suspicion that the US was using Israel as a proxy for regime change, fortunately, the Israelis had a bit more sense than that.

Syria has just told Nancy Pelosi that it is willing to start talks with Israel. Why did they tell Nancy Pelosi? Because George Bush will not speak to them. Watch, Elliott will pressure Israel not to engage in such talks. As a non-Senate confirmed operative, he cannot be called before the Foreign Relations Committee.'

Posted by: bush does not want peace in israel | April 6, 2007 11:53 AM | Report abuse

cheney vs. pentagon:

Pentagon Report Says No Connection Between Iraq And Al Qaeda....Cheney Says There Is

Posted by: Anonymous | April 6, 2007 11:49 AM | Report abuse

J, I disagree that Northup is the frontrunner in the Blue Grass state. Being a republican right now isn't any better then it was 6 months ago when Northup lost her seat. Taken with Fletcher's problems and the fact that the democrats will nominate someone who has statewide name recognition and you have an advantage for the Democrats.

Also I don't know why Hill would leave the majority in the House to run a tough campaign for governor. Especially since the establishment seems to be fully behind this Schellinger guy. By the way does anyone know why this guy was so sought after?

Posted by: Andy R | April 6, 2007 11:41 AM | Report abuse

Bruce Lunsford and Greg Stumbo have the strongest organization in the state and continue to rack up key critical endorsements. The former Mayor of Lexington Teresa Isaac has endorsed him, the State Senate Minority Leader Ed Worley has endorsed him, and so has former Governor Julian Carroll. Bruce has momentum going into the final days and is successfully fundraising and providing financial support of his own. The latest poll from Survey USA showed him tied with Steve Henry at 20%. Steve Henry will continue to falter and Lunsford/Stumbo will only continue to gain support. Bruce Lunsford will be the Democratic nominee and the next governor of the Commonwealth of Kentucky.

Posted by: Lunsford/Stumbo Democrat | April 6, 2007 11:34 AM | Report abuse

I would say its wise that LA is No. 1. Jindal is a strong frontrunner right now. In KY, if Gov. Fletcher's renominated, I think he'd lose to any Dem except for Lunsford and former Lt. Gov. Henry. If former Rep. Northup wins the GOP Primary, she'll be the frontrunner for the general election. I was hearing that Rep. Baron Hill (D) might challenge Gov. Mitch Daniels (R-IN) in '08, rather than run for reelection. Former Rep. Mike Sodrel will challenge Hill in 2008, as he did in 2006, 2004 and 2002. And, like in 2004, Sodrel has strong chances of winning due to the Presidential election. Is that nothing but speculation?

Posted by: J Perez | April 6, 2007 11:26 AM | Report abuse

Documentor, the anonymous poster referred to "Pelosi's preliminary successes and the public support for THEM." The public support is for Pelosi's successes, not for the Syria trip. Presumably those successes include passing bills to increase the minimum wage and reduce troop levels in Iraq, both of which are very popular according to polls.

Posted by: Blarg | April 6, 2007 11:22 AM | Report abuse

An anonymous poster stated, The real key, though, is that the public is supporting her efforts. This simply wasn't supposed to happen. So, in addition to all the things Josh says, the noise about the Syria trip is in a way a howl of frustration at Pelosi's preliminary successes and the public support for them.

Please give one example of a survey, poll, or documented evidence that the public is supporting Pelosi's Syria trip. I haven't seen anything and I'm a professional researcher with access to paid news services. Once again, what are your sources documenting this support? Hopefully it's not because a columnist or Democratic news release said so! A documented unbiased source would suffice. I'll wait for your response. Probably a long, long time I'm guessing.

Posted by: Documentor | April 6, 2007 11:15 AM | Report abuse

Elizabeth Edwards will appear on the Oprah Winfrey show today. I would expect Edwards' poll numbers to take a rather good jump in the next few weeks.
You got to love the Oprah effect.

Posted by: Andy R | April 6, 2007 10:50 AM | Report abuse

'When did it come to the point that being a Christian meant only caring about two issues, abortion and homosexuality?

Ask the nonreligious what being a Christian today means, and based on what we see and read, it's a good bet they will say that followers of Jesus Christ are preoccupied with those two points.

Poverty? Whatever. Homelessness? An afterthought. A widening gap between the have and have-nots? Immaterial. Divorce? The divorce rate of Christians mirrors the national average, so that's no big deal.

The point is that being a Christian should be about more than abortion and homosexuality, and it's high time that those not considered a part of the religious right expose the hypocrisy of our brothers and sisters in Christianity and take back the faith.

Many people believe we are engaged in a holy war. And we are. But it's not with Muslims. The real war -- the silent war -- is being engaged among Christians, and that's what we must set our sights on.

As we celebrate Holy Week, our focus is on the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. But aren't we also to recommit ourselves to live more like Jesus? Did Jesus spend his time focusing on all that he didn't like, or did Jesus raise the consciousness of the people to understand love, compassion and teach them about following the will of God?

As a layman studying to receive a master's in Christian communications, and the husband of an ordained minister, it's troubling to listen to "Christian radio" and hear the kind of hate spewing out of the mouths of my brothers and sisters in the faith.

In fact, I've grown tired of people who pimp God. That's right; we have a litany of individuals today who are holy, holy, holy, sing hallelujah, talk about how they love the Lord, but when it's time to walk the walk, somehow the spirit evaporates.'

Posted by: Anonymous | April 6, 2007 10:43 AM | Report abuse

A newly declassified US Defence Department report has confirmed what most sane people on the planet already knew, Saddam Hussein's regime was not directly cooperating with al-Qaeda before the U.S. invasion of Iraq. The very notion that a secular dictator would assist a man hellbent on establishing an Islamic theocracy was always fanciful. Especially as the man wanting the Islamic theocracy had already labelled the secular dictator, "an apostate, an infidel and a traitor to Islam."

Posted by: suckers | April 6, 2007 10:29 AM | Report abuse

Agree with you, Andy. Only I worry about Obama. The state this country is in now, the rabid partisanship, the hatred of Democrats that I hear on the radio and TV anytime I switch it on -- which I do less and less of these days... it makes me worry for his safety. Look how many nuts like William are out there--it only takes one.

Posted by: drindl | April 6, 2007 10:26 AM | Report abuse

The Justice Department is refusing to release hundreds of pages of additional documents related to the firings of eight U.S. attorneys.... What, exactly, makes this administration think withholding information is a good idea? With all the already well-documented lies, this behavior only reinforces the general consensus that they are covering up more lies.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 6, 2007 10:22 AM | Report abuse

Former Ashcroft Spokesman: Gonzales Should Resign

Posted by: Anonymous | April 6, 2007 10:21 AM | Report abuse

'April 6, 2007 | With her brief visit to Syria, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has provoked an outburst of flaming hysteria from the Bush administration, as well as from the neoconservatives who fashioned its ruinous war and failed foreign policies. The screaming critics of the speaker charge her with undermining presidential power, freelancing Mideast diplomacy, appeasing a terrorist regime and even surrendering to Islamist radicalism by donning a head scarf. By merely meeting with Bashar Assad, the Syrian president, Pelosi supposedly proved that she was eager to promote irresponsible partisanship at the cost of national unity and constitutional order.

In the New York Post she was accused of "making a date with a terrorist." On the NewsMax site she was portrayed as "appeasing dictators in the Middle East." In the Washington Post she was ridiculed for attempting to mount a "shadow presidency." And on CNN, she was mocked for planting a "big wet kiss" on Assad as a "publicity stunt."

Yet those furious complaints were all false and, more important, beside the point. The problem is not what Pelosi did or said, but how she exposed the exhaustion of neoconservative policy.

As most of her critics surely know, there is nothing outrageous or even unusual about a meeting between a foreign head of state and a member of Congress. Indeed, she was preceded on the road to Damascus by Rep. Frank Wolf, a prominent Virginia Republican who led a GOP delegation to meet with Assad, and she was soon followed by Rep. Darrell Issa, a California Republican whose remarks after seeing the Syrian leader were sharply critical of the Bush White House.

Pelosi was attacked for her remarks about the possibility of peace talks between Syria and Israel, as if this radical prospect had never been broached before. Before arriving in Damascus, she had met with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and addressed the Knesset, pledging Democratic support for the defense of the Jewish state.

Although Olmert later attempted to embarrass Pelosi by declaring that he had given her no message for Assad, his own spokeswoman issued a statement after their meeting on April 1, which clearly indicated that they had discussed what she might say to the Syrian president. According to that statement, Olmert told her that he would enter negotiations with Assad only if Syria withdrew its support for Hamas and Hezbollah. There is no evidence that Pelosi said anything different in Damascus. Why she expressed optimism about eventual peace talks between the Syrians and the Israelis remains to be seen.

The speaker's rather bland remarks in Syria were no more provocative than the statement released by Wolf, who has not suffered any specific denunciation from the White House or the right-wing claque for his separate visit to Syria. "We came because we believe there is an opportunity for dialogue," he said, speaking for himself and Reps. Robert Aderholt, R-Ala., and Joseph Pitts, R-Pa. Rep. Issa.'

oh, btw, there are photos of laura bush, condi, and karen hughes wearing headscarves in muslim countries. has laura bush surrendered to terrorists?

how much can you righties suck up? how many lies can you believe? how naive are you?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 6, 2007 10:19 AM | Report abuse

Your right Drindl, I was just thinking how even in Massachusetts, a solid blue state, our last governer's race was real nasty (remember the ad with the white woman in the parking deck saying that Deval Patrick supported rapists).

It is one of the reasons why I like Obama so much. The political discourse in this coutry has to change, IMO.

Posted by: Andy R | April 6, 2007 10:10 AM | Report abuse

Look, when Pelosi took power this year there was no shortage of pundits -- and Republicans -- who kept issuing somber warnings that if she took actual steps to try to end the war she'd suffer badly as a result. Pelosi disregarded this "advice" from the punditry, and judging by the shrieks and head-banging noises coming from the office of Fred Hiatt her early successes represent a real threat to those who want to keep the war going forever.

The real key, though, is that the public is supporting her efforts. This simply wasn't supposed to happen. So, in addition to all the things Josh says, the noise about the Syria trip is in a way a howl of frustration at Pelosi's preliminary successes and the public support for them. It's a last-ditch effort to paint her as a friend of the terr'ists in order to confuse the American people into losing sight of the fact that she's the one speaking for them on the war. As Romney's spokesperson makes plain, it's all about Iraq. And it's sad that the media is so willingly playing along.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 6, 2007 10:10 AM | Report abuse

'There've been a few hints that something fishy was up in the Minneapolis US Attorney's office where 33-year old Rachel Paulose was sworn in to office last month in a lavish 'investiture' ceremony some have called a 'coronation'. Paulose's predecessor left under murky circumstances. And there are some hints that the Justice Department may originally have considered giving Paulose a Patriot Act appointment rather than going down the old-fashioned senate confirmation route.

Now there's this just breaking this evening ...

It's a major shakeup at the offices of new U.S. Attorney Rachel Paulose.
Four of her top staff voluntarily demoted themselves Thursday, fed up with Paulose, who, after just months on the job, has earned a reputation for quoting Bible verses and mocking underlings.

Deputy U.S. Attorney John Marty is just one of the people dropping themselves in rank to simply a U.S. Attorney position. Also making the move are the heads of Paulose's criminal and civil divisions and the top administrative officer.

The move is intended to send a message to Washington - that 33-year-old Paulose is in over her head.

As the article notes, before getting the plum US Attorney spot, Paulose was a special assistant to Alberto Gonzales and apparently big buds with none other than 5th amendment invoker Monica Goodling.

I think we may be hearing more about this.

Posted by: lo and behold | April 6, 2007 10:07 AM | Report abuse

For Vice President Cheney's lies and distortions to be exposed is common. But it's a rare satisfaction for them to be thrown back in his face on the same day.

Yesterday, Cheney, in an interview with Rush Limbaugh, again touted a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda, saying:

...remember Abu Musab al Zarqawi, a Jordanian terrorist, al Qaeda affiliate; ran a training camp in Afghanistan for al Qaeda, then migrated -- after we went into Afghanistan and shut him down there, he went to Baghdad, took up residence there before we ever launched into Iraq; organized the al Qaeda operations inside Iraq before we even arrived on the scene, and then, of course, led the charge for Iraq until we killed him last June.... This is al Qaeda operating in Iraq. And as I say, they were present before we invaded Iraq.
Now, as with nearly every Cheney statement, this is about three distortions rolled into one big lie. The three distortions: Zarqawi did not organize operations for Al Qaeda prior to the invasion, in fact, he did not affiliate himself with al Qaeda until 2004; prior to the 2003 invasion, he was in the northern Kurdish portion of Iraq, outside of Saddam Hussein's control, not Baghdad; and there's no evidence of collusion between Zarqawi and Hussein. (A bonus fourth distortion might be the fact that the U.S. reportedly had a prime chance to kill Zarqawi before the invasion, but chose not to -- some say because his presence in Iraq provided justification for the war.) But the big lie is that Iraq and Al Qaeda were allies and co-conspirators.

It just so happens that something else happened yesterday: Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) released a declassified version of the Defense Department's Inspector General's report on Doug Feith's intel shop at the Pentagon, the one tasked with finding a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda in the runup to the war. And the report shows that not only did the Intelligence Community speak with one voice before the war that there was no evidence of a significant relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda, but they were right. F

Posted by: Anonymous | April 6, 2007 10:03 AM | Report abuse

'Lastly, I feel for the folks in Missouri. They have been slammed with tough, dirty, and sometimes mean elections for the past few election cycles.'

We all have, Andy. And as the money involved keeps rising, it will only get filthier and filthier. The stakes rise and the participants get more desperate and vicious and partisan. And the truth and democracy suffer.

Posted by: drindl | April 6, 2007 10:01 AM | Report abuse

I agree with the JfromNC, North Carolina will stay as a Democratic state. I am just waiting for one Moore or Purdue to switch runs and go for the Senate Seat in 08 instead. Then NC could have a clean sweep.
Also I think Jindal isn't a lock to win. One well placed commercial with Jindal arm and arm with President Bush then a clip of Bush saying 'your doing a great job Browny" followed by the announcer going "you are judged by the comapny that you keep" and Jindal will fade. But then again some democrat has to run first.
Fletcher is toast. Period.

Lastly, I feel for the folks in Missouri. They have been slammed with tough, dirty, and sometimes mean elections for the past few election cycles.

Posted by: Andy R | April 6, 2007 9:53 AM | Report abuse

Do those neutral observers include anyone who has actually BEEN to North Carolina? Whoever wins the Dem nomination will win the race.

Posted by: will c | April 6, 2007 9:40 AM | Report abuse

Haven't heard anything from your 'liberal media' about Darrel Issa being in Syria and meeting with Assad at the same time as Pelosi, have you? Or is many, many other trips, have you?

That's because the corporate media loves bashing Democrats better than anything in the whole wide world -- especially actually reporting the news.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 6, 2007 9:33 AM | Report abuse

'After the Iraq War, during one of several frequent Syrian trips, Issa praised Assad, saying, "His word seems to be good."

November 16, 2006 -- WILL appeasing terrorists be the new House Republican strategy?
Several respected Republicans must think so, since they've endorsed Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) to become the new Republican Policy Committee Chairman.

Issa's history includes open support for Syria's tyrannical regime and for Hezbollah and Palestinian terrorists.
He vehemently opposed the Syrian Accountability Act, which sanctions Syria until it stops sponsoring Hezbollah and other terrorists, claiming Syria is "cooperative."
During one of his many trips to Syria, the opposition Reform Party said that Issa "helps Syria with [its] propaganda campaign," and warned, "The Ba'ath Party of Syria is duping Rep. Issa and using him as a propaganda tool."
On a post-9/11 visit with Syrian leader Bashir al-Assad, Issa was quoted by the state-run Syrian News Agency as saying: "Hezbollah or any other party has the right to resist occupation."

The Teheran Times quoted other Issa statements to Assad: "Hezbollah acts legitimately and has never been involved in terrorist activities. . . Hezbollah and any other Lebanese group has the right to resist the occupation of its territory. . . Hezbollah's humanitarian and governmental actions were legal."
In a Beirut Daily Star interview, Issa said, "It is Lebanon which will determine whether the party's [Hezbollah's] activities constitute terrorism or resistance . . . a legitimate right recognized [by the U.N.] . . . I have a great deal of sympathy for the work that Hezbollah tries to do."

Posted by: republican terrorist lovers | April 6, 2007 9:31 AM | Report abuse

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Vista) -- might be the contemporary, real-life version of Frank Sinatra's "Manchurian Candidate." Instead of communists, Issa's allies are radical Islamists and supporters of terrorism against Americans, Israelis, Christians and Jews.

In a short political career, Issa's statements and actions consistently defend terrorists, terrorist groups and terrorist sponsor states.

Saudi Arabia's longtime lobbyist, James Gallagher, contributed to Issa's campaign in November 2002, and Issa tried to overturn key classified evidence portions of President Bill Clinton's 1995 counterterrorism bill. Issa is also credited with "declawing" the Patriot Act.

Then, there's Issa's dance with Hezbollah, an organization that is on the State Department's terrorist list and one of the largest components of Al Qaeda. In the 1980s, Hezbollah -- which means "Party of Allah" -- murdered more than 260 U.S. Marines while they slept in Beirut and tortured to death Col. Richard Higgins (in 1990) and CIA attache William Buckley.

Hezbollah endorses "the use of hostages," "suicide in jihad operations" and "the duty of all Muslims to engage in Islamic jihad if it ensures the ultimate goal [of] inflicting losses on the enemy."

Less than a month after Sept. 11, Issa visited Syrian President Bashar Assad, praising Hezbollah and lauding Assad's policies (Syria is on the State Department's terrorist list).

The Tehran Times and IRNA (Islamic Republic News Agency, the official Iranian news agency) quoted Issa's statements to Assad in Damascus: "Hezbollah acts legitimately and has never been involved in terrorist activities.... Hezbollah and any other Lebanese group has the right to resist the occupation of its territory.... Hezbollah's humanitarian and governmental actions were legal.... Such behavior would be customary in any country."

Issa denies the statements, but as a recent Los Angeles Times cover story demonstrates he has a record of stretching the truth -- about his military record, his criminal history, his business affairs and his political positions.

In November 2001, for instance, Issa told syndicated columnist Debra Saunders he was vehemently against Arabs suing the airlines and government over profiling. At the same time, he told the rest of the press of his plans to introduce legislation to make it easier for Arabs to collect monetary damages for airline and government profiling.

http://www.jewishjournal.com/home/preview.php?id=10852

Posted by: Anonymous | April 6, 2007 9:27 AM | Report abuse


'umm, pelosi was meeting with terrorists.'

Really? She had five republican congressmen with her, including Darrel Issa. Whether they meeting with terrorists, too?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 6, 2007 9:24 AM | Report abuse

You can deny climate change exists. You can deny the Holocaust existed too. But the facts do exist, whether you deny them or not.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 6, 2007 9:22 AM | Report abuse

But the group, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said the long-term outlook, should temperatures rise 3 to 5 more degrees fahrenheit, was mainly for damaging and costly effects, ranging from the likely extinction of perhaps a fourth of the world's species to eventual inundation of coasts and islands inhabited by hundreds of millions of people.

The report, written by hundreds of scientists and reviewed by outside experts and government officials, warned that change is essential because decades of rising temperatures and seas are already inevitable due to the buildup of carbon dioxide and other long-lived greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

But it said that efforts to reduce emissions could reduce, delay or avoid some harmful outcomes.

Final details were completed by hundreds of scientists in Brussels early today and approved by officials from more than 100 countries. The report, focusing on measured and projected impacts of warming and possible responses, was scheduled to be posted on the Web this morning at www.ipcc.ch.

Some authors said the report removed any doubt about the urgency of acting to curb emissions of greenhouse gases.

"The warnings are clear about the scale of the projected changes to the planet," said Bill Hare, an author of the impacts report and visiting scientist at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Potsdam, Germany. "Essentially there's going to be a mass extinction within the next 100 years unless climate change is limited.'

And which countries fought this report hardest, altho eventually signed? The US, Saudi Arabia, and China.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 6, 2007 9:21 AM | Report abuse

umm, pelosi was meeting with terrorists.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 6, 2007 9:18 AM | Report abuse

'WASHINGTON (AP) -- Changing climate will mean increasing drought in the southwestern United States, where water already is in short supply, according to a new study.

"The bottom line message for the average person and also for the states and federal government is that they'd better start planning for a Southwest region in which the water resources are increasingly stretched," said Richard Seager of Columbia University's Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory.'

Just waiting for the army of climate change deniers and paid tools of the oil industry to come out and start squawking and obfuscating...

Posted by: Anonymous | April 6, 2007 9:17 AM | Report abuse

'DULUTH, Minnesota (AP) -- Lake Superior has been warming even faster than the climate around it since the late 1970s because of reduced ice cover, according to a study by professors at the University of Minnesota Duluth.

Summer surface temperatures on the famously cold lake have increased about 5.5 degrees since 1979, compared with about a 2.7-degree increase in the region's annual average air temperature, the researchers found. The lake's "summer season" is now beginning about two weeks earlier than it did 20 years ago.

"It's a remarkably rapid rate of change," Jay Austin, an assistant professor with the university's Large Lakes Observatory and Department of Physics, told the Star Tribune newspaper. Austin co-authored the study with geology professor Steve Colman.

The study is based on data collected by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration buoys on the lake and on 102 years' worth of daily temperature readings at a hydroelectric plant near Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan.

Austin said the surface temperature increase is not only "a symptom of climate change," but also could reinforce itself. A trend toward warmer winters would mean less winter ice cover, which would allow more solar radiation of the lake and continued warming, he said.'

Posted by: Anonymous | April 6, 2007 9:15 AM | Report abuse

For much of the past week, CNN and its White House correspondent Suzanne Malveaux have offered a steady stream of inaccurate and incomplete coverage of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-CA) trip to the Middle East and her April 3 meeting with Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad.

Please join Media Matters for America in demanding that CNN and Malveaux stop misinforming viewers about Pelosi's trip and present all the facts. CNN's contact information can be found in our "Take Action!" sidebar on the right.

Since April 2, Malveaux has wrongly and repeatedly claimed that Pelosi had no "standing" and was not acting in an "official capacity," has attacked the trip as "political theater" and a "political stunt," and has parroted the Bush administration's attacks on Pelosi for going to Syria while ignoring the fact that a Republican-led delegation met with Assad on April 1. Most recently, Malveaux asked whether Pelosi's trip was a "big wet kiss to President Al-Assad."

Other CNN personalities have joined in as well. Lou Dobbs devoted an entire segment to "Pelosi's bad trip," while the April 3 edition of Anderson Cooper 360 featured a segment on Pelosi's trip titled "Talking to Terrorists."

After several days of inaccurate, one-sided coverage, it's time to tell CNN enough is enough. It's time to take action.

Use the contact information in our "Take Action!" sidebar to contact CNN, Malveaux, and Dobbs -- and be sure to tell your friends.


Take Action!

Contact information:

CNN
CNN
One CNN Center, Box 105366, Atlanta, GA 30303-5366
Phone: 404-827-1500
Fax: 404-827-1906

When contacting the media, please be polite and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and be sure to indicate exactly what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 6, 2007 9:04 AM | Report abuse

The Fair and Balanced WSJ:

'The Next Vietnam ... The Journal's editorial page has for the last four years hammered analysts who would compare Iraq to Vietnam. But, it seems, there is one similarity the page finds worth noting: Democrats should get the blame for both.'

Posted by: Frank | April 6, 2007 9:03 AM | Report abuse

Comment from che:
"What is most striking about the early onset of the 2008 presidential contest is the universal acceptance by the political establishment, both major parties and the media alike that such massive amounts of money, most of it coming from a fabulously wealthy financial elite and corporate-connected donors, should play such an overriding role in determining the viability and ultimate selection of a candidate."

While I agree that this development does not bode well for the political health of our democratic repulic, in terms of the media reporting, it may be a positive development that the "money race" is receiving such widespread, even breathless coverage.
While most citizens probably do not agree that money "should" be such an overriding factor, many seem to accept that there is nothing that can be done about it. Unfortunately, neither party has been particularly interested in campaign finance reform. Many have derided it as a boring subject and of course, the Supreme Court has famously ruled that big money = free speech.
Maybe it takes such daily reminders that our electoral process is really about begging for funds from the rich to wake up the citizenry and get some real reform.


Posted by: Ol Sloaner | April 6, 2007 8:55 AM | Report abuse

'The Washington Post leads with a headline that would have been a bit more useful in 2002: "Hussein's Prewar Ties to Al-Qaeda Discounted." '

No kidding. But we don't have a Fourth Estate anymore -- we have infotainment. We have blather. We have lies and drool and misinformation and empty-headed corporate pundits. Which is we have a scheming con artist and a moronic sock puppet as our administration.

thanks washington post -- for everything you did -- OR DIDN'T -- do, that led us to this pathetic state of affairs.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 6, 2007 8:50 AM | Report abuse

North Carolina does not deserve to be on this line at all! It is likely that NC will go for the Republican Presidential nominee, but North Carolinians have a history of electing Democratic Governors and the current slate of unknown Republicans are not likely to change that. It might not be a blow-out in November of 2008, but there is no way that i would bet against Lt. Gov. Perdue or Richard Moore to be NC's next Governor.

Posted by: JfromNC | April 6, 2007 8:42 AM | Report abuse

Hemorrhoids this morning!

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 6, 2007 8:34 AM | Report abuse

Sorry CC, you republican twinkie, I don't think your 'satire' was funny... just juvenile and cheap. Frat boy level. But I guess that pretty much sums you righties up.

Hint: don't fawn on drudge and town hall. It undercuts what very little professionalism or sophistication people might have thought you possessed.

Posted by: Larry | April 6, 2007 8:26 AM | Report abuse

HOUSTON, April 5 -- A Houston City Council member and conservative radio host has apologized for saying taxpayers are paying large amounts of welfare to American Indians who are "whining" about having been "whipped in a war."

Michael Berry said Thursday that he posted the apology on his station's Web site the night before "not because I offended people but because I was wrong."

Former interim prime minister Ayad Allawi, middle, and former foreign minister Adnan Pachachi, right, are promoting a coalition to unite secularists and moderates from different sectarian backgrounds. Jamal al-Shumarry is at left. (Hasan Jamali -- Associated Press)
SEE FULL COLLECTION
Feedback

In Today's A Section
• Rural Aid Goes to Urban Areas
• Hussein's Prewar Ties To Al-Qaeda Discounted
• Fairfax Man Whose Son Killed Police Is Arrested
• For Bush's Staff Chief, A Thorny First Year
• Battle to Win Top Colleges' Nod Escalating
» More in Today's Print Edition
Save & Share Article What's This?
Digg
Google

del.icio.us
Yahoo!

Reddit
Facebook

"My facts were wrong, and the basis of my facts was wrong," he said.

Berry said on his KPRC-AM talk show March 27 that Indians do not deserve the "incredible" amount of federal assistance they receive.

"We conquered them," he said. "That's history."

Berry made the remarks while speaking against a proposal in the Texas legislature for the state to apologize for slavery.

"If you're against apologizing for slavery, then you've got to be against giving welfare to the American Indians because of the fact that 200 years ago they were whipped in a war," he said.

"Why don't we go hand the Germans a few million dollars, and the Italians, and the Japanese? Okay, so we did rebuild their country. We don't continue to give them aid because they sit around whining about a war from 200 years ago. Are you kidding me? Seriously."

Posted by: TYPICAL A**HOLE | April 6, 2007 8:19 AM | Report abuse

Captured Iraqi documents and intelligence interrogations of Saddam Hussein and two former aides "all confirmed" that Hussein's regime was not cooperating with al-Qaeda before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, according to a declassified Defense Department report released yesterday.

The declassified version of the report, by acting Inspector General Thomas F. Gimble, also contains new details about the intelligence community's prewar consensus that the Iraqi government and al-Qaeda figures had no or limited contact, and about its judgments that reports of links were based on dubious or unconfirmed information. The report had been released in summary form in February.

The report's release came on the same day that Vice President Cheney, appearing on Rush Limbaugh's radio program, repeated his allegation that al-Qaeda was operating inside Iraq "before we ever launched" the war, under the direction of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the terrorist killed last June.

"This is al-Qaeda operating in Iraq," Cheney told Limbaugh's listeners about Zarqawi, who he said had "led the charge for Iraq." Cheney cited the alleged history to illustrate his argument that withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq would "play right into the hands of al-Qaeda."

--he never stops lying. because of him 3000 americans are dead. he will be remembered as a bigger traitor than benedit arnold. treason treason treason

GUILTY

Posted by: the lying lunatic cheney | April 6, 2007 8:17 AM | Report abuse

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- An Iranian opposition group based in Iraq, despite being considered terrorists by the United States, continues to receive protection from the American military in the face of Iraqi pressure to leave the country.

Iranian officials tied the MEK to an explosion in February at a girls school in Zahedan, Iran. The group is considered an ally to America because of its opposition to Tehran.

However, the U.S. State Department officially considers the MEK a terrorist organization -- meaning no American can deal with it; U.S. banks must freeze its assets; and any American giving support to its members is committing a crime.

The U.S. military, though, regularly escorts MEK supply runs between Baghdad and its base, Camp Ashraf.

Posted by: the insanity | April 6, 2007 8:10 AM | Report abuse

For uncensored news please bookmark:

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

Record US presidential fund-raising: The best elections money can buy

By Bill Van Auken
5 April 2007

The Barack Obama campaign said Thursday it had raised at least $25 million since the beginning of the year for the Illinois senator's run for the Democratic presidential nomination. With this announcement, the overwhelming role that will be played by big money in the upcoming 2008 election came even more clearly into focus.

Obama's cash hoard places him on a par with Senator Hillary Clinton, who reported raising $26 million in the first quarter of 2007. Their figures are more than triple the amount previously raised by any candidate of either party at this early stage of a presidential campaign. John Edwards set the old record of $7.4 million in 2003.

For the Clinton campaign, Obama's unexpectedly large receipts represented a political blow. Her handlers had hoped to overwhelm potential rivals by posting an insurmountable lead in the race for money.

Leading the pack among the Republican candidates was former Massachusetts governor and venture capitalist Mitt Romney, who pulled in $23 million, despite registering the support of barely 3 percent of Republican voters in the polls.

Meanwhile, the campaign of one of Romney's principal Republican rivals, Arizona Senator John McCain, was thrown into severe crisis by its failure to raise more than $12.5 million, with reports of staff shakeups and the postponement of a formal announcement of his candidacy.

The amount of campaign fund-raising reported thus far by candidates of both major parties totals approximately $130 million. More complete figures--revealing how much of this money has been raised for the party primaries, as opposed to the general election, how much of it has already been spent, and some indication of where it all came from--are due to be filed by April 15.

What is most striking about the early onset of the 2008 presidential contest is the universal acceptance by the political establishment, both major parties and the media alike that such massive amounts of money, most of it coming from a fabulously wealthy financial elite and corporate-connected donors, should play such an overriding role in determining the viability and ultimate selection of a candidate.

This acceptance is by no means mirrored within the population as whole. The spectacle of candidates flying around the country in a non-stop fund-raising blitz aimed at currying favor with a thin layer of multi-millionaires and billionaires only deepens popular cynicism towards and alienation from the entire electoral process.

The Associated Press reported a revealing incident Wednesday. Barak Obama, speaking at a Veterans of Foreign Wars hall in Rochester, New Hampshire, "was confronted by an audience member who said, 'I don't want money to pick my next president. I want to pick my president.'"

For the rest please go to:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/apr2007/elec-a05.shtml

Posted by: che | April 6, 2007 7:51 AM | Report abuse

Not being re-elected could turn out to be the best thing that ever happened to Anne Northup. As Republicans go, she's not so bad. But she got caught up in the '06 wave.

http://intrepidliberaljournal.blogspot.com

Posted by: Intrepid Liberal Journal | April 6, 2007 7:18 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company