Everlast: The repetition is probably caused a hardware problem on the Post's server, which is causing delays in entries appearing. Compounded by overanxious posters hitting the Submit button again, and again after it doesn't post a second time; and on...

Chris,

This comments section is a complete waste of time for any reader actually interested in the topic when there are so many off-topic posts by people that are apparently suffering severe mental imbalances. Maybe it would be overly time-consuming to cull these posts, but it's incredibly irritating (a) to see the same post copied 45 times by some maniac in desperate search of attention, and (b) to have to scroll past the 50% of posts than are completely unrelated to the topic at hand.

What are the chances that former Governor Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire would run against John Sununu in '08 in a rematch of their '02 race? Has she expressed any interest? Do others in the state or party want her to run?

" . . . people assume that Mondale was the strongest candidate the Dems could field at the last minute, but the 26 years between him being a Senator and running for re-election with 10 days to go in the cycle is an eternity, while he was a Democratic Icon, he was extremely easy to pigeonhole as a dinosaur because most Minnesotans that were voting had never voted for him in the past, it would have been like Hubert Humphrey running from the grave."
-- Steve

Looks like Steve hasn't studied his demographics and doesn't know that people over 44 vote in large numbers in Minnesota.

Who would you put on the ticket if there's 10 or 12 days between the death of the incumbent and Election Day? The DFL picked the person they thought had the best name recognition.

And what has Norm Coleman done for Minnesotans in DC now that he's elected? What he has NOT done is easier to quantify. He has NOT held hearings to investigate the $10 Billion in reported waste, fraud and abuse of contractors in Iraq, while Democratic Senator Byron Dorgan (ND) has had numerous hearings, I think about 20, to investigate the allegations. So now Sen Coleman's trying to distance himself from an unpopular president and vote with the New Majority in the Senate on many votes. Many voters have short memories and don't remember how Coleman voted last year, or that he did not use his position as chair to convene hearings to investigate claims of contracting fraud, waste and abuse. I might be old, but I still have my memories.

On the above comments, substantive rather than opinion:

Nebraskan is completely correct, Johanns won't clear the field on the Rep side should hagel choose not to run, while being fairly popular, he was an almost accidental Governor, and only a huge misstep by jon Christensen in the Rep primary in 1998 allowed him to win the primary. Fahey is the most popular local pol in eastern NE, where 75% of the population is, and he'll have the Dem nomination to himself. he fits the mold of JJ Exon and Bob Kerrey, both statewide winners in NE.

In SD, the Repubs do NOT have a top tier statewide candidate except for Gov. Rounds, and he is not as popular statewide as many in the national media assume. Plus being from Pierre, he doesn't have a power base in either Sioux Falls or Rapid City, and the eastern part of the state is much more Dem than most assume. Johnson beat John Thune 4 1/2 years ago, and Thune is the most popular statewide Republican in probably 2 generations. If Tim recovers and chooses to run again he will win.

In MN, Norm Coleman is toast unless the DFL candidate totally implodes, be it Ciresi or Franken. Norm Coleman is so unpopular in the state that he lost a Gov. election to Jesse Ventura, and was on his way to being soundly beat in 02 (a heavily Republican year) before Wellstone's plane crash, and any and I mean any candidate other than Walter Mondale would have won in 2002... people assume that Mondale was the strongest candidate the Dems could field at the last minute, but the 26 years between him being a Senator and running for re-election with 10 days to go in the cycle is an eternity, while he was a Democratic Icon, he was extremely easy to pigeonhole as a dinosaur because most Minnesotans that were voting had never voted for him in the past, it would have been like Hubert Humphrey running from the grave.

Jefferson Smith handily beats Gordon Smith.. Go Jefferson go.

Jefferson Smith handily beats Gordon Smith.. Go Jefferson go.

sorry my computer screwed up

You may not know, but jim marshall and john barrow were re-elected in districts that were made to be more republican which is impressive. Sanford bishop from what I know wins in a conserative district time and time again.

You may not know, but jim marshall and john barrow were re-elected in districts that were made to be more republican which is impressive. Sanford bishop from what I know wins in a conserative district time and time again.

You may not know, but jim marshall and john barrow were re-elected in districts that were made to be more republican which is impressive. Sanford bishop from what I know wins in a conserative district time and time again.

You may not know, but jim marshall and john barrow were re-elected in districts that were made to be more republican which is impressive. Sanford bishop from what I know wins in a conserative district time and time again.

Liddy Dole is Not safe here... People have been saying many things on here- Safe, popular and dems will suffer from black

All of those I have to say BS to.

Liddy Dole has low approval ratings for everything, even constituent services. That usually means that the candidate decides not to run. She is in a very weak position based on just that. Popular is also decimated by that one.

the corruption issue: black (and decker) was used as a major theme in the 2006 elections. The corruption was very clear then, Dems still won. Including Black. Voters don't care about it. Corruption is not a major issue here. I don't know why, but it is not.

I'll also add a few reasons:

The Edwards effect:
North Carolinians like Edwards. the only reason he didn't get NC in 04 was that most here didn't like Kerry. If Edwards gets the nod for 08, which seems probable at this point, Dems will get a boost.

Possible opponent.

It's looking Like Easly won't run though, but that could change. Pricy Harrison (state politician in NC) might run though. She is a strong candidate and would no doubt be helped by Dole's 36% approval rating.

However, it's all rumors and speculation at this point. However, Dole is one of the most vulnerable republicans out there.

"If we recurit the right kind of democrat such as sanford bishop,"

And yet another out of touch blissninny deigns to opine.

Good luck running Sanford Bishop.

An Jim Marshall and John Barrow were barely reelected.

Chambliss is safe. The Dems have no one who can take him out.

"If we recurit the right kind of democrat such as sanford bishop,"

And yet another out of touch blissninny deigns to opine.

Good luck running Sanford Bishop.

An Jim Marshall and John Barrow were barely reelected.

Chambliss is safe. The Dems have no one who can take him out.

"If we recurit the right kind of democrat such as sanford bishop,"

And yet another out of touch blissninny deigns to opine.

Good luck running Sanford Bishop.

An Jim Marshall and John Barrow were barely reelected.

Chambliss is safe. The Dems have no one who can take him out.

I am surprised that Georgia is not mentioned. I know the state when Republican this electoin, but Saxby Chambliss is not that popular in Georgia. Georgia is a conservative state, but it is not as conservative as say utah, alabama or mississippi. If we recurit the right kind of democrat such as sanford bishop, jim marshall or john barrow we could have a good shot at unseating Chambliss. After those awful ads chambliss depicted of then Sen. Cleland we could use that against chambliss and show how low he goes.

I am surprised that Georgia is not mentioned. I know the state when Republican this electoin, but Saxby Chambliss is not that popular in Georgia. Georgia is a conservative state, but it is not as conservative as say utah, alabama or mississippi. If we recurit the right kind of democrat such as sanford bishop, jim marshall or john barrow we could have a good shot at unseating Chambliss. After those awful ads chambliss depicted of then Sen. Cleland we could use that against chambliss and show how low he goes.

I am surprised that Georgia is not mentioned. I know the state when Republican this electoin, but Saxby Chambliss is not that popular in Georgia. Georgia is a conservative state, but it is not as conservative as say utah, alabama or mississippi. If we recurit the right kind of democrat such as sanford bishop, jim marshall or john barrow we could have a good shot at unseating Chambliss. After those awful ads chambliss depicted of then Sen. Cleland we could use that against chambliss and show how low he goes.

Good analysis, Chris.

Folks, I think Liddy Doyle is safe. I'm uncertain as to where many of you get information that she will retire or actually lose the seat. Liddy runs and wins.

Steve

I agree with you. Racicot's ship has passed in Montana. He's been in Washington since 2001. During his stint in national party politics, he has taken the hard pasrtisan line.

What made him polular in Montana, enough so that he had only token opposition for reelection in 1996, was his bipartisan, moderate approach. He derailed the Republican legistlature's drive to enact a right-to-work statute, saying he would veto it. The Republican leadership, though it had a lop-sided majority after the 1994 election, decided not to challenge a Governor of their own party on this.

The Montana Federation of Teachers was impressed enough that it endorsed him for reelection, the first time a Republican candidate got a significant union endorsement in the state.

But the deregulation fiasco and his stay in Washington as a partisan game player, make him unattractive as a candidate in Montana. He's making a lot of money there now as a well-connected lawyer. I don't think he wants to jump from that to try his hand back in Montana.

William -- Sorry for not responding earlier. I was so "decimated" that it was honestly difficult to even get off of the couch.

What am I supposed to respond to William? How do I "refute" your assertion that black people inherently "beg the federal government" for "largesse?" There's no basis for your assertion in the firs place, other than the fact that black voters do GENERALLY support politicians that aren't out to destroy social welfare programs (that benefit people of all races).

Or how about the fact that black folks are generally poorer than white folks. You seem to think such lack of prosperity has NOTHING to do with race. Implicitly then, I can only assume that you view white people as INHERENTLY more intelligent and capable of success than minorities. Where's your proof of that William? Is it just b/c in a "free market" the cream always rises to the top? Like, for example, when the rich son of a Texas Congressman --lets call him George -- gets into all the best schools despite having grades and scores well below the best? Nah, that was all about merit. Same thing where little George Jr makes MILLIONS by running several businesses INTO THE GROUND before his dads friends buyout the company as a favor, ensuring a profit. Hell, that guy was so WORTHY of success that he got to be president of the US despite NEVER accomplishing anything on his own - other than quitting the boozing and using -- before turning 40. But you're right; success today really is ALWAYS about merit, with nothing as silly as family connections or race playing a role at all.

But wait, maybe I was supposed to respond to your ingenious "proof" that racism no longer operates to the benefit of white people because.... wait for it.... you don't see it around you. Was that the fact-based and scientific argument that I failed to respond to William?

Or perhaps it was your previous assertion that black people and, indeed, everyone that's not white is INHERENTLY MORE VIOLENT than are white folks? Sorry William, it's simply hard to refute an argument that has no basis in fact to begin with and which -- at best -- assigns a causal connection to a variable with no regard to other variables that exist in raw data sets.

What do you really want to prove William? You've referred to Katrina refugees (who, although you don't seem to realize it, aren't all black) as parasites. You've made VERY clear that you think Latinos are all violent criminals (happy to pull up quotes from the archives if you'd like). Why not just say what you really think William? That black people and minorities generally are inferior to white people. Since it is black history month, it seems like the proper time to make such a statement.

Colin, when one's argument has been so utterly destroyed as William did to yours, among honorable gentlemen, it is considered customary to admit your defeat with some semblance of dignity.

Have you no self-respect, man?

Absolutely despicable.

Shame on you.

and FYI, I go to a very diverse university, which has huge numbers of minorities, many of whom I am friends with.

Again though, it really disgusts me how I wrote an extremely detailed response to your post, and all you could do in reply was to dismiss it out of hand, without providing any evidence for your dismissal.

Colin, it appears that you realize that I have decimated each and every one of your arguments, and that your position is thoroughly and entirely discredited.

Since you have apparently realized this, you use the tried-and-true liberal tactic of refusing to debate an issue.

On guns, Iraq, racism, economics, and every other issue, liberal positions are easily refuted, and when liberals can no longer come up with responses, they simply say "I'm right, and your wrong, and I'm not discussing it anymore."

I thought that you were willing to have a rational and intelligent debate, but apparently, that is not the case.

You obviously have no arguments or evidence left, so you make the unsupported claim that you are right, and dismiss any further discussion as pointless.

Again, I will consider that a victory, since I have provided reason, logic and evidence to prove the accuracy of my beliefs, whereas you simply say "you're wrong and I'm right", without any evidence, much like a 10 year old.

William

Wow William, good to see you at least had the sense to drop "rational" from your description of this reply. I literally don't have time to walk through your "points," but I would simply note that you are clearly blind if you don't think that you have benefited from being white or that racism is alive and well today. I'm glad to hear that because YOU haven't seen it in your sheltered little world that you're confident that it doesn't exist. I'm similarly comforted by your stereotyping of racial minorities of all types in your last post. Goes to show that at least your equal opportunity in your bigotry. Kudos to you.

Finally, I am officially done "debating" race with you. You clearly are blind to any and all points of view other than your own, which makes it clear to me that this kind of discussion is pointless. Again, it really is a shame since I don't think you're stupid.

Back to the Senate races...

I don't think Mark Warner will run for the Senate in 2008. Like Allen, he seems to prefer Governing rather than being in the US Senate talkshop. (Understandable for a former CEO)

I predict we'll see Warner run to retake the Governors mansion in 2009, and maybe if Allen's rehabilitated his image he will run for Governor too. As the WP once said, he loved being Governor but never seemed all that interested in Senate work.

The Dems Presidential pick will be crucial for the chances of picking up these seats. Hillary immediately minimises the chances. A good solid moderate, like Bill Richardson, would go a long way to benefiting the lower tickets.

Back to the Senate races...

I don't think Mark Warner will run for the Senate in 2008. Like Allen, he seems to prefer Governing rather than being in the US Senate talkshop. (Understandable for a former CEO)

I predict we'll see Warner run to retake the Governors mansion in 2009, and maybe if Allen's rehabilitated his image he will run for Governor too. As the WP once said, he loved being Governor but never seemed all that interested in Senate work.

The Dems Presidential pick will be crucial for the chances of picking up these seats. Hillary immediately minimises the chances. A good solid moderate, like Bill Richardson, would go a long way to benefiting the lower tickets.

"First, your historical example of racist Democrats is a complete non sequiter."

No, it's not.

" OF COURSE old dixiecrats were racists who explicitly appealed to bigots for votes. "

And as I said, BOTH parties still use enthic of racial appeals in order to win more support. You COMPLETELY ignored the example I provided of Blanco in LA using appeals to racism successfully against Bobby Jindal, aside from saying you don't condone it.

"Essentially ALL of those individuals are now republicans. Take a look at what states are red and blue these days."

Do you have any evidence to demonstrate that "essentially all" racist Dixiecrats have switched to the GOP? Did you take a survey? Actually, you have no proof of this whatsoever. For all you know, the racists might vote for the Democrats or might not even vote at all.

Has it occurred to you that the South has become "red" (Republican) because Southerners are in general conservative, and the Democratic Party espouses far left values like abortion, gay marriage, socialism, high taxes, and big Nanny Government?

None of those issues have anything to do with race.

Your claims that the South switched from blue to red because the GOP catered to racists is unfounded, or at the very least impossible to prove.

"but your entire discussion of the issue HUGELY overstates its "negative" effects on non-minority individuals."

Hugely overstates, huh? To a white person who has to provide for a wife with lung cancer and pay his kids' college tuition, and the mortgage on his house, but can't get the job even though he is more qualified, I think the "negative effects" of affirmative action are pretty "huge."

I think you UNDERESTIMATE the negative consequences of affirmative action.

Real people's lifes are being affected adversely by programs like affirmative action, while elitist, arrogant and condescending UC Berkeley professors keep trying to sell their snake oil.

The fact that minorities are given an unfair advantage by affirmative action is perfectly fine with most minorities, and liberal whites, since they feel "minorities are owed" such benefites because of past racism.

What about a Mexican who came here 3 years ago? Did he ever experience racism? No? Then why is he entitled to affirmative action?

And why are white people in general penalized, when almost no whites supported segregation, and almost none had ancestors who owned slaves.

The kids of Italian immigrants don't receive affirmative action, and neither do the Irish, but both groups were the victims of vicious racial attacks at various times.

Should they get affirmative action too, as past victims of racism?

Or should it only be for nonwhite people?

THAT seems pretty racist to me.

Also, you failed to address the fact that Affirmative Action is undeniably unconstitutional under 14A.

"It also COMPLETELY ignores the continued subtle benefits that white people continue to receive today -- in the form of conscious and unconsciouss mentoring, networking, etc. from those in power -- but whatever, that's too far afiled for this discussion."

Benefits that ONLY exist in the minds of minorities and white liberals. Anyone who thinks that minorities are still disadvantaged in society because of the factors you mentioned are out of touch with reality, or knowingly spreading lies in the hope of causing white guilt.

That is a well-known leftist tactic. Liberals will make a ludicrous,completely untrue statement about something, in the hopes of playing on people's emotions to generate a predicted reaction.

For example, liberals will say "America is still an EXTREMELY racist country," when they want to make whites feel guilty and get them to support Obama, or illegal immigrants, or affirmative action.

For example, Paula Zahn on CNN (The Communist News Network), recently did a one hour segment on how, according to her, KKK membership is increasing (from 3 people to 4 in the entire USA) because of annoyance over illegal immigration.

Her aim is to make people who oppose illegal immigration feel guilty, or fear being branded as racist.

CNN and Paula Zahn are highly experienced in these McCarthyite tactics. Every weekend Paula Zahn runs a segment on "racism" and how whites are all so evil and racist.

Maybe she should do a segment on the thousands of Americans who are the victims of crimes committed by illegal Mexicans each week.

In any case, your ridiculous claim that whites still receive some sort of inherent societal benefits is completely unsupported by meaningful evidence.

"Unconscious mentoring and social networking"

WTF? Seriously, you claim that white people receive these nebulous benefits.

What exactly is "unconscious mentoring?"

If you mean the fact that white parents are less likely to be unmarried 14 year old crack addicts, then you are right, but that is not the fault of white people, that is the fault of black people.

White people (and Asians) are in general more successful in society than blacks and Hispanics because they are concerned with working hard, and spend their time putting their noses to the grindstone and studying instead of "rollin' with the G's" and "smoking blunts" and listening to rap "music" which encourages social deviancy.

Those above statements I just made are generalizations, but they are accurate ones.

And no amount of government largesse is going to change that, until black youths start caring about school instead of rap music and bling bling.

Your argument that black people deserve government assistance because IN GENERAL whites have more stable families higher social status is nonsensical, not to mention unconstitutional.

It is not because of the "legacy of slavery" or the fault of whites, that black people and hispanics are in the situation they are in.

And, there are plenty of whites who live in trailer parks with broken families as well. Why shouldn't they receive affirmative action?

A big impediment to black people rising in society as a group is that they always blame OTHERS for all their problems, instead of trying to fix the problems themselves.

In Africa, black people blame "the legacy of colonialism" for all their problems.

Yeah right. What the "legacy of colonialism" was was intact, advanced infrastructure in most African countries, which the Africans promptly destroyed as soon as they were "set free."

And what about Liberia, which was never a colony?

Yep, that's a stable, developed country.

When are minorities, especially black people, going to stop blaming whites for their own faults and problems?

How long are they going to milk the "we are victims" ploy, and when are they going to stop playing on white guilt and threats of rioting to extort money and benefits?

So, Colin, how many more years do we need to keep giving black people undue benefits in order for them to catch up?

100 more years? 200? Forever? You tell me.

You mentioned that Mississippi receives a LOT of welfare money.

You are completely right. MS is 37% black, and has the highest percentage of black of all 50 states.

Again, I have replied to your post in a logical and detailed manner.

Please read my post and respond.

Thanks,

William

Colin said: "You see William, when you talk about "white values" or "black values," that actually IS being racist."

William said: "So is the Black Value System of Obama's church racist? Just wondering."

Colin didn't address this in his reply.

William does bring up an interesting point. Here is the "About Us" from Obama's United Trinity Church of Christ in Chicago:

"We are a congregation which is Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian... Our roots in the Black religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an African people, and remain "true to our native land," the mother continent, the cradle of civilization. God has superintended our pilgrimage through the days of slavery, the days of segregation, and the long night of racism. It is God who gives us the strength and courage to continuously address injustice as a people, and as a congregation. We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a Black worship service and ministries which address the Black Community.

"Trinity United Church of Christ adopted the Black Value System written by the Manford Byrd Recognition Committee chaired by Vallmer Jordan in 1981. We believe in the following 12 precepts and covenantal statements. These Black Ethics must be taught and exemplified in homes, churches, nurseries and schools, wherever Blacks are gathered." http://www.tucc.org/about.htm

It seems if you substituted the word "white" for the word "black" this church would certainly be labeled racist.

Just how will the country take to a candidate who remains "true to our native land" of Africa. Perhaps this is too sensitive a subject for rational discussion, but I do believe Obama may have to address his church's "black values" statement.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Anon 12:39pm, Your hostility really is breath-taking. As for my "precious passion," evidently you think that is reserved for just those who agree with you. Do you honestly think saying "Have you been smoking corn silk behind the barn" is reasoned discourse. I did misread David's comment, and for that I apologize profoundly to David.

But pleeeeze, you and David (or even Drndl)don't have the corner on political wisdom. Bullying tactics and name calling.... "this kid is a racist and lives in a hate-based illogical fantasy world." don't sit well with me.

Did anyone answer William's last post? I would like to see the reasoned response.

William -- I don't really even know where to begin with your "raional" reply, as it is so riddled with logical falicies. First, your historical example of racist Democrats is a complete non sequiter. OF COURSE old dixiecrats were racists who explicitly appealed to bigots for votes. Essentially ALL of those individuals are now republicans. Take a look at what states are red and blue these days. I don't condone Senator Byrd's past statements or LA Democrats racist actions either -- you see, for me racism is unacceptable regardless of party. You, on the other hand, seem to think it's fine since both parties have exploited the issue in the past. As someone who purports to be religious, that's a very odd stance.

With respect to your "white values" statements, it's truly hard to even form a response. You can disagree with affirmative action without being racist, but your entire discussion of the issue HUGELY overstates its "negative" effects on non-minority individuals. It also COMPLETELY ignores the continued subtle benefits that white people continue to receive today -- in the form of conscious and unconsciouss mentoring, networking, etc. from those in power -- but whatever, that's too far afiled for this discussion.

What's more disturbing is that you honestly seem to think that any and all programs designed to assist the poor are somehow racially motivated; which is ridiculous. Take a look at where all social welfare dollars go William -- let me help you out; they end up in RED STATES. There are lots of poor white people out there that need and get federal and state assistance. West Virginia and Mississippi, for example, receive some of the largest shares of federal dollars in the country per capita. They don't all go to minorities.

Moreover, you seem to think that racism magically ceased to exist in 1865 and that those "upitty black folk" really ought to just quit their complaining. Might be good to go back and review some of your history from the last 50 years or so William. It turns out that the civil rights movement happened less than a generation ago. We lived in a segregated nation till 1954. Ronald Regan announced his run for the presidency in 1980 in Philadelphia Mississippi to signal to formerly racist democrats that he was on their side. Race still matters in this country because racism is very much alive and well -- even if less likely to be seen in the light of day.

I know, of course, this exchange won't change your mind at all. I have no doubt that you will likely go off on a tangent callling me a communist or something similar. For your sake, however, I hope that you actually do interact with some people with different racial and socio-economic backgrounds at some point in the future. Ultimately, individual experience is the only way that people really change their minds about stuff like this. Unfortunately, you may very well be able to avoid that if you continue on your current track. Truly sad.

Colin - I strongly doubt either of your predictions will come true.

In TN, Ford has been thoroughly discredited as a viable candidate, and due to his campaign tactics, family reputation, call me ad, his race, and a lot of other issues, he will not be nominated again by the TN Dems.

They are not going to risk losing the governors mansion in 2010, especially when Bredesen's legacy gives them a great chance @ retaining it, by nominating a black guy with moral issues from a corrupt family who has already lost a statewide election and has been out of a job since 2006.

Not gonna happen. They will play it safe and nominate a conservative white candidate in 2010, and you can take that to the bank.

Again, that comment is not meant to be racist, I am just telling you what will happen.

The TN Dems will certainly not nominate him to challenge Alexander in 2008.

As far as MN is concerned, maybe you are right. I don't know. MN is a really weird state with eccentric people. If Jesse Ventura could win as an independent, and Paul Wellstone and even Keith Ellison can be elected there, then for all I know, maybe Franken can win.

But all I do know is that Coleman is PRAYING ON HIS KNEES for Franken to be his opponent. At least if Franken is his opponent he has a chance.

If McCollum or Ciresi run against him, he knows he might as well give up.

It just seems stupid for MN Dems to risk such an easy pickup with such a weak candidate. Franken has said some really extreme things in the past, which WILL be dredged up.

"Out of curiosity as to Ford, what are these "white values" that a black man is incapable of representing?"

OK, at risk of being called "racist" again, I will tell you.

The reason that in order to gain acceptance in the Black community a candidate MUST be a Democrat is that THE single biggest campaign issue to black people is receiving government largesse and benefits and advantages that they feel they are entitled to.

Most black people I have met are conservative in general, and oppose gay marriage and even abortion.

But the reason 91% of black people vote Democratic is that the most important issue to them is getting benefits like affirmative action, and receiving social entitlements for their urban communities, like welfare and such.

The Republican Party is, in general, opposed to affirmative action and social entitlements.

The platform of the GOP calls for limited government, and low taxes, and cuts in welfare, medicaid, food stamps, etc. Since most black people want to keep the flow of government largesse coming, they vote for the party that will give it to them, the Democrats.

Unfortunately, this money in general has a negligible effect on these urban communities, and simply keeps going into a bottomless pit, with very little positive result.

But people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton really don't care, and here's why.

I think it was Booker T Washington who said that "there are some black leaders who want black people to keep their problems, so that those black leaders can keep their jobs."

That is the essence of the quote, I don't think it's verbatim.

But that description applies to people like Sharpton, who have no interest in alleviating the plight of black people, since then Sharpton and other black "community leaders" would become irrelevant.

Sadly, most black people don't realize what people like Sharpton are doing to them.

In my opinion, people like Sharpton hurt the black people of this country much more than prejudiced whites, since Sharpton is striving to KEEP black people poor and angry for his own benefit.

He is truly a despicable character.

With regard to affirmative action, the GOP opposes affirmative action since it unfairly gives nonwhite people advantages in college admissions, government contracts, job applications, etc.

Many or even most black people feel they are "entitled" or "owed" and that they "deserve" such benefits because of slavery and segregation.

That is a debateable point. Most whites even in liberal states like MI and CA oppose affirmative action.

Indeed, it really wouldn't make sense for a white person to support affirmative action.

That would be like a black person voting for a law that requires them to go to the back of the bus.

Arguably, affirmative action benefits black people, but I really don't think so.

If a black person gets into Harvard on their own volition, for the rest of their life, people will be sneering at them, saying "oh, it was because of affirmative action."

If there WAS no affirmative action, no one could say that.

People who support affirmative action are really prejudiced themselves, since they view the black community as an inferior group that needs extra help, and can't succeed on their own.

And why should white people vote for a black, or white, candidate who supports affirmative action, since it puts us at a disadvantage?

Also, affirmative action seems to violate th 14th Amendment and "EQUAL protection."

Believe me, I would vote for a black candidate like Michael Steele, who believed in conservative values like limited government and equality, instead of believing in pandering to the black community with affirmative action, and social entitlement.

But sadly, most black candidates have a socialist "they OWE us" mentality, instead of an enterprising, individualist, classic liberal mentality like Steele.

It can be argued that white people "owe" black people, but I never supported segregation, and none of my Southern ancestors ever owned slaves, so why should I and other whites be punished for something our ancestors did long ago?

Affirmative action would also put at an unfair disadvantage white first gen. immigrants from Europe, who have had no role in slavery or segregation.

So the "the owe us" metality really doesn't make sense, nor is it fair.

"You see William, when you talk about "white values" or "black values," that actually IS being racist."

So is the Black Value System of Obama's church racist? Just wondering.

You see I have given you a polite, amiable, rational, reasoned, and detailed explanation of my beliefs.

Please read my whole post and respond.

Thank you,

William

Another thing, Collins actually has respect from Maine (yet not as much as the big O methinks). Sununu's poll numbers were on thin ice back in 2004. Those numbers might have even comptetes with Santorum's, but I'm not 100% sure. Has much changed since? No. Only the obvious revalation that...hmmm...maybe the war isn't doing as well as we thought it would?

I think Dole might retire in the end not because she is in danger of losing the seat, but because last year's campaign cycle made it clear she doesn't have much of a future in politics (other than marking time) and she has a husband who's basically waiting around until she retires. If she had any intention of ever running nationally again or holding a Senate leadership post, her perceived failure as Campaign chair pretty much put the kibosh on it.

There may be several incumbents who eventually decide to head for Sun City instead of undergoing another ugly campaign, expecially if health is a major concern.

I think Dole might retire in the end not because she is in danger of losing the seat, but because last year's campaign cycle made it clear she doesn't have much of a future in politics (other than marking time) and she has a husband who's basically waiting around until she retires. If she had any intention of ever running nationally again or holding a Senate leadership post, her perceived failure as Campaign chair pretty much put the kibosh on it.

There may be several incumbents who eventually decide to head for Sun City instead of undergoing another ugly campaign, expecially if health is a major concern.

David: I have answered your post in detail, so please bear with me and read my entire post.

With regard to Zell Miller, I have not read his book, so I really can't comment on what he may or may not have written.

I don't think white Southerners vote Republican for racial reasons. Indeed, quite a number of Southern states have Democratic governors or senators. Arkansas has two Dem senators, and a Dem governor. VA has a Dem senator and Dem governor. North Carolina and Tennessee and Louisiana have Dem governors.

Even many very conservative congressional districts in the South, such as Shuler's, have Dem congressmen/women.

So what I am saying is that Southerners do not vote Republican because the GOP "courts racists."

That claim (that the GOP tries to appeal to racists) is a lie propogated by liberals and Democrats.

In the South, BOTH parties use subtle racism when it benefits them. FOr example, in the 2003 governor's race in Louisiana, Democratic candidate Kathleen Blanco's campaign darkened Bobby Jindal's image in hit ads, to remind people he isn't white. They also used other racial/ethnic ploys to turn rural white conservatives against Jindal.

Democrats hate when that example is brought up, but it is true.

In Mississippi, Democratic goveror Kirk Fordice (I think that's his name), was very cozy with the racist "Conservative Citizen Council", which supports segregation. Indeed, when criticized even by his fellow Democrats, he refused to even distance himself from them, and called them "a great bunch of guys."

Many Dem and GOP state legislators in Southern states, particularly in the deep south, also have made racist remarks or have other racism issues.

In West Virginia, which IS part of the South, Democratic Senator Robert C. Byrd was twice elected leader of Senate Dems by his colleagues, and in 2007, Senate Dems appointed him Senate pro tempore, a highly prestigious position putting him 3rd in line for the presidency.

Robert Byrd was a senior leader in the WVA Ku Klux Klan, even rising to the rank of "exalted cyclops". Before that, he was "grand kleagle," responsible for recruiting new members to the Klan.

In a letter to the virulently racist (Democratic) governor of MS during the 1940s, Byrd said he would "rather die 1000 deaths and see old glory trampled into the dirt never to rise again" than have to fight along side black people in an integrated army.

Many years later, Byrd issued an "apology" for joining the Klan, which was more along the lines of "I'm sorry for joining the KKK b/c it hurt my political career" rather than "I'm sorry for joining the KKK since they are a racist hate group."

But apparently, Byrd is still racist. As recently as 2002, he used the N word on Meet The Press.

Senator Byrd is now serving his 9th term in the Senate, to which he was elected by an overwhelming majority.

So, as you can see, whites in the South don't vote for the GOP for racial reasons, and there is no reason to believe that "racists" are more likely to vote for the GOP than than the Democrats.

In West Virginia, for example, I am sure that Byrd has a lock on the racist vote.

In any case, I don't think most racists bother to vote anyway, since they have been disillusioned with politics ever since the end of segregation.

Both parties usually run white candidates in statewide races, simply because there is no point in running a nonwhite candidate when a substantial segment of the population will not vote for them.

But people who are not willing to vote for a black person are just as likely to vote Democratic as they are Republican.

I really don't think you can say that either party espouses racism, or condones it. In local races, both parties use race, religion, and other dividers to try to win the race. In black congressional districts, such as the TN district that Ford's brother Jake tried to win, racial appeals are used. Jake Ford tried to use race to gain support in his unsuccessful challenge to Steve Cohen.

So racial appeals are not limited to Republicans, or even whites, or even the South for that matter. In the SouthWest and CA and FL, Hispanic candidates use not so subtle appeals to ethnic loyalty to attract Hispanic voters.

I am not familiar with the AG of GA, so I really can't comment on that.Maybe his opponent was hated or embroiled in scandal.

But in general, aside from Wilder (a fluke) there has NEVER been a nonwhite governor or senator from the South since reconstruction.

Martinez in FL is the only example.

Almost all statewide races are white against white in the South, so racism really doesn't affect the outcome.

truthie-

sorry for not making it crystal clear, but as william and anyone who read the entire post would have realized, i wasn't referring to the ga commish of agriculture, but the ATTORNEY GENERAL of ga (ag of ga), thurbert baker. for anyone whose stills wants to challenge the importance of a black man winning the attorney general spot three times in georgia, remember one of the truisms of modern politics is tht that ag has for years been said to stand secretly for 'aspiring governor'. it's highly coveted and extremely important spot, that is desperately fought over in every sttate.

my point to william (with zell miller's backing ) in pointing out baker's triumph in '06 with more votes than any other dem in ga, and his win in '02, while two white dems were getting spanked, was to illustrate to young william that in the south just because a dem is white, does not guarantee victory or even help that much, and a black dem statewide can not only win in a severely anti-dem year like '02 in a state like ga, but win by a huge margin. obviously then, there are millions of southern white voters who have no problem not voting for s white candidate white at the same time effortlessly voting for a black candidate.

as for ford, rest assured the 'call me' ad was blown way out of proportion in it's importance. what was far more crucial was the turnaround or corker's campaing, and ford's supposedly flawless campaign all of sudden got all kinds of stupid: backing his nutso brother, nastily attacking the base, and yes, stupid things like the infamous barge-in, which will always fail as it makes a candidate look desperate and out of control and can only serve to benefit either the bargee or someone supporting the bargers (see reagan, repub primary debates, '80).

anon -- good analysis.

Truth, You been smoking corn silk behind the barn?

"While I don't usually agree with his opinions, I certainly defend his right to express them without ridicule."

Every time one of William's wacko ideas is challenged logically, he either comes up with some obscure illogical defense, or he takes off on another wacko tangent and doesn't address the fallacies in his position.

There's a whole group of posters here who picked up right away that this kid is a racist and lives in a hate-based illogical fantasy world.

The attempts at reasoned discourse have gone nowhere. Maybe one day the ridicule two-by-four might have some effect. Real world logic isn't working.

You treating him like a nice young man would be admirable, if he was simply a nice young man. He's dangerous. He has obvious intelligence which is being used to foster concepts which only alientate, divide and harm the rest of a society which is trying to get along together.

That he knows politics doesn't make him any less dangerous.

He's a George Lincoln Rockwell in the making.

And if he turns out to be only a Lee Atwater, Jack Abramoff, Karl Rove or Grover Norquist, will that be better?

The kid's obsessed in an unhealthy way. And you are encouraging him.

Also, you can have your "passionate patriotism." When people on here get "passionate" the discussion dissolves into a name calling, spitting contest. In case you haven't noticed, when your beloved "passion" enters these threads, logic goes out the window. The result is that the whole discussion is undermined.

William -- Just be ready to eat crowe when both my predictions come true. I don't think either Franken or Ford will win in the future b/c I personally like them. I just happen to intimately know MN politics and - though less familair with TN -- realize that Ford can and will run strong for EITHER an open senate race in 08 (if Alexander retires) or an open Gubenatorial race in 2010.

Out of curiosity as to Ford, what are these "white values" that a black man is incapable of representing? You see William, when you talk about "white values" or "black values," that actually IS being racist. Saying that white people can and do only represent white constituents or the converse is simply ridiculous and the kind of statement only a bigoted person would make. Which is a shame, b/c I don't think you're stupid and imagine that if you were a little more self-reflective you might be able to grow out of your narrowmindedness.

PS -- I suspect I've spent as much time as you have in Virginia. I'm not 19 and have lived quite a few places, so don't play the "he doesn't understand the South" game.

"I attend one of the top 25 schools in the country."

God, how our schools are failing us. Maybe KOZ is right.

David, David, David.... You said, "i think zell's response to you would be that say what you want about commish of labor, the ag's a top stop in any state. for a black man to win that spot three times over a bunch of white guys (getting more votes than any other ga statewide dem in '06) sure says something."

I seriously doubt that Zell would say that since GA has a Commish of AG, Tommy Irvin, and he might not take too kindly to being dismisssed in favor of the Commish of Labor, white or black.

Meuphys, David can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think one thing that hurt Ford was his barging in on one of his opponents events. Didn't sit well with the voters.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

question for david: so, as someone who was much closer to the action than i was, the "call me" ad was not what sunk ford?

my brother lives in atlanta, and on my visits there i have been impressed and charmed by the people and the city. could never live there just cuz it's way too hot and humid for me... but i agree with david. there are progressives and conservatives everywhere, and the differences are only in the issues and history specific to the area. for example, georgia gave us jimmy carter and max cleland, while we in massachusetts, i'm sorry to say, have inflicted paul "former ambassador to canada" cellucci and mitt "my own biggest fan" romney on the rest of the nation. any time we adopt a preconceived idea, or just take someone's word for anything because it's easier, instead of examining the issue for ourselves, we run the risk of being manipulated by that person / those people / that party, church, industry, whatever. having said that, david, your incisive analysis, coupled with my own experience, gives me enough confidence to say, you're right. william is in fact "a blithering racist idiot." and he insists on spelling 'ridiculous' with an 'e.' it's a good thing "bob jones" is easy to spell.

william, william, william, as an older man to a younger one, let me assure you little in life is worth getting that worked up about, definitely posting on a website does NOT make the grade. i admire your passion and interest in politics, i wish more people in general possessed them, whatever side of the great political divide they fall upon. i fault only your racist point of view which, unfortunately, you still lack the insight to see.

as for my southern bonafides, i like to think they run fairly deep, though admittedly not as deep as yours, but i am a red-stater through and through. i'm a kansas boy married to a tennessee girl, whose family has deep roots in her home state. i love 'em to death, racists amongst them and all, as i'm one of those big-tent kind of dems to the bone.

now for my little secret: all of that stuff in my last post was pulled directly from one of my (and perhaps yours) favorite pol's books, 'a national party no more' by the one, the only, zell miller. he's makes a forceful argument in that book that things have shifted racially in the south, and surely though you are free to attack my knowledge of southern politics, i'd say zell's got us both beat any day of the week and twice on sunday. you see, one of the many reasons zell got so angry after getting to dc, was he was stunned to find that the national party believed southern whites continued voting republican was partly for racial reasons and that pissed him off something fierce. i think zell's response to you would be that say what you want about commish of labor, the ag's a top stop in any state. for a black man to win that spot three times over a bunch of white guys (getting more votes than any other ga statewide dem in '06) sure says something. also, those nearly 6,000 black office holders in the south used to be just over 500 back in 1970 (zell mistakenly says 1990) which is a stunning increase no matter how you look at it. also, as for doug wilder winnning over a man hated by his party's base, the fact is he still won, which he couldn't have done without millions and millions of white votes.

getting back to ford, william, i really can't tell you the number of tn dems i've spoken with and whose blogs i've read and whose exit polls i've seen who all agree that his despicable family ties and ridiculous attacks on the base hurt him far more than the color of his skin and that stupid call me ad ever did. people were just severely peeved that he had the gall to view his seat as god-given to his family and to rip apart the people who he needed to work for him the hardest if he was going to win. any politician will tell you that when it comes down to it, as important as swing voters are, you need your base to win as they provide the energy, verve, and support to carry you to victory. the only way to buck this trend is to do a lieberman and get a substantial number of the opposing party to vote for you, but this only happens if these voters are provided with no one to vote for by their original party. believe me, had the republicans actually run a real candidate in '06, the junior senator from ct would now be ned lamont, for good or ill.

well, my boy i'm off to bed. have a good night william, i'll be interested to see your response to ol'zell in the morning.

"he's obviously forgetting about doug wilder winning in virgina in '89, which, if my history isn't too shoddy, was the seat of the old confederacy."

Apparently, your history IS shoddy. Do you know the circumstances surrounding that election? The GOP candidate was so detested that people just couldn't stomach voting for him.

Did Doug ever win a statewide race again? No. And he knew getter than to run for reelection 4 years after his term ended, since he knew he would lose.

Wilder's victory can best be described as an anamoly, or a fluke.

As for Georgia, I am trying to be nice to you but you are obviously stupid, or misrepresenting the facts.

Cleland lost to Saxby Chambliss, who is white.

Roy Barnes lost to Sonny Perdue, who is white.

A big reason Barnes lost was because he tried to replace the 1953 GA state flag with a more PC-ish flag. Voters were outraged, and Barnes was "booted."

Sonny Perdue made a campaign promise to hold a referedum on the flags, and offer a choice between a new design and the 1953 flag. He reneged on his promise, and offered an referendum on a new design, which technically incorporated a Confederate Flag, but instead of the Battle Flag, it was based on a little known flag also used by the Confederacy.

Anyway, both Cleland and Barnes lost to white challengers, so I really don't know what point you are trying to make.

As for the Commissioner of Labor in GA whom you say is black, that is really a negligible example, if it's even true.

I'm intensely interested in politics, and I don't even know who the Commissioner of Labor is in NC, or if we even have one. Basically, it's an insignificant office, which really doesn't make your point.

So basically, you are either lying, or are completely ignorant of the political situation in the South, or a combination of both.

David, huh? Maybe you are David Axelrod, high counselor to His Majesty Barack Obama The Wise?

Seriously, though, if you don't know something, don't pretend that you do. You demonstrated in your post such a rediculously off base analysis of the SOuthern political climate that you must be from France...or Venus.

as for william's silly little comments, he's obviously forgetting about doug wilder winning in virgina in '89, which, if my history isn't too shoddy, was the seat of the old confederacy. also, that same old confederacy now has nearly 6,000 elected black office holders at all levels of governent.

my favorite example of the disappearing racism of the south before ford got just as many votes as polls said he would and nearly won was in 2002 when in Georgia (which is 70% white) two white Democrats, Roy Barnes and Max Cleland, lost re-election in 2002 with about 46 to 47 percent of the vote, while two black Democrats, Attorney General Thurbert Baker and Commissioner of Labor Michael Thurmond, won re-election STATE-WIDE against white Republican opponents with about 56 to 57 percent of votes cast.

so william, just because you're a blithering racist idiot doesn't mean all the rest of your southern brethren are, i'm very thankful to say.

"the only way alexander could be vulnerable in '08 is if bredesen decides to take him on. "

Bredesen won't do that...he hinted that he plans to run for president in 2012, assuming the Dem doesn't win in 08. And the best place to run for president from is a governor's mansion. Also he was reelected in 2006, he won't run for governor halfway through his term.

"had ford accepted the dem. primary voters' choice of cohen to replace him and not viciously attacked the 'far-left' time and time again i'm confident he'd be the second african-american serving in the senate today."

Again, my friend, you don't understand politics here in the South.

There are SOME whites who are willing to vote for a black candidate, but most "hold their nose" and do it out of party loyalty rather than out of willingness to vote for an African-American. So in the 2006 Senate race, in a very blue year, with a lot of people casting a protest vote against the R's, the TN Democratic base voted, if reluctantly, for Ford. But enough TN Dems/ swing voters were not willing to vote for a black person under any circumstances, so he lost.

In such an anti-GOP year, a white Dem congressman would have beaten Corker.

This post is not meant to be "racist" (in case Colin or drindl read it and try to smear me...again.)

It is merely meant to provide an accurate portrayal of the political situation in the South, since a lot of people on this board seem to think the South is like...Indiana or Ohio, which it's not.

Illinois is up in 2008. I suppose it's not on the line because we don't know what the Republican field is going to look like. I guess Durbin doesn't have to worry, huh.

Illinois is up in 2008. I suppose it's not on the line because we don't know what the Republican field is going to look like. I guess Durbin doesn't have to worry, huh.

the only way alexander could be vulnerable in '08 is if bredesen decides to take him on.

the reason ford lost the tn race had little to do with color, and everything to do with his inflammatory uber-lieberman attacks on the left which won him few repub votes, but alienated the hell out of many thousands of progressives, many of whom simply refused to vote for him but gladly did so for bredesen, despite phil's centrist views. also, pissing off the base was ford's ridiculous backing of his several-cans-short-of-a-six-pack brother's foolhardy attempt to hold the 'ford family' congressional seat, as if it were theirs by divine, not voter, right.

ford's loss should be contrasted with webb, tester, and mccaskill's wins to show that for a dem to win statewide in a red state though it is necessary to swing to the center on some hot-button issues, it is simply IDIOTIC to demonize and question the very people whose passion, commitment, and votes you need to get your sorry butt past the finish line. had ford accepted the dem. primary voters' choice of cohen to replace him and not viciously attacked the 'far-left' time and time again i'm confident he'd be the second african-american serving in the senate today.

No, I do not go to Liberty. There's no way to prove it on an anonymous message board, but maybe you would be surprised to know that I attend one of the top 25 schools in the country.

"William -- I will enjoy checkin in after (1) Franken wins; and"

Keep dreaming, not gonna happen. You want to nominate George McGovern to run for POTUS in 2008, too?

"(2) Ford is elected either to Alexander's seat or succeeds Bredsen as Governor in 2010. As to Ford, I think Cook said it best -- as long as Ford is married before his next election, he'll be a US Senator. "

That is the most UNREALISTIC and rediculous piece of political "analysis" I have read this month.

You really are out of touch, aren't you?

As I remarked above, just because YOU LIKE someone doesn't mean they will WIN. For example, I liked George Allen and Rick Santorum, but they lost. Get it?

Obviously, you are not from the South. You mentioned you are from PA, I think?

Next you will be suggesting that Barack Obama may very well win Tennessee or Georgia or Alabama.

After the "call me" ad, Harold Ford is done. Even TN Dems will admit it.

Maybe not being from the South, you do not understand the political dynamics here.

African-Americans do not win in statewide races. You can condescendingly say that Southerners are "racist", but maybe, white southerners quite accurately feel that black southerners don't understand or represent their values.

The idea of Ford succeeding Bredesen as governor or defeating Alexander is laughable. He couldn't beat an old, boring, former mayor for an OPEN seat, and you think he can take out a long-serving incumbent? Get real.

The idea of him winning the governorship is equally rediculous.

Ask any TN Dem. The TN Dems won't even let him run again, because they know he will lose.

After his loss, there was a LOT of resentment from TN Dems who were mad that he was the candidate, instead of an electable "white" congressman.

Ford won't even be NOMINATED for governor or senator by his own party, forget about defeating the Rep. candidate.

You, my friend, are out of touch.

As you pointed out yesterday, I may not be intimately familiar with politics in PA, but you are WAAAAAAAAY out of touch with politics in the South.

well, shoot. i go out to do some errands and all hell breaks loose.

first of all, this is what i said:
"let me say once again that i do not question the patriotism of republicans - as a whole, although i'm sure there are some, just as there are some democrats and members of any party, for whom the interests of the nation take a back seat to hearing themselves rant. nor do i question their intelligence, nor their moral fiber, none of that. how could i? i haven't met all of them."

i was actually trying to avoid being called "partisan." i have conservative friends, too, and i love them even though we argue sometimes. all i was trying to do was to explain exactly what i don't like about some political dialogue nowadays. fyi, i was all set to vote mccain in 2000, but he didn't make it to the finish line. i agree that overly partisan opinions on both sides get in the way of a real discussion of the issues... and i do not require that the person with whom i am speaking agrees with me as long as he or she respects my right to have my own opinion, and does me the courtesy of assuming that i thought a bit about it before spouting.

so, i don't think i deserved the thrashing i got from you, truthy, not at all. if you read what i wrote, i tried to explain what i was thinking about the topic, and responding to your saying "I guess only the Democrats have a right to post insults (however incorrect) in Sally's America." i don't think it's a stretch to interpret that as partisan. however, i don't know sally, nor do i know her opinions any better than anyone else here.

and i am absolutely pro-choice, not that that's so relevant to anything. and i don't necessarily "hate" anyone, not even darth cheney... but i don't respect opinions that aren't supported by anything other than name-calling and / or volume. fyi, i did take a little offense to your saying that i was "lost in world of partisanship that doesn't even recognize how ludicrious (my) one-sided statements are" because that's exactly what i was trying not to do, and i thought i had succeeded. look at what i said again, please... but anyway, i'm over it.

in re: my "longwinded" post - i don't do sound bites well and thus will never run for office fyi, your response to was almost as long as mine, but it's all good. (i was an english major once upon a time many years ago...)

Adler, I profoundly hope you are right.

The Iraq war is sucking all of the air from the political arena, and certainly gives the Bush administration cover to do other dastardly things behind our backs while voter attention is thus distracted.

The fallout from our unsecure borders and massive illegal immigration when it emerges on voter radar screens.... and I'm talking about illegal immigration not legal immigrants.... could well change election dynamics.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

The political projections are indeed interesting...but wait until the issue of illegal immigration is actively injected into the political arena. When that happens, all bets are off. This issue is increasingly simmering among the vast majority of Americans and, once surfaced, will have a profound impact on who will get elected or re-elected.

Why so many Anon comments? Why not assign yourself a "handle".... helpful when engaging in an exchange of views.

Liberty U -- I knew it was either that or Bob Jones or Pepperdine...

Anon, If true that William is a student at Liberty, then I'm quite impressed with his interest in and contribution to this political forum.

While I don't usually agree with his opinions, I certainly defend his right to express them without ridicule.

Colin, You make a good point about Harkin's seeming strength, but bear in mind while his support is broad, it is also shallow.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Good pick up on the Falwell indoctrination, Colin.

FYI, William finally outted himself himself yesterday as a Falwell puppet at Liberty.