rufus/REMF - Infantry wannabe! Toy soldier.

Skeptic, we are in virtual lockstep here - Hook 'em

Mark in Austin,

I wasn't suggesting that poor people commit crimes. What I am suggesting is that, in this country anyway, poor people are often forced to live in neighborhoods that are not ideal settings for raising children. If the average adult is fearful of going into certain neighborhoods by day (e.g., East Oakland), imagine the fear of the child who lives there! No money = no business = no jobs = diminished prospects and hope for a child, no matter how audacious. Audacity comes only from growing up in a supportive family -- rich or poor. There are millions of kids out there who aren't so lucky.

I agree with everything you listed being helpful towards reducing crime. I add the following: decriminalization of marijuana, parenting classes prior to giving birth, sex education from the 5th grade to reduce unwanted pregnancies, equal opportunity public schools -- meaning K-12 schools in poor neighborhoods should be as desirable as one in the suburbs.

A war on poverty will not eliminate crime any more than the War on Drugs eliminated them, but providing good schools and other safe havens for children just might.

Hi Skeptic -

If poverty were magically eliminated crime would not be. While every idea you posed has validity, most impoverished people do not commit crimes. The statistical correlations are as I stated. If the goal is to reduce crime, the road is to treat drug and alcohol abuse as a public health issue and to educate children about physical abuse, and to find physical and mental and emotional outlets for teenaged males - in all neighborhoods.

Head Start and the public schools can help.
Mentoring programs and clubs and churches and scouting can help. Some redirection of local funds can help. But it will not be helped by some massive anti-poverty effort, and history supports that.

Mark in Austin -- I have to chime into the "root causes of crime" conversation.

In any city, the poor and uneducated tend to be concentrated in one area -- and in your neck of the woods, it's East Austin. Drive through any poor section of ANY city in the United States, and you'll find a high percentage of minorities. In major metropolitan areas -- L.A., SF, NYC, Philadelphia, etc... -- the gap between rich and poor is dramatic.

So you're this kid who lives in a neighborhood where you can't play outside safely and where you're surrounded by "older people" whose sole focus is on day-to-day survival...how are you supposed to know differently?

So some other kid tells you a way out -- without anyone else disputing it. You follow, and suddenly you're leading a life of crime yourself.

The point is that we all learn by example. If you're surrounded only by criminals, then, unless you are lucky enough to have someone guide you differently, you learn to become a criminal.

We must always differentiate between the crimes committed by stupid teenagers (drinking while driving, minor vandalism...) who grow up to be responsible adults vs. those who commit violent crimes. The source of the former are hormones, insecurity, and stupidity -- the latter something much more serious. I am guessing that the majority of the latter consists of kids who raised themselves because their parents are uneducated and too poor to get good day care and proper health care.

People live in these poor areas because they have no other choice. And often, they're there because they don't have the skills or education to get better jobs. And then it becomes a vicious circle. How does a parent who never got Algebra, for example, help his/her child? So it will always be a very rare child indeed who can overcome the circumstances to which s/he is born. And THAT is where we should look when we discuss the roots of crime.

NH, having been the kind of Republican you are for most of my adult life, and having been one of those who voted for G.W. in 2000, I completely understand your current view that we have "president who won because of his last name." Having been a "Republican" at the time, I really didn't have a problem with yet another Bush. The problem was that I didn't take the time to do my homework and relied instead on a close friend who personally knew him. It was one Republican talking to another -- and I bought everything -- hook, line, and sinker.

But Bush 43 didn't win because of his last name. It gave him an edge - yes. He won because of people like me who, at the time, were "too busy" to pay attention. For even then, I remember thinking that his brother, Jeb, was the smarter of the two and imagined him being president one day.

I don't think it's right to equate Hillary with G.W. Not quite the same thing. While Bush was snorting cocaine and figuring out how to escape the draft, Hillary was going to law school then working in Washington. And remember, women weren't being drafted back then.

So I think it's unfair to equate Bush 43 with Hillary.

I am okay with the same names leading the country again and again. What I am not okay with is people voting for or against someone because of their names. Imagine if you had a name like Smith or Jones, and you were disqualified because the guy two terms before had the same name!

But it's a dynasty, you say! A dynasty is about a family maintaining power for several generations. That may be true of the Bushes, a very wealthy family -- Preston Bush was a senator, then we had Bush 41, Bush the FL governor, Bush the TX governor, and Bush #43. The same cannot be said about the Clintons. Bill grew up in a trailer, Hillary in a middle class family, and well -- and they're both in the same generation, which immediately dismisses the dynasty concept. Who else among the Clintons might continue in politics? Chelsea?

I admit to some bias. I am a woman who began supporting myself at 17. The ONLY organization I joined during my years at UT-Austin was the Young Republicans, and I didn't switch allegiance until 2003. I was NOT a Bill Clinton fan (I didn't vote for him either time), but I will admit to having been a Hillary fan from the start. When other Americans made a stink about Hillary not being a First Lady who would bake cookies, I cheered. I winced, however, when she ran to become senator for NY. Who the hell does she think she is, I wondered.

But New Yorkers DID NOT have to vote for her. They did, and they re-elected her by a landslide. How can any thinking human being begrudge her of that accomplishment?

Hillary shouldn't be elected because she is a Clinton any more than she should NOT be elected because of her last name or the fact that her husband is an ex-president. (A reminder that the pragmatist she is forced her to have to take on Bill's last name; I am certain that she would have remained a Rodham were it not for the traditionalists out there.)

bsimon, assuming you are OK, and I hope you are, you mentioned "root causes" of crime.

Let's talk about the "root causes" of crime. The correlations are highest with drug and alcohol abuse and with child abuse.

The next highest correlation is with age and gender: in fact, crime RATES are dependent on demographics. Whenever 16-20 year old males are a substantial population group, crime rates rise. Politicians take credit when crime rates drop and are blamed when they rise. But its all demographics, just about everywhere in the western world.

I actually do not believe that society is ready, even now, to treat drug and alcohol abuse as a public health problem. Child abuse seems to be a problem that the social conservatives do not want the state to address through appropriate sex education. Sending all 16-18 year old males to work on ranches is beyond our capacity financially, or under the Bill of Rights.

So we look for prophylactics to fight crime
and bleed money fighting the losing wars on drugs.

Skeptic,
thanks for the comments! First of all, no I am not happy with the leadership of the Republican party. I haven't been since the "base" nominated Bush way back when. You really hit the nail on the head with the fractured thing. As I see it, there are two kind of Republicans. There are the libertarian/ federalism/ fiscal conservative types. Then there are what I like to call the "fairy tale" Republicans. These are the people that fight against evolution, global warming and stem cell research. I suppouse it is obvious which I consider myself to be. They hijacked the party for a while and now there's hell to pay.
I guess "terrified" is too strong a word. But I don't believe a second Clinton presidency is in our best interest. We just had a president who won because of his last name; we don't need another one.
At this point I am not sure whom I will vote for in the general election (I will certainly vote for McCain in the primary). I can't imagine it makes much of a difference. Our party is more or less committed to political suicide. Anyone think Bloomberg has a chance?

If I am the problem roo you are misguided. Sense you are going to play the role of the authoriarian thought police. I will now start treating you like one. I thought you were smarter than that roo. If I am lying, research and tell me where I'm wrong. If you are SCARED to do that, you are a lost cause to me. I had had hope for you roo. I see you are just as bad as the mike's or zouks.

You do you I'll do me. If you want to be lumped in with the fascsits I can treat you like one. I haven't see you post one thing today, other than telling others how they should or shouldn't blog.

Stop worrying about me. If I'm lying them nobody should have anything to worry about should they? You and I both no that is not the case.

Army Infantry 11B

DCAustinite- I apologize if my comment was offensive; I certainly did not intend for it to be racist, as I was using Obama's own answer to a debate question in which he felt compelled to quantify his own ethnicity. I found the debate question to be quite a bit racist, but, hey what do I know?

NH, what is it about HRC that terrifies you?

It also is untrue that the Democratic base is "fired up" about another Clinton presidency. The left wing of the party are not Clinton supporters because of her centrist position. In fact, they slam her almost as much as they slam Republicans! In fact, if you're a Republican of the Northeast variety, you're probably closer to Hillary's positions than those vying for the Republican nomination.

What Democrats are fired up about is the increasingly real possibility that they'll take back the presidency. When the primary season ends, all Democrats will support the nominee because too many of us feel that we've been alienated or marginalized by the Bush Administration and the Republican Congress that served him until last year.

The Republicans can't get fired up because of the choices in front of them -- this is why Fred Thompson registers in the polls despite not officially declaring his candidacy. Finally, the right wing of the Republican Party has successfully alienated liberal and moderate Republicans, so fortunately for Dems, your party is now every bit as fractured as the Democrats usually are.

Here's another question for you: as a NE Republican, have you been comfortable with the leaders of your party?

So here's a question for you politicaly savy people. I'm a Republican, albeit of the NE liberal variety, and I'm pretty terrified of a HRC presidency. Why would anyone, GOP or otherwise, say that she couldn't win? I keep hearing about how fired up the "base" is about a second Clinton presidency. But Clinton has been the obvious Dem candidate for more than 6 months now and the GOP is NOT acting like we're energized. Quite the opposite. We can't raise money, the front runner changes every other week and our biggest names are practically skipping Iowa (an important swing state). What happened?

rufus--When you start posting in a more productive manner, you get out of the troll pen. You can argue all you want but your posting style is not going to change any minds.

On the contrary rufas, you are free to walk away and never return. the first amendment doesn't guarantee that anyone is interested in stupid things you say."

You may not be interested. But it DOES give ME the right to say it, no?

Whether you or anyone else want s to hear is irrelevant. What happened to free market "if you don't like, change the channel" or website in this case

and roo. Your wrong about me. I do want attention but not for self or zouk reasons. I want attention to certain subjects that are ignored here and elsewhere in the media. All real news is silenced until they are forced to report it.

That's why I'm here. The gop'ers and independants can hide in their caves. They can hide in their republcina districts and never mention truth. The can hide behind rush and hannity and listen all day. They can watch fox and ignore real news. They cannot come in here and hide. I won't let them. Unless cc silences me that is.

Judge C. Crater: My take on the dems in the House about the war in Iraq is a little cowardly, in they do not want the repubs to accuse them of using the war as a political issue. This seems strange to me because their gains in 06 was largely due to this issue. I can see where in the Senate 60 votes are needed for anything meaningful, yet the house has been keeping everything about even a plan for withdrawal starting this fall strickly off limits. I can only think this has something to do with the proposed arms sale to the Saudies and a lot of the arms dealers/makers are in the districts of some of the higher ranking dems. This reminds of IKE's "Vast military complex" remark back in the 50's.

On the contrary rufas, you are free to walk away and never return. the first amendment doesn't guarantee that anyone is interested in stupid things you say.

more patriot act silencing. More imaginary rules, setup by who?

More double think and newspeak.

Ignore the gop'ers trying to set the rules. That's what they do. They set the rules and they stillc an't win. They can't win so they cheat. Ignore the doublethinkers. Do you. Ignore those telling you what is permissable what you can do and not do. That is slavery.

roo - how come ignoring you isn't working?

Skeptic--A real troll, as defined in the fabled days of UseNet, is someone who attempts to get others riled up by taking real or pretend positions on issues. Some are more overt, some are extremely subtle.

Most of our troupe are just flamers (vehemence, venom etc.) but some are slightly more skillful (Zouk often authors posts that contain 'hooks' or posts indignant about the "level of discourse" while simultaneously insulting everyone) and could be labeled real trolls.

In short, just ignore the unproductive posters. They will go away.

Skeptic, a troll is someone who's just trying to be obnoxious and get attention. The term isn't specific to this site; it's old Internet terminology that goes back to Usenet newsgroups.

It's usually not hard to tell whether someone wants to have an actual discussion or is just here to annoy people. When people say not to feed the trolls, they mean that you should avoid talking to people who are more interested in insults and stereotypes than debate.

Hi Skeptic,
The same happened to one of my posts. I would guess the WP isn't censoring, but is just trying out some new and buggy software. They don't really seem like a censoring kind of outfit.

Can anyone tell me who censors blog comments? I tried to post earlier and got a screen that said it would be reviewed. It was perfectly tame -- no name calling or anything remotely offensive -- yet it was censored but I see other entries that are so uncivil and they aren't censored.

Finally, please explain to this novice what "trolls" are.

Yes Chris let us not forget first impressions....52% of people don't like her and won't vote for her when this primary started. So by your standards there is no way she will win, because that was their first impression and they will go back to that. I agree with you 100%

From yet another Longhorn...yes, we're everywhere!

Chris says in this blog entry: "But, as the saying goes, you never get a second chance to make a first impression. First impressions in politics, as in life, tend to have an exaggerated amount of influence on how voters wind up viewing candidates."

I couldn't agree more, unfortunately. To Born in Russia's point, a large percentage of the American public is woefully ignorant when it comes to politics and the world at large. If it isn't entertaining, the public doesn't pay attention. If you pay close attention, the average person's political views are merely regurgitations of what they hear or read, which, sadly, is usually limited to media that confirms their views in the first place.

It isn't easy to stay informed when the media increasingly become vehicles for personal opinions rather than fact dissemination. As tedious as it can be, I highly recommend THE ECONOMIST, one of the remaining weekly magazines that recognizes the difference between editorials and news. No bylines and opinions are flagged. It also recognizes the significance of other countries.

And for those interested (a feeble attempt to get back on topic), THE ECONOMIST recently suggested that if Americans in 2008 decide that restoring our standing in the world is the most important issue facing us, then we would elect Hillary Clinton. (I confess that given that Biden has no prayer in hell of getting elected, I believe that of the lot we have to choose from, Hillary would make the best president -- a view not not based on name recognition).

P.S. - I'm new to this blog -- what on earth do you all mean by the "trolls?"

Please continue to ignore the unnecessary commentary. The petulant ones will grow weary of inattention soon. Thank you.

Regarding our resident trolls:

IGNORE THE TROLLS.

At the very most posting a general dismissal is possible. This is how we got rid of Zouk for a month or so until someone started responding to him again. I like to read this blog and might be encouraged to actually participate if I did not have to read through the inane commentary.

I think it would also generally improve the atmosphere between the normally-congenial discussers since every now and then it sours catalysed by the troll troupe.

So, from now on, please do not respond to Zouk, DimDem, rufus (if you are on the other side of the aisle) or our other anonymous trolls. Just ignore them.

Friendly reminder to all the patrons - Please do not feed the TROLLS.

i suggest that, as roo suggested yesterday, we not feed him.

Who is this "we". the voices in your head? you are the one "we" wish to run off this site ignorant coward. Just look at what you post compared to the rest.

My point wasn't that Rudy can't be trusted on any issue (because, frankly, I feel the same way about Hillary).

It was the overlap in numbers. How can 65% "trust" socialized medicine, while 52% simultaneously "trust" privatized medicine?

It must mean either there is a huge group of people who can go either way (which is alarming), or the same group can't tell the difference (which is likely worse).

Mike writes
"[Obama] wants to invade a sovereign nation, without international approval, that just so happens to be a NUCLEAR ARMED MUSLIM NATION."

Mike, may I say, you have a unique way of (mis)representing the facts. It truly is a skill, of sorts.

The way I read the Senator's remarks, he doesn't want to invade Pakistan, he wants to go after the al Qaida leadership that exists within Pakistan. You may seen mention of the latest NIE - I've certainly mentioned it here before - that describes the regeneration of al Qaida in Waziristan (i.e. Mountainous region arond Paki/Afghani border). The Senator is talking about refocusing on finging & bringing to justice the people that attacked us. What he has not fully explained is 1) where the troops would come from and 2) how this would impact efforts in Iraq.

good discussion, mostly. On the poll - I agree with the early assessment that its largely name recognition. Regarding RG's unusually high (IMO) score on healthcare, I wonder why people trust him on any issue, much less health care. Then again, given Sen Clinton's track record in that area, she also scores unreasonably high.

Regarding a cashless society, the libertarian in me doesn't like the idea in the least. For those that want to use plastic instead of cash, have at it - I certainly use the plastic more than cash. But cash has an appeal in that its untracked. Of course, the obvious response is: what are you scared of? Its not a fear, per se, but a comfort in anonymity - in dropping a bill in the red bucket during the holidays. Then there's things like garage sales & paying the kid next door to mow the lawn. I mow my own, but as a youth was the kid next door. Cash is king in that market.

Seems like if street crime is the worry, removing cash won't address the root cause.

On Obama - Is this his plea with Democratic voters to prove how savvy he is on the foreign policy front?

Let's see - with no preconditions, he wants to cuddle with dictators and throw away the Presidency.

At the same time, he wants to invade a sovereign nation, without international approval, that just so happens to be a NUCLEAR ARMED MUSLIM NATION.

I expect Hillary's staff is celebrating Obama flexing his imaginary muscles...

(And, not coincidentally, so am I - given that Hillary can't win -- ever.)

Come, Lettuce Reason Together

A few months ago, some were asking if Barack Obama was "black enough." But it looks as though his real problem is that he is "too green."

The New York Times Web site reported the other day on an appearance by the freshman senator in Adel, Iowa:

One line that landed a little flat, though, was when Mr. Obama sympathetically noted that farmers have not seen an increase in prices for their crops, despite a rise in prices at the supermarket.

"Anybody gone into Whole Foods lately and see what they charge for arugula?" the senator said. "I mean, they're charging a lot of money for this stuff."

As the Times notes, the entire state of Iowa has not a single Whole Foods market.

Notice any similarity between Obama's misstep and Michael Dukakis's advice to Iowa farmers in 1987 that they start growing Belgian endive?

http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110010406

"but now Barrack "I can't catch a cab therefore I am a brother" Obama"

Wow, that is just flat-out racism.

drindl says of Obama "at least he's right on about Pakistan and Afghanistan"

You mean he won't negotiate with them first? Man Obama is all over the place now.

Yup -so far Bush is only keen on invading only pre-nuclear hell holes. I guess Obama thinks he can step it up.

This is just tough talk from a guy who wanted to play patty cake last week.

I would want any US Prez to be willing to do some black ops in the Paki mountains to take out Bin Laden's ilk but now Barrack "I can't catch a cab therefore I am a brother" Obama wants to invade just to cover his total surrender in Iraq.

and duly noted.

|, point taken...

"The zouk troll must be frothing at the mouth while simultaneously drooling and having a seizure."

Nah! Zouk's mission is to disrupt reasoned discourse with the intent being to get the thread off topic.

Give Zouk credit, his ill-founded positions and false premise logic get The Fix off topic more often than not.

I agree that Roo's advice to ignore him is what counters him best.

It would be nice if that would work for all of the rufus posters also.

It is important that America creates a new impression with the rest of the world. We have seriously ruined our reputation over the past countless years and we can turn that around by helping with a great humanitarian endeavor: Fighting Poverty. Every 3.6 Seconds, another person dies from starvation [Borgen Project], so what can the candidates do about this?

Well, we got about 32 reasonable, rational, on topic posts before the troll came in. That's a record. Fun while it lasted.

I agree that Biden probably has the best position on Iraq amongst the Dems, but he is also a bit of a one trick pony. When was the last time Biden was in the news for a reason other than Iraq (or some spoken gaffe)? In my mind, Biden is the clear front-runner for the Secretary of State if a Dem wins the Presidency but he doesn't have the cross-issue appeal to make a serious run for President.

Mark in Austin - The Post has a blog for legal matters. It's called the Bench Conference.

See: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/benchconference/

[The moderator(?) is on vacation right now.]

Who is we? Is that the voices in your head again? you are the fool we want to kick off this site Kos Koward.

didn't you notice that "we" are ignoring you and dufas. that zouk is always listened to, respected and argued with on a fact, reason and logic basis. that YOU trade in insults, envy, hate, spin, etc.

Take a look at your two incredibly spiteful posts above and tell me you are not seething with rage and hate. fine if that's what turns you on. but go back over to Kos with your fellow travellers. we prefer ideas and debate on The Fix. you have singlehandeldy ruined this blog and I am here to lead the battle to take it back from you. so continue to post, but anyone with a brain will ignore you from now on, no matter how much invective you post.

back to ignoring moonbats and hateful Kowards. the rest of you please follow my lead and squash this unpleasant knat.

Troll Bait:
1. DDT
2. Global warming
3. Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi
4. Math
5. Jimmy Carter
6. The elimination of tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires
7. Volunteering to fight the trolls

#7 is eminently sensible IF you recognize the symptoms of trollism (trollery?): the first six items on the list.

The troll gets bonus points for combining several of his obssessions in one post.

why do you only punch in at noon, zouk troll? why aren't you in iraq?

Blarg, thanks - I think of that as the "comfort zone" rationale, and I think you are almost surely correct.

Cassandra, I have the fresh recollection of hearing an expert say that all plans are doomed to fail on the basis of the enormous continuing growth of health care costs, far above the rate of inflation. He had no solution. I have no solution; however, there is an MIT Study that offers some hope, and if I find it on the web I'll post the cite.

I agree with you that RG's plan helps my wife and me, but not the 10-50 million folks who need it most. On a cost-benefit basis, I would like to see how much tax revenue the credits and deductions would cost before I condemned it out of hand.
Of course, politicians in both parties often disguise the cost of their programs as tax deductions and credits.

DimDem/zouk the troll is here -- with his mindless hate, envy and insults.

i suggest that, as roo suggested yesterday, we not feed him.

Harry Reid has said that he could not wait for General David Petraeus's September report on conditions in Iraq but tried to get an immediate congressional mandate to pull the troops out.

Having waited for years, why could he not wait until September for the report by the general who is actually on the ground in Iraq every day? Why was it necessary for politicians in Washington to declare the troop surge a failure from 8,000 miles away?

The most obvious answer is that Senator Reid feared that the surge would turn out not to be a failure -- and the Democrats had bet everything, including their chances in the 2008 elections, on an American defeat in Iraq.

Senator Reid had to preempt defeat before General Petraeus could report progress. The Majority Leader's failure to get the Senate to do that suggests that not enough others were convinced that declaring failure now was the right political strategy.

An optimist might even hope that some of the senators thought it was wrong for the country.

Another revealing sign is that the solid front of the mainstream media in filtering out any positive news from Iraq and focusing only on American casualties -- in the name of "honoring the troops" -- is now starting to show cracks.

One of the most revealing cracks has appeared in, of all places, the New York Times, which has throughout the war used its news columns as well as its editorial pages to undermine the war in Iraq and paint the situation as hopeless.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OGQ4MTgyNGQ2N2I3ZWM0ZTkzYTEzMjlhYzQ2ZGZiYjY=

They despise their own countrymen and worship thieves, liars and con artists.

Posted by: | August 1, 2007 10:36 AM

if you think rudi looks 'presidential' check out this recent pic of him and Judi -- ugh.

Posted by: | August 1, 2007 11:24 AM

Here we go with the mindless hate, envy and insults. what a waste of a human you are Kos Koward.

Mark, I don't mean that the idea would be attacked on actual policy grounds. (Such as whether it's unfair to the poor or troubling to privacy advocates.) I mean that the idea of a totally cashless society is weird, and anyone who presented that idea would be painted as a lunatic by his/her political opponents.

People like cash. Almost everyone uses it sometimes, and it's been the most common form of payment for centuries. (At least, for small purchases.) It's an issue of tradition. Elimination of cash would be a big change to the status quo. And in general, people like the status quo.

If we're going to end up in a cashless society, it has to happen organically. We've certainly moved that direction in recent decades. But a politician who steps forward and says he wants to eliminate cash money would be saying something very strange, and he'd get a lot of criticism for it. Whether or not the idea has merit, it's a weird idea, and I think that weirdness would cause a lot of opposition.

We were doing so well until:

"The cons really despise the idea of good government. They've been so brainwashed by corporations for so long they actually hate their own government, and hence, their own country. They would actually prefer to have their tax money stolen by foreign governments and multi-nationals with privatization and no-bid contracts, as it is now in Iraq. And yet they call themselves patriots, when in fact theey are the lowest form of traitors.

They despise their own countrymen and worship thieves, liars and con artists."

Posted by: | August 1, 2007 10:36 AM

What a hateful, envious loser. go back to kos Koward.

'Giuliani's health care plan, unveiled at the forum, includes giving taxpayers tax credits to purchase private health insurance. The highlight of Giuliani's plan: a $15,000 tax deduction for each family to buy private health insurance.'

And what if they can't afford $15,000? Which is the reason almost half the country doesn't have health insurance. all this will do is provide more tax breaks for the affluent.

More stupidity and policies designed to help the already well off. Typical.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

if you think rudi looks 'presidential' check out this recent pic of him and Judi -- ugh.

The cost of the war in Iraq and other military operations has soared to the point where "we are now spending on these activities more than 10 percent of all the government's annually appropriated funds," said Robert A. Sunshine, the budget office's assistant director for budget analysis.'

WASHINGTON -- The war in Iraq could ultimately cost well over a trillion dollars -- at least double what has already been spent -- including the long-term costs of replacing damaged equipment, caring for wounded troops, and aiding the Iraqi government, according to a new government analysis.

The United States has already allocated more than $500 billion on the day-to-day combat operations of what are now 190,000 troops and a variety of reconstruction efforts.

In a report to lawmakers yesterday, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that even under the rosiest scenario -- an immediate and substantial reduction of troops -- American taxpayers will feel the financial consequences of the war for at least a decade.

The calculations include the estimated cost to leave some US forces behind for at least several years to support the Iraqi government, but they also predict other long-term costs, such as extended medical care and disability compensation for wounded soldiers and survivor's benefits for the families of the thousands of combat-zone fatalities.

The cost of the war in Iraq and other military operations has soared to the point where "we are now spending on these activities more than 10 percent of all the government's annually appropriated funds," said Robert A. Sunshine, the budget office's assistant director for budget analysis.'

Remember how this war was going to 'pay for itself' in oil revenues? Are we the biggest s*ckers on the planet, or what?

Reposted for JimD -

One of that morning's reviewed cases was not an employment case and thus I had not read it previously. But it has good implications for employer defendants and that is why it was discussed.

Sole v. Wyner deals with attorney's fees under Sec. 1988 [often relied upon in employment cases, too].

In Jan. 2003, Wyner told the Palm Beach, FL
County Park Manager that she and her minions were going to engage in a nude peace demonstration on Valentine's Day at MacArthur Beach.

County said she could demonstrate, but not in the nude. Wyner got a prelim injunction from the US District Court and held her nude demonstration without interference. Later, the Judge decided that the County won on the merits, but awarded Wyner attorney's fees as a "prevailing party" on the prelim inj.

11th Cir. sustained the award.

Supremes reversed, this year, 9-0, and reached the correct, and here pro defendant, result. The Supremes engaged in some justifiable judicial activism - changing their previous case law test of the statutory word "prevail" from "material alteration in favor of" to "material PERMANENT alteration in favor of". The previous test came from cases where each side prevailed on some claims. In the employment context, the possibility of winning substantial attorney's fees just for getting a preliminary injunction [against a "reduction in force", for example] is now off the table.

Because of the last 7 years with GWB I will not vote for a GOP so who ever gets the Dems nom will be where my vote goes. I do like Hillary becasue of her husband and that means we will have him back which will help the country plus a friendly congress for the Clintons could prove the point as to if it was a witch hunt or not. But because Ron Paul is running as a GOP he will not get my vote I would have voted for him if he would have switch sides and move to the Dems because he is a very smart and though provoking man.

"One more thought about the cashless society - have you seen the VISA commercials where people zip through the checkout line at various stores using a VISA debit card and everything comes to a screeching halt when someone wants to use cash? The clerk and the other customers look at the poor fellow as if he just committed some incredible faux pas."

I hate those commercials because the implication is that cash is for bumbling idiot, is slower than a card and wanted by the business owner or waiter. Truth be told, in a service industry, cash is still much preferred. you get higher tips (especially at a coffee shop, coffee is 1.65 you pay with 2 dollar, generally that 35 cents goes into the tip jar, but if you use the ez pass, no tip), you can 'fudge' your earnings (can't when there's a paper trail of tips) and the owner doesn't pay a 25-50 cent fee on each transaction.

Cashless society sounds like an awful idea.

Re street crime, there is an interesting bit of empirical data. There is an interesting book "Armed Robbers In Action: Stickups and Street Culture" where the authors interviewed a lot of muggers to ask questions such as how they selected their victims.

One surprising thing (surprising to me anyway) was that a lot of muggers avoid well-to-do whites because experience says they're probably only carrying plastic.

Other than being well-to-do and white, the best tip for avoiding getting mugged was not to wear expensive jewelry.

You can NEVER have too many Longhorns.

The McCain campain should be estatic with this poll. They can paint him as the main contender to Giuliani, and can show that while Rommney has some local appeal, he would have no chance at President on a National stage.

Nothing surprising for Democrats in my opinion. The Democratic field is much less interesting because its much more set (Clinton and Obama are the only two with any realistic shot-- Edwards has just enough support to show up, but no one is knocking off the two front runners).

The Republicans on the other hand, have an interesting situation with 4 different candadates each with a legitimate shot. (Guiliani and McCain with broad national appeal and Rommney and Thompson with local support).

One more thought about the cashless society - have you seen the VISA commercials where people zip through the checkout line at various stores using a VISA debit card and everything comes to a screeching halt when someone wants to use cash? The clerk and the other customers look at the poor fellow as if he just committed some incredible faux pas.

Hook 'em, by God.

I think it would be mocked by all parties because it's a risky, risky concept. And think of it this way, if you had to pay for a gun with the ebt card, how would the NRA feel about that one? I'm sure they would view it as nothing more than an attempt at a national database, whether it was or not.

I think in general, the left would be more receptive to that idea, but it would probably get mocked by tehm too as a voilation of civil liberties. Again, not because it is, but because of how it would be perceived.

In the end it hardly matters. We're heading towards a cashless society anyway, simply because of the ease of it.

Mark,

Interesting idea on eliminating paper money. But, you would be surprised at how many of the working poor do not have bank accounts let alone debit cards.

About the court case, I did not see the post - I was away for the weekend and have been pretty busy so I haven't been keeping up as much as ususal with The Fix - which thread is it in?

BTW, thanks

There are too many Longhorns on this blog.

I've never thought about your cashless society idea Mark, but I think I would oppose it at a gut level, for reasons I can't yet articulate.

Blarg and DCAustinite -

I take it you both think "privacy" advocates would still prevail against this idea, which was "novel" 33 years ago when debit cards were new. But you also think the idea would be mocked.

Would it be mocked by the left, because forcing everyone to have a bank account would be arguably discriminatory against the poor?

Would it be mocked from the right, for some reason I cannot yet see?

Would it be mocked because it invades a "comfort zone?"

DCAustinite - pawn shops would also have to pay by ebt - when the cash dries up, the pawn shop pay to the street criminal dries up, too. Hey, are you a 'Horn?

I apologize for being somewhat off-topic but this from Myerson (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/31/AR2007073101628.html?hpid=opinionsbox1) is just too good to not post:

"The question in September will be whether congressional Republicans continue to support President Bush's open-ended commitment to keeping U.S. forces in Iraq while a civil war rages around them. To date, the Republicans' strategy, and not just on the war, has been to thwart the Democrats at every turn and to use the Senate's 60-vote supermajority requirement both to create a "do-nothing" Congress against which they can run and to spare their president from having to veto popular legislation. (Why they care about sparing Bush -- he will never face voters again; they will -- plunges us into the murk of abnormal psychology.)"

The night before the government secured a guilty plea from the manufacturer of the addictive painkiller OxyContin, a senior Justice Department official called the U.S. attorney handling the case and, at the behest of an executive for the drugmaker, urged him to slow down, the prosecutor told the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday.
John L. Brownlee, the U.S. attorney in Roanoke, testified that he was at home the evening of Oct. 24 when he received the call on his cellphone from Michael J. Elston, then chief of staff to the deputy attorney general and one of the Justice aides involved in the removal of nine U.S. attorneys last year.

Brownlee settled the case anyway. Eight days later, his name appeared on a list compiled by Elston of prosecutors that officials had suggested be fired.

What will Rush Limbaugh say?

Can you imagine if this had happened during the Clinton administration? Oh, the outrage!

'The WP fronts a letter sent by the director of national intelligence to lawmakers, where he revealed that the warrantless wiretapping program was only one part of a much broader executive order.'

I have to laugh that anyone talks about 'Big Brother'. It's already here. All of your phone calls, emails, google searches, medical information, financial transactions, etc are presently subject to illegal, warrantless, random search and seizure, and stored in a gigantic data base-- since 2001.

It's called 'data mining' -- have you really not heard about this? Your privacy is gone. Your constitutional protections are gone. Any number of bureaucrats have access to your most intimate information.

And the biggest cheerleaders for it -- are the so-called 'small government' types. Just look at this way -- anything a so-called conservatives says --what they actually beleive is just the opposite.

War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Lies Are Truth.

'Murdoch now has to convince skeptical journalists he is committed to improving the quality of Dow Jones. The LAT has a separate story inside on how reporters at the WSJ were not happy with the news. "It's a sickening realization to know that this really great iconic newspaper is ... going to be controlled by a man whose values are inimical to ours," one reporter said. "We held a wake. We stood around a pile of Journals and drank whiskey," a reporter told the NYT.'

Truly a tragic day -- the Journal's editorial page was always a dependable rightwing rag, but the rest of the paper was quite good, and to have a foriegn tabloid fascist like Murdoch control it is a great loss.

Mark -- Maybe you're right.

Biden would be the person I "trust" the most on Iraq on the left side of the isle. As others have said, at least he's given some real, original, thought to the issue, rather than marking lockstep with extreme left.

And, if we were ever attacked by terrorists while Hillary were in office, I don't think there is any limit to what she might do to hunt them down and kill them.

So I guess I would "trust" her in the aftermath of an attack (though I don't think she would necessarly prevent one).

Neither of those propositions means they would win my vote (at this point, anyway). So maybe you're right.

Mark, that's an interesting concept, but to be truly effective against street crime, you'd have to eliminate pawn shops as well. But as Blarg suggested, the hint of big brotherism (a record would exist of your purchases, movements, etc), makes it too easily mocked.

But novel ideas are good to be discussed anyway, since sometimes they do work.

'House easily passes ethics overhaul

The Senate is poised to second an identical bill this week for the biggest crackdown on congressional behavior in decades.'

By voting 411-8 in favor of the ethics reform bill, Democrats moved closer to achieving a goal they made a priority after the midterm elections. Under the measure, lobbyists would have to disclose contributions they collect, or "bundle," from several sources if they raise more than $15,000 in a six-month period. The measure would also require greater disclosure of earmarks, and prohibit any special spending items that financially benefit a lawmaker's family. Senators would also not be allowed to place secret "holds" on legislation, and lawmakers would not be allowed to accept any gifts, meals, or travel from lobbyists.'

The zouk troll must be frothing at the mouth while simultaneously drooling and having a seizure. He so hates it when Nancy Pelosi accomplishes something truly substantial and important in cracking down on corruption.

The cons really despise the idea of good government. They've been so brainwashed by corporations for so long they actually hate their own government, and hence, their own country. They would actually prefer to have their tax money stolen by foreign governments and multi-nationals with privatization and no-bid contracts, as it is now in Iraq. And yet they call themselves patriots, when in fact theey are the lowest form of traitors.

They despise their own countrymen and worship thieves, liars and con artists.

Mark, I don't think any major candidate would support a policy as radical as eliminating paper money. Even if it's a good idea, their opponents would have a field day. It's just too easily mocked.

I have to say, Obama is the only one telling the truth about what the US needs to do to combat terrorism-- the only one who admits that the biggest threat to our safety is coming from our so-callied 'allies' in the middle east -- although even he dares not speak the words 'Saudi Arabia'... but at least he's right on about Pakistan and Afghanistan:

'WASHINGTON (CNN) -Sen. Barack Obama will say he would shift the war on terror to Pakistan and Afghanistan in a speech to be delivered on Wednesday.

According to excerpts from the speech released by his campaign, Obama, D-Illinois, will say: "When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing the capabilities and partnerships we need to take out the terrorists and the world's most deadly weapons; engaging the world to dry up support for terror and extremism; restoring our values; and securing a more resilient homeland."

Obama says the war in Iraq has left Americans more in danger than before 9/11.

"The President would have us believe that every bomb in Baghdad is part of al Qaeda's war against us, not an Iraqi civil war," Obama will say. "He elevates al Qaeda in Iraq -- which didn't exist before our invasion -- and overlooks the people who hit us on 9/11, who are training recruits in Pakistan."

Despite the challenges, and potentially destabilizing effect U.S. military action inside Pakistan could create, Obama said it was important to remain enagaged there. "There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again," he will say. "It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets, and President Musharraf won't act, we will."

For uncensored news please bookmark;

www.wsws.org
www.takingaimradio.info
www.onlinejournal.com
otherside123.blogspot.com
www.globalresearch.ca

Will Bush cancel the 2008 election?

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_2255.shtml

By Harvey Wasserman & Bob Fitrakis
Online Journal Guest Writers
Aug 1, 2007, 01:11

It is time to think about the "unthinkable."

The Bush administration has both the inclination and the power to cancel the 2008 election.

The GOP strategy for another electoral theft in 2008 has taken clear shape, though we must assume there is much more we don't know.

But we must also assume that if it appears to Team Bush/Cheney/Rove that the GOP will lose the 2008 election anyway (as it lost in Ohio 2006), we cannot ignore the possibility that they would simply cancel the election. Those who think this crew will quietly walk away from power are simply not paying attention.

The real question is not how or when they might do it. It's how, realistically, we can stop them.

In Florida 2000, Team Bush had a game plan involving a handful of tactics. With Jeb Bush in the governor's mansion, the GOP used a combination of disenfranchisement, intimidation, faulty ballots, electronic voting fraud, a rigged vote count and an aborted recount, courtesy of the US Supreme Court.

A compliant Democrat (Al Gore) allowed the coup to be completed.

In Ohio 2004, the arsenal of dirty tricks exploded. Based in Columbus, we have documented more than a hundred different tactics used to steal the 20 electoral votes that gave Bush a second term. More are still surfacing. As a result of the King-Lincoln-Bronzeville federal lawsuit (in which we are plaintiff and attorney) we have now been informed that 56 of the 88 counties in Ohio violated federal law by destroying election records, thus preventing a definitive historical recount.

As in 2000, a compliant Democrat (John Kerry) allowed the coup to proceed.

For 2008 we expect the list of vote theft maneuvers to escalate yet again. We are already witnessing a coordinated nationwide drive to destroy voter registration organizations and to disenfranchise millions of minority, poor and young voters.

This carefully choreographed campaign is complemented by the widespread use of electronic voting machines. As reported by the Government Accountability Office, Princeton University, the Brennan Center, the Carter-Baker Commission, US Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) and others, these machines can be easily used to flip an election. They were integral to stealing both the 2000 and 2004 elections. Efforts to make their source codes transparent, or to require a usable paper trail on a federal level, have thus far failed. A discriminatory Voter ID requirement may also serve as the gateway to a national identification card.

Overall, the GOP will have at its command even more weapons of election theft in 2008 than it did in Ohio 2004, which jumped exponentially from Florida 2000. The Rovian GOP is nothing if not tightly organized to do this with ruthless efficiency. Expect everything that was used these past two presidential elections to surface again in 2008 in far more states, with far more efficiency, and many new dirty tricks added in.

But in Ohio 2006, the GOP learned a hard lesson. Its candidate for governor was J. Kenneth Blackwell. The secretary of state was the essential on-the-ground operative in the theft of Ohio 2004.

When he announced for governor, many Ohioans joked that "Ken Blackwell will never lose an election where he counts the votes."

But lose he did . . . along with the GOP candidates for secretary of state, attorney general and US Senate.

By our calculations, despite massive grassroots scrutiny, the Republicans stole in excess of 6 percent of the Ohio vote in 2006. But they still lost.

Why? Because they were so massively unpopular that even a 6 percent bump couldn't save them. Outgoing Governor Bob Taft, who pleaded guilty to four misdemeanors while in office, left town with a 7 percent approval rating (that's not a typo). Blackwell entered the last week of the campaign down 30 percent in some polls.

So while the GOP still had control of the electoral machinery here in 2006, the public tide against them was simply too great to hold back, even through the advanced art and science of modern Rovian election theft.

In traditional electoral terms, that may also be the case in 2008. Should things proceed as they are now, it's hard to imagine any Republican candidate going into the election within striking distance. The potential variations are many, but the graffiti on the wall is clear.

What's also clear is that this administration has a deep, profound and uncompromised contempt for democracy, for the rule of law, and for the US Constitution. When George W. Bush went on the record (twice) as saying he has nothing against dictatorship, as long as he can be dictator, it was a clear and present policy statement.

Who really believes this crew will walk quietly away from power? They have the motivation, the money and the method for doing away with the electoral process altogether. So why wouldn't they?

The groundwork for dismissal of both the legislative and judicial branch has been carefully laid. The litany is well-known, but worth a very partial listing:

The continuation of the drug war, and the USAPATRIOT Act, Homeland Security Act and other dictatorial laws prompted by the 9/11/2001 terror attacks, have decimated the Bill of Rights, and shredded the traditional American right to due process of law, freedom from official surveillance, arbitrary violence, and far more.

The current attorney general, Alberto Gonzales, has not backed away from his announcement to Congress that the Constitution does not guarantee habeas corpus. The administration continues to act on the assumption that it can arrest anyone at any time and hold them without notification or trial for as long as it wants.

The establishment of the Department of Homeland Security has given it additional hardware to decimate the basic human rights of our citizenry. Under the guise of dealing with the "immigration problem," large concentration camps are under construction around the US.

The administration has endorsed and is exercising its "right" to employ torture, contrary to the Eighth Amendment and to a wide range of international treaties, which Gonzales has labeled "quaint."

With more than 200 "signing statements," the administration acts on its belief that the "unitary executive" trumps the power of the legislative branch in any instance it chooses. This belief has been further enforced with the administration's use of a wide range of precedent-setting arguments to keep its functionaries from testifying before Congress.

There is much more. In all instances, the 109th Congress and the public have rolled over without significant resistance.

Most crucial now are Presidential Directive #51, Executive Orders #13303, #13315, #13350, #13364, #13422, #13438, and more, by which Bush has granted himself an immense arsenal of powers for which the term "dictatorial" is a modest understatement.

The framers established our government with checks and balances. But executive orders have accumulated important precedent. The Emancipation Proclamation, by which Lincoln declared an end to slavery in the South, was issued under the "military necessity" of adding blacks to the Union Army, a step without which the North might not have won the Civil War. Franklin Roosevelt's Executive Order #8802 established the Fair Employment Practices Commission. Harry Truman's Executive Order #9981 desegregated the military.

More to the point, FDR's Executive Order #9066 ordered the forcible internment of 100,000 people of Japanese descent into the now infamous concentration camps of World War II.

There is also precedent for a president overriding the Supreme Court. In the 1830s, Chief Justice John Marshall enshrined the right of the Cherokee Nation to sovereignty over its ancestral land in the Appalachian Mountains. But President Andrew Jackson scorned the decision. Some 14,000 native Americans were moved at gunpoint to Oklahoma. More than 3,000 died along the way.

All this will be relevant should Team Bush envision a defeat in the 2008 election and decide to call it off. It's well established that Richard Nixon -- mentor to Karl Rove and Dick Cheney -- commissioned the Huston Plan, which detailed how to cancel the 1972 election.

Today we must ask: who would stop this administration from taking dictatorial power in the instance of a "national emergency" such as a terror attack at a nuclear power plant or something similar?

Nothing in the behavior of this Congress indicates that it is capable of significant resistance. Impeachment seems beyond it. Nor does it seem Congress would actually remove Bush if it did put him on trial.

Short of that, Bush clearly does not view anything Congress might do as a meaningful impediment. After all, how many divisions does the Congress command?

The Supreme Court, as currently constituted, would almost certainly rubber stamp a Bush coup. If not, like Jackson, he could ignore it as easily as he would ignore Congress.

What does that leave? There is much idle speculation now about what the armed forces would do. We also hear loose talk about "90 million gun owners."

From the public side, the only conceivable counterforce might be a national strike or an effective long-term campaign of general non-cooperation.

But we can certainly assume the mainstream media will give lockstep support to whatever the regime says and does. It's also a given that those likely to lead the resistance will immediately land in those new prisons being built by Halliburton et. al.

So how do we cope with the harsh realities of such a Bush/Cheney/Rove dictatorial coup?

We may have about a year to prepare. Every possible scenario needs to be discussed in excruciating detail.

For only one thing is certain: denial will do nothing.

Harvey Wasserman's "History of the United States" is at www.solartopia.org, along with "Solartopia! Our Green-Powered Earth, A.D. 2030." The Fitrakis Files are at www.freepress.org (where this article was originally published), along with "How the GOP Stole America's 2004 Election & Is Rigging 2008," which Bob and Harvey

Mike, it confirms my generally dismal impression of level of the understanding of average US voter, due to the national habit of disengaging from the politics, and susceptibility of the American thought patterns - generally unsophisticated and gullible - to the manipulation by political ad machines. An example? Over 40% of US voters, in last the poll what I saw, do not believe in evolution, do not believe in global warming, and believe that Saddam was behind attacks in 2001.

I have no idea how the penultimate sentence in my previous post became mangled.

Hi, Aggie:

I wonder how the "trust" question plays out for voters. I, for example, trust McCain and Biden on Iraq, although their positions are about 90 degrees [not 180 degrees] apart.

I trust them because they have both thought about Iraq continually and have currently come to different conclusions - they have not to take polls play to the voters.

Perhaps some of the confusion results from not asking the voters who they "agree" with, but instead, asking who they "trust".

Hillary's poor poll numbers on actual policies should be a concern for her campaign.
http://political-buzz.com/?p=281

Experiecne is rated highly, so shouldn;t that go in hand with solid policy numbers? It must be Iraq

One of the most disturbing things about this article is that on healthcare, Hillary has a 65% approval rating, while Giuliani simultaneously has 52%.

These two couldn't be further apart on this issue of they tried -- which suggests that (at least) 20% of the responders can't even tell the difference.

In addition to simple name recognition trumping the issues, does this inability to differentiate between 2 different ideologies bother anyone else?

Back in the early 70s the major issues for American conservatives were wrapped in the blanket phrase "law and order". For example, Justice Kennedy, now the swing vote on the Supremes, was appointed as a "law and order" choice.

In that time, '73 or '74, a noted aviation lawyer, Stuart Speiser of NYC, proposed eliminating folding money as the quickest method to reduce street crime.

"Coins and tokens would remain in circulation. A payment card system, keyed to bank accounts, would replace paper money and terminals would replace cash registers."

Civil libertarians, both conservatives and liberals, decried the loss of privacy they thought would result, and the momentum, such as it was, stalled.

One wonders if a natural "law and order" candidate today, RG, could not raise this issue again, now that we are all used to debit cards. It could be argued that not only would it make street crime not pay -
it would make straight bribery like the [apparent] Jefferson case nearly impossible and would give DHS more tools to trace money flows. Cash based tax evasion would become difficult: it would have to be conducted in foreign currency, of course, or massive amounts of coinage, both of which would raise red flags. Just think how it could be used to address undocs, as well.

Libertarians [JD?] might still be opposed.

And what if a candidate who is not associated with "law and order" raised the issue? Suppose BO raised it as a prophylactic to inner city street crime - and pointed out its other plausible benefits, too?

"McCain's support for the war in Iraq is one of the main reasons cited for the struggles of his campaign."

This is a load of crap Chris and you know it. Mitt, Fred, Rudy are all supportive of the war in various ways.

It was McCain's support for AMNESTY, for MCCAIN-FEINGOLD, and for generally being a neaky Bast*** that have caused his campaign to struggle.

Hi JimD -

Did you ever see the FL case I posted for you that the S.Ct. decided this year? It was a major discussion item at my employment law
seminar even 'though it was not an employment case.

If these polls hold true, then it would appear that Rudy & Hillary will be duking it out in the general election, next fall. I'm afraid that we are looking at a Hillary presidency :(

Hi Mark,

Image is everything in our society and I suppose that Giuliani's association with 9/11 trumps the actual lack of any foreign policy experience.

Yesterday, bsimon pointed out the substantial lack of experience of most of the leading candidates. Recently, the historian Doris Kearns Goodwin spoke with Tim Russert about the qualifications for a good President, from the perspective of a presidential historian.
If that clip can be found on the web, I recommend it to all.

I agree with JimD that Biden is the only candidate with a substantial plan for what to do next in Iraq, but I think he is best equipped to handle future foreign policy issues as well.

It does surprise me that RG is seen as "trusted" about the war in Iraq. There is a logical disconnect for me that a former Mayor and prosecutor could be rated above a
long time Senator on this issue.

"Because Thompson and Romney are the least formed candidates -- in the eyes of voters..."

And yet they lead in many of the polls for R candidates. The ill-defined devil you don't know is better than the same old boring devils you do know?

"It's no coincidence that the four candidates with the highest national name ID -- Clinton, Obama, Giuliani and McCain -- also happen to be the most trusted on the issues of the day."

In other words, people don't actually know squat about the candidates they choose support, they just go with gut feelings. Heaven forbid we should examine their stand on any particular issue. Then again, this is obviously a fluff poll conducted waaaay upstream of the ones that will actually matter. Why not ask people how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

What strikes me as most impressive about these poll numbers is that Obama registers so highly. Clinton, McCain and Giuliani have been among our most prominent political figures for at least the last 6 years - much longer for Clinton and McCain. Obama is a newcomer to the national scene and he is striking a chord with many people. Personally, I do not think he has the experience to be president and suspect that the experience issue could seriously hamper his candidacy. But then my favorite candidate (Wesley Clark) is not running and I currently lean towards Biden as the only one with a well thought out, responsible position on Iraq.