After yesterday's Bush moment where he specifically calls out Obama, it now appears that the Democratic front runner is not only running against Hillary but also John McCain and George Bush.
He's getting hit from three sides and handling it well. Most people who don't know Obama say that he won't be able to handle the pressure. That once people start attacking him he won't know how to respond, he'll shy away and his hope message will become blurred. I've been hearing this since 2003 about Obama. And not once has he ever shied away, or not taken an argument head on. I've been telling people since the first day I met Obama that he's at his best when others doubt him. This week has been a perfect example of that.
Instead of backing away from the president's bully pulpit, Obama responded immediately to Bush. And today when Hillary ran her 3am ad, Obama wasted no time hitting back. His honest, fact-based answers are what has drawn me to him since the days I worked for him in the senate.
Obama ties all three opponents into one well rounded concise response:
I don't think these ads will work this time because the question is not about picking up the phone. The question is, what kind of judgment will you exercise when you pick up that phone. In fact, we have had a red phone moment; it was the decision to invade Iraq.
Senator Clinton gave the wrong answer. George Bush gave the wrong answer. John McCain gave the wrong answer. I stood up and I said that a war in Iraq would be unwise. It cost us thousands of lives and billions of dollars. I said that it would distract us from the real threat that we face, and that we should take the fight to al Qaeda in Afghanistan. That’s the judgment I made on the most important foreign policy decision of our generation.
It's finally time the politics of fear ends. There isn't any one person taking on three opponents right now like Obama is and his momentum continues to grow. I dare anyone to doubt him.
President Bush, with his entire 29% approval standing behind him, weighed in on Sen. Obama's al Qaeda comments.
"That's an interesting comment," Bush said at press conference Thursday. "'If al Qaeda is securing an al Qaeda base — then yes?' Well, that's exactly what they've been trying to do for the past four years…. That's one of the challenges we face, is denying al Qaeda a safe haven anywhere."
Notice he says for the past four years. He's actually correct in that regard because five years ago when we invaded there was no al Qaeda any where near Iraq. If the challenge we face is denying al Qaeda a safe haven invading Iraq didn't do a very good job of it. And it's still very doubtful that AQI has any actual ties to bin Laden. Not to mention the other country we invaded and are still occupying, Afghanistan, still has actual al Qaeda bases and operates relatively at will.
Canadian television, CTV, is running a story that an Obama staffer contacted the Canadian ambassador to the U.S. to tell him to never mind anything Obama might say about NAFTA during the Ohio Democratic debate the other night.
Within the last month, a top staff member for Obama's campaign telephoned Michael Wilson, Canada's ambassador to the United States, and warned him that Obama would speak out against NAFTA, according to Canadian sources.
The staff member reassured Wilson that the criticisms would only be campaign rhetoric, and should not be taken at face value.
This sounds a little fishy to me. Why would Obama reach out to the Canadian ambassador when NAFTA also includes Mexico, where most American jobs are being outsourced. And why would Obama care what Canada thinks. They don't have a vote and have absolutely no way to make any arrangements within NAFTA without being on good terms with the U.S. Not to mention national campaigns have absolutely no time to worry about what non-voters are going to think about their message. And why in the world would the Canadian ambassador give ear to a candidate? That would be directly bypassing the president with a foreign treaty and could get any ambassador sent home.
If the story is true, it demonstrates the complete incompetence of the Bush administration. There really is no other answer to describe why a foreign ambassador would feel compelled to talk to a candidate about his country's trade agreements unless that ambassador felt it such a waste of time to deal directly with the person in charge. I knew Bush was a lame-duck I suppose I didn't realize the scope of it.
ABC News is reporting that the Canadian embassy is now denying the CTV report.
"It didn't happen," said Roy Norton, who heads up the congressional, public and intergovernmental affairs portfolio for the Canadian embassy.
Norton said none of the three campaigns for Sen. Barack Obama, Sen. Hillary Clinton, or Sen. John McCain have contacted the embassy.
"Neither before the Ohio debate nor since has any of the U.S. presidential campaigns called Ambassador Wilson or the Canadian embassy to raise NAFTA," he said.
Honestly, why would any of the three campaigns contact Canada? It makes no sense to me. Even if they did contact the Canadian embassy why would the embassy even talk to them. If the story were true and I was George Bush I would be furious. He's the president, none of the three hopefuls are. It's his job to alert foreign countries about treaties and matters of state.
I love how the media is so scared to call the economic situation a recession. Instead it's a standstill or a near halt, or a decline, but not a recession. The economy grows at 0.6% in the final quarter of '07 compared to 3% for the prior three quarters and we're not in a recession? The final quarter of Clinton's tenure in 1999 the economy grew at 1% and Republicans claim Bush inherited a recession and a fledgling economy. But when Bush is in office 0.6% is still growth, because now"[u]nder one rough rule, the economy would have to contract for six months in a row for the country to be viewed as in a recession." Again the rules are conveniently changed to benefit Bush and the neocons.
While on Rush Limbaugh’s website trying to figure out what about McCain’s apology makes the right wing so mad, I came across the most familiar chickenhawk line the neocons and a great deal of Republicans believe to be true. In their fantasy world this is their reality: “How is it that in less than 250 years a population of less than 300 million has come to be so dominant the world? Never before in human history has there been an America, not even close, and we're no different than anybody else in terms of DNA and humanity. We're no different. How has this happened? What's the reason? There are substantive reasons. I got an e-mail from a guy responding to this.”
Rush’s quote isn’t exactly where I’m getting at; it’s just the prelude, so just stay with me here. Seriously, there’s never been an America before? What does that mean? Yes, Rush, in terms of DNA and humanity, we are all humans. No doubt about that. But it’s not the humanity he stresses, it’s the fact he believes America to be exceptional to every other country created and inhabited by humans. Superior could be another word to replace exceptional but I think my point is made.
Here’s the answer a listener wrote in to Rush about why America is so much better than all other human nations.
Dear Rush: I agree that freedom is first and foremost the reason America is exceptional. But there's another thing which is born of freedom that makes America exceptional. America is the greatest collection of ass-whooping warriors the earth has ever seen, from a ragtag bunch of drunks, old men, and youth, the Continental army defeated the greatest empire in the world, at the time to earn independence. We repelled the nation a second time in 1812. The story goes on over and over the same way until the 1960s and the rule of liberalism. World War I, World War II, you name it, we are a nation of warriors.
And now it all makes much more sense. The reason why we are so successful in this experiment of democracy we call America is because we can kick ass and because we are warriors. Full of warriors like Limbaugh who have multiple deferments from actual combat, but warriors all the same. Warrior tough men like big Dick Cheney with five deferments from combat. Warriors like super tough guy Bill O’Reilly who, despite being of fighting age during all of Vietnam, never once put on a uniform or saw an ounce of warrior combat, but warriors we are. They are so deranged from their chickenhawk world that a warrior to them is anyone who is not a liberal. But it’s the second to last sentence of Rush’s fan email that really sums up their disturbed world.
“The story goes on over and over the same way until the 1960s and the rule of liberalism.”
The rule of liberalism is what they fight. Because liberalism is the enemy and Obama is the most liberal person to ever walk the face of the earth, and because liberals hate America, it’s the rule of liberalism that warrior tough guy patriots like Limbaugh and his dweebs try to save us from. What they fail to grasp, even with the slightest bit of reason, is that the most liberal notion ever, the most liberal notion ever discovered by “humans” is the independence those bunch of “drunks, old men, and youth” fought for was that humans should govern themselves. They fought for a liberal government free of a tyrannical monarch. They fought for the rule of liberalism! It’s amazing that these modern day warriors haven’t figured that out.
It wasn’t just in the 1960s liberalism took over America. America has always been a liberal democracy. That same notion of liberalism, that man can govern himself, was carried into the Civil War and still used this very day to define our country. That same liberalism has been borrowed the world over for every individual seeking freedom and a better life. It’s that same liberalism we forced onto Iraq where Bush’s grand strategy to make the world safe for democracy is so important the chickenhawks are tripping over the keyboards to go fight in it. It’s a good thing the warriors haven’t caught on to the fact that Rush Limbaugh has been lying to them for so long. Movement conservatism is actually what’s taken hold of America since the 60s not liberalism. For liberalism has been the main ingredient to what makes us the exception to other “humans.” In their make-believe world where liberalism is a new enemy insurgent taking over America and warriors like Limbaugh and his chickenhawks fight it head on, they have no clue the speciousness of their make-believe argument.
Rule #1 in the neoconservative rule book is that tough manly men full of patriotism never apologize for anything. Even when they are flat out wrong, like Bush on Iraq, or like Alberto Gonzalez testifying before Congress, or like Dick Cheney on everything from the last 15 years. Because when you do say you're sorry, you only show weakness, and the one thing you never apologize about is telling liberals how it is. The Republican presidential nominee is about to find that out quicker than snot. After McCain supporter Bill Cunningham referred to Democratic front runner Obama as a hack and Daley style Chicago politician, and then ever so slightly referring to him as being a clothed fake, McCain apologized for Cunningham's remarks stating that both Hillary and Obama are to be treated with respect.
"I apologize for it," the Arizona senator told reporters, addressing the issue before they had a chance to ask about Cunningham's comments.
"I did not know about these remarks, but I take responsibility for them. I repudiate them," he said. "My entire campaign I have treated Senator Obama and Senator (Hillary Rodham) Clinton with respect. I will continue to do that throughout this campaign."
Since McCain's apology, Cunningham has pulled his support of McCain and says he will endorse Hillary. And the right wing has been hammering McCain all day for his sissy behavior.
I'll have more on this later once I read up some more because the right wing response to McCain's call for respect has me perplexed for the moment and I'm sure I don't have all the details.
Gen. George Casey, the Army's chief of staff, said Tuesday he has no reason to doubt Barack Obama's recent account by an Army captain that a rifle platoon in Afghanistan didn't have enough soldiers or weapons.
As compared to the denial by the Bush administration:
Obama said it was easier for the troops to capture weapons from Taliban militants than it was "to get properly equipped by our current commander in chief," President George W. Bush.
"I find that account pretty hard to imagine," Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman told reporters.
I haven't had time until this morning to look at some of the exit polling from the Feb. 19 primaries. In the past I've tried to look at exit polling to get a gauge of public opinion as a whole. I know this isn't the most accurate way of doing such, but it does measure voter opinions on the very day they vote. In other words, monthly polling like most major consulting firms do doesn't always capture voter opinion on the one day they can exercise that opinion, voting. To me it's more accurate to state that you don't like snow when you're standing in four feet of it than if you've never seen snow. Again, not the most accurate thing ever but for me it makes sense. As has been the case all season, I'm very interested in some of the Republican numbers coming out of these exit polls. And it appears that for the first time McCain has won conservatives with the Wisconsin primary.
Conservatives Huckabee 44% McCain 48%
That's remarkable in itself for the Republican nominee to just now get his first victory with the Party's base. But, judging from this years polling, what exactly is the Republican base?
Ideology Conservative 61% Moderate/Liberal 39%
We're seeing a very moderate Party showing up to vote. Some will say that's no big deal, that it only proves the Republican Party is middle America, which I totally disagree with, but considering that anything remotely close to center is considered liberal or enemy territory for the right wing, I would say that having 40% of your Party in that realm is a scary thing to someone like Rush Limbaugh or Fox News.
I don't know how I missed this, but thanks to Jesus' General I found out that my favorite radio host Hal Turner is back! Next to watching the Cardinals win the World Series in 2006, this has to be one of my happiest days of the decade.
If you haven't heard of Hal Turner you must be Jewish. Honestly, he's a walking example of right wing patriotism and used to be a regular on the über patriot Sean Hannity's radio show. My favorite Hal Turner moment of all time is when he seceded the south from the Union, again (he's from Jersey so who knows exactly what he means by the south). To think of a world where slavery still exists is such a noble cause for Republicans, oh sorry Turner is no longer a Republican, he's a Libertarian, he conveniently switched in 2006 after the Repubs lost control of Congress. Today he's talking something about Obama needing to be murdered, or in his words, "it may be up to a sole person, acting alone, to make certain this guy is never allowed to hold the most powerful office in the world. Sorry it may have to be that way, but it may."
This is a festivus day for the right wing. Oh come let us adore him. All the right wing needs now is to get Limbaugh on board with McCain and we'll have ourselves a knee slapping time.
There's been a lot going on in the last few days. We've had Obama win 10 in a row over Hillary. We've had Obama accused of plagiarism. We've had Michelle Obama ridiculed by the right wing for saying that she is finally proud of America. We've had John McCain trying to weasel his way out of his campaign financing pledge. We've had the Republican nominee accused of some sort of affair with a lobbyist by a story in the NY Times and followed up by nearly every media outlet in the world. We've had the routine indictment of Republican members of Congress. And then we have Fox News doing a gerrymandered poll about who bin Laden and the terrorists want to win the American presidential election.
I wan to focus real quick on the NY Times McCain story and the Fox News poll. Both are perfect examples of what's wrong with American media. The Times runs a story all but alleging an affair in 2000 between John McCain and lobbyist Vicki Iseman. Even if there was no affair, the story makes no secret about some inappropriate behavior and too much closeness between then, and now, presidential candidate McCain and the lobbyist. There are strict ethics between lawmakers and lobbyists. So even without a sexual affair, political favors is just as bad. The Times just hangs all that out there and in my opinion does a very sloppy job of investigative journalism. For a story they worked months on, it's full of loose ends and vague reporting.
On the opposite end we have Fox News. The first people to come to McCain's aid was the neocons running FNC and talk radio. They cried foul, calling the story a political hit job and constantly referenced the NY Times as the most liberal paper in the entire world. Whatever one's views may be concerning FNC and the NY Times what takes place simultaneously as FNC defends McCain from the evil liberals is just as shotty and just as unethical and just as wrong as anything The Times did. FNC conducts a poll and then runs a story stating that the terrorists prefer a Democrat, preferably Obama, to win the American presidency. Then as expected, the right wing neoconservative Weekly Standard, where neocon William Kristol is editor and also writes for the extremely liberal and dangerous NY Times, picks up the FNC poll and runs with it. Now come on, how can Fox News even begin to claim any sort of high ground or objectivity whatsoever in any of its media outlets while calling the NY Times' McCain story a hit job? It wasn't that long ago Fox News ran a story claiming Obama attended a madrassa, which is not true at all. Never did Fox back away from that story and they are still trying their hardest to relate Democrats to terrorists.
One media outlet references a sort of affair and some unethical conduct with a lobbyist, the other media outlet relates the Democratic front runner, along with his entire party, to terrorists trying to destroy our country. If I had to choose which story I would rather be part of, I would pick The Times story because at least then I'm not portrayed as an anti-American, terrorist sympathizing, bin Laden brother Democrat. And that is exactly the effect Fox News wanted from their skewed poll. It's exactly the sort of story Bill Kristol's Weekly Standard wants to circulate and it proves Fox News has no room to call out any other media outlet for political hit jobs.
The Times' story was crappy. I'm not sure how many more times I can go on record saying that John McCain has every right to be mad. But what Fox News is doing is worse. You're either an adulterer or a terrorist. Which one is easier to forgive?
That sadly is the current mode of American media. Meanwhile we still have troops dying in Iraq. We still have $3 gasoline. We still have Bush as president. And we still have no accountability from anyone.
*Update:
The Associated Press picks up the widely circulated false email about Obama having a patriotism problem, hence an insurgent terrorist problem, and runs it as news. To top off how archaically unethical this whole thing is, the AP's source for their internet chain letter "news" is none other than Republican Roger Stone. "Stone you'll remember is the guy who got caught making threatening phone calls to New York Gov. Spitzer's (D-NY) elderly father and last month set up an anti-Hillary group with the acronym C-U-N-T." Surely their's no bias in that story, surely.
This is the state of American media and sadly American politics. Internet chain letters are used as sources for journalists and disgraced Republican psychopaths are used as credible serious sources to back up very credible and very serious email chain letters.
Rick Renzi (R-AZ) indicted for extortion, wire fraud, money laundering, embezzlement amongst other matters in a 26 page federal indictment. Renzi has already said he wouldn't seek reelection in '08, but also says he's not going to resign his seat anytime soon either.
Just hasn't been a good week two years for the Republicans.
*Update:
As is the case when almost every Republican gets indicted or convicted they refuse, actually demand, that they won't resign their post as representative or senator or whatever position they may hold at the time. Republican Tom DeLay is a perfect example. He held on to his post for months after his indictment. Congressman Bob Ney is another example, who by the way is still incarcerated. He held onto his seat for many months before being carted off to prison. Republican Senator Larry Craig is a prime time example. After being convicted of soliciting an undercover male police officer for sex, Craig announced that he would resign and then changed his mind and tried to change his plea. After discovering that he couldn't change his guilty plea, he still kept his seat nonetheless along with his heterosexuality. I don't need to get into the whole Duke Cunningham thing do I? Today we have Rick Renzi as our example of law breaking Republicans who represent their district and their party in our nation's capitol. This from minority leader John Boehner:
“I have made it clear that I will hold our members to the highest standards of ethical conduct,” Boehner said in a statement Friday. “The charges contained in this indictment are completely unacceptable for a member of Congress, and I strongly urge Rep. Renzi to seriously consider whether he can continue to effectively represent his constituents under these circumstances. I expect to meet with Rep. Renzi at the earliest possible opportunity to discuss this situation and the best option for his constituents, our Conference, and the American people.”
Renzi, so far, is refusing to give up his seat as he faces a 35 count federal indictment.
**Update:
Even after leader Boehner publicly demands Renzi resign, he still refuses. "I will not resign and take on the cloak of guilt because I am innocent," the statement read. "My legal team. . .will handle these legal issues while I continue to serve my constituents."
Let me see if I can get this straight. The GOP nominee for president calls the NY Times story that alleges an affair with a lobbyist unfair and a deliberate smear, and here we have Karl Rove, President Bush's political adviser, who by the way was drawing a salary on the taxpayers dime, ordering a GOP political employee to "find evidence that the Democratic governor of Alabama at the time was cheating on his wife." How interesting the timing of both stories. The moral majority, or the GOP, whichever you prefer, kicks into high gear when one of their own is accused in a sex scandal but for a Democrat we have the highest office in the land ordering investigations on the opposition party. The Times is an independent newspaper. Whatever their perceived interests may be is irrelevant. Any paper that has William Kristol writing editorials can't be too liberal. The difference is Rove was a government employee working in the highest office in the land instigating the surveillance of someone's private life. No affair was ever discovered but that didn't stop Rove from playing politics.
This is what the GOP does. Hypocritical to the core.
*Editor's Note:
Sorry to anyone who subscribes to these posts and got like a million RSS feeds sent to them for this one post. I'm trying out a new collapse post widget and it took me forever to figure it out. I kept having to edit and republish, edit and republish. Looks like I finally got it even though RSS feeds do get annoying.
First of all, if I was John McCain or a McCain supporter (and I'm neither) I'd be furious with the NY Times. I don't know how many have read the story but I kept waiting for the smoking gun per se. It reads to me as a bunch of allegations with no support. It's clear McCain's aides saw something between their boss and Iseman they thought didn't look so great in the public eye. But that's a long way from an affair, or unethical ties to a lobbyist. Even McCain admits to some inappropriate behavior, which we can only conclude means something more than a friendly relationship, but still The Times would have better off not to run this story, or at least run it without the support it needs.
Judging on past allegations of extra marital affairs, if McCain is elected president, Congress should immediately setup an independent council with an unlimited budget and subpoena powers to investigate the president. That's the precedent set by Congress and it should be followed as intended. Allegations turn into coverups and coverups into grand juries and grand juries into impeachment. Oh it will be a fun time.
*Update:
The more I think about it, if I were Mitt Romney or a Romney supporter (and I'm neither) I would be furious with The Times too. Why did they wait this long to run their meaningless story? Even though it's nothing but allegations, it would have no doubt benefited Romney more than anyone else. I know The Times says they waited until they had a complete story before they ran it but the convenience of that answer suffices to say Romney should be just as mad as McCain. A story like this could have changed the entire primary for the GOP, especially since GOPers consider themselves so morally superior to everyone else. Here's some coverage of how Camp Romney feels right about now.
If Barack Obama is to be the Democratic nominee for president, the theme from those who oppose him is that despite his oratory skills he really possess nothing to back up his message. They claim he has no record, no experience and is too much of a Washington outsider to actually accomplish anything he says to the thousands upon thousands in attendance at his speeches. It's feel good talk that's going to let a lot of people down after he's elected. I've heard Rush Limbaugh mention it about three hundred times in two minutes. The same for the neocons at Fox News. McCain last night tried to relate the bleakness theory to Obama too by calling the Democratic front runner "eloquent" but "empty." And today Robert Samuelson has an op/ed in the Washington Post summing up the main talking points on the right about Obama's feel good nothingness. Essentially, the right is arguing, Obama's charisma is a delusion keeping us from actually addressing our problems or the changes that need to be made.
If Charisma was the only thing Obama possessed it would still be more than what we have had in the last seven years from George W. Bush. For almost a decade the GOP and its supporters have talked themselves in circles trying to defend our Grand Leader from his many mistakes on the war in Iraq, the slumping economy, his religion, his culture of corruption and his total incompetence on every issue he's touched. Those who call Obama a delusion lacking leadership are the very people who gave us George Bush.
Their main argument is that even with all of Bush's failures and misgivings he's still better than anything on the Democratic side. These are the very same people who have said for almost eight years that change in America is electing the son of a president who has never known a day of struggle in his whole life. That real change is having an Executive that is above the Constitution; a vice-president that gets to exempt himself from Congressional oversight by issuing unprecedented orders that he isn't part of the Executive Branch, unless it's his legislative function that's being investigated; that can spy on Americans without the mundane hassle of a warrant. That change, real change, is $3 gasoline, a devalued dollar, the phase out of Social Security and war without end. To them the grandest version of change humanly imaginable is the largest deficit in American history without a single veto from our Leader. These are the very same people who have told us to turn the other way, to look past Bush's faults and find comfort in his leadership that has brought about all these changes that we now enjoy. Change to them is not change to the rest of us. They are securely part of the 29% of Americans who approve of George Bush.
If it is charisma that creates the nothingness that takes this country away from the path we're on, then nothingness is what I want. Change to them is a world without Social Security. A world where social programs are gone and defense spending is the only function of government. It is a world, without any delusion mind you, where we can stay in Iraq for a 100 hundred years or any other country that we so choose. Because Obama lacks any of the qualities they so sought and defend in George Bush, they are very correct when saying Obama can't bring about change. To them Obama isn't the change they are wanting, the change they have thrived and relished in as they talk of splendid wars and unrestrained spending. All that would be gone if Obama is president. Their chickenhawk ideas, their two incumbent congressmen sitting in prison, their tax cuts for the wealthy, their warrantless spying all would be gone.
To them change is the enemy. A liberal, terrorist, un-American enemy totally embroidered in the nothingness of Obama. These are the very same people who live in a fantasy world where Jews can be perfected and Iraq had something to do with 9/11. The same fantasy world where Saddam smuggled his WMD into Syria and finding bin Laden isn't important. The exact same fantasy world where George Bush is a popular president and where there's no such thing as a war effort that includes anyone or anything outside of the military and their families; and the very same fantasy world where cutting taxes in a time of war, a war that is so important it's the struggle of a generation-- no the grandest struggle in all the history of humanity-- makes any sense whatsoever. These are the people who can look at real change and know they want no part of it because it would only crumble to pieces their make believe world which keeps them from facing any sort of reality whatsoever.
*Update:
For those concerned about a legislative record, you know that thing Republicans are saying presidents are required to have, which George Bush didn't and doesn't, and that thing neocons with a lot of help from Republicans are saying Barack Obama lacks. Well since I actually used to write legislation for Obama, I started digging through his hundreds of nonexistent bills. Then I discovered someone else had already done it for me. Hilzoy at Obsidian Wings has a nice rundown of Obama's accomplishments in the state senate and the US senate. Guess what? Hilzoy made the list long before the Obama supporters meltdown with Chris Matthews. A little digging by Matthews or any journalist, or curious blogger that thinks demanding a legislative record for a president is a little odd since our Grand Leader doesn't have one. And he's the greatest president to ever serve, so something must be up with that. Besides, if Obama doesn't have a record then how in the world did National Journal rank him as the most liberal senator to ever live?
Since Kosovo is back in the news this week, it jarred my memory of hearing about a statue to honor American President Bill Clinton in the capital city of Pristina. The article is from May 2007 so I wonder if the statue is completed and in place yet.
The three-meter (10-foot) tall monument is still under construction in a studio in Podujevo north of Pristina.
"He is our savior. He saved us from extermination," sculptor Izeir Mustafa told Reuters. "I was thrilled by the work because I know what he did for us."...
...Pristina already has a road named after him, graced by a 12-metre (25 foot) tall mural of the former president. Pristina municipal authorities say they expect to erect the statue somewhere along Clinton Boulevard later this summer.
Mustafa has several more days to work before he bronzes the sculpture of Clinton, after which he will turn his attention to another soon-to-be former Western leader. . "I definitely will do a statue of (British Prime Minister) Tony Blair," he said. "He saved us as well".
I wonder if Iraq will do something like this for Bush? I could see the state department actually paying the bill to have a statue of Bush in the Baghdad square, after all he is their liberator. It could be included in the plans for the new American embassy. It wouldn't be fair for Clinton to have one and Bush not. Clinton accomplished his goal after 78 days. After 5 years and counting, Bush damn better have one too.
Then I realized that in April I'm going to Ireland and I remembered hearing something about a Bill Clinton statue in Ireland also. So after some searching I found the Clinton statue at Ballybunion in Co. Kerry. I will definitely have to get my picture made standing next to that statue when I'm there. This is really making my whole trip much more exciting, though I was already pretty pumped up about it. My next overseas trip will have to be to Pristina so I can have a complete set of Clinton statue photos.
*Update:
That's a golf club he's holding in case you're wondering. I figured people would have a comment or two about that one.
**Update II:
Just as soon as I published this post I found where the Clinton statue in Kosovo has been completed and ready to be installed. Here's another article about it being installed on the eponymous named street.
The latest summary out of Wisconsin has Obama up roughly seven points over Hillary. This will be a make or break state for Obama if he is to have any luck between now and March 5.
For the Republicans I am as shocked as I've ever been about what's going on. The media is 24/7 about the classic battle between Clinton and Obama and really neglecting another historical issue developing on the GOP side- the fact that John McCain is still getting quite the competition from Huckabee. McCain, too, has a roughly seven point lead over Huckabee.
Sure the Dem race deserves the attention it's getting. This is a classic race that could possibly go all the way to the convention to where the delegates will have to do an ol' fashion selection show to pick a candidate. To me that's excitement. Yes, I know I'm boring, but look at the GOP side. McCain is the nominee, it's not even a race. There is no way Huck can catch him. The only thing barring a McCain nomination is that he doesn't live long enough to see the convention, which is entirely possible. Yet Huck is still on his heels in Wisconsin. How is that even possible? McCain's only competition, Romney, drops out and throws all his support behind him, even begging his delegates to now support McCain. But what that green line is showing is that Huck actually gained support after Romney quit. Meaning not all his supporters listened to him and went to the McCain Camp but instead are now looking for any choice but McCain. I guess I really didn't realize how unpopular McCain is until today.
We have the MSM entirely focused on Hillary/Obama depicting it as infighting capable of destroying the Democratic Party (which it won't trust me) and then we have a complete evasion on the GOP side where the actual front runner is extremely unpopular causing the base to revolt and look for any white man but McCain. To me there's just as huge of a story on the GOP side with McCain's unpopularity compared to the Dems' saga.
I guess we'll know in a few hours how big McCain will win. But if he's not winning by 20 points at this juncture I would have to call that pretty sad. I mean he's pretty much running against "none of the above."
*Update:
Ooops! Read the pollster wrong. It has McCain with a 10 point lead. Not huge compared to the fact that he's running against no one. But 10 is more than the 7 I said originally.
** Late Update:
With about 30% reporting McCain is awful close to that 20% mark I said he had to have in order not to look sad: McCain 54-Huckabee 38%.
Both races have been called with both Obama and McCain with large leads. I still contend it would have been a long night for McCain if he doesn't win by 20.
Gas hits $100/barrel again, for no apparent reason again; The Supreme Court sides with the Bush administration that the government can't be sued unless the government says it can be sued; and George Bush is the biggest lame duck ever and none of that can be found on Fox's website major stories. Instead Michelle Obama teeters on un-American, un-patriotic, terrorist activity. *Update:
"For many years I have occupied the honorable position of President. On February 15, 1976 the Socialist Constitution was approved with the free, direct and secret vote of over 95% of the people with the right to cast a vote. The first National Assembly was established on December 2nd that same year; this elected the State Council and its presidency. Before that, I had been a Prime Minister for almost 18 years. I always had the necessary prerogatives to carry forward the revolutionary work with the support of the overwhelming majority of the people"
I wonder how long it will take before the neocons chalk this up as a victory for George Bush's foreign policy? The dad brought about a peaceful end to the Cold War and the son is the president to finally take down Castro. I can already here Kristol spouting it.
There was a time when I was very acute on foreign affairs. In college my major was political science with a concentration in international relations. I wanted to go to grad school in London or Berlin to study IR but I'm not even sure what happened to that. I was always bored with domestic politics but that's what I ended up doing. So the gist is never make plans. Just live in the moment. This should ruffle some feathers in the EU. Also in Turkey where the Kurds are paying very close attention to Kosovo and Bush's recognition.
For most of us who have cushy government jobs tomorrow is a holiday honoring our grand leaders for their service. As an American, I've always felt a little uneasy about this holiday. It seems awful close to old Soviet holidays honoring their revolution or something right out of North Korea. But this one is a little more tame when it comes to actually honoring anything substantial. It began as an honor of George Washington's birthday. Then later amended to include Lincoln. And pretty soon will include Reagan if the neocons get their way. I propose though that if we do include Reagan in the holiday that we give him his own. We could call it Super Patriot Serious Tough Guy President Day. It would make no sense to have Reagan share his day with Washington or Lincoln, who did nothing to end the Cold War.
For once, probably for the first time since the beginning of the Democratic controlled congress, the equal branch of government ignored Bush's threats and fear-mongering and decided to stand on their own and recess without passing revisions to the 1978 FISA law that regulates government wiretapping.
Today, again, Bush tried the tired game of labeling the refusal to cave in to his demands as "inaction" backed up by the threat that terrorists are lurking and waiting for Democratic capitulation before they attack us again on the home front. After 3 solid years of 30% approval ratings, finally Democrats are beginning to understand that Bush is a lame duck grasping at the only weapon he has left to prove his legitimacy, fear-mongering. It's easy to take Bush to task on the argument that he needs warrantless spy powers when even reporters are able to see right through the Bush facade.
The current laws are set to expire at midnight Saturday. The nation's intelligence agencies then will have to go to court for warrants to listen in on conversations between suspected terrorists overseas.
Intelligence officials said that it will cause unnecessary delays, but the government will be able to get permission to conduct eavesdropping through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
Even without court permission, agents also can listen in on a suspect's calls without a warrant as long as an application is submitted within three days.
Additionally, any warrants already approved are good for a year from when the initial warrant was issued.
Even the MSM has discovered Bush is unpopular and virtually powerless.
It’s not every day that you see three of your friends mentioned in the Los Angeles Times.I haven’t seen much of David Axelrod since sometime in 2007.He was too busy then to say much to.It was a simple handshake and the usual “good to see you again,” and as I turned to shake hands with someone else he gave me a quick slap on the shoulder with that crazy grin he always has.He can be stern most of the time but he certainly knows what it is he’s after and can frame a message like no other.The article makes a comparison to Karl Rove but Axelrod is no Rove.He’s not out to suppress votes or 527 an opponent to their knees.He knows issues better than anyone I’ve ever met, though I’ve never met Rove.
The first time I met him I was working for Senator Paul Simon.Senator Simon is my political patron and to this day one of my favorite people to have ever spent time with.As it mentions in the article, Axelrod managed Sen. Simon’s 1984 successful campaign for the US Senate.When Simon first introduced me to Axelrod he told me that if I ever wanted to go anywhere in politics to study this man’s every move.It’s safe to say I never made it as far as Axelrod, but he is 23 years older than me.Paul, you are sorely missed.
Then there’s Obama. Coincidently, it was also Sen. Simon who first introduced me to Barack Obama in 2002. It wasn’t until I read this article today that mentions all three people-- I don’t think any article has ever done that-- did it dawn on me that I’ve been really lucky in life.When I can pick up a newspaper and know firsthand the people who are making the news, and personally worked for two of them, giving the small town and school I came from, I’d say that’s pretty lucky and some very cherished times of my life.Barack may be president and he may not.I have no clue.But I’ll sure have some stories to tell my grandkids.
Not that I miss politics because the college I’m at now is right where I want to be. Plus it’s not like I don’t still get involved because I do. But there are days where an LA Times article does bring a smile to my face and leaves me feeling very fortunate.
At lunch today while driving in my gas guzzling SUV I still had my radio on the AM station I listen to in the mornings for my commute.I only listen to it for the local news and sports.By the time I get off work Hannity or O’Reilly or some other super macho tough guy patriot is on there and I either turn on my ipod or talk on my cell.But today at lunch the drug addict, Rush Limbaugh, was on there so I decided to keep it on and give a listen to what he had to say.And I think my IQ dropped at least 5 points in the ten minutes I listened to him.
He was doing some sort of lisp where he was supposedly imitating a “liberal” talking about gun control.Then he would switch to his deep manly patriot voice when he spoke the part of the “conservative” explaining to the “liberal” that because of “liberal” gun laws we have school shootings like the one yesterday at NIU.So according to the drug dealer, liberals cause school shootings.This guy is a freaking genius.No wonder Republicans are finally beginning to ignore him and vote against whoever Limbaugh likes.
I’m all for gun control.I’ve always thought people should use both hands when shooting a gun.But liberals are not to blame for some psychopath.It’s funny to me that Limbaugh is all for people carrying guns but just not for it when the military needed him to go to Vietnam and use a gun there.
Republicans walk out of the House in demonstration to a contempt vote on White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and Supreme Court Justice former White House counsel Harriet Miers for their refusal to cooperate with Congressional subpoenas in the investigation of the U.S. Attorney purge.The vote passed despite the Republican walkout 232-32.
I find this very interesting since yesterday we just saw Roger Clemens doing the very same thing before a Congressional committee.Actually, Clemens' testimony yesterday had nothing to do with the government or tax payer's money, whereas Bolton and Miers both have everything to do with our tax dollars.Why is it Clemens has to show up and Bush's cronies don't?That's because the Bush administration has used the shield of executive privilege to block staff and former staff members from testifying before Congress, an unprecedented presidential move.
Contempt charges will now go to the District U.S. Attorney where Attorney General Mukasey has given orders to ignore.
Some interesting Republican numbers out of Virginia.
Abortion Legal 34% Illegal 63%
It surprises me that 1/3 of Republicans consider themselves pro-choice. We've seen the same pattern throughout the primary season where Republicans are more and more liberal on abortion than what Rush Limbaugh or Fox News portrays. I mean in Republican circles, 34% is dang near a mandate.
Ideology Liberal 8% Moderate 27% Conservative 65%
Again, 1/3 of the Republicans consider themselves moderate to liberal, coinciding almost perfectly with their stance on abortion. I've been arguing that it's the neoconservatives that are ruining the Republican Party and so far the exit polls from all the primaries do indeed show a shifting away from right wing politics.
This next one is a very familiar pattern that McCain has been hampered with ever since he almost switched parties back in 2001. Of the 65% of Republicans who consider themselves "Conservative," 51% voted for Huckabee. Meaning, again, McCain loses the conservative vote. I have no doubt that once Huck drops out and McCain is on his own, he'll regain that conservative vote. But what might happen is conservative Republicans just won't turn out to vote in November making it very hard to combat that tidal wave of Dem turnout the nation has been experiencing.
I can't help but think that if Republicans were experiencing the kind of turnout Democrats have been since 2006, Fox News and the drug addicted Limbaugh would have already wrote the Democratic obituary and been talking about how strong, united and patriotic the Republican Party is. Not even in their heyday of '94 and '02 did Republicans experience anything like what the Democrats have done electorally in the last two years.
I bet some thought this post would be about the morning after the Potomac Primaries yesterday, well you'd be wrong. If you want that go here. It's about the morning after our new template and just like with anything that's done late at night, you almost always have second thoughts when you wake up the next morning-- especially in college, but those morning afters always had a sense of fear whereas this one is more of a sense of I still have more work to do. Craig knows what I'm talking about.
I don't like all the dead space surrounding the main column. The left margin is huge and the top margin I could drive a freight train through before it actually gets to the posts. I'll have to work on that today. I do like the sidebars and that widebar at the top. I hope it updates like it's supposed to. I also want to give a special thanks to Isnaini Dot Com for designing the template. He seems to do a pretty good job.
Once we get our own domain and break away from the chains of blogger things should go much smoother.
As you can see, we are updating quite a few things around here. Looks like we still have some bugs to work out but overall it's coming together nicely. I think everything carried over except the links on the sidebar. So periodically throughout the night we'll try to add the links back, at least the ones we can remember that is. This template seems to have much more functionality to it than the last one. I like the three column with a widebar at the top much better. It will allow for updates of videos and news coverage that's supposed to feed right into the bar without having to add new javascript. We're still unconvinced about it working that easily, however.
If people notice something we left out just shoot us an email or leave a comment. And if the new template doesn't look good in your browser definitely let us know because it's supposed to be a fluid template.
We're also going to try and add widget boxes back for pollster.com, but at the moment I'm not sure where to put it. I don't want to overcrowd the widebar and it won't fit on the smaller sidebars.
For the most part it's looking better. The next step is to switch over to our own domain.
As telecommunications companies line the pockets of our elected officials, the Democratic-controlled senate OKs the surveillance bill with telecom immunity intact. A huge victory for big government and Big Brother supporters, and a huge blow to civil liberties. Proponents argued the immunity was necessary in a time of war and "that withholding immunity would have discouraged such cooperation in the future." This is one of those days where I'm embarrassed to call myself a Democrat.
I'm really not much on winter. It rarely snows here, we had like an inch last week and that was our first snowfall since 2004; but I will admit I would rather have snow than ice any day. Much to my disappointment it looks like we have a round of ice storms heading my way. It started about noon today and we probably already have half an inch covering the ground.
It was in the 60s over the weekend and now this. Plus around here people have no clue how to drive in snow or ice. And the last place you want to be is in Wal-Mart. People are ransacking the place like it's the Second Coming or something. I usually just try to wait this stuff out and avoid contact with any public place, that's if anything is even open. Everything shuts down here with the just the threat of winter weather.
The more I read about the GOP tactics in the Washington state primary on Saturday the farther my jaw drops.How can something like this be happening in this day and age?We all know the GOP has a pretty good track record of voter suppression but that’s usually aimed at competing parties and not at one of their own.Let’s see if I can make this make sense.
After the Republican nominee John McCain had already had his butt whipped twice by Bible thumping Mike Huckabee just a few hours earlier in Kansas and Louisiana-- extremely embarrassing for the nominee and Party I’m sure-- and trailing for most of the vote count in Washington state, McCain begins to barely pull ahead as the voting draws to a close.And then, with no legal justification, and with McCain ahead of Huckabee by only 242 votes the chairman of the Washington GOP, Luke Esser, orders the counting to stop and declares McCain the winner.The difference between McCain and Huckabee was 242 votes or 1.8% with over 1,500 votes remaining and they aren’t even saying what precincts remain and which have been counted.The official word from the GOP is, McCain has enough votes, it’s over.I would write a treatise on how illegal this is even though I know full well that primaries are controlled by the parties, but right now I’m still in shock that it even happened.
All this begs the question why stop the counting?Why not just find out who really won?GOP Chairman Esser explains,
“Maybeit would have been safer if I hadn't said anything. But it was an exciting and historic day for the state and I thought if I was confident about what the outcome would be I should share that with the people who had gone out to their caucuses.”
So it would have been safer not to tell people that they aren’t going to bother counting the votes.That we already know who’s going to win so why bother? Interesting take on democracy there Mr. Esser.
Needless to say Mike Huckabee isn’t too happy about the whole thing.He’s already compared it to the Soviet Union and refused to concede the race.
"That is not what we do in American elections... Maybe that's how they used to conduct it in the old Soviet Union, but you don't just throw people's votes out and say, 'well, we're not going to bother counting them because we kind of think we know where this was going.'"
As unbelievable as all this sounds, I can’t figure out why the GOP would do this.Worst case scenario for the GOP is that the all but sealed-up nominee, McCain, loses three times in one day, which by itself is rather hilarious but it’s not like Huckabee could pull off any kind of upset.He trails too far in delegate count and it’s not like he’s the prized poster boy of conservatism that Rush Limbaugh is choosing as his next president.If I recall correctly Limbaugh said that if either McCain or Huckabee is the nominee it would destroy the Republican Party.So what’s the big deal if Huck does win three times in one day?He could win from here till April and I still don’t think he could catch McCain in the delegate count.The only reason I can think of is that the GOP doesn’t want to even flirt with the idea that the Republican establishment is very unhappy with their nominee.And if stopping an election in mid-count quells some of the uprising that may arise, then something as simple as fixing elections is what they’ll do to ward off the mobs.All the while trying their hardest to demonstrate that the GOP is very strong and united and McCain is so popular amongst party members that even on non-Super Tuesday weekend voting he’s still winning.
I’m telling ya, this is crazy stuff. As a history person I don't think I've ever heard of this before. Sure during Reconstruction some very messed up stuff happened in both the North and the South, but in modern day Party politics this is very unique. There might a good chance the GOP will call off the rest of the primaries and just declare McCain the nominee. Why waste all that money on elections when they aren't even going to count the votes. Save the money for the General Election because they are really going to need it.
*Update:
Huck writes Chairman Esser, with grammatical errors and everything.
Obama rakes in a clean sweep of weekend primaries and caucuses by winning Maine's caucus on Sunday. With shakeups at Camp Hillary, this week looks to be a favorable one for BO as well. Heading in to Tuesday, Obama could very well sweep the Potomac Primary -- Virginia, Maryland, and Washington, D.C. But never count Hillary out. It's still too early.
Something extremely fishy though is brewing up on the GOP side of things. It appears Mike Huckabee isn't going to relinquish Washington state just yet, and rightfully so I might add. With McCain up by 242 votes and with over 1500 votes left to count, the state GOP pulled the plug on finishing up the tallies and called the race for McCain. And no I'm not making this up. An election that is within 1.8% and the voting is stopped and McCain is called the winner? Very fishy indeed. What's more is it's really hard to find any MSM coverage of it either. Fox alluded to it some last night but did so in a way as to make Huck a conspiracy theorist. But the truth is there were over 1500 ballots left to count and the GOP pulled the plug and called it for McCain. According to the state GOP chairman, the final results will be announced sometime today, maybe. If I was Huck I would have every lawyer I could muster up camped out in Seattle. I mean it's not something new for the GOP to not want every vote counted.
Barack Obama pulls in a sweep of all three Saturday states, Nebraska, Louisiana and Washington. A huge day for the Obama camp that could provide the momentum necessary to win the nomination. Though writing that sentence is so much easier than actually winning the nod. It really doesn't do it justice. There's still a long road ahead.
On the GOP side, Mike Huckabee has demonstrated that the Republican base is not satisfied with their nominee being John McCain. Huck wins two out of three states currently refusing to concede Washington state to John McCain. I'm not sure and I could be wrong, but I don't know if the apparent nominee has ever been rebuked as badly as John McCain was yesterday. When has an apparent front runner not carried out a near clean sweep once all his competition has quit? The competition of course being Mitt Romney. But instead of folks breaking to McCain they scatter to Huck and Ron Paul and even *uncommitted gets double digits.
Huckabee 24% McCain 26% Paul 21% Romney 16% *Uncommitted 13%
For anyone who studies politics, this is truly amazing stuff. The Dems could possibly take the nomination all the way to the conference without having a nominee thus forcing the delegates to choose in an old fashioned selection show who the Dem candidate will be. The GOP has a guy who clearly has it wrapped up but in a caucus yesterday, almost 75% of the caucus goers voted against him. And in the other two primary and caucus's McCain loses handedly. Truly amazing!
Actually it's more like the return of me since I'm fairly certain I'm the one who keeps quitting and returning. But for those of you who remember some of mine and Jaz's prized discussions, we're having a fairly tame one right now concerning, well I don't even know what it's about to be honest. Ours are almost as good as Lisa's and Graham's used to get.
*Update:
And we're off...
Actually this is all in good fun. I'm posting my reply to Jazz here because I wanted to post a vid and the blogger comment section wouldn't let me do that. The argument that McCain is the real flip flopper, or that John Kerry is, in regards to Romney, is irrelevant to the points I wanted to stress in my first reply. As far as I'm concerned if you're not flip flopping you're not running for office. And so follows my reply.
--Jaz, half of what you say belongs on a McCain rant page and I’m almost positive I’m not the one to fire back with McCainisms to prove you or anyone else otherwise.I can’t help that McCain is the Republican nominee.By the looks of things tonight, it appears Huck will probably be his best pick for VP, but still Romney wouldn’t be a bad choice either.Though I’m not buying the McCain’s the true flip flopper and Romney isn’t stuff.They are both flip floppers.Heck all politicians are flip floppers.
Suggesting, via wiki, that flip flops are sudden changes of position and not a process over time is spinning at its best.The root of John Kerry flip flops begins with him returning medals in the 1970s then only later, decades later, to state that he didn’t actually return the medals but the ribbons.It is then that Republicans start with the flip flops on Kerry and not in 2004.How convenient, once again, it is for Romney that flip flops are only sudden, in mid speech changes on positions.But even, just even if that was the case, the span of 13 years like you mention is totally inaccurate.It wasn’t that Romney in 1994 while running for the senate was pro-gay rights or pro-choice or anti-gun or whatever else right wingers consider to be liberal positions, it was as early as 2002 that he claimed to be pro-choice when running for MA governor.
Here’s a vid to refresh some memory.
It wasn’t until the end of 2007 that Romney joined the NRA and it wasn’t until he was in the middle of his presidential campaign that he finally came around to declaring he was not a champion of the gay rights movement.A process over 13 years?Not hardly.
That also goes along with him not being a career politician.Maybe he hasn’t been running for office his whole life, but being the son of a former governor and Republican presidential candidate, and having a mother who also ran for numerous offices, surely doesn’t make him an outsider either.That would be like me saying Chelsea Clinton is an outsider to politics and really only made up her mind about positions after deciding to run for office for the third time.It would be hard to make that argument fly in any conversation.
I don’t know what Romney believes in his heart, I have no clue to that.Only God sees the heart.All I have is his actions and out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.And his actions demonstrate that for this presidential race he has moved his position as far right as he could.That’s not a bad thing.That’s not an uncommon thing.Reagan did it in 1976, and was denied the nomination then.So hope is still very much alive for Mitt in 2012.But him changing his mind by some long term convictional process isn’t something the public has bought into just yet.
I like Romney as a candidate, that’s why I thought for sure he would win the nomination. I’m not big on his religion but as a candidate, coming from someone who has managed many campaigns, I think he’s a great candidate. I think he would have had better luck had he not tried to flip flop and just ran as himself.
I do, however, particularly like the notion that Bush's unpopular polarization is part of some national hysteria rather than the fact that he's just been a really bad president. Not having one single domestic item he can claim as a success, or really one foreign item, while running up the largest deficit in the history of this country and overseeing a party that has two incumbent congressmen sitting in prison with a plethora of federal investigations underway, and also overseeing the first reduction in American household income ever on top of $3 gasoline, I'm sure has nothing to do with his unpopularity and everything to add to the hysteria.
**Update II
Once again I need to use a video so I'm going to have to post my latest reply to Jaz on the main page. To read Jaz's response please go to the comments section or click here. I should also preface this by saying please see my sarcasm when reading. There are times to be serious and times to have fun. For the most part, I'm not even sure if it's worth doing if you're not having fun. Splitting hairs in an argument usually brings out my inner sarcastic self.
Jaz, you crack me up my man. He says, point blank, in the video that he believes abortion should be safe and legal in this country.How else can that be categorized other than being pro-choice?Believing abortion should be safe and legal means women should have the right to choose whether or not to have an abortion.It doesn’t mean that Roe should remain law.Yes he does go on to state Roe should be left alone, but he unequivocally states that women should have the right to choose and that he would do everything in his power to see women maintain that right.Trying to split hairs looks really silly with this argument and in legal terms there’s no such thing as pro-choice or pro-life or whatever you may call it.The real kicker though, is that if he’s merely stare decisis as you’re trying to argue then that would require allowing women to have the right to privacy.And even if Roe was overturned, all it would do is turn it back over to the states keeping abortion legal, thus still giving women the right to choose.Either way, stare or not, it’s pro-choice.Here’s another video of him proclaiming his right to choose beliefs from 2002, and not 1994 as suggested in your last reply.
I don’t use a ten second piece of video to prove Romney’s liberal, in fact in my first reply to you I state that I don’t believe Romney to be a liberal at all.I use the video to show that he tried his hardest to flip flop on issues hoping that no one would notice.He might not have a verbal gaffe that you mention, but he sure is trying to have it both ways.
I see no problem using wiki as a source at all.Where do I ever say anything about the validity of wiki?I never even questioned the definition of flip flop that wiki uses.I don’t even care.Wiki could say that a flip flop is only a flip flop when three people hear it at the same time while bouncing on one leg and I wouldn’t care at all.If I shit in a box and put a guarantee on it, it’s still just shit in a box.That’s my best Tommy Boy for ya.I don’t even know what you’re talking about concerning wiki.I merely mentioned it in a prepositional phrase and you think I’m attacking your sources.I certainly am not.
So now Romney goes from not being a lifelong politician to simply not being a Washington insider?Is that the same thing as the bastardization of the term that was originally used most prominently and incorrectly for George Bush when he ran as a Washington outsider in 2000?
Somehow I knew you would fall back on the Bush has saved us from another terror attack on our soil argument to defend Bush’s otherwise pitiful record as president. But when a president has a 29% approval rating and nearly three-quarters of the country disapprove of the job he’s doing, it’s not just Democrats who don’t like him. Unless you’re trying to argue that Dems make up about 70% of the population which I’m sure you aren’t. An election being stolen has nothing to do with Bush’s unpopularity. That argument left when he won in ’04. This is not irrational hatred or hysteria, this is Bush exhaustion besieged upon a country that wants change.
**Update III
Since I'm not using a propaganda video this time, my latest reply to Jaz is in the comment section. I think what strikes me most about this whole conversation is the degree to which political correctness in it's most politically correct use of terms is so insistent by the proclaimed conservative Republican. To keep everything in order here is a quick run down.
Jaz's original post, where I actually agreed with him that led to this whole thing.
Our comments on his page following my agreement, which somehow turned into a lengthy, but fun, discussion of what a pro-choice stance is and Hillary as being the only polarizing politician to ever run for office unless we include George Bush in the realm of politicians who have run for office.
Finally, the conversation is moved to my page so I can post propaganda videos of Mitt Romney where it's not actually him speaking but an actor paid to portray Big Love to essentially be used against him by those hoping to paint him as a flip flopper. And where we discuss the total irrationality behind the 70% of Americans who disapprove of George Bush versus the non-hysteric, very serious and very rational people who think he's doing a good job.
Political Notio is a joint venture blog by Ryan and Chris.The original PN was started in 2005 by Chris and stay opened long enough to develop some readership before it was shut down due to conflicts with work.Since then Chris has posted on other blogs while this is Ryan’s first shot at blogging...read more!
Ryan I'm a novice to the blog world and unlike my counterpart this is my first attempt at blogging. I have no old posts or other published works to link you to, at least nothing credible that I want to fess up to. I'm a lawyer...read more
Chris My first blog was started in 2004 only to have barely gotten off the ground when the senate (my employer at the time) decided that it didn't want me to have any sort of personal life. It was then that I went into hiding posting on a shared blog with a couple buddies of mine called The National Exam. It had a partisan tone, but represented what we believed to be Republican, Democratic and Libertarian principles...read more
