Sen. Chuck Hagel would make a great President! He would bring Integrity back to the office, which has been lacking in the last 16 years; Clinton the womanizer,Bush the war lord!!Hagel is the only great choice for 2,008! He is straight talking "NO B.S." kind of guy!!

William, personally I agree with you that Hillary's political experience as Bill's wife counts for something, but I see that as a tough sell to the Nation in general. (Bill's co-presidency idea in early 1990's didn't last long)

John Edwards did the honourable thing by not running for NC Senator in 2004. We all remember Lieberman keeping his senate seat in 2000, just in case Gore lost. Comes across as selfish to say the least. Edwards work since then (Poverty & food drives, lobbying for minimum wage increases, battling big business) is admirable, and helps people more than, say, being a senator.

I think Clinton is a stronger candidate than Edwards, but Edwards is the most gifted politician currently in the field, and as we've seen with Obama & Romney that has to count for something...

With respect to the Department of Peace. Although it is far from Cabinet-level status, there is a federally funded U. S. Institute of Peace, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Institute_of_Peace .

Your right Drindl. The anti-gay stuff has to stop. The poster that said that this should be a states rights issue is correct. Let the states decide. By that I don't mean let the courts decide, or let a mayor unilaterally make law. I mean, let the people of the states decide. I personally don't see this as a Loving v. Virginia type issue so I don't think it is about fundamental rights. As such, legistlators/ the electorate should be able to determine whether they want this in their state.

William, I want a citation on that. Show me the legislation that Kennedy and Schumer have introduced to ban all guns.

Then you can reply to the rest of my post. Tell me why the more liberal candidates usually lose Democratic primaries, and the Democrats who win aren't very liberal. Tell me why the party isn't crusading for liberal causes like universal healthcare, taxing the wealthy at pre-Reagan levels, drug decriminalization, etc. None of that is consistent with your claim that the Democrats are a very liberal party.

Writing this as a fiscal, social and foreign policy conservative...I don't think I COULD ever vote for Guiliani for President with a clear conscience. Not only is Rudy's personal life horrific, but his social stances are simply not in line with the GOP base. Then when you look at his political career futhur, he's been a lawyer, attorney General for New York and mayor for New York City. He's never even been a US congressman, US senator or a Governor. I realize New York City is a big city, but it's nothing compared to being governor or a senator. His experience seems very limited. His big tout is that the crime rate decreased during his tenure as NYC mayor, can anyone from NYC on this blog tell me if this is true or not? How was Rudy's tenure as mayor, really?

Oh and by the way, I'm on board with McCain. He's conservative, and just b/c he doesn't emphasize social views doesn't mean he doesn't have them. McCain is a state's rights guy, believing people have the right to vote with their feet if they don't like how the majority of a state feels. Now that's a true Conservative!

William's analysis doesn't seem very informed to me. For example, he views Matt Blunt as "extremely popular" and a future GOP presidential nominee, even though the guy has and has had approval ratings at or below 35% for more than 12 months. In contrast, Bill Richardson is only popular among "mexicans," but SOMEHOW managed to win reelection with 68% of the vote. Did you catch that last part William? He was reelected with a shade under 70% of the vote -- or almost DOUBLE what Mr. Blunt is currently polling at.

Here's a good hint for you; if you want to engage in a reasonable debate regarding candidates that you would never vote for, you have to actually accept the fact that not everyone thinks like you do. I suspect it's that last part that trips you up. Then again, you've shown you have an aversion to FACTS, so perhaps you're just not aware of the factual errors you're making. Which is it? Perhaps a little of both...?

' Sen. Sam Brownback, who wants to champion social conservatives in the presidential race, said Tuesday he wants a Senate panel to re-question a judicial nominee who attended a same-sex union ceremony.

Brownback, a Kansas Republican, said he wants Michigan state judge Janet Neff to testify about her role in the 2002 Massachusetts ceremony, her legal views on same-sex unions and her ability to be impartial if called upon to rule on such cases.

Neff's nomination to a federal district court is among a dozen or so now stalled in the Senate, a logjam in part due to Brownback's questions about Neff's attendance at a lesbian commitment ceremony. The Senate Judiciary Committee has already approved her nomination.

Earlier this month, Brownback, a prominent opponent of gay marriage who is exploring a presidential run in 2008, said he would lift the hold he put on Neff's nomination if the judge agreed to withdraw from ruling on any court case involving the legality of same sex unions.

In Iowa on Tuesday to meet with GOP activists, Brownback said he wants only a chance to question Neff about her role in the 2002 ceremony. Brownback also wants a recorded vote in the Senate.

"I am not opposed to her getting a vote," Brownback said before a lunch with potential donors and supporters in Davenport. "I would like her to come back through committee so she can testify what took place, factually ... her legal views on same-sex marriage and her ability and willingness to be impartial."

Neff has said she attended the commitment ceremony as a friend of one of the two women, a longtime neighbor.'

Well, he's quite the little fascist, isn't he? I think the Dems should do the same thing then. question every judicial nominee bush puts forward over whether they've been to say, a Federalist meeting. Or a Board of Directors meeting [wouldn't want someone who's influenced by corporations to rule on corporate cases]--why not examine every wedding, every meeting, every party each nominee has ever gone to -- that's the way to do it. Oh, and every neighbor, thier elementary school friends -- got to be thorough, you never know what might 'influence' someone. Maybe they had a commie teacher back in second grade, you know?

"There's no mainstream Democrat who's talked about actually changing Social Security, or instituting true universal health care, or passing gun control laws like the ones in England."

Blarg, apparently you are not familiar with the views of Ted Kennedy? He and Chuck Shumer want to ban ALL guns.

If it came down to a vote in the Senate, whether or not to ban all handguns and assault rifles but leave hunting weapons legal, I bet you would get at least 25-30 Dems in the Senate and 120+ Dems and some Republicans (like Chris Shays) in the House to vote in favor.

JayPe: Hillary Clinton was the wife of a two term governor, and First Lady for 8 years. Especially during her years as first lady, she observed first hand as her husband conducted foreign and domestic policy, and obviously learned a lot from that. In addition, as first lady, she was VERY active both domestically and internationally herself. Being first lady is a form of political office, perhaps almost as powerful as the president. Hillary helped shape policy, had a staff, and did a lot of foreign policy work and advocacy work during her years as first lady. I consider that a lot of experience.

In the Senate, she has served two more years than Edwards had in 2002 when he started running. Also, she has all her previous experience that she can point to as legitimate credentials, unlike Edwards, who was an ambulance chaser.

Finally, in her 6 years in the Senate, she has been highly active on foreign policy, as well as domestic policy.

Edwards' Senate term was a lot more low key, and he really did not get involved in foreign policy.

Finally, Edwards has been out of office for 2 years (will be 4 in 2008.) In contrast, Hillary won reelection by an enormous margin, and even won over a lot of upstate moderates and conservatives, which shows that she appeals to more than just the base.

Edwards could not even pick up NC.

Lastly, Hillary has a TON of money, and there's mountains more where that came from. She has a political machine set up, she has campaign infrastructure in place and can easily expand upon that, she has all the big donors lined up, and her high profile will help her win the invisible primary, and pick up most of the top Dem operatives and activists. She has Bill, too, and he is the guiding voice of the Democratic party. I see her as pretty much unstoppable in the primary. In the general election, that is another matter, but I still think she's more electable than Edwards.

Edwards has none of the things I mentioned for Hillary above. He has no money, no campaign infrastructure, no political machine, and almost no staff. If that wasn't bad enough, he even owes 300K from the 2004 election. I see Edwards as the Brownback of the Dem primary. Someone with little experience and an underdog with little money and backing, just hoping they get the nomination. Of course, Edwards has much more name recognition that Brownback, but Hillary has even more name recognition than Edwards.

Oh and William, please stop hassling Al Gore. The guy is light years ahead of the rest of the political crowd. What a shame the country didn't get to see that in 2000...

His views on the environment mean he won't be receiving many donations from Mobil, but who cares? At least he's got his priorities right. The long term future of this planet is much more important than the short term future of the next election. Which is why he's a "recovering politician", why he isn't running for President, and why he would be a great President.

William, re your Dem nominee views...

I agree that Obama is not electable. The guy has no experience whatsoever, and once the hype dies down he doesn't have a lot to go on. He needs time under his belt, perhaps as IL governor. He's got a profile, media attention, and good speaking ability. Now he needs experience, and political experience (read, ability to win tough elections). The guy is untried and untested. An unnecessary gamble when the Repub field is so weak.

Edwards experience is not that bad. What's the difference between his 6 years and Clintons 8 (in '08)? Not a lot. Its certainly better than Guiliani and Romney's.

In fact you could say that all the candidates have too much experience (Biden, Dodd, McCain) or too little (Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Guiliani, Romney). Where are the two term governors? Vilsack & Huckabee, get moving...

Blarg, don't blame William. It is not his use of the label that is at fault. It is that the terms of debate and the character of the political landscape have shifted inexorably to the right over the past 40 years or so. I would say the process began even earlier, but I won't quibble over a decade or two.

The word "liberal" now applies to what would have been styled "moderately conservative" a generation or so ago, and erstwhile rabid wackjobs on the right today are the rump of political respectability.

It is your vocabulary that is out of date, and as for "Socialist" Europe -- the crackpots are on the rise there as well.

Back to Guiliani. he only has a chance if the field completely fractures around all the other average candidates out there. At the moment this is a possibility, although expect at least one of the front runners to destroy Guiliani a few months out if they feel he's a threat. They'd have no shortage of material to work with...

If somehow he did win the Primary, would the social conservatives fund a third candidate? That would basically hand the WH to the Dems.

Looking at the Repub field right now, you can't blame Hillary for running. The field is the weakest we've seen for years, and the Repubs are divided over what to do. None of the candidates exactly excites the imagination, and none appeal to both the base and independents.

If Brownback hadn't stolen a march on Huckabee, I'd be picking the AK Governor to fill the void. But he may find there's no room now...

William, do you even know what liberal means? You and all the other conservatives keep saying how the Democrats are crazy liberals. But by the standards of other countries in the world, there is no American left.

Look at Scandanavia. Look at Europe. Look at Canada. They have more regulation on all kinds of business, much more extensive welfare and labor laws, more progressive taxation, greater environmental protection, universal health care, etc. Who in American politics is calling for any of those things? Not the Democrats. There's no mainstream Democrat who's talked about actually changing Social Security, or instituting true universal health care, or passing gun control laws like the ones in England.

Now, don't start arguing whether these are good ideas. That's not my point, and I already know your positions on these issues. I'm saying that by international standards, the Democrats are a centrist party, maybe even center-right. And the Republicans are conservative enough to be off the charts.

But you don't even need to look at international standards. Just look at elections. The most liberal candidates very rarely win. There were at least 3, maybe 5 candidates in the Democratic primary more liberal than Kerry. The liberals voted for Dean, or Kucinich, or Edwards. The moderates voted for Kerry, and Kerry won. Or look at the winners in 2006. If you think Tester and Casey and Webb were liberals, you're nuts. Ned Lamont lost.

There are liberals/progressives in the Democratic party, of course. They have a fair amount of influence over the party. But I'd say the religious right has far more influence over the Republicans than the liberals do over the Democrats. Basically, you need to stop acting like every Democrat is the second coming of Karl Marx and recognize the ideological spectrum within the party.

Cavalier...Hillary is very liberal, as is demonstrated by even a cursory examination of her voting record, but the liberal base considers her to be conservative! Remember, these are the people who thought that Kerry was too conservative for their liking.

Personally, I can't think of one issue Kerry is even moderate on, but that goes to show you how far to the left the Democratic base really is.

Their ideal candidates are Feingold and Obama. Enough said. Some of them still fantasize about Al "Greenpeace" Gore reappearing from the depths of the past and winning the election. Honestly, Al's extreme environmental views make him better suited for the green party.

I really don't see Obama as electable. I detailed my reasons for this belief in previous threads and many of the posters on here accused me of being "racist." Personally, I think anyone who thinks Obama IS electable is drinking Kos Kool-Aid.

Edwards would have a chance if he had served two terms in the senate instead of one. But one senate term is a VERY thin resume for someone applying to be hired as president. Edwards has also moved FAR to the left since the 2004 election, and is no longer seen as a moderate Southern senator. If he had no appeal in the South in 2004, he certainly has none now. Also he looks childish and immature. Can you imagine him as president? He looks like a 13 year old.

Hillary is seen as driven purely by ambition, and even though that will damage her image, I don't see any other D as being strong enough to oppose her.

Too bad we didn't follow Carter's energy policies?

Perhaps in some "reality-based" universe that was a possibility, but in this one it was never going to happen. This was a nation that longed to be enormously fat. To enjoy staggeringly huge boobage. To drive gigantic off-road vehicles to the mall, drink 64 oz sodas, and work off that sugar rush by obliterating one another with 9mm automatic weapons. (Try to bring down an American with a girly little .38? Might as well hunt grizzly with twinkies and a slingshot.)

The name of the country that might have adopted Carter's energy policies is "Never-never land", or perhaps "France", but not the United States.

If there is anything about the Carter administration that continues to inspire pure loathing in Americans, it is not the stupid hostages; it is Carter's suggestion that we should wear cardigans, turn down the heat and drive 55. His pursey little baptist minister schtick was all very well as a sort of emotional palate-cleanser after the sour unpleasantness of Watergate. The electorate really needed an uplifting shot of vicarious rectitude.

And though it is difficult to believe these days, back then people did not automatically assume that the air of piety he affected meant that he was privately way too friendly with little boys. No, they suspected he was trying to make them feel bad about themselves.

It would not be fair to say that the orgy of greed, the cornucopia of porn, the epidemic of fake tits, and the H2 were all a backlash against Carter's "holier than thou" attitude. But who cares about fair? Let's blame him.

At least we knew exactly what to expect when that prissy knowitall Al Gore came along.

William is obviously in the Develop Right Wing Youth Cadres program at Jerry Falwell's Liberty University.

why does it not surprise me that william didn't get the south park joke? maybe he would be more familiar with a reference to the "left behind" series. ugh.

Alot to read,

Hey William,

Do you really think Hillary Clinton is a moderate? I've always viewed her as more of a Leninist myself. Which is to say cold, calculating and a shameless tactician.

When I look at her what I see is nothing but immoral self-justification.

Coming from the South Edwards is a more plausible moderate despite his populist streak. But the two are not mutually exclusive.

Obama is exceptionally smooth talking. What that amounts to ideologically is less than certain.

Any one of them COULD be nominated, depending on how they play their cards and which states come up at the front of the primary calendar. Whichever of them wins the Democratic nomination will win the Presidency because as you said the candidate field is less than ideal for conservatives.

"William is either Nashville (Vanderbilt) or Knoxville (Univ. of Tennessee)."

Um...no.

What makes you think I go to UT or Vanderbilt.

I am in college, but you are quite off.

"William is either Nashville (Vanderbilt) or Knoxville (Univ. of Tennessee)."

Um...no.

What makes you think I go to UT or Vanderbilt.

I am in college, but you are quite off.

William is either Nashville (Vanderbilt) or Knoxville (Univ. of Tennessee).

NoName - The Reagan Administration negotitated with the Iranians for the release hostages, but it wasn't the U. S. Embassy hostages. Carter's Secretary of State, Warren Christopher, negotiated the Algiers Accords which provided for the Embassy Hostages release.

The Iranians released those hostages on January 20, 1981, after they were certain Reagan had taken the Oath of Office. The timing was specifically to embarass Carter.

However, part of Iran-Contra did involve the Reagan Administration negotiating with and selling arms to Iran, so Iran would influence Hezbollah to release Hezbollah hostages in Lebanon; some of whom were Americans.

No wonder I didnt know who parker and stone were...I HATE south park.

Amy - No, I am not Matt Stone or Trey Parker. Should I know who they are? Care to tell me?

And no, I don't wish the Democrats would "stop being so lame" and I am not planning on voting for them, nor do I live out West.

I was just offering advice on what the Democrats should do if they want to be successful. I enjoy political analysis, and I don't mind offering my take on what the opposing party needs to do to win.

Whether liberals like it or not, 40% of Americans 18 and over own guns, and not just hunting rifles and shotguns. I am talking about semi-automatic rifles, pistols, and revolvers, too.

It doesn't make sense to support a policy that alienates 40% of the electorate.

And the Dem's support of gun control is incongruous with their pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-euthanasia, etc stands.

Basically when you oppose concealed carry, you are saying that people shouldn't have the right to protect themselves.

Most Americans support gun ownership, so it doesn't make sense for the Democrats to oppose something that Americans overwhelmingly approve of.

I don't care if the Democrats take my advice or not. I am a Republican.

But if they continue to push gun control, assault weapons bans, and gay marriage, then their majorities in congress may be short-lived, since most Americans don't agree with those things.

If Democrats continue to foist gun control upon an unwilling population,and try to restrict guns, voters may just decide to opt for Democrat control instead, and restrict the number of Democrats in congress by voting them out in November 2008.

So the Dems should keep that in mind, especially people like Mark Pryor, Mary Landrieu, and the horde of Dem congresspeople who represent red districts.

A lot of these people may be one term wonders.

In my experience, hardcore libertarians actually oppose the entire institution of state-recognized marriage, and think the state should just enforce marital contracts to the same extent as other contracts. Accordingly, they might oppose state recognition of gay marriages, but not because they necessarily have a problem with gay marriages.

Oops - if you are Matt Stone, no offense.

William -

Are you saying that you live out West, and you wish the Democrats would stop being so lame because you hate all the Republican candidates this time around?

Also, are you Trey Parker?

I'm not saying that liberals are mildly annoyed at Hillary, and don't support her 100%. I'm saying that a lot of liberals just plain hate her. If she were the general election candidate, she'd probably get most of the liberal vote, though some people would stay home or vote for 3rd-party candidates.

But in order to be the general election candidate, she has to win the primary. And during the primary there will be at least one candidate more appealing to liberals. Hillary should focus on the primary voters who supported Kerry in 2004, because the Dean crowd just isn't going to support her.

I've never thought Carter was all that big a deal either. He was a hawk and not particularly charismatic or appealing. Although it's too bad we didn't follow his energy policies.

However, as far as the Iran hostages were concerned, they were released only because Reagan negotiatyed with them -- after he said he'd never 'negotiate with terrorists'.

Not all libertarians support gay marriage. As someone above said, many (but certainly not all) are opposed to an amendment against gay marriage, but do not support it.

States like Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana lean libertarian, which explains why populists like Swietzer, Baucus and Tester have been elected. But people in those states do not support gay marriage.

If Democrats would make gay marriage a states' rights issue, and make it clear they will not try to force gay marriage on states that don't want it, and drop their anti-gun platform, then the Dems could make serious, enduring inroads out West.

Blarg, liberals may not like Hillary's stance on all the issues, but she is walking the tightrope between appealing to the liberal base, while staying moderate enough to be electable.

As she aspires to be the first female president, she has to seem like a moderate, and appeal to more people than just the liberal base.

Even if the base is annoyed at that, I think they realize that she has to appeal to the entire country.

What's more, liberals always like to be progressive, and break down barriers and set new standards. Since all previous presidents have been men, they will be excited to put Hillary in the WH just so they can break down that barrier and make it clear that not only men are electable.

I think a lot of Obama's popularity among liberals is due to his race. If he was white, I think no one would pay attention to him, and he would be ignored, and if he ran for president, rediculed.

But because he is something new and novel -a black candidate who is very charismatic and appealing to them - liberals really like Obama.

So even if they are not 100% happy with Hillary, they will realize that she is more electable than Obama, and since they can't elect a black guy realistically in 2008, they will be satisfied with a woman, since that is still setting a new record.

Also, I really believe that liberals are so fed up and appalled with the GOP after 8 years under Bush that they will support ANY Democrat in 2008, just because they don't want another Republican to win.

I think they realize that if they want to win, they have to compromise, and choose a moderate, electable candidate rather than their ideal one.

Is Hillary electable? I don't know. People are very upset with the GOP. But she is certainly more electable than Obama, and even Edwards, I would say.

Vilsack fits the profile of someone who is more electable than Hillary, but he has zero charisma, where as Hillary has a lot.

It will be hard for boring Vilsack to energize the base while droning on about ethanol in his monotone.

Blarg - you might have delayed clarevoyance. She said her vote was a mistake yesterday.

Hillary is a liberal's liberal. She has just been triangulating for general election purposes. She has made a decision that you all will come home to roost if she gets the nomination. It is Clinton-esque shrewdness at its best. Now she may be triangulating a bit back to the left (as comments yesterday suggest) but will no doubt be back to the "vital center" in time for the general election. If and when she gets elected, all bets are off though.

JimD in FL - I am not sure you can be part libertarian. To me that is like being a little bit pregnant. I am also not sure the libertarian platform would include enlargement of marriage rights to include same sex couples. I know it would certainly oppose a constitutional amendment to prohibit it but am not sure about this other circumstance.

"The only way [Clinton] will not be [nominee] is if there is a consensus among the liberal base that she is not electable, and they almost unanimously decide to go with a low profile candidate like Vilsack."

William, from what I've seen, liberals despise Hillary Clinton. She's made a lot of effort to appeal to moderates, but not many overtures towards liberals. She voted in favor of the Iraq War, and hasn't acknowledged that as a mistake.

I don't see liberal Democrats going for Vilsack either. More likely they'll unite behind a candidate like Obama. Or, if there's no liberal candidate who seems to have a chance, they'll vote for a third party or just stay out of it. If Hillary is going to win the primary, she'll do it with support from moderate and conservative Democrats, not the liberals.

Amy - you've described Guliani pretty well.

Hey, at least he's honest and admits his views unlike Romney.

This is just plain silly. Why get all excited about a candidate that has the exact same positions on the same issues as Hillary Clinton? Both are idiots, both are loosers, and neither has a chance in the world of being elected President.

JimD -

So you're saying that Giuliani will tap my phone, but if he won't get preachy if he hears me having an affair.

And that makes him think he can get libertarian votes.

Sounds very creepy and manipulative.

But to be fair I wasn't planning to vote in the Republican primary anyway. So maybe my feeling does not matter on this one.

Giuliani is libertarian as far as his position on the hot-button social issues go - pro-gay rights, pro-choice, pro-extramarital affairs. He is definitely a statist on most other issues.

To the anonymous poster going on about the Department of Peace campaign: yes there are people who believe that sort of drivel but they are a very small minority and it is certainly not a position shared by many - if any - Democrats.

RMill..interesting analysis, though I disagree with some things that you wrote.

Hillary Clinton is from IL, not AR, and the fact that she was the Gov of AR's wife will not help her at all. Arkansans don't consider her a native, and most southerners consider her a carpetbagger who ran off to NY to win an election.

I also disagree that Virginia is in play. Despite the fact that VA recently elected a Democratic governor and Jim Webb (who is VERY conservative for Dem standards, and was an R until 2005, and only won by 8K votes), I still think that VA is a safely red state.

I don't think any other Democrat but Webb could have beaten Allen, and Webb only squeaked by.

VA is still a pretty red state, even if NoVa is blue-ing. Remember, 8 of VA's 11 Congressmen are Republicans.

And Bush easily took VA in 2004.

I strongly doubt that Richardson could take MT, and I would even doubt if he could put states like AZ and NV into play.

Most of Richardson's support comes from Hispanics. Moderate whites out West, and even some in the NE or other places who ordinarily lean Democratic would not vote for Richardson, especially if his opponent is McCain, who is seen as being moderate.

As I have mentioned before, Richardson's overtures with North Korea et al will backfire and he will be painted as someone who cozys up with dictators and invites them to his home.

Also, he is strongly pro-amnesty, and, in my opinion, and the opinion of many others, including a lot of moderates, a shill for Mexico.

Richardson is Mexico's man. Your Dem voters in the Rust Belt and upper midwest, as well as the new Dem voters you have made inroads with in the mountain west will not, I repeat NOT, go for Richardson.

If you had nominated someone other than Kerry in 2004 you may have taken OH. But those swing voters will not go for Richardson.

He will sink any Dem ticket, even though his strong credentials give him the illusion of being a powerful candidate. Certainly, he is well qualified. He was UN ambassador, Sec Energy, and NM's governor.

But he also has a lot of negatives. He is seen by many as corrupt and greedy. His campaign website is even named "America for Richardson" instead of "Richardson for America."

Also he lied about major league baseball, and that will be dredged up.

Finally, his being Hispanic well hurt a LOT more than it will help. Most Hispanics vote Democrat anyway (70% in 2006), so you don't really have much to gain by putting Richardson on the ticket.

Because of the amnesty issue, I expect Hispanics to stay loyal Democratic voters. Richardson being on the ticket might increase Hispanic turnout, but that's about it.

Being Hispanic will be a weakness that should not be underestimated. A lot of white swing voters will be turned off, and that would put states like Michigan (9 of MI's 15 Congresspeople are R's anyway), Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, WA, PA, NH, etc up for grabs.

Also, don't think Terry Nelson and other GOP strategists won't find a way to make hay over the fact that Richardson is married to a blonde white woman, because they will. And you can bet on that.

Richardson is basically a more qualified Obama with a normal name, but that won't be enough to outweigh his negatives.

It would be a mistake to put him on your ticket.

Re: Edwards...if he could not even bring in NC or VA in 2004, when he was a sitting Senator and considered a moderate, do you actually think he could take VA or NC or AR now that he has moved to the left of Hillary and has been out of politics for 2 years?

Come on.

Edwards will not take one southern state. He MAY be able to put WV in play, but I doubt it.

He appeals mostly to the liberal base, not moderates.

Another Al Gore story, except Edwards is perceived as more liberal than Gore was in 2000.

I think you are going to have to accept the fact that Hillary will ALMOST certainly be your nominee.

The only way she will not be is if there is a consensus among the liberal base that she is not electable, and they almost unanimously decide to go with a low profile candidate like Vilsack.

But I feel convinced that she will steamroll any Dem in her way.

The only question is who will be her VP.

I think Warner is probably the leading choice, followed by Bayh and Sweitzer or maybe Bredesen.

I think Bredesen would be able to bring in a couple of Southern states (including possibly TN)

I think Bredesen would be a much stronger VP candidate than Warner. He has served longer as governor, and he is more conservative than Warner, so he would appeal to moderates in the South and Midwest.

Then, during his years as VP, if Hillary won, he could move slightly to the left in order to position himself for a presidential run.

Sorry, I didn't make clear:

The point about broken windows not working is that Giuliani's policies may have had NOTHING to do with the lowered crime rate in New York.

Thus it is foolhardy to assume he is the only one who can keep America safe.

There's also the Freakonomics guy. He's pretty smart. He concludes that the broken windows thing may have sounded good, but it wasn't the real reason why crime dropped in NYC.

Boston Globe article:
The cracks in 'broken windows'
A crime-fighting theory that says stopping major crimes begins with stopping small ones has influenced policing strategies in Boston and elsewhere since the 1980s. But scholars are starting to question whether fixing broken windows really fixes much at all.
[snip]
One widely read challenge comes from "Freakonomics," the best-selling book by University of Chicago economist Steven D. Levitt and journalist Stephen J. Dubner, which presents a controversial theory claiming that the legalization of abortion in the 1970s was the biggest factor in the crime drop of the 1990s. According to this hypothesis, the decline in the birth of unwanted, often poor and fatherless children in the '70s, led to a decline in the number of juvenile delinquents in the '80s and hardened criminals in the '90s. As for broken windows, Levitt and Dubner write, "There is frighteningly little evidence that [Bratton's] strategy was the crime panacea that he and the media deemed it."

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2006/02/19/the_cracks_in_broken_windows/

I have no special admiration for Jimmy Carter. If in recent years he has acquired something of the status of sainthood, it may simply be that by comparison to his successors, almost any person with the most rudimentary air of integrity would seem equally incorruptible.

However, one aspect of his regime that seems not to be well-remembered is exemplified by the role of Zbigniew Brzezinski, his National Security Advisor. Brzezinski was the prime mover behind annunciation of the Carter Doctrine, which committed the U.S. to respond with military force to any perceived external threat to U.S. interests in the Persian Gulf. And it was Brzezinski who began the program of funding and arming Islamic fundamentalism in Afghanistan in order to force military intervention in that country by the U.S.S.R.

In terms of articulated policy, and in terms of implementation there is a great deal more continuity with Carter's predecessors and successors than difference. By any objective measure, he was a hawk.

Now if the Iranian hostage crisis is the event that damns his administration as a failure, it may be useful to think about why that would be. Is it because American citizens lost their lives? They did not. Is it because he supported the Shah? No conservative, neo- or paleo- would have faulted him for that. Is it because he failed to anticipate and forestall the occupation of the Embassy in Teheran? That's a bad one all right. But if failure to prevent that attack is the incompetence that makes his administration a failure, what can you say about an administration that failed to anticipate and forestall an attack on American soil that cost more than 3,000 lives?

Signing off for the holidays.

Don't know if I'll have regular web access so Happy Bi Partisan Holidays to all. Talk to you in 2007. Happy New Year.

Giuliani has NY competition

And you thought the Mets-Yankees rivalry was bad.

Bloomberg, Pataki and Giuliani on the GOP side and Clinton for Dems as possible prez candidates. Giuliani might not be in the top 2 most popoular politicans in the state, let alone the country (although Pataki is a pipe dream).

I think the poster is right that about there being no way Rudy is a libertarian. He is a pro law enforcement, anti-4th amendment type that believes in broad government powers to fight terrorism - NSA program, cameras galore, etc. etc.

His record in New York was one of being very tough on crime and imposing law and order on the city. It worked, but it aint libertarian. I am not saying we shouldn't enforce our laws mind you, I am just saying that the mindset of many of these so called "conservatives" is that the constitution is maleable for the greater good of security.

Politcal Geography

Based on 2000,2004 Presidential elections, the following states are considered safe (more than +7%) Dems or Rep states in a presidental election:

Dem Blue:
CT 7, CA 55, DE 3, DC 3, HI 4, IL 21, ME 4, MD 10, MA 12, NJ 15, NY 31, RI 4, VT 3, WA 11- 183 EV

Rep Red:
AL 9, AZ 10, AR 6, GA 15, ID 4, IN 11, KS 6, KY 8, LA 9, MS 6, MT 3, NE 5, NC 15, ND 3, OK 7, SC 8, SD 3, TN 11, TX 34, UT 5, VA 13, WV 5, WY 3- 199 EV

IN PLAY:
AK 3, CO 9, FL 27, IA 7, MI 17, MN 10, MO 11, NV 5, NH 4, NM 5, OH 20, OR 7, PA 21, WI 10- 156 EV

Taking into consideration the results of the mid term elections, it is possible to argue that certain "safe states" may be coming "into play"

AR 6, MD 10, NJ 15, MT 3, VA 13, WA 11
Dem EV's 36
Rep EV's 22

What do the candidates bring to the table?

Clinton- NY and the entrie NE states are pretty solid Dem already with the exception of NH. Ties to former state AR may be helpful. Her candidacy may make NJ less likely to turn into "play". Best case- Hold 15 EV and add 10 EV.

Edwards- Couldn't deliver NC in 2004 as VP candidate or help with any other southern states. Could help swing AR and VA.
Best case- 34 EV's.

Vilsack- May or may not be able to deliver IA. A midewest presence is important on the ticket and may help with states like MN and WI.

Best case- Hold 21 EV's add 7 EV's

Biden and Dodd- more New Englanders, may secure NH and possibly MD.
Best case- Hold 10 Ev's; Add 4 Ev's

Richardson- Could swing NM blue. The western movement could be solidified with a western candidate, helping bring MT, CO. His hispanic roots could help bring FL, NV.
Best case- 49 EV's

This does not take into account many factors like opponents, running mates, etc.

The question becomes can a candidate hold the base and relate to voters in states where Dems have not generally won or run well.

This "translation" factor, being able to talk to these non-Blue voters becomes a critical electibility issue.

It is clear to me that Bill Richardson has the most to offer from this standpoint. Had Bayh and Warner stayed in the race, they would also be included. To some extent Vilsack but his preceived weakness in his homestate makes this a long shot candidacy at this point.

"nonviolent options were what saved us from annhilation during the Cold War."

Mutually Assured Destruction was the reason we weren't annihilated, not being weak when our enemies are plotting to kill us. Do you really think the jihadists are going to just start talking with us and lay down their arms?

I don't see anything wrong with aspiring to peace, it's just not very likely to happen.

And nonviolent options were what saved us from annhilation during the Cold War. We kept talking to Russia despite the fact that they had thousands of nuclear weapons pointed at us. And eventually, through RESTRAINT, we won.

Is there someone out there who actually believes... that there are dems who think this way?...

If you don't believe there are people who think this way, just check out the FAQ's on the website for the Campaign to establish the U.S. Dept. of Peace ..." While certain applications of brute force force - from prisons to war - are arguably necessary, as a nation we should still be actively involved in a search for their ultimate end.
By giving the interests of peace a full cabinet position, we make it a national priority. Peace becomes a national goal to which we aspire, as we analyze all domestic and foreign policy in light of its dictates. While the President and Congress remain the ultimate arbiters of our laws, with the Department of Peace they will have a higher level of consultation regarding nonviolent options to brute force."

Can you believe this rubbish?

That's the utopian fantasy I was refering to.

/re: "If you think we live in a police state now, wait until he become Commander in Chief..."

Who thinks that?? Only leftwing fanatics and flaming ACLUers who have some sort of utopian fantasy about getting rid of the military ,obtaining "world peace", and rehabilitating all the criminals.'

Is there someone out there who actually believes this limbaugh-type tripe, that there are dems who think this way? What an absurd straw man. I have been lleft-leaning all my life and have NEVER met anyone who suggested 'getting rid' of the military or 'rehabilitating' all the criminals...

What a crock.

' so Newt's un-nominatable just like Guiliani, but we should still listen to him...'

Umm, no, I don't think I'd listen to a guy who's lied through his teeth to every woman he's ever met...

i mean dumping your wife for another woman when she's dying of cancer--that's classy.

'Interestingly enough, neocons supposedly want to make sure the USA is the only superpower, and the want the US to rule the world, but ironically, a lot of neocon policies, like the nuclear agreement with India and trade agreements with China, serve to make those countries more powerful at the expense of the US.'

well, yes, a point some of us have been trying to make for years. a little to complex for the press, apparently. westinghouse has, i understand, a contract to build nuclear reactors for Communist China, you know what i'm sayin'? and i've not heard a peep out of any republican, nor any democrats either for that matter.

does money just trump everything now, including national security? it sure looks like it.

For uncensored news please bookmark:

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

http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn09092006.html

GULIANI AND 911

How They Let the Guilty Parties of 9/11 Slip Off the Hook
The 9/11 Conspiracy Nuts

By ALEXANDER COCKBURN

You trip over one fundamental idiocy of the 9/11 conspiracy nuts -- -- the ones who say Bush and Cheney masterminded the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon -- in the first paragraph of the opening page of the book by one of their high priests, David Ray Griffin, The New Pearl Harbor. "In many respects," Griffin writes, "the strongest evidence provided by critics of the official account involves the events of 9/11 itself... In light of standard procedures for dealing with hijacked airplanes... not one of these planes should have reached its target, let alone all three of them."

The operative word here is "should". One characteristic of the nuts is that they have a devout, albeit preposterous belief in American efficiency, thus many of them start with the racist premise that "Arabs in caves" weren't capable of the mission. They believe that military systems work the way Pentagon press flacks and aerospace salesmen say they should work. They believe that at 8.14 am, when AA flight 11 switched off its radio and transponder, an FAA flight controller should have called the National Military Command center and NORAD. They believe, citing reverently (this is from high priest Griffin) "the US Air Force's own website", that an F-15 could have intercepted AA flight 11 "by 8.24, and certainly no later than 8.30".

They appear to have read no military history, which is too bad because if they did they'd know that minutely planned operations - let alone responses to an unprecedented emergency -- screw up with monotonous regularity, by reason of stupidity, cowardice, venality, weather and all the other whims of providence.

According to the minutely prepared plans of the Strategic Air Command, an impending Soviet attack would have prompted the missile silos in North Dakota to open, and the ICBMs to arc towards Moscow and kindred targets. The tiny number of test launches actually attempted all failed, whereupon SAC gave up testing. Was it badly designed equipment, human incompetence, defense contractor venality or... CONSPIRACY? (In that case, presumably, a Communist conspiracy, as outlined by ancestors of the present nuts, ever intent on identifying those who would stab America in the back.)

Did the British and French forces in 1940 break and flee a Wehrmacht capable of only one lunge, because of rotten leadership, terrible planning, epic cowardice, or ... CONSPIRACY? Did the April 24, 1980 effort to rescue the hostages in the US embassy in Teheran fail because a sandstorm disabled three of the eight helicopters, because the helicopters were poorly made, because of a lousy plan or because of agents of William Casey and the Republican National Committee poured sugar into their gas tanks in yet another CONSPIRACY?

Have the US military's varying attempts to explain why F-15s didn't intercept and shoot down the hijacked planes stemmed from absolutely predictable attempts to cover up the usual screw-ups, or because of CONSPIRACY? Is Mr Cohen in his little store at the end of the block hiking his prices because he wants to make a buck, or because his rent just went up or because the Jews want to take over the world? August Bebel said anti-Semitism is the socialism of the fools. These days the 9/11 conspiracy fever threatens to become the "socialism" of the left, and the passe-partout of many libertarians.

It's awful. My in-box overflows each day with fresh "proofs" of how the WTC buildings were actually demolished, often accompanied by harsh insults identifying me as a "gate-keeper" preventing the truth from getting out. I meet people who start quietly, asking me "what I think about 9/11". What they are actually trying to find out is whether I'm part of the coven. I imagine it was like being a Stoic in the second century A.D. going for a stroll in the Forum and meeting some fellow asking, with seeming casualness, whether it's possible to feed 5,000 people on five loaves of bread and a couple of fish.

Indeed, at my school in the 1950s the vicar used to urge on us Frank Morison's book, Who Moved The Stone? It sought to demonstrate, with exhaustive citation from the Gospels, that since on these accounts no human had moved the stone from in front of Joseph of Arimathea's tomb, it must beyond the shadow of a doubt have been an angel who rolled it aside and let Jesus out, so he could astonish the mourners and then Ascend. Of course Morison didn't admit into his argument the possibility that angels don't exist, or that the gospel writers were making it up.

It's the same pattern with the 9/11 nuts, who proffer what they demurely call "disturbing questions", though they disdain all answers but their own. They seize on coincidences and force them into sequences they deem to be logical and significant. Like mad Inquisitors, they pounce on imagined clues in documents and photos, torturing the data -- as the old joke goes about economists -- till the data confess. Their treatment of eyewitness testimony and forensic evidence is whimsical. Apparent anomalies that seem to nourish their theories are brandished excitedly; testimony that undermines their theories - like witnesses of a large plane hitting the Pentagon -- is contemptuously brushed aside.

Anyone familiar with criminal, particularly death penalty defense - I had such an opportunity for a number of years - will know that there are always anomalies the prosecution cannot account for and that the defense teams can exploit, in hopes of swaying a jury either in the guilt or penalty phase of a trial. Time and again I would see the defense team spend days and weeks, even months, back-checking on a possibly vulnerable link in the evidentiary chain that could be attacked, at least to the all-important level of creating "reasonable doubt" in the mind of a juror. Expert witnesses would be imported at great expense -- unlike states such as Texas, the justice system of California is generous in the provision of money for death penalty defense -- to challenge the prosecution's forensic evidence. Such challenges weren't hard to mount. Contrary to prosecutorial claims, there is far less instrinsic certainty in forensic evaluation than is commonly supposed, as regards fingerprints, landing marks on bullets and so forth.

But minute focus of a death penalty defense team on one such weak link often leads to a distorted view of the whole case. I remember more than one case where, after weeks of interviewing witnesses at one particular crime scene, the defense's investigator had collected enough witness reports to mount a decent attack on this aspect of the prosecution's overall case. At least this is what I thought, hearing the daily bulletins of the investigator. But when, in such instances, the camera pulled back, so to speak, and I saw the prosecution's whole case - chain of evidence, cumulative witness statements, accused's own movements and subsequent statements - it became clear enough to me and, in that case to the juries , that the accused were incontestably guilty. But even then, such cases had a vigorous afterlife, with the defense trying to muster up grounds for an appeal, on the basis of testimony and evidence withheld by the prosecution, faulty rulings by the judge, a prejudiced jury member and so on. A seemingly "cut and dried case" is very rarely beyond challenge, even though in essence it actually may well be just that, "cut and dried".

Anyone who ever looked at the JFK assassination will know that there are endless anomalies and loose ends. Eyewitness testimony - as so often - is conflicting, forensic evidence possibly misconstrued, mishandled or just missing. But in my view, the Warren Commission, as confirmed in almost all essentials by the House Committee on Assassinations in the late 1970s, had it right and Oswald fired the fatal shots from the Schoolbook Depository. The evidentiary chain for his guilt is persuasive, and the cumulative scenarios of the conspiracy nuts entirely unconvincing. But of course - as the years roll by, and even though no death bed confession has ever buttressed those vast, CIA-related scenarios -- the nuts keep on toiling away, their obsessions as unflagging as ever.

Naturally, there are conspiracies. I think there is strong evidence that FDR did have knowledge that a Japanese naval force in the north Pacific was going to launch an attack on Pearl Harbor. Roosevelt thought it would be a relatively mild assault and thought it would be the final green light to get the US into the war.

Of course it's very probable that the FBI or US military intelligence, even the CIA, had penetrated the Al Qaeda team planning the 9/11 attacks; that intelligence reports - some are already known - piled up in various Washington bureaucracies pointing to the impending onslaught and even the manner in which it might be carried out.

The history of intelligence operations is profuse with example of successful intelligence collection, but also fatal slowness to act on the intelligence, along with eagnerness not to compromise the security and future usefulness of the informant, who has to prove his own credentials by even pressing for prompt action by the plotters. Sometime an undercover agent will actually propose an action, either to deflect efforts away from some graver threat, or to put the plotters in a position where they can be caught red-handed. In their penetrations of environmental groups the FBI certainly did this.

Long before the Yom Kippur war, a CIA analyst noted Egyptian orders from a German engineering firm, and deduced from the type and size of equipment thus ordered that Egypt was planning an attack across the Suez canal. He worked out the probable size of the Egyptian force and the likely time window for the attack. His superiors at the CIA sat on the report. When the Egyptian army finally attacked on October 6, 1973 the CIA high command ordered up the long-buried report, dusted it off and sent it over to the White House, marked "current intelligence". Was there a "conspiracy" by the CIA high command to allow Israel to be taken by surprise? I doubt it.

Bureaucratic inertia and caution prevailed, until the moment came for decisive CYA acitvity. The nuts make dizzying "deductive" leaps. There is a one particularly vigorous coven which has established to its own satisfaction that the original NASA moon landing was faked, and never took place. This "conspiracy" would have required the complicity of thousands of people , all of whom have kept their mouths shut. The proponents of the "fake moon landing" plot tend to overlap with the JFK and 9/11 nuts.

One notorious "deductive" leap involves flight 77, which on 9/11 ended up crashing into the Pentagon. There are photos of the impact of the "object" -- i.e., the Boeing 757, flight 77 -- that seem to show the sort of hole a missile might make. Ergo, the nuts assert, it WAS a missile and a 757 didn't hit the Pentagon. As regards the hole, my brother Andrew -- writing a book about Rumsfeld and the DoD during his tenure -- has seen photos taken within 30 minutes of Pentagon impact clearly showing outline of entire plane including wings. This was visible momentarily when the smoke blew away

And if it was a missile, what happened to the 757? Did the conspirators shoot it down somewhere else, or force it down and then kill the passengers? Why plan to demolish the towers with pre-placed explosives if your conspiracy includes control of the two planes that hit them. Why bother with the planes at all. Why blame Osama if your fall guy is Saddam Hussein? Why involve the Israeli "art students".

The nuts simultaneously credit their targets - the Bush-Cheney "conspirators" -- with superhuman ingenuity and grotesque carelessness. In Webster Griffin Tarpley's book "9/11 Synthetic Terror Made in USA" he writes that "in an interview with Parade magazine, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld also referred to the object which hit the Pentagon as a 'missile'. Was this a Freudian slip by the loquacious defense chief?" (And, a nut might add, is it mere coincidence that Webster Griffin Tarpley shares one of his names with David Ray Griffin?

The demolition scenario is classic who-moved-the-stonery. The WTC towers didn't fall down because they were badly built as a consequence of corruption, incompetence, regulatory evasions by the Port Authority, and because they were struck by huge planes loaded with jet fuel. No, they fell because Dick Cheney's agents methodically planted demolition charges in the preceding days. It was a conspiracy of thousands, all of whom -- party to mass murder -- have held their tongues ever since. The "conspiracy" is always open-ended as to the number of conspirators, widening steadily to include all the people involved in the execution and cover-up of the demolition of the Towers and the onsslaujght on the Pentagon, from the teams acquiring the explosives and themissile, inserting the explosives in the relevant floors of three vast buildings, (moving day after day among the unsuspecting office workers), then on 9/11 activating the detonators.

Subsequently the conspiracy includes the disposers of the steel and rubble, the waste recyclers in Staten Island and perhaps even the Chinese who took the salvaged incriminating metal for use in the Three Gorges dam, where it will submerged in water and concretye for ever. Tens of thousands of people, all silent as the tomb to this day.

Of course the buildings didn't suddenly fall at a speed inexplicable in terms of physics unless caused by carefully pre-placed explosives, detonated by the ruthless Bush-Cheney operatives. High grade steel can bend disastrously under extreme heat. People inside who survived the collapse didn't hear a series of explosions. As discussed in Wayne Barrett and Dan Collin's excellent book Grand Illusion, about Rudy Giuliani and 9/11, helicopter pilots radioed warnings nine minutes before the final collapse that the South Tower might well go down and, repeatedly, as much as 25 minutes before the North Tower's fall.

What Barrett and Collins brilliantly show are the actual corrupt conspiracies on Giuliani's watch: the favoritism to Motorola which saddled the firemen with radios that didn't work; the ability of the Port Authority to skimp on fire protection, the mayor's catastrophic failure in the years before 9/11/2001 to organize an effective unified emergency command that would have meant that cops and firemen could have communicated; that many firemen wouldn't have unnecessarily entered the Towers; that people in the Towers wouldn't have been told by 911 emergency operators to stay in place; and that firemen could have heard the helicopter warnings and the final Mayday messages that prompted most of the NYPD men to flee the Towers.

That's the real political world, in which Giuliani and others have never been held accountable. The nuts disdain the real world because, like much of the left and liberal sectors, they have promoted Bush, Cheney and the Neo-Cons to an elevated status as the Arch Demons of American history, instead of being just one more team running the American empire, a team of more than usual stupidity and incompetence (characteristics I personally favor in imperial leaders.) The Conspiracy Nuts have combined to produce a huge distraction, just as Danny Sheehan did with his Complaint, that mesmerized and distracted much of the Nicaraguan Solidarity Movement in the 1980s, and which finally collapsed in a Florida courtroom almost as quickly as the Towers.

* Footnote: I should add that one particular conspiracy nut, seeing that Roosevelt's grandson Ford - a schoolteacher in Los Angeles - was for a while, some years ago, on the board of CounterPunch's parent non-profit, the Institute for the Advancement of Journalistic Clarity - wrote an enormous onslaught on CounterPunch a while ago, "proving" to his own satisfaction that CounterPunch was a pawn of the Democratic Party, the CIA and kindred darker forces. I suppose the fact that CounterPunch attacked the Democratic Party and the CIA on a weekly basis was just one more example of our cunning in deflecting suspicion away from our true sponsors. The fact that from time to time that we also quite regularly attacked FDR - and posited his foreknowledge of Pearl Harbor - should again be taken as evidence of our cunning in deflecting suspicion away from Ford's supervisory roile in our affairs. In fact we'd put Ford on the board in the hopes (vain, as they turned out to be) that he would persuade film stars to give CounterPunch money.

A much shorter, earlier version of the column ran in the print edition of The Nation that went to press last Thursday.

Drindl: "You think they really don't care about issues that are going to affect their whole lives?"

No, that's not what I mean. Of course people CARE about these issues. But when it comes down to it, I think many Americans VOTE with their "gut". That's what makes Colbert's satire of the "straight talking" TV host so devastating.

It's also why many Americans think that Bush's policies equate with winning the war on terror, because they're tough and fierce. If they took the time to really investigate the situation in the Middle East, they wouldn't support the proposed "surge". (Except for those neocon think-tankers, and they got us into that mess in the first place.)

But as you know, reality has a well-known liberal bias.

atlmom, a fair tax would be good, but just won't be a political reality. Simplifying the tax code might be the best to hope for, which I would support.

'Guliani is not libertarian. If you followed his policies during his tenure as NYC's mayor, you will see that he is pretty much a statist.... .... and will not hesitate to violate the constitution or try to limit our freedoms in the name of "fighting terrorism."'

I'm not familiar with the evidence for this. But if it is true, I hope that the evidence is made public. I would certainly be interested in learning about it. Media? Are you out there?

The last thing we need is a statist posing as a libertarian. Talk about wolf in sheep's clothing.

Sure, Giuliani has sleazy morals, but that doesn't guarantee he is a libertarian.

Yes, we all know libertarians are gung-ho about protecting the sleazy, but that does not imply that everyone sleazy is a libertarian.

Alternatively, if William is wrong and Giuliani is a credible libertarian, then the public would surely be interested to learn that, too.

re: "If you think we live in a police state now, wait until he become Commander in Chief..."

Who thinks that?? Only leftwing fanatics and flaming ACLUers who have some sort of utopian fantasy about getting rid of the military ,obtaining "world peace", and rehabilitating all the criminals. Give me a break. We don't know what a real police state IS in this country, and God forbid we ever do, but we have gotten so flabby and weak it's sickening! Giuliani's one asset is his tough-on-crime stance. Other than that, he has no appeal.

Personally, I think many NYers have a love-hate relationship with Giuliani. We hated his bullying ways (he picked on taxi drivers and street cart vendors, for Christ sake!), and under his leadership the police became more violent and trigger happy than under any other mayor before or since. He was widely criticized for his strong arm tactics. However, he did do some good in this city. He really did alot to clean up some of the seedier neighborhoods of Manhattan (Times Sq. being the most obvious example), and I don't think anyone can really do much to fault his leadership and quick decision making after 9/11. However, I certainly would NOT vote for him in a presidential election. He would run roughshod over our constitution in the name of national security, have no doubt about it. If you think we live in a police state now, wait until he become Commander in Chief...

O.k., so Newt's un-nominatable just like Guiliani, but we should still listen to him... he's really smart and has some good ideas for Iraq and ,...hey, anyone who badmouths the U.N. gets some points in my book.

For uncensored news please bookmark:

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

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_1541.shtml

Drug mafia, CIA blamed for sacking of Afghan governor

By Devlin Buckley

In a country flooded with narcotics traffickers and corrupt government officials, one of Afghanistan's few remaining 'clean' governors, Mohammed Daud, has been removed from his position, and many are blaming the drug mafia and the CIA for his abrupt dismissal.

Daud was appointed at the request of the British government in order to oversee Helmand province, the country's largest opium producing region. The former governor of Helmand, Sher Muhammad Akhunzada, whom Daud replaced earlier this year, has been widely implicated in the drug trade.

Contrary to Akhunzada, "British officials regarded Mr Daud as the cleanest governor in Afghanistan and hoped that his extensive experience in development would help to win over Helmand's population," The Times reported.

Last month, however, the British government expressed frustration with the effort, pointing to the fact that Afghan President Hamid Karzai continued to meet with the former governor, Akhunzada. Adding further strain on the situation, Karzai appointed Akhunzada as a senator and made his brother, Amir Muhammad Akhundzada, Daud's deputy.

"The president is undermining his own governor," one British official told The Times. "It doesn't help what we're trying to do."

It would appear U.S. officials, particularly from the Central Intelligence Agency, were influencing Karzai's actions, undercutting the efforts of their British counterparts. Moreover, as The Independent reported, "British sources have blamed pressure from the CIA for President Hamid Karzai's decision to dismiss Mohammed Daud as governor".

"The Americans knew Daud was a main British ally," one official explained to The Independent, "yet they deliberately undermined him and told Karzai to sack him."

The U.S. apparently favors the brother of Daud's predecessor and purported drug lord, Akhunzada.

As The Times reports, "British officials fear that Mr Daud will be replaced by his deputy, Amir Muhammad Akhunzada, the brother of Sher Muhammad Akhunzada. He is thought to have links to the drug trade and has been banned from running in elections because he refuses to disband his personal militia."

"For the moment," as one official told The Times, "before a new governor is named, the governor of Helmand is a drug-dealing warlord who was banned from the elections by the UN for keeping a militia and his connection to narcotics, and with whom the British have said they cannot work. Nice."

Opium from Afghanistan provides more than 90 percent of the world's total supply, funding international drug syndicates with billions of dollars in profits every year.

According to a recent report issued by the United Nations and the World Bank, the U.S.-installed government has established a "complex pyramid of protection and patronage, effectively providing state protection to criminal trafficking activities."

"Around 25 to 30 key traffickers, the majority of them based in southern Afghanistan, control major transactions and transfers, working closely with sponsors in top government and political positions," the report states.

"This year's record harvest of 6,100 tons of opium will generate more than $3 billion in illicit revenue - equivalent to almost half of Afghanistan's GDP," writes Antonio Maria Costa, executive director of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. "Profits for drug traffickers downstream," he notes, "will be almost 20 times that amount."

According to Costa, "High-level collusion enables thousands of tons of chemical precursors, needed to produce heroin, to be trucked into the country. Armed convoys transport raw opium around the country unhindered. Sometimes even army and police vehicles are involved. Guns and bribes ensure that the trucks are waved through checkpoints. Opiates flow freely across borders into Iran, Pakistan, and other Central Asian countries."

"There are many cases where honest prosecutors or police chiefs try to do something about corruption, and they say they receive phone calls from very high officials in Kabul saying to leave the people alone," said Barnett Rubin, an expert on Afghanistan and director of studies and senior fellow at New York University's Center on International Cooperation.

As The Washington Post has plainly summarized, "corruption and alliances formed by Washington and the Afghan government with anti-Taliban tribal chieftains, some of whom are believed to be deeply involved in the trade, [have] undercut the [counter-narcotics] effort."
Devlin Buckley is a freelance writer and journalist residing in Troy, New York. His web site, the American Monitor, may be viewed here and you may contact him via e-mail at PDevlinBuckley@yahoo.com.

to FreeDom:

Or, we could get rid of our oppressive tax system, and go to the fairtax (www.fairtax.org) and then lobbyists wouldn't have much meaning anymore.

Giuliani has a huge ego, which is really all that is fueling this run. I agree with those folks saying he would have been better as governor or mayor. He could have made a positive difference.

But I don't think the social issues should be minimized, and CC did a great diservice doing so. His divorces weren't just regular divorces, as McCain or Kerry's divorces. The way Giuliani treated his ex-wife was cruel. There's a difference that won't sit well with voters.

A final blow, if it comes to this, would be the comparison between Bloomberg and Giuliani. Bloomberg is managing the city far better than Giuliani, without the melodrama. If stories come out of NY talking about this, it would kill Giuliani, both in the primaries and the general.

BTW, who the hell would want Haley Barbour as president? He's an ex-lobbyist. If we elect him, we might as well just declare ourselves a banana republic and hand over all government positions to the lobbyists.

re: "Newt Gingrich certainly fills the ideological niche better than the top 3, but faces the same marital issues as McCain and Giuliani."

Finally..someone mentioned Newt!... a strong conservative who could rally and inspire the base against HRC, who is the strongest candidate on the dem side by far IMO. Don't give up on 2008 william!

I think there's no chance for the Big G so long as the Iraq Quagmire is hanging over his party's heads.

I would definitely love for Giuliani to win the nomination. I am fiscally responsible, socially liberal - and the Repubs are so horribly conservative on social issues, I can't stand them - and the Dems are such idiots it's hard to vote for them. The repubs, unfortunately, while in power, do *not* adhere to what they preach, i.e., less govt/lower taxes. They tax and spend, borrow and spend like everyone else.
What I do like about giuliani is that he has his own views, and will not change them because of what others think - i.e., his liberal social views. There are few leaders out there who don't have 'life' problems (i.e., cheating on your wife, etc).
In any event, there are plenty of people like me who feel disillusioned by BOTH parties, and more and more, we are voting libertarian.
If neither party can get their acts together soon, then there will be more and more libertarians every day - the party is growing and growing, exponentially.

For all the talk about Obama's relative lack of experience in foreign policy how can anyone consider Rudy qualified to be president.

What...He knows where there is good Cuban/ east Asian/Mexican restaurant in Manhattan that plays Irish Session music on weekends?

Absolute New Yawk arrogance.

Ok, the Republican Party needs to define what is the future of their party. And what is the problem with the term NEO CON? Look at Jeanne Kirkpatrick, she was a neocon, which means a Democrat who is more focused on foreign policy and national defense that in being a loyal Democrat. Jeanne came into the Reagan Adm in 1981 with her being selected as the FIRST female UN ambassador (similar to Patrick Moynihan, who himself, used the term NEO CON to define himself).
So big deal about the term? I would rather have people in the Republican party who clearly have more concern about our nation than about being a Democrat.
Consider this, the reason why Jeanne Kirkpatrick dumped the Democrat party was the failed foreign policy of Carter. You all remember that US Citizens were held for over 440 days back in 1979, right?
The strange thing about US history is now Carter is trying to act like some hero. His Administration was a failed one, but the Democrats today think he is a superstar.
So if Rudy is able to win the support of conservatives, fine. If not, what makes you think it is McCain? He is not loyal Republican memeber either. And he has baggage too.
Yes, the person who will the next candidate for president from the GOP is totally up in the air. But guess what?
There is no clear winner for the Democrats either.
Edwards is at 34% in Iowa state polls while Hillary is only 16% and Obama is rising.
Cillizza brings these topics to use for discussion. But for pete's sake, stop the nasty stuff.

lark - The term "neocon" generally does not refer to the Bible Belt conservatives. Neocons are characterized by their very hawkish positions on foreign policy, and their strong support for NAFTA,CAFTA, and such. Neocons are conservative statists, and support laws like the "Patriot Act." They really don't care much about abortion, guns, gay marriage, etc, and just take conservative positions on these issues in order to get enough support to get into office and be able to implement PNAC and other hawkish neocon policies. Neocons care mostly about foreign policy, not social issues.

In fact, the argument could be made that neocons are not true conservatives, or that neocons are to conservatives what Mormons are to Christianity.

Conservatives do not support unnecessary foreign intervention, like Serbia/Bosnia, Iraq, etc.

Bible Belt conservatives are better termed as "social conservatives." They are not neocons.

Now that the neocon agenda has been pretty much thoroughly discredited by Iraq, etc, they will no longer be a dominating force in the GOP.

Interestingly enough, neocons supposedly want to make sure the USA is the only superpower, and the want the US to rule the world, but ironically, a lot of neocon policies, like the nuclear agreement with India and trade agreements with China, serve to make those countries more powerful at the expense of the US.

Irishcurse: Chuck Hagel is even more liberal than John McCain. And in any case, McCain owns the moderate label, and with 10 moderates already in the race, including those with high profiles like Guliani and McCain, there is absolutely no room for a no name moderate like Hagel. Being really liberal for an R, and uninspiring, is not a successful combination for winning the primary. Democrats like Hagel because he is practically a Dem.

DTM: I certainly hope Barbour runs. Remember how he handled the Katrina disaster? He would be an EXCELLENT president. Even Democrats have to admit he handled Katrina extremely well.

Cavalier: You are right that the GOP field will be fractured in 2008. There are NO conservatives in the race. Evangelicals will have problems with Huckabee because he is a big government, tax and spend Republican, is weak on capital punishment, and pro-amnesty.

But they will have even bigger problems with Brownback, who is all of the things I said about Huckabee, PLUS he is Catholic, which will turn evangelicals off.

If McCain, Huckabee, Brownback, Guliani, or even ROmney wins, then expect a big amnesty proposal.

If one of the moderate Republicans above wins, expect him to triangulate with Dems and liberal Republicans, while the conservative minority in Congress struggles to block amnesty and other liberal legislation.

Sometimes I think the best thing that could happen is for the Dems to increase their majority in the senate, keep their majority in the house, and win the presidential election in 2008.

Then they will have to implement a lot of liberal policies, under pressure from their base. When the country sees how liberal a lot of their policies are, the GOP will be able to have its own wave in 2012.

I think we may have to be prepared for a few years out of power if we want to recreate the sentiment of 1994.

And if there is another 94, those idiots in COngress had better not sell us out again.

Reelecting Boehner and Blunt to their leadership posts after such a humiliating defeat clearly shows that a lot of the Republicans in congress are not ready to let go of K street.

I do have serious hopes though, that we may be able to recreate 1994 in 2010 or 2012

I hope for the sake of the Republican party that the voters will reject the notion that someone that is "liberal" on social issues is not worthy of their platform. One of my biggest issues with the party today is that "conservative" is becoming synonymous with "cultural conservative." Republicans can win if this block stays home so the pandering has got to stop. They can win with someone that the soccer moms and suburbanites can support. Is that person Rudy, i don't know, but he/she is out there.

As for executive experience, being mayor of new york is just as significant as being governor of say - arkansas. New York had an operating budget of 53 billion last year and presents complex problems and challenges for its mayor. Arkansas' budget is less than a 10th of this size. If it were a country, New York's economy would be the 17th largest in the world. Prior to being Mayor, I believe Rudy was a prosecutor for some time which means he not only has executive experience but knows the judicial branch of our federal government as well. He is qualified - more qualified than Bush and Clinton were.

As for skeletons - agree that this will be a problem for Rudy. Keep in mind though that although many of you fawn over Obama, he has admitted to heavy marijuna use (most of the contry doesn't care) but also cocaine use (much more serious issue for your average voter). Plus if Hillary is the nominee, is she really going to use the marrigage case against Rudy??

'Can he win the GOP nomination himself? It's just ONE of the "we have no idea," questions on the board this year regarding the Republican field. Two others being 1) Could the GOP nominate a Mormon and 2)Could the GOP nominate someone who was unfaithful to his wife?'

And then there's 'can a woman, or a black man with an unusual name win'?

do not overlook the importance of money, Guiliani is cavorting with big Texas money, ie., his own Houston law firm, the same ilk who made George Bush President. He absolutely has a chance.

It may be redundant to say this, but Giuliani is a selfish politician. If he had run for the Senate or for Governor in NYS this past year, there may have been a good chance that he could have won either office, saving the state GOP from embarrassing political lashing it received. But he didn't...he's a selfish politician, he has a bad track record with NY blacks, and he gave a very divisive speech at the 2004 convention...hardly the uniter this country needs.

I can't imagine any so called "social conservative" supporting a man essentially devoid of family values, who has repeatedly made a mockery of marriage. To look beyond Guiliani's personal baggage would be the height of hypocrisy.

If Giuliani runs (we have over a year for potential candidates to drop out like the Dems have been doing recently) he will have a definitive impact upon the race, i.e. his presence will determine who the GOP nominee is.

Can he win the GOP nomination himself? It's just ONE of the "we have no idea," questions on the board this year regarding the Republican field. Two others being 1) Could the GOP nominate a Mormon and 2)Could the GOP nominate someone who was unfaithful to his wife?

Giuliani's social views are probably not a worse liability than his infidelity, however, McCain also suffers from this deficiency, so it's LESS of a liability against his strongest opponent.

I agree with comments made by the poster who suggested Giuliani's ability to win the nomination would be based upon how fractured the GOP electorate was. McCain, Giuliani, & Romney (the so-called frontrunners) all have serious ideological strikes against them which someone (or someones) is going to benefit from.

Brownback will be the evangelical candidate and probably do quite well in Iowa and by extension, the South. But Brownback is probably TOO conservative for America (an interesting turn of events should the GOP nominate him).

The "enforcement-first," vote on immigration will also be important to someone's candidacy, though it's not yet known who THAT will be. Oddly enough, Brownback is on the LIBERAL side of this issue, putting the race even FURTHER into doubt.

There is no justifiably doctrinaire conservative in the front tier, though Romney will attempt to make that case despite his record in Massachusetts campaigns in the past.

Newt Gingrich certainly fills the ideological niche better than the top 3, but faces the same marital issues as McCain and Giuliani.

The point being is that the current GOP field is weak and fractured. I doubt a consensus candidate will emerge quickly as has always been expected and instead you'll end up with a candidate that major GOP factions will have a problem with. Consequently, at least one 3rd party candidacy will benefit from the GOP melee.

Because of the Bush legacy, 2008 will eventually become the Democrat's campaign to lose. More's the better for Conservatism in the 21st century.

I think a candidate's past record in office is tremendously important. We should have learned at least that much from the disastrous presidency of GW bush. If the media had perhaps paid a llittle more attention to his lackluster performance there...

William,

I don't know who will fill the hole Allen left, but it is still only 2006--there is plenty of time left for someone on your lists to jump in, or be "drafted". And by the way, when I saw Barbour talk about this issue, I thought I saw some wheels turning ... but we shall see.

david,

In response to your question about a major party nominee with no national experience -Wendell Wilkie, the 1940 Republican candidate, was a Wall Street lawyer with no experience in elected office. Lincoln had only served one term in the House of Representatives in the mid-1840's. William Jennings Bryan, Democratic nominee in 1896, 1900 and 1908, also had only one term in the House. Herbert Hoover and William Howard Taft held no prior elected offices, although they both held Cabinet positions.

William--what about Chuck Hagel?? Does he fit your definition of "conservative"? I'd consider myself a fairly moderate dem, but i could see myself supporting him for sure if HRC is the dem nominee...

The republican party isn't really 'conservative' anymore -- it's dominated by neo-cons [who are NOT conservative in any way--and fundamentalist christians, who are not conservatives but theocrats who want their bible to be the law of the land, not the constitution.

So maybe self-identified 'conservatives' need a new party?

Drindl - Image, attitude and style are actually among the most valuable qualities an executive leader can have, bearing in mind that "attitude" includes "attitude toward decision-making."

The American public is demonstrating its collective wisdom when it selects for these qualities. This tendency on the part of American voters is far from pathetic. It is common sense.

It's true that guiliani was a thug while mayor, who had no respect whatsoever for the Constituion. He was so unpopular as mayor that before 9/11 his ratings were pathetic...

The appropriate comparison is to Gov. Nelson Rockefeller, who was would have run stronger in a general election than he did in Republican primaries.

His personal drawback was his divorce and intimations of womanizing (expected of a Kennedy, but unforgivable for a Republican)

venice, Guliani and Obama don't appeal to anyone except the sensation-loving media and people who are out of touch with reality and think either man will win the primary, much less the election.

DTM: Allen's demise DID leave a gaping hole in the GOP field, but I don't think it will be filled.

That's because there are candidates in the race who are NOT real conservatives, but can claim the conservative mantle, so they scare off true conservatives from entering the race. For example, as I have explained before, Huckabee is not a true conservative, but as a pro-life, anti-gay marriage, pro-gun Southern governor, his presence has discouraged Sanford, Barbour, etc from running.

Strong candidates like Sanford and Barbour don't want to damage their political image or waste time and money getting involved in a primary already filled with titans like McCain and Guliani.

THey will either hope they get the VP spot, or wait until 2012.

Who do you see entering the race in 2007 to fill Allen's role?

Sanford, Blunt, Barbour, Rounds, have made no indication they will run, and have hinted against it.

Jeff Sessions is up in 2008, and has also indicated he will not run.

Tom Coburn and James DeMint don't have enough experience yet.

Who else is there?

That should be 'throw' up our hands but maybe we should through up our hands too.

venice, Guliani and Obama don't appeal to anyone except the sensation-loving media and people who are out of touch with reality and think either man will win the primary, much less the election.

DTM: Allen's demise DID leave a gaping hole in the GOP field, but I don't think it will be filled.

That's because there are candidates in the race who are NOT real conservatives, but can claim the conservative mantle, so they scare off true conservatives from entering the race. For example, as I have explained before, Huckabee is not a true conservative, but as a pro-life, anti-gay marriage, pro-gun Southern governor, his presence has discouraged Sanford, Barbour, etc from running.

Strong candidates like Sanford and Barbour don't want to damage their political image or waste time and money getting involved in a primary already filled with titans like McCain and Guliani.

THey will either hope they get the VP spot, or wait until 2012.

Who do you see entering the race in 2007 to fill Allen's role?

Sanford, Blunt, Barbour, Rounds, have made no indication they will run, and have hinted against it.

Jeff Sessions is up in 2008, and has also indicated he will not run.

Tom Coburn and James DeMint don't have enough experience yet.

Who else is there?

Venicemenace - I think your comment, about attitude over policy driving American votes, is absolutely true for Presidential races.

Americans recognize that the person in the Presidential office represents t