gzdwlq bolcugzrk lfyvpze prcaqg vjslgpf mnytuxjw vmdryh http://www.zthkl.ihakmbl.com

gzdwlq bolcugzrk lfyvpze prcaqg vjslgpf mnytuxjw vmdryh http://www.zthkl.ihakmbl.com

ghriy kqyjtn medxl ybtkpgo nxryaw xghickfa ldxmq

My Webster's Dictionary's definition of the term Hispanic American is: a U.S. citizen or resident of Spanish or Latin-American descent.

Hispanic is defined as: pertaining to Spain or Spanish-speaking countries.

Your argument that Mexicans are not like Cubans, etc. is taken, but couldn't the same be said about different white ethnics (Germans, Italians, Swedes, etc.)? For the sake of practicality, we lump ethnic groups under a select few racial categories. That's because different ethnic groups typically share racial characteristics. For example, many residents of sub-Saharan Africa can be divided into various ethnic groups, but they do share one common characteristic: they have dark skin.

I'm sorry, but classifying Hispanics as whites is simply non-sensical. If Jose Cuervo of Guatemalan descent is wanted for murder, I want the cops to be looking for a suspect with Hispanic racial features, not for a "white" male with dark black hair.

Poor Murray Rothstein whose grandparents survived the Holocaust, or Arnold Becker whose great-grandparents came from Germany, might be the ones wrongly interrogated if the only description cops have to work with is "white male with dark black hair."

Hello, nice site look this:
foto sesso Eva [url=http://foto-sesso.sex-italy.org/foto-sesso.html]foto sesso Eva[/url]

End ^) See you

Hello, nice site look this:
sesso Asia [url=http://sex-italy.org/index.html]sesso Asia[/url]

End ^) See you

Here in Montana, the presidential race has little effect on state races. Remember that, though Bush got a lop-sided win of Montana's electoral votes in 2004, the Democrats took the governorship, three out of four state-wide election offices and control of both houses of the Montana Legislature.

Most Montanans aren't ideologues. We are famous for split-ticket voting here.

The fact that it is a general election, is no reason for Rehberg to abandon a probably safe seat as the at-large congressman (plus surrender his congressional seniority) for an unlikely chance at Baucus.

Not only would Rehberg's challenge to Baucus be at long odds, he would endanger GOP hold on the lone house seat by making it an open contest.

Save an Abramoff-style scandal on Baucus that would make the Democrat suddenly vulnerable, Rehberg is staying where he is.

Look for some of the rising stars of the Montana GOP to take that race on. State Rep. Bob Keenan already ran against Burns for the GOP nomination this time. He definitely has no qualms about running a long-odds race.

State House Speaker Scott Sales is another newly prominent Republican who might jump in. They have little to lose and will gain name recognition for a later election, such has challenging Tester in his first reelection bid in 2012.
Sales though, is set up to be the most visible and prominent opposition to Governor Brian Schweitzer during this coming session of the Legislature. He may be more inclined to continue that contest into the 2008 gubernatorial general election.

I think this list of senate races for 08' has some truly really tough races on there, but I really don't understand how others are on this list! My top 10 senate races most likely to change hands:

1.) Tim Johnson in South Dakota. I realize that his approval ratings are high. However, he is in a critical state right now. His health will be an issue, as well as giving Dems. power in a fairly trending Republican state. Rounds is a very popular gov. and may well run in 08. I think Johnson may resign and Tom Dashle may run and try to play pull a Trent Lott playing come-back kid. Either way, the Republicans likely pick this seat up.

2.)Colorodo: Wayne Allard is almost certain to resign. Udall is going to be the dem. nominee, and has waited his turn to do so. He has establishment and money in the state. The Republican's don't know who their nominee will be, yet. Tancredo has said he may even run against Owens for the nomination, and if he did that would be a heck of a fight. If Owens is the nominee, the Republicans have a great chance to keep the seat. If the Republican nominee is anyone else, with Udall, Dems. have a great chance to pick up the seat.

3.) Mary Landrieu in Louisiana. I think she's in deep trouble. Any of the 5 Republican congressman could run and possibly win, especially with the support of popular US senator David Vitter. I'm guessing Bobby Jindal will win the governor's race, and the Louisiana will be able to court a very credible candidate to defeat Landrieu. My guess is that would be U.S. Rep. Richard Baker, who is very popular and would likely win. Big chance for the Republicans.

4.) John Sununu in New Hampshire. He could have a very tough race in front of him. I couldn't believe that both Rup. US reps. lost in 04'. I think the Rups. will put up good candidates in 06' to try and re-take those seats, and could help Sununu in doing it. This time, popular Gov. John Lynch won't be leading the ticket like in 06, either. He and popular Republican Senator Judd Gregg will serve to endorse and support rather than lead the ticket. It also matters who will be on both Presidential tickets. The dems. seem to have many candidates ready to engage in a primary, too. This one will have many variables, but in the right situation could be a great pick-up chance for the dems.

5.) Norm Coleman in Minnesota. This year this "purple state" re-elected gov. Pawlenty but overwhelmingly showed what they thought of Washington by overwhelmingly electing county Att. Klobuchar over US rep. Mark Kennedy. Coleman seems popular in Minn. However, this will be a Presidential year in which the Republicans are having their convention in Minn. If the national mood is better for the Republicans and Pawlenty is still popular in 08', Coleman should be re-elected handily. If not, and Iraq is rough, it will be a tough election for Coleman to win if the dems. can get a strong candidate.

6.)Max Baucus in Montana. If Dennis Rehberg was ever going to run agianst Baucus, this is the year to it. It's a Presidential year in a Republican state, which could well bring Rehberg to top Baucus in this senate race. Especially with the other senate seat being democratic with Tester. Rehberg could well be the next US senator from Montana, if he decides to run.

7.) Carl Levin in Michigan. Michigan is another "purple state". Granholm was re-elected governor, but it was over a silver spooned opponent in Dick Devos. Sure, he had alot of money to spend on the race. But you can't telling people who have laid off "if you want health insurance, get a job" with any amount of money. For the 08' senate race, Michigan has some great Republican candidates looking at the race. U.S. Reps. Candice Miller and Mike Rogers, former Mi. first lady Michelle Engler and current AG Mike Cox. Miller was a sought after candidate in 06, but opted out of running. I think she may do the same this year. I think Cox will back out b/c if he ran and won, Granholm would be able to annoint Michigan's new AG, which would be a democrat. Engler is a mentioned name, but it's doubtful she will honestly run. My guess is that unless David Brandon, Dimino's Pizza CEO, gets into the race the nominee would be Mike Rogers. Either one of these nominee's would would make a great GOP nominee against Levin. Levin is in for a very tough race in 08.

8.) Susan Collins in Maine. 2 Republican senator's in this "blue state", how long can this be sustained? Well, both Snowe and Collins approval ratings are above 70%-Survey USA poll. If U.S. Rep. Tom Allen gets into the race as the dem. nominee, it could be a very close race. Allen is liked by around 61% of his district. But he's not well known in the other district. He would have to beat out Collins significantly in fund-raising and it would appear to be an up-hill battle for Allen. But if he get's into the race, he will attempt to climb the mountain and I'm sure will be able to get his message out in the relatively inexpensive Maine t.v./radio markets. I think Collins will win, but Allen could give her a very tough race.

9.) Senator John Kerry in Massachusetts. Kerry's approval ratings for the past few months have not been good, in fact, they have been really bad. This month's survey says Kerry's approval numbers are 43%-53%. That's right, only 43% of Mass. residents in the survey approved of Kerry's job performance, while 53% disapproved. 2 high profiled Republicans, former Bush White House Cheif of Staff Andy Card and ex-Mass. governor Paul Celluci are said to be considering the race. The best candidate to defeat Kerry would propably be Celluci. He's served as gov. in Ma. and has proved he can win the state. Against Kerry in all of his gaffes, Celluci or Card may have a chance to defeat Kerry and win a Ma. senate seat for the Republicans in....how long? This state is still very democratic, especially nationally. This is why this one is ranked 9th and not higher.

10.) Frank Lautenberg in New Jersey. Now, every election cycle that includes a state-wide race in NJ is deemed competitive...but after the campaign is over the democrat's win the election most of the time. The top notched candidates here that could run are famous former MLB NYY/NYM pitcher Al Leiter, Ex-Ambassador Cliff Sobel and U.S. Rep. Frank LoBiondo. Also mentioned is Tom Kean Jr., who lost a tough race against Bob Menendez this year. If the NJ Republican party can get their cards in a row they have a real shot of beating Lautenberg. Lautenberg's approval ratings are about 39%.

These are races I'm watching, which I believe are going to be competitive as of now.

Sen. Sununu's reelection efforts in New Hampshire will be complicated by his record on climate change, an issue that is becoming increasingly important to NH voters. As a resident of a small town in New Hampshire, my sense is that more and more citizens (from both parties) want their elected officials to provide real solutions to energy and climate change issues that also protect the economy. But you don't have to rely on my political sonar, a look at the early messaging from presidential candidates (announced and unannounced) in the state shows that their perceptions match mine (http://www.carboncoalition.org/blog/index.php). In contrast to this, Sen. Sununu was the only senator from Maine to Maryland to vote against McCain-Lieberman in 2003 and followed that up by opposing the Bingaman sense of the senate resolution in 2005. Meanwhile, NH's vital tourism economy stands to suffer from rising temperatures. This is especially true for the already struggling North Country, where the economic effects of a weather-effected decrease in winter tourism would be devastating (http://www.carboncoalition.org/education/documents/WinterRec_GlobalWarming_NH_FactSheet.pdf) Just today, the Union-Leader reports that snowmobile registrations are down by up to 25% this winter). Concern among Republicans about the Senator's climate change position is evidenced by this conversation at a prominent NH blog (http://www.nhinsider.com/jim-rubens/2006/10/9/how-to-persuade-sununu-on-global-warming.html). Barack Obama received two standing ovations during his speech in Manchester, one for comments on the war in Iraq and the other for comments on climate change. Senator Sununu will be facing his first election in a state with Democrats controlling the governorship and both state houses, he ignores these indicators at his own peril. With public opinion on both sides of the aisle ahead of him on this issue, Sen. Sununu has less than two years to show voters that he is beginning to understand the issue and the impact it will have on his state.

No one has pointed out in the California-Washington crime discussion that Washington shares a LONG border with Canada.

I read that Senator Collins (R-Maine) may not run for re-election because If she resigns to work in the administration then Baldacci, who is ultra-liberal, would appoint her replacement.

Chris I read that Senator Collins (R-Maine) may not run for re-election because Baldacci won re-election as Governor. If she resigns to work in the administration then Baldacci, who is ultra-liberal, would appoint her replacement.

Also too bad there are so many extraneous comments, making the comment section worthless.

Chris I read that Senator Collins (R-Maine) may not run for re-election because Baldacci won re-election as Governor. If she resigns to work in the administration then Baldacci, who is ultra-liberal would appoint her replacement.

Also too bad there are so many extraneous comments, making the comment section worthless.

I agree with you folks that "Hispanic" is a con-job. Wonder who came up with it? Wonder what slogan George Bush used in the Texas Gov. race in 1994? Karl Rove is known as the "architect" for a reason. I wonder who did come up with it, does anyone know?

Speaking of the "Hispanic" vote, what do you folks make of the RNC naming Florida senator Mel Martinez as the new party leader. Any comments on that one?

BTW - I give credit to whomever came up with the Hispanic concept and "sold" it to the rest of us. They were highly perceptive and terrific salesmen.

KY-6 Guy - Personally, I buy the position that "Hispanic" is a con job anyway.

Some smart power activists neatly pulled all Spanish heritage people under that umbrella, and the rest of us bought it. Cubans are no more like Mexicans, than Mexicans are like Salvadorans, etc... Many "Spanish" New Mexicans consider themselves better than Mexican New Mexicans. Where do Brazilians fit? Portugese are not Hispanic.

I opt for White for Hispanics.

No disagreement from me on that point.

I am a democrat but, regretably, I don't think Hillary Clinton can win the general. There are too many people who have spent so much of their lives trying to tear hear down in the press and in books. These people are well-funded and have effectively painted her as a self-centered, ambition-only woman who is looney lefty and would "be worst than the devil himself." This is the kind of perverse politics that is going on in our country and it would be too difficult to change peoples minds by 2008.

Also, polls show that a big chunck of the populace would not vote for ANY woman on the ballot. Consequently, dems must look to Obama or Edwards. Even though Obama is black, he is non-threating to white supremacy, and so he could win. In other words, he is a "comfortable" black candidate for many voters. Also, Edwards and Obama have not been dragged through the mud like Hillary. In short but, sadly, the right-wing is right: Anybody but Hillary.

This may sound too cynical given that control of congress went to the Dems so recenty, but in a presidential race, we will be looking at the candidates very closely and dems can't bank on Republicans messing things up like they did this year.

And concerning the FBI, I misspoke earlier. I know of no problems with their data collection, just the way they classify their information. Don't you think it's odd that the FBI thinks people of Hispanic descent can only be victims of crime but not the perpetraters of crime?

Of course stereotypes have some truth to them, or else they wouldn't be stereotypes.

Thanks for doing research on the "Color of Crime." Unfortunately, you would have been better served by actually reading it rather than worrying about its authors. If you knew "bigots" liked Shakespeare or Twain, would you not read them either? Oops, probably too late. Hitler loved Wagner....should his music now be placed in the local bonfire?

As far as Mr. Taylor, he's Ivy League educated and lived for a time in Japan - two places I don't think an alleged 'white supremacist' would want to be. I doubt you can find a quote from him where he says whites are superior to all races or that he denies the Holocaust.

reason - you're right. Carcieri's was just re-elected, so his term ends in 2010.

One of these years Linc just may have that epiphany that the Republican Party changed in 1964; and literally just doesn't want him or anybody like him.

Independent is the way for him to go. He'd just be the "next" New Englander to do it.

I'd still guess that Governor is the next elected office for him.

Sorry about the error. Still thinking in a "two-year term" mode for RI officials.

KY-6 Guy - "Concerning stereotypes, they are more or less true." Are you sure you really meant that? Think about it, just by definition.

Also, I did some research on the source "'The Color of Crime.' It's well documented and insightful,..."

It's a publication of The New Century Foundation. The NCF appears to be a one-man operation, run out of his house by Jared Taylor.

Comments on Mr. Taylor from various sites: 1) "Taylor's writings have found a responsive audience among unapologetic Jew-haters and Hitler acolytes. In the early 1990s, his work was reprinted, under the name Samuel Taylor, in Spearhead,2 an extremist journal in England closely affiliated with the neo-Nazi British National Party. He has also been reprinted in the Journal of Historical Review, published by the California-based Institute for Historical Review, the leading Holocaust-denial organization in the country. He was a featured speaker, along with Holocaust deniers and neo-Nazis, at the 1995 convention of the Populist Party, which was founded by Willis Carto and ran David Duke as its presidential candidate in 1988."

2) "The New Century Foundation, founded November 1990 and based in Oakton, Virginia, is a 'self-styled' think tank that publishes a monthly journal and a Web site called American Renaissance. Also hosts biannual conferences. The Foundation promotes pseudoscientific and questionably researched and argued studies to validate the superiority of whites."

No need to comment.

BTW: First you used FBI statistics to make a point. Then later you say that the FBI's crime data collection methods are faulty.

Nor'Easter,

I agree with your view that Chafee couldn't beat Reed as a Republican candidate. Nor, do I think, any Republican running could beat Reed. But there are rumors that Chafee will switch parties. Carcieri is term-limited, but his term ends in 2010, not 2008. I wouldn't be surprised if Chafee does something different, which includes leaving the Republican party and running for senate under another party or as an independent.

reason - Linc is not going to change parties; and as a Republican he would give Sen. Reed a good race, but lose. (Reed's done nothing to be thrown out + the overwhelming base advantage of registered Democrats compared to Republicans).

Look for Governor Lincoln Chaffee in 2008. Carcieri is term limited, and Rhode Islanders have no problem electing Republican Governors.

reason - Linc is not going to change parties, and as a Republican he would give Sen. Reed a good race, but lose. (Reed's done nothing to be thrown out + the overwhelming base advantage of registered Democrats compared to Republicans).

Look for Governor Lincoln Chaffee in 2008. Carcieri is term limited, and Rhode Islanders have no problem electing Republican Governors.

I don't quite see how Mississippi is on this list of competitive states. If Obama was on the Presidential/VP list that did attract black voters to the polls, do you not think whites would rush out to vote against him and the dems? If black voters in Miss. make up 35% of voters, do you not think they would have came out to vote against Lott in 06? Lott won re-election with 63.6% of the vote. Is that the best a dem. can do? Try again, Chris. If Cochran retires and that seat becomes available, Charles Pickering will take it easily. If not then Cochran wins easily.

In my home state of NC, Liddy Doyle is in good shape for re-election. As far as I can tell, she's running again. Maybe she's not loved around the nation and maybe she had a bad election cycle as chair of the NRC, but we love her here at home. She also helped to sponsor and push through the tobacco buy-out, which NC greatly appreciated. B/c of that, Doyle will be our US senator for as long as she wants to be.

One senate race missing from this list is John Kerry in Ma. A recent political survey in Ma. from surveyusa had Kerry's approval rating @ 48%, with 50% disapproving of his job performance. 2 high profiled names being mentioned are ex-white house cheif of staff Andrew Card and ex-Ma. governor Paul Celluci. I think that if Celluci decided to really make a run, he could actually defeat Kerry for the senate seat.

Another race to watch is Levin in Michigan. Reps. Candice Miller or Mike Rogers could really give him a tough race. Other potential candidates include current attorney general Mike Cox, ex-first lady Michelle Engler or Dimino's pizza CEO David Brandon.

Other races that could get competitive are Lamar Alexander in Tenn., if governor Bredsen gets into the race. R.I. could get interesting if Chafee switches parties and runs as some sort of independent against Reed.

william:

'The truth is that minorities are to blame for high crime rates, not guns.'

the truth is, you are a turd, not worth scraping off my shoe.

'

William,

Fifty four hours after asking you to provide web sites that show Massachusetts has a poor education system (my post on December 15, 2006 08:41 PM), I still haven't seen a response. I'm still waiting.

Do NOT ask me to prove Massachusetts does have a good education system. You stated it doesn't, so you have the obligation to back up your assertion.

If you can't provide information from credible sources, then admit you made a mistake. If you can't do either, I'm sure your presence here would not be missed by many.

Dude, if I run for president I get to hang out with Miss America?

Get all of your 2008 Election Shirts, Hats, Buttons and Stickers. Support your candidate early! http://www.cafepress.com/buy/politics?pid=7458855"

Get all of your 2008 Election Shirts, Hats, Buttons and Stickers. Support your candidate early! 2008 Election Items

How come the only people ranting about the "race issue" concerning Senator Obama are white-coservative-bigots?
Let face it, they would never vote for him anyway.
So who cares what they think!

These under achievers need someone to blame for their failures. (The Jews, The Gays, The Blacks, The Liberals)

They never look into the mirror and see the real cause of their personal failures.

Which to me, explains why "Bush-Lite" has removed all mirrors from the White House.

Still waiting for you to eplain how any of the data you cite shows a CAUSAL relationship between race and crime William. Are you ignoring me b/c you realize that's impossible? So sad.

drindl and William go a long way in advanceing my theory and then by their posts starts to turn me around with the logic they show in some of their views. Be consistant you guys or you will have me as mixed up as you'all are. Ha Ha Ha.

drindl, you have contributed absolutely nothing to this thread, or any other.

Considering the lack of intelligence you consistently display, I'm surprised you actually read newspapers at all.

Why don't you go back to your hippie peace march?

Maybe the National Guard will do the country a favor a give us a Kent State: Reloaded.

Whenever I read about what happened at Kent State, and how those pinkos got shot, I can't help but burst out laughing.

"Did it ever occur to anyone that this country's relatively high crime rate has a lot to do with our general fascination with guns and gun ownership (and I'm not talking about guns for hunting and sporting)?"

It hasn't occured to people who have a brain in their heads. Clearly, you aren't one of them.

Have you read the list of states crime rates that someone else posted?

West Virginia, the Dakotas, and other states that have extremely lax gun laws have little crime, while states such as NY, CA, etc that have very strict gun laws have a lot of crime.

Texas, a state with loose gun laws, also as a lot of crime.

The only thing that all high crime states share is lots of non-white people, especially blacks and hispanics.

Areas with lots of blacks and hispanics have high crime. Areas with few blacks and hispanics have a lot less crime.

If gun control worked, DC would be the safest place in the nation since guns are banned there.

But DC is the crime capital of the nation, and has extremely high crime.

And who lives in DC? Mostly black people. There you go.

Guns don't cause crime. Guns protect innocent people against criminals.

Anyone who thinks guns lead to crime is retarded. Does VT have high crime? How bout SD? ND? WV? KY?

I thought so.

In all the states with little crime, the population consists of mostly white people.

Wherever minorities go, they bring crime.

Guns don't cause crime. People who are bad will commit crimes even without guns.

Don't blame guns for crimes just because it is PC to do so.

The truth is that minorities are to blame for high crime rates, not guns.

Did it ever occur to anyone that this country's relatively high crime rate has a lot to do with our general fascination with guns and gun ownership (and I'm not talking about guns for hunting and sporting)?

PG

blarg illustrates why it's useless to argue with wingers. when presented with facts, they pretend they don't exist.

'Boehmers and Drindl are sore losers. Remember how they used to gloat that Democrats could not win elections?'

i really puzzled by this one. dude, i'm a democrat.

'Sure, they'll vote for the GOP presidential candidate in 2008, but they are completely in thrall with Democrats state-wide.' Re: montanans. why would they vote for an R for presient, if they automatically voted D on everything else?

This really is fun watching a bunch of folks trying to prove how smart they are when by doing so just proves the simple fact that they are not as smart as they would like some of us to believe. Pretending to be something you are not and you are only fooling yourself.

"The fact that California is diverse and has a relatively low crime rate while Washington state is far less diverse and has relatively higher crime just means they are evidence that the opposite statistical tendency is true, which my original list of state rankings and population percentages show."

Huh? You seem to be using evidence that contradicts your claim as evidence that proves your claim. If you say that more minorities = more crime, you need to explain why that's not true for Washington and California. You can't just ignore it. It's like if you said that snow is black, I pointed to white snow, and you said "That just proves my point." It's logically incoherent.

Golgi, I've provided plenty of statistics. William is the one just making vague claims.

He said that Massachusetts is horrible because of the high taxes. I posted numbers, complete with citation, proving that Massachusetts doesn't have high taxes relative to other states. He said that Massachusetts has a terrible crime problem. I posted statistics proving that wrong too. (That's what started the whole minority crime issue.)

I don't remember seeing William post any statistics. KY-06 has, but William hasn't. And every time someone else posts numbers, William stops talking about it. (He never responded to my numbers about taxes or crime.) So how can you say that William's won this round based on his command of statistics?

i can't during the holiday season be bothered to read the whole thread, but was disappointed in the exchange between "William" and several others. it seems characteristic of the loud and dim that they feel that insults and VOLUME go some way toward proving their arguments to be correct. the reason i and i imagine many or most of you read this blog is to see what people are seriously thinking about a topic that interests me. i am utterly uninterested in what you have had to say thus far, william, and i would suggest to everyone else that no one reply to william, in the hopes of shutting him up.
The King of Zouk is a more difficult case in that he persists in his belief in some GOP articles of faith which defy reality. Earth to Zouk:
-Karl Rove is a dishonest, unprincipled political hack.
-Al Gore won the 2000 election.
-Terri Schiavo really was brain-dead - a fact agreed to by all the physicians who actually were in the room working.
-George W. Bush used to use cocaine.
-George W. Bush used to drive drunk.
-George "The Decider" Bush does not have a good track record when it comes to the results of the decisions he has made.
-when engaged in responsibly between consenting adults, there is nothing wrong with any kind of sex you can imagine.
-Human inactivity with regard to climate change - and specifically the lack of activity of this administration - has resulted according to OVERWHELMING INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS in serious and possibly unfixable harm to the environment.
-Single-payer health care does have its shortcomnings, but in the long run would cover more Americans more cheaply than the for-profit crock we got now.
-Religion in the modern world is more a divisive force than one bringing us together. Of course, there is good in religion, but it is not because it is religion but rather because there is good in people.
-Bill Clinton's liasion with Monica Lewinsky hurt no one.
-Bush's liasion with oil interests (see: Dick's with Halliburton) have killed almost 3000 Americans so far, and woulded thousands more.
-and then there was Katrina.

gotta go - sorry. (i know, the list isn't complete, but ya see what I'm sayin', don't ya laddie?)

On the GOP side in Montana, look for Bob Keenan to seek the GOP nomination for US Senate -- again. Keenan, a GOP legislative leader, is actually to the right of Burns. He challenged Burns in the primary this year as the "ethical alternative," due to the publicity on the Abramoff connections. Keenan won 30 percent of the vote in the primary, which is impressive considering that he had little funding and was challenging a three-term incumbant.
He mended fences by appearing in two strong pro-Burns TV ads in the general election. He certainly has to be looked at. Another possibility might be Speaker of the Montana House Scott Sales. A Bozeman conservative, Sales has taken an aggressive position as GOP house leader after the GOP won a recount on a tie vote in a Yellowstone County district to gain a one-vote majority in the state house.
His fortunes may rest on how Montana voters view the 07 session of the Legislature.

Why do people still insist on comparing apples with oranges?

Let's compare apples to apples shall we....we've now established Toronto's white population at 57%, twice that of the city of Washington. Why include suburban Washington if you're not going to include suburban Toronto? Maybe the question is now answerable.

Anyone care to provide crime stats between the diverse province of Ontario and the presumably less diverse provinces of western Canada? Hey, even if I'm wrong about Canada, I never said this was universal. Situations can be unique to a certain nation, and it's the situation in the U.S. that deserves our attention.

As far as California and Washington state goes, I would say they are "exceptions that prove the rule." The fact that California is diverse and has a relatively low crime rate while Washington state is far less diverse and has relatively higher crime just means they are evidence that the opposite statistical tendency is true, which my original list of state rankings and population percentages show.

Why was Spud Webb famous? Because he was a very short NBA player. He was the exception that suggests most NBA players are tall. Why is Tiger Woods famous for being a multiracial golfer? Because most pro golfers are not terribly multiracial.

If you ask Nor'Easter about Washington state, he might be inclined to guess that criminals like working when it's wet.

If anyone wants to know about crime statistics involving different ethnic groups, it is readily available on the internet from a publication called "The Color of Crime." It's well documented and insightful, and also sheds light on a faulty way the FBI collects statistics on crime. Did you know that the FBI collects data on Hispanic victims of crime, but lumps Hispanics in with whites as perpetraters of crime?

Concerning stereotypes, they are more or less true. Blame for their perpetuation rests not with the media, but on the behavior of your ancestral kinsmen and their descendents. C'est la vie.

I'm a Republican living in Montana, and I can tell you right now there's no way Max Baucus (D-MT)is going to be defeated when he runs again in 2008. Sure, they'll vote for the GOP presidential candidate in 2008, but they are completely in thrall with Democrats state-wide.

There's something else that might be interesting to muse about in terms of '08 Senate races (if one is given to musing about very distant hypotheticals): what happens to the seats of presidential candidates who are currently senators.
A McCain presidency for example would leave Janet Napolitano (D) to appoint his replacement, right? (Not exactly something one should hope for as a Democrat, but at least offers a better chance of maintaining a blue Senate even if McCain sweeps the presidential election.)
This of course isn't the case with Obama (Illinois) or Clinton (New York), which now have recently (re-)elected Democratic governors. Edwards, Guiliani, Romney, many of the other candidates are already out of office. Other Senators are running (Brownback, Biden, Dodd, others) but seem to have less of a chance at the nomination. (Sebelius (D) in Kansas, Minner (D) in Delaware, Rell (R) in Connecticut)).
Anyway, of course it's more complicated than I'm making it out to be. There must be some states where the decision doesn't necessarily come from the Governor's mansion.

Noname, my point was that people on this blog ARE already wasting their time engaging William. Since I agree with their fundamental points, I would prefer to see them use some stronger arguments if they are going to be engaging him anyway. Ignoring him would also be fine, but he seems to have the knack for engaging people.

Also, it's "Golgi" not "Gogli"... now I know how "Guiliani" feels...

Colin, William "wins this round" because he has at least presented some facts, and his many opponents have presented few while making themselves look stupid. I did like your divorce citation. That was a rare treat in this largely inane anti-William thread.

'President Bush is considering several options for a new strategy in Iraq, such as a proposal backed by Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., that would send tens of thousands of additional troops for an indefinite period to quickly secure Baghdad. There are about 134,000 U.S. troops in Iraq now.'

Let's just call this what it is--vietnamization.

McCain waffles even as he flipflops -- big time.

'IT'S not the least of John McCain's political talents that he comes across as a paragon of straight talk even when he isn't talking straight. So it was a surprise to see him reduced to near-stammering on ABC's "This Week" two Sundays after the election. The subject that brought him low was the elephant in the elephants' room, or perhaps we should say in their closet: homosexuality.

Senator McCain kept repeating two safe talking points for dear life: he opposes same-sex marriage (as does every major presidential aspirant in both parties) and he is opposed to discrimination. But because he had endorsed a broadly written Arizona ballot initiative that could have been used to discriminate against unmarried domestic partners, George Stephanopoulos wouldn't let him off the hook.

"Are you against civil unions for gay couples?" he asked the senator, who replied, "No, I'm not." When Mr. Stephanopoulos reiterated the question seconds later -- "So you're for civil unions?" -- Mr. McCain answered, "No." In other words he was not against civil unions before he was against them. '

Gogli--engaging someone who is spewing irrational filth is both pointless and counter-productive. Why should we waste our time?

So a failure to PROVE a negative statistically means that William "wins this round?" Fascinating statement. I'll start writing a grant to determine -- definitively -- what the causes of violent crime are right now. Till I find out about the funding, however, I think that pointing out that William's "statistics" PROVE absolutely nothing will have to do. Also, I didn't say William = David Duke. I simply noted, accurately, that Mr. Duke shares his views on at least one topic. To quote Daniel Patrick Moynihan, "you're entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts."

Incoming Democrats will fund this year's spending bills--left unfinished by retreating Republicans--at last year's levels, stripping them of earmarks and eliminating the need for lengthy debate. The money saved will likely be spent on the new agenda. Avid earmarkers are "quietly fuming."

Everyone reports that Evan Bayh will not seek the presidency. Barack Obama's continued crypto-candidacy made Bayh feel like a "David" among "Goliaths" in New Hampshire last week. Supposedly a plus for John Edwards, who plans to announce this month in New Orleans. .
.
Wrapping up today's themes: Frank Rich notes that Rove's "supposedly fool-proof" overt political appeals to homophobia have become awkward for Republican politicians. Especially those that attack gay penguins.

Elsewhere in Baghdad, 53 bodies were found shot execution-style, including 15 recovered in the beleaguered Sunni neighborhood of Ghazaliya. At least 11 people died in other violence across the country Saturday.

hey chickenhawks -- think is a good strategy for 'winning' in iraq?

' Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki and his Shiite-dominated government reached out to former members of Saddam Hussein's regime Saturday, inviting them to claim government pensions and rejoin the army in a gesture meant to calm the country's sectarian passions.

"The Iraqi army opens its doors to officers and soldiers from the former army who wish to serve the country," Maliki said at a national reconciliation conference of politicians and sectarian leaders in Baghdad's heavily fortified Green Zone.'

--maybe they'll invite saddam back too... how's that work for you?

In the years up to 1994, many journalists allied themselves with Hutu extremists who planned and carried out the genocide. A magazine called Kangura, or Wake Him Up!, published screeds denigrating Tutsis as a subhuman race that aimed to destroy Rwanda, and urged Hutus to arm themselves. As the genocide got underway on April 6, 1994, the radio station RTLM filled the airwaves with vitriol, even broadcasting the names of individual Tutsis and their hiding places. Confirming the media's murderous role, the UN war crimes tribunal for Rwanda in December convicted key figures from the magazine and the radio station of incitement to genocide."

ABOVE: suitable for 6 year olds ? new Christian "Left Behind: Eternal Forces" video game promotional image shows, piling up on virtual NYC streets, corpses of city residents not succesfully converted to favored brand of Christianity.A discussion in the commentary following Talk To Action member Jonathan Hutson's second "Purpose Driven" series ( "Violent Video Game Marketed Through Mega-Churches" ) drew my attention back to the astounding volume of hate speech - against liberals, Jews, gays, Muslims, non-Christians, atheists, women, and probably some groups I'm forgetting - that has issued from the mouths or keyboards of leaders of the Christian right and the GOP over the course of the last few decades.

Recent research and scholarship suggests that ordinary humans have the capacity to carry out mass violence and that this capacity can be conditioned. Whitworth University professor James Waller, author of Becoming Evil : How Ordinary People Commit Genocide and Mass Killing has been one of the leaders in investigating the factors which seem to precede episodes of mass violence. Waller argues that the capacity for mass violence is a normal one and that it can be conditioned, or brought out, by various environmental factors including societal polarization and also the use of demonizing and dehumanizing language, and other forms of hate speech

One of the best writers on the subject of hate speech - especially hate speech from the American right - is without a doubt Dave Neiwert, who writes Orcinus and does extensive coverage on this. For an extremely extensive database of Christian and religious right hate speech, see HateCrime.org.

( from the Whitworth news release on Waller's book ) "Waller's Becoming Evil refutes many of the standard explanations for antisocial behavior and presents four ingredients that lead ordinary people to commit acts of extraordinary evil. Waller contends that being aware of our own capacity for inhumane cruelty, and knowing how to cultivate the moral sensibilities that curb that capacity, are the best safeguards we can have against future genocide and mass killing. "To offer a psychological explanation for the atrocities committed by perpetrators is not to forgive, justify or condone their behavior," Waller states in his preface. "Instead, the explanation simply allows us to understand the conditions under which many of us could be transformed into killing machines. When we understand the ordinariness of extraordinary evil, we will be less surprised by evil, less likely to be unwitting contributors to evil, and perhaps better equipped to forestall evil."

NoName 12:47 - Bill Bennett is just stating the obvious. He knows Hillary or Barack would whup Al. This is obvious and he knows nothing he says is going to change it. So he says it out loud, to keep his street cred in good shape. Conspiracies exist, but not everything is a conspiracy.

Most everybody else - For pete's sake come up with some facts and stats yourself if you want to take on William, who deserves stronger opposition than I see here. The guy called Duke a wacko scumbag, and he sounded sincere saying it. After that strong language, it just does not make sense to say William = David Duke. Comebacks like that sound and are stupid.

You are just playing along with his game if you use vague generalizations and name-calling instead of numbers. In my opinion William looks like the smartest person on this whole blog entry. That does NOT mean I think he is right in what he is saying. (Karl Rove is no lunkhead either, for example.) So don't let yourself be baited, just come up with some numbers, people.

If you don't like his statistics, provide a hard number that shows why his specific statistic isn't informative. Don't just say that causation doesn't equal correlation. That is a true statement, but does not advance the argument. This round went to William.

You see in individuals like william a clear downward spiral away from sanity and rationality. The more unpopular their belief system is among the general public, the more deranged and delusional and extreme they become.I've seen much more of this pathology since the election. i believe william is generally a denizen of a white supremacist site and has come here to try to infect wapo readers with his disease, like a blanket contaminated by typhoid.

Actually you're being unfair to compare him to David Duke -- Duke is far more rational. William is unfortunately like one of those kids at columbine -- so filled with hatred over his miserable life, such a failure that he is constantly searching for someone, anyone to scapegoat. His speeches mirror all the sentiments of hitler and I wouldn't be at all surprised if he ends up involved in violent crime. What a miserable excuse for a human being.

KY-6 Guy - Please note that when I posed that there might be an economic, as well as ethnic, correlation to the Bureau's stats, I did not say "economic motive."

What I was posing was that there might also be just as direct a correlation of the crime stats to "economically poor" geographic areas.

Also, there's no indication within those FBI stats on what the ethnic percentage of the crime victims was. What are the percentages of Black on White and Black on Black; Hispanic on White, Hispanic on Hispanic, Black on Hispanic and Hispanic on Black? And, where are the crimes commited?

If it is a higher percentage of minorities committing crime, but those that they commit the crimes against are also minorities, in minority areas, should White populations be threatened?

BTW - My ancestors were stereotyped when they came into this country as poor immigrants in the 19th Century. And it wasn't for cow-tipping. Those in power portrayed them as criminals, lazy, illiterate and immoral. Today, their great-grandkids are Councilmen, Mayors, Governors, Senators, CEOs, etc. But, movies and TV continue to perpetuate some of the stereotypes to this day; even though they truly no longer apply. Yet, some people continue to buy into the stereotype without ever thinking about how foolish it is.

KY-6 Guy - I have to go along with Colin. He could not have laid out the required "statistical reasoning" process much better. You're going to have to provide much more relevant data than the Bureau's "surface" stats, if you want to prove you're apparent thesis (You've only implied it, never actually stated it. At least William finally did for himself).

I'm starting to believe in the "slippery slope" concept. William's posts just keep getting more weird by the post.

Why the lower crime rate in Toronto? Crooks don't like to go out as much when it's very very very COLD?

A good Sunday morning appears to be shaping up based on the late postings last night. Dont be to hard on William, he at least got my favorite, Hillary, correct, although he is off on the Clark/--- ticket in that I can see no way Gen. Clark can/will win the nomination and I also agree with his agreement with me about Obama that has no chance and I do mean ZERO. I still think the Clinton/Warner ticket is the best the dems have to offer and as time passes the evidence keeps getting stronger.

2008 results will be a direct reflection on how Dems do with 2007 governing style. Any success in moving legislation, will win points. It was an absolute stroke of genius for the King of Pork, Byrd of WV to go along with Obey in declaring earmarks out of the spending bills. Even if this is temporary and it is, the fact they are going to clean up the republican mess first is what American wants to see.

Ethic reforms have to be at the top of the legislative agenda followed by the minimum wage bill.

The adoption of the 9/11 commission report and the Irag Study group would be my next agenda item.

Then I would roll back the taxes on America;s 1%. S

In short I would go with a centrist, small but noticable agenda item. SHow America that you can lead.

I would hold off on investigations until late 2007 and early 2008, just in time for the election cycle to heat up. Get something done first before the message gets drowned out,

Finally, sometime in early 2008, I would put together a plan for a balanced budget and hark back to the Clinton Days when dems proved they could govern.

Now more to the point about the senate, if Dems drop the ball on legislative initiatives, I see them as not having much room to gain. Landrieu and Johnson are more vulnerable than some of the GOP. The Dems took care of most of the vulnerable neocons, only Brownback is left standing after Santorum and Allen lost.

That said, I dont see Collins losing, unless especially if she goes along with some of the Dem agenda. The key there will be similar to Chafee in RI. I very strong chrismatic candidate is the Dems best bet.

As for Cochran in Miss, I dont see it., Its a red state from the South.

Smith in Oregon, if Dems can find another Ron Wyden, they can take this seat. It can not be the current governor who just won reelection.

I think the states with the best DEm pickup will be New Mexico, its Bill Richardsons for the taking if he wants it. Even if Richardson says no, this is a purple state. Another state is North Carolina where Easley is popular and even with Dole still in the race, he can win this one hands down.

MY predictions: Dems lose 1 aeat, pROBABLY, Louisanna. However, they pick up North Carolina, Oregon, and either New Hamphsire or Maine.

Actually Blarg, I think he would. That's the sad part.

William where are you? I need more of your wisdom! Please, hurry!

"In the old days you would have been arrested, put on trial for treason, convicted, and shot."

In the old days, liberals were the ones fighting to revolt against British rule, free the slaves, mandate a 40-hour work week and fair compensation, give equal rights to women and minorities, etc. Conservatives were against all of those causes. So I don't think you should be too proud of how conservatives acted in the old days.

According to Wikipedia, 57% of Toronto's population is white. That's comparable to the 53% you estimate for the DC area, KY. And the UN declared Toronto second in the world in terms of foreign-born population, in 2004. (True, the original post said "diverse", which is a vague term. But given those numbers, I'd say it's fair to call Toronto a very diverse city.)

So your attempt to refute Sandwich Repairman's claim has failed. Now answer his original question. And if you have time, explain the difference between California (44% white, 30th in crime) and Washington state (78% white, 7th in crime.)

Actually, that last question is open to everyone. What's with all the crime in Washington state?

"Wayne Allard is popular in Colorado and Tom Tancredo is VERY popular in Colorado. Plus, Tom will have a lot of national funding from immigration reform groups. Dick Wadhams will only help the state party, though even without him I think the GOP will do just fine in Colorado." - Chris R.

That may be the dumbest claim I have ever read on this blog. Allard and Tancredo popular statewide in Colorado??? You must be joking. Allard's approval ratings have not been above 50% in a long time and Tancredo is a nutcase who could not win an election for dog walker outside of his super-conservative House district.

"Wayne Allard is popular in Colorado and Tom Tancredo is VERY popular in Colorado. Plus, Tom will have a lot of national funding from immigration reform groups. Dick Wadhams will only help the state party, though even without him I think the GOP will do just fine in Colorado." - Chris R.

That may be the dumbest claim I have ever read on this blog. Allard and Tancredo popular statewide in Colorado??? You must be joking. Allard's approval ratings have not been above 50% in a long time and Tancredo is a nutcase who could not win an election for dog walker outside of his super-conservative House district.

If nothing else William, you provide for good comic relief. Keep up the good work!

Oh William, that last post may have been your best yet. Thanks for letting me in on the fact that "liberals," which I assume means anyone to the political left of Joe McCarthy, are socialists bent on creating a one world government hostile to christianity. I'll have to discuss that with some fellow liberals at CHURCH in the morning. All of my christian liberal friends must be the political left equivalent of log cabin republicans.

Seriously buddy, you come accross as a little unhinged. I gather from your comments that FDR, Harry Truman, and JFK all hated their country too, right? Is it a prerequisite to have skipped the draft during Vietnam to be a patriot in your book -- you know like GWB and Cheney? Or can that requirement be waived if you hate immigrants and black people enought?

Honestly, I want to get all my facts straight so I can let all of my fellow traitors know where it was that we went wrong. Please William -- teach me how to be a good american like you.

Pixie, You liberals are trying to destroy our country, by allowing massive amounts of 3rd world immigration, by eroding our society's moral and ethical standards, by attacking Christianity, and by attempting to destroy our patriotism and national morale, weaken our armed forces and give our sovereignty to the UN.

Patriotism and love of country means NOTHING to liberals, who are loyal to "humanity" and the United Nations.

You have no honor, nor respect for your ancestors who bled and DIED for the USA and for Western civilization.

Whether you realize it or not, the goal of liberals is to destroy Western civilization and put the West under the control of an authoritarian socialist one world government controlled by 3rd worlders and socialist atheists.

Liberals and especially socialists disgust me. You are all despicable traitors.

In the old days you would have been arrested, put on trial for treason, convicted, and shot.

Sandwich Repairman,

I would explain the disparity between Toronto and Washington by refuting your "evidence," which is purely anecdotal. How do we know Toronto is the "most diverse" city in the world? Was that proudly declared in a tourist brochure?

Compare apples with apples. The white population of the city of Washington is around 28%. Is Toronto's really that low within the city limits? (If so, that begs the entirely different question of why, which is off our subject matter). Based on the demographic makeup of adjacent congressional districts, I'm guessing the white population of the inner ring of Washington's suburbs is somewhere around 53%. I may be wrong, but I would be pleasantly surprised if that were higher than Toronto's.

I'd be glad to entertain your theories after you provide actual raw data.

Hey William, how can such a rabid conservative who thinks of all liberals with only the highest level of contempt understand us so well? I mean, you obviously don't have any liberal friends, you probably don't take the time to speak to any liberals about their views, and you spend so much time spewing hatred and making vicious personal attacks ("liberals are like the AIDS virus....").

It really is amazing how you understand us so well. My hat is off to you! A man who is obviously more intelligent than any of us can appreciate or comprehend. Thank you so much for your insightful contributions here.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA. OK, if you couldn't detect the sarcasm in that, then I feel sorry for you (no offense, of course).

How miserable your life must be that you have so much hatred toward other human beings bottled up inside of you. But that seems to be par for the course for the right wing rank and file.

PG

Senatur Tim Johnson has hardly gone under the knife when we get all this speculation about his successor. Good grief - the man isn't dead yet and the Republicans are licking their lips as they hope to backdoor their way to Senate control. Maybe Senator/Doctor Frist would like to advise someone to pull the pull on Johnson based on his diagnosis via videotape a la Terry Schiavo.

Lt. Gov. Bev Perdue looks like a lock for the NC Governor's race. She looks like a strong candidate - and she's got a solid lead.

And it'd be great if State Treasurer Richard Moore would take a crack at the Senate. That Dole seat is more vulnerable than it looks.

Montana will have a full ballot this next election. Besides the presidential race, Governor Brian Schweitzer is up for reelection, as well as senior US Senator Max Baucus, and of course the state's lone at-large seat in the US House, held by Republican Denny Rehberg, is up as well.

Not only that, but Montana's other stewide-elected offices are also up, and three of them will be open: Attorney General, Secretary of State, State Auditor and Superinendent of Public Instruction.
Only Secretary of State Brad Johnson, a Republican, will run for re-election. The other three offices are held by Democrats who are term-limted out.
They are Attorney General Mike McGrath, State Auditor John Morrison and Superintendent of Public Instruction Linda McCullogh.
That leaves three democrats with statewide name recognition who may seek Denyy Rehberg's congressional seat.
That's the biggest reason Rehberg will not challenge Baucus. If he creates an open seat by jumping to the Senate race, the Democrats are currently best positioned to take it.
Morrison has already shown his desire to go to Washington. he ran against Senator Jon Tester for the Democratic nomination. McGrath is one of the best-known Democrats. he has run for state-wide office since 1988 when he was a primary candidate for governor. He ran thrtee times for Attorney general, the last two of them successfully.

Baucus is not vulnerable. He's won his last two elections easily. Even the five-point win in 1990 over Rehberg needs an asterisk. That year Democratic votes were diverted by a Green candidate. And though he is up for a fifth term, he is still relatively young in his early 60s. It's doubtful he will want to end his crack at being Senate Finance Committee Chairman so soon.

Here's some more fun "STATISTICAL ANALYSIS" that's analogous to William's theories:

Blue states have lower divorce rates than Red States. THEREFORE, republicans respect marriage less than Democrats;

Blue states have, on average, higher per capita income than red states. THEREFORE, Democrats are better businessman than Republicans

I would note - just to be clear - that neither of my "conclusions" are in any way accurate statements. They are, however, "supported by statistics" in the same way that William's brilliant racial theories are.

William -- do a quick internet search. David Duke agrees wholeheartedly with your views. I couldn't find any other reputable scientists that do. I'll let others draw their own conclusions about what that says about you. Glad to hear you don't deny the holocaust though. Maybe there's hope for you yet.

WHat are you up to tonight? Going to see the new Mel Gibson movie perhaps? If not, why don't you try explaining to me how race is CAUSALY related to crime. If you can't do that -- and FYI, you can't scientifically -- then why don't you crawl back into your hole somewhere.

David Duke is a holocaust denier and a racist wacko.

I never mentioned that scumbag Duke.

I quoted FBI stats, and that is not racist, unless you are a brainwashed socialist.

In that case, the truth is racist if it doesnt conform with your PC beliefs.

By mentioning Duke, you are engaging in the dishonest and disengenous debating tactic of throwing a red herring to distract for the topic of the debate.

Colin, minority crime rates are far, far, far higher than white rates. Do you DENY this?

Do you deny that minority areas are higher crime than white areas?

Would you rather raise your family in a small West Virginia town, a poor white area, or some ghetto in DC, a poor black area, or some slum in South-central LA, a poor hispanic area?

Yeah, I thought you'd choose WVA.

Minorities are much more likely to commit crimes, and that is a fact.

If you deny this, you are lying!

For anyone that's interested, apparently the most "prominent" individual articulating the race-based theories that William agrees with is the incredibly well-respected DAVID DUKE.

Good company to be in if one wants to be taken seriously. I know I certainly get upset when everyone calls David Duke a racist. I mean come on - it's not HIS fault that everyone that's not a white christian is genetically inferior...

lylypink, I agree with your assessment.

Hillary is either pressuring strong rivals like Feingold, Bayh and Warner out of the race, or they think they have no chance against her and don't want to waste money, time, and their image, when they can save it for 2012 or 2016.

I kind of feel sorry for Bayh. He has devoted so many years to the Democratic party, as an immensely popular 2 term governor, a 2 term senator, but no one cared about all his experience. When he went to NH, people ignored him in favor of a sensationalist unelectable 2 year freshman senator.

Bayh must feel betrayed. I do feel sorry for him. He is much more qualified than Obama and NH Dems should have given him a lot of attention instead of Obama.

In any case, I agree with you that Obama will probably bow out soon. The Dem leaders are giving him his 15 minutes of fame, but soon they will tell him its time to move over, since they know he is unelectable. If he disobeys, Hillary and the Dem leadership will destroy him and ruin any future presidential chances he has. So he will know he has to bow out. I think Obamania is already starting to fade, now that people realize they have to support a viable, qualified candidate.

About Richardson, he has an IMMENSE ego, and I don't think he will bow out as easily as Bayh.

Richardson's site is called "America for Richardson", and not "Richardson for America."

He is greedy and ambitious.

But I think Hillary has a better chance of being elected than he does, by far.

She WILL defeat him in the primary, since she is more liberal than he is, and also, Dems will be excited about the first woman president.

I think she will also probably defeat Edwards, since his resume is so thin. If he had spent another term in the Senate, he would be in a far better position.

Biden and Dodd are the Kerry story again. A losing deal. Far left senators trying to pretend they are moderates. Forget em.

Personally I think with Bayh out, the strongest Dem ticket is Clark-Warner or Clark-Bayh.
But if Hillary wins the primary, as she almost assuredly WILL, I think Hillary-Clark or Hillary-Warner or even Hillary-Bayh would be OK.

Toronto is the most diverse city in the world. The Greater Toronto Area has about the same population as the Washington, DC region. Yet Toronto's crime rate is a small fraction of Washington's. DC has several times the murders Toronto does each year, and Toronto's white population isn't much bigger than Washington's.

So how do you explain the crime rate disparity?

William -- it's interesting that you equate anyone questioning you on your own racist beliefs as an embrace of socialism or PC rhetoric. Did you hear that on Fox news or did you make that connection yourself?

Since you have implied that you are highly educated, I assume that you've had a statistics class. Accordingly, I assume that you understand that merely looking at raw data is pretty meaningless and that its dangerous and in error to assign a CAUSAL connection between ONE particular variable without examinning the effect of other variables on your hypothesis. None of your vaunted statistics, which are nothing more than raw data compilations, even purport to identify race as a CAUSE of crime of any sort. Moreover, I'm unfamiliar with any respected scholar who has even seriously implied that such a connection exists since Eugenics went out of fashion. Why? Because it's an absolutely ridiculous assertion.

Sorry if I touched a nerve William. Take comfort though -- you can simply continue to ignore my observations by labeling me "PC" and a "communist." That's what modern day republicans do when someone points out that there views are nonsensical --gear up the swifboating operation.

Colin, do you really believe that race has no bearing on crime?

That view is completely contradicted by statistics, compiled by the US government, including agencies such as the FBI.

So what should we trust? Your obviously incorrect, intransigent, brainwashed PC view, OR

stats that are actually true.

I don't know why a lot more minorities commit crimes. But they do, and it is a fact.

DO yourself a favor and wake up, and stop being a retarded brainwashed socialist who won't even acknowledge fact when it stares him in the face.

An area with lots of minorities = an area with lots of high crime.

Minorities commit far more crimes, especiallu rapes and murderers, and violent robberies, and haqve FAR, FAR higher crime rates than white people.

And that is undeniable, unless you are Jesse Jack-off or Al Not-so Sharp ton.

So go take your PC lies somewhere else, Kofi!

My reading of the Byah announcement was as I expected, not much news there. Richardson will most likely be among the next ones to announce they are not running but it wont happen until Jan.. I expect Obama to be in this group as well but he may want to keep his "15 minutes of fame" going a tad longer. With the ones expected or intends to make the 08 run, Hillary is way in front of the others and bty, my favorite.

KY-6 and William -- help me out, since you are both so logical, in explaining why race/ethnicity CAUSE violent crime. I'd be fascinated to hear your response. Also, I would encourage you both to articulate your evolved ideas in a forum where you can't post anonymously. You really should get credit from the world at large once your ideas catch on. I imagine any number of white supremacist groups would be particularly interested in your ideas. In the mean time, keep up the good work. Once the GOP is completely branded as the party of people like you -- instead of principled and decent conservatives like Eisenhower, Ford, and Rudman -- its transformation into a regional party with no chance to compete in vast stretches of the country will be complete. Good Job!!!

KY-6, you know what you're talking about!

Good post!

Nor'Easter,

The primary argument against economic conditions being the root cause of crime (or perhaps I should say the types of crime that people are most afraid of and concerned with) is that there is presumably little economic motive tied to such things as rape, assault, or homicide. One could nitpick and provide a contrary example here and there, but then we'd be into the proverbial "exception that proves the rule" discussion.

Feel free to conduct your own research if it makes you feel better. I'm content with what I know to be true now.

As far as my ancestors and their predilection for crime upon arrival on these shores, I'm happy to report that incidents of cow-tipping among those of Norwegian ancestry has declined over 90% in the last century. I think it may be due to migratory patterns.

Nice to see all the anonymous cowards--gutless wonders--out in force today:

Posted by: | December 16, 2006 12:28 PM <-- COWARD
Posted by: | December 16, 2006 12:31 PM <-- COWARD
Posted by: | December 16, 2006 12:41 PM <-- COWARD
Posted by: | December 16, 2006 12:45 PM <-- COWARD
Posted by: | December 16, 2006 12:47 PM <-- COWARD
Posted by: | December 16, 2006 12:50 PM <-- COWARD
Posted by: | December 16, 2006 12:53 PM <-- COWARD

So much for the Post's rules. "Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed."

-More money to combat rampant unemployment among Iraqi youths and to advance reconstruction, much of it funneled to groups, areas and leaders who support Maliki and oppose the radicals.

--Excellent. We really can't spend enough money on this. And our history of smart spending in Iraq by these people should give the American public a lot of confidence (and Halliburton a lot of bonuses.)

unfortunately, there's no money to spend here on 'combatting unemployment' ... or retraining those who've lost their jobs due to outsourcing...

- A possible short-term surge of as many as 40,000 more American troops to try to secure Baghdad, along with a permanent increase in the size of the U.S. Army and the Marine Corps, which are badly strained by deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Kevin Drum and Steve Benen wonder why the wingnuts haven't come up with anything good with which to smear Obama. Good question.

It reminds me of some earnest and straightforward analysis Bill Bennett dispensed earlier today:

BENNETT: Well, I mean, as a Republican partisan, let me just say that, for sure, I would rather face Al Gore than Hillary Clinton...

BLITZER: Why?

BENNETT: ... or Barack Obama.

Because I think it's an easier win for a Republican. But, by the way, when they got it tuned into the Al Gore channel tomorrow night, if they flip by accident, and they get Obama, people are not going to go back.

Do you believe Bill Bennett is being honest about this?

I have no idea which candidates really scare the Republicans. But I do know one thing. When lying sacks of discarded table scraps like Bill Bennett tell you that they are afraid to face certain Democrats and don't fear the others --- be skeptical. Be very skeptical. I know it sounds mean and partisan, but experience should tell everyone that he is not a sincere man trying to dispassionately analyze the political scene. Everything he says is designed to benefit the Republican Party.

The White House is asking military planners and budget analysts to provide options for a troop increase, which the Times says "indicates that the major 'surge' in troop strength is gaining ground as a part of the White House strategy review." But the article, which is chock-full of background quotes, never really tells us what the surge would look like: It could be anywhere from 20,000 to 50,000 troops -- nor where the troops would come from. The LA Times, meanwhile, files a piece on Iraq's schools, which used to be touted as "a success story in a land short on successes." Now, teachers "tell of students kidnapped on their way to school, mortar rounds landing on campuses and educators shot in front of children."

"You know, this war is so fu**ing illegal." - SPC Pat Tillman

BAYH OUT -- too bad.

'Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh announced on Saturday he will not seek the presidency in 2008, saying he believes the odds of a successful run were too great to overcome.

"At the end of the day, I concluded that due to circumstances beyond our control the odds were longer than I felt I could responsibly pursue," the Indiana senator said in a statement. "This path -- and these long odds -- would have required me to be essentially absent from the Senate for the next year instead of working to help the people of my state and the nation."

Bayh's decision to step aside narrows a crowded field of possible Democratic candidates that, for now, is dominated by Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois.

Just last weekend, Bayh traveled to New Hampshire, the early presidential primary state, but his appearance drew little notice as Obama delivered two speeches to sold-out crowds and attracted hordes of reporters. Bayh, 50, joins former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner as well-known Democrats who already have decide against a 2008 run.'

' One would assume you would tire of proclaiming your ignorance for all to see'

yes, one would, zouk.

KY-6 Guy: How do those rankings compare when you look at the ranking of states in terms of median income, average income, etc.?

My guess is that the correlation is probably going to be very close. From what I've seen, crime can just as easily be directly related to economic circumstances. People who have a reasonable share of the pie don't have to steal; an exception is Greed (or power, see Ohio) as a primary source of white collar crime. It happens that minorities neatly fit the economic niches. As the minorities move up the economic ladder, other newer minorities fill-in at the bottom, and assume the mantle.

So, you may have a direct correlation, but do you have the root cause?

The odds are that both your ancestors and mine were probably looked upon with disdain by the ethnic group in power wherever they happened to enter this country. And that a portion of their immigrant communities engaged in crime tainting all of the rest of their communities.

I'd love to see a Udall-Tancredo race in CO. That would be a Democratic blowout.

Al Franken has indeed formed a PAC that's raised quite a lot of money that was given to Democratic candidates around MN in 2006. I don't know that him being the DFL candidate would be so disastrous. I would think that given his long public service as a very popular AG, and his 1 point loss to Pawlenty in this year's Governor's race, that Mike Hatch would be an obvious possibility.

Democrats took New Hampshire's US House seats--and both houses of its state legislature--in 2006, not 2005. What about Gov. Lynch as a challenger to Sununu? He's the most popular Governor in the nation (won with 74% this year) and will be up for re-election as Governor again after two 2-year terms. (The other state that still has 2-year terms for Governor, Vermont, may be on the verge of extending them to 4 year