The purpose of any good punching-bag is to shut up and take it. Just as it hangs in its leathered silence--pummel after pummel, in abject submission waiting for the next punch, its user throws another hay-maker in preparation for the real opponent. John McCain has the stoic integrity of any good whipping boy; he knows that his destiny is to be nothing more than a convenient place to hurl insults, while he ponders a way to hide his heritage.

Voters will find it hard to forget his "my country right or wrong" attitude when they count the empty seats around the dinner table at Christmas.

As a republican pugilist, the only thing I want for Christmas is someone new to beat on. So far, the choice between McCain and Giuliani makes me feel like taking a dive.

York Van Nixon III
Washington, D.C.

"Wealth is robbery."

Depends on the events that produced it.

For instance, If you invest in beef futures, then introduce e-coli into a local chicken plant, so your beef futures pay off, that's even worse than robbery, it might be murder.

Too often, wealth is only greed, when it should represent so much more, morally and equitably.

So what ever happened tot he term "commonwealth", the concept that the rich man would not be rich if the middle calss can't afford his products or services.

...ignorant HYPOCRITES!

The neocon creed of greed is "wealth at any cost", and that is what keeps us all warring against ourselves,as a nation and a world.

The fact is, wealth IS robbery, whenever competition is restricted or controlled. "Free enterprise" is a thing of the past; the monopolists are in capitalist disguise, and with their political contributions, they stay in control.

"The Internet postings came from people calling themselves "cleanupnj," "usedtobeblue" and "AmadeusNJ." They said they were concerned Democrats, "lifelong liberals," and they were troubled by the United States senator from New Jersey, Robert Menendez...
But the liberal Democratic hosts of BlueJersey.com, the Web log where such comments were posted, smelled something fishy about the postings, and traced them to a computer inside the campaign headquarters of Mr. Menendez's Republican opponent, Thomas H. Kean Jr."

Great post drindl. I have seen that type of language used over and over again even in the face of obviously growing, massive discontent with the R's. Nice to have proof that it's code for "I am a big fat liar."

Nice concise summary of the situation in Iraq, JEP. I agree with you, except when you say "There's no good reason for us to be there [in Iraq] in the first place."

Whether that is true or not depends on what you mean by "we" and "good". The US formally declared the Middle East to be vital to its strategic interests as far back as February of 1943. The Carter Doctrine, and the Reagan Corollary to the Carter Doctrine restated and amplified that principle. As Defense Secretary, Dick Cheney cited FDR's meeting with Ibn Saud at Great Bitter Lake as precedent in US foreign policy for committing US forces to protect "our" interests in the region. So there must be some sense in which "we" consider the region to be a proper venue for military excursions, if they are deemed to be necessary. Why might they be necessary in this instance?

Let's go back to the subject of Saudi Arabia. Except when considered as the price "we" pay for value received, the special relationship to the Saudis -- the pouring of billions of dollars into the coffers of the Saudi royal family -- seems contradictory. Why would "we" support the Wahhabis, the most powerful advocates of Islamic fundamentalism in the world? Why do we continue to do business with Saudis, who are some of the most vitriolic (and dangerous) advocates of the annihilation of Israel? Why, when Saudi (not Afghan) hijackers at the behest of a wealthy Saudi (not Afhani) carried out the attacks on Sept 11, 2001, did "we" proceed to bomb Afghanistan? Not Jidda?

The reason given was that the Taliban sheltered Osama Bin Laden. I guess my question would be -- if the full might of the United States military machine has been unable even to locate Bin Laden, still less to defeat Al Qaeda, why should anyone have expected the Taliban to be able to contain Bin Laden, even if they had wished to? If bombs had to be dropped, would it not have made more sense to bomb Riyadh until the Bin Ladens coughed up Osama instead?

The answer to that question goes back to the value received by the US for its sponsorship of the Saudis.

In the final analysis, I think the answer to why "we" are in Iraq boils down to this: that the US interests in the region are strategic is a given. In order to defend these strategic interests, the US requires military installations in the region. Until the first Gulf War, this requirement was met by maintaining bases in Saudi Arabia. But as a result of increasing radicalization of Islamic religious sentiment, the presence of American bases in Saudi Arabia, land of Mecca, came to be understood as politically impossible. Ironically, this radicalization of Islam which now threatens the ability of the US to defend its interests is the same force sponsored by the US to the tune of tens of billions of dollars in aid -- to the Saudi royals themselves and to the Mujahedeen of Afghanistan, precursors of the Taliban.

Of course there are other factors involved in the growing fever for Islamic purity in the nations of the Middle East, but regardless of its genesis the conundrum is the same. Mecca could not be moved. Where to put the bases?

It should be remembered that the Baathist regime of Sadaam Hussein was secular, not religious. Before the invasion of Iraq, Hussein's name was anathema alike to Shia and Sunni. Locating the bases in Iraq would have resolved the problem of the religious provocation, but of course Hussein's incursion into Kuwait made it impossible to treat him as an ally. Hussein could have been eliminated in the first Gulf War, but at that point it was not yet clear that the US would have to remove the bases from Saudi Arabia. And, of course, there was the rational fear -- nicely borne out by subsequent events -- that the removal of Hussein would result in the cratering of Iraq as a nation, and eliminate it as the necessary counterweight to the power of Iran.

Events continue to unspool, but I wager this: when the dust settles, the US will have the 6 superbases it is already building in Iraq, whether Iraq itself continues to exist, and no matter how many casualties the US sustains in the process. Whether this outcome justifies the cost to "us" depends upon who you count as "us". There are lots of people who will make a lot of money in the process, and there are a far larger number whose lives will be destroyed. The idea that these two populations have a community of interests and share equally in the risks and rewards of the adventure in Iraq is just a tragic illusion for the ones that will pay for generations to come.

"It seems that the so called Liberals thrive on hate. Their hatred for anyone in the current administration must givem ulcers."

Diana,

Spend some time on any of the right-leaning blogs and you'll find plenty of vitriol from Conservatives towards the Democrats who were recently elected.

It's true that Bush and his administration has attracted a lot of hatred. But, they have built their power base on creating an atmosphere of hatred.

Anyone who questions my patriotism because I oppose going to war in Iraq deserves my hatred.

If you're really interested I don't hate Bill Clinton- I voted for him.
But the facts remain- the overwhelming comments regarding Bush and Republicans are filled with visceral hate- not rational criticism.
The comments regarding McCain posted today are an indication of the fear these people have at the thought of a Republican president. If Romney should emerge as the leading Republican candidate you can be sure he'll become a target of their psychotic feelings and comments.

Just skimmin thru.....couldn't help but notice what a consistant horses ass that zouk creature is.

King of Zouk,

You are a worthless piece of trash, or even worse, a Canadian! Stay out of American politics! Your not wanted in America any more than your ideas. Your nation is moving toward communism quickly, and we don't need that in our country.

Colin, rock on. Nothing sweeter than ending a debate by quoting the relevant facts :)

'It seems that the so called Liberals thrive on hate. Their hatred for anyone in the current administration must givem ulcers.'

This is hilarious, baby. Let me see, I bet you just love Bill and Hillary Clinton, right?

You come on here seething and attacking Dems and then say dems thrive on hate. But I guess you don't understand irony.

Thrive on hate? reread your own post.

Bush's strategy for his elections (and he is not alone in this) was about personality. Know him and trust him. A regular guy.

It is always dangerous to make a contest personal. Bill Clinton did it, and was rewarded by having his oponents hate him personally. The same has happened to Bush. This is not a liberal phenomenon. Furthermore, while I am a liberal, I do not hate you or the people in the administration. This administration has been a disaster for our country. That is my rational conclusion, not hate-addled froth. There is no cause for you to insult me, and you should examine your own state of mind before throwing stones.

Lylepink -- Here's a link to a summary of recent polls:

http://www.pollingreport.com/2008.htm#misc

KOZ -- there is one problem with your assertion that "Dems" don't care about the problems you've cited above -- and it's one that conservatives always have a hard time with. The GOP has BEEN IN POWER completely for almost six years and controlled Congress for a decade and a half. Dem majorities haven't even been sworn in yet. In many ways, this illustrates a larger problem for conservatives. The Reagan revolution was predicated on emerging from the wilderness by tearing down existing "liberal" structures. There is very little proactive about a trypical conservative agenda. Accordingly, when the GOP is actually called upon to govern -- and is therefore responsible for trying to solve people's problems -- they utterly fail. And what's worse, because they're in power they can't (effectively at least) blame Democrats, like you're trying to do right now.

Now, to be fair Democrats pre-1994 hadn't done a bang up job of governing either - which I readily admit. There was a real reason that 1994 happened, and the Democratic party's lethargy and corruption was a big part of it. But amazingly the GOP only took 12 years to reach and then exceed the same level of sleaze. Congratulations on that -- it truly is impressive.

Now, would you like to explain to me all the fantastic "solutions" that GWB and the GOP controlled congress came up with for the problems our nation faces? Because I am ALL ears.

'No name, I have not found any actual content that you have ever offered on this site. Instead you make feeble attempts at argument and rely on insults only. Have you ever met a fact?'

Back to you zoukie. All you offer is specious, vapid opinions, BA statistics, R taking points and partisan insults. You are a waste of space.

It seems that the so called Liberals thrive on hate. Their hatred for anyone in the current administration must givem ulcers.
Now that McCain seems like he will be elected President in '08 they've started spewing their venom on him.
The possibility of any Republican being President drives them nuts.
Maybe they'd be less bitter if the candidate who really represents their views- Dennis Kusinich- were elected.

It seems that the so called Liberals thrive on hate. Their hatred for anyone in the current administration must givem ulcers.
Now that McCain seems like he will be elected President in '08 they've started spewing their venom on him.
The possibility of any Republican being President drives them nuts.
Maybe they'd be less bitter if the candidate who really represents their views- Dennis Kusinich- were elected.

It seems that the so called Liberals thrive on hate. Their hatred for anyone in the current administration must givem ulcers.
Now that McCain seems like he will be elected President in '08 they've started spewing their venom on him.
The possibility of any Republican being President drives them nuts.
Maybe they'd be less bitter if the candidate who really represents their views- Dennis Kusinich- were elected.

There was a big section in the article about an obstacle course where cars are tested for accident avoidance. The tested SUV did much worse than the sports car, because the sports car handled better. Specifically, there was about a 25-foot difference in stopping distance between the two. You don't think being able to stop 25 feet sooner would make it easier to avoid accidents?

Rightfully so, McCain should be the punching bag, but from all sides. He is touted as the reform candidate, yet he was one of the Keating Five, right in the middle of the Savings and Loan scandal. But for some reason, the news media has forgotten all about that--but not those of us who were impacted by the collapse. McCain may be surprised that the past can come back to haunt him.

Narf, you dance around without demonstrating any response and without offering any substantiation.

We have been spending more and more on schools for decades with sinking results. what would make you think it is a lack of money given this trend? Do you have any evidence whatsoever that more money is the answer?

It is most certainly never better to kill fewer enemies who are intent on killing you. Saying what you said is indicitive of why the Dems can't be trusted to go to war and win.

And responding that your kid must buy his own car is simply not an answer to the question posed and misses the point entirely. But yes I do like candy.

No I would not send my kid to the government schools but I also don't say they are fine. I also don't think the SS retirement program is fine. If you think they are fine and avoid them anyway, there is something going on you should explain. why doesn't congress participate in the Social security system?

"there is a lot of evidence that small cars get into fewer accidents, which balances it out."

Show me where you found this? It is not in the article that was cited in any form. Are you making stuff up now to suit your argument? Back to the usual Dem MO I see. the facts don't support my position so I'll just make some up. then I'll take a poll to see if I can get over half to agree. then I'll publish the poll as if that proves anything.

it continues:

"so in that wise sense you Libs have are you really telling me that when your kids get to be driving age, you are going to buy them a small fast car with nice handling instead of a bulky slow beast?"

-don't know what's up in Zouk, but my kid is going to have to buy his own car if he wants one. And if he buys a bulky slow beast, he will never be able to afford to fill the tank.

"this is assuming that you value all other human beings the same as your own kids. Is that so? and you think we want you running the Army with those ideals?"

- so as long as your kid isn't the one killed, putting others' children at greater risk is OK? and in re: your last question, yes, I think it would be a horrible idea to apply the same standards to military and civilian vehicles. of course you want your kids' cars to be safe, and of course you care less about the safety of enemy combatants. The former, however, does not need the same "bulkiness" to be safe as does the latter, because no one is shooting at the former. (not usually)

"As in better to kill fewer people total instead of fewer of ours."

- yes, it's better to kill fewer people. Even better to not begin killing them in the first place when there exists no rational justification for doing so - for example, no sale of nukes, no relationship with Al Qaeda, no hidden weapons program, and no subsequent blossoming of democracy in the Middle East.

"reflect on the idea that Bill clinton sent his kid to Sidwell Friends instead of the public school. No sense making a test case or a test statistic out of your own kid."

-is it Clinton's fault that public education has been severely underfunded in this country? would you want YOUR children in the average inner city school?

my zouky friend, i don't get you. Your defenses of the indefensible are always logically suspect, which is compounded by your flat refusal to acknowledge what is staring you in the face.
______ ______ ______

You "guess" its still worse being killed? What evidence could we present that would convince you? I guess its better to kill the enemy than be killed. Maybe under certain circumstances, like if I can use it to hurt the Gops.

"Think about the difference in stopping distance between a 5000-pound SUV and a 2500-pound sedan."

And if I double the size of the brake pads, what do you think happens then? Or does your truck have those little bitty ferren brakes?

and anyone who would sacrifice their own kids on the alter of liberalism is beyond my ability to reason with. even that slick willie didn't send his kid to public school in DC, which by all accounts from the Libs needs no changes. Hmmm somewhat conflicting but coming from a Dem, understandable.

That's why it's better not to be a frontrunner at this point -- so you can sit back a take pot shots at the leading candidates, without fear of retaliation.

http://commenterry.blog.com

I'm not sure what any of this has to do with John McCain, but I wanted to note that I actually know someone who killed someone else in a car accident, and it was devastating for them. I guess it is probably still worse being killed, but personally I would not completely ignore the second column in that chart.

D or R, makes no difference to me. A corrupt bastard is out of politics and that is good for everyone. Majority status breeds corruption. New York and Chicago are full of corrupt Ds. Root them all out, I say! More authority to the independent oversight commitees and more hard-nosed local investigative reporters are what we need. People say it mostly in regards to gun control and immigration, but it applies everywhere - "Enforce the laws we have!"

I would trust it more if the majority of climate scientists concurred. but they don't. I wonder what hairdressers think. you may want to cite them in your polling numbers. they operate hot hair dryers all day and should have some insight. funny how the UN lowered their global data by 25% this year. how did they arrive at that number? Is this a short term or long term trend. In four years we will be back to global cooling at this rate. did they take into account solar flare activity? Not part of the model? Maybe to complex? do any of you geniuses know anything about solar flares and thier effect on earth's atmoshpere? and when you model this activity, what predictions can you make? Have I left you all behind? what about all those 'scientists' you claim. I wonder what a biologist at the FDA knows about weather modeling? no matter, it is a Dem argument and is based on specious reasoning as usual. Just like your gun data, your Army data, your car data, etc. I got an idea, let's ask the head climatologist at the MIT lab. that's a good school for science isn't it? Oh wait, he isn't towing the liberal line on this one. Let's dig up some dirt to discredit him somehow.

I know, let's get jimmy carter to write a fictional book about it, he's good at fiction. I wonder what Al sharpton and Jesse Jackson think. surely they know everything.

Yes, a small fast car with good handling is safer all around than a big bulky SUV. It's also cheaper to buy and operate, and a lot easier to drive and park. So that's what I'd prefer my child drove. What's so hard to believe about that?

Also, since you still haven't gotten this, I'll repeat it again for you: Nobody says that a big car is safer than a small car in an accident. However, there is a lot of evidence that small cars get into fewer accidents, which balances it out. Think about the difference in stopping distance between a 5000-pound SUV and a 2500-pound sedan. Feel free to use that F=ma equation you brought up.

State Comptroller Alan G. Hevesi -- you forgot the (D) after his name.

another in the long line of corrupt Dem pols. I see one almost every day. It must be some sort of inbred "culture" or something.

so zouky doesn't trust the overwhelming consensus of the global scientific community that carbon emissions are degrading our environment. Something tells me he would understand and trust it better if it were encapsulated in a slogan, such as "When Bambi stands up, Archer Daniels Midland will stand down" - or maybe, "Halliburton: Because You're Hurtin' for Certain."

so in that wise sense you Libs have are you really telling me that when your kids get to be driving age, you are going to buy them a small fast car with nice handling instead of a bulky slow beast? this is assuming that you value all other human beings the same as your own kids. Is that so? and you think we want you running the Army with those ideals? As in better to kill fewer people total instead of fewer of ours.

reflect on the idea that Bill clinton sent his kid to Sidwell Friends instead of the public school. No sense making a test case or a test statistic out of your own kid. so that's it huh, as long as we are talking in generalities, we can be as liberal as Ghandi, but when it hits home, we reflexively go conservative. Interesting.
conclusion, if you think too much about nonsense you will fall into a liberal state of mind. Only when reality hits will you straigten up and fly RIGHT.

"See, Adam?"

Been there. He goes off to the echo chamber overnight and comes back with his mind wiped. I think his reasons for posting here are malicious. I have my theories, but they include the idea that he enjoys attention, so I won't elaborate. I have read this thread since the first day. He has his method all worked out.

I will admit that if we all walked it would reduce car accidents. Is that what you were asking? did you miss the nuance of the argument. I thought you Dems were all about nuance? I will agree to walk everywhere right after everyone else. See how that works? I will agree to withdraw my Army right after all the bad guys are dead.

NOW AVAILABLE TO LAST-MINUTE SHOPPERS -
Poke Him, And He Makes Noises!

"the point here is when you purchase a car are you purchasing it to save yourself or your fellow man?"

-i think most of us purchase a car to get from point A to point B without killing anyone along the way. (Even people you don't know!)

"Perhaps you would be interested in a safer handgun."

-You will find it in Aisle Three, next to the Low-fat Chocolate DDT.

"If only everyone had theirs taken away, we would all be safer."

-can't argue with that.

"the only problem is there is going to be that one troglydyte out there who won't open his cold dead hands."

- a couple things:

what is a troglodyte? a Republican?

even if so, if you wait for a dead troglodyte to open his hands, you'll be waiting for a long time. Zouky, I don't know how to tell you this, but Troggie won't ever be able to play Army with you again. No, don't cry.

"But all this makes it very clear what you libs think about Iraq now. If only they were nice we wouldn't need an army. If the entire world disarms, it would be a safer place."

-and you came to this conclusion from a discussion on the relative safety of a pickup and a VW - how?

"but then there is that pesky inconvenient truth about our enemy. they are not planning on disarming, or giving up their guns or drivnig small cars to save us from accidents. Greedy bastards."

-well, duh. don't drive a small car in Iraq, and don't manufacture a phony war unless you are willing to accept unexpected consequences, such as people shooting at you.

I did a large project once for the highway admin and fatality rates were the main concern for them. they didn't know how to go about gathering and analyzing them. there are just too many confounding variables. Are Jetta drivers mostly in the city where speeds are lower? Are Jettas mostly bought by little old ladies? Are pickups consumed by crazy drunk rednecks? trying to extrapolate the result you wish from this data is a fool's errand. what kind of science would support that smaller cars are beneficial in accidents with large cars? Are the laws of Physics different in your state than everywhere else. Does your Jetta have some magical properties that alleviate it from obescience to the most basic F=ma formulation? do you eat magic grits?

Until you libs start having honest discussions about mutually agreed upon facts, you will never make any headway into thinking America's views. finding a bunch of dingbat University 'scientists" who proclaim fealty to global warming in hopes of favorable grant treatment, doesn't make it so. In fact most climatologists (the ones who know about weather and modeling) don't subscribe to Al gore's dumb cheerleading. but omitting the word climatology from the moniker scientist suits your false arguments. Just as in the small car case where you bend over backward to prove SUVs are evil. and guns are evil and the army is evil. but killing babies is good. see how you Dems reason? I don't.

So just to recap: You admit that driving a small car is safer overall than driving a truck or big SUV. Right? You must admit it, because you're no longer arguing the point; you've moved on to strawman arguments about Iraq and gun control.

See, Adam? Even Zouk can be convinced of the truth. He won't admit that he's changed his mind, and he'll insult you constantly, but in the end talking to him isn't a total waste of time. It's a Christmas miracle!

"State Comptroller Alan G. Hevesi is planning to resign and plead guilty to a felony to settle a criminal inquiry into his use of state workers as chauffeurs and personal aides for his wife"

Another crooked politician gone. You know he is a sleaze bag if he plead guilty to a felony to avoid further investigation. With Spitzer comming in as NY Governor, I hope that these weasles can be run out of the place. Good riddance. Fighting corruption should be one of top priorities. Besides the criminal aspects - corruption is a big part of the errosion of public confidence in government.

and another thing - re: gun violence. I would, as a liberal, repectfully ask you to consider the statistical source for this. It is a nutty gun control group. Last year there were slightly fewer than 1,000 accidental deaths due to guns. During the same period and using the exact same statistical methodology, there 13,000 deaths due to hanging Christmas orniments on houses, 75,000 heart attacks due to shovelling snow, and more than 100,00 heart attacks (and more than 10,000 deaths) due to raking leaves! So, to be really safe, we ought to ban yard work and Christmas.

So if we all drove bicycles it would be safer. But we don't. there are plenty out there who drive large cars. the point here is when you purchase a car are you purchasing it to save yourself or your fellow man? Perhaps you would be interested in a safer handgun. If only everyone had theirs taken away, we would all be safer. the only problem is there is going to be that one troglydyte out there who won't open his cold dead hands.

But all this makes it very clear what you libs think about Iraq now. If only they were nice we wouldn't need an army. If the entire world disarms, it would be a safer place. Indeed. but then there is that pesky inconvenient truth about our enemy. they are not planning on disarming, or giving up their guns or drivnig small cars to save us from accidents. Greedy bastards.

moreover, a handgun is dangerous to anyone in range, whether or not he / she is a b-u-r-g-l-A-r. Statistics show that the majority of gun homicides are not attractive young white women, walking home from their first job in finance down a darkened and rainy street in a neighborhood populated by - gasp! - those ON WELFARE - when they are surprised by a handicapped unemployed gay black Democrat and are threatened with their lives unless they give to Greenpeace, which they are forced to do because they are unarmed... rather, most gun homicides take place with legally purchased weapons and involve people who know or are even related to one another.

what kind of a country would you like to see, anyway? I gotta ask.

That's true. When a Jetta hits an F-Series, if the Jetta driver is killed, it counts against the F-Series. But it also counts against the Jetta! Yes, the F-Series numbers would be lower if all cars on the road were big SUVs. But the Jetta numbers would be higher if all cars on the road were compacts. So it goes both ways.

Besides, that's part of the point of the study. If an SUV always destroys a smaller car in an accident, that means SUVs are unsafe to have on the road.

But if that really worries you, just look at the first column and ignore the second. You still see that a driver of a Jetta is less than half as likely to die in a crash as the driver of an F-Series (47 vs 110). The trend is less distinct that way, but it still exists.

Zouk, "safer" means that "the end result is that fewer people are hurt," i.e. safer both for the car that hits and the car that IS hit. By your estimation, the Hummer would be the safest car on the road, unless the other driver has an IED.

Ford F-Series
pickup 110 128 238
Pontiac Sunfire
subcompact 158 44 202

According to this measure the Pontiac sunfire is safer than the ford truck but if you look closely you see that the Ford kills it driver 110 times and kills the other guy 128 times. You are better off than the car you hit. the pontiac kills its driver 158 times but only harms the other car 44 times. you aren't hurting anyone but yourself.

But somehow, this makes the Ford more dangerous than the Pontiac. Yes the ford is more dangerous to the Pntiac driver when they are on the receiving end. Much like a personal handgun can be very dangerous to the burgler.

this from the same thinkers that believe a retirement rate of return of 1% is a great deal from the government.

"Am I the only one who is bothered by the way the pundits continually talk about Edwards's or Obama's lack of foreign policy experience."

Neither of our last two presidents had any foreign policy experience. Nor did Reagan for that matter. We like to pick Governors over Senators. I think that means we are usually going to get stuck with inexperienced presidents.

Your right, if we make this next election about foreign policy experience, Richardson is the man. I look forward to learning more about him.

"Zouk is crazy."

not clinically. He has at best a low-grade need for attention, and seeing his thoughts in print is reassuring to him. Also, beginning a list - which includes the names of two of history's worst villains and two from the JV - with a mention of his OWN name could represent a desperate attempt to hitch his wagon to their fallen star(s). perhaps it makes him feel important to imagine readers of this blog reading the first line as they shake their heads, chuckling fondly, and think, "oh, that Zouk. When they made him they broke the mold."

"Bush is Hitler."

-Hitler was smarter, and a genocidal madman. Almost anyone in the world born in the last sixty years knows that. Bush is probably more aptly compared to Mussolini.

"Rummy is Trotsky."

-Trotsky was smarter, and not even close to being as arrogant as is Rumsfeld. That coupled with modern weaponry has allowed Don to do far more damage in six years than did Trotsky in a longer period of time, albeit largely spent in exile.

"Repubs are evil."

-no, that's your team that does that with the party names. "Democrats" refer to you all as "Republicans." and no, you're not all evil. Just misguided.

"Christians are killers."

-reverse the equation, and i will certainly agree. (some) killers are indeed Christians. Remember the Crusades? Having said that, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc. are all potential killers too, even atheists. If you add in easy access to firearms - as in the U.S. - killing is going to happen. More to the point, as nations in which Christianity is the dominant faith have long controlled international matters politically and economically, if there ARE examples of international aggression they are statistically likely to have been committed by Christians. unless you really believe that Christians are somehow different... in which case i wonder if I can interest you in an African fortune which has just been discovered, and can be yours for a small fee of $10,000.00

"Wealth is robbery."

- no, or rather yes, it could be. It could also be good luck or inheritance. i would however agree that wealth does not always if ever accrue to those who through word or action have created it - more often to those who have a parasitic relationship to the creator.

"The numbers are expressed in fatalities per million cars, both for drivers of particular models and for the drivers of the cars they hit. (For example, in the first case, for every million Toyota Avalons on the road, forty Avalon drivers die in car accidents every year, and twenty people die in accidents involving Toyota Avalons."

OK, there is wrinkle in the number, but I will explain my NEW problem with the statistic. It includes the car you hit. So if a big ford truck squashes a yugo, it counts against the ford. so all above average cars will be faulted for an encounter with a smaller car which it destroys.

I have explained repeatedly how you misunderstood the math, and I will do it again. I'll explain this again: For every million people driving a Ford F-Series, 238 people die in a car accident. For every million people driving a Jetta, 70 people die in a car accident. Jettas are the safer car. If everyone drove Jettas, there would be fewer accidents, and everyone would be safer. How can you look at the numbers and deny that?

It doesn't matter how many of these cars are on the road, as long as it's a statistically significant number. That's why the study didn't include Lamborghinis or high-end Porsches; they aren't driven by enough people to get good crash numbers. But Jettas and F-Series are.

That's what's wrong with your example using 1 of one car and 10 of another; the real numbers are aggregated over the millions of drivers in the country. If there are 2 Fords and one crashes, that could be a fluke. But if there are 20 million Fords and 10 million crash, that's the same crash rate, but it's a lot more statistically significant.

For uncensored news please bookmark:

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

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_1548.shtml

The Democratic majority and Social Security: Watch what the party says and does

By Seth Sandronsky

Democrat Nancy Pelosi is set to be the first female speaker of the House of Representatives in U.S. history. Among other domestic policies of the new Democratic majority under her lead, she has vowed to "preserve" Social Security. The popular federal program pays benefits to nearly one of every six Americans.

The Democratic majority is arriving in the wake of President George W. Bush's failed attempt last year to change Social Security with private savings accounts for younger workers. He claimed that his plan would keep the program solvent for their future. One of the underreported stories of 2005 was the U.S. public's successful opposition to Bush's plan.

Against this backdrop, the 2004 Social Security Trustees Report projects the year 2042 as the depletion date of the Social Security trust fund. By design of the 1983 Greenspan Commission, the trust fund is running a surplus of Social Security payroll taxes from employees, employers and the self-employed. Even if the trust fund is depleted in 2042, Social Security's tax revenues alone will fund 75 percent of the benefits due to recipients, writes Doug Orr, a professor of economics at Eastern Washington University, in the summer 2006 Review of Radical Political Economics.

And what does the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office's forecast for Social Security? The CBO projects that Social Security is fully funded to pay disability, retirement and survivor benefits for the next 40 years. This is with no funding changes to the popular program.

Meanwhile, the securities and investment industry contributed a total of $48,276,563 to federal candidates and parties in the 2006 election cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Democrats got $24,878,830 of the total versus the GOP's $22,538,828. Firms such as Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and Merrill Lynch lead the way with these bipartisan campaign contributions.

The securities and investment industry has been leading the charge to privatize Social Security, speaking through the American Enterprise Institute, Cato Institute and Heritage Foundation. Why? For starters, there are hefty fees to collect for setting up and overseeing millions of private savings accounts.

Representative Pelosi promised to "guarantee a dignified retirement by preserving Social Security" on December 14. How the Pelosi-led party plans to do that is the political question.

Will the Democratic majority be able to stand up for the American public against the securities and investment industry? Only if Main Street, USA, thinks and acts on what the Democrats say and do concerning the preservation of Social Security. As is, the program is solvent for the long-term.
Seth Sandronsky is a member of Sacramento Area Peace Action and a co-editor of Because People Matter, Sacramento's progressive paper. He can be reached at: bpmnews@nicetechnology.com.

I wouldn't say I misunderstood the math. when math smacks against reality, like when small cars are safer, it is best to look into it. I clearly defined the metric they used and the denominator is clearly suspect. you may challenge my opinions to your hearts content and we may never resolve the differences, but math, unlike Dems, doesn't lie. would you care to explain how I misunderstood the math or would you rather crawl back and avoid a losing argument?

Adam, why would you ignore the opposition if you have such insurmountable facts on your side. I suppose the real reason is you don't wish to confront failing schools, bankrupt retirement, losing wars, cheating pols, etc. care to take on one of those issues from the lib point of view? First you better go steal an argument somewhere.

You actually got through a few sentences without insulting anyone. It's a start.

But you don't understand the numbers. The statistics are fatalities per million cars on the road. If there are 4 times as many Fords as Jettas, then the Ford numbers are divided by 4 to allow a direct comparison.

The F-series numbers are more than three times the Jetta numbers, per million cars. For each million F-series on the road, 238 people die in accidents. For each million Jettas, 70 people die in accidents. Therefore, Jettas are safer.

And remember, we aren't just talking about what kind of car is safest in an accident. I agree that I'd rather be in a F-Series than a Jetta if I'm going to drive into a brick wall. But Jetta drivers are more easily able to avoid accidents, which is why small cars are safer.

That should have been 1/4 as safe. It is strictly a function of the number of cars produced and the fatality rate never enters in, it cancels out. so if I produce a single Delorean which I never drive, I have either a 100% rate or a 0% rate. If I produce 2 Ford trucks and get killed in one, I get a 50% rate. If I produce 10 jettas and get killed in 1 I get a 10% rate. I need to severly crash half the jettas to acheive the Ford rate. now this may have something to say about the relative driving ability of the people who drive thses types of cars, but it most certainly doesn't tell us much about the relative safety of the car itself. But what would you expect from this type of publication. the writing in one section is so drippingly sweet, the author should pay damages.

"That's a contradiction, because the people who buy these S.U.V.s know at the cortex level that if you are high there is more chance of a rollover. But at the reptilian level they think that if I am bigger and taller I'm safer. You feel secure because you are higher and dominate and look down. That you can look down is psychologically a very powerful notion. And what was the key element of safety when you were a child? It was that your mother fed you, and there was warm liquid. That's why cupholders are absolutely crucial for safety. If there is a car that has no cupholder, it is not safe."

Who writes this crap and who reads it?

Blarg, my advice is to ignore zouk. Yes, he(or she) totally misunderstood the math, but setting him straight doesn't ever do any good. He comes here for his own reasons, but what he does is plain and consistent. just my advice.

Blarg, good link, thanks

"Zouk is crazy.
Bush is Hitler.
Rummy is Trotsky.
Repubs are evil.
Christians are killers.
Wealth is robbery."

- Zouk

"The numbers are expressed in fatalities per million cars"

something wrong with the study you cite. this fatality rate is a function of how many cars are sold, not how many get in accidents. the ford pick-up truck is the biggest seller in the world. the VW perhaps not so much. so if I sell four times as many fords as VWs and I die half the time in a ford and half the time in a VW, your study would indicate that the ford is half as safe. a very silly way to view something. I don't think it takes much common sense for someone to think that a larger vehicle is safer in an accident, despite what your new Yorker article says. this very dishonest attempt at mathematics is laughable and only a true lib trying to find a way to indicate that SUVs are bad would subscribe to this argument.

I don't even know what you're arguing about now. Do you really see everything as a black/white liberal/conservative issue?

If you have a problem with the numbers in the article, explain that. Tell me the flaws in the methodology, or the mistaken assumptions the researchers made.

If you can't do that, then you have no case. You're just ignoring evidence that disagrees with your own preconceived beliefs. That seems like the sort of thing you like to accuse liberals of doing. And you're better than that, right?

Zouky, Zouky, denier of reality. Let's take a closer look:

"... corrupt politicians interested in lining their own pockets and subjecting the rest of the population to the legacy of bureacracy and mismanagement."

-if you aren't referring to the Republican Party - specifically the "compassionate conservative" wing thereof - you haven't been watching the same news I have for the past six years.

"then you have the audacity to try to proclaim that Repubs are like this and you are not."

-first of all, who is "you"? No Democrat I know refuses to acknowledge transgressions when he or she sees one. thing is, right now Democrats and even some Republicans keep seeing transgression after transgression. You can only put up with that for so long before speaking up. Oh, the audacity...

"you must inhabit the same self-seving delusional world as John Kerry, the statesman and war hero - haha"

-Actually, Kerry is both. note that i don't say that he's necessarily a good politician, but he is a statesman by virtue of having been elected a US Senator and having a seat on the Foreign Relations (or Armed Services, or something) Committee. And despite the Swifties, he actually is a war hero too, much as it may pain you to accept it. eyewitness evidence = get over it. You must be thinking of your candidates, one of whom valiantly - if part-time - defended the clear blue skies of Austin, TX from a nonexistent Viet Cong air force, and the other of whom "had other priorities in the Sixties than military service."

I support all Libs who want to drive puny cars. Just like abortions, over time, this will extinguish the liberal point of view. Only hard-core conservatives with 20 children and large Suburbans will be left to vote. Unless the steak and cigars offs them. Never fear, this will soon be proven to be health food by the same writer as your car study.

"a computer inside the campaign headquarters of Mr. Menendez's Republican opponent, Thomas H. Kean Jr."

Nice get!

I don't like this anonymous crap. If you have an opinion worth writing down then sign your name to it. If you are prohibited in some way from indicating who you are, then the first thing you become is a liar. Once you are not honest about your identity, why be honest at all.

How is the relative safety of large and small cars a political viewpoint? I've never heard politicians argue about that.

Anyway, small cars are safer. It's true that you're safer in a big SUV or truck during a crash. But big vehicles are more likely to get into an accident, because they're less maneuverable and harder to stop due to their higher weight. You're much safer driving a Jetta than a pickup. Here's an article:

http://gladwell.com/2004/2004_01_12_a_suv.html

lies -so the public schools are just fine according to you. The social security system (trust fund, te he) is viable and splendid? running for cover in Iraq will win the war? cheating on your wife is to be admired? shoplifting docs is cool?

which lie were you referring to - the one clinton told the nation, the one that berger foisted, the policies of the left? there are so many liberal lies how do you keep them straight. you can't even figure out what the word "is" means.

I really don't ever expect any sort of reasonable response from you wacky libs. I can't conceive of one myself without abandoning everything that you value. so just so you can remain comfortable at home while we win the war, better just stick with the insults and empty slurs.

Here are a few in case you run out:
Zouk is crazy
Bush is Hitler
Rummy is Trotsky
Repubs are evil
Christians are killers
Wealth is robbery

Wait these have all been used already. I will work on some fresh ones.

"Am I the only one who is bothered by the way the pundits continually talk about Edwards's or Obama's lack of foreign policy experience, while Guiliani's lack of foreign policy experience is never mentioned? Unlike Guiliani, at least Edwards and Obama have served in a national office."

I, too, am bothered by this favorite pundit talking point, especially as the pundits ignore the one candidate with real foreign policy experience (former UN Ambassador, now New Mexico governor Richardson) and repeatedly cite McCain's experience. Does being a prisoner of war really give you loads of military or foreign policy experience?

Richardson is the real deal, and it pains me to see him ignored while the phony poseur McCain is media darling. And Hilary would be no where except for marrying Bill. Or perhaps she would be General Counsel to Wal-Mart.

Chris,

The criticism of you in this thread is dead on. The 'punches' that you mention at the top are not equivalent and you strongly imply that they are. Your argument that single digit candidates can score some points by criticizing frontrunners is valid. Your insight into why McCain engaged only Hilary is interesting. Your apparent view that all criticism is equal in politics is abhorrent. That leaves no room for meaningful disagreement. Punditry at its worst.

I think drindl is onto something. All Republican Party activities (including GOP"lubber" and Zouk) are dirtbags that automotically decend to dirty tricks, lies, and deceit. This, of course, is the "christian" infuence on these dirtbags.

It's been a while since I've been here, and Zouk has fallen off the deep end since the election I see.

No name, I have not found any actual content that you have ever offered on this site. Instead you make mocking feeble attempts at humor and rely on insults only. Have you ever met a fact?
Some of us on this site (not you) actually enjoy offering views and opinions supported by news and facts. Without these foundations, this whole endeavor is simply palp.

good is bad, up is down, lies are truth, war is peace

I have no idea what this refers to but can consider the Lib view that failing schools are OK (Maybe Teddy can now take those SPanish exams for the public school kids), that taxes are good and stimulate the economy, that a bankrupt retirement system is something to fight for, that surrendering to your enemy wins wars, that men and women are identical in every way, that killing the unborn is a good choice to make, that limiting voters speech is good, that remaining on foreign oil so we don't drill here is wise, that tiny cars are safe, that hiding 90K in your freezer has some explanation, that muscling the local zoning board is acceptable, that cheating on your wife is OK, that telling secrets is a good thing, that shoplifting secrets is funny....

This list could go on for miles but you get the point. a point that is never refuted by anyone on this site. Just look the other way, as you have always done with your people. I assume you will chant some dumb so-called humorous thing and avoid any contact with actual facts - AGAIN. better stick with what you know.

More hilarious 'straight talk' from St. John:

'McCain keeps hiring smart staffers (hat tip Bluejersey).

Jill Hazelbaker, battle tested in New Jersey this year as Tom Kean Jr.'s Communications Director, is headed to John McCain's presidential campaign. She will serve as Communications Director for McCain's campaign in New Hampshire.

Jill Hazelbaker it seems has a little penchant for posting on liberal blogs and lying about it. Bluejersey is the site that caught her, and the New York Times had the story:

The Internet postings came from people calling themselves "cleanupnj," "usedtobeblue" and "AmadeusNJ." They said they were concerned Democrats, "lifelong liberals," and they were troubled by the United States senator from New Jersey, Robert Menendez...
But the liberal Democratic hosts of BlueJersey.com, the Web log where such comments were posted, smelled something fishy about the postings, and traced them to a computer inside the campaign headquarters of Mr. Menendez's Republican opponent, Thomas H. Kean Jr.

Get over it proud! The democratic party is not a lock-step group. That is a benefit in terms of the breadth of ideas, but a big detriment becasue of infighting, and yes, embarassing statements by long time members. Labor unions are conservative in many ways and there has long been a tension in Democratic party. What is your point? That all Democrats are bad becasue we don't agree with eachother? That we aren't comparatively progressive as a party becasue some old white men are a century behind?

'zouk must be living in some sort of alternative reality. '

precisely. one where good is bad, up is down, lies are truth, war is peace, etc. he can't stop parroting the word-for-word talking points he hears on fox.

'not a single person has trusted you with even so small a task as dog-catcher. '

--yeah, except Congress.

his wild hyperbole is becoming so laughable -- he's really a parody. I mean, it's hilarious. the more it becomes clear that the public despises his party, the funnier he gets.

'I'm just sayin' for the party of the feminists and hollywood stars, the labor union viewpoint doesn't seem to mesh too well. I guess that's ok as long as they have deep pockets'

and you are another trained seal, gop. except that's insulting to seals.

Yeah hillary. good luck with that. you're going to need it.

Colin: The Newsweek poll "The one they choose not to publish" Shows Hillary leading one and tied with the other GOP frontrunners.

noname - how clever. not only can't you come up a name for yourself, you can't even scribe a few original thoughts. As far as comedy goes, I don't think the stand-up routine is in your future.

'then the policies - hollow out the military, raise taxes on the middle class, stomp on free speech.'

yeah, that's the republican platform all right.

Actually we don't all agree on your "assessment" of bush. some of us may disagree with some of his policies but we wouldn't slander him as a result. In fact, after reading your views, I would posit that perhaps you are slightly unstable and potentially criminal. you don't seem to base your views on anything rationale and instead rely on chanting disrespecful garbage. Of course it is difficult to wage war on behalf of gutless peaceniks, but the nation elected him to do the hard work and as far as I know, not a single person has trusted you with even so small a task as dog-catcher. so ultimately, your opinion is valued at just about zero, while President Bush remains the decider. amazing how efficient the market is at finding value, it promotes Bush to commander in chief and leaves you as some sort of politcal wanna-be desperately posting on blogs to try and impress the imbeciles that you have some sliver of intellect to offer. but you are not convincing. Just the opposite, you have shown you are vapid and incapable of independent thought.

"Everyone one of your candidates is a liar, a has been, a serial adulter, or a loser."

Oh?... like the last progressive party president who may or may not have (depends on what your definition of "is" is) committed adultery and perjured himself? A fine example he was.

I'm just sayin' for the party of the feminists and hollywood stars, the labor union viewpoint doesn't seem to mesh too well. I guess that's ok as long as they have deep pockets. Gotta dance with what brung ya.

Zouk must be living in some sort of alternative reality. He calls us "Clinton fans"? Zouk, I detest Clinton. He started the outsourcing and guest worker programs. Hilliary is basically Bush in drag and I wouldn't/couldn't vote for her no matter what. I think MOST Democrats agree with me in that assessment, too. What we ALL agree on, what most of the world agrees on, is that George Bush is a madman, a fool, and a criminal and anyone associated with him is just plain guilty by association. You have George Bush to thank for making Bill and Hilliary look good. By way of comparison, though, Bush makes Hoover and the Boston Strangler look good.

I don't have to expend much effort to find daily avarice and fraud under Dem leadership. I admit they are not generally printed in major newspapers but the info is out there. Just today we finally hear about the former National Security advisor covering his ineptitude by shredding classified docs. Yesterday was the anniversary of clinton's impeachment for lying. hillary has appeared on the view and has apparently gone back on her baking cookies promise and now will flail around for the next two years in focus groups trying to discover a policy on just about everything.

so as you can see there is little digging to be done, it is more a matter of shinging the light without the help of the media or the vindictive Libs, who so easily look the other way. Just don't look at Dirty Harry Reid too closely, or Jefferson, or Mollohan, Or Pelosi, or Hastings, or Frank, or Murtha, or Leahy, or Kennedy. the fish does indeed rot from the head down. At least Kerry actually graduated from school without cheating. top Dems just lead a life of cheating it seems.

Isn't it interesting that the whole clinton entouratge so easily fits into the role of criminal, skulking around in dark alley, hiding things in their pants like shoplifters? It all comes from the top doesn't it? focus groups to find some sort of morality, lying to your wife and the country, ruining people for sport. then the policies - hollow out the military, raise taxes, stomp on free speech.

And this is what you Libs are so weepy-eyed about returning to. corrupt politicians interested in lining their own pockets and subjecting the rest of the population to the legacy of bureacracy and mismanagement. then you have the audacity to try to proclaim that Repubs are like this and you are not. you must inhabit the same self-seving delusional world as John Kerry, the statesman and war hero - haha

' this is what you have to look forward to under Dem leadership.'

Whatever it is, it will be better than what we have now.

The cons don't have anything to talk about except old news. Try to dig up something new to bash dems with zouk, you're becoming very repetitive and tedious.

Yes, Don, it's easy to see how pained Chris is that anybody has the temerity to criticize Lord McCain. It just isn't done!

The Democrats better not punch too hard -- McCain is too OLD to be President and certainly too old to be punched, especially in that wierd growth on his face.

Oh, have a little more of the story re Berger:

Berger took a break to go outside without an escort while it was dark. He had taken four documents in his pockets.

"He headed toward a construction area. . . . Mr. Berger looked up and down the street, up into the windows of the Archives and the DOJ (Department of Justice), and did not see anyone," the interview notes said.

He then slid the documents under a construction trailer, according to the inspector general. Berger acknowledged that he later retrieved the documents from the construction area and returned with them to his office.

"He was aware of the risk he was taking," the inspector general's notes said. Berger then returned to the Archives building without fearing the documents would slip out of his pockets or that staff would notice that his pockets were bulging.

The notes said Berger had not been aware that Archives staff had been tracking the documents he was provided because of earlier suspicions from previous visits that he was removing materials. Also, the employees had made copies of some documents.

But only some.

Remember that Condoleezza Rice has been national security adviser - just like Berger. Can you imagine her doing that? I mean, "the whole bitsy," as my grandmother would say? Looking up and down the street, up into the windows of the Archives and the DOJ, etc.?

-national review

And no dem even says boo about this stealing of secrets. this is what you have to look forward to under Dem leadership.

McCain doesn't have to respond to any attacks. His Cultists in the media will do it for him.

Listening to TV political panels and reading op-eds one gets the sense that the DC Media Elite would like to cancel the 2008 presidential election and declare McCain "President for Life".

McCain will win the GOP nomination thanks to his media groupies and if they have their way he will also win the general election. McCain media groupies will defend anything McCain does/says and go after his opponents.

McCain hitched his wagon to Bush and the Bush team and Bush is going down in history as the most despised President ever. That guarrantees that MacCain, and anyone else even remoted associated with this Administration, will have absolutely no chance whatsoever of being elected President. I will go out on a limb and predict that McCain will even have a difficult time being re-elected Senator.

"It must be so alien for them -- the Clinton advisers -- to actually observe someone say and do what they believe to be right and good for the country without polling on it first."

As if the McCain campaign ignored the polls...

Lord McCain says and does what he believes is right and good to advance his chances to get the GOP nomination. He lost all integrity a long time ago -- if he ever had any.

Lord McCain is for sale to the highest bidder.

Giuliani and McCain are both responsible for this war. They provided the "voice of reason" behind Bushes drive into the war. They supported it every step of the way until it was obviously out of control. They actively sold the administration that got us here, and they are intellectually and morally as responsible as George. They should be the democrat's punching bags.

Their judgement and intelligence should be seriously questioned as candidates. It's a pity the republican party can't put out a candidate that didn't beat the drums for the Iraq war. But then, anyone against the war has been politically mauled by the administration.

How McCain can get up in public and expect anything he says about the war to be taken seriously is beyond me.

Just what we need: one of the few Repubs willing and able to work with Dems to be demonized. Instead of worrying about what he ISN'T, people should focus on what he IS. I guess it's OK if you think one-party rule is best for the country, it's working so well in DC.

We don't call ourselves the mommy party -- that's you that does that. you're the name callers. You are the daddy party I guess, hmm? I mean, if you're talking about the daddy who beats his wife, then leaves her and the kids for anothyer woman --or lately, a man. You are the party of the impotent men who are so insecure about their teeny tiny little nonworking members that they constanntly have to swagger and boast and talk about how tough they are, the armchair generals who want to continue to fight endless wars with other people's kids as expendable cannon fodder.

Everyone one of your candidates is a liar, a has been, a serial adulter, or a loser.

Colin: I have searched for the polls you cite and am unable to get any of them. What I am refering to is the cable news shows and they are quoting these polls. My searches are coming up with nothing and apparently I am doing something wrong but cannot figure out what.

Punching bag? The man is an opportunist and obsessively fond of military confrontation. He is a screwball in foreign affairs.

"From the party that thinks that women are too stupid to do anything but have babies?"

hey, we're not the ones calling ourselves ourselves "the Mommy Party".

If Big Labor doesn't like women or Barack, what choice does that leave them for a candidate to support/bankroll except an '04 loser and a no-name?

As for McCain, he'll have to stand up against a lot more than just a media assault between now and '08.

I support John 100 percent. I didn't support the Pres decision to invade Iraq but now that we're in what choice do we have? Leave now and it turns into another Lebanon or Afganistan or even worse, an extention of Iran. There are worse things than a Saddam Hussein. Leave now and 5, 10 years from now we'll see what they are. I believe Bush has proven to the American people what a diservice the fine folks in South Carolina did to all of us by falling for the smear Rove and company did on John in 2000. Is he slimey for putting it behind him? No, he dusted himself off and agreed with the Whitehouse when he could and disagreed when he saw no other way. Exactly what any reasonable patriot would do. Romney and Guliani haven't got a chance.

I support John 100 percent. I didn't support the Pres decision to invade Iraq but now that we're in what choice do we have? Leave now and it turns into another Lebanon or Afganistan or even worse, an extention of Iran. There are worse things than a Saddam Hussein. Leave now and 5, 10 years from now we'll see what they are. I believe Bush has proven to the American people what a diservice the fine folks in South Carolina did to all of us by falling for the smear Rove and company did on John in 2000. Is he slimey for putting it behind him? No, he dusted himself off and agreed with the Whitehouse when he could and disagreed when he saw no other way. Exactly what any reasonable patriot would do. Romney and Guliani haven't got a chance.

When I read the headline for this article I thought I would see a report of an unwarranted attack on McCain. Instead, we've got Vilsack urging McCain not to support a surge but to instead use his influence with Bush to argue against it, we have Richardson saying we can't win militarily and urging a political solution, and we have Weaver, Hillary's adviser, commenting that McCain's support for an increase in troop levels in the present political environment is going out on a limb. Where's the punching bag??

The only one throwing punches is John Weaver, McCain's strategist, accusing the Clinton camp of craven political motives instead of wanting what is right and good for the country.

I have had my doubts about Chris Cillizza as a political analyst for some time. His spin on things would do Karl Rove proud. How having a difference of opinion with McCain on the best course of action, one in which none of the Democrats mentioned apparently accused him of a bad motive or of not wanting the best outcome, constitutes turning him into a punching bag is beyond me.

So tell us, Mr. Cillizza, is it your position that differing with McCain about the best course for Iraq makes him a "punching bag"?

'One of the more disturbing stories that surfaced after the Swift meat plant raids was how too many children were left without a parent and/or farmed out to friends and families with no immediate word on how they will be reconnected with their mama and papa.

But if news filtering out of one of the newly designated immigrant detention centers for families is any indication, no undocumented parent is going to open their mouth and claim their children if the whole family is going to be subjected to what is becoming known as the first known concentration camp on American soil in the 21st Century.

The T. Don Hutto Residential Center in Taylor, Texas (on the outskirts of Austin, Texas) is a private detention facility operated by Corrections Corporation of America. It and a smaller center in Pennsylvania are the only two facilities in the country that are authorized to hold non-Mexican immigrant families and children on noncriminal charges.

What does this mean?

It means that at the Taylor facility of the 400 people "held" there, 200 are children. And all are families that can be held there for whatever length of time without due process conducted in a timely manner.

To top it off, as long as the men, women and children are held there, the facility's operator draws a daily profit - per person.

The children range in age from infants on up.

Jeans and t-shirts have been replaced with jail uniforms; children are issued uniforms as soon as they can fit into them -- and everyone must wear name tags, even the babies.

Lawyers are reporting that the families are receiving substandard medical care and becoming ill from the food being served them. Children are losing weight and people are complaining of migraine-type headaches.'

How long before we build the gas chambers?

Am I the only one who is bothered by the way the pundits continually talk about Edwards's or Obama's lack of foreign policy experience, while Guiliani's lack of foreign policy experience is never mentioned? Unlike Guiliani, at least Edwards and Obama have served in a national office.

Here at TPM we spent a good part of the day trying to find out where the congressional leadership in both parties and in both houses stand on President Bush's to increase the number of troops in Iraq by 30,000 to 50,000. The basic story was pretty clear: The Democrats are united against it; and the Republicans won't say one way or another.

I didn't get to see all of the suggested Presidential Announcements until today. There was a lot of creativity on the part of a lot of different people. Thanks to all, I enjoyed them.

However, then as I was catching-up on yesterday's news articles I ran across one which just floored me. This politician should make his announcement from the set of The Biggest Loser.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/19/AR2006121901893_pf.html

Va.'s Gilmore To Explore Bid For President
By Michael D. Shear
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, December 20, 2006; A05

Former Virginia governor James S. Gilmore III has decided to form a committee to examine running for president in 2008..."I don't have to evolve at all. My record is clear," he said.

It certainly is Governor! You left Virginia in a fiscal and legislative mess and then had to be fired as the Chairman of the RNC.

Your incompetence couldn't more perfectly clear.

LOS ANGELES -- The FBI agreed Tuesday to make public the final 10 documents about the surveillance of John Lennon that it had withheld for 25 years from a university historian on the grounds that releasing them could cause "military retaliation against the United States."

Despite the fierce battle the government waged to keep the documents secret, the files contain information that is hardly shocking, just new details about Lennon's ties to New Left leaders and anti-war groups in London in the early 1970s, said the University of California, Irvine, historian, Jon Wiener.

E-mail this story

Printable format

Search archives

RSS

For example, in one memo, then-FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover wrote to H.R. Haldeman, President Nixon's chief aide, that "Lennon had taken an interest in `extreme left-wing activities in Britain' and is known to be a sympathizer of Trotskyist communists in England."

Another document that had been totally blacked out on the grounds of national security when Wiener obtained it more than 20 years ago through litigation, said that two prominent British leftists, Tariq Ali and Robin Blackburn, had courted Lennon in hopes that he would "finance a left-wing bookshop and reading room in London."

But the newly released document adds that Lennon apparently gave them no money.

Rather, the document states that Lennon was using his "tangible assets" to try to get custody of his wife Yoko Ono's child, who was in the care of her former husband.

Only one document alludes to Lennon's music, saying he has "encouraged the belief that he holds revolutionary views . . . by the content of some of his songs."

"The labor operatives pondering their '08 decisions also confess they are less than comfortable with a prominent role in the campaign for Edwards's wife, Elizabeth, who never has been a political spouse who stays in the shadows. "

Of course there's no attribution, no quotes, no support for this statement. Are you really so naive GOP, that the think that because corporate spin outlet like the WaPo says something, it's necessarily true?

You are always, always looking for something to bash liberals with. That's all you people know how to do. You have nothing original to contribute, so you just bash liberals, reflexively and drunkenly. Just like Chris is doing here. Did anyone in the oh so 'liberal' media evertalk about how Clinton or Gore or Kerry was being used as a 'punching bag' becuase that was exqactly what was happpening.the press took every opportunity to take cheap shots, to lie, to exaggerate, to BS. It was digusting to watch.

And I have to say, you're a reublican and you want to talk about misogyny? From the party that thinks that women are too stupid to do anything but have babies?

And this whole quote by Weaver about polls, I have to say Chris, you are almost of smarmy and Repug butt-kissing as your pal over at the execrable Note.

Oh we can keep our labor unions, can we? What is that you hate about the middle class? Why don't you want people to make a living wage and benefits? Jealous? Why do you want foreign corporations to treat americans like dirt? Are you a traitor/ Why do you hate america?

Lylepink -- I actually DID check my facts. The newsweek poll, which has HRC beating McCain 50-43, is the ONLY poll from this month (or for any month, as far as I know)that shows her winning. Other polls show the following:

Cook

Mccain 40 HRC 39

LA Times

McCain 50 HRC 36

NBC News/WSJ

McCain 47 HRC 43

NPR

McCain 48 HRC 41

Now, some of those numbers still show positive movement for HRC, which is great. Because i DO like Hillary. But she still isn't winning even though everyone already knows her.

blarg: Anti-women views are certainly not progressive...you tell me, are they too anti-women to be a part of the democratic/progressive party? What degree of mysogyny would you accept as a liberal? You can keep your labor unions; we don't need them.

proudtobeGOP, you seem to be implying that the labor unions are too anti-women to be part of the Democratic party. Do you think that their views are more in line with the Republicans?

"McCain can expect this sort of "punching bag" treatment to continue as long as conventional wisdom pegs him as the frontrunner for the Republican nomination."

No, he can expect this sort serious criticism as long as wisdom reminds us that this war was a mistake from long before day-one and removing our troops is the beginning of the end of that mistake.

The only good work we can do now is to swap around some of the ethnic neighborhooods surrounded by their enemies, which will prevent outright house-by-house ethnic cleansing once the three-headed dog is left to their militias.

Which is the only possible option. Why, you might ask, is this so inevitable?

Because it has already happened.

The "Iraqi Military" we are pretending to "stand up " is nothing more than a fragmented collection made up of members of these militias. And many of them are just waiting to promote thier own enclave's political fortunes, with no intentions to protect their centuries-old enemies, or their latest foe, US!

It is so inevitable, there's hardly an honest expert who doesn't agree.

There are three sides to this civil war, and they will soon be defining themselves with new boundary-line wars, the blood of which will be spilled to carve up oil ownership. Sound familiar?

Between now and then, our presence in Iraq only adds a fourth front to the ancient conflict, but as we pretend to protect sunnis and shias from each other, we are a magnet for the religious zealots who would gladly foment war across the globe.

They yearn for holy war and armageddon, and they want to use our troops as targets.

There's no good reason for us to be there in the first place, the presence of our troops has only made it worse every day, and now this born-again neocon McCain wants to increase those troop levels?

And when people running for political office criticize McCain they are taking "political punches" at that poor, honest old Straight-Talk Expresser?

We need a new word for "spin" here, this is more like "twisted."

This "spin" just doesn't work. McCain's nobody's punching bag, except for maybe some of the people behind the people he's hired lately.

nleibowitz, you forget how political reporting works. All criticism is an attack. There's no difference between "My opponent's policy on Iraq is seriously flawed" and "A vote for my opponent means that Al Qaeda will attack and kill more Americans." Both must be covered equally, with no judgment or analysis from the journalist.

re "For all the chatter about how Barack Obama's race will hurt him in the Presidential race ... what is being missed is the way so many white voters are EXCITED about the prospect of a black President."

SD What about the labor vote? Looks like they don't agree with your EXCITMENT..
The WP reports today "many labor leaders ...worry about Obama's inexperience." and they also worry about women becoming too outspoken apparently..
"The labor operatives pondering their '08 decisions also confess they are less than comfortable with a prominent role in the campaign for Edwards's wife, Elizabeth, who never has been a political spouse who stays in the shadows. "

This is the progressive party?? What, are these ones living in the dark ages still...all you intellectually-superior liberals want to join up with the likes of these clowns...now who's the sell-out??

Colin: Check your facts. I have not based this on one poll. Fact is there are more than one poll on the peoples choice for POTUS in 08 and the latest of these are all showing Hillary beating everyone. I have tried to bring them up and have been unable to do so. NBC/ Wall St Journal, Newsweek and CNN are out but for some reason, mainly me, I try to search for them and get polls that are way long ago and most are on the 06 elections.

Colin: Check your facts. I have not based this on one poll. Fact is there are more than one poll on the peoples choice for POTUS in 08 and the latest of these are all showing Hillary beating everyone. I have tried to bring them up and have been unable to do so. NBC/ Wall St Journal, Newsweek and CNN are out but for some reason, mainly me, I try to search for them and get polls that are way long ago and most are on the 06 elections.

This is meant to be parody, right Chris? Surely you're spoofing transparently dishonest hyper-partisanship, right? Thoughtful, respectful criticism from Democrats means they're using McCain as a punching bag, and an ad hominem insult from Weaver is a statesmanlike response? Because if you're not kidding, you're just shameless.

I suspect that what happens in Iraq over the next 23 months will have more to do with who wins the next presidential election than any other single factor.

The call for more troops now is far too little too late. We should have had many more troops there at the beginning. If we had sufficient troops strength to pacify Baghdad, and we had not disbanded the Iraqi army (as opposed to removing some key Hussein loyalists from senior positions) and if we had put our efforts into restoring utilities and basic services immediately after the invasion.... things could have been much different. Of course, if we had not invaded at all and, instead, put an all-out effort into Afghanistan - the Taliban would not be resurgent, we might actually have caught Bin Laden, and thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis now dead would be alive today. We would be in a much stronger position vis-a-vis Iran and North Korea. A good part of Iran's defiance today is a direct product of the fiasco in Iraq.

"It must be so alien for them...to actually observe someone say and do what they believe to be right and good for the country without polling on it first." - John Weaver

Given Sen. McCain's current strategy for Iraq, maybe he should actually pay some attention to that big national poll taken on November 7th.

lylepink -- I personally am of the opinion that HRC would make a fine POTUS and think she definitely is CAPABLE of winning a general election race against any of the GOP candidates. That being said, don't you think you're getting just a tad bit too excited regarding one poll, in 2006, that shows her with a VERY SMALL lead? HRC currently has almost universal name recognition and very high negatives, which are hard to move once they're established. She's sufficiently talented to overcome those obstacles, but lets not pretend that she has EITHER the Dem nomination or the presidency locked up in December 2006...

The Fix seems to be fixed on how to run down the dems ala the "liberal" media. By checking recent polls, suprise suprise, Hillary is leading the field. Now we all can start thinking with our heads instead of using it for a hat rack. McCain has shown, as pointed out in a few of the earlier posts today, that he will go to any position that will help him with the far-right. McCain will not get the nod in 08 for folks are now just beginning to find out what he is about and coming to realize he is not what a lot of folks thought he was. There is so much on McCain that what was done to him in 2000 will look as nothing compared to what is coming and it will not be from dems.