Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

The Line: Can Anyone Measure the Bloomberg Effect?

Just when you thought the 2008 presidential race couldn't get any more interesting, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg unaffiliates from the Republican Party -- further stoking speculation that he will run as an independent for president next November.

Michael Bloomberg
Who has the most to fear from an independent Michael Bloomberg candidacy for president?

Which candidates are hurt or help most if the billionaire - businessman - turned - populist politician does indeed jump into the race? The honest answer is The Fix doesn't know.

The last significant independent candidacy for the White House was Ross Perot's in 1992. Perot definitely helped Bill Clinton win states like Georgia, Colorado, Nevada and Maine.

But it's just too early to guess how Bloomberg would affect next year's race, as it would depend on which candidates emerge with the party nominations, what the key issues are (Iraq and ...?) and what campaign strategy each candidate pursues. It would be easy to see a moderate like Bloomberg hurting the Democrat more, but the reverse could just as well be true for the Republican in a battleground state like Minnesota or Colorado.

Still, there's one obvious effect of a Bloomberg candidacy -- he would expand the map of battleground states.

In the South, Democrats have become increasingly less competitive in presidential races, proving unable to broaden their vote beyond a base of 30 percent to 35 percent in many states. In a three-way contest, however, that might be enough for a Democratic candidate to pick off a state like Arkansas, Kentucky or Louisiana. The same goes for Republicans in the Northeast, where the party has struggled to stay competitive over the last few elections. It's not impractical to think that with Bloomberg on the ticket, states like Maine, New Hampshire and even New York could be back in the competitive column for the general election.

In our mind, the more states that are competitive next fall, the better for the process. The last several presidential elections have created a two-tiered playing field -- a dozen or so battleground states where hundreds of millions of dollars are spent, and the rest of America, which has been largely ignored by the campaigns. A Bloomberg candidacy could well break that system.

Putting Bloomberg aside for the moment (we know it's hard), this month's Line is a study in contrasts. On the Democratic side, the status quo holds. But we have a new No. 1 for Republicans.

The rankings start on the next page. As always, the No. 1 candidate is the one most likely to win his/her party's nomination.

To the Line!


1. Hillary Rodham Clinton: When all of the Democratic candidates stand on a debate stage together, it's Clinton who looks and sounds the most like a president. Don't underestimate the importance of debates in offering voters a chance to compare and contrast the field. While Clinton is broadening her lead in national polls, she remains in tight contests in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. Iowa is the first and most important challenge. The caucus electorate is strongly anti-war, and Clinton's positioning on Iraq is less pure than Barack Obama's. But her organization is rapidly improving thanks to the addition of Theresa Vilmain, and the Clinton team knows just how important a strong caucus showing is for her chances. (Previous ranking: 1)

2. Barack Obama: We don't buy the current conventional wisdom that Obama's campaign has somehow stalled, a view that's based on the fact that he remains behind Clinton in national polls. From everything we hear, Obama will eclipse Clinton for the second straight quarter in fundraising -- an absolutely unthinkable development just six months ago. Obama continues to attract massive crowds wherever he goes, and his campaign is heavily focused on how best to turn those crowds into caucus supporters and primary votes. Obama's indifferent debate performances -- he was far better in the second debate than the first but still looked somewhere short of totally confident -- don't seem to have affected his numbers anywhere where it really matters. His biggest potential hurdle? Allowing slip-ups like the "D-Punjab" incident to knock him off the nonpartisan pedestal on which he claims to stand. (Previous ranking: 2)

3. John Edwards: June 30 will be a big day for the Edwards campaign. If his fundraising for the second quarter is far behind the high marks that Obama and Clinton are likely to set, it will be increasingly difficult for him to remain in the top tier. Edwards's saving grace has (and continues to be) his strength in Iowa. But the most recent independent poll in the state showed him in a statistical dead heat with Clinton and Obama. If Edwards doesn't win Iowa, he will struggle to remain viable, as his organization currently trails those of Clinton and Obama in New Hampshire. Taking a page from Sen. John Kerry's playbook in 2004, Edwards is seeking to inject the electability argument into the campaign. But after being burned by casting a head-over-heart vote in 2004, will Democratic voters go down that road again? (Previous ranking: 3)

4. Bill Richardson: On the one hand, Richardson appears to be moving up in early state polls. On the other, he continues to do little to counter the image that he is just a little too undisciplined (read: real) to be president. In recent days, Richardson has started naming names when it comes to his rivals' positioning on the war in Iraq, hoping to make sure voters know he is the only candidate who would leave no American presence in the country. It's a smart gambit, but it's difficult to know with in a field as top heavy as this one whether Richardson has any realistic chance of breaking through. (Previous ranking: 4)

5. Chris Dodd: After a spate of positive press centered on his willingness to make bold decisions (first Senator in the 2008 field to sign on to a bill defunding the war, first candidate to propose a corporate carbon tax as part of a broader energy plan), Dodd has disappeared back into anonymity over the last few weeks. The debate earlier this month didn't help as Dodd struggled to use the limited time he was given to distinguish himself in any meaningful way. The second quarter reports will be telling for Dodd. He needs to show he can compete financially with Richardson if he hopes to emerge as the most viable second tier candidate. (Previous ranking: 5)


1. Mitt Romney: The former Massachusetts governor takes over the top spot on The Line for the first time this cycle. Why? Because his strength in Iowa led both former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Arizona Sen. John McCain to back out of the state GOP's straw poll set for this summer; because he appears headed for another first- or second-place finish in the money chase; and because he continues to withstand attacks on his decision to change positions on key issues like gay rights without losing the momentum he is building. We know all the reasons why we shouldn't read too much into Romney's pole position in surveys in Iowa and New Hampshire -- he's the only major Republican candidate on the airwaves, the race isn't yet engaged etc. But he's still ahead in the two most important early states, and that matters. (Previous ranking: 3)

2. (tie) Rudy Giuliani: The former mayor of New York doesn't drop from the top spot because of his terrible, no good, horrible, and very badweek. Rather, he drops because at some point his lack of any serious organization in any of the first three voting states -- Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina -- puts him at a clear disadvantage in the nomination fight. While the early states may (and we emphasize may) have less influence in picking the nominee than they have in years past due to the looming presence of a number of huge states set to vote in late January or early February, it's hard to imagine a scenario where Giuliani finishes out of the top two in any of the first three states and remains viable on the Feb. 5 SUPER primary. Don't get us wrong: Giuliani's fundraising prowess and reputation as "America's Mayor" means he still has a very real shot at winning the GOP nomination. But he better get started building organizations in those early states -- and quick. (Previous ranking: 1)

2 (tie). Fred Thompson: It's hard to ignore the fact that the former Tennessee senator has catapulted close to the top of the Republican field before he has even announced his presidential candidacy. Thompson has the widespread disaffection among Republicans with the current field to thank for his rapid rise, but we don't hold that against him. After all, timing is everything in politics. Conservatives appear to be coalescing behind Thompson's non-campaign, and early indications are that his fundraising operation is going strong. So why not put him in the top spot on The Line? As usual, The Fix's former boss, Charlie Cook, said it best in what could well be a prescient column about Thompson's approach to the race. And did anyone else think Thompson's response to whether or not he would like to be president was something less than convincing? (Previous ranking: 4)

4. John McCain: McCain's tumble from the top of The Line has been as precipitous as it has been unexpected. After promising that McCain would greatly exceed his fundraising total from the first quarter, his aides are now privately scaling back expectations for the second quarter (another third-place finish behind Romney and Giuliani is likely). And whether it's immigration or some other cocktail of issues, McCain's poll numbers in early states are taking a dive. The question for McCain is whether he can make it through the summer and fall -- from a perception standpoint -- given where he is likely to be in early polling and fundraising. Can McCain come back? Of course. There's lots of talk about John Kerry's Lazarus impersonation in the 2004 presidential race inside McCain world these days. But frankly, the race for McCain is now about survival, not dominance. It's a stunning turnaround. (Previous ranking: 2)

5. Mike Huckabee: If there was a nationally televised debate every week, Huckabee might be higher up on The Line. He has been the runaway star of the first three Republican get-togethers, thanks to his wit, plain-spokenness and charm. But here's the broken-record portion of the Huckabee write-up: The Fix just doesn't see any evidence that his success in the debates is being translated into anything real on the ground. The Ames Straw poll will be a big moment for Huckabee; with Giuliani and McCain out (and Thompson still not a confirmed participant), Ames represents an opportunity for Huckabee to make a show of organizational strength. If he places second behind Romney, Huckabee should be able to turn that into momentum for a potential breakthrough in the Iowa caucuses. We'll be watching. (Previous ranking: 5)

By Chris Cillizza  |  June 22, 2007; 5:00 AM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008 , The Line  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Wag the Blog Redux: Readers Talk Back
Next: Bloomberg Inner Circle


We have launched a site to try and stop a Bloomberg presidency. Please help us and sign the petition and support our advertisers
Please go to:

Posted by: Ted Sutterfield | July 11, 2007 12:34 AM | Report abuse

You never saw the link alan? I'll spell out out for you. I'LL DO THE RESEARCH FOR YOU SINCE YOU CAN'T OR REFUSE TO. For whatever reason.

"Donald Rumsfeld meeting Saddam Hussein on 19 December - 20 December 1983. Rumsfeld visited again on 24 March 1984; the same day the UN released a report that Iraq had used mustard gas and tabun nerve agent against Iranian troops. The NY Times reported from Baghdad on 29 March 1984, that "American diplomats pronounce themselves satisfied with Iraq and the U.S., and suggest that normal diplomatic ties have been established in all but name."[11]"

Posted by: rufus | June 26, 2007 6:32 PM | Report abuse

I don't see Hillary's change on the war to be mere political opportunism. The war resolution had broad support from Democrats at the time. The Bush administration was releasing bad intelligence. But one of the persons that most convinced me that Saddam harbored weapons of mass destruction was Saddam himself. I was not alone in thinking that, with all the obstruction he was doing with the UN inspectors, he HAD to be hiding something. I never considered the other option, that he was dumber than a post.

There was a large majority of Americans at the time that supported the initial invasion.

There is now a large majority who don't support the war. I think most members of congress who have changed their position can be equated to the average American. They were mislead by the administration, Saddam did much to shot himself in the foot. But after four years, the goals seem as out of sight as in 2003. Now most of congress is against it as are the people. In fact there are probably more members of congress against the war, but many Republicans, are toeing the party line, because a Republican is president. Watch how fast they switch their support to oppose the war when a Democrat is sworn in on January 20, 2009.

Posted by: Alan in Missoula | June 26, 2007 6:04 PM | Report abuse

Murdoch and his china ties, from ny times. For those who care about the destruction of the media:

Posted by: rufus1133 | June 26, 2007 11:11 AM | Report abuse

proudtobe GOP: You are 100% correct. These "Wing-Nuts" are just trying to get us old timers riled a little, and failing badly. As for me, I put up with their junk in hopes that will see the light, and actually really and truely feel sorry for them."

You sound like me lylepink. YOu sound like the anti-rufus:).

I would ask you though. When/where am I wrong. Anybody can agree witht hose like them. That is subconscious. If I am wrong tell me why. If I am lying tell me how. If you want to be the anti-rufus. The problem is you have to used truth to combat lies. YOu have to use love to combat hate. You have to use understanding to combat intolerance. AM I any of the above. If so attack with that. If you CANNOT, you need to look at the side you are on and what it's really about

Posted by: JKrishnumarti | June 25, 2007 8:54 PM | Report abuse

""Many big companies have sought to break into the China market over the past two decades, but few of them have been as ardent and unrelenting as Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. Murdoch has flattered Communist Party leaders and done business with their children," reports the NYT's Joseph Kahn.

Newsroom sources tell DRUDGE, the paper will detail: "His FOX NEWS network helped China's leading state broadcaster develop a news web site. He joined hands with the Communist Youth League, a power base in the ruling party, in a risky television venture, his China managers and advisers say. Murdoch's third wife, Wendi, is a mainland Chinese native who once worked for his Hong Kong-based satellite broadcaster Star TV. Her role managing investments and honing elite connections in China has underscored uncertainties about how family-controlled NEWS CORP. will be run after Murdoch, 76, retires or dies."

Posted by: rufus | June 25, 2007 7:31 PM | Report abuse

"Rufas, time to put down the crack pipe and go outside and play."

That's right GOP. If you can't win either cheat or take your ball and go home. The right is filled with people with the mentallity elementary school. Selfish greedy. Only care about themselves. Try and change that greedy "self" and you are the problem. But what if that greed conflicts with the good of a nation? What if that GREED turns on us. What is that greed? Money, power? That greed is nothing. NOTHING GOP. You are selling out your brothers and sisters for little pieces of paper with old dead people on it. I don't call that free market. I call that treason.

Don't engage me on the topics. You can't win. Better to leave for challege speling errors of attack me blindless. Trying to talk about the facts or truth's of the GOP will just make you look foolish. Good-bye

Posted by: rufus1133 | June 25, 2007 6:02 PM | Report abuse

"You are 100% correct"

About what. Now you are trolls are congradulating each other for nothing. You have plenty to feel good about GOP. There are plenty of things Bush and his cronies have done right. The republicans have been politcal whizzs overseas and here at home. Everything is my fault, and us liberals.I'm sorry

Good luck getting another republican elected again in YOUR LIFETIME. Really. Good luck with that.

Posted by: rufus | June 25, 2007 5:53 PM | Report abuse

Your cool with me GOP. I like ya. Your on the right track. Ramp up your efforts. John wayne and elvis are alive. There here, with me. WE love George Bush. He is our AMerican son. Long live the King

Posted by: Nazi Germany | June 25, 2007 5:50 PM | Report abuse

proudtobe GOP: You are 100% correct. These "Wing-Nuts" are just trying to get us old timers riled a little, and failing badly. As for me, I put up with their junk in hopes that will see the light, and actually really and truely feel sorry for them.

Posted by: lylepink | June 25, 2007 5:32 PM | Report abuse

Rufas, time to put down the crack pipe and go outside and play.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 25, 2007 4:46 PM | Report abuse

Gop and otherslike him NOW are saying free speech is ok for schools but not the corporate world, despite Imus.

I guess there are no longer laws. Just lawyers who INTERPRET SAID LAWS.

" It is not a crime if you don't get caught." This should be the new republican manta. That and "I don't recall."

In GOP's world there are no laws, if your lawyer is good enough. Any law can be circumvented as long as YOU ARE ON THE SIDE OF RIGTH LIKE THE GREAT GEAROGE BUSH.

A nation of laws? Not if youu got the money. Right GOP? That is the America YOU PEOPLE ahve created. I hope it is to your liking. You have destroyed what this country really is. A NATION OF LAWS, BY AND FOR THE PEOPLE.

Are we that now? Who would say yes, and why? No. We are no longer a nation of laws. There is still hope. They havn't won yet. We still have a choice of what kind of country we ARE. We still have a choice GOP.

Posted by: rufus1133 | June 25, 2007 3:46 PM | Report abuse

Ok. So in a school setting you can silence somebody? Ok. Does that same rule apply to business? Ie IMUS and Rosie? Any other rules you want to make up while your at it. Where else?

If so, your boy Rush/O'Reilly/Hannity should all have to fear the same fate, no? Imus hurt a lot of people's feelings. This hurt the advertiseres. The above ARE held to teh same account as those they are trying to silence. Whether the right's hypocritical mind and comprehend it or not.

Don't blame me I'm not the bad guy. I blame those responsilbe for make you the man you are today. False prophets leading you down the path YOU KNOW NOT TO FOLLOW. It's ok. They are done. Regardless of what you say. I know you are scared, and rightfully so. Without the avatars this fascist movement is over. It's over. No amount of haircut pieces or propoganda will stop that now. Blame me if you want GOP. I'll blame those who are ruining the country, as your boy Trent Lott has said.

Posted by: rufus1133 | June 25, 2007 3:40 PM | Report abuse

Rufus, you seem confused about what the First Amendment covers.

Let's review...
A principal may, consistent with the First Amendment, restrict student speech at a school event, when that speech is reasonably viewed as promoting illegal drug use. In Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist., 393 U. S. 503

Therefore, because schools may take steps to safeguard those entrusted to their care from speech that can reasonably be regarded as encouraging illegal drug use, the school officials in this case did not violate the First Amendment by confiscating the pro-drug banner and suspending Frederick.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | June 25, 2007 3:05 PM | Report abuse

I'm here for you GOP/Razor/Zouk. I'm here to give you the news you DON'T hear at you propoganda stations you listen to. It's not your fault GOP. YOur getting lied to everyday. You don't have the political/historical knowledge to know what is real and what is fake. That is why I'm here. For you. ALso to get Rush/O'Reilly/Hannity/Fox News" OFF the air. For good. That way they can't ruin your world prespective anymore. I'm doin git for you GOP. And the elderly they are lying to everyday

Posted by: rufus1133 | June 25, 2007 2:27 PM | Report abuse

HEllo GOP. Crickets Crickets.

Only works when it's for your argument as opposeed to agaisnt?

Posted by: rufus1133 | June 25, 2007 2:23 PM | Report abuse

Your right GOP. They also LIMITED FREE SPEECH, with the supreame court ruling agaisnt high school kids. YOu may have heard of the "bong hit's for Jesus"

Why not re-instate the fairness doctrine? Did we have this problem, with talk-radio, BEFORE Regan got rid of teh FAirness doctrine? Again, that was BEFORE REGAN REMOVED THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE. He did that in 1984. The enxt year your hero came on the air, to balance a famous left-winger in sacramento. The next year said liberal was shot to death by neo-nazi's. Rush has reigned supreame ever since. I say get him and others like him off the air. We cna start to re-build this GREAT country. Propoganda/lies/misdirection are not free speech. Their time is almost up. What will you do without your avatars, GOP? Their time is almost up. Whether it be the fairness doctrine or whether it be the IMUS/ Rosie route. Their time is up. ALL REAL patriots should rejoice.

Posted by: rufus1133 | June 25, 2007 2:11 PM | Report abuse

bloomberg? who's bloomberg?

Posted by: jett1 | June 25, 2007 1:53 PM | Report abuse

The dems are the ones trying to reinstitute the 'fairness doctrine' which would do just that -limit free speech. In fact, rufus, the Supreme Court just today ruled in favor of free speech by upholding an appeals court ruling that an anti-abortion group should have been allowed to air ads during the final two months before the 2004 elections. The law unreasonably limits speech and violates the group's First Amendment rights, the court said.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | June 25, 2007 1:44 PM | Report abuse

""Is uniformity of opinion desirable? No more than of face and stature." -- Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Va., 1782. "

Should be FOx's new campaigh slogen. That's what the right does GOP, right? Preach one thing while doing the exact opposite. Prech about their free speech while trying to silence Rosie/Mike Moore/others.
Isnt that the republican way. Being a hypocrite is a must.

Posted by: RUFUS1133 | June 25, 2007 12:57 PM | Report abuse

JimD is "severely disappointed with the current crop of candidates in both parties."; a sentiment shared by many it seems. My point is that the process itself is alive and well; this campaign season is one of the most vibrant and interesting we've had in a long, long time.

In addition to being an interesting spectator sport, the open field of '08 is drawing in many more informed and motivated voters into the process in many different forums.

"Is uniformity of opinion desirable? No more than of face and stature." -- Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Va., 1782.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | June 25, 2007 12:16 PM | Report abuse

Truth Hunter: I had already checked the LA Times about what Biden is trying to do. This has been going on for some time now and it amounts to nothing, since it is "Non-Binding". Another thing to be very wary of, is his attempt to work with GW on the Iraq war, that alone is a no-brainer. Anyone can cover themselves either way they vote on an resolve issue.

Posted by: lylepink | June 25, 2007 11:36 AM | Report abuse

Bushies and their buddies brought it to us. First they brought the drugs TO fight. Now they bring THE TERROR to fight it

Posted by: rufus1133 | June 25, 2007 11:20 AM | Report abuse

First the "war on drugs" then the "war on terror". Unfortunatly both were WARS AGAINST AMERICA by AMERICA

Posted by: rufus1133 | June 25, 2007 11:18 AM | Report abuse

Word is born Posted by: so what is the point? where ever dick is pointing, don't look... | June 24, 2007 03:10 PM .

To much truth for this site though. They don't care about this. You could detail all of the Bush's Nazi ties, these people wouldn't even bat an eyelash. Those $400 haircut stories and Paris Hilto got their attention. Those trying to save this country need to go elsewhere. This site is a republican fish bowl. CC is with the right.

The right has sold this country out to line their pockets. All REAL Patriots please stand up

Posted by: rufus1133 | June 25, 2007 11:15 AM | Report abuse

Ed Rollins had an insightful article in yesterday's WaPo on Bloomberg's chances.

There is a link to the article on my blog, well worth reading.

Posted by: Truth Hunter | June 25, 2007 11:05 AM | Report abuse

Lylelpink... You may be correct that any plan for Iraq may be torn apart, but Biden's plan is now receiving serious administration consideration.

Not only does Biden have a plan, he is bringing together bipartisan support. Sounds presidential to me.

Don't expect to read about recent developments along this line in the WaPo which is shutting out Biden.... the LA Times carried the story. I have the article link on my blog.

Posted by: Truth Hunter | June 25, 2007 10:29 AM | Report abuse

Lylelpink... You may be correct that any plan for Iraq may be torn apart, but Biden's plan is now receiving serious administration consideration.

Not only does Biden have a plan, he is bringing together bipartisan support. Sounds presidential to me.

Don't expect to read about recent developments along this line in the WaPo which is shutting out Biden.... the LA Times carried the story. I have the link on my blog.

Posted by: Truth Hunter | June 25, 2007 10:26 AM | Report abuse

Truth Hunter: I thought the primary voting requirement was about the same. Thanks for the information. I have looked at Biden and all the rest on specific issues, and you are correct about Biden. My 08:03 AM post points out the danger of a more detailed plan and why.

Posted by: lylepink | June 25, 2007 9:27 AM | Report abuse

Lylepink, I must change from an Independent to a party to vote in the Iowa caucuses.

One candidate whose position is more fully explained on Iraq is Biden. Take a look at him.

Posted by: Truth Hunter | June 25, 2007 8:35 AM | Report abuse

Romney #1? Come on, CC. His current success is just a media-fueled fluke. He still lacks the widespread support and efficient organization to make it out of the top-second tier.

Posted by: matt | June 25, 2007 8:32 AM | Report abuse

Dog Wama J: The ambitious part is shared by all. The war issue will and should be a top priority now and in the future. My prior posts states my position pretty clear, and none of the pols I know of want to remove our troops without the protection they must have for a quick and safe withdrawal plan. This is a very tricky situation and any plan put forward will, in my honest opinion, be torn apart piece by piece. That is why I very seriously doubt any detailed plan, with specifics, will be offered by any of the top tier candidates. Sad, but reality will rule the day.

Posted by: lylepink | June 25, 2007 8:03 AM | Report abuse

Lylepink, it seems to me that Hillary is against the war now in the same way and for the same reason that Mitt Romney is pro-life and pro-NRA now. Or maybe that's why she was pro-war in 2003? Either way, it's hard to tell when and if she is being sincere. She's sincerely ambitious, that's for sure.
Obama has been against the war consistently since it started, unlike both Hillary and Edwards. Both of them supported the war for political reasons, and both are now opposing it for the same reasons.

Posted by: Dog Wama J | June 25, 2007 4:45 AM | Report abuse

Truth Hunter: I am registered D, for here in WV it is required for a party vote in the primary. How about Iowa? I am all over the political spectrum, being against the death penalty and in favor of a womans right to choose in most cases including third term where the health of the mother is at risk and the fetus is badly deformed or not expected to live on its own. Hillary is against the war, and I don't disagree/agree with her position on how to get out, it is not fully explained, as are most others, for I want them out "yesterday". The Immigration bill has so many twists and turns, I cannot make any sense out of it except that it resembles the amnesty one in the 80s, which was such a failure. We must secure the borders and impose a heavy fine on those that hire them.

Posted by: lylepink | June 24, 2007 11:26 PM | Report abuse

proudtobegop said "Indies and moderates are still casting about for their favorite. The two-party partisan wrangling is what we all love about politics; the electoral system is alive and well, imperfect as it may be. God Bless America!"

I hope that was intended sarcastically. The two party partisan wrangling has descended into red herrings, straw men, half truths, slogans and an avoidance of serious discussion of serious issues. It is what I and many other thoughtful moderates detest about our system. Just look at some of the asinine postings here from both sides of the political divide that pass for debate - I am severely disappointed with the current crop of candidates in both parties.

Posted by: JimD in FL | June 24, 2007 10:12 PM | Report abuse

Lylepink, True, I talk with a lot of Iowa people, especially women, who like Hillary.... but that is a very small sampling in the overall scheme of things.

It's also true that I know just as many who are rabidly anti-Hillary, or undecided, or are more interested in the issues than the labels/parties.

For these people Hillary is on the wrong side of the issues.... the Iraq war and illegal immigration.

I think there are more Independents like myself than ever before.... people without a party who are disgusted, angry and alarmed about what The Decider and President Cheney have done to this country.

If you read my blog I think you would see I'm not liberal at all nor in any category. I am very unhappy with the state of our country, and not looking for another coronation.... Queen Hillary after King George. We can do better.

Posted by: Truth Hunter | June 24, 2007 8:48 PM | Report abuse

An addition to my 04:01 PM Post--An article in "Media Matters" by Jamion Foser shows beyond any doubt how Fox manipulates their stories. Not only did the show mentioned in the article, but each and every one of the others I watched did the same thing. Out of 116,000 working journalists, they found 144 had contributed to a campaigh from 2004 thru the first quarter of 2007, and they included a sports editor and statistican. I strongly recommend this cite for it includes articles from a wide variety, including Peggy Noonan.

Posted by: lylepink | June 24, 2007 4:32 PM | Report abuse

Truth Hunter: A few days ago I mentioned a friend that had passed thru Iowa this past weeken and told me not to be suprised that Hillary would win there in Iowa, and the latest poll you cited appears to confirm what I had hoped would happen. Now you should have a feeling about the terrain there since by your blog, you are more on the liberal/progressive faction, and would be able to give Alan in Missoula, myself, and others a sense of what the "Far Left" may do in the General. I will post again shortly about the distortation being continued by Fox News.

Posted by: lylepink | June 24, 2007 4:01 PM | Report abuse

"his ability to finance a strong campaign makes him a player."

Bloomberg's a player but not a winner, imo. If he decides to run, and that's a big if, he needs a message and enough moderates and indies to vote for him. I see him as more of a spoiler for '08, especially with Nader's appeal growing weaker with each campaign.

At least he stopped the ridiculous chirade of being in the R party -at last. Talk about politcal expediency. Look up rino in the dictionary and there's a picture of Mike.

Indies and moderates are still casting about for their favorite. The two-party partisan wrangling is what we all love about politics; the electoral system is alive and well, imperfect as it may be. God Bless America!

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | June 24, 2007 3:13 PM | Report abuse

This protection of the Iran-contra secrets almost worked. The few reporters (including myself) who uncovered parts of the story were subjected to assaults on our reputations and careers.

Despite the growing evidence, most of the major news media dismissed the stories of secret operations and related drug trafficking as conspiracy nonsense.

The scandal only unraveled because of outside events. On Oct. 5, 1986, one of North's supply planes was shot down over Nicaragua.

The sole surviving crewman, Eugene Hasenfus, pointed the finger at George Bush's vice presidential office and the CIA. Bush and other administration officials denied Hasenfus's statement.

The second Iran-contra shoe dropped in early November 1986 with a story in a Beirut newspaper about the Iran arms sales. When the secret about North's diverting Iranian arms profits to the contras was disclosed a few weeks later, the Iran-contra scandal was born.

But the Reagan-Bush administration was not ready to tell all. Immediately, the administration and Republicans on Capitol Hill moved to counter and to contain the scandal. For his part, Bush insisted that he was "not in the loop" on the Iran-contra business.

Cheney to the Rescue

One of the key congressional Republicans fighting this rear-guard action was Rep. Dick Cheney of Wyoming, who became the ranking House Republican on the Iran-contra investigation. Cheney already enjoyed a favorable reputation in Washington as a steady conservative hand.

Cheney smartly exploited his relationship with Rep. Lee Hamilton, D-Ind., who was chairman of the Iran-contra panel. Hamilton cared deeply about his reputation for bipartisanship and the Republicans quickly exploited this fact.

A senior committee source said one of Cheney's top priorities was to block Democrats from deposing Vice President Bush about his Iran-contra knowledge. Cheney "kept trying to intimidate Hamilton," the source said. "He kept saying if we go down that road, we won't have bipartisanship."

So, Hamilton gave Bush a pass. The limited investigation also gave little attention to other sensitive areas, such as contra-drug trafficking and the public diplomacy operation. They were pared down or tossed out altogether.

Despite surrendering to Cheney's demands time and again, Hamilton failed, in the end, to get a single House Republican to sign the final report.

Only three moderate Republicans on the Senate side - Warren Rudman, William Cohen and Paul Trible - agreed to sign the report, after extracting more concessions. Cheney and the other Republicans submitted a minority report that denied that any significant wrongdoing had occurred.

The watered-down Iran-contra majority report essentially let Vice President Bush off the hook. Bush's political career was saved.

With the Iran-contra scandal contained, Bush mounted a 1988 presidential campaign that set the modern standard for negativity, race-baiting and a win-at-all-cost ethic. In 1989, Cheney became Bush's defense secretary.

Posted by: a little more context.... | June 24, 2007 3:13 PM | Report abuse


OIL and drug trafficking...

are the United States Soldiers getting a cut, of _t_h_a_t_ M O N E Y?

no they are getting their legs blown off, getting medals of honor and waiting two years to be declared disabled as they lose homes that they can't make mortgage payments on.

Just as the Iran-Contra scandal evolved to include drug smuggling, the Iraq War also is closely related to drug smuggling. While the Bush regime has so far managed to keep the drug smuggling aspects of the war from reaching the media, evidence is beginning to emerge. The evidence comes largely from a former FBI translator turned whistle-blower, Sibel Edmonds. Hired to translate intercepted messages soon after 9/11 this Turkish lady first blew the whistle on the FBI for dragging its feet. She has state emphatically that she has seen documents that prove the Bush administration was fully aware of the terrorist attack before 9/11. While Attorney General John Aschroft has imposed a gag order on her, this courageous lady has only been able to speak in generalized terms. However, she has repeatedly stated that when viewed as an international drug smuggling operation the picture becomes clear.

Sibel Edmonds has provided a huge clue in her generalized statements, a clue that points directly at the Bush family and DICK CHENEY. Haliburton the oil services company formerly headed by CHENEY has a long history of involvement in drug smuggling and gunrunning especially through its Brown and Root subsidiary. Brown and Root also has a long history of providing cover for CIA agents. In the late 1970s Brown and Root was implicated in drug smuggling and gunrunning from oil platforms in the Gulf of Mexico built by Brown and Root and using ships owned by Brown and Root. In the 1990s Brown and Root was implicated in smuggling heroin to Europe through Russia. The heroin originated in Laos.

The Russian incident surfaced in 1995 after thieves stole sacks of heroin concealed as sugar from a rail container leased by Alfa Echo. Authorities were alerted to the problem after residents of Khabarovsk, a Siberian city became intoxicated from consuming the heroin. Alfa Echo is part of the Russian Alfa group of companies controlled by Mikhail Fridman and Pyotr Aven. The FSB, the Russian equivalent of the FBI firmly proved a solid link between Alfa Tyumen and drug smuggling. The drug smuggling route was further exposed after the Ministry of Internal Affairs raided Alfa Eko buildings and found drugs and other compromising documentation. Under Cheney's leadership of Haliburton, Brown and Root received a taxpayer insured loan through the Export-Import Bank of $292 million dollars for Brown and Root to refurbish a Siberian oil field owned by Alfa Tyumen. The Alfa Bank is also implicated in money laundering for the Colombian cocaine cartels.

THERE IS $80 BILLION IN UNRECORDED PROFITS IN THE FIRST STEP OF AFGHANI OPIUM COLLECTION, refinement...three steps later it could be worth $400 BILLION, in unrecorded profits...

Posted by: so what is the point? where ever dick is pointing, don't look... | June 24, 2007 3:10 PM | Report abuse

Pollster Zogby said in an opinion piece in the NY Daily News that he thinks Bloomberg could win.

His telelphone surveys show him that people are tired of the two-party partisan wrangling, and that together with his ability to finance a strong campaign makes him a player.

Posted by: Truth Hunter | June 24, 2007 11:56 AM | Report abuse

Thanks for the nice comment Mark in Austin.

Lylepink, What have you to say about the fact that Hillary is leading everyone in the latest Iowa poll except Undecideds.

Doesn't this still leave the door wide open for a Bloomberg, or a Fred Thompson type?

Maybe people just don't want a parsing "Slick Hillary" on the heels of Bush, Clinton, Bush....

Posted by: Truth Hunter | June 24, 2007 11:38 AM | Report abuse

Practical problems for Hillary:

The father of Patty Solis Doyle, her campaign manager, was an illegal immigrant. That complicates things for the candidate on the Immigration issue; while the Solis story could have been portrayed as the American Dream otherwise.

Doyle's family categorizes her as a "control freak." That is one of the things the candidate is trying to get away from herself.

A senior advisor, Ann Lewis, is the sister of Barney Frank. Ann Lewis could be another Mother Theresa, but the Republican hardball players will definitely use the Frank connection to try to smear the candidate.

Just more tap dancing for Hillary to have to do.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 24, 2007 11:36 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: Anonymous | June 24, 2007 11:19 AM | Report abuse


Yes, another bad case of typing with my thumbs and then not proofing before posting. My thoughts outrun my fingers. I wish I had done something rather than chew gum in my high school typing class, lo of 40 years past.

Yes, I agree the left wing can't move Hillary. And being that extremists of any stripe stay ideologically rigid, they may at least avoid voting for her, whether by "protest" to Bloomberg (see a reflection of Anderson in 1980 here?). Then again, another run by Nadar may pull the leftists who are too ideologically pure to waste a "protest" vote on Bloomberg.

Will that offset swing votes, that might otherwise break GOP, from going to Bloomberg? Who knows? It would be suprising if Bloomerg can win a plurality anywhere. But then again, strong third party races, Bull Moose, Perot, Wallace, etc have tended to be spoiler races at best for one of the two major party candidates.

Personally I will have no qualms about voting for Hillary in the general. She is not my first choice in the primary. But I am a pragmatist who is not ideologically rigid. Anyway, by time Montana's "near-last-in-the-nation" presidential primary is held, it will all be over. Montana usually only gets a personal campaign visits from also-rans who are hoping, by their personal campaigning, to score a larger-than-one-percent-showing in at least one place. Kucinich was the only one to campaign here back in 2004.

Posted by: Alan in Missoula | June 23, 2007 5:47 PM | Report abuse

Following up on Election Central's piece, it looks like Rudy Giuliani has a real problem here. Time's David Von Drehle asked a highly relevant question in his latest piece: "How many alleged criminals can a law-and-order candidate be associated with before it starts to hurt?" Von Drehle posed the question after Thomas Ravenel, the chairman of Giuliani's presidential campaign in South Carolina, was indicted on cocaine distribution charges, which, of course, comes on the heels of revelations about Giuliani's connections with Bernard Kerik.

But if Von Drehle's deadline was just one day later, he would have been able to include an even more damaging example of Giuliani's questionable associations.

Giuliani employs his childhood friend Monsignor Alan Placa as a consultant at Giuliani Partners despite a 2003 Suffolk County, N.Y., grand jury report that accuses Placa of sexually abusing children, as well as helping cover up the sexual abuse of children by other priests. Placa, who was part of a three-person team that handled allegations of abuse by clergy for the Diocese of Rockville Centre, is referred to as Priest F in the grand jury report. The report summarizes the testimony of multiple victims of Priest F, and then notes, "Ironically, Priest F would later become instrumental in the development of Diocesan policy in response to allegations of sexual abuse of children by priests."

Placa has worked for Giuliani Partners since 2002. As of June 2007, he remains on the payroll.

Posted by: rudy's slime | June 23, 2007 4:58 PM | Report abuse

Washington, D.C. House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel issued the following statement regarding his amendment to cut funding for the Office of the Vice President from the bill that funds the executive branch. The legislation -- the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations bill -- will be considered on the floor of the House of Representatives next week.

"The Vice President has a choice to make. If he believes his legal case, his office has no business being funded as part of the executive branch. However, if he demands executive branch funding he cannot ignore executive branch rules. At the very least, the Vice President should be consistent. This amendment will ensure that the Vice President's funding is consistent with his legal arguments. I have worked closely with my colleagues on this amendment and will continue to pursue this measure in the coming days."

Posted by: good for rahm | June 23, 2007 4:56 PM | Report abuse

Bush's Education Department found that charter schools nationwide under-perform, with test scores showing "charter school students usually doing worse than comparable students in regular public schools." (The Bush administration responded to the report by announcing it would sharply cut back on the information it collects about charter schools.)

Posted by: Anonymous | June 23, 2007 4:55 PM | Report abuse

You can almost smell the stink of desperation from the pro-war crowd. The next couple of years is going to be a nonstop frenzy of books, articles, TV shows, op-eds, radio segments, blog posts, and white papers about how everyone except George Bush and his enablers were responsible for our catastrophe in the Middle East. Anyone will do, as long as it's not them.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 23, 2007 4:41 PM | Report abuse

JKrish: I am in no way "Advocating turning OUR back on the left.". The left, right, middle, up, down, sideways, all should and do have their say, What I am trying to point out is not to let one wing of our party hi-jack it all. We must work together to prevent what happened in 2000 and 2004, and by working together we must field the strongest, best possible team at the top of the ticket. I firmly believe Hillary is the one to head the ticket with Warner as the VP. Should Warner not be available, I think Evan Byah would be a strong choice, but I am open on the VP slot depending on what comes about in Va.

Posted by: lylepink | June 23, 2007 3:33 PM | Report abuse

And this is for fans of Mitt Romney... you know, that candidate whose morals a few of you think are unimpeachable?

Posted by: Officer Friendly | June 23, 2007 3:14 PM | Report abuse

This is for fans of Giuliani, especially rulers of imaginary kingdoms:

Apparently, an associate of his - a monsignor - was accused years ago of child molestation and Rudy has hushed it up until now.

Posted by: Officer Friendly | June 23, 2007 3:00 PM | Report abuse

Lylepink, why would you advocate turning OUR back on the left. The eft in this country has been this countries JIMMENY CRICKET, the left has been the heart and soul of thsi country the last 7 years. I would agrue the left has been right on most things as opposed to the right, we are the brian also. WE have kept this country from going into oblvion. Without the left where would we be? Why then would you sacrafice the heart brain and soul of this country? That is my fear with a third party.

THE RIGHT WOULD DO WHAT THEY DO. The moderates would sell out for money, and the left would be there with no real power, but their ideals.

If you lose your heart brain and soul what are you left with? Patriotism? Money? Oil? Fake freind nations that only ask"How much money/things are you gonna give me."

Who has been right and who has been wrong over the last 7 years? Why would you want hildog to side with the right and ignore the left. Isn't that is what's happening now in regards to governmnet. How did we get to this point?

Posted by: JKrish | June 23, 2007 1:58 PM | Report abuse

were trying to pull her from the air

The her being Rosie O'Donnell. I don't like her. I agree wiht some things she says. She was ONE of two real liberals on tv. She was silenced. How is Imus yanked for feelings and Rush/O'REilly/hannity after murduring thousands of people for money still on?

BAcked by oil. We have courts in this country for a reason. The above are not the law. They are fascists. "Do as I do or get out of my country". Sounds like you are with us or aginst us

Posted by: rufus | June 23, 2007 1:42 PM | Report abuse

"First off, I'd like to say that I'm glad this blog has no censorship. I'm also glad that talk radio is still allowed to say (with little exception) what they want. I listen to it and I'm very conservative"

You say that now. What will you do without Rush/Hannity/O'REilly/Fox NEws? Will the conservgative movement still exists? If not why?

Free speech does not include what they do for a living. Slnder here-say. lies propoganda. That is not free speech. Again, I did not hear anybody crying free speech when Hannity/O'REilly were trying to pull her from the air EVERYDAY. And others like her. I am a liberal. I'll admit it. I beleive, like Justin above, that your freeddom ends where MINE begins. Why then does O'REilly /Rush/Hannity try and censor all liberal dissent. You have Fox, who do I have? One guy Olberman. What if he is a liar, what if he is a rpeublican in disguise. Then liberal tv has NO ONE. Does this stop O'REilly. It's not that we need an anti-O"REilly. We NEED all these lying propogandists off the air.

You know it's coming. I know the above are very scared. That's why they talk about this everyday. They should be scared. Their trime is up. They have done untold and un measurable damage to the mnedia in this country. As WE are a self-government we needa all the real news we can get, and none of the fake. Good luck righties. What will you do without yoru avatars?

Posted by: rufus1133 | June 23, 2007 1:38 PM | Report abuse

Could somebody at the White House please send Zouk an Air Force One hat.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 23, 2007 12:11 PM | Report abuse

Tzoi: Don't try and make it as simple as "nuclear". The "imbecilies" you refer to is the american voters that were stupid enough to elect/select the top two. The dems were dumb enough to select Gore in 2000 who turned his back on Bubba and to make matters worse Gore then choose Liebermann as his VP. I happened to be watching with about 15 others coming and going and flatly stated then that the dems would lose the election, btw, I was not alone in my prediction. For the support Gore has on this forum is hard for me to understand when the POTUS was handed to him on a silver platter and he blew it by his actions toward Bubba, who even now is the most popular man in the political world. Remember I have predicted each winner since 1948 and have done so even before they had been nominated. Make your own choice as to who you want to support, but remember I have been involved in the game for a lot longer than most and am trying to give my honest opinion about who and why I think will win in 2008. I have no doubt that Hillary will win and you can go back and check each and every post I have made on "The Fix" and find the many reasons as to why I think the way I do.

Posted by: lylepink | June 23, 2007 12:32 AM | Report abuse

First off, I'd like to say that I'm glad this blog has no censorship. I'm also glad that talk radio is still allowed to say (with little exception) what they want. I listen to it and I'm very conservative. However, I'm happy that conservative, liberal, libertarians, green environmentalists and everyone else who has views is allowed to share them freely and be heard. I believe this is a very important part of freedom that we are granted here in America. I'm thankful for these freedoms and hope freedom of speech endures forever.

Now, to the political rankings. It's really tough to tell who has the upper hand with such a long way to go until the election. What means more: organization, money or what else? Romney, Obama and Clinton have the most money. McCain and Clinton seems to have the best organization. I just can't count McCain out because of all the high profiled endorsements he has racked up. Can anyone answer me who has the endorsement's of Grassley and Harkin in Iowa? These are 2 major endorsements that party affiliates will take notice of from both parties. I am guessing that neither will endorse a candidate publically, but they may. I know that Jim Nussle has endorsed Guiliani, which could be a big advantage for him in Iowa. Romney seems to have the most grass roots support. But Grassley's endorsement would be huge! How about Harkin? I know he endorsed Vilsack at one time, and I think Vilsack has now endorsed Clinton. That's a feather in her cap. Edwars seems to have a strong organization, too. Romney and McCain are the strongest in New Hampshire on the Republican side. Clinton has it won in New Hampshire on the Democratic side, the fat lady is tuning up in that one.

Posted by: reason | June 23, 2007 12:12 AM | Report abuse

think of the one thing you love more than anything else in the world, and then imagine me sitting on it and farting.


It is my goal to become as offensive as possible to as many people as possible before I die young due to a lifetime of fast food, American beer, sweat-stained polyester with my name embroidered on the breast pocket in garish plastic, sloth, watching professional bowling, heavily chlorinated tap water, meaningless and frustrating late night conversations on singles' lines with ungainly fat girls who live three states away, streaks in my undies, and the Fox network. (belch) How'm I doin'?

Posted by: kingofzouk | June 22, 2007 11:24 PM | Report abuse

btw "" is not a real site. I am suspicious and advise that no one go there.

Posted by: Flawgrass | June 22, 2007 11:09 PM | Report abuse

Lylepink, you always say that, and it's vague enough to mean any number of things. Sometimes, especially with the current crop of imbeciles, they will say blatantly to your face what they are doing because they take a childish pleasure - or did until the November elections - in knowing you can't do $h1t about it. Besides, in order to be subtle, one first must be intelligent enough to spell and pronounce the word "nuclear" correctly.

Posted by: Tzoi | June 22, 2007 11:06 PM | Report abuse

Lylepink, but Hillary likes Celine Dion. Ewwwwwww.
Justin, good for you. I think anyone who thinks you have to be a certain age to be interested in political affairs is wrong... they affect all of us, and thus we should all be paying attention. I will say, though, that I have friends who live in NYC and they all say that Bloomberg has been a hell of a mayor. The issue of the congestion fee might seem overly "nanny state" to you, but the fact is that in a city that size, the air quality can get very bad very quickly. and I honestly believe that in the next ten or twenty years, we are going to have to make some drastic changes in order to preserve some kind of equilibrium in the environment. Scientists - except for the 2 or 3 guys Zouk drinks with who work for Dow - pretty much all agree that we have to make some serious lifestyle adjustments in order to even keep the rate of climate change to one we can live with. and in re: the tolls, London has done the same thing, and business has not ground to a halt, the environment is better, and the city is in better shape financially. Of course, I read today that there's a little sh*t between the mayor of London and - you guessed it - the US Embassy, which has racked up over $1 million in fines but refuses to pay. I can't wait until I as an American no longer have to feel embarrassed and apologetic when I go overseas. Bush makes us all look bad.

Posted by: Dog Wama J | June 22, 2007 10:59 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: jacob | June 22, 2007 10:53 PM | Report abuse

Justin Perez: Bloomberg is the media, and they have a language of their own. I think they are saying that Mike is neither a Lib or Cons, but is in the political talk world "A Moderate". This means many things to folks in the spin business, and is hard to describe. A short simple answer would be that he is not easily pinned down on any issue. A quote I often use may explain a little better..."Listen for what they don't say.".

Posted by: lylepink | June 22, 2007 10:09 PM | Report abuse

Somebody explain to me how Bloomberg is a "pragmatic centrist". I'm so damn sick of hearing it---it is pissin me off. I think it's just media stupidity/media lies.

Posted by: Justin Perez | June 22, 2007 9:31 PM | Report abuse

Bob from NY: That is not what I meant. The far left has a voice like all the rest of us, as they should. What I am saying is that Hillary will not be hi-jacked by them. The problem is they want it all their way, and Hillary is 100% correct in listening to all factions and making her own decisions as to what she thinks is best for our country. There is no one I know of that I agree with all the time. I have taken the time to find out, as best I can, about Hillary from childhood and found a truly remarkable person throughout her life. I don't agree with her on everything, what I find is she agrees with me on what is most important to me and has the political skill to get them passed in the Congress. That is why I have supported her from the start and honestly believe she will be our next POTUS.

Posted by: lylepink | June 22, 2007 9:20 PM | Report abuse

"with this being the perception" i meant "with this (today) being the exception"

Not trying to be confrontational--I'm just sayin'. I've known many who've lived too hard too fast. They regret it. Oh, and by the way, I've been cynical all my life (it's natural) so I doubt one day of blabbing on this thing will be harmful. Thanks, but yeah I normally make one comment every couple of posts maximum and that's it. Trust me that wont change---I wouldn't want it to.

Posted by: Justin Perez | June 22, 2007 9:11 PM | Report abuse

I work all day. I'm not a bum. I still come on this site. I have to.

"Once enlightened, so to speak, the freed prisoner would not want to return to the cave to free "his fellow bondsmen," but would be compelled to do so. Another problem lies in the other prisoners not wanting to be freed: descending back into the cave would require that the freed prisoner's eyes adjust again, and for a time, he would be one of the ones identifying shapes on the wall. His eyes would be swamped by the darkness, and would take time to become acclimated. Therefore, he would not be able to identify shapes on the wall as well as the other prisoners, making it seem as if his being taken to the surface completely ruined his eyesight. (The Republic bk. VII, 516b-c; trans. Paul Shorey).["

Posted by: rufus1133 | June 22, 2007 8:49 PM | Report abuse

Be your own man Justin. Don't listen to them. Like I said before. The more prepared you are the better. Based on you posts I KNOW you got your head on right. More info equals better decisions.

Hence, Bush got elected twice. The right-wing media pushed for us all to be less informed with politicas more informed with Paris Hilton or Anna Nicole. Look waht happened. Bush preceded to destroy the country for 8 years. Don't listen to anyone. If you don't agree with someone regardless of Race/age/religon/politics/what ever don't listen. Listen to your heart. God will guide you. Whether you know him or not. Just follow your heart buddy.

Good luck with that. Stay involved. Don't hide or WE will repeat the same mistakes as your father and mine.

Posted by: rufus1133 | June 22, 2007 8:45 PM | Report abuse

Anonymous poster from 724PM: Buddy, i appreciate your advice. But how often do you see me posting? Today I havent had sh** to do after I put in some job applications. I've been through a good deal of bulls**t for an 18 year old, and I am proud that after I straightened up that my mind could still comprehend something like politics. If you live too fast, you live to regret it because you make bad mistakes, and thank god I learned that before things got too bad and too permanent. I write one comment per post normally with this being the perception. Thanks for your concern, and I may not be a partier but I'm no shut in. But hey, if I don't learn about politics at a young age, my college will be harder, and I would have had less of a chance to choose a suitable career field. Thanks for the advice, but I know what I'm doin.

Posted by: Justin Perez | June 22, 2007 8:36 PM | Report abuse

Anonymous poster from 724PM: Buddy, i appreciate your advice. But how often do you see me posting? Today I havent had sh** to do after I put in some job applications. I've been through a good deal of bulls**t for an 18 year old, and I am proud that after I straightened up that my mind could still comprehend something like politics. If you live too fast, you live to regret it because you make bad mistakes, and thank god I learned that before things got too bad and too permanent. I write one comment per post normally with this being the perception. Thanks for your concern, and I may not be a partier but I'm no shut in. But hey, if I don't learn about politics at a young age, my college will be harder, and I would have had less of a chance to choose a suitable career field. Thanks for the advice, but I know what I'm doin.

Posted by: Justin Perez | June 22, 2007 8:36 PM | Report abuse

Who cares if we are speaking truth or not, right BOb. That doesn't matter. The facts and the dead don't matter anymore I guess. Just making sure America doesn't LOOK bad.

What a waste. What a waste of time. What a waste of ALL of our lives. Live to make money. What a great life. Slaves. There is little or no hope for us.

I'll make it easy for Razor and the rest of you. I told eveyone I knew if the republicans won , the last election I was moving to austrailia. New promise. If the republicans (or Hillary CLinton) win the presidency, I'm moving to Europe. Good deal razor. That's what you want right? Without the left in this country you would be free right Zouk? If this country elects another republican, you can have it.

Posted by: rufus1133 | June 22, 2007 8:15 PM | Report abuse

That's right lylepink. Let's ignore the left. We can run the country without them. If the moderates and the right unite, the left will be without a voice.

Posted by: Bob from NY | June 22, 2007 8:10 PM | Report abuse

Alan in Missoula: Hillary does not "resents the centrest...". I think you made a typo boo boo like all of us do and wanted to bring it to your attention. The thing about Hillary is the far left wing cannot tell her what to do, and she is 100% correct in not listening to them. I am not sure if you were the one that asked me about my Electoral Votes for Hillary, but just in case I added Penn.s 21 for my new total of 309. Hope this helps.

Posted by: lylepink | June 22, 2007 8:07 PM | Report abuse

Every Generation is more informed than the last, mostly due to technology. Old people hate that but it's true. See how long it takes grandpa to learn how to play your favorite video game. It's not an insult, it's truth. My kids are going to be way more adapt at computers than me. It is progress. It is normal. Stop the charade GOP. 1962 is over. John Wayne is dead. Stop holding up progress. The future is now.


Posted by: JKrish | June 22, 2007 7:42 PM | Report abuse

The internet ruined their propoganda gripe on reality. This is why 9/11 happened. To bring the new internet under wraps. The patriot act. That is why 9/11 happened. Good trade or fascism? Free market or murder?

This is a new age. The right is done. The internet age is here. The old rules no longer apply

Posted by: rufus1133 | June 22, 2007 7:38 PM | Report abuse

The old conservative trick of hide your head in the sand. Only watch fox so you can feel good about your country. Don't listen to them Justin. That is their trick. Where else in the world are you more prepared if you are LESS informed. No where. This is why our political problems are unsolvable. Too many go and hide their head in the sand. Don't listen to them Justin. The future is now. Not only should you read as much and watch as much as you can about politics. YOu should tell all your freinds to do the same. Otherwise you will be swayed, and vote, not based on the facts, but you will vote on little 60 second commercials. This is what the right wants. thsi is why they equate money to winning. The more money the more ads.

Little do thye know the people are awake now. ANd as a result the right's gripe on this country is done. they may not know it yet. But it is

Posted by: rufus1133 | June 22, 2007 7:34 PM | Report abuse

Justin - at 18 you're spending too much time getting into the miniscule aspects of politics. It will just make you cynical sooner than the rest of us.

Get away from your PC and the Internet more often. There's too much of life to enjoy, rather than being weighed down by those things which affect us, but which we have almost no control over.

Be informed; don't be obsessed.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 22, 2007 7:24 PM | Report abuse

"What in the he** has happened to my party??" - proudtobeGOP

Step One, finally. Eleven steps to go.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 22, 2007 7:18 PM | Report abuse

The conservatives choose party over country. I say we take back the power WE gave them.

I say we choose THE country over conservatives. I say, down with them. The conservatives started this war, against the american people. And I'm the bad guy for fighting back. I had to listen to O'REilly silence all dissent for 5 years. They had their time. It is over now. They cannot hold up the future. If the conservative movement is not WITH america. I say the Hel- with them. They don't care about what's best for the country, I don't care (anymore) wants best for them. Selfish greedy slobs.

Posted by: rufus1133 | June 22, 2007 7:12 PM | Report abuse

I agree with you %100 on every thing you just said.

"they think it will hurt them politically"

I would add, why is that. Who would not vote democrat if the democrats went after impeachment? Liberals? Democrats? Moderates?

Nope. Hard core right-wing conservatives. That's who would not vote for it. These people are living in 1962. They don't give a sh-- about the rest of the country. I don't give a shi-- about them anymore. I say DO WHAT"S right, like you Justin, If the republicans want another government MOVE TO AUSTRAILIA. Rupert Murduck can create a dream fascist regime for them. Republcians are holding this country ransom in more ways than one.

tHEY ARE THREATHENING "VOte Democrat and die". That sounds like a threat to me. How do they know. Are they in good relations with the terrorists? Have the FBI/CIA taught terrorist tactics to other countries to overthrow left wing governmetns across the globe? Yes.

The republicans have sold this country out. " YOu are either with us or against us." Watch what happens in the next election. If they lose they will cheat. If they cheat and lose, then what? Are they going to take their ball and go home. Heck no. THEY WILL CONTINUE TO SABOTAGE THIS COUNTRY UNTIL THEY GET THE COUNTRY THEY WANT. That is not america. That is not freedom. That is why I call them fascists.

Posted by: rufus1133 | June 22, 2007 7:03 PM | Report abuse

Truth Hunter, you have a nifty blog.

Proud, I had lunch with one of my closest friends, a pro-military, small gov Republican, who has been waiting 7 years to vote for Sen. McCain, and together we had the conversation in your 5:55P post.

After we bemoaned Romney, he said: "As much as I am turned off by the Christian right, I know that they will spit Romney out in a New York minute."

I suppose that's something to hope for.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | June 22, 2007 6:58 PM | Report abuse

I say parties should exist just to organize Congress. The jungle primary, which is a type of election system unique to Louisiana, will no longer be used for federal offices elected in that state (beginning in 2008). I think that we should ALL use the jungle primary. In a jungle primary, ALL candidates run against each other in a "primary," and if any candidate wins 51%, they are elected. However, this rarely happens. If nobody wins 51%, the 2 candidates with the most votes advance to a runoff election. Whoever wins that election is the winner of the office. Regardless of your political views, the fact is is that the President should be the AMERICAN president, not the Democrats' president, the republicans' president, the liberals' president, the nazis' president, or whatever. The President should understand he is responsive to all Americans. I think that the jungle primary would help elect more moderate Presidents responsive to all the people. However, the jungle primary may make money more influential, so public financing would be needed(i think it's needed anyway).

We should be able to recall or impeach a President who oversteps his/her power. The Dems are scared to impeach Bush for a single reason: they think it will hurt them politically. It's a stupid assumption. The GOP was only hurt politically by the Clinton impeachment because few Americans realized it was because of perjury and not just cheating on his wife. There are more clear, more critical reasons Bush should be about...HE VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTION OVER AND OVER AGAIN! If they really care about good gov't they'd do it.

Posted by: Justin Perez | June 22, 2007 6:46 PM | Report abuse

whether he was the destined son of God or not. Sorry

Posted by: jKrish | June 22, 2007 6:41 PM | Report abuse

The more people that read J. Krish. the better place this world will be in. He was/is the world teacher. Similar to Jesus. When he was the destine son of God or not. He speaks universal truths.

Posted by: jKrish | June 22, 2007 6:40 PM | Report abuse

I think, as with Perot in 1992/96 the votes come from the swing votes. Each party has a block, perhaps 40 percent of the electorate each, who will vote Democrat of GOP no matter who runs.

Perot's people were all over the map. In Montana, the local AIP push for Perot of course, but otherwise endorsed the entire GOP ticket in the state races. In Montana, Perot got swing voters and disaffected conservatives who xcouln't bring themselves to support Bush Sr.. Remeember that he painted himself into an impossible corner with his "no new taxes" speech at his nomination, so that when he struck a deal with the majority Democrats in Congress, the right was schocked.

Here we have potential fringe defectors from both parties. No true blue conservative seems to have a shot at the GOP nomination. Thus again disenchanted conservatives. The Democratic nomination seems to be Hilary's to lose. Regardless of what Republicans will claim in the general election, she resents the centerest element in the Democratic party and the left find it hard to stomach that. Remember Roger Moore calling Bill Clinton "the best Republican President we ever had?"

Then there is the swing voters, who can go either way. If Bloomberg makes a credible, run, which he has the personal money to do, he may sway some of them. Disaffected voters from the right or left my pick Bloomberg as a protest vote, not expecting he will actually be elected.

extremes of each party have a hard time with compromise.

Posted by: Alan in Missoula | June 22, 2007 6:34 PM | Report abuse

JKrish Is my peace name. Rufus is my attack dog name:). Also I need to get my boy's name out there. That's the only reason I use JKrish. I guy is a genius. I need to spread his word. Trying to do my small part.

Posted by: JKrish | June 22, 2007 6:27 PM | Report abuse

We don't need no stinkin' parties. That is. sorry I type to fast

Posted by: rufus1133 | June 22, 2007 6:24 PM | Report abuse

Hildog is a no go for me. She is a republican. Bloomberg is a no-go. Obviously all the republican candidates are a no-go. If I was forced to choose I'd say Paul.

On the Dem side. I'm waiting for a Gore Obama Ticket that may not ever happen. With the current candidates. I'm with Obama or Edwards, right now. Not sure if we could trust them. I would love to see a viable thrid party candidate, maybe even Obama. Regards, I probably am going to be forced to vote as an independant. I hope others do also. I'm sick of independant's getting 10% of the vote.

What are the alternatives though? How can anyone with a spine vote democrat. How can anyone with a brain/heart vote republican?

We don't need to sticken parties:). I say everybody run as independants. Watch the utopia that then ensues :)

Posted by: RUFUS1133 | June 22, 2007 6:20 PM | Report abuse

rufus1133 JKrish: Is this the same person? Dont worry bout it you didn't offend me bro. Who are you for for the White House in 08(for the Dem nomination)?

proudtobeGOP: I'm glad to see not all conservatives buy his crap. Mitt Romney is the fakest crook I've ever seen. As I've said on this site before, it's absurd that McCain is treated with more suspision than Romney. Yeah Ted Kennedy described Romney best: "He's pro-choice, he's no choice, he's multiple choice." At least McCain admits his unconservative positions. Hell, I don't think I've seen a politician who's flip-flopped more than Romney.

Posted by: Justin Perez | June 22, 2007 6:13 PM | Report abuse

Thank you dig. What's wrong with the rest of them? Why are most people in this country burying their heads in the sand while our country is being distroyed. DOJ FCC are in shambles. It must be the liberals fault to, like verything else

Posted by: rufus1133 | June 22, 2007 6:12 PM | Report abuse

For all the liberal domination they claim. Why is it all liberal voices are being silenced by the right. But trying to get them off the air is "an infringment on our first amendment rights?"

O'REilly/Hannity wern't concerned with the first amendment when they were calling for ROsie's head, everyday for months

Posted by: rufus1133 | June 22, 2007 6:09 PM | Report abuse

This makes Dick Nixon's theories of presidential power look like childs' play. When I asked if Cheney had "found" a fourth branch of government in position that until a decade or so ago was considered a seat warmer for a presidential run and the designated state funeral stand-in for the president, I didn't realize they were actually setting this forth as a legal argument. Dear God.

This means that he considers himself even more "unitary" than he considers the president, beyond all reach of either branch, answerable and accountable to no one.

Cheney is refusing to comply with a presidential executive order. What do you suppose the Empty Codpiece feels about this? Does he know that his Vice president believes he has an independent office that doesn't answer to him or anyone else?'

really goes to show you that as most of us already knew, bush has no b*lls. and of course if we had a functioning DOJ, this defiance of the president by the VP would have already been addressed.

Posted by: dig | June 22, 2007 6:03 PM | Report abuse

The liberal Bias is a lie. Your right justin, MSNBC is more moderate. IE Scarbourgh/ willaims/ matthews all republican parrots. CNN has dropped off the radar, to the right. This is due to Fox's constant attacks" They're all liberal" I only watch Olberman now personally. Even him I don't trust anymore. With that said he is the ONLY voice in LIBERAL topics. For all the O'REilly whining about how liberals control the media. I don't have any source I trust. Olberman, even though he is a lone wolf liberal on TV, constantly has guets from this paper, washington post. Dana Milbank, his #1 guy, went to yale with Bush and was in skull and bones with him. News Corp partnered with MSNBc to run a youtube like website. So I don't trust them. I think all the MSNBC vs fox is so they can corner each extreme.

So for all the "liberal media dominating the media", this liberal doesn't have ANY liberal news shows to watch. How about the conservative movement? Are they repsented. Talk radio is 85% conservative. Tv is about 75% but those considered liberal by others are sell-outs to me.

Liberals are silenced at every turn. Rosie and Olberman were the only TWO on cable tv with real hour long show. Rosie has been silenced. I just want something real. Either that or FOx "nEWs"/O'REilly/Hannity/Rush off the air :)

Posted by: Rufus1133 | June 22, 2007 6:03 PM | Report abuse

more press attacks on dems:

You left out the part about how Edwards has raised a bunch of money used for his own political purposes, and refuses to disclose who the donors are.

Posted by: Razorback | June 22, 2007 6:02 PM | Report abuse

Gov. Dave Freudenthal (D-WY) appointed state Sen. John Barrasso (R) to the vacant Senate seat, but oddly declined to say why. That makes me think it could only be a few things:
1. Bribe
2. extortion
3. He thinks he can beat him in 2008(I doubt Gov. Freudenthal will run, though)
4. He thinks somebody else can beat him (the Nat'l GOP viewed Boasso as the strongest candidate to hold the seat, however)
5. He thinks nobody can beat him (he IS moderate)
6. Because the lepracans told him to

Posted by: Justin Perez | June 22, 2007 6:01 PM | Report abuse

Gov. Dave Freudenthal (D-WY) appointed state Sen. John Barrasso (R) to the vacant Senate seat, but oddly declined to say why. That makes me think it could only be a few things:
1. Bribe
2. extortion
3. He thinks he can beat him in 2008(I doubt Gov. Freudenthal will run, though)
4. He thinks somebody else can beat him (the Nat'l GOP viewed Boasso as the strongest candidate to hold the seat, however)
5. He thinks nobody can beat him (he IS moderate)
6. Because the leprachans told him to

Posted by: Justin Perez | June 22, 2007 6:01 PM | Report abuse

The Edwards campaign is pushing back hard against today's enormous front-page New York Times piece alleging that there was something untoward about the fact that the antipoverty programs set up by John Edwards provided a "bridge" to his Presidential campaign. The story has already come under fire here, here, and here.

But we've just learned something new and surprising about the story. The Edwards campaign has just told us on the record that The Times refused the chance to talk to any real, live beneficiaries of Edwards' programs.

If this is so, this strikes us as highly suspect. Particularly in light of the story's lede from reporter Leslie Wayne:

John Edwards ended 2004 with a problem: how to keep alive his public profile without the benefit of a presidential campaign that could finance his travels and pay for his political staff.

Mr. Edwards, who reported this year that he had assets of nearly $30 million, came up with a novel solution, creating a nonprofit organization with the stated mission of fighting poverty. The organization, the Center for Promise and Opportunity, raised $1.3 million in 2005, and -- unlike a sister charity he created to raise scholarship money for poor students -- the main beneficiary of the center's fund-raising was Mr. Edwards himself, tax filings show.

We think these lines are highly charged with innuendo in a way that's beneath the Paper of Record. They stray into mind-reading and indulge in motive assessment. They lack factual specificity. Given how potentially damaging they are -- and simultaneously how murky they are -- they should not have been permitted by the editors to get onto the paper's front page. Unless the paper's editors no longer mind murky innuendo on A1 above the fold.

But if you are going to put such lines on your front page -- if you are going to publish an enormous story alleging that a person's antipoverty program was set up mainly to benefit the person who set it up -- then basic journalistic fairness would dictate that you make a genuine effort to see how the program fulfilled its "stated" purpose of helping people. Surprisingly, no mention of how the programs actually impacted people appears until the story's 18th paragraph -- and at that point it comes from the mouth of an Edwards spokesman. There's no indication that the reporter made any genuine independent effort at all to discover whether the programs helped anyone.

Such an effort might entail, you know, speaking to such people, among other things. Yet no such people are quoted in the story.

So we checked in with the Edwards campaign. And yep -- the campaign confirmed that the paper had turned down the chance to speak to any people directly impacted by Edwards' programs.

We've asked the reporter and a Times spokesperson for comment. If we hear back, we'll let you know.

Posted by: more press attacks on dems | June 22, 2007 5:58 PM | Report abuse

If you think I am making it up, then look it up yourself. Its all public record. Look it up, or shut up.

Posted by: Razorback | June 22, 2007 5:57 PM | Report abuse

I am physically sickened by CC's ranking of Romney as #1 R. What in the he** has happened to my party?? Are people that stupid to get suckered in by a few tv ads? This guy has changed positions more times than Sting doing Ashtanga yoga. His only number one ranking as far as I'm concerned is for King of Flip Flops.

Multiple Choice Mitt. He's slick, fast-talking and light on courage.

What is this.. some parallel universe where voters get sucked into believing every slick-talking phony that comes along with polished hair and a media blitz?

Reminds me of the time I was at the festival of the vernal equinox, and I guess I had a little too much mead.. and I darted out in front of an oxcart. It all happened so fast. They couldn't stop in time.

Well, maybe the party will feel a lot better after a good bleeding.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | June 22, 2007 5:55 PM | Report abuse

n the June 22 edition of his daily "Politico Playbook," Politico chief political correspondent Mike Allen praised former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney's (R) June 21 speech on national security at the American Enterprise Institute's World Forum as "very ambitious and serious" and dubbed Romney "Multimedia Mitt," inviting readers to "[c]heck out the 31 Power Point slides former Gov. Romney used last night." Allen, however, offered no explanation as to why Romney's speech was, as he put it, "very ambitious and serious." Indeed, Allen acknowledged that he had not seen Romney's speech and hadn't read it -- he noted that the speech was "closed to the press under AEI rules" and that the campaign released only "excerpts" of the speech. Moreover, Allen did not note, as the weblog Think Progress did, that the excerpts of Romney's "serious" national security speech included no substantive remarks on the Iraq war.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 22, 2007 5:55 PM | Report abuse

Peace to you Justin :)

I get frustrated from time to time. Trying to talk sense into people like razor is like talking to a brick wall. Reality is a lost concept to them. " If I don't get caught, the law wasn't broken."

You feel me Justin? It feels like a lose cause. Them they come out and call me, and those like me, the problem. It's not Bush and his cronies. It's not about The RUsh's of the world and their 30 million clone dittoheads. Everything is the liberals fault. It's not Bill O'REilly (with millions of viewers). Everything is my fauly with 5 veiwers. You feel me Justin.

Peace to you. Peace here in AMerican has been ripped to shreds (by the conservative movement). Peace here is much more important, to me, than peace in the middle east. Although that is important also. But not at the expense of peace here. Feel ME Justin. SOrry if I insulted you

Posted by: rufus1133 JKrish | June 22, 2007 5:54 PM | Report abuse

I'll admit, I mostly watch MSNBC, but now that I no longer live at home and no longer have cable, I get my news from here, the politico, and only a few other places. But yeah, if you only watch Fox News you won't get any information. I know, I only watched Fox News for about 6 months until 2005, and they are BIASED. MSNBC seems to be the most moderate station. But you can't fully trust ANY source.

Posted by: Justin Perez | June 22, 2007 5:52 PM | Report abuse

oh, and regarding your 'knowledge' of the law, razor? back where i come from, it's called 'making sh*t up'.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 22, 2007 5:52 PM | Report abuse

Rufus: That comment after your comment was from me by the way. Accidentally hit enter. I don't hate people that disagree with me at all. I don't think many people like Bill o'Reilly other than Bill O'Reilly. I'm not hatin bro so don't worry about it. Honestly I have no idea what y'alls convo's about. Yeah our system was screwed up way before O'Reilly. I think it got REALLY screwed up when the GOP was taken over by the religious movements. They're trying to force their religious beliefs on us. Ok let me quit rambling.

Posted by: Justin Perez | June 22, 2007 5:45 PM | Report abuse

It's amazing the depths to which cons like razor will sink in trying to justify the anarchy and lawlessness of bush and cheney. after all the screaming about 'rule of law' and how terrible clinton was because he 'lied under oath' -- the cons warp both language and reason in their rush to justify, excuse, and rationize blatant disregard for the Consititution, for democracy, for the law of the land.

Really, movement conservatism is no different at all than fascism.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 22, 2007 5:44 PM | Report abuse

:) Reading is good. Learning is good.

Hiding from the truth is bad. Only watchiing Fox (hiding from the truth) is bad


Posted by: rufus1133 | June 22, 2007 5:43 PM | Report abuse

rufus: I just barely glanced at what you said and really don't know what you and razor are talkin about

Posted by: Anonymous | June 22, 2007 5:37 PM | Report abuse

That's you Justin. That's fine. Don't hate on my mojo for trying to hold these criminals to account. If not me, and others like me than who? Who will shut Rush/Hannity/O'REilly down the FCC? Who's going to get behind all the illegal actions by the administration and their cronies, The Department of Justice?

Some Americnas may not care their ENTIRE SYSTEM IS BEING GUTTED. That hurts my feelings but I don't HATE them. I try and ask them," Why don't you care." Or in Razor's, and other's like him," Why do you hate your country so much."

Differant folks differant strokes. Bill O'REilly thinks propogating to line his pockets is good business, no matter how many people die in the process. I tend to disagree. The ends DO NOT JUSTIFY the means. The ends being billions of dollars to members of the right-wing conservative movement.

Posted by: rufus1133 | June 22, 2007 5:34 PM | Report abuse

Mark In Austin: No, I'm from Tampa, Florida actually. I'm just somewhat obsessed with politics. My complaints arise mainly from my libertarian streak. Bloomberg banned smoking in bars (FL actually approved such a ban in 2000), banned trans-fats from restaurants, banned driving in a certain part of Manhattan, etc. The fact is I don't know THAT much about his administration, but I can clearly see the dictatorial way in which he governs. I can't accept that. I see Razorback and rufus here arguing about liberal and conservative views regarding the constitution, but I'm not like that. I strongly believe the Constitution is a brilliant document that has been violated too much. Conservatives love the 2nd amendment, liberals love the 1st. Only the person who pleads the 5th love that one, unless a political enemy is pleading it. I'm not like that. I love the entire document, except for the 18th Amendment (which was ovrturned by the 21st anyway). I agree with Barry Goldwater in much of his libertarian stances (his willingness to nuke places is MY only disagreement off the top of my head). The fact is, we should start repealing laws (PATRIOT ACT) and try to regain our lost liberties. We shouldn't be forced not to eat unhealthy foods or smoke because the gov't says it's bad for us. We know it's bad for us. We aren't children, and we should have the right to do ANYTHING just as long as it doesn't hurt anybody else. "My liberties stop where yours begin" is my theory.

In short, Bloomberg's dictatorial style is what I oppose, along with his extremely liberal philosophy. I think it's absurd for a liberal to run with the backing of a centrist group. If Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA) was the Unity08 nominee, I could accept that despite the fact that he's socially conservative, and I disagree with him 100%, because at least he's a moderate.

Posted by: Justin Perez | June 22, 2007 5:14 PM | Report abuse

Justin P - just read your 4:52P post. Tell me what the nature and extent of the smoking ban was, and what the "transfat" issue actually is.


Posted by: Mark in Austin | June 22, 2007 5:02 PM | Report abuse

I'll admit I know very little about Bloomberg,as I am not a NY resident. Waht I do know is I will never vote republican. I encourge others to not vote Republican. I realize he WAS a democrat. But it is perseption. It LOOKS like he was republican when it was good, but is now jumping a sinking ship.

Either way he DID have an R next to his name. And it was to recent for him to get any serious thought. It is the republicans who equat money to winning. I don't think his 500 bilion will go as far as Obama's ideals. It is the republicans who are saying that you need X amount of money to win, not the dems. That is the republican mindset. I say public funding is the way to go. This way corporations can't BUY their way into political relevant

Posted by: JKrish | June 22, 2007 5:00 PM | Report abuse

Justin P - Was your 4:37P repost for my benefit? I want to know if you are a New Yorker and if you have specific criticisms of MB's governance. That is what would be helpful for me.

"Conservatives" and "liberals" both have good and bad ideas. For example, in my lifetime, Daniel Patrick Moynihan was a liberal with good ideas and common sense and Bob Dole was a conservative with good ideas and common sense. I would have voted for either if I had lived in their states. So it does not help me one whit to see the labeling revisited. Now, I share some of JD's distrust of government nannyism, and JD or someone mentioned MB's smoking ban and something about transfatty acids. Those are examples of issues I could learn from.

If you are an NYCer, please try again.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | June 22, 2007 4:59 PM | Report abuse

You must not watch Fox "News" then, like I have for 5 years. Did you ever catch O'Reilly circa 2002. He was Mr. "anybody against the invasion of Iraq is Crazy." Or "anybody who doesn't want to invade deoan't know what they are talking about."

Or "Let me bring in Newt Gingrich to ask him WHAT LIBERALS ARE THINKing." Liek he's a liberal.

It's Ok. Their time is alomost up. Once Fox "News" Rush Hannity O'REilly are off the air, you won't see me anymore. I, and others like me, are only here to balance out their PROPOGANDA AND LIES. Don't you know O'REilly #1 contributor is the OIL industry. That MAY be a conflict of interest. Much like news corp's involvement in Rudy's campaign. But that's good balanced journalism right ,razor.

Posted by: rufus1133 | June 22, 2007 4:55 PM | Report abuse

JKrish: Personally, I fervently loathe both radical liberals and radical conservatives, by the way. BLOOMBERG ONLY BECAME A REPUBLICAN SO THAT HE WOULDN'T HAVE TO LOSE THE DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY FOR NYC MAYOR. This guy is a partisan liberal Democrat in his ideology, and it just pisses me off that Unity08, a group intending to appeal to the moderate majority, may end up nominating a third extremist candidate. HE MAY HAVE GIVEN $ TO GOP CANDIDATES, HE MAY HAVE HAD AN "R" AFTER HIS NAME, BUT THAT DOES NOT MAKE HIM CONSERVATIVE. THIS GUY IS REALLY ABOUT AS LIBERAL AS YOU CAN GET.

That's what I was saying.

I also detest the fact that a man touted as a "pragmatic moderate" by the media is really a dictatorial liberal. The media's wrong---once again.

How many moderates want a President who wields undue power? How many people want that in general? That's what Dubya is doing now!!!

Bloomberg's record as Mayor----banning smoking, trans-fats, driving in certain areas----shows his power-hungry dictatorial ways. Third party "moderates" are supposed to oppose stuff like that as a part of their insurgent campaigns, as part of opposing the status-quo. BUSH HAS HAD TOO MUCH POWER, AND WE CAN'T LET OUR NEXT PRESIDENT ABUSE OUR RIGHTS LIKE THAT!!!

The late Sen. Barry Goldwater said it best:
"Those who seek absolute power, even though they seek it to do what they regard as good, are simply demanding the right to enforce their own version of heaven on earth. And let me remind you, they are the very ones who always create the most hellish tyrannies. Absolute power does corrupt, and those who seek it must be suspect and must be opposed. Their mistaken course stems from false notions of equality, ladies and gentlemen. Equality, rightly understood, as our founding fathers understood it, leads to liberty and to the emancipation of creative differences. Wrongly understood, as it has been so tragically in our time, it leads first to conformity and then to despotism."


Posted by: Justin Perez | June 22, 2007 4:52 PM | Report abuse

Policy disagreements are not "misinformation, lies and propaganda".

Posted by: Razorback | June 22, 2007 4:50 PM | Report abuse

These are not blow-j__ offenses, like clinton. These are not slaps on the wrist. This is murder. This is treason. Those are serious offenses unlike the clinton garbage bull that the republicans USED TO SHUT DOWN THE GOVERNMENT.

Now who are the partiots? Who are the un-american people now. The republicans now and forever. Traitors to the Americna cause. Greedy only care about other republicans. Your time has come and it is quickly leaving

Posted by: rufus1133 | June 22, 2007 4:48 PM | Report abuse

No justice officail had EVER pleded the fifth, before Goodling. That was NEVER. Yeah, pleading the fifth is int he constitution. You got one thing right today Razor.

The reason people are mad is, that is the standards for CRIMINALS. Not the people who have sworn to PROTECT the constitution. So the justice department is now being run by criminals. Razor can never see the light. He/she has a huge RED blanket over his/her eyes.

"If Bush/Cheaney/Rove/Rush/O'REilly'Hannity says it's true, than by-golly it MUST be true." :)

Yeah Cheney has nothing to gain from this. Save his remining years OUT OF PRISON.

Again. We'll see Razor. Fox "News" and your people have been wrong the last 6 years. Very wrong. Continuously wrong. Intentional. you be the judge, razor. Misinformation/lies propoganda the last 7 years, you be the judge. Bush start his presidency in court and ending in court, you be the judge Razor. The history books will decide. But the last 7 years have been one mistake after another. You can blame that on me if it makes you feel better.

Good luck ever getting another republican elected president again. What have they done right? If they get elect again I'm moving to scananavia. If the republicans get elected again their is no hope for american politics ever again.

Posted by: rufus1133 | June 22, 2007 4:38 PM | Report abuse

JKrish: Yes, Bloomberg was a REGISTERED Republican. That doesn't mean he's a conservative or has any of the thoughts or ideas of a Republican. He was a lifelong Democrat until 2001. In 2001, Mayor Rudy Giuliani did not run for reelection, and many well-known candidates ran for the Democratic nomination. Bloomberg then ran (unopposed, I believe) for the Republican nomination for NYC Mayor shortly after switching his party affiliation. REGARDLESS OF BLOOMBERG'S LABEL, HE HAS BEEN AND ALWAYS WAS VERY LIBERAL!!! This guy is nothing but a liberal extremist in the Mike Gravel mold.

Posted by: Justin Perez | June 22, 2007 4:37 PM | Report abuse

As long as reid makes comments like this I don't have any problem. Ooh and reid doesn't make his religon a campaign issue as the right does these days. As long as he doesn't try and corrale ANY religon I don't have a problem with ANY religon. Romney made mormonism an issue not the left.:

Does Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) agree with Vice President Cheney's argument that his office is not an entity within the executive branch, and therefore exempted from sending records to the National Archives?

Reid didn't hesitate: "No."

In fact, he barely let the reporter complete the question Friday during an unrelated press conference.

"There will be hearings held on this," Reid said. "We have to hold up to light the things that have been going on in this White House."

House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) challenged the legality and rationale behind Cheney's argument in a letter sent to the vice president yesterday.

According to Waxman, Cheney's office has refused since 2004 to allow the Information Security Oversight Office, a department within the National Archives, to conduct an on-site inspection of how classified material is handled there, as it is authorized to do under an executive order issued by President Bush."

Posted by: rufus1133 | June 22, 2007 4:28 PM | Report abuse

"The Oversight Committee has learned that over the objections of the National Archives, Vice President Cheney exempted his office from the presidential order that establishes government-wide procedures for safeguarding classified national security information. The Vice President asserts that his office is not an "entity within the executive branch."[..]

In his letter to the Vice President, Chairman Waxman writes: "I question both the legality and wisdom of your actions. ... [I]t would appear particularly irresponsible to give an office with your history of security breaches an exemption from the safeguards that apply to all other executive branch officials."

SilentPatriot: There may be a bright side to this: If Cheney wants to assert that his office is not an "entity within the executive branch," that means he's not entitled to executive privilege, right? I want those energy task force minutes!!"

Posted by: rufus | June 22, 2007 4:26 PM | Report abuse

"The Oversight Committee has learned that over the objections of the National Archives, Vice President Cheney exempted his office from the presidential order that establishes government-wide procedures for safeguarding classified national security information. The Vice President asserts that his office is not an "entity within the executive branch."[..]

In his letter to the Vice President, Chairman Waxman writes: "I question both the legality and wisdom of your actions. ... [I]t would appear particularly irresponsible to give an office with your history of security breaches an exemption from the safeguards that apply to all other executive branch officials."

SilentPatriot: There may be a bright side to this: If Cheney wants to assert that his office is not an "entity within the executive branch," that means he's not entitled to executive privilege, right? I want those energy task force minutes!!"

Posted by: rufus | June 22, 2007 4:26 PM | Report abuse

Those goofy liberals. Rufus seems to say that Bush is destroying the constitution by pleading the 5th. The 5th is in the Constitution.

In the simple mind of a liberals everything that they subjectively believe is good is required by the Constitution and everything that they subjectively think is bad is against the Constitution. Burned hotdogs? Definatelly unconsitutional. Allegations must be proved if the subject of the allegations is a liberal, just make the allegations up, no proof required if a conservative.

Romney, Mormon bad, Reid, Morman good. Right Rufus?

Posted by: Razorback | June 22, 2007 4:23 PM | Report abuse

I guess we'll see, razor. It is not the democrats job to be constantly monitoring the republicans. They should be able to run AN agency without completly destroying it.

The problem is most agencies that would monitor them, the fcc the usdoj, congress before the election, the current senate, have been filled with cronies. It's not the liberals/democrats who are stoppin gjustice. It is the administration and his buddies. If they would stop shredding/deleting documents, stop pleding the fifth and stop the democrats from getting to the bottom of this TREASON, we would get some answers.

To many republicans are using mafia tactics, without any regard for teh law.

THE LAW IS NOT ONLY THE LAW IF YOU DON'T GET CAUGHT. A law is, even if you don't get caught. Once Bush is out of power everybody currently under is thumb WILL roll over. They are treasonous sell-outs/traitors. Do you think thye will be loyal? It's not in the republicans genetic make-up to be loyal. They are self-serving greedy pigs by nature. They will be given an opinion. Roll-over on the bad apples or go to jail, for a long time. They will pick the prior. The right's time in this country is up. YOu had you chance. You showed your face. It was ugly.

Posted by: RUFUS1133 | June 22, 2007 4:13 PM | Report abuse

Justin P. - I know that you are very engaged in this campaign and when I read your criticism of Bloomberg and I thought you must live in NYC and have a bill of particulars.

If you do live in NYC, or in its media market, and have a specific list of complaints about MB's governance, I would like to hear it. You are not the only critic of MB here, but I am looking for NYC'ers with first hand experience. drindl comes to mind, but I think she likes MB.

I have a lawyer friend in NYC who says he is an effective Mayor but a dull speaker [yesterday's discussion]. You could proerly assume that I am in Texas and know nothing about MB that I have not read in the MSM - or right here.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | June 22, 2007 4:10 PM | Report abuse

Waxman is using rhetoric that he knows makes the dogs slobber and, more importantly, reach for their checkbooks.

As demonstrated above, the "law" Waxman refers to are agency regulations which are based on authority delegated to the executive branch by the legislative branch.

The is an administrative review procedure in which Alberto Gonzales will decide what to do about the agencies differing interpretations, and if they can't work it out, they will go to court. It happens every day in DC.

If Waxman wasn't so busy issuing press releases, he could put in a bill that clarifies the law, or even takes away any powers the Congress has delegated to the administration.

It is my opinion that this kind of "oversight" by press release is part of why the approval ratings of Congress is lower now than it was in the days following the exposure of the closet homosexual who was attempting to grope the Congressional pages.

Waxman and those like him want to issue press releases and preen on TeeVee about issues that are mostly inside ball partisan political bs that most Americans don't care about.

Posted by: Razorback | June 22, 2007 3:31 PM | Report abuse

Also, the visitor logs. He doesn't want us, the american people, knowing who he meets with. Why is that? Halliburton, Abrmoff, Saudi's.

Follow the traitors at your own peril. I'm beginning to think the last 6 years were just a test to see who the real patrioits/americans are and who the fascist sell-out traitors are. It's working. I see you Razor :)

Posted by: rufus1133 | June 22, 2007 3:20 PM | Report abuse

"Since 2003, the vice president's staff has not cooperated with an office at the National Archives and Records Administration charged with making sure the executive branch protects classified information. Cheney aides have not filed reports on their possession of classified data and at one point blocked an inspection of their office. After the Archives office pressed the matter, the documents say, Cheney's staff this year proposed eliminating it."

"He's saying he's above the law," said Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which released a series of correspondence yesterday outlining the situation. "It just seems to me this is arrogant and shows bad judgment."

"The standoff stems from an executive order establishing a uniform, government-wide system for safeguarding classified information. The order was first signed by President Bill Clinton in 1995 and was updated and reissued by President Bush in 2003. Under the order, an "entity within the executive branch that comes into the possession of classified information" must report annually how much it is keeping secret."

Posted by: rufus1133 | June 22, 2007 3:17 PM | Report abuse

Forget those commonplace 26 percenters, Razorback is one of the very rare 9 percenters.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | June 22, 2007 3:16 PM | Report abuse

If over and over again you talk about what the law is, even though that is not what the law is, you are a fool and a liar.

Posted by: Razorback | June 22, 2007 3:09 PM | Report abuse

If you are a republican first, YOU ARE NOT AN AMERICAN.

If you are a conservative before a christian. YOU ARE NOT A CHIRSTIAN

Posted by: rufus1133 | June 22, 2007 3:08 PM | Report abuse

"Cheney has violated what THEY THINK THE LAW SHOULD BE"

Like treason, right ZOUK.

"Treason is legal" According to Razor. And you wonder why the republican movement is done in this country. Are you a rebulican first, or an AMerican.

Are the "religous right" Christians firsts or conservative/republicans first.

That question in itslef amounts to treason. Your movement has sold this coutnry out Razor. Qibble about the small stuff all you want. If it were up to me , and my people, they would ALL do LIFE for TREASON.

Posted by: rufus1133 | June 22, 2007 3:02 PM | Report abuse

jkrish: LOL great post.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | June 22, 2007 3:02 PM | Report abuse

Rufus, you need to send you new little kiddie to law school, because his daddy doesn't know **** about the law.

Posted by: Razorback | June 22, 2007 2:59 PM | Report abuse

" Bloomberg is not a REPUBLICAN, AND NEVER WAS"

What? I must be living in another universe then. I saw him switch from a REPUBLICAN to an independant two days ago. Sorry for my mistake. I obviously don't know what I'm talking about

Posted by: JKrish | June 22, 2007 2:58 PM | Report abuse

JimFinFL says:

"The VP's staff then tried to get that branch of the National Archives eliminated."

Tried what? Did they write the President? Did they write their Congressman or Senator? Did they quote the Constitution? (Acually what they did was try to avoid REGULATIONS of the Attorney General, who makes regulations only by grant of delegated authority from CONGRESS). The Congress could change any of this, then Cheney wouldn't win in court every time.

All Cheney has done is go to court or before administrative agencies and make legal arguments. So far he has WON. Why do these idiots keep saying Cheney has defied the law and the Constitution when those charged with interpreting the law and Constitution disagree?

Cheney has violated what THEY THINK THE LAW SHOULD BE, not the actual law.

Posted by: Razorback | June 22, 2007 2:55 PM | Report abuse

We'll see how it ends up razor. Regardless of what you say him and ROve, and who knows else, have deleted hundreds of thousands of white house emails that should have been kept. We will see if that is legal or not. Time will tell. If they are doing nothing wrong, why all the secrecy?

You right-wingers are funny. It used to be when a question was asked it needed a real answer. A question used to demand a smart concise REAL answer. To the conservative movment any answer will do. It doesn't have to be correct. It doesn't have to be the american way. It just has to be an answer. Anyone will do.

Beleive Cheaney/Rove/Bush are not breaking the law at your own perile. You are the one who looks as though you have no grasp on reality.

The rest of us what REAL answers. Any answer will not do. Propoganda and misdirection are not facts. Your movement is done

Posted by: rufus1133 | June 22, 2007 2:55 PM | Report abuse

JKrish: Bloomberg is not a REPUBLICAN, AND NEVER WAS!!! Yes, perhaps he was one on paper. The fact is, Bloomberg is a liberal to the left of the Dem party. If his true self is ever seen, and people stop listening to the "pragmatic moderate" bs the media puts out, and quit looking just at party labels, they'd see that. Bloomberg became a Republican so that he could be elected NYC Mayor w/out having to win a contested primary, but was a lifelong Democrat before that. If he's seen for what he is, he will siphon off liberal votes from the Dems and give the GOP a plurality victory.

Posted by: Justin Perez | June 22, 2007 2:46 PM | Report abuse

This is a summary of what a COURT said;

"Detailees from Department of Energy (DOE) were employees of National Energy Policy Development Group (NEPDG), as ad-hoc group comprised of federal agency officials, at time they created or obtained documents relevant to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, and thus documents were not "agency records" subject to disclosure; although detailees remained on payroll of DOE during tenure in NEPDG, they worked exclusively on NEPDG matters, were supervised by Office of Vice President, and did not occupy offices at DOE. 5 U.S.C.A. § 552 et seq."

The Freedom of Information Act did not apply to the Cheney Energy Policy Group, according to a COURT.

Also, 5 USC 301 is a statute in which CONGRESS delegated powers to Executive branch agencies to "classify" information as secret.

"The head of an Executive department or military department may prescribe regulations for the government of his department, the conduct of its employees, the distribution and performance of its business, and the custody, use, and preservation of its records, papers, and property. This section does not authorize withholding information from the public or limiting the availability of records to the public."

The COURT decision cited earlier was an interpretation of an exemption to the Freedom of Information Act.

Hate me, hate Cheney, hate the Court, hate the Congress, but please quit pretending that the law says something that it does not, and Sofia, you shouldn't call someone ignorant who knows a hell of alot more about the topic than you do.

Posted by: Razorback | June 22, 2007 2:44 PM | Report abuse

What are you doing over there the last 7 years?

I don't recall. I plead the fifth

Posted by: The world to The Bush Admin | June 22, 2007 2:41 PM | Report abuse

Sofia and Razor

You are both missing the point. Cheney is defying an executive order signed by the president on the grounds that the Vice President's office is not part of the executive branch of government. Bush signed an executive order detailing how classified documents should be handled to comply with a law on presidential recordskeeping. When representatives of the National Archives, who administer the law, came to see the VP's office about this, they were shown the door. The VP's staff then tried to get that branch of the National Archives eliminated.

Posted by: JimD in FL | June 22, 2007 2:39 PM | Report abuse

JimD posted the first irony of Cheney's claim.

The second is that his conduct thwarts an Executive Order designed to increase security.

The third is that by defying a GWB EO, he makes GWB look like a weak Executive. I would not care if my Veep were my mentor and best friend - he would follow my EO or I would limit his access to power and cut his required service to the Constitutional bone - he would preside over the Senate, period. For those who wonder why I would not fire my Veep, it is because he was separately elected and can only be removed by the "I" word.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | June 22, 2007 2:36 PM | Report abuse

We can't stop the republicans by re-electing them (BLoomberg). If so why would they change?

Posted by: JKrish | June 22, 2007 2:35 PM | Report abuse

that's spelled "cocoa puffs"

don't expect literacy, reason, or rationality from a winger.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 22, 2007 2:34 PM | Report abuse


Soemthing that never existed when written. Unlike the concept of TREASON. That was thought of. They had a deterent for that one.

Three SEPERATE branches of government. It's not queit about that one.

Clinton did sign into LAW an article that said that the excutive branch must keep all records. THAT IS A LAW. Bush expanded on the law, they just ignore it. Also the hatch act"The Hatch Act of 1939 is a United States federal law whose main provision is to prohibit federal employees (civil servants) from engaging in partisan political activity. Named after Senator Carl Hatch of New Mexico, the law was officially known as An Act to Prevent Pernicious Political Activities.

The act precluded federal employees from membership in "any political organization which advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of government." During the Second Red Scare, this designation was interpreted to include communist and labor organizations."

Get your head out of the clouds Razor. You look like a fool comin gon here speaking about that which you have no grasp

Posted by: RUFUS1133 | June 22, 2007 2:33 PM | Report abuse

There we go! Despite how much I LOATHE Romney, he should have made #1 a while ago. It's also nice to see Huckabee on The Line again. Huckabee, as a candidate, should be in first place; but his campaign prevents that from happening. Had he had more organizational strength, more money-just a better campaign in general- he'd definitely be there. I think he should run against Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR) in 2008. It wouldn't be easy, but he could do it. This WH thing's just out of his league. It had seemed to me that Obama was fading-possibly due to his lack of media coverage for the past few weeks. That AFSCME speech proved otherwise. $40 million is the # I've been hearing (but those #'s may be from the Clinton campaign). Clinton's team has been high-balling Obama's fundraising expectations, which means they must expect him to outraise her. I was once a Hillary-hater, but everytime I see her I like her more and more. It scares me. Her public appearances have just surprised me. I think for any candidate to overtake Hillary, they must deal with Edwards or Obama first (or both). Liberals need to pick one or the other so that they don't split their vote. They'd be better off coalescing around Obama, though. I'm thinking Mitt's lead is soft and will be crushed when and if a real conservative can woo the base (is Fred Thompson up to the task?). I honestly don't buy this conventional wisdom that Bloomberg is a moderate. How the hell can his positions be seen as anything other than radically liberal? Maybe he's moderate for New York City, but for NYC Linc Chafee would be considered a right-wing extremist. Bloomberg will only take the center if the center is mostly uneducated and buys the crap the media puts out about him being a pragmatic moderate. This guy acted as a dictator in NYC, and iron-handed rule is not what this country needs. We need a real moderate. We need a moderate who cares about our freedoms and wont tell us how to live our lives. I'm a left-of-center guy. I'm staunchly pro-choice, against affirmative action, moderate on gun control, against ANY infringements on civil liberties, for strong defense and I'm relatively hawkish (but against the Iraq War). I'm a Unity08 delegate, and I would consider myself a classical example of the middle of this nation. MIKE BLOOMBERG IS A FAR LEFT RADICAL!!! So what he was a Republican? So what he'll have an "I" after his name? So what he's contributed to GOP candidates? If ANYONE will present me a persuasive argument as to why this guy's a moderate, shoot me an email. To me, he is a liberal extremist, who took the easy route to win the Mayoral office by changing to the GOP, and is trying to take the easy route to the WH by switching to an independent. The media is acting like he's moderate. I think only (possibly)uneducated voters (or just those who pay little attention) who are disgusted with both parties will vote for him not realizing that he's a radical himself. Lets get a real moderate in there.

Posted by: Justin Perez | June 22, 2007 2:33 PM | Report abuse

that's spelled "cocoa puffs"

Posted by: bookoonoon | June 22, 2007 2:30 PM | Report abuse

Mitt Romney looks like Ken, of Barbie and Ken fame, and Fred Thompson looks like Gargamel.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 22, 2007 2:29 PM | Report abuse

rufus, just because the Constitution is silent about coco puff cereal doesn't mean you can't think that coco puffs are yummie.

Posted by: Razorback | June 22, 2007 2:27 PM | Report abuse

I hate Cheney, too!

Posted by: Anonymous | June 22, 2007 2:27 PM | Report abuse

"The Constitution is silent as to the secrecy of documents. "

Flat out lie.

"Your suggestion that he is "defying the Constitution and breaking the law" is an ignorant "

This sounds like your "show me where TREASON is illegal" argument.

IT"S OK. Your people are now the fringe. The conservative seat at the table of American politics has been REVOLKED. Hopefully for another 30 years. At which time you will do the same things again IE Nixon/Bush 41/Bush 43

Posted by: rufus1133 | June 22, 2007 2:25 PM | Report abuse

Sofia, your ignorance if both striking and obvious. The Constitution is silent as to the secrecy of documents. The power to classify any documents as secret rests with the Congress. Your suggestion that he is "defying the Constitution and breaking the law" is an ignorant rant not based on thought or reason. It is just another way to say "I hate Cheney".

Posted by: Razorback | June 22, 2007 2:20 PM | Report abuse

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Little-known documents now being made public detail illegal and scandalous activities by the CIA more than 30 years ago: wiretapping of journalists, kidnappings, warrantless searches and more.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 22, 2007 2:18 PM | Report abuse

Nifong (the duke prosecuter)may get jail time. Jefferson WILL get jail time. Scotter libby? Anybody in Bush's administration. The system sure works fast if your a democrat. Imus/Rosie

Hypocrites. Fascists Sell-outs traitors

Posted by: rufus1133 | June 22, 2007 2:16 PM | Report abuse

'Block Zouk! Who agrees?'

Hail, hail.

Posted by: Jane | June 22, 2007 2:15 PM | Report abuse

'To the extent that Cheney has power to classify or reclassify anything, that power was delegated to him by Congress. If Congress doesn't like it, they can change the law.'

No -- your ignorance is striking. Cheney's powers are enumerated by the Constitution. Right now, he is defying the Constitution and breaking the law. He should be impeached.

Posted by: Sofia | June 22, 2007 2:13 PM | Report abuse


This is from your people Razor. Drudgereport. The right-wing fascist movement is over. Get back in the closet

Posted by: rufus1133 | June 22, 2007 2:13 PM | Report abuse

I like that this blog doesn't block content and I don't mind scrolling past the garbage. I'd rather have garbage to scroll past than someone's editorial decision about what makes it / doesn't make it.

Once you start blocking it just becomes an arms race anyway and people figure out more subtle ways to get garbage through.

Posted by: Golgi | June 22, 2007 2:13 PM | Report abuse


Cheney is defying an executive order signed by the president governing the management of classified papers in the executive branch. Despite earlier claims of executive privelege by his office over his energy task force, Cheney now claims that since he is the president of the Senate he is not part of the executive branch and not subject to the president's executive order. This is, to say the least, a novel constitutional interpretation.

Posted by: JimD in FL | June 22, 2007 2:12 PM | Report abuse

Scared yet razor? What will you do without your avatars?

Posted by: rufus1133 | June 22, 2007 2:11 PM | Report abuse

'What a bunch of marooons'

then leave, loser.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 22, 2007 2:11 PM | Report abuse

Chris Dodd: The Senator from Castro who parties with Teddy; a Peace Corps "vet" too, all you out there who serve or have served your country; might his, er, service have been like Chris Mathews', who "served" our country as manservant to the King of Swaziland? (Put up the king's picture instead of JFK's, Chris; care to describe your, er, duties?)

Posted by: Philip V. Riggio | June 22, 2007 2:11 PM | Report abuse


First Trent lott now hildog and Boxer. UUTT OOOOHH GOP. Your avatars (rush/Hannity/O'Reilly Foxnews )time is almost up

Posted by: rufus | June 22, 2007 2:10 PM | Report abuse

No, Razorback. The people who constantly plagiarize content from other sites and add nothing of their own should all be blocked, because they add absolutely nothing to the discussion here. The poster who used to go by "kingofzouk" and now has become one of the anonymous cowards he always ranted about, so he should be blocked with the rest. It's not about ideology.

Of course, this is never going to happen. The web guys at the Post obviously have no interest in making this site interesting or usable.

Posted by: Blarg | June 22, 2007 2:07 PM | Report abuse

The statement "But after being burned by casting a head-over-heart vote in 2004, will Democratic voters go down that road again?", is the myth of the 2004 campaign. The Kerry campaign told a lie and Iowan Democrats voted their heart while telling themselves they were using their head. He was the establishment candidate and that is what they wanted.

'I look like an elite coastal liberal and I talk like an elite coastal liberal, therefore I'm the most electable.' Yeah, like that was going to play well in the middle of the country.

The Onion's story "Kerry to campaign from deck of yacht," summed it all up.

Posted by: muD | June 22, 2007 1:59 PM | Report abuse

Yes, thats right, censor someone based soley on views that disagree with yours, even as we ignorantly suggest that others violate the Constitution. What a bunch of marooons.

Posted by: Razorback | June 22, 2007 1:58 PM | Report abuse

Block Zouk! Who agrees? Let Chris know!

Posted by: Dog Wama J | June 22, 2007 1:53 PM | Report abuse

Ana, there is no such thing as a loophole. The law is what the law is. To the extent that Cheney has power to classify or reclassify anything, that power was delegated to him by Congress. If Congress doesn't like it, they can change the law.

Posted by: Razorback | June 22, 2007 1:49 PM | Report abuse

This would be totally funny if it weren't, you know, happening:
Vice President Dick Cheney has asserted his office is not a part of the executive branch of the U.S. government, and therefore not bound by a presidential order governing the protection of classified information by government agencies.

Also, he is not bound by the laws of space and time! Instead of torturing the terrorists, he's going to make sure their parents never meet. Seriously, though... What freaky loophole has he found? Maybe the flag in Cheney's office has yellow fringe. Maybe his new undisclosed location is an abandoned oil rig he's declared "The Glorious Republic of Dickistan."

Yeah, I'll sleep better tonight knowing that Dick Cheney ANSWERS TO NO ONE.

Posted by: Ana | June 22, 2007 1:47 PM | Report abuse

State Police are investigating one of Mitt Romney's top campaign aides for allegedly impersonating a trooper, according to two law enforcement sources familiar with the probe.

Jay Garrity, who is director of operations on Romney's presidential campaign and a constant presence at his side, became the target of the investigation, according to one of the sources, after authorities traced the cellphone used to make the call back to him. The investigation comes three years after Garrity, while working for Romney in the State House, was cited for having flashing lights and other police equipment in his car without proper permits.

Posted by: mitty's judgement | June 22, 2007 1:44 PM | Report abuse

Romney Staffer Taking Time Off to Spend with His Investigation

Jeff "Call Me Trooper" Garrity has taken a leave of absence, the campaign has confirmed, pending the resolution of the Massachusetts and New Hampshire criminal investigations.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 22, 2007 1:42 PM | Report abuse

I am now finished with lunch and will attempt to spoil this blog with a frenzied posting of anything I can find to bring my average over the every-two-minute mark. wish me luck. forgive me if most of it is garbage. the same goes for my ideas.

Posted by: kingofzouk | June 22, 2007 1:40 PM | Report abuse


The problem between Turkey and the Iraqi Kurds is real. I do not see that a federal Iraq will make things any worse than they already are. The Kurdish region of Iraq is highly autonomous de facto if not de jure. The tensions are there. It is a situation which will have to be dealt with by Iraq, Turkey, NATO and the US. I would weigh the potential bloodshed over this issue with the actual bloodshed occurring every day due to the Sunni-Shiite civil war.

Posted by: JimD in FL | June 22, 2007 1:38 PM | Report abuse

I can't help but be skeptical of Bloomberg's entrance into the fray in the guise of an independent "populist." His connections with The Street and Salomon Bros, his family ties to the U.N., a big donor to the World Health Organization, et al., just reeks of "Novo Ordus Seclorum." Dodd was always my best hope due to his pragmatism and intellect (which seems to be lost among the sound bites). If a candidate ever emerges with enough courage to tackle the elimination of the Federal Reserve, the illegal government goon squad aka the IRS, and such lovely totalitarian instruments like the National ID card, then I will be the first in line at the voting booth to vote for them (and then pray that the vote count isn't "fixed.")

Posted by: Timbo | June 22, 2007 1:37 PM | Report abuse

Following this week's revelation of 800 cyber-attacks on the the Homeland Security department, hackers have now attacked the Pentagon's computer networks. Some 1,500 PCs at DoD were shut down during the latest "penetration of the system," in the romantic wording of Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

Posted by: homeland insecurity and incompetence | June 22, 2007 1:37 PM | Report abuse

Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens, the number-two Republican on the Senate Appropriations Committee, is under investigation by the Justice Department for his ties to an Alaska-based oil services company.

Rep. Jerry Lewis of California, the ranking Republican on the House Appropriations Committee, is being investigated over his relationship with another former member of the panel, ex-Rep. Bill Lowery (R-Calif.).

Rep. John Doolittle (R-Calif.) is being scrutinized for his ties to former GOP lobbyist Jack Abramoff, and he resigned from the powerful committee after his house was raided by federal agents.

Posted by: and more | June 22, 2007 1:35 PM | Report abuse

I am now finished with lunch and will attempt to spoil this blog with a frenzied posting of anything I can find to bring my average over the every-two-minute mark. wish me luck. forgive me if most of it is garbage. the same goes for my ideas.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 22, 2007 1:34 PM | Report abuse

Rep. Tom Feeney (R-FL) filed papers with the House of Representatives establishing a legal defense fund earlier this week.

Federal investigators stepped up their probe of Feeney's ties to Jack Abramoff in April. As Roll Call reported in April, Feeney has made two payments totaling $23,000 to the law firm Patton Boggs for legal counsel to represent him.

Posted by: another r bites the dust | June 22, 2007 1:31 PM | Report abuse

Will all of the armed robbers and killers make the baby rapers and those who fail to buy health insurance their prison yard bitc**s?

you seem to have an obssession with 'baby rapers' razorback -- do you think about that a lot? you talk about it a lot.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 22, 2007 1:28 PM | Report abuse

It now seems likely that future historians will see Iraq as an American defeat as big as that in Vietnam, though different in kind. It's not yet, and may never be, a case of the helicopters taking off from the flat roof of the embassy in Baghdad - as happened in Saigon - but it's already something tragic and pitiful.

The most powerful military in the history of humankind, with a total budget now in the order of $500bn a year, is reduced to handing out arms to local brigands in a desperate attempt to halt the spread of violence and anarchy. Thereby it piles up more tinder for future violence and anarchy.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 22, 2007 1:25 PM | Report abuse

'You think you've reached bottom, then you hear knocking from underneath. As I follow the news from Iraq, and the American debate about it, I fear that the worst is still to come. Here's the latest twist. In desperation, and since the surge is not having the desired effect, the US military is now arming and funding Sunni gangs to help them fight other Sunni gangs possibly linked to al-Qaida.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend - even if, until only yesterday, he was the enemy I had claimed to be defeating. But how will the US military know they are not supporting killers who have the blood of American soldiers on their hands?

It can only fuel the civil war that most observers expect to erupt with full fury as American and British forces pull back. And that's in addition to arming the largely Shia forces of the Iraqi army. One way or another, Americans are giving Iraqis more weapons with which they can kill each other. After yesterday's attack on the al-Askari mosque in Samara, another round of Sunni-Shia violence must be expected.'

Maybe what Cheney wants is for all the Shia and Sunni to kill each other, then there'd be no obstacle to stealing all the oil.

Posted by: The Guardian | June 22, 2007 1:24 PM | Report abuse

Regarding the NYT coverage of a recent Supreme Court decision, someone ddishonestly left out the fact that it was an 8-1 vote, that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the opinion, and that Justice Breyer was in the majority as well. So much for a vast right wing corporate conspiracy theory.

Also, if you knew anything about the law, you would know that in this case the Court was interpreting a statute passed by Congress. If the Congress didn't intend for the Court to interpret the statute in the way it was determined, they can change the statute.

Posted by: Razorback | June 22, 2007 1:21 PM | Report abuse

While the Air Force is knocking out Iraqi infrastructure, the insurgency is applying its own radical travel restrictions. Over at No Quarter, Larry C Johnson takes ominous note of the bridge demolitions being executed in Baghdad and how each severed artery not only constricts the flow of movement but tightens the noose:

the bombed bridges of Baghdad are not a quaint romantic tale, but a warning sign of potential disaster for U.S. forces in Iraq. The ongoing attacks on bridges in and around Baghdad creates significant risks and logistical obstacles for U.S. forces in Iraq. In my opinion these attacks are part of deliberate strategy to create ambush chokepoints, degrade the capability of U.S. Quick Reaction Forces, and enhance the ability of insurgent forces to cut the U.S. lines of communication.

The loss of these bridges represent more than increased inconvenience for commuters and travelers.

Traffic will be re-routed, which means there will be more traffic in a concentrated area. This is a boon for insurgents who can in turn concentrate their limited resources and simplify their planning for successful attacks. It also creates logistical nightmares for the United States forces. Most of the basic necessities required to sustain U.S. forces in Iraq are carried in truck convoys. The destruction of these bridges will further increase the transportation time for drivers and the maintenance requirements just to keep the vehicles on the road.

Beyond the inconvenience factor, we must recognize that the destruction of bridges can produce the defacto isolation of U.S. outposts and bases. If a U.S. unit is attacked and requires reinforcements, the loss of these bridges increase the difficulty of the U.S. Quick Reaction Force reaching the scene in a timely manner. Moreover, with fewer alternate routes available, insurgents can anticipate where to hit a responding American force. In fact, an attack on an outpost could be a feint intended to provoke a U.S. reaction and give the insurgents the opportunity to ambush the inbound soldiers.

Larry C. Johnson's grim prognosis:
"The systematic destruction of bridges in and around Baghdad are the early warning signs that the mission for our soldiers in Iraq is going to get tougher and more deadly."

Posted by: Anonymous | June 22, 2007 1:20 PM | Report abuse

Looking idly at the front page of last Wednesday's Washington Post Express as I rode the Metro to work, I received a shock. It showed a railroad station in Iraq, recently destroyed by an American air strike. So now we are bombing the railroad stations in a country we occupy? What comes next, bombing Iraq's power plants and oil refineries? How about the Green Zone? If the Iraqi parliament doesn't pass the legislation we want it to, we can always lay a couple of JDAMs on it.

It turns out the bombed railroad station was no fluke. An AP story by Charles J. Hanley, dated June 5, reported that
"U.S. warplanes have again stepped up attacks in Iraq, dropping bombs at more than twice the rate of a year ago. ... And it appears to be accomplished by a rise in Iraqi civilian casualties.
"In the first 4 1/2 months of 2007, American aircraft dropped 237 bombs and missiles in support of ground forces in Iraq, already surpassing the 229 expended in all of 2006, according to Air Force figures obtained by The Associated Press."
Nothing could testify more powerfully to the failure of U.S. efforts on the ground in Iraq than a ramp-up in airstrikes. Calling in air is the last, desperate, and usually futile action of an army that is losing. If anyone still wonders whether the "surge" is working, the increase in air strikes offers a definitive answer: it isn't.
Worse, the growing number of air strikes shows that, despite Gen. Petraeus' best efforts, our high command remains as incapable as ever of grasping Fourth Generation war. To put it bluntly, there is no surer or faster way to lose in 4GW than by calling in airstrikes. It is a disaster on every level. Physically, it inevitably kills far more civilians than enemies, enraging the population against us and driving them into the arms of our opponents. Mentally, it tells the insurgents we are cowards who only dare fight them from 20,000 feet in the air. Morally, it turns us into Goliath, a monster every real man has to fight. So negative are the results of air strikes in this kind of war that there is only one possible good number of them: zero...

Posted by: Anonymous | June 22, 2007 1:18 PM | Report abuse

Put up a bird feeder in the backyard and next thing you know you've got a million illegal immigrants pooping all over the patio.
That this suburban fable has been making the rounds of the right blogosphere's beef-jerky brigades is a sad indictment of the waning powers of imagination in those editorial precincts. I only hope that the more literal-minded among them don't use this fed-up bit of folklore as an excuse not to hang birdfeeders, for fear of luring Mexicans across the border. A recent survey showed an alarming drop in bird populations, which seems to have gone unnoticed on the blog right, so preoccupied are they in bashing Rachel Carson while drizzling themselves in DDT. The rate things are going, "Silent Spring" may be approaching. I realize that so many on the right pride themselves on not caring about the environment or nature--to them, such concerns are liberal tree-hugger sissiness--but wouldn't they want their children to be able to enjoy the beauties of birds and birdsong? Then again, maybe their ideal America, the one they hope to hand down to their children, is an armed compound with so much piped-in entertainment no one ever need breathe unprocessed air.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 22, 2007 1:17 PM | Report abuse

The recent string of pro-business decisions, which the LAT looked at yesterday, comes at a time when the Bush administration is trying to use its remaining months in office to water down business regulations and make it harder for people to sue companies for injuries.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 22, 2007 1:09 PM | Report abuse

The New York Times leads with a look at how the Supreme Court continued with its pattern of awarding pro-business decisions yesterday when it made it more difficult for investors to sue companies and their officials for fraud.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 22, 2007 1:08 PM | Report abuse

NEW YORK A new Gallup Poll reveals that fewer than 3 in 10 Americans saying the United States is winning the war on terror -- the lowest figure since the 9/11 attacks.

Further, while most Americans consider the war in Afghanistan part of the war on terror, almost two-thirds reject the idea that the war in Iraq is.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 22, 2007 1:06 PM | Report abuse

BY now all know that Mark Leibovich of the NY Times claims he was pulled over by staff for the Romney campaign claiming to have run his plates and telling him to stop following the campaign vehicle. The Romney campaign has denied the incident, but Leibovich has stood behind his story.

Today the Boston Globe has a story entitled Romney aide is the focus of probe about the campaigns director of operations Jay Garrity. This refers to an incident being investigated by the Massachusetts State Police, while the investigation of the incident reported in the Times also focuses on Garrity and is being investigated by the NH Attorney General. And it turns out there is an earlier incident as well.

This is NOT the action of a junior aide. These are the actions of a senior member of the campaign.

teacherken's diary :: ::
The title of this diary cites a history. Let me quote first from the end of today's Globe piece:

In 2004, the Globe reported, Garrity was cited and fined for driving a Crown Victoria with red and blue lights mounted in the grill, a siren, a PA system, and strobe lights; and for having a nightstick and identification showing a State Police patch that read "Official Business."

So we have a man who has a previous record of inappropriate actions and equipment related to impersonating an officer.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 22, 2007 1:03 PM | Report abuse

no the winger posts are all zouk. they have his footprints all over them.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 22, 2007 1:02 PM | Report abuse

Rep. Tom Allen's marathon fundraiser is still happenin', folks.


The netroots never sleep.

Tom ate two granola bars before his discussion last night.

I strongly doubt that Tom was insane enough to pay $1,500.00 apiece for them (we working class Mainiacs don't fritter away money).

Thanks, joementum--we'll send an FTD "thank you" bouquet straight away!

Posted by: mainefem | June 22, 2007 1:02 PM | Report abuse

Quite right Blarg, this Liberal blog has no room for alternative views or facts.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 22, 2007 1:00 PM | Report abuse

Americans' confidence in Congress is at a historic low point, according to results of a Gallup poll released Thursday. Only 14 percent of Americans surveyed said they had a "great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence in Congress.

That is the lowest confidence level recorded in the history of Gallup polling on that institution, going back to 1973. The previous low was 18 percent in 1991, 1993 and 1994. Those happen to be the last years before the present that the Democrats controlled both chambers - and in 1991 there was also a Republican named George Bush in the White House.
Thirty percent of Americans believe in UFOs, agreeing that "some of the unidentified flying objects that are reported are really space vehicles from other civilizations," according to a 2001 survey by the National Science Foundation (NSF).

* Thirty-one percent of Americans believe that astrology -- which holds that the alignment of celestial bodies actually affects people's destinies -- is at least "sort of scientific." Another nine percent said it was "very scientific" (NSF, 2001).

* About 19 percent of Americans believe that Elvis is either alive or that there is a chance he is still alive (Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll, 2002).

About 22 percent of Americans believe that President Bush knew of the 9/11 attacks in advance (Rasmussen, 2007).

* Sixteen percent (and Rosie O'Donnell) believe that explosives brought down the World Trade Center (Scripps Howard/Ohio University, 2006).

* About 17 percent believe that "Creatures such as Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster will one day be discovered by science" (Baylor Religion Survey, 2005).

* Twenty-two percent of Americans believed in five or more of the following 10 pseudoscientific beliefs: "extrasensory perception (ESP), that houses can be haunted, ghosts/spirits of dead people can come back in certain places/situations, telepathy/communication between minds without using traditional senses, clairvoyance/the power of the mind to know the past and predict the future, astrology/that the position of the stars and planets affect people's lives, that people can communicate mentally with someone who has died, witches, reincarnation/the rebirth of the soul in a new body after death, and channeling/allowing a "spirit-being" to temporarily assume control of a body" (NSF 2001).

Even those handfuls are greater than the proportion of Americans with confidence in Congress - which still doesn't make the latter any less perplexing. One suspects that, if given an option stated explicitly in Fox's Elvis poll, the great majority would have agreed: "Those people are crazy."

Posted by: Jon | June 22, 2007 12:58 PM | Report abuse

Hundreds, or thousands, of additonal deaths on 9/11 were the direct result of rudy's tax cuts for the rich. He defunded the police and fire departments which left them without decent equipment, particularly communications. And like in the case of Katrina, an incompetent government response to a disaster caused innumerable citizens to die for nothing. No wonder the firefighters despise him.

This is the 'small government' the tax deadbeats want.

Posted by: Elain | June 22, 2007 12:56 PM | Report abuse

The bullying leftists will not tolerate disobedience and will not quickly forgive defectors. Their power is far from limited to this week's conference. They're in full control now at Democratic Central. Their dominance can be seen in their success in intimidating the major Democratic candidates: Edwards, Obama, Clinton, Christopher Dodd and Bill Richardson -- so far, from taking part in the Fox/Congressional Black Caucus debates because of Fox's participation.

These liberals are not satisfied with mere posturing or ineffective performances. They've made it known they will not tolerate the Democrats' incompetence and half-measures toward undermining our war effort. They demand the whole enchilada.

Without question, they are forcing Democratic presidential candidates to commit further to the left than they should be comfortable defending in the general election. They are pressing for universal health care, immediate withdrawal from Iraq, shifting resources away from the military during time of war, re-handcuffing our intelligence agencies and otherwise compromising our proven successful methods against fighting terrorism and bolstering national security, declaring an end to the war on terror and reverting to treating it as a law enforcement matter, radical growth-suffocating action to deal with its highly debatable assertions on manmade global warming, wealth and production-punishing tax increases, advancement of the radical homosexual and pro-abortion agendas, further radicalizing the culture against traditional values, discouraging immigrant assimilation, adulterating the Second Amendment, using the government and academic institutions to suppress conservative speech and other assorted nightmares.

Posted by: David | June 22, 2007 12:55 PM | Report abuse

I'm becoming more and more convinced that the unattributed snippets of conservative articles and the unattributed snippets of liberal articles are being posted by the same person. And this person must be stopped.

Posted by: Blarg | June 22, 2007 12:52 PM | Report abuse

If we can clean up New York, we can clean up Washington... Republicans were spending too much money," Rudy said, taking a shot at the last Congress. "At one point they had 10,000 earmarks. And last year, last November, Democrats said, 'we're gonna stop it.' They got elected. They've been there six months. And they've requested 36,000 earmarks. And from this I learned, when it comes to spending, Republicans are amateurs. Democrats are professionals."

Posted by: party of broken promises | June 22, 2007 12:42 PM | Report abuse

China has figured out the benefits of the free market, but the Democrats can't! India has figured out to move away from socialist control of the market to a free market, but the Democrats can't!"

This was perhaps best demonstrated early on, when Rudy said, "I've had to watch two Democratic debates in order to prepare for mine, and I noticed something: All those hours of debating, and not once did they mention Islamic terrorism.... Did they think it wouldn't be p.c.? Did they think it would be insulting? When you say 'Islamic terrorists,' the only people you're insulting are ... Islamic terrorists. And, really, we don't care if we insult them."

Could you see some Democratic nominee -- Hillary, Obama -- tying themselves in knots to explain why they refuse to call the enemy "Islamic terrorists" (as opposed to just "terrorists") or feeling the need to specify "al Qaeda"? Can you see them trying to explain to the American people that identifying the religion of al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc., is somehow ipso facto discrimination or bigotry?

"It's not a small point," Rudy said, hitting on a verbal tic by Reuters, etc., that inspires such ire and passion among right-of-center bloggers. "It illustrates their denial and defensiveness."

Posted by: go rudy | June 22, 2007 12:40 PM | Report abuse

Any guesses on what time slots Bush and Cheney will be given for their addresses to the 2008 GOP convention?

I say 2 AM for Bush, no TV for Cheney.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | June 22, 2007 12:39 PM | Report abuse

As mayor of New York, Giuliani used similar reforms to reverse the city's decline and rejuvenate its finances.

Giuliani instructed agency managers to suggest annual spending cuts of at least 5 percent. This enhanced public services and helped keep average annual spending growth 1 percent below inflation. On Giuliani's watch, per-capita spending sank 2.4 percent, some $149 in today's dollars.

Despite hiring more cops and teachers, Giuliani reduced city-funded full-time employees from 117,494 to 94,313 -- a 19.7 percent cutback.

Giuliani's CompStat system helped NYPD precinct commanders measure crime block-by-block and deploy cops where hoodlums hovered. Such savvy manpower allocation helped slash overall crime 57 percent and homicide 66 percent.

Giuliani did all this and more while reducing or eliminating 23 taxes, chopping the top tax rate 20.6 percent, and saving taxpayers $9.8 billion.

Posted by: the anti-lib | June 22, 2007 12:37 PM | Report abuse

Moscow on the Potomac [Marlo Lewis]

Senator Reid (D-NV) wants to force us buy 36 billion gallons of biofuel by 2022. President Bush wants to force us to purchase 20 percent less gasoline by 2017. Sen. Bingaman (D-NM) wants to force us to obtain 15 percent of our electricity from wind, solar power, and other so-called renewable energy sources. The Soviet Union is dead, but centrally-planned, Soviet-style production quotas are the rage in our Nation's capital. What a revoltin' development!

Posted by: NRO | June 22, 2007 12:33 PM | Report abuse

bloomberg has no chance, why do you think he has not announced. he disassociated from gop because he might have some scruples, surprising but possibly true?

or maybe he will run and he had to excommunicate himself from the repugnant-can party because he knows anyone with an (R) after his name is stinky rank in the hearts and minds of voters.

stinky, STINKY, rank.

still, bloomberg might want to add his millions to the election economy, no one wants to stop him, it's his money, the service help will thank him as they serve him caviar at his fundy's.

Posted by: pre-Amerikkkan | June 22, 2007 12:32 PM | Report abuse

Follow the Liberal Money

Well, well ... the author of the Center for American Progress report attacking conservative talk radio -- Paul "Woody" Woodhull -- just happens to be financially and professionally involved with two liberal talk radio programs -- Ed Schultz and Bill Press. See here and here.

Nothing in this report discloses Woodhull's conflict of interest. You're led to believe that the findings were unbiased and untainted. It now turns out that the author has a direct financial interest in using the government to dismantle conservative talk radio.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 22, 2007 12:28 PM | Report abuse

Let me begin with a spelling, grammar and geography lesson to enhance my bona fides. Now that you see I am a pedant, I can continue with my weak, hallow rebuttals.

I claim that 60% of Americans are against the war and use this to knock the policy, but when confronted with the fact that those same people initially supported the war I abandon this argument. I like using both sides when necessary.

If I ever need to discuss congressional approval, I pull out the slavery card. It is still pertinant 100 years later dontcha think? Never mind it was the Rs who forced that issue.

I also choose to ignore the idea that the effort was approved by congress and instead will focus on a slight aspect of whether everyone is still on board. Hard things are not in our stable. I support cowboy diplomacy when conducted by a Lib with no oversight. I don't support the same action when approved by congress. I am that dense.

BTW victor (david hanson), I don't care if you are a best selling author and professor of military history, I know more than you about everything.

Posted by: boobanon | June 22, 2007 12:26 PM | Report abuse

Bokonon, you missed the best part of Victor's post!

"Imagine: One of the various foiled terrorist plots -- a Fort Dix slaughter, a JFK airport attack, or the suicide teams ABC news claims are headed our way from Afghanistan -- succeed after 2008. Thousands of Americans die."

1. Thousands of Americans would have died in a Fort Dix "slaughter"? A handful of Albanians wanted to attack a MILITARY BASE with guns. They would have been killed in seconds.

2. The planners of the "JFK airport attack" weren't any more competent than the planners of the Fort Dix attack. The fires they wanted to start would have done minimal damage.

3. For your third example of terrorism, you selected attacks that "might be headed our way". Pretty weak.

You ignore the fact that these plans were incredibly lame and not at all successful. (Because, surprise surprise, regular law enforcement is effective against terrorist plots.) You go on to mock the Democrats for their hypothetical responses to these hypothetical attacks, without explaining the correct response. What country should we invade in response to the Fort Dix attack, which was planned by people who have lived in this country for years or decades? What would Bush do that's so great?

Posted by: Blarg | June 22, 2007 12:25 PM | Report abuse

Bloomberg +s:
Washington outsider.
Corporations didn't finance his campaign.
Self-made and smart.
Media savvy.
Probable VP, Hagle, anti-war on Iraq.
Will announce in 2008, avoids over-saturation.
Executive experience.

Bloomberg -s:
Third party candidates don't make it.
Narrow government experience.
Too Nanny-state.
Hagle a loose cannon.

I'm not a Bloomberg fan, but I think if he decides to run in 2008, he'll be in it to win.

CC - I agree with Mark in Austin and Jim D in FL.... why no Biden? Has the MSM decided he doesn't get a place at the table? He's Dodd with a better Iraq message and "presence." He rates at the very least a tie with Dodd in the rankings.

Posted by: Truth Hunter | June 22, 2007 12:17 PM | Report abuse

Romney will win the nomination and select Jim DeMint, Fred Thompson, or Huckabee as his VP. No one (outside Bloomberg) Can self-finance like he will be able to. He has the money, organization, ann charisma to withstand all the attacks that have happened and are coming. Money buys an image and he has all he needs.

His family has been an amazing source of help (look at his wife and sons endeavors to be on the road constantly speaking with voters in early states). He is a breath of fresh air who is a good family man and a CEO who will change around the country.

Posted by: Southern Progressive | June 22, 2007 12:15 PM | Report abuse

The John Edwards plan will REQUIRE all Americans to buy health insurance.

I wonder what the penalty will be for failure to buy health insurance?

Will all of the armed robbers and killers make the baby rapers and those who fail to buy health insurance their prison yard bitc**s?

Posted by: Razorback | June 22, 2007 12:14 PM | Report abuse

Victor says: "After 9/11, we did not, as alleged, invade countries serially, but removed only two fascistic governments"

-The adjectival form of "fascist" is also "fascist." No "-ic." Moving on....

"the worst in the Middle East"

-only Iraq is in "the Middle East." Afghanistan is in Central Asia.

"both with a record of supporting enemies of the United States,"

-If by "Afghanistan" you mean "al Qaeda," that is correct. But in case you had forgotten, at the time we invaded, Iraq had been basically cut off from contact with the outside world for the previous thirteen years.

"and both of whom we had bombed or sent missiles against in the very recent past."

-Well, we fought a half-assed war against bin Laden for a few weeks in December 2001, but for some unknown reason held back when we had him cornered. He's still around, getting stronger and more dangerous. Good thing we dug Saddam out of his hole, though ... worth every penny of the 1.5 trillion we have spent in Iraq thus far, with no return and not much in the way of results.

"unlike the bombing of 1998 in the Balkans,"

-are you referring to the intervention that was successful? and had international support? and actually has worked in improving the situation on the ground? Just checking.

"both operations in Afghanistan and Iraq were sanctioned by the U.S. Congress,

-Keep in mind that this is the same US Congress that sanctioned slavery at one point in our nation's history; also, the forced relocation - on foot - of Native Americans, the internment of Japanese-American civilians, the blacklisting of Americans accused of being Communist, "Vietnamization," and the list goes on. Because Congress - who did not, by the way, know all that Bush did - agrees to ANYTHING does not prove that it's a good idea.

"discussed at the U.N."

-settin' the bar kinda low, aren't you, champ? "Discussed" does not equal "approved." Last year, Hugo Chavez and Castro had their concerns "discussed" at the UN too, if you remember.

"and widely supported by the American people."

-The American people also widely supported the movie "Titanic," disco, pet rocks, segregation, and Mike Tyson. 45% of Americans do not believe in evolution, and a similar number believe that the Bible is literal historical truth. You have to do better than that if you're looking for credibility.

Posted by: Bokonon | June 22, 2007 12:10 PM | Report abuse

"More straw men and red herrings from the brain-damaged who have no actual ideas. When all else fails, blame the Clintons."

Stop asking for reasoned debate from an imbecile. That is really the best I can do. when confronted with actual facts, I must resort to name calling and deceit. If you had my views, you would see that there is no other option. I say anyone who disagress with my far out left wing ideas is necessarily insane. How else could I defend myself? most of us lefties really have very little substance, but excellent playground skills.

We will continue to ignore any valid points and rely upon insults if ever challenged. Facts are not our friends. Harry Reid is irrelevant. he is only the leader of our party. so what if he is corrupt and nutty. We all are and he represents us well.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 22, 2007 12:07 PM | Report abuse

Straw man ex post facto ad hominem red herring false dichotomy res ipsa loquiter assuming arguendo bait and switch. I am too stoopid to respond to an argument, so I throw around big words that the adults throw around, and continue to cut and paste long dull articles.

Posted by: DeeDeeDee | June 22, 2007 12:06 PM | Report abuse

'Removing the Taliban and Saddam, and promoting constitutional governments in their places, were not the only options after 9/11, but they were good choices -- if the desire was to address comprehensively a quarter-century of terrorism that was insidiously escalating both in frequency and vehemence.'

Sorry, my ill-informed friend. The Taliban is not 'removed' the Taliban is strnger than ever:

PANJWAI DISTRICT, Afghanistan -- In their biggest show of strength in six years, pro-Taliban fighters are terrorizing southern Afghanistan -- ambushing military patrols, assassinating opponents and even enforcing the law in remote villages where they operate with near impunity.

"We are faced with a full-blown insurgency," says Pakistani journalist Ahmed Rashid, author of Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil & Fundamentalism in Central Asia.'

try to get your news from somewhere besides fox...

Posted by: Anonymous | June 22, 2007 12:04 PM | Report abuse

I will continue to obsess about zouk for the rest of the day. I don't care if he is a man. I am that confident in my role as gimp. Later I will reflect on Mitt's hair.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 22, 2007 12:01 PM | Report abuse

'What does President Clinton or Obama do? Draft a tough federal indictment? Ask for a U.N. resolution condemning such violence? '

More straw men and red herrings from the brain-damaged who have no actual ideas. When all else fails, blame the Clintons.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 22, 2007 11:59 AM | Report abuse

I can't imagine Bloomberg getting double digits in the south (or, really, any part of "red state" America), particularly if the GOP nominee is from a red-state (read: anyone but Romney). And I can't imagine a Bloomberg canidacy taking votes away from anyone other than the Dems.

Bloomberg is irrelevant on the national political stage. I don't know if even his billions can change that.

Posted by: Indepedent Woman | June 22, 2007 11:58 AM | Report abuse

OH isee zouk is here with his harry reid obsession. right on time. zoukie, it's not healthy to think about another man so much. after all, he's married.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 22, 2007 11:58 AM | Report abuse

I got a great idea. Let's charge poor people 300 bucks a seat to hear me talk about how the rich take advantage of poor people. I will only charge $50,000 for my appearance. consider it a donation.

Posted by: John Edwards | June 22, 2007 11:48 AM | Report abuse

"John Edwards ended 2004 with a problem: how to keep alive his public profile without the benefit of a presidential campaign that could finance his travels and pay for his political staff.

Mr. Edwards, who reported this year that he had assets of nearly $30 million, came up with a novel solution, creating a nonprofit organization with the stated mission of fighting poverty. The organization, the Center for Promise and Opportunity, raised $1.3 million in 2005, and -- unlike a sister charity he created to raise scholarship money for poor students -- the main beneficiary of the center's fund-raising was Mr. Edwards himself, tax filings show."

John Edwards is so phoney that he makes flip flop Mitt look authentic.

Posted by: Razorback | June 22, 2007 11:41 AM | Report abuse

Encouraging readers to send in "confidential tips," its primary target and obvious obsession is Barack Obama. "Senator Barack Obama (D-Rezko) is busy lately lying about President Bill Clinton" and "attacking entire communities." "We have written extensively on Obama, and his indicted slumlord friend Antoin 'Tony' Rezko. We have repeatedly warned David Axelrod, Michelle Obama and Barack Obama that this story is not going away." The Obama campaign is "still posing as innocents incapable of doing anything unsavory even as evidence mounts that unsavory is their favorite dish." "Dirty Obama Smear" and "Obama's Dirty Mud Politics" are two recent headlines.

Posted by: hillary's mud throwers | June 22, 2007 11:40 AM | Report abuse

Despite often-lofty rhetoric that he plans to bring the nation a ''new kind of politics,'' Sen. Barack Obama has surrounded himself with operatives skilled in the old-school art of the political back stab. Yet when Obama was criticized this week for opposition research memos critical of Sen. Hillary Clinton's ties to India and Indian-Americans, he was quick to blame his staff. /snip/ It was at least the third time since February the Illinois Democrat has blamed his staff for a glitch.

While we all play the Osama Obama name game, Barack is playing the blame game. See much more evidence of Obama's behaviors in the article; how much more like bill clinton can he get? The buck never got to him either.

Posted by: Obama the amatuer | June 22, 2007 11:36 AM | Report abuse

Congress: Like the victim of a slick used car salesman tricked into buying a lemon, Americans wish they could return the Democratic Congress their votes bought: Confidence in Congress has hit an all-time low of 14%.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 22, 2007 11:34 AM | Report abuse

The VERY few, the proud, the brave -- the 26 percenters!

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | June 22, 2007 11:34 AM | Report abuse

Corruption. The Democrats' leader in the Senate, Harry Reid, D-Nev., made $1.1 million in 2001 selling Las Vegas land he didn't own.

In a deal engineered by a former casino lawyer buddy of Reid's linked to bribery and organized crime investigations, Reid skirted Senate ethics rules by failing to report the complex real estate deal.

A 2002 sweetheart deal on 60 acres of Arizona desert involving a Las Vegas lubricants dealer could leave Reid with a cool profit ranging "from $50,000 to $290,000," according to the Los Angeles Times. Reid soon introduced legislation making it harder for oil firms to get out of contracts with lubricant dealers.

Then there is Senate Rules Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein of California, who may have bent a few rules by steering over a billion dollars' worth of defense contracts to companies controlled by her husband.

How about Rep. William Jefferson, D-La., just indicted on bribery charges after the FBI found $90,000 in cash in his freezer? Speaker Nancy Pelosi judged Jefferson unfit to sit on the House Ways and Means panel -- then placed him on the Homeland Security Committee instead. Think of the consequences of a terrorist finding someone willing to take a bribe for classified information.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 22, 2007 11:33 AM | Report abuse

Legitimate debate is necessary about the mistakes in Iraq, as it is about the blunders of every war. But before writing off Iraq as lost, unnecessary, or a result of some such conspiracy, we had better ask ourselves whether a return to the sermonizing of Carterism or Clintonian diplomacy by focus group and straw polls -- or even cynical horse-trading of Jim Baker -- is what we really want.

So here are questions to ponder as reactionaries yearn for a pre-Bush past. Imagine: One of the various foiled terrorist plots -- a Fort Dix slaughter, a JFK airport attack, or the suicide teams ABC news claims are headed our way from Afghanistan -- succeed after 2008. Thousands of Americans die.

What does President Clinton or Obama do? Draft a tough federal indictment? Ask for a U.N. resolution condemning such violence? Count on a unified response with NATO, battle-seasoned after its heroic offensives in Afghanistan? Hope for help from the EU rapid-response force? Bomb the source where the jihadists trained (Gaza?, Pakistan? Syria? Iran?) -- but only from 30,000 feet, and, as in 1998, without U.N. or congressional approval? Work with the Saudis and Egyptians and Mr. Abbas to curb such atypical zealots? Have John Edwards globe-trot the globe to use his courtroom flair to win over allies?

Or imagine that Iran announces that it is going to set off a bomb in its desert. Do we resurrect the EU3? Ask Hans Blix to return as nuclear inspector with Mr. El-Baradei and others to assure us the test was genuine? Send Jimmy Carter to Teheran (or better, find an aged Ramsey Clark to return as a special envoy as in 1979?). Or maybe beseech the new U.N. head, Mr. Ki-Moon who just enlightened us that global warming (read the U.S.) -- not Islamic Jihadism and age-old sub-Saharan thuggery -- caused Darfur?

After 9/11, we did not, as alleged, invade countries serially, but removed only two fascistic governments, the worst in the Middle East -- both with a record of supporting enemies of the United States, and both of whom we had bombed or sent missiles against in the very recent past.

We did not leave after such punitive measures because we felt that the last time we did that, whether in Afghanistan in the 1980s, or Iraq in 1991, or Lebanon, or Somalia, things only got worse -- and after 9/11 they might well get much worse. And unlike the bombing of 1998 in the Balkans, both operations in Afghanistan and Iraq were sanctioned by the U.S. Congress, discussed at the U.N., and widely supported by the American people.

Removing the Taliban and Saddam, and promoting constitutional governments in their places, were not the only options after 9/11, but they were good choices -- if the desire was to address comprehensively a quarter-century of terrorism that was insidiously escalating both in frequency and vehemence.

Posted by: Victor | June 22, 2007 11:32 AM | Report abuse

Maybe Mitt should get out his small varmint gun and chase those Guatemalans off his yard.

Posted by: John McCain | June 22, 2007 11:25 AM | Report abuse

This year the Pentagon will spend $78 billion  about half of all government research and development dollars  on a variety of projects, according to the American Association for the Advancement for Science (AAAS).

There seems to be no failure of imagination in advancing warfare, but some experts fear these farfetched projects show a little too much imagination.

Just this month, the government confirmed that an Ohio Air Force laboratory had asked for $7.5 million to build a nonlethal "gay bomb," a weapon that would encourage enemies to make love, not war. The weapon would use strong aphrodisiacs to make enemy troops so sexually attracted to each other that they'd lose interest in fighting.

Last year, scientists at Boston University developed brain implants that could steer sharklike dog fish with a phantom odor.

Just two years ago, the military funded a specious study of psychic teleportation, according to the Federation of American Scientists. An 88-page report prepared by the Air Force Research Lab contended that moving through mind powers is "quite real and can be controlled."

In her book "Imaginary Weapons," military expert Sharon Weinberger writes that the federal government is spending taxpayer money on war technology at a pace of about $50,000 per second.

Posted by: tax and spend pentagon | June 22, 2007 11:25 AM | Report abuse

It takes almost 7 days of training to become a Starbucks barista. But add just one more day and you can become a gun-toting member of the Iraqi police. From NPR: For now, these men get only eight days of training and at the end of it, they get to keep their gun and their uniform. Which explains why we read the following in the Washington Post last October: "I wouldn't let half of them feed my dog," 1st Lt. Floyd D. Estes Jr., a former head of the police transition team, said of the Iraqi police. "I just don't trust them."

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

When asked whether he was quitting the Bush administration because it would be good for his political future, Rob Portman, the outgoing budget director, replied: "It would be good for my mental health."

At least 20 senior aides have left important posts in the White House, Pentagon or State Department over the past six months, as chaos has deepened in Iraq. "There's a real sense of fatigue and very little sense of purpose," said a senior official, who asked not to be named. "My guess is you're going to see a lot more departures."

Posted by: Anonymous | June 22, 2007 11:19 AM | Report abuse

Says Richard Tollner, who testified before the grand jury that Placa had molested him, "[Giuliani] has to explain himself. ." Adds Anne Barrett Doyle, co-director of, which tracks priest abuse, "I think Rudy Giuliani has to account for his friendship and his employment of a known child molester."

Posted by: Anonymous | June 22, 2007 11:17 AM | Report abuse

Does america want a president who employs known pedophiles?

'June 22, 2007 | NEW YORK -- Anyone who has followed the career of Republican presidential contender Rudy Giuliani knows the value he places on personal loyalty. Loyalty is what inspired the former mayor of New York to make Bernard Kerik, once his personal driver, the commissioner of the New York Police Department, and then a partner in his consulting firm, and then to suggest him to President Bush as a potential head of the Department of Homeland Security.

After revelations about Kerik's personal history derailed his bid for the federal post, Giuliani demonstrated that there were limits to loyalty. He has distanced himself from Kerik, who resigned from Giuliani's firm and later pleaded guilty to corruption charges. Giuliani has not, however, sought to distance himself from another, much closer friend whose personal baggage is also inconvenient, and would send most would-be presidents running.

Giuliani employs his childhood friend Monsignor Alan Placa as a consultant at Giuliani Partners despite a 2003 Suffolk County, N.Y., grand jury report that accuses Placa of sexually abusing children, as well as helping cover up the sexual abuse of children by other priests. Placa, who was part of a three-person team that handled allegations of abuse by clergy for the Diocese of Rockville Centre, is referred to as Priest F in the grand jury report. The report summarizes the testimony of multiple alleged victims of Priest F, and then notes, "Ironically, Priest F would later become instrumental in the development of Diocesan policy in response to allegations of sexual abuse of children by priests."

Posted by: Anonymous | June 22, 2007 11:15 AM | Report abuse

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Vice President Dick Cheney's office refused to cooperate with an agency that oversees classified documents, then tried to abolish the office when it challenged the actions, House oversight committee Chairman Henry Waxman said.

The National Archives' Information Security Oversight Office is charged by presidential order with ensuring that classified information and documents are properly handled by executive branch agencies.

According to a letter from William Leonard, director of the oversight office, Cheney's office argued it did not meet the definition of an executive branch agency and therefore was exempt.

Leonard also wrote that Cheney's office suggested his agency be abolished under a revision of the presidential order now under consideration.

Posted by: The Great Dictator | June 22, 2007 11:13 AM | Report abuse

"Mitt Romney, who is a Mormon, is reeling from reports that his great-grandfather had fives wives and at least one of his great-great-grandfathers had twelve. That poor bastard had to register at Crate and Barrel 12 times. And that's back when all they sold were crates and barrels. ... The word 'polygamy', of course, comes from the Greek 'poly' meaning multiple and 'gamy' meaning reasons not to vote for Mitt Romney." --Stephen Colbert

Posted by: Anonymous | June 22, 2007 11:13 AM | Report abuse

Under ordinary circumstances, terrorism holds no appeal to the overwhelming majority of any society. People are not by nature extremists. In fact, with rare exceptions, people are indifferent to the angry ranting of a fanatic.The reason is simple: The terrorist's view of the world is not widely shared. The wrongs that cut him to the quick do not offend his compatriots or stir them to action. His political ends are dismissed as illegitimate, his violent means assailed as crimes. Instead of being welcomed as a hero, he is vilified. The fate of many a violent extremist is to die in prison, disillusioned and alone, the world as unconcerned with his cause as it had ever been.

But occasionally, fortune smiles on the extremist, granting him the credibility he craves. Ironically, the extremist rarely has anything to do with this change. Instead, it happens when the society he attacks pursues policies that vindicate his venom. To his satisfaction, reality comes to resemble what he has long decried. His vision begins to acquire substance where once it was fantasy. Those around him - long unmoved by his platform - awaken to see the world as he has described it. Gradually, the lifeblood of any state - its moral legitimacy - ebbs from the society to the terrorist, whose message no longer seems so extreme.

So it has become with the war on terror. Noble declarations of American rhetoric can't conceal reality on the ground: seemingly endless detentions of innocent prisoners; "enhanced interrogation techniques" that many believe to be torture; black sites where prisoners "disappear"; renditions to countries that practice what the US cannot.

In the end, the US approach to combating terrorism has given Islamic radicalism the greatest gift of all: evidence to support the argument that America has abandoned the rule of law. And so the call to jihad has achieved a currency that was all but unthinkable before Sept. 11. By most accounts, Al Qaeda numbered only a few hundred people on that fateful day. Now its numbers and the numbers in sympathetic groups can barely be counted, so attractive has its message become.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 22, 2007 11:12 AM | Report abuse

Or when all else fails, make fun of Bill and Hillary , or blame them for everything that ever happened. Pathetic people, cons. No wonder they loved Shiavo so much. They understand what it's like to be brain dead.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 22, 2007 11:10 AM | Report abuse

'Some liberals, who are more afraid of the exercise of free will with respect to french fries than the terrorists who want to kill us, will proclaim this as a great advance in public health.'

A classic example of the brain-damaged rhetoric that comes from radical rightwingers exposed to far too much talk radio. These straw men and red herrings are what passes as 'thought' to them, because they have no real ideas or arguments and hence have to resort to exercises in absurdity.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 22, 2007 11:07 AM | Report abuse

Bill Clinton was walking along the beach when he stumbled upon a Genie's lamp. He picked it up and rubbed it and lo-and-behold, a Genie appeared. Bill was amazed and asked if he got three wishes.

The Genie said, "Nope...Due to inflation, constant downswing, low wages in third world countries, and fierce global competition, I can only grant you one wish. So...What'll it be?"

Bill didn't hesitate. He said, "I want to be remembered for bringing peace to the Middle East, instead of that other stuff with Monica, and Jennifer, and the rest of those women. See this map? I want these countries to stop fighting with each other."

The Genie looked at the map of the Middle East and exclaimed, "Jeez, Fella! These people have been at war for thousands of years. I'm good, but not THAT good. I don't think it can be done. Make another wish."

Bill thought for a minute and said, "You know, people really don't like my wife. Even though she got elected, they call her a carpetbagger. They think she's mean, ugly, and pushes me around. I wish for her to be the most beautiful woman in the world and I want everybody to like her. That's what I want."

The Genie let out a long sigh and said, "Lemme see that map again."

Posted by: Hillary | June 22, 2007 11:06 AM | Report abuse

Democrats outdid Republicans last year in attracting political donations from investment banks, brokerages and fund managers for the first time since 1994, helped by support from hedge funds and companies such as Merrill Lynch & Co.

I am here today to fact check your lies.

Posted by: Razorback | June 22, 2007 11:06 AM | Report abuse

Catholic bishops are continuing to discuss how to address politics, especially on abortion, and in light of the pro-choice Republican Catholic candidate, Rudy Giuliani. And one thing is becoming clear: They are not going to hold back. "I personally think that anybody that is pro-choice as a Catholic is not being faithful to his Catholic identity, and I think that people who are Catholics, when they look at those issues, should take that into consideration when they vote," said Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput. "I didn't name names last time, and I'm not going to name names this time. But I think if you study people's history and their records, you know the people."

Posted by: Anonymous | June 22, 2007 11:04 AM | Report abuse

Some of Rudy Giuliani's highest profile cases during his time as U.S. Attorney for New York were against Wall Street tycoons accused of fraud that he aggressively pursued. Those days are long gone as Giuliani raised $1.8 million by the end of last quarter from securities and investment firms he once investigated for his presidential bid, a close second to only Mitt Romney.'

the darlings of the ruling class.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 22, 2007 11:02 AM | Report abuse

'After giving a speech yesterday in Florida where he ripped into Latin American dictators, Rudy Giuliani was forced to respond to a question about the ethics of work his law firm did for the Venezuelan state oil company and he waffled: "My firm did represent Citgo, they never represented Venezuela. They represented an American company that employs thousands and thousands of people in America," he said. A Giuliani campaign aide later said: "The mayor does not say it is an American-owned company. He calls it an American company, which is accurate."

Umm, no. It is not an american company -- it is a venezuelan company, managed entirely by Hugo Chavez, whose office rudy did business with. You can't have it both ways, rudy -- sorry.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 22, 2007 11:01 AM | Report abuse

We will see how far Bloomberg gets when he proposes to put an electronic monitor on everyone's bathroom scale that reports to the government each person's weight so that the microchip planted in everyone's forehead can tell the computer at Wendy's that this particular person is too fat to order french fries.

Some liberals, who are more afraid of the exercise of free will with respect to french fries than the terrorists who want to kill us, will proclaim this as a great advance in public health.

The scenario stated above is more likely to happen than Bloomberg getting in excess of 15% of the vote.

Posted by: Razorback | June 22, 2007 11:00 AM | Report abuse

Do we want another president who thinks he's above the law?

'The New Hampshire Attorney General's office is now investigating an accusation by New York Times reporter Mark Leibovich that the Romney campaign's security men pulled his car over, told him they ran his license plates, and ordered him to stop following them.

It is illegal in new Hampshire for private citizens to access license plate databases or to pull over other private citizens. Meanwhile the district attorney's office in Suffolk County, Massachusetts, is also investigating whether a Romney staffer falsely represented himself as a state trooper when calling them for the license information. Romney's campaign has denied the allegation.'

Posted by: Anonymous | June 22, 2007 10:59 AM | Report abuse

Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, and Al Gore were in an airplane that crashed. They're up in heaven, and God's sitting on the great white throne. God addresses Al first.

"Al, what do you believe in?"

Al replies, "Well, I believe that the combustion engine is evil and that we need to save the world from CFCs and that if any more freon is used, the whole earth will become a greenhouse and we'll all die."

God thinks for a second and says "Okay, I can live with that. Come and sit at my left."

God then addresses Bill. "Bill, what do you believe in?"

Bill replies, "Well, I believe in power to the people. I think people should be able to make their own choices about things and that no one should ever be able to tell someone else what to do. I also believe in feeling people's pain."

God thinks for a second and says "Okay, that sounds good. Come and sit at my right."

God then address Hillary. "Hillary, what do you believe in?"

"I believe you're in my chair."

Posted by: Hillary | June 22, 2007 10:56 AM | Report abuse

"The Line: Can Anyone Get CC To Stop Blogging About the Bloomberg Effect?"

Yawn! It ain't worth talking about until he officially throws his hat into the ring.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | June 22, 2007 10:48 AM | Report abuse

Aussie Bill: Eight years of Hillary and then another eight for her VP pick, who I think Warner has the edge at present.

Posted by: lylepink | June 22, 2007 10:44 AM | Report abuse

Dean was "done" before the scream.

He was on a significant downslide days before the election. he had peaked. And it was reported by the news people covering Iowa prior to the caucuses.

The "scream" had little to do with it, but it made for great television.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 22, 2007 10:40 AM | Report abuse

nicely put jaxas.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 22, 2007 10:32 AM | Report abuse

'It is hard to believe that he still has people in the year 2007 who believe that it is the media's fault that Dean gave a weird scream that sounded extra weird when recorded'

let me explain again. there is an original tape by people who were there. everyone is screaming -- it's like at a sports event -- a rally, which it was.

the crowd screaming was edited out so you could hear only dean and that was what was played endlessly. i know -- i was there.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 22, 2007 10:30 AM | Report abuse

Blooberg's impact if he runs will depend on the other candidates.

Bloomberg helps Hillary. According to Rasmussen, 47% say they will definately not vote for Hillary. In a 2 person race, this leaves little margin for error. In a 3 person race, it less significant.

Bloomberg hurts Guiliani. He will split off moderates that have questions about the Dems in NY, NJ and PA that might otherwise go to Rudy.

Other than that, Bloomberg's impact will be minor. The chattering classes are always amused by 3rd party candidates, but when they take positions on issues they have to make the same tradeoffs that any other candidate makes.

Posted by: Razorback | June 22, 2007 10:27 AM | Report abuse

WASHINGTON -- For the last four years, Vice President Dick Cheney has made the controversial claim that his office is not part of the Bush administration in order to exempt it from a presidential order regulating federal agencies' handling of classified national security information, officials said Thursday.

Cheney has held that his office is not part of the executive branch of government despite the continued objections of the National Archives, which says his office's failure to demonstrate that it has proper security safeguards in place could jeopardize the government's top secrets.'

I'm completely baffled by this.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 22, 2007 10:26 AM | Report abuse

Newsweek: Bush at 26%.

The 26 percent rating puts Bush lower than Jimmy Carter, who sunk to his nadir of 28 percent in a Gallup poll in June 1979. In fact, the only president in the last 35 years to score lower than Bush is Richard Nixon. Nixon's approval rating tumbled to 24 percent in January 1974, seven months before his resignation over the botched Watergate break-in. ...

A record 74 percent of Americans disapprove of the job Bush has done handling Iraq. Despite "the surge" in U.S. forces into Baghdad and Iraq's western Anbar province, a record-low 23 percent of Americans approve of the president's actions in Iraq, down 5 points since the end of March.

But the White House cannot pin his rating on the war alone. Bush scores record or near record lows on every major issue: from the economy (34 percent approve, 60 percent disapprove) to health care (28 percent approve, 61 percent disapprove) to immigration (23 percent approve, 63 percent disapprove). And--in the worst news, perhaps, for the crowded field of Republicans hoping to succeed Bush in 2008--50 percent of Americans disapprove of the president's handling of terrorism and homeland security. Only 40 percent approve, on an issue that has been the GOP's trump card in national elections since 9/11.

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

Look Cris, we are just kidding ourselves here. Michael Bloomberg is your typical New York republican in the mold of Jacob Javits, Nelson Rockefeller and of course the old lion himself, Teddy Roosevelt. I like him. I could vote for him under different circumstances. But if he runs now as an independent, it will take votes from the middle and from the left and stick us with another George W. Bush.

Try as they may, the right cannot separate itself from Bush. He is a creation of the right. To woo enough voters from the center he fashioned himself with the silly, annoying euphemish "compassionate conservative" which to me is simply a defact recognition in itself that conservatism as a governing philosophy requires eliminating the one characteristic that has elevated us as a country, and inspired people all over the world to believe in an America that stands for something more than the worship of wealth and the selfish motivations of the individual.

If one listens to America at the beginning of this new millenium, that is precisely what they are telling our leaders they want: A more compassionate, progressive America that once more becomes the real shining city on a hill. A beacon to the world rather than a preachy minister.

Posted by: Jaxas | June 22, 2007 10:19 AM | Report abuse

Janet - Dean should have known that screaming is weird and that things can sound extra weird when on tape. It is hard to believe that he still has people in the year 2007 who believe that it is the media's fault that Dean gave a weird scream that sounded extra weird when recorded. Well, it is not hard to believe, but I am so tired of seeing it. Get over it, Dean should not have done that and he knows that perfectly well himself I am sure.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 22, 2007 10:17 AM | Report abuse

aussie -- the wingers have been terrified of that for years. here's a column by the elitist John Derbyshire, where he sniffs delicately that perhaps she ought to be 'eliminted' to get rid of that threat. Ah, the 'family values' of the right.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 22, 2007 10:17 AM | Report abuse

Heres a happy thought for your weekend Lylepink and other Hillary supporters. After 8 years of Hillary, then 8 years of Jeb, Chelsea will be old enough to make a run so you can have the entire family in the big Chair - perfect 44 years of Bush/Clinton Dynasty (with the best 24 years still ahead!)

Posted by: Aussie Bill | June 22, 2007 10:03 AM | Report abuse

I wonder if anyone else could comment regarding Bloomberg's domestic situation. He is divorced [no scandal there, far as I know] he now has a girlfriend [again no scandal, she's an intelligent middle-aged woman, not a bimbo] she has even appeared publicly with his adult children and ex-wife, everybody hunky dory.

He has, since before becoming mayor, spent most weekends in his compound in Bermuda with the girlfriend. At first there was a lot of talk, but the issue jusst went away. New Yorkers mostly respect privacy. I believe he has his own jet, so I don't think there's even the issue of taxpayers footing the bill for the girlfriend's security and travel, as was the case with Rudy. At one point, we were paying security for both the wife and girlfriend, and one ex-girlfriend!

IN any case, how will this domestic situation play with the rest of the country, if he should decide to run? I seriously doubt he would marry to suit the public -- he isn't that kind of guy. Do y'all think we're ready for a divorced president with a girlfriend?

Posted by: drindl | June 22, 2007 9:58 AM | Report abuse

It is still only June of 2007. Huckabee could turn out to be the dark horse. Not that I would be very happy about that, but it's possibly true.

Posted by: Golgi | June 22, 2007 9:53 AM | Report abuse

'make it clear to the Turks that any incursions will not be tolerated'

Well, I think that's going to be a tough call, JimD. After all, isn't there a group in Kurdistan -- the PKK -- that Turkey considers a terrorist group, because they make regular forays into Turkey, attacking soliders and calling for Turkish Kurds to be allowed to emigrate? The whole region is a clan and tribal-based cauldron which is full of 'states' coming apart at the seams... the only 'solutions' that seem to come about are generally final ones.

Which is why we can pour all the blood we want into it and all we will reap is more blood. You cannot pull people out of the middle ages-- they have to do it themselves. You can help them, but you can't enforce democracy. Biden's ideas seem more sensible than most of them, but still fall short of practicality.

Posted by: Cassandra | June 22, 2007 9:49 AM | Report abuse

'The last significant independent candidacy for the White House was Ross Perot's in 1992. Perot definitely helped Bill Clinton win states like Georgia, Colorado, Nevada and Maine.'

That's a mighty big leap, CC, for a kid who isn't old enough to have been there. Try to stay with stuff you have some comprehension of. You don't know what the mood of the electorate was like back then.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 22, 2007 9:36 AM | Report abuse

Having said that, if Bloomberg is in, it will help whatever main-party candidates are the biggest proponents for change, and hurt whatever candidates are for the status quo.

That's because nobody will vote for Bloomberg, after the whole Nader fiasco. But his mere presence in the race will add a new base weight of ultra-change on the far side of all the mainstream candidates.

So all in all, if he enters the race, voters will become more amenable to change in general, and will vote for the mainstream candidate who advocates change.

Posted by: Golgi | June 22, 2007 9:33 AM | Report abuse

Biden's plan calls for a federal Iraq with highly autonomous Shiite, Sunni and Kurd provinces. Iraqis are segregating themselves into separate ethnic enclaves and have been for a while. I don't know exactly which failed Western partitions the anonymous poster is referring to. Iraq is the opposite of a partition - it is a 'nation' created out of whole cloth by the British Colonial Office after World War I.

As for Turkey, the US will have to guarantee Iraqi territorial integrity and make it clear to the Turks that any incursions will not be tolerated. Biden's plan does call for retaining some troops in Iraq for training, anti terrorist operations and to keep the neighbors honest.

There are pitfalls aplenty involved in Biden's plan. However, to paraphrase Churchill on democracy, it is the worst plan except for every other plan that has been put forward.

Posted by: JimD in FL | June 22, 2007 9:27 AM | Report abuse

Howard Dean would have won, had the media not been determined to get rid of him. Make no mistake, they write your narratives for you. They beleive themselves kingmakers. That's why Mitty's on top here -- Mitty, the slickest and phoniest of all of them.

But the pundits have a mancrush on him. They flutter and waft about how manly he is -- how broad his shoulders are, how fabulous his hair is -- chris matthews gets up close and sniffs him like a dog, then proclaims how 'manly' he smells!

It's nasueating.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 22, 2007 9:27 AM | Report abuse

I just can't see Bloomberg having as big an effect on anything as over-thinkers are fantasizing he could.

This election cycle is all about change, and all the candidates in the two major parties are already adapting to the currents of change. There is no reason to get excited about a third party candidate in this election cycle, because the two major parties are already so in flux themselves.

This election cycle, a third party candidate doesn't have pluses over established-party candidates. A third-party candidate only has the minuses of his unestablished position.

Posted by: Golgi | June 22, 2007 9:25 AM | Report abuse

Breaking: Senate votes to raise fuel standards.
"The Senate voted Thursday to increase fuel economy standards to 35 miles per gallon for cars and SUVs, the first significant boost demanded of automakers in nearly 20 years."

"It closes the SUV loophole," declared Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., referring to current requirements that allow much less stringent fuel efficiency standards for SUVs and pickup trucks than for cars. "This is a victory for the American public."

UPDATE: Feinstein has released a statement on the vote: "The compromise legislation raises the fleetwide average fuel economy standards for all cars, trucks and SUVs by 10 miles per gallon over 10 years -- or from 25 to 35 miles per gallon by Model Year 2020." By 2025, the fuel economy increases for cars and light-duty trucks would:

-- Save between 2.0 and 2.5 million barrels of oil per day, nearly the amount of oil imported today from the Persian Gulf.

-- Achieve up to 18 percent reduction of carbon dioxide emissions from anticipated levels, or the equivalent of taking 60 million cars off the road in one year.

-- Save consumers $79-98 billion at the pump, based on a $3.00 gas price.

Posted by: hope the clowns in the house don't kill it | June 22, 2007 9:20 AM | Report abuse

the electoral votes of 4 states Perot helped Clinton win in '92 were not close to THE difference from Bush 41--he won by 202 votes--those were about 30, so a diff of 60 on the ledger

Posted by: hillhi | June 22, 2007 9:12 AM | Report abuse

It will be interesting to see if the story about Edwards' massaging and nuancing of campaign finance law with his so called "Poverty Center" will get legs. Hope so. It's clearly another one of his slick posturing moves, and a way to live large with other peoples money. His specialty!

Posted by: NC Guy | June 22, 2007 9:02 AM | Report abuse

Howard Dean beat everyone in fundraising too and look what it got him. Obama appears to be heading down the same path with his lofy rhetoric amautre campaign operation. Hopefully when Obama loses he'll not just pull a "scream" he'll do something even more outragous.

Posted by: mountain man | June 22, 2007 8:51 AM | Report abuse

Interesting thoughts about Bloomberg. I would suggest that 'the effect' is mostly dependent on who the major party nominees are - if it's Rudy, Bloom hurts the GOP more, if it's Thompson, Bloomberg helps. If it's Obama or Edwards, Bloomberg will hurt, if it's HRC, he's probably a wash (Bloom makes HRC look more moderate, but now we've got 2, maybe 3 NYers in play nationally).

Incidently, I disagree putting Mitt first. I think it should be either Rudy (because he's lost all the base he's going to lose, now that people know him) or Thompson (buzz for the new guy, and most Reaganesque of the bunch). Mitt's got all his eggs in the Iowa and NH baskets. He has to sweep both to be a contender - that's a tall order for anyone.

I personally think Fred will take Iowa and Rudy NH; and Obama take Iowa and HRC NH.

Posted by: JD | June 22, 2007 8:49 AM | Report abuse

Chris, we all know you are in the Clinton camp. I don't agree with you that Clinton "looked and sounded the most presidential". The media is complicit in making it appear she is the leading Democratic candidate, by focusing on her and fawning over every slight improvement in her appearance. I'm sure that the media will focus on every other candidates' "slipups" as usual and not report on substantive issues. Last year, when reports on Howard Dean were aired or printed, they all included the "scream", even though in my opinion the alleged "scream" was not as crazed as the media made it out to be. Also, do debates actually change a voters mind?? John Kerry clearly was the more intellegent and articulate debater in 2004, but W. was still elected. Why does the media focus on polls, approximately 8 months before the first primary? Americans are enjoying the summer, and the polls are obviously only an indication of name recognition.

Posted by: Janet | June 22, 2007 8:43 AM | Report abuse

Chris, we all know you are in the Clinton camp. I don't agree with you that Clinton "looked and sounded the most presidential". The media is complicit in making it appear she is the leading Democratic candidate, by focusing on her and fawning over every slight improvement in her appearance. I'm sure that the media will focus on every other candidates' "slipups" as usual and not report on substantive issues. Last year, when reports on Howard Dean were aired or printed, they all included the "scream", even though in my opinion the alleged "scream" was not as crazed as the media made it out to be. Also, do debates actually change a voters mind?? John Kerry clearly was the more intellegent and articulate debater in 2004, but W. was still elected. Why does the media focus on polls, approximately 8 months before the first primary? Americans are enjoying the summer, and the polls are obviously only an indication of name recognition.

Posted by: Janet | June 22, 2007 8:42 AM | Report abuse

Mark - Biden's plan is essentially "partitioning" Iraq. How many times has Western partitioning of other countries failed?

The only chance I see of this succeeding is that there there just may be enough cultural and geographic affinities within each area which might allow it to work.

That is, except for the Kurds and Turkey. How does Biden resolve that problem?

Posted by: Anonymous | June 22, 2007 8:37 AM | Report abuse

Mark, what is Biden's plan for Turkey?

Until he offers how to handle that, his plan is lacking a huge piece.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 22, 2007 7:57 AM | Report abuse

If you listen to Dodd on other than Meet the Press, it is obvious there is as much substance there as with any of the other candidates.

Dodd is a serious contender, not waffling as to whether or not he is going to run. He belongs there. Biden is still off on the sidelines and deserves to be not included at this point.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 22, 2007 7:56 AM | Report abuse

If you thought Biden performed well in debates and Dodd did not;
if you noticed that Biden is a desired guest on Sunday mornings and Dodd is not;
then you owe it to us to explain how Dodd makes your cut and Biden does not.

If "to sign on to a bill defunding the war, first candidate to propose a corporate carbon tax"
is a qualification, it pales against being the only D who has a real plan for post-occupation Iraq.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | June 22, 2007 7:30 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company