I would like to see politicians in general be supportive of more international affairs that affect our place in this world. We should not forget the commitment made towards the U.N. Millennium Goals (a pact of ending extreme world hunger by the year 2025) in 2000. According to The Borgen Project, an annual $19 billion dollars is needed to eliminate half of the extreme poverty affecting the world by the year 2015. To my sense, it is almost unacceptable to have spent so far more than $340 billion in Iraq only, when we have more than war immunities to change the world and eliminate poverty.

"The Fix" wrote:

"In a July 2000 poll just 21 percent of those tested said it was very (13 percent) or fairly (eight percent) likely they would back an independent. That might explain the fact that Ralph Nader received less than three percent of the vote nationally"

Or, it could have easily been vice-versa, with only 21% polling "very likely" based on the fact that Nader was the only newsworthy third party candidate in 2000, and lacked in both charisma and fundraising.

Any freshman social science major will tell you that correlation doesn't imply causation. Penchant for referring to himself in the "nick-named-third-person-tense" aside, I'm sure "The Fix" is a smart guy. But I'm annoyed that I have to go to the BBC for smart reporting.

'Your obsession with zouk is what I find the most amusing. I haven't seen him around here for weeks,'

LOL

I am Zouk!

Or Zouk is me?

I have trouble telling sometimes.

I still think that Zouk is paid by the RNC to sprinkle their talking points on this blog and troll freely, at least after Noon.

I can't figure out if he has a morning job, or just sleeps in.

That wasn't zouk, it was me moron. I am hateful and juvinile, just like you. Maybe you haven't realized it but you are not the only one who is a coward and won't post their name. It is really not that hard to make fun of someone as totally imbecilic as you are "original ignorant coward".

Your obsession with zouk is what I find the most amusing. I haven't seen him around here for weeks, yet you see him everywhere you turn. that is a sign of something sinister in your persona. seek help before you kill.

I forgot - it's because you are a lying coward. never mind. cowards do as cowards must.

god zoukie's been busy today... i'[ve never seen so many of his [unsigned, but trademark posts. what is it zoukie, welfare? you cna't have a job -- you're too stupid.

"I am reminded of one of the reasons I fled the Left, many years ago: Personally, they were so mean -- so nasty, so indecent. So full of mockery, ridicule, and scorn."

"To be an idiot, you have to believe that" - finally something you can actually claim to be an expert on.

that diatribe took you over an hour? too bad it is all BS. My how you Libs are productive in your hate.

No response from Ed schultz coward? why do you always run and hide when your lies are exposed. come forth and admit your treachery.

To be an idiot, you have to believe that:

1. The AIDS virus is spread by a vengeful God to punish homosexuals, prostitutes, and needle sharing druggies.

2. Medical and pharmaceutical negligence gets a free pass; the courts are for collecting business debts.

3. Global temperatures are controlled by a wrathful God and sinful cities like New York and Los Angeles and New Orleans are on his "bad" list.

4. Saddam Hussein posed a nuclear, chemical and biological threat even after he planned and executed 9-11.

5. Businesses own government and oppression creates prosperity.

6. Self-esteem is more important than respect for others.

7. There is no art worth the price of a NASCAR ticket.

8. The NRA is Godly, but the ACLU is a good organization only when it stands up for Nazis.

9. Taxes are too low on wages compared with capital gains that should be untaxed, because they are earned by the worthy.

10. Standardized tests are how we tell if we measure up. Those Asian and Jewish kids must be cheating.

11. ANY change in the weather is proof of God's wrath, that is why we have the phrase "acts of God."

12. National wealth is determined by our trade deficit - the more we owe, the richer we are.

13. Elective war is a fun way for old draft avoiders to pick their soldier games.

14. Perjury and obstruction of justice are pardonable if a Republican official commits them.

15. "America can have a strong military without spending money on it" -.D. Rumsfield

16. The way to improve public schools is to fund parochial schools with public money.

17. The oil industry is the steward of the environment and National Parks and Forests are there for the plunder.

18. I should get to decide whether to pay for air traffic control or the interstate highway system this year, or just keep my money in overseas investments where it will not be taxed.

19. Being manly makes a good candidate, but having fat ankle is a disqualifier.

20. Ann Coulter is a wonderful example for young women of feminine independence even though she has never accomplished anything worthwhile.

21. Christian religious whackos are God's people. Islamic religious whackos are not.

22. Street crime is bad, but creative accounting and off-book liabilities are cool.

23. Corporations, capital gains, estates, and dividends should not be taxed so the stock market can fly to new heights and American wealth will be justly rewarded. The worth of the soul is measured by the net worth of the body.

The loonies from the right and left are busy here today. Why argue against someone's actual position when you can make up a ridiculous position for them and argue against that?

Dick Cheney is "otherwise mellow"? Really?

STOP giving away our secrets. It makes us look silly.

To be a Democrat, you have to believe that:

1. The AIDS virus is spread by a lack of funding.

2. Trial lawyers are selfless heroes and that doctors are overpaid.

3. Global temperatures are affected more by a suburban soccer mom driving an SUV than by documented, cyclical variations in the brightness and intensity of the sun.

4. Guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans are more of a threat than nuclear, chemical and biological weapons in the hands of Saddam Hussein.

5. Businesses create oppression and government creates prosperity.

6. Self-esteem is more important than doing anything to earn it.

7. There was no art before federal funding.

8. The NRA is a bad organization because it stands up for certain parts of the Constitution, but the ACLU is a good organization because it stands up for certain parts of the Constitution.

9. Taxes are too low but ATM fees are too high.

10. Standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas are not.

11. ANY change in the weather is proof of global warming.

12. National wealth is determined by what we consume, not by what we produce.

13. The only wars in which America should become involved are those in which our national security is not at risk.

14. Perjury and obstruction of justice are impeachable if a Republican president commits them but a harmless, private matter if a Democrat president commits them.

15. America can have a strong military without spending money on it.

16. The way to improve public schools is to give more money and power to the very people who have misused that power and money to destroy the public schools.

17. Hunters and fishermen do not care about the environment but pasty-faced activists that rarely venture out-of-doors do.

18. A bureaucrat living in Washington, D.C. can make better decisions about how to spend the money that you earn than you can.

19. Being a movie or television star qualifies you to speak out on public policy.

20. Hillary Clinton is a wonderful example for young women of feminine independence even though she has never accomplished anything worthwhile without riding on the coattails of her husband.

21. A handful of religious whackos living in rural Texas are more of a threat to public safety than Islamic terrorists who wish to plant bombs in major American cities.

22. Passing new laws are a much better way to curb crime than enforcing the existing ones.

23. Tax cuts are for people who don¹t actually pay income taxes.

Former special forces officer and columnist Geoff Metcalf provided a brief overview of Senator Leaky Leahy's record of divulging secrets:

* Senator Pat Leahy was annoyed with the Reagan administration's war on terrorism in the 1980s. At the time he was vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Therefore, "Leaky Leahy," threatened to sabotage classified strategies he didn't like.

* Leahy "inadvertently" disclosed a top-secret communications intercept during a 1985 television interview. The intercept had made possible the capture of the Arab terrorists who had hijacked the cruise ship Achille Lauro and murdered American citizen. But Leahy's leak he cost the life of at least one Egyptian "asset" involved in the operation.

* In July 1987, it was reported that Leahy leaked secret information about a 1986 covert operation planned by the Reagan administration to topple Libya's Moammar Gaddhafi.
US intelligence officials stated that Leahy sent a written threat to expose the operation directly to then-CIA Director William Casey. Weeks later, news of the secret plan turned up in the Washington Post, causing it to be aborted.

* A year later, as the Senate was preparing to hold hearings on the Iran-Contra scandal, Leahy had to resign his Intelligence Committee post after he was caught leaking secret information to a reporter. The Vermont Democrat's Iran-Contra leak was considered to be one of the most serious breaches of secrecy in the committee's 28-year history. After Leahy's resignation, the Senate Intelligence Committee decided to restrict access to committee documents to a security-enhanced meeting room.

Metcalf is on the record saying Leahy should have been indicted, arrested and tried long ago.

So where did the big mouth go? To the Judiciary Committee where he still has access to classified information and documents. He's known as a man who's more than willing to speakout on issues he knows absolutely nothing about. In fact, while attempting to sound as if he were a legal scholar, he's made several flubs. During a debate on the Geneva Conventions, for example, he finally admitted he wasn't familiar with the provisions he was debating.

In the immediate aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September 11, Leahy headed the Senate's negotiations on the 2001 anti-terrorism bill, the USA Patriot Act. He was more concerned with protecting the civil liberties of the enemy than providing protection for Americans.

Patrick Leahy is not a very honest man either. When Senator Dick Durbin compared US military personnel to Nazis, Leahy at said that Durbin made no such comment. Then when told Durbin indeed made the statement on the floor of the US Senate, Leahy amended his own statement claiming Durbin's comments were taken out of context. When the Durbin tirade was shown to Leahy, he began to denigrate Bush by saying he hurt the Iraqis as much as did Saddam Hussein.

Within the Beltway, Leahy is known as an extremely abrasive and "sneaky" man. He's the only senator in recent history to have an otherwise mellow Vice President tell him to "go f--- yourself." I wholeheartedly concur.

Jeff - is it the "public" in public schools or the Dept. of Education in Washington which you don't like.

Public education in this country predates the City of Washington, DC by about 150 years.

Also named in subpoenas signed by committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., were the Justice Department and the National Security Council.

"I will decide what to leak and what not to leak, as I have done many times in the past" said Leaky Leahy.

Now here's an idea that's time has come: close down public schools and let the private sector take care of educating the young.
Remove government from the equation and failing schools would vanish as the unnatural life support Washington gives such schools would cease to exist.

Uprooting the sound good/feel good but ultimately destructive ideas of liberals from young minds is difficult. Don't believe me? Try explaining to a liberal how expecting nothing from people will get you nothing. Try explaining to a liberal how taxes are too high. Try explaining to a liberal that peace only comes when you back it up with superior force. Try explaining... well, nearly anything to a liberal that is grounded in common sense and you'll see just how difficult it can be to open their eyes.

And the sooner we can get our children out from under such influence, the better

http://news.mywebpal.com/news_tool_v2.cfm?pnpID=724&NewsID=817447&CategoryID=16783&show=localnews&om=1

muD -

a third party candidate would need to get a majority of the electoral vote to win, not a plurality.

Let us be clear on the height of the hurdle:

failure of any ticket to win a majority sends the Presidential election to the House, voting state-by-state; and the Vice Presidential election to the Senate, voting by a simple majority.

An independent must do the nearly impossible to win.

On the other hand, think about 2000: if the US S.Ct. had refused jurisdiction of Gore v. Bush AND the FL S. Ct. had thrown out Harris's certification, no statewide recount could have been completed by Dec. 20, neither candidate would have been able to claim a majority vote and the R House would have elected GWB. Proud has pointed out that the Senate might not have elected Cheney.

One of the anonymous posters has asked me not to speculate about this alternate history, but hindsight speculation is easier than predicting the future.

TG - it is not just Mathews - it is all of CNN and MSNBC. they are hitting rock bottom. they have decided their only chance is - if you can't beat em, join em. hence coulter. Intelligent speakers are so contrary to everything the Lib media represents, but they do get the ratings. will they sell their liberal soul to survive. who would have thought that we would be talking about whether the Lib media will ultimately tell the truth in order to attempt to maintain its traditional strangle hold on the public. NYT and WaPo is next.

21% (very likely) plus 12% (fairly likely) is 33%. Find 1% from somewhere and you win in an evenly split three-way race.

You can take the Jesse Ventura model for winning as an independent, personal charisma, voter dissatisfaction and motivation of the 40+ percent who don't vote to actually vote. I don't know if Bloomberg has any charisma, I can't see even the faintest hope in an independent without it. But assuming he does, or can manufacture just enough, then there is a chance.

None of the leading Republican candidates will be able to motivate the religious-right Republicans who "emptied the pews" for Bush II. This takes away a lot of votes. Republicans in general don't seem very motivated, leaving them open to voting elsewhere or staying home. On the other side you have primary voting Democrats growing more and more anti-war everyday. With such a strong field all wanting the nomination so badly they will tear into each other. With Democrats thinking the election is theirs (because of the mess that is Republicanism and their executive mismanagement of the country) the candidates won't fear clawing their way left as much as they would if they thought they'd have Republican challenger that stood a chance come fall '08.

So in the fall of 2008 the country is left with a daisy draped Democrat and a Republican of questionable far-right credentials. The religious-right vote is not as strong as recent elections because they don't have a candidate. Right-leaning independents who are uncomfortable with the positions the Democratic candidate has had to take to satisfy the far-left have an option in Bloomberg. Republicans who are not religious-right but won't vote Democrat without a hell of a reason have an alternative. Both these groups (right-leaning independents & non-religious-right independents) aren't going to be put off by Bloomberg's social views. Others, dissatisfied with Washington will like Bloomberg's "I can't be bought" defense of his personal wealth. And the numbers dissatisfied with politics will grow larger than normal this cycle because of the nasty fight that will characterize the Democratic primary and the growing number of scandals/general disgust with this administration.

Of course a third party candidacy in a two-party tyranny is madness.

Proud - I think you are right on about John the ambulance chaser. I posted the Shrum account on here before but it is worth posting again.

"Kerry talked with several potential picks, including Gephardt and Edwards. He was comfortable after his conversations with Gephardt, but even queasier about Edwards after they met. Edwards had told Kerry he was going to share a story with him that he'd never told anyone else--that after his son Wade had been killed, he climbed onto the slab at the funeral home, laid there and hugged his body, and promised that he'd do all he could to make life better for people, to live up to Wade's ideals of service. Kerry was stunned, not moved, because, as he told me later, Edwards had recounted the same exact story to him, almost in the exact same words, a year or two before--and with the same preface, that he'd never shared the memory with anyone else. Kerry said he found it chilling, and he decided he couldn't pick Edwards unless he met with him again."

Who has time for talk radio? I waste most of my time during the day on this stupid site.

I think we should just ignore Anne Coulter. It would be more effective than discussing her. She is hateful but she is not alone and her type of lowest common denominator rhetoric is not a monopoly of the right. There is way too much vitriol on both sides. Look at how many personal insults are on this site today and that appear on this site everyday.

As for Matthews. Check out his ratings. They stink. That is why he has Coulter on.

the staggering intellect of the liberal left ignorant coward :

"I know you are but what am I?"

I am in awe.

"If an ORIGINAL thought ever hits you loser, be sure to put in in ALL CAPS so we can find it."

It's going to be a long wait.

Sarah - I'm not a huge Coulter fan, but if you could remove you blinders for one second, Coulter was not making fun of the son death, she was commenting on John Edwards' pattern of exploiting his own son's death.

Throughout his campaign for president and then vice president in 2004, former Sen. John Edwards made it clear that the death of his teenage son in a car accident was off-limits, not for discussion in a political context.

But, he used it at the end of 2003 in his own piece, Four Trials

Running for his son: Teen's death changed Edwards' life

Here is the Edwards press machine making it an issue in 2004, acting as if they are finally opening up about it...but they were on record as talking about it in 2001....

Then his wife, Elizabeth, has sent an e-mail to supporters voicing a connection she shares with Cindy Sheehan, the mother of a soldier killed in Iraq. As Sheehan was camped near President Bush's Texas ranch, protesting the war, Edwards called on her own family's backers to support Sheehan.

And, in a departure from a campaign-trail silence that the Edwardses kept about the death of their 16-year-old son, Wade, Elizabeth Edwards noted that Sheehan's son, Casey, 24, died in Iraq eight years to the day after her own son.

Here the Edwards are again in 2006, using it with Oprah and her dimwitted audience:

Book saves memory of son, Edwards tells Oprah

Here's John again, finally opening up about his son's death
(HOW MANY TIMES CAN YOU FINALLY OPEN UP!?!?!?)

The Edwards campaign site loves to bring it up also:

A Tribute To Wade Edwards

Here again the Edwards' blog suggests the way to honor their dead son is to vote for John Edwards.

Somehow, their son manages to make it into the political arena whenever John Edwards is running for something, and that is what Coulter's (albeit crude) comment was pointing out.

' - copying and pasting furiously from other's ideas. If an ORIGINAL thought ever hits you loser, be sure to put in in ALL CAPS so we can find it.'

but we all know that's all you do, zoukie, cut and paste rightwing talking poins -- you don't have to tell us, 'ignorant coward'.

"Maher's comments are frequently passed along minus the context in which he made them. He is first and foremost a comedian. A political satirist.

Not a supposed expert a la Ms. Coulter, Esq."

In other words, We Libs are expected to be daft and ignorant. and we succeed gloriously. you Repubs are supposed to be rich and successful and know everything better. It seems so.

At an acrimonious hearing underway of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs on the surge, Major General John Batiste, a former division commander in Iraq turned critic of the war, got on the administration's case for recently attributing most violence in Iraq to al-Qaeda.

'I also believe we cannot attribute all, or even most, of the violence in Iraq to al-Qaeda. There's a tendency now to lump it all together, and call it al-Qaeda. We have to be very careful with that. This is a very complex region. al-Qaeda is certainly a component. But there's far larger components. al-Qaeda is a growing worldwide organization. It recognizes no national boundaries. And it's in areas where we ought to be focused, not Iraq.

For this and his other skeptical remarks about the surge -- Batiste said the current effort in Iraq is "destroying our military, with little to show for it" -- Rep. Dan Burton (R-IN) questioned Batiste's credibility, attacking commercials he made for VoteVets, an antiwar military PAC, calling it an effort to "elect Democrats."

Batiste replied that he is a "die-hard Republican," and made VoteVets "bipartisan" by joining it. His participation in the group, he said, is "a wake-up call to Republicans who don't understand the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan."

..."it isn't clear that a single, divorced man whose lone political experience is as the mayor of New York City is the ideal vessel to represent voters' frustration with the political process."

Um, doesn't that basically describe the *leading* GOP candidate?

Only add "his kid hates him" and "he quit Iraq Commission to fundraise instead."

Ed Schultz: 'How Many Markets Do I Have To Beat Hannity In Before I Get 200 Or 300 Stations?'

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/people/Ed+Schultz

how about more than seven out of 50?

you all can just skip all of ignorant cowards posts and head over to Kos and Huff where you will see the plaigerized content in its original form.

One of the last great thinkers of the Lib spectrum - copying and pasting furiously from other's ideas. If an ORIGINAL thought ever hits you loser, be sure to put in in ALL CAPS so we can find it.

Rudy's efforts to paint himself as the toughest anti-terrorism warrior in the Presidential field is inspiring one inconsistency after another, each one more impressive than the last.

First he flip-flopped ostentatiously on whether Bill Clinton should be faulted as soft on terrorism.

Now we've unearthed another glaring inconsistency, this time on his views on Israel's pullout from the Gaza strip.

Turns out he was for it before he criticized it.

;The Baltimore Sun reports today that Rudy spoke yesterday before a Maryland synagogue. In his speech, he suggested Israel's withdrawal from Gaza was to blame for the current Palestinian civil war:

Giuliani touched on the war only briefly, at one point warning against the consequences of a pullout. Here, he said, the violence that has erupted between rival Palestinian factions Hamas and Fatah less than two years after Israel quit Gaza is instructive.

"What happened in Gaza I believe is a microcosm of what will happen in Iraq if you listen to the Democrats and precipitously leave with a staged, timed, planned-in-advance withdrawal that will put our troops in jeopardy," he said.

But it turns out Giuliani had a very different perspective on the disengagement from Gaza when it was actually implemented by Ariel Sharon.

From an article entitled "Rudy Goes To Bat For Ariel" in the New York Post of September 23, 2005 (via Nexis):

Giuliani referred to Sharon's conduct during the disengagement from the Gaza Strip, saying Sharon did things that were necessary, even when they hurt him politically or crossed his party's ideological line.

"In this, he reminds me of British Prime Minister [Tony] Blair, who faced difficulties before the war in Iraq, but nevertheless supported it for the sake of his country," Giuliani said.

So, two years ago Rudy believed that Sharon was doing the "necessary" thing for the "sake of his country." Now Rudy is suggesting that the very same policy -- one he gave his blessing to -- is disastrous. So would Rudy now acknowledge that his judgment failed him when he endorsed Sharon's policy?

Ed Schultz Whines About His Poor Ratings

And as a typical liberal, blames the fact that his ratings are far inferior to those of conservative talkers not on the fact that people are choosing not to listen to him and his fellow liberals but rather on the idea that government isn't doing enough to force people to listen to liberal talk radio

McQ over at QandO has an interesting analysis of Ed "The Left's Rush Limbaugh" Schultz's ratings numbers as stacked up against the two biggest conservative talkers, Sean Hannity and Limbaugh

...in markets where I could determine Schultz and Hannity/Limbaugh went head-to-head, Schultz was in 50, won 7* and lost 43. . .

While Schultz isn?t represented in NY, the largest radio market, Air America is, and they get buried. The Limbaugh/Hannity station, WABC pulls a 3.7 while WWRL, the AA crew, pulls a .6

But Schultz does show up in the 2nd, 3rd and 4th markets and gets buried in them. Number 2 is LA and even progressive LA isn?t interested in progressive talk. KFI, which carries Limbaugh and mostly local hosts pulls a 4.2. KABC, which is all conservative talk and includes Hannity has a 1.8. KTLK which has the AA gang (Bill Press, Stephanie Miller, Tom Hartman, Randi Rhodes, Mark Germain, Ed Schultz, Rachel Maddow and Alan Colmes) pulls a dismal 0.7

In number 3 Chicago, it?s about the same. The top rated talk show is WGN with all local talent (5.3). WLS which carries Limbaugh and Hannity comes in second at 3.4. Coming in at #6 in a six station race is progressive talk radio with the AA gang and Schultz. Rating? 0.5

Detroit, another market in which you?d think progressive talk radio might do well. It?s the #10 market in the US. Limbaugh/Hannity? A 5.9 on WJR. Schultz and the AA crowd? 0.6 on WDTW. 4th in a 5 talk radio market

Probably most enlightening is the #4 market, San Francisco. If progressive talk can?t make it there, it can?t make it anywhere. And, as it turns out, progressive talk is tops in SF. It?s just not the progressive talk with Schultz. Instead it is local progressive hosts along with a mix of medical and legal shows which leads the ratings. KGO pulls a 5.5 in the market. And how do Limbaugh/Hannity do? Well not bad considering. KFSO, where they are carried, comes in at 3.2. And Schultz and the AA gang? 1.1 on KQKE. That?s number 4 in a 5 talk station market

What?s that tell you?

It tells you that despite all this twaddle about ?structural problems? in talk radio, that where at least Limbaugh and Hannity and progressive talk go head-to-head, listeners have consistently and overwhelmingly chosen the Limbaugh and Hannity.

I will admit that, of all the liberal talk radio shows I've listened to, Schultz's is the best. But, to put that in perspective, it's sort of like saying that Schultz is the smartest guy in the special ed room

But Schultz has been rather successful, and I don't begrudge him that. I just think his incessant whining about getting beaten by the likes of Hannity and Limbaugh, and he and his fellow liberals calls for government intervention to force more liberal radio programming, is pathetic

http://www.kxmc.com/getArticle.asp?ArticleId=138388

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Senate Judiciary Committee subpoenaed the White House and Vice President Dick Cheney's office Wednesday for documents relating to President Bush's warrant-free eavesdropping program.

Next week, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales will make his first-ever visit to Seattle as attorney general. While there, he will deliver a 45-minute speech "on the Justice Department's efforts to protect intellectual property and combat cybercrime."

The speech, which is free and open to the public, was organized by TechNet Northwest. It is also being sponsored and promoted by the most prominent creationism advocacy organization in the country: the Discovery Institute.

One of the Institute's main goals is to replace evolutionary science in public schools with "intelligent design":

The Discovery Institute has quietly positioned itself as the most effective and politically savvy group pushing a religious agenda in America's public school science classes. [...]

The Institute enthusiastically endorses what law professor and ID champion Philip Johnson calls the "wedge" strategy. The plan is straightforward: use intelligent design as a wedge to undermine evolution with scientific-sounding arguments and thereby advance a conservative religious-political agenda.

The institute's main financial backer, savings and loan heir Howard Ahmanson, spent 20 years on the board of the Chalcedon Foundation, "a theocratic foundation that advocates the replacement of American civil law with biblical law."

proudtobe GOP: If you are old enough, did you react with indignity when you first heard the phrase "Where's Lee harvey Oswald now that we need him?" [It was even on T-shirts]

If you are old enough and were not indignant, then spare us the Maher/Coulter tripe.

Ben seriously distorts the facts in his extreme right wing revisionist history of the Depression. I agree, as do virtually all historians that it took WWII to end the Depression. Beyond that point, much of what he wrote is ideology masquerading as history.

The stock market was too heavily reliant on easy credit - people borrowed "on the margin" against the value of their stock holdings to purchase more stock. Of course the value of the collateral collapsed as the market did. What caused the total collapse of the economy was the collapse of global trade thanks to the Smoot-Hawley tariff and the near collapse of the US banking system. Hundreds of banks collapsed as they had invested their customers' funds unwisely. Furthermore, the great Dust Bowl wiped out farms across a number of states. Among the New Deal's accomplishments addressing these problems were:

1. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation which protects consumers against bank failures. FDR also tightened regulation of the banking industry - we have since outgrown much of that regulation but it accomplished its purpose.

2. The SEC which enforces reasonable financial regulations to ensure coporations are honest with shareholders. While not perfect, it has worked reasonable well over the last 70 years.

3. Introduction of agricultural supports which helped US agricultural industry to get back on its feet. It also introduced scientific farming methods to thousands of family farms.

4. The rural electrification program which brought many neglected areas into the 20th century. This also had a tremendous impact on the economy in these areas.

Most importantly, FDR restored hope to a nation devastated by economic and natural disasters. There were anti-democratic movements of the right and left with millions of supporters. It is quite possible that one of these movements could have gained power and created a much different world than the one FDR bequeathed to us. Some of the New Deal's programs have definitely outlived their usefulness, the agricultural programs are the poster children for that. However, they definitely served an important purpose at the time.

The ever-shrinking group of Americans who believe invading Iraq was a good idea may soon receive some support, in the form of a memoir by one of its key architects, Donald Rumsfeld.

The former defense secretary has the publishing world "abuzz" over the possibility that he may write a book "justifying the military strategy for the war in Iraq."

While a deal has not yet been struck, Mr. Rumsfeld has toured New York publishing houses with an outline of his book in an effort to gauge how much information he would have to disclose in the memoir in order to justify a large cash advance. '

isn't that funny -- he's trying to figure out who's the highest bidder he can sell out national security to.

'Of course Mrs. Edwards is waaay too nice and unimpeachable to ever engage in that kind of dirty politics; why else would she be the one to call the show from the Edwards camp?'

maybe she's outraged that the vampire made fun of her dead son and wishes her husband dead. but i guess you have no children, or husband, or feelings, proud -- becuase you're gop, i guess. i guess you wouldn't care what media wh*res say about your family, you wouldn't stand up for them, becuase you only care about your party and have no human feelibngs left.

Quick, I am off to Kos to find some more material. I'll be back.

'I wonder, whatever will the liberals do once Bush & Cheney are out of office? '

Hopefully, if a dem is elected, celebrate the overthrow of a reign of madmen and a return to sanity and human dignity.

I am reminded of one of the reasons I fled the Left, many years ago: Personally, they were so mean -- so nasty, so indecent --

"That's like saying "$h1t is my poop"

that is about all my tiny brain can concoct these days. don't ask me about anything please. I have given my all.

A new report by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform concludes that, under the Bush administration, the "shadow government of private companies working under federal contract has exploded in size. Between 2000 and 2005, procurement spending increased by over $175 billion dollars, making federal contracts the fastest growing component of federal discretionary spending."

But while private contractors -- such as Halliburton and AshBritt -- have been reaping huge profits, "billions of dollars of taxpayer money have been squandered." Some highlights from the report:

- Halliburton has been the "fastest growing contractor." Under the Bush administration, federal spending to Halliburton "increased over 600% between 2000 and 2005." The Government Accountability Office recently found that the government has wasted at least $2.7 billion to Halliburton on "overpriced contracts or undocumented costs." At the end of 2005, Cheney's stock options were valued at more than $8 million, a 3,281 percent gain from 2004.

- Growth in federal contracting exceeds inflation rate. In 2000, the value of federal contracts totaled $203 billion. By 2005, the value was $377.5 billion, an 86 percent increase. The new report notes that this "growth in contracting was over five times faster than the overall inflation rate and almost twice as fast as the growth in other discretionary federal spending over this period." A record level of "nearly 40 cents of every discretionary federal dollar now goes to private contractors."

- Noncompetitive contracts skyrocket. Sole-source and noncompetitive contracts grew by "an even faster rate than overall procurement spending, rising by 115% from $67.5 billion in 2000 to $145 billion in 2005." Many of these no-bid contracts during the Iraq war and Katrina reconstruction went to Bush administration cronies who wasted money and performed shoddy work.

In the report's review of 500 contracts, 118 contracts worth $745.5 billion "experienced significant overcharges, wasteful spending, or mismanagement over the last five years."

.."a valid point about the double standard, that loose talk floats around wishing for Cheney to die, and there's little outrage,"

I couldn't agree more. Anne was merely pointing out the glaring hypocrisy of the left. Bill Maher gets a pass for discussing the merits of our sitting Vice President being killed while visiting troops in Afghanistan, as though it were some kind of rational discussion.

Of course Mrs. Edwards is waaay too nice and unimpeachable to ever engage in that kind of dirty politics; why else would she be the one to call the show from the Edwards camp?

I wonder, whatever will the liberals do once Bush & Cheney are out of office? Better schedule additional trips to the therapist now; all that pent up anger won't be healthy.

The report argues instead that we should address the more significant problem of concentrated ownership and ineffective regulation in order to push the market structure to better meet local needs. As report co-author John Halpin stated, "If we break up concentrated ownership, and encourage greater local accountability over radio licensing, and still end up with lots of conservative talk, then so be it. We don't think this will happen but at least the playing field would have been made more level."

The CAP/Free Press report argues for more speech, not less. Conservatives should get their facts straight before blindly attacking others.

My guess is dems can kiss Nevada, NM, AZ and other western states they are hoping to win goodbye if the immigration bill as constituted passes

There are two sides to this.

The California GOP did a pretty good job of keeping it a moderate GOP swing state until they went overboard on immigration and got tagged as anti-Latino.

Just as the visceral response to immigration among conservatives is diproportionate to the objective situation, the visceral response among Latinos is strong and lasting.

If the GOP in the West wants to hold on in the face of Democratic leaning newcomers from California, they can't afford to offend Latinos with punitive and ineffective immigration measures.

President Bush recognizes this and has staked his personal prestige on passing the immigration bill.

For us liberals it is a simple matter of fairness. We cannot continue to allow American business a pass on immigration enforcement and hammer Latino migrants.

The effect of our current enforcement patiche is 12 million vulnerable latino migrants, depressed wages and job prospects, and the gutting of our benefits.

Honor as well as common sense demand that employers be forbidden from undercutting American workers by hiring undocumented workers.

Continued prosperity demands a steady and dependable flow of good workers; erecting walls and harrassing Latinos simply will make this impossible.

I agree, immigration will be big, but the GOP opponents of reform will be the ones who will get the punishment they deserve.

Progressive radio host Ed Schultz appeared last night to discuss the new report by the Center for American Progress and Free Press, which revealed the conservative monopoly that currently exists over talk radio.

Schultz -- the host of the most popular progressive radio show in the country -- debunked the right-wing myth that conservatives dominate simply because they are winning in a "free market." Schultz explained that the market is being controlled by a few ownership groups that are forcing conservative talk shows into local markets:

I beat Sean Hannity in Denver. I beat him in Seattle. I beat him in Portland. I beat in San Diego. How many markets do I have to beat Hannity in before I get 200 or 300 stations? It's an ownership issue. ... The fact is, it's market opportunities and liberal talkers, progressive talkers are being held to a totally different standard than conservatives.

John Halpin -- one of the principal authors of the radio report -- noted that there is no "free market" under the current system. "There is little free speech or free choice in a market system that pushes out one-sided information 90 percent of the time on the radio," he said. "Radio stations are licensed to operate in the public interest. Promoting one point of view over all others does not meet any reasonable public-interest standard."

While Edwards made his first comments to The Associated Press in response to Coulter's suggestion that she wished he would be "killed in a terrorist assassination plot," his campaign was also using her remarks to bring in donations in the final week before his next fundraising deadline.

It's not the first time Coulter has given the Edwards campaign a financial boost. In March, she called Edwards a "fa**ot" and the campaign used video of the comment to help raise $300,000 before the end of the first quarter.

This past weekend, Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) delivered a speech commemorating the 50th anniversary of his Protestant denomination, the United Church of Christ. In the speech, Obama argued that faith in the United States has been "hijacked" by "the so-called leaders of the Christian Right, all too eager to exploit what divides us."

Last night on Fox's Hannity and Colmes, right-wing pundit Ann Coulter responded to Obama's comments by implicating him as a terrorist. Coulter remarked, "Anyone named B. Hussein Obama should not use the words 'hijack' and 'religion' in the same sentence." Host Sean Hannity added that Obama's remarks were part of a "black separatist agenda."

zouk, stop vexing me. I am not used to being challenged on anything. I grew up in a Lib household where everything goes. I am so used to it now i am even able to fool my employer into thinking I am doing something worthwhile for them as I waste time all day here responding to you.

I will continue to point out what a meathead zouk is, as a public service. It makes it easy to keep up my quota for intellectually challenged bloggers. I get a PBJ for every ten postings. this one counts. they don't care about content as you can clearly tell.

Yesterday on ABC's Good Morning America, Coulter said, "[I]f I'm gonna say anything about John Edwards in the future, I'll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot." She has previously called Edwards a "f*ggot." In 2003, she wrote a column claiming that John Edwards drove around with a bumper sticker saying "Ask me about my son's death in a horrific car accident."

During an hour-long interview with Coulter today on MSNBC, host Chris Matthews announced that Elizabeth Edwards was on the line. Edwards referenced the attacks above, saying, "I'm the mother of that boy who died. These young people behind you...you're asking them to participate in a dialogue that is based on hatefulness and ugliness instead of on the issues, and I don't think that's serving them or this country very well." The live audience cheered.

in re: "Zouk is my Fox."

That's like saying "$h1t is my poop."

'Iraq war debate falls off media's radar.
Major news outlets devoted just 1 percent of their coverage last week to the Iraq policy debate, according to the Project for Excellence in Journalism. "Those findings are indicative of a trend in recent weeks in which coverage of the political debate over the war has diminished substantially."

why? because republican cadidates don't want to discuss it.

'don't mention the war.'

More than a dozen gas stations were torched or damaged early today in Tehran by Iranians angered by fuel rationing measures that were suddenly imposed by the government, while many other Iranians lined up to fill their tanks.

A man formerly held in the U.S. facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, was killed Wednesday in a shootout with security agents in a restive North Caucasus republic, Russia's top security agency said. Ruslan Odzhiev was killed amid gunfire that erupted when agents tried to arrest him and another man in Kabardino-Balkariya, a region near Chechnya that is plagued by violence linked both to crime and to religious tensions

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals refused Wednesday to reinstate a dropped conspiracy charge against former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay.

Travis County prosecutor amd political hack Ronnie Earle had charged DeLay and two associates with conspiracy to violate the state's election code in connection with corporate funds used in 2002 state legislative elections.

A state district judge threw out that charge after defense lawyers argued that conspiracy couldn't be applied because the law he is accused of violating didn't take effect until 2003. A regional appeals court upheld the judge's decision.

Prosecutors then went to the state's highest criminal appeals court, leading to Wednesday's ruling.

Ronnie Earle indicted Tom DeLay for a crime that didn't exist, wasn't on the books," DeGuerin said.

'Now, the Iraqis are doing most things on their own,'

' am reminded of one of the reasons I fled the Left, many years ago: Personally, they were so mean -- '

zouk is so unintentionally hilarious. he doesn't seem to care that he's a laughingstock on this blog. christ what a masochist.

Raul,

please forgive me for adressing you by the wrong name before.

Your point about name association is well taken, it provides Senator Clinton a vast advantage, but a disadvantage as well, as people such as yourself are willing to dismiss her simply because of it.

The attributes of historical and political ambition are part of what appeals to me about her. You might want to peruse It Takes a Village, and see if you still think that she is unconcerned about programs and progress.

In any case, you are well on the way toward making an informed, intelligent and honorable choice.

It has been a pleasure and honor to exchange these remarks.

Robert Chapman
Lansing, NY

media matter was started by david brock, former rightwing operative who spent years disseminating false information to a media who was hungry for it.

at some point he began to hate himself, and through the grace of god, became a democrat and founded media matters, several years ago, long before hlllary became a canddiate. sorry zouk.

UPDATE: I am told that Edwards' complaint wasn't over Coulter's CPAC remark, but about this comment:

COULTER: Oh yeah, I wouldn't insult gays by comparing them to John Edwards. That would be mean, but about the same time -- you know -- Bill Maher was not joking and saying he wished [Vice President] Dick Cheney had been killed in a terrorist attack. So I've learned my lesson. If I'm going to say anything about John Edwards in the future, I'll just wish he has been killed in a terrorist assassination plot.

Here's what Maher said. He doesn't quite "wish" it, but he talks about Cheney's assassination as having an upside, and arguably is insinuating that it would be morally justified...

MAHER: No, I'm just saying that if he did die--

SCARBOROUGH: [laughter] Okay, but if - oh, let's just say--

MAHER: [overlapping]--other people - more people would live. That's a fact.

As much as Ann Coulter can grate on me, I think she's making a valid point about the double standard, that loose talk floats around wishing for Cheney to die, and there's little outrage, compared to her tasteless comments about Edwards.

Around the media, there have been arguments and evidence suggesting that Media Matters isn't a liberal organization or a progressive organization, but a pro-Hillary organization. The fact that the group is objecting to a comment that could be construed as an argument for Obama or Edwards lends some weight to that idea.

'Mr. Matthews, sadly I watched Hardball last night. It was bad enough that you had Ann Coulter as a guest. She is more to be pitied than mocked or ridiculed. She is a deeply, deeply troubled individual. Watching her on your show was more like going to a carnival freak show.

Is giving freaks a platform your goal for an hour every night? Because this is what you do. What a sorry use of the public airwaves.

You are also to be pitied, Mr. Matthews. And it boggles the mind that MSNBC allows you to shame yourself night after night. One need only watch your show for a night or two to understand why the American people no longer look to you and your ilk for news. You have absolutely nothing of substance to add to the public debate, so you scream, spin and twist and provide a forum for your friends--one of whom is evidently Ann Coulter.

The same screaming and shouting day in and day out. The same people, I suppose the quid pro quo must be come on Hardball then be sure to send Chris Matthews an invite to some cocktail party. Mr. Matthews, you are useless.

Mr. Matthews, our poorly equipped servicemen and women are fighting a pornographic, illegal and immoral war. We have 47 million American without access to basic health care. And you, Mr. Matthews, dare to turn over precious media time to a person desperately in need of psychiatric care like Ann Coulter. Then you allow her to verbally abuse Elizabeth Edwards with nary a peep. Yes, yes, Chris I know you shed crocodile tears talking with triple amputees while touring Walter Reed and Fisher House. Three cheers for Chris Matthews.

Regardless who you're supporting, Elizabeth Edwards a woman of rare grace, courage and dignity calls and simply asks Ms. Coulter to think before she speaks. Ms. Coulter's vile smirk and even worse your countenance of her abusive and mocking response, closes the book on Chris Matthews.'

this is why I, ignorant coward, should be banned. I won't admit to wanting to destroy rational discussion on this blog.

Besides, all that truth is killing my schtick of all lies all the time - like CNN. Zouk is my Fox.

My ideas are so vacant, I need government (CC) intervention to compete. consider it Affirmative action for morons. Cc - help me. don't let them 'air america' me. the market is evil. you are my last hope. no one else anywhere will pay any sort of attention to me.

The Depression lasted nearly a decade longer than it should have, due almost entirely to governmental meddling under both Herbert Hoover and FDR.

Interesting that a person in 2007, after a lifetime of economic security made possible by the stability achieved through New Deal policies is

able to provide the pat answers that eluded the best minds of the time.

Hope you are around to cure the next Depression,,, the one that will start forthwith if laisez faire views are adopted.

I feel sorry for Zouk.

He's such a loser that it took him over a year to realize that his ignorant coward anonymous poster might actually be more than one person.

If we don't look out for him, that leaves only God to do it.

All Zouk does any more is waste space. At least he's not geting legitimate threads off topic anymore.

He's become a pimple on the blog. That's not worth becoming censors for.

'MSNBC.com identified 144 journalists who made political contributions from 2004 through the start of the 2008 campaign, according to the public records of the Federal Election Commission. '

99% of the pundits on Msnbc are rightwing. olberman is simply an employee. naem other other that is 'liberal'.

check out the job titles of the 144 'journalists' -- most of them are 'former copy editors'.

chris matthews licks the boots of all republicans on his show -- sys mitt smells manly, mccain is 'manly' and rudy is -- manly.

dan rather ISN'T around... and george stephanous is a righwing traitor. next?

I am reminded of one of the reasons I fled the Left, many years ago: Personally, they were so mean -- so nasty, so indecent. So full of mockery, ridicule, and scorn. I had to ask, "If the Left is the party of love and compassion, how come so many of them are such a**holes?"

Who gets blamed for the lack of progress in the Palestinian problem?

Who gets blamed is more important than a just solution?

What kind a conception of courage is that?

Tony Blair will go down in history as the agent of the recrudesence of British Imperialism.

Good riddance.

Robert Chapman
Lansing, NY

BTW, thanks CC for allowing me to suck up all the air around here every day on end with no contribution to a polite debate ever. without me, you would be nothing. I am that good.

Posted by: hateful and juvinile | June 27, 2007 12:55 PM

-- this is why zouk should be banned. he admits to wanting to destroy rational discussion on this blog.

Mr. Chapman, thank you for your response. I must finish this quickly before my next class begins. My problem with Hillary is not as much about big business as it is about the issue of political dynasties. In my opinion, her last name alone does not qualify her for office, and I believe that much of her support comes from the associations people have with her last name. She seems to be too much concerned with herself and her ability to make history and to play the political game with the advantages she has and not enough concerned with developing new ideas or effective policy. After eight years of Republicans, we will need dramatically new ideas and very effective policies if we are to return this country to the land of opportunity it was when my parents arrived here in the 1960s.

Raul

In Iraq, bad news is about spectacular events, which are easy to report, while good news is about incremental progress, which is difficult to report. Naturally, the bad news gets reported a lot, while the good news hardly gets reported at all. The resulting distortion in news-reporting results in predictably distorted public perceptions about the course of the war, and has fueled a great deal of irrational pessimism.

But look at the facts, and the direction in which they are moving. We are clobbering the enemy while at the same time making ourselves increasingly obsolete to the efforts of Iraq's own government. The administration is shifting so as to accommodate Iraq as a long-term foreign policy issue to be managed, while attention focuses on more pressing crises. We removed Saddam, arrested or killed most of his murderous henchmen; we eliminated a terror sponsor and an apparent weapons-of-mass-destruction threat; our casualties are about what most of us expected; and Iraqis are now organized to fight terror. We've already accomplished much of what we went to do.

The possibility of defeat appears to be receding with the surge, and that means that when the surge itself recedes, we may well be staring victory in the face -- even if we don't know it.

As a result, President Bush's pledge to have U.S. troops "stand down" as Iraqi forces "stand up" remains unfulfilled.

This quotation by President Bush was never a pledge, it is merely a campaign slogan.

If President Bush were interested in the War, he would be shaking the trees to make sure that the Iraqi forces were fit.

Perhaps you missed this one on MSNBC

MSNBC.com identified 144 journalists who made political contributions from 2004 through the start of the 2008 campaign, according to the public records of the Federal Election Commission. Most of the newsroom checkbooks leaned to the left: 125 journalists gave to Democrats and liberal causes. Only 17 gave to Republicans. Two gave to both parties. . . .

The pattern of donations, with nearly nine out of 10 giving to Democratic candidates and causes, appears to confirm a leftward tilt in newsrooms -- at least among the donors, who are a tiny fraction of the roughly 100,000 staffers in newsrooms across the nation.

This article must have been part of the disinformation campaign that is spearheaded by the super right wing media arm of MSNBC controlled by Keith Olberman. Or maybe the former Tip O'Neil staffer Chris Matthews (he is such a righty he makes me sick). It's a good thing that uber-republicans like Dan Rather aren't around anymore to spew their conservative drivel. I've got my eye on the George Stephanopolous too. Who did he think he was kidding with that whole Clinton charade. I know he answers to Newt Gingrich.

The struggle against terrorism and insurgency will continue long after the U.S. presence is reduced to a token force, and that is the bad news. But Iraqis will be shouldering the burden of that struggle in their own country, and that is the good news. And the trends described in the most recent Pentagon quarterly report on stability and security in Iraq, which was released earlier this month, suggest that Iraqis are much closer to standing on their own than most people think.

The contrast with the reports of a year ago is striking. Back then, Iraqis were starting to do some important things on their own, but still relied on the U.S. -- led Coalition for nearly everything. Now, the Iraqis are doing most things on their own, and rely on the Coalition only where particular gaps create limiting factors that only the Coalition can remediate.

describes Romney as "smart and pragmatic and decisive" and says "Mitt . . . (is) not an ideologue.

As Governor of Massachusetts, Romny lived up to this sobriquet. As a candidate for the GOP nomination he has not.

His acceptance speech and his other set adresses consist entirely of warmed over Reaganesque cliches intended to establish a bond between Romney and the radical right.

I had thought that Romney would provide a voice for responsible conservatism, but he appears to have been overwhelmed by the Republican Party that is demonstrating its unwillingness to accept responsibility in any form.

Robert Chapman
Lansing, NY

describes Romney as "smart and pragmatic and decisive" and says "Mitt . . . (is) not an ideologue.

As Governor of Massachusetts, Romny lived up to this sobriquet. As a candidate for the GOP nomination he has not.

His acceptance speech and his other set adresses consist entirely of warmed over Reaganesque cliches intended to establish a bond between Romney and the radical right.

I had thought that Romney would provide a voice for responsible conservatism, but he appears to have been overwhelmed by the Republican Party that is demonstrating its unwillingness to accept responsibility in any form.

Robert Chapman
Lansing, NY

describes Romney as "smart and pragmatic and decisive" and says "Mitt . . . (is) not an ideologue.

As Governor of Massachusetts, Romny lived up to this sobriquet. As a candidate for the GOP nomination he has not.

His acceptance speech and his other set adresses consist entirely of warmed over Reaganesque cliches intended to establish a bond between Romney and the radical right.

I had thought that Romney would provide a voice for responsible conservatism, but he appears to have been overwhelmed by the Republican Party that is demonstrating its unwillingness to accept responsibility in any form.

Robert Chapman
Lansing, NY

"thousands of rightwing 'think tanks' and foundations."

Perhaps someday in the future, a Lib will realize the human trait of thinking and this will change. Until then, you get what you got.

Chris -

Your "Roman" (read, DC) toga is showing again. To use Perot and Nader numbers to speculate (to put it kindly) about Bloomberg is inane. Having 7+ years of real Hill experience plus having grown up in "Rome" (again, read DC) I know how much you and the romans loathe the thought that a 3rd party or independent candidate can break through the calcified structure of that town. That said, as a 10 year resident of "fun city" (read NYC) I have lived through and litigated against Rudy and watched in awe and respect the media campaign of Bloomberg. His blitz in 2000 was masterful as well as comprehensive and saturating. Let the American people get a dose of a $300 million media blitz that introduces the mayor to the country - followed by the litany of his accomplishments in this tough to govern town (see, John Lindsay and the book "The Ungovernable City") juxtaposed next to the sham of a mockery (read Rudy) and the all hype I was co-president (just not for the bad stuff) HRC who we are still waiting on to introduce that upstate NY economic revitalization bill (as promised in her campaign of 2000). After that let's see your precious polls and what they do to your beloved cadre of Roman enablers.

I have ONLY managed to post 24 times this morning since 10 am. that is a feeble average of every five minutes. Please help me bring this up to my usual rate of every 3 minutes. you can help by posting things that look like zouk posted them. then I can call him out and point to the fact that he posts everything on this blog that I personally don't agree with. Oh, I forgot - he lies.

Without any help I will either be forced to post something pertinant or maybe do something else all day. now we wouldn't want that.

30 years of republican brainwashing makes sure that R's can say anything they want -- even advocate murder. It really is like the Nazi era in Germany.

No it is not.

In Nazi Germany, they really would have killed their opponents.

Edwards Asked To Back Gay Marriage At LA Center

Presidential hopeful John Edwards --the 2004 Democratic vice presidential candidate and former senator from North Carolina--visited the L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center yesterday morning to meet with staff and increase his understanding of the needs of the gay community.

http://onthehillblog.blogspot.com/2007/06/edwards-asked-to-back-gay-marriage-at.html

'Ah - the vast conservative control of the media. Guess we need a legislative fix for that. Then we could live in a world where only one view point was represented. That view point of course would be the enlightened view point.'

we do live in that world TG. thanks to the republican CEOs of the 6 transnaional corporations that control every major broadcast and print outlet. and thnaks to 30 years of gilded age money [like the mellon scaifes, the john olins and the bradley families] that have created thousands of rightwing 'think tanks' and foundations.

We came to the United States to avoid this, and we do not believe that you and some others understand what you are supporting. Dynasties are not compatible with democracy.

I would be interested in your comments.

Dear Mr. David,

I find your family story inspiring and a fulfilment of the promise of the American dream.

I also find your reservations about a Clinton dynasty well-founded and would like to talk about them a bit.

The cirumstances of the Clintons are unique and her Presidential candidacy has developed as much from serendipity as from design. A little story might clarify my views on this point.

In the early 90s I was invited to give a number of talks on college campuses about when a major woman candidacy for the Presidency would first occur.

This was shortly after Clinton's election and I predicted 08 as I expected Gore to run, be elected and run for reelection.

When the time came to name names, I put up Patty Murray, Kay Baily Hutchison, Elizabeth Dole and TBA.

The students shocked me with their enthusiasm for the then first lady, Hillary Clinton. These were kids in public institutions, and definitely not trilateral commission types.

I cannot speak to Clinton's big business connections, I am sure she has them, but I am not against business per se, so I am not sure how to react to your statement about that.

However, in the intervening years I have travelled up and down the east coast and been involved politically and I can state categorically that there is long standing, massive,quiet, but enthusiasic grass roots support for Senator Clinton's presidential bid.

In an ideal world, the first woman President would have the career trajectory of Angelika Merkel or Margaret Thatcher, but just as India has done well with Sonjia Gandhi, I think America will be well served by President Hillary Clinton.

since I have no facts or outside citations or links to establish anything I ever say, I will simply revert to my schoolyard motto of chanting

"you lie"

in reply to anything that comes my way. no sense spending any time on intellectual pursuits. I am just not capable.

I am just so jealous that coulter is making a fortune writing books I consider to be lies when I can't get a dime or even pay to get my "lies" published. that is why I'm here. this is the ONLY place I can post this junk and get anyone to ever read it. If only zouk would stop pointing out what a fool I am, maybe I could get discovered.

Rush also lies and gets paid big. We need the government to intervene and pay rosie to lie. We can't do it without their help. No one is willing to pay for this swill.

BTW, thanks CC for allowing me to suck up all the air around here every day on end with no contribution to a polite debate ever. without me, you would be nothing. I am that good.

Coulter knows that controversy sells. If she was ignored she might disappear (It worked with Zouk for a while). But, she won't be ignored; so she'll continue to try to be outrageous for the sake of selling herself.

I don't doubt that Limbaugh would broadcast as a Liberal if he decided that there was more money in it for him than broadcasting as a Conservative.

Coulter and Limbuagh are businesses. It's about the money they can make. Outrageous emotional politics is the vehicle they use.

Jonah Goldberg echoes a point others, notably, Bruce Fein, have made, about Cheney's efforts to make end runs around the bureaucracy and process: "There's the rub of democratic government. Sure, the act of building consensus often requires sacrificing on your most preferred policies. But such consensus-building actually persuades the public, the bureaucracy and legislators of the necessity to act and reduces the chances they'll turn their back on the whole effort. The Cheney method instead creates a blowback that hobbles your efforts in the long run far more than compromise does."

Jonah Goldberg, editor at large of National Review. Cheney going down bigtime.

Dick Cheney's office is abandoning a justification for keeping the Vice-President's secret papers out of the hands of the National Archives.

Officials working for Cheney had tried to claim he is separate from the executive branch, but they will no longer pursue that defense, senior administration officials tell The Politico.

The decision follows a threat by Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), the No. 3 House Democrat, to try to cut off the office's $4.8 million in executive-branch funding.

Maher's comments are frequently passed along minus the context in which he made them. He is first and foremost a comedian. A political satirist.

Not a supposed expert a la Ms. Coulter, Esq.

lyle, thanks for the reply - I now think I have read this from you before, but I was not sure what you were referring to most recently.

TH - I will try to pick up on the Cspan2 immigration debate over lunch.

Maher's remark about Cheney was worthy of our disdain, as was Coulter's about Edwards. Wishing our political opponents dead may be evidence that Jihadi fundamentalism is having a weird, and to me, unwelcome, reverberation in our public discourse. Or maybe it is the effect of video games. I dunno.

Ah - the vast conservative control of the media. Guess we need a legislative fix for that. Then we could live in a world where only one view point was represented. That view point of course would be the enlightened view point.

I do agree that nobody should give coulter a platform for here nonsense though.

zoukie you are the biggest demogogue and revisitionist ever. who writes your script?

'Ignorance of basic economics -- and the concurrent attempt to obfuscate that ignorance by employing class-conscious demagoguery --'

oh yes, i forgot, that's one of the other bugaboos of zouk/razorback. their lies and CC spin on 'economics'. got to get every talking point out there, every day.

Bloomberg's Impact? Ask me again, when it means something, like beginning around November 2007.

Rob Millette - as always, thanks for your "to the point" contributions.

Sally Quinn: A GOP plan to oust Cheney:

The big question right now among Republicans is how to remove Vice President Cheney from office. Even before this week's blockbuster series in The Post, discontent in Republican ranks was rising.

As the reputed architect of the war in Iraq, Cheney is viewed as toxic, and as the administration's leading proponent of an attack on Iran, he is seen as dangerous. As long as he remains vice president, according to this thinking, he has the potential to drag down every member of the party -- including the presidential nominee -- in next year's elections.

Removing a sitting vice president is not easy, but this may be the moment. I remember Barry Goldwater sitting in my parents' living room in 1973, in the last days of Watergate, debating whether to lead a group of senior Republicans to the White House to tell President Nixon he had to go. His hesitation was that he felt loyalty to the president and the party. But in the end he felt a greater loyalty to his country, and he went to the White House.

Today, another group of party elders, led by Sen. John Warner of Virginia, could well do the same. They could act out of concern for our country's plummeting reputation throughout the world, particularly in the Middle East.

For such a plan to work, however, they would need a ready replacement. Until recently, there hasn't been an acceptable alternative to Cheney -- nor has there been a persuasive argument to convince President Bush to make a change. Now there is.

The idea is to install a vice president who could beat the Democratic nominee in 2008. It's unlikely that any of the top three Republican candidates -- former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, Sen. John McCain of Arizona or former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney -- would want the job, for fear that association with Bush's war would be the kiss of death.

Nor would any of them be that attractive to the president. ...

That leaves Fred Thompson. Everybody loves Fred. He has the healing qualities of Gerald Ford and the movie-star appeal of Ronald Reagan. He is relatively moderate on social issues. He has a reputation as a peacemaker and a compromiser. And he has a good sense of humor.

He could be just the partner to bring out Bush's better nature -- or at least be a sensible voice of reason. .. Not only that, Thompson would give the Republicans a platform for running for the presidency -- and the president a way out of Iraq without looking like he's backing down. Bush would be left in better shape on the war and be able to concentrate on AIDS and the environment in hopes of salvaging his legacy.

Cheney is scheduled this summer for surgery to replace his pacemaker, which needs new batteries. So if the president is willing, and Republicans are able, they have a convenient reason to replace him: doctor's orders. And I'm sure the the vice president would also like to spend more time with his ever-expanding family. ...

Ignorance of basic economics -- and the concurrent attempt to obfuscate that ignorance by employing class-conscious demagoguery -- remains the staple of the Democratic Party. For over 60 years, Democrats and their allies in the media and public school system have taught that the Great Depression was an inevitable result of laissez-faire economic policies, and that only the Keynesian policies of the FDR government allowed America to emerge from the ashes. The Great Depression, for the left, provides conclusive proof that when it comes to economics, government works better than business.

The Depression lasted nearly a decade longer than it should have, due almost entirely to governmental meddling under both Herbert Hoover and FDR. High tariffs and government-sponsored deflation followed by enormous taxation and unthinkable government expenditures turned a stock market stumble into a decade-long nightmare. Only the devastation of World War II lifted America out of the mire, solving the drastic unemployment problem and providing a legitimate medium for FDR's pre-war wartime policies.
And today's Democrats rely desperately on that fading falsehood, hoping to bolster their bad economics with worse history. Hillary Clinton routinely hijacks Rooseveltian language, most recently disparaging the "on your own society" in favor of a "we're all in it together society." John Edwards' "two Americas" nonsense drips of FDR's class warfare. Never mind that Keynesian economics does not work. Never mind that it promotes unemployment, discourages investment and quashes entrepreneurship. For Democrats, the image of government-as-friend is more important than a government that actually protects the rights that breed prosperity.

Using a current snap shot to predict future conditions is well, d-uh, but a significant fact jumps out.

In comparing the responses of voters to the idea of voting for a generic third party candidate (and the third party is?) to the responses of voters willing to vote for Michael Bloomberg as that third party candidate shows a tepid if not unfavorable response.

Since Chris (naughty,naughty) didn't explain if the third party respondents had major party choices, too one cannot exactly compare the two poll results.

Nevertheless, it is clear that Bloomberg's name alone does not push the needle.

Coulter is on Hardball today saying that our problem in Iraq is because we haven't killed enough civilians. Really.

"We need to be less concerned about civilian casualties...we bombed more people in Hamburg in two days ... we should kill their people, women and children too."

You know, I often hear about how the liberals are sending the wrong message to the enemy. Yet, they let this unhinged homicidal maniac on television to spew this toxic swill.

If Matthews is so desperate for ratings he should have just showed Paris Hilton's sex tape. It's far less obscene than what I'm looking at right now. This is just vile.

There must be something in the air. First, Matthews feels the need to give Ann Coulter a full hour to spew genocidal vomit and now I find that PBS has hired the notorious fraud Frank Luntz to analyze "public feedback" on the Democratic debate.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry. He is one of the architects of the Republican Revolution and along with Newt Gingrich is the man most responsible for our distorted, propagandistic political discourse. He has no business "interpreting" Democratic voters' reaction to Democratic candidates based upon his political affiliation alone.

But the fact that he has been completely discredited as a pollster and analyst by his own profession should make him radioactive for any respectable news organization. I can't imagine what is wrong with PBS that they don't know about this man.

He is obviously rooting for his former client Giuliani, although he says he isn't advising him. He just goes all over television telling anyone who will listen that Giuliani is the only candidate who "says what he means and means what he says" and that just happens to be the quality everybody most wants in a candidate. '

Something odd is going on at PBS lately. They also invited that Coulter wannabe Melanie Morgan on Lehrer recently, apparently under the misapprehension that she was a sane spokeswoman of the right, and she proved to be a complete disaster. Now they have hired straight up right wing political operative Luntz to "interpret" the impressions of Democratic voters. Are they getting their bookers from the Heritage Foundation web site too?

Oh and I should add that I think Florida becomes non-competitive if my above prediction comes true. That leaves, as it always has - O-H-I-O as the key.

I think the real interesting thing to watch is how the immigration issue plays out. That is going to be huge in '08. If McCain is the nominee it is marginalized because I think both Obama and Hillary will support the bill. If it is Mitt or Rudy or some other republican that opposes it (not sure what Rudy's position is actually), it will be a pretty interesting issue and Mitt/Rudy will make the democratic nominee own the issue. My guess is dems can kiss Nevada, NM, AZ and other western states they are hoping to win goodbye if the immigration bill as constituted passes. You want to talk red meat - this is the issue.

As for Bloomberg - not sure I can get excited about him but I am excited about the idea of an independent winning the presidency. I think both parties have been pretty dreadful of late and the time has come to shake up the system.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Lj7K6GL9zQ

a top-tier Democratic candidate publicly appeared with a radical extremist who blamed 9/11 on Americans

'right to warn against the coward's impulse that "makes us blame ourselves."

you mean like pat robertson, zouk?

It's the TV preacher, stupid: Why Giuliani's trip to Pat Robertson U. is more important than what he said - yesterday, Rudy Giuliani jumped at the chance to appear with Pat Robertson, a televangelist who insisted publicly, 48 hours after the attacks, that the United States brought 9/11 upon itself.

If a top-tier Democratic candidate publicly appeared with a radical extremist who blamed 9/11 on Americans and encouraged a terrorist attack on the State Department, o you think it might become a big deal?

Tony Blair is right to acknowledge that the terrorists have warped the thinking in the West, and right to warn against the coward's impulse that "makes us blame ourselves." He calls this a "dulling of the senses," creating a strong public demand to withdraw from Iraq. Who gets blamed for the lack of progress in the Palestinian problem? Inevitably, the West. When the crisis in Lebanon is provoked by these same malignant forces, who gets the blame? Inevitably, Israel.

He stresses the crucial importance of fighting the terrorist menace wherever it threatens us, and argues that the West must do better in making Western values more accessible to the darker regions of the world. "But this won't happen unless we stand up for our own values, are proud of them and advocate them with conviction." Hear, Hear. We'll miss you