Mark in Austin:

Edwards visit to Montana may be a non-event to you, but it was a major event here. Edwards packed the the speaking site. Missoula's NBC outlet broadcast the entire speech, even cutting off the first half of it's network news feed.

It's a front page story in every daily newspaper in Montana.

Someone did their homework on the Edwards staff because he spoke a lot of "green" here and green goes over big with Montana Democrats.

Does this appearance mean much in Texas? Probably not. But Edwards scored a lot of points here. He is the first top-tier Presidential candidate of any party to appear here in years.

A little bit can go a long ways in our state.

Mark in Austin writes "do you know about an effort, either in MN or WI, that places primary health care visits in rooms in chain pharmacies, computerizes patient histories, and unitizes delivery through nurse practitioners on the pharmacy premises? I either read about this two months ago or dreamt it. Supposed to be an efficient and inexpensive delivery model for 85% of all medical visits."

I haven't heard of this as a systematic push to replace primary care in clinics, but it could apply to certain limited disease state managment areas. Perhaps some of the pharmacists in those settings you heard about have a collaborative practice agreement in place to monitor/ adjust limited Rxs, i.e. warfarin therapy or blood pressure meds. Or the NPs come in on a scheduled basis to do follow-up care for patients already seen by the primary care physician. These collaborative agreements are happening in more settings all the time, and it improves access and availability of providers to patients. Computerizing patient records is a huge push to improve safety and accuracy of orders, Rxs and charts and is also much more portable for providers in between practice sites.

I doubt that this will achieve the 85% rate that is cited for moving visits out of the traditional Drs office/ clinic setting, but is certainly more cost-effective for many situations like chronic disease follow-up and routine vaccinations, etc. If it helps improve medication compliance alone, that in itself would be a huge cost-savings overall for the societal pool of healthcare dollars.

bsimon:
You have to think local rather than nationally with presidential races. Montana doesn't SOEMTIMES elect Democrats to state wide office, it USUALLY elects Democrats to statewide office. Conrad Burns was the first Republican senator to win reelection in more than 100 years.

And no, Montana Democrats are not moderate Republicans. By and large they support the issues Democrats everywhere support.

Montana has a large streak of independence. This is a state that voted in medicinal marijuana in the same election that the voters banned gay marriage.

It is the independents that must be swayed, not the Democrats. Montana Democrats get elected because they speak to local issues. Democratic presidential candidates don't get the vote here because they don't campaign here.

Being unstimulated by the national Democratic campaign, the majority of independents are left with a natural tendancy to be conservative--not right wing conservative, mind you, but just right of center. This group can be won by Democrats; more than 60 percent voted for Max Baucus last time around.

In 1992, Perot siphoned off enough independents that Bill Clinton carried the state. In 1996, Perot's impact was much smaller and Dole took the state.

But in neither race did the candidates actually campaign here. That wasn't always the case. In the days of rail travel, candidates spoke at Montana stops along the rail lines. Even in the mid 20th Century, each candidate made at least one airport stop here.

But we've been ignored for a long time. Many argue why care about Montana it has too few electoral votes to matter. Perhaps, but if Montana's electoral votes had gone to Gore in 2000, nobody would have cared about Florida's hanging chads.

The same is true of the Dakotas, especially North Dakota, which has been governed and represenated by Democrats consistently, but gives electoral votes to Republicans. Why do independents in these states support Republican Presidential candidates? It's simple; it's been more than 40 years since any Democrat has come to Montana to ask for their vote.

The Democrats have to stop thing "battleground states" and run a 50 state campaign.

Former governor of Iowa Tom Vilsack endorsed Clinton, as well.

(some 'fraidy cat didn't read the article...)

hate Hispanics? yeah, pretty much.

Since anonymous and 'crazy Rufii' have already threadjacked this blog beyond recognition, let me suggest a great article for you:

read Samuelson in today's post. He lays out a very convincing statistical case as to why stubborn poverty cannot be beaten back without ending immmigration from poor Hispanics. Although he doesn't say this outright, it seems as though he'd start with Illegal immigration and continue with tamping back the legal kind.

Amusingly, the on-air reporter, Jessica Yellin, then gently lets Phillips in on the fact that she's just slipped into a particularly over-the-top GOP talking point:
YELLIN: Well, that's exactly what the Republican position is here, that General Petraeus really is the driving force here. And Democrats will acknowledge that, as well.
But the GAO report does give a balancing force, if you will, because it's done by an independent branch of Congress. They're investigators. And so you can say there is absolutely no political interference. That's the position some will take.

Actually, lots of Dems wouldn't concede that Petraeus is the only driving force here, but at least the reporter explained the merits of the GAO report to Phillips and her viewers.
Look, this is serious business, kiddies. The GOP is desperate to undercut this thing because it threatens to overshadow the Gospel According to Petraeus. So the Republicans' spin today is that the GAO report's methodology is flawed and that nobody will grant this nonpartisan, Congressionally-mandated report the level of credibility that they'll grant General Petraeus' assessment...of his own performance.

This despite the fact that Republicans themselves overwhelmingly voted for the Iraq supplemental spending bill that mandated this GAO report and mandated that it hold the Iraqis to strict benchmarks.

Oh, man, this is an unsightly one indeed.
Take a look at this video of CNN's Kyra Phillips reporting today on the big GAO report finding that the Iraqi government has only met three of 18 benchmarks for measuring political progress. Phillips wonders whether this really carries any "weight," and goes on to state as fact that "everybody" is "really wanting" to hear from Petraeus:

Here's what Phillips said:

And also, you mentioned General Petraeus, waiting for his report. He's the man on the ground, really running the show. So does this really hold weight when everybody is really wanting to hear from General Petraeus and what he has to say?

'Monday, September 3, 2007

Afghan Opium Yields Highest Ever
Cultivation of opium poppies in Afghanistan reached a record level for the second year in a row, rising by 60 percent.'

so how's that war on drugs going? not as well as the war on middle class taxpayers, it look like..

'Seriously though. Fox news is an international joke. The fact that its on the air is an embarrassment to your nation... '

But not as much as George W. bush and the entire 'conservative' clown show...

Mark in Austin: CNN has the Craig story on now. There has to be something more, as I stated a couple days ago. Stay tuned. Oh! The Senator I was talking about was Tim Johnson D-SD, and he will be back in DC when Congress gets back to work.

Larry "Wide Stance" Craig -- the gift that keeps on giving...to Democrats and comedians!

Way up at the top of this thread, bsimon stated that Montana has one Democratic senator. That is incorrect; in actuality, BOTH senators from Montana are Democrats-- Max Baucus and Jon Tester.

lyle - Sen. Specter, a former prosecutor, told Craig he could beat the case and that he should hire a lawyer
to reverse his conviction. He encouraged Craig not to resign and Craig is "reconsidering".

J--Everyone has the right to speak. No-one has the right to be listened to.

At this point, no-one listens to rufus. He constantly refuses any advice that would help him actually possibly reach people.

It is all very pointless, just wasted bytes of bandwidth.

Bokonon - I think it does both: it cuts cost in large part BECAUSE it streamlines care!

Cost cutting by streamlined delivery and unitization of care is essential because health care costs now double every five years, making all political options look like moon promises.

BTW, thanks for your reply on the previous thread - I really did not see what I was supposed to get from Maher or the FarmAid guy, and thought I must have missing something subtle, but your clarification resolved all doubts.

Mark, an ex-girlfriend of mine is currently an NP on the West Coast, and from what I hear from her, it seems as if diagnosis, prescription, follow-up take place routinely without seeing a doctor at all. Doctors are usually consulted only in case of emergency (of course, they have to be on call.) Not sure how I feel about this, although my ex is a wonderful caring person who is also highly intelligent and well-trained/educated. This is maybe a paradigm shift, and maybe not a bad one, but it's weird to me that it's happening not to improve/streamline care but simply to cut costs. although of course, our medical system haas been primarily cost-driven (as opposed to care-driven - the Hippocratic Oath?) at least since the '80s....

Mark: I'd say its more like the 'New Labour' led by Tony Blair. Its definately more 'Democratic' then 'Republican' but those terms don't quite translate to Australian politics.

Labor's more socialist (invest in education / infrastructure) than business focused (the Liberal government is basically for big business, but not quite in the same way as the republican party (I'd say there's less perception of corruption, but other Labor supporters might disagree)).

We also have minor parties, the principle of these being the Greens party and the Australian Democrats (... umm... let's not go there, but similar to American Democrats)...

"Seriously though. Fox news is an international joke. The fact that its on the air is an embarrassment to your nation... "

Word is born Aussie. I've been working to get them off the air, seems like by myself. I have not made much progress. People are scared of these fascsits. "Your with us or against us". The american people seem content to wait and vote them out. I agree Fox is nothing but propoganda paid for by big oil drug and defense contractors. There are a few of us trying. It is a national joke. I admit. But this joke still runs the country for a year and a half.

Thanks again for your posts aussie craig. I haven't met or talked to a austrailia yet who is with murdoch. Not one. Good luck. Sorry for the multiple posts. Ignore if you must.

God Bless.

Rufus out :)

"Australians have less patience for such men... but to be fair he has funded The Simpsons for 18 years... so can he be all bad? ;-)"

Point taken. :)

They also got a couple movie's I like at fox pictures. The con's far out weigh the pro's to me anyway. Evil men always do a small amount of good. This way they can continue to propogate. And say "see. Look at all the good things I do."

Thank you for the response Aussie. I agreed our laws and the hypocritical gop make it hard to do what needs to be done with Fox "News". Fox trys and silence all non-gop voices while hiding behind the first amendment (free speech). And it works!. I don't know how much longer this gop hypocrisy can go on and our country still function. he laws have to be for all.

Thanks again Aussie. God Bless. Ignore my other posts. In the middle or a project :)

Aussie Craig, is Labor in Australia like "New Labour" in the UK or the old Labour Party, that nationalized heavy industry?

"Here are some items from another scale. How would you respond to them on
a -4 to +4 basis?
1. There are entirely too many people from the wrong sorts of places being
admitted into our country now.
2. Black people are, by their nature, more violent and "primitive" than others.
3. Jews cannot be trusted as much as other people can.
4. As a group, aboriginal people are naturally lazy, dishonest and lawless.
5. Arabs are too emotional, and they don't fit in well in our country.
6. We have much to fear from the Japanese, who are as cruel as they are
ambitious.
24
I'll bet you have figured out that I use these to measure prejudice. You may be
taken aback however to discover that these prejudices usually show up bundled
together in a person. But social psychologists found long ago that people who are
prejudiced against one group are usually prejudiced against a whole lot more as well.
Prejudice has little to do with the groups it targets, and a lot to do with the personality
of the holder. Want to guess who has such wide-ranging prejudices? Authoritarian
followers dislike so many kinds of people, I have called them "equal opportunity
bigots." They will not win the gold medal in the Prejudice Olympics (we'll find out
who does in a later chapter), but high RWAs will definitely be on the podium."

Hey Rufus,

I'm not sure I can speak for most Australians but Rupert Murdoch is an interesting tyrant that we're still a little wary off. Basically one of those expats you don't mind losing... I'm personally appalled by Fox news and the WSJ acquisition, and I'm not sure how they (Fox) can spread so much BS and still be considered serious news... I'd also suggest there's a reason he's living in America... Australians have less patience for such men... but to be fair he has funded The Simpsons for 18 years... so can he be all bad? ;-)

Labor in Australia is very similar to the UK. Basically liberal (small L) with its roots in the Unions and 'working' people's communities. Currently they're running on Global Warming, Rolling back the Government's heavy handed work place reforms (giving employees more power (err... flexibility?) to sack workers etc), Fiscal conservatism, increased Education spending and 'The need for change' after 11 years of Liberal (mis)management.

(Of course a Liberal supporter would tell you they're going to undermine the 'Great Economic Position' we're in solely because John Howard hasn't paid for anything in the last 10 years that wasn't war (or pork barrelling) related... during the greatest resources boom our country's ever seen... but I digress)...

Hope this helps... just wanted to point out that the 'Coalition of the Willing' is likely to be just America as of Jan 2008...

Aussie Craig...

Seriously though. Fox news is an international joke. The fact that its on the air is an embarrassment to your nation...

Thanks, lyle. That sounds like another, but somewhat different, example of what I think I read about.

My experience with NPs is good , too. And I will add, that my pharmacist knows a lot more about medications than any MD I know.

lyle, in Spain, pharmacists can prescribe, for a wide range of issues.

I still hope that proud or bsimon have some recollection or knowledge of the plan I described as being implemented in either MN or WI chain pharmacies.

One more point and I'm done for today. I'm not "ruining this site" as you authoritarian's would say. I am merely posting my posts. I am not the problem. The gop and the gop'ers are. You can engage me all day. I want that. I want to grow and help others grow. What do you do. You attack. You hide and recoil in fear. Let's talk about real issues. Let's do something. Let's stop wasting our lives talking about the same garbage everyday. Slavery.

I am not ruinging this site. Engage me. Ignore me. Leave. That is all you have to do.

Goodbye. See you cowards later. To those that this doesn't apply to. Please ignore

Mark in Austin: The NPs are being used to a great extent at VA hospitals from what I have heard, not personal knowledge, since I havent't visited a VA since the mid 80s. I have seen NPs many times and, imo, they are more helpful than a Dr. most of the time. I am not sure, but think what you are referring to is a plan to get medical information for people on Medicare and/or Medicaid on a computer data base that would be available to all health treatment clinics, hospitals, etc..., and would eliminate a whole bunch of paperwork, simular to a discussion here a few months ago on the single payer plan.

Shall I stop or do you people get the gist? Should fox be off teh air or no? If you say I should be silecned why should fox stay on? If you say they should be off the air, why are not watching them and not helping in the effort to remove them?

"Authoritarian Aggression. When I say authoritarian followers are aggressive
I don't mean they stride into bars and start fights. First of all, high RWAs go to church
enormously more often than they go to bars. Secondly, they usually avoid anything
approaching a fair fight. Instead they aggress when they believe right and might are
on their side. "Right" for them means, more than anything else, that their hostility is
(in their minds) endorsed by established authority, or supports such authority. "Might"
means they have a huge physical advantage over their target, in weaponry say, or in
numbers, as in a lynch mob. It's striking how often authoritarian aggression happens
in dark and cowardly ways, in the dark, by cowards who later will do everything they
possibly can to avoid responsibility for what they did. Women, children, and others
unable to defend themselves are typical victims. Even more striking, the attackers
typically feel morally superior to the people they are assaulting in an unfair fight. We
shall see research evidence in the next chapter that this self-righteousness plays a huge
role in high RWAs' hostility."

"The "Milgram experiment," which we shall discuss at the end of this book,
offers another example of authoritarian followers "going easy" on authorities. In his
famous study Stanley Milgram maneuvered subjects into a situation in which they
were ordered by an Experimenter to inflict painful, and possibly lethal, electric shocks
on another person (who in fact was not hurt at all). The subjects clearly did not want
to deliver the shocks, but the Experimenter told them they had to. The Experimenter
even said, if pressed, that he would accept responsibility for whatever happened. Yet
Tom Blass of the University of Maryland at Baltimore found that high RWA students
tended to blame the Experimenter less for what happened to the victim than most
students did.15 Whom did they blame instead? I found, when I replicated the study,
they blamed the poor devil who was ordered to deliver the shocks, and the victim,
more than most others did."

"I asked the students how sensible they thought the letter was, and whether they
thought the Bill of Rights should be repealed. High RWAs found the letter pretty
sensible, don't you know, and they favored repealing the Bill of Rights more than
anyone else did. Which sprinkles a dash of irony into this stew. The founding fathers
added the Bill of Rights to the Constitution to prevent tyranny by the government. I
wonder if they realized that democracy could be undermined from "below" as well as
crushed by tyranny from "above" by people who didn't want the freedoms?"

Destory the bill of rights and constitution? The gop would say it is the "right" thing to do. And you wonder why they have been destroying the country the last 15 years? HEre's the answer

I thought I would add this so you gop'ers don't jump on the last post and say "yeah. yeah. That's right." Context people. Context. :)

"If you like, you can count up how many ignorant, inaccurate, misleading and
just plain stupid things there are in this letter. I knew it was ridiculous when I
composed it. But I got the material from various people I've heard speak on the
subject. If you haven't heard them, tune in to "talk radio" some night."

The gop says, if somebody wrote it, it must be true.

"If a person stops to think about it, most of the problems we are having can be traced to the Bill
of Rights--or more precisely, to the way it has been interpreted by the Supreme Court. "Freedom of
speech" has been twisted to mean that pornographers can sell their filth, and that anybody can say
whatever he wants, whether it's good for society or not. And "freedom of religion" has been twisted to
mean children can't pray in public schools any more. And the "right to happiness" has been twisted to
mean women can have abortion after abortion if they're "unhappy" being pregnant. And think how many
drug pushers and criminals have gotten off scot-free because their "rights" were supposedly violated after
they had robbed or killed somebody.
A lot of people hoped the new Supreme Court, rid of the "Liberal Majority" which had made all
these terrible rulings, would overturn them. But it's clear now that they won't. No Supreme Court can
reverse the ruling of an earlier Supreme Court, so we are stuck with these interpretations as long as there
is a Bill of Rights. And we will soon be destroyed as a nation because of them. So the only thing we can
do, to make America the free, pure, safe Christian nation that the founding fathers intended it to be, is to
repeal the Bill of Rights."

I love this guy. If all candadians are thinking on this level I need to get out of this country.

"Authoritarian followers seem to have a "Daddy and mommy know best"
attitude toward the government. They do not see laws as social standards that apply
to all. Instead, they appear to think that authorities are above the law, and can decide
which laws apply to them and which do not--just as parents can when one is young.
But in a democracy no one is supposed to be above the law. Still, authoritarians quite
easily put that aside. They also believe that only criminals and terrorists would object
to having their phones tapped, their mail opened, and their lives put under
surveillance. They have bought their tickets and are standing in line waiting for 1984,
The Real Thing. There might as well not be a Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.
And when the Military Commissions Act of 2006 is used to deny people the right of
habeas corpus--one of the oldest rights in western law--it is unlikely that right-wing
authoritarians will object to the loss of this constitutional guarantee either."

Sounds like the gop party platform.

"And this is just the beginning. Over the years I have found that authoritarian
followers blissfully tolerated many illegal and unjust government actions that occurred
in the United States and Canada, such as:
- a police burglary of a newspaper office to get confidential information.
- drug raids carried out without search warrants because judges wouldn't
give them.
- denial of right to assemble to peacefully protest government actions.
- "dirty tricks" played by a governing party on the opposition during an
election.
- immigration office discrimination against radical speakers.
- placing agents provocateurs in organizations to create dissension and bad
press relations.
- burning down the meeting place of a radical organization.
- unauthorized mail openings."

http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer/drbob/TheAuthoritarians.pdf

What's up aussie craig?

I'm not to in tune with your political process. Is the labor party the same is austrailia as it is in the EU? If so, alright aussie's. :)

Quick question. What do you think of your countryman, Rupert Murdoch. Can you please enlighten my gop propoganda loving freinds here?

"If he would bother to type his own opinions and engage in a discussion with other people posting here, I would have no problem with him. But when he incessantly copies material from elsewhere & posts it multiple times here, on multiple topics, he is violating the spirit of the forum, and possibly the formal 'rules' such as they are. At the very least, he regularly violates others' copyrights. "

Darn simon. Pulling out all the stops to try and silence a irrelevnat anonymous poster. Copyright laws? WOW. Good luck with that. I know I know. "My way or the highway". "If I don't get EVERYTHING i want I will take my ball and go home."

I know you make all the rules now simon. But the future is now. The gop will not make the rules forever. Give and take, majority rule. You people are about to be swept under the rug. The gop will be out of politics for a generation. YOur own fault. YOu can project your hate and fears on me all day. But who is really resonsible? Look in the mirror. I didn't elect the fascsits the last 20 years.

Gday All,

Just wondering what you all think of the upcoming Australia elections as we're likely to change governments (to the Labor party and Kevin Rudd as PM) in Oct/Nov.

Its worth noting that Kevin is 18 points ahead currently, and has repeatedly said that one of his first actions in government would be to withdrawl our troops from Iraq (most likely with an extended drawdown, not leaving by this December). Given the likely result of the withdrawl announcement before Christmas, I was wondering what impact you would expect this will have on the US government's policy (and their legitimacy being the only one's left after the British complete their withdrawl) and the upcoming elections?

I also think it's pretty funny to note that Kevin's popularity jumped 5 points when it was revealed he'd been to a strip club in New York while on a diplomatic mission several years ago... We weren't outraged, we're just happy he's a 'normal' bloke :-)

Aussie Craig.

"am new to the site and am interested in most people's comments, but between rufas and that guy, it is hard to tell what is going on. Is this an all Democrat site? does anyone monitor the comments for the junk I keep seeing here?"

Wecolme terry. Zouk is a propogating republcian fascsit. His likes to use the old republican trick of lie spin and discredit. Divide on conquer. If I am not on this site he will post 10 times a minute nonestop. His goal is to silence "liberal" voices. He wants to drown us out.

Forgive me. YOu caught me in the middle of an exercise. Ignore the peanut gallery trying to discredit. Read the topic. Read the posts. Post your mind. No one will bother you. The goal here is to grow through conversation. This is not a democrat site as it is populated all day by gop'ers. Some of us are trying to balance them out. Blank poster ( I call him ghost writer) has helped me. I had spend time combating zouk and posting as far left as possible. This takes zouks( and the rest of the porpogandists) attention off you and puts it on me. Me and others being furthest left alos opens all ends of the sprectrum up to say what they really feel. "If rufus is saying that I can say this."

Good luck terry. Ignore the peanut gallery. They are trying to combat truths with lies and propoganda. Thsi is impossible and they know it. So they flood the convo with lies spin and discredit material. Ignore that terry. Post your posts. Read where people are at. IGNORE THE PEANUT GALLERY. Again, GOod luck and God bless.

Alan in Missoula: I meant your neighbor would be back after his illness, and that was the one more vote I was referring to in the Senate.

On topic: "if he did throw his backing behind anyone, it would be Gov. Bill Richardson (D-N.M.). 'Bill Richardson and I are friends,' said Schweitzer." Why does this not make his introduction of Edwards a complete non-event?

Off topic: Dave, thanks for the compliment.

bsimon and blarg, thanks for trying to keep the thread going all day.

proud [and bsimon], do you know about an effort, either in MN or WI, that places primary health care visits in rooms in chain pharmacies, computerizes patient histories, and unitizes delivery through nurse practitioners on the pharmacy premises? I either read about this two months ago or dreamt it. Supposed to be an efficient and inexpensive delivery model for 85% of all medical visits.

Alan in Missoula: Thanks for the info about the makeup of your states top elected officials. The dems will have one more vote in the Senate, now that we have them both in a little better health.

who is the idiot who won't sign his name and is on all day talking about a zouk, whatever that is.

I am new to the site and am interested in most people's comments, but between rufas and that guy, it is hard to tell what is going on. Is this an all Democrat site? does anyone monitor the comments for the junk I keep seeing here?

Wait. I got the answer to my own question. You gop'ers are hyporcites. It all makes sense now. You love to preach but cannot live up to your own standards. You love to MAKE rules but hate to follow them. Ok. It makes sense now.

Don't expect me to live by your fake rules though. Especially when you have no intention of following them yourselves. You hypocrites you. Block me. Silence me. Ship me to a serect prison. Kill me. You have no power over me. The only power you have over me is the power I give you. What if all power is god's? What if the only power YOU have is the power I give you? Not as authoritarian now are you. Not so high and mighty now, are you. Practice what you preach gop. Reap what you sow.

Just a reminder about the Rasmussen Report, it usually rates the repub three to five % points higher than most others. Overall, very good though.

bsimon - Cianci resigned after pleading No Contest to assault charges.

A few years later he ran again, and was elected again as an Independent.

Then Operation Plunderdome took him down for the corruption.

He hasn't said what affiliation he'll seek, the next time he runs.

The thing that worries me is this.

I am the one who has to worry about being blocked. I have to worry about being put on a terrosrist watch list. What power do I have?

Yet the people that are destroying this nation get to hide behind the protection of the first amendment. Bush Rush and FOx news are not the problem. I am? I don't get you people.

Is it only because they get paid or is it only because most in the media are republcian propoganda puppets. I don't care either way. Just trying to undersatand republcian doublethink.

That's a low blow, slt!

Its good to see that Rufus and Blarg are on the same page. Now I know how to judge Blarg posts. :-)

'It is amazing how many people who want us to get out of Iraq want us to go into Darfur.'

Yes, because there is genocide in Darfur, as opposed to civil war, in Iraq. Thse who can 'reason' know the difference, zouk.

'One of the painful signs of years of dumbed-down education is how many people are unable to make a coherent argument. They can vent their emotions, question other people's motives, make bold assertions, repeat slogans -- anything except reason.'

Yes, that's Clinton bashing, all right.

'Esp. on this site'

Then why are you here every day, all day long?

I can't believe it blarg. You humored me for once. You took the test. Thank you for that. 42? You should be out here with me cursing the fascsit gop revolution that destroyed the counrty. :)

That's a good score. Where did you go wrong buddy. Or where did I go wrong trying to get in your head?

Did you read some of that on-line book? MAn, that guy is on point. Professor's these days. They think they know a thing or two. how dare the tell us stuff light global warming and evolution and such things :). It's funny what spending your whole life in the pursuit of knowledge will get you. Two things, and they're not money.

1. Get's you knowledge.

2. Get's you hated by the gun-totting "chrsitians" who hate all that their authoritarian avatar tells them. Who's "faith based" garbage conflicts with science and real world teachings.

It's not Jesus and God that has strayed from the teachings. It's the "followers". It's the people using HIS name to advance their fascsit conservative money greed agenda.

You gop'ers love to bash clinton. What would you do without the word "clinton? Would your candidates stand on their own? What if clinton is not the nominee? What will you do then?

I am not for clinton either. I feel she would continue on the gop/bush trail. Yale ties and all, like all presidents since 1989. I also think she is a closet gop'er because without her and her husband what would you gop'ers point to. How would you possibly be able to defend the last 8 years? You can't defend it with them.

No wonder the gop is about to be irrelevant for a generation.

Before his forced resignation last week, Norman Yuan Yuen Hsu sat on the board of trustees of the liberal New School university in New York with former Loral Corp. head Bernard L. Schwartz, who was allowed to transfer restricted satellite and missile technology to a People's Liberation Army front after contributing a record amount of cash to President Clinton's 1996 campaign...

Schwartz, vice chairman of the New School board, was among officials who introduced Hsu to the school's administration, WND has learned.

Last November, Schwartz and Hsu chaired a New School banquet at the Mandarin Oriental in New York which featured Sen. Clinton as keynote speaker. Clinton steered a $1 million federal grant to the college.

More recently, Schwartz and Hsu (pronounced shoo) appeared together at the New York Yacht Club for Democratic Rep. Patrick Kennedy's 40th birthday bash.

The Clintons have had their share of shady fundraising scandals, and John Edwards actually referred to one of these recently ("the Lincoln Bedroom is not for rent"). With the Hsu story threatening to remind people even more vividly of these episodes, Hillary has decided to incorporate a reform theme into her fall campaign swing.

Just under one month ago, Hillary was at the Yearly Kos convention in Chicago defending her decision not to join Barack Obama and John Edwards in their pledge to decline all campaign contributions from lobbyists. She stood up to her opponents and a roomful of progressive bloggers and made the valid point that most lobbyists represent "real Americans" and their interests in Washington.

That was, of course, before Norman Hsu made his debut on the front page of the several major newspapers. As the primaries approach, I expect Hillary's newly discovered passion for cleaning up Washington will pop up just about every time he does.

I took the test. I got a 42. It's a stupid test, though. Many of the questions are more about views towards religion/morality than anything else. It's possible to be an authoritarian atheist, or a religious libertarian, but the test doesn't allow that.

One of the great non sequiturs of the left is that, if the free market doesn't work perfectly, then it doesn't work at all -- and the government should step in.

Sometimes it looks as if the Democrats are out to win at all costs, while the Republicans are out to compromise at all costs.

It is amazing how many people who want us to get out of Iraq want us to go into Darfur.

A joke says that a poll was taken in California, asking if people thought illegal immigration was a serious problem. The results showed that 29 percent said, "Yes, there is a serious problem." But 71 percent said, "No es una problema seriosa."

http://TheRealRudy.org/?utm_source=rgemail

the biggest liar of them all-- and the biggest phony. and talk about corporate money, oh you betcha--he's got some big backers. and some big no-bid government contracts, too... the NO.#1 DC insider.

I see that phony pretender Guiliani has been lying about his record again -- can't see to open his mouth without lying about something.

One of the painful signs of years of dumbed-down education is how many people are unable to make a coherent argument. They can vent their emotions, question other people's motives, make bold assertions, repeat slogans -- anything except reason.

Esp. on this site

Movement conservatives have but one value -- uttter selfishness and lack of regard or respect for any other human being.

So far rufi, you're the only ones who have taken that test.

One more question - Ask yourselves, Why?

Heading into the post-Labor Day sprint to the primaries, Rudy Giuliani has utterly defied the pundits who predicted that Republican voters would never accept a twice divorced, pro-choice New Yorker.

Rather than wilt, Mr. Giuliani has cemented his lead in national polls and in South Carolina--one of the most conservative states in the country. The latest Diageo/Hotline poll shows that he not only leads his closest competitor Fred Thompson by 10 points, but also leads among Evangelicals by the same margin and is up by six points among voters who believe abortion should be banned entirely.

Why did the pundits and many conservative critics get it so wrong, and why is Mr. Giuliani scoring so well with died hard conservatives?

http://www.observer.com/2007/why-conservatives-rudy

'Like it or not, John Edwards wants to tell the public "You have to go in and be checked and make sure that you are OK"

More nanny state control for the masses. Just what we don't need.'

Yes, let's just go back to the enlighened good old days, goper, when we had thousands of deaths from plagues and epidemics. You people don't beleive in public heath, education, or community. You really would love to go back to the dark ages. Your handling of Katrina was just the beginning of your sabotage of civilization.

JD, that's exactly what I said. Edwards was asked if he'd tell people to give up their SUVs, and he said yes. He didn't say anything about a ban. Neither of your links provides any additional information, though the auto blog link adds some additional sarcasm.

I don't know anything about Edwards' proposal to make doctors' visits mandatory. For the moment, I'll assume that he actually called for that, unlike your exaggerations about banning SUVs.

As the cliche says, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. One of the reasons that Americans spend so much on health care is that our insurance system discourages preventative medicine. It's a lot cheaper and easier to catch life-threatening conditions before they're life-threatening, and that requires preventative medicine and frequent checkups. So anything that encourages preventative medicine will reduce overall health care costs and increase quality of life. That doesn't mean that mandating regular checkups is a good idea, but I'm not as horrified by the idea as you seem to be.

"It has been reported in the press that the FBI has maintained illegal wiretaps of the telephones
of about 60 persons in the United States who were suspected of being sympathetic toward radical
political organizations. The FBI is reported to be taking no chances that these persons might become
active in their support of these groups. Under current legislation such wiretaps are legally permissible
only if a judge has signed a court order authorizing them. The FBI reportedly has never sought court
approval of these wiretaps because they believed their case was too weak and the courts would deny
them. The FBI has denied the wiretaps exist, and described the report as a "complete fabrication."
If the story is true, how serious a matter would you say the illegal wiretaps are?
0 = Not serious at all; they clearly are justified by the circumstances.
1 = Mildly serious
2 = Somewhat serious
3 = Pretty serious
4 = Extremely serious; such acts strike at the foundation of a free society.
What would you say? You can put me down for a "4." What's the point of
having laws protecting privacy if the law enforcers can decide to ignore them
whenever they wish, and then get away with it?
The issue may remind you of the Bush administration's policy of authorizing
the National Security Agency to engage in electronic spying, without warrants, on
Americans suspected of supporting terrorism--which simply ignored the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act that required prior court approval of such surveillance.
And indeed, David Winter at the University of Michigan discovered that high RWAs
felt Bush's policy was "both necessary and appropriate" because of terrorism. But the
wiretaps case presented above comes from a study I did over thirty years ago, in the
autumn of 1974, using students from five scattered American universities. I found that
persons who scored highly on the RWA scale tended to answer with 0's, 1's and 2's,
while those who scored low in RWA used 3's and 4's much more often."

http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer/drbob/TheAuthoritarians.pdf

JD- Edwards absurd pie-in-the-sky plan moves us closer to socialized medicine than any other.

He demands that ".. everybody be covered. It requires that everybody get preventive care,"

"If you are going to be in the system, you can't choose not to go to the doctor for 20 years."

Like it or not, John Edwards wants to tell the public "You have to go in and be checked and make sure that you are OK"

More nanny state control for the masses. Just what we don't need.

My score on the authoritarian test was 35. I guess that means I'm for freedom of the individual and am a "liberal". At least that's what authoritarian's tell me. Anybody else take it? Thanks for those that did for taking time. I know it's hard to pull yourselves away from you selfish day to day interests.

Loudon Voter writes
"This goes both ways of course. RI and Mass elect GOP governors routinely."

Yes, but MA has had Dem Senators for, what, 30 years? RI is an odder duck - and you can take that in any context you like. Didn't Providence voters reelect Buddy Cianci after he served time for bribery or some other corruption conviction?

PS Blarg, any thoughts on Edwards' proposal for mandatory doc visits?

Hey Blarg, as for the SUVs comment, I think it was a little more vague than just a request:

After Edwards told a union gathering in Florida that Americans should be asked to drive more fuel-efficient vehicles, he was asked specifically if he'd tell people to give up their SUVs.

His answer was "yes."

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070902/BUSINESS01/709020592/1014

And this is good reading, response to Edwards' request

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/?p=5031

bsimon: Why is it that a state that (sometimes) elects Democrats to statewide offices still gives a 20 to 25 point spread to the GOP candidate for President?

This goes both ways of course. RI and Mass elect GOP governors routinely.

tHE PUNCHING in the face was not actual but theory. Freedom and what stops freedom. Laws/rules vs freedom.

Not that we should do or fear such things. But we cannot live in a box. We cannot live in plastic 1952 forever. Why would we? Freedom or slavery?

Authoritarian GOP. Always telling others how to live. Always telling others what to watch and listen to and who to ignore.

Read up on the dunce. I thought to myself one day. When did they start using the "dince cap" and why? Authoriarian GOP.

It was for kids who's mind was " on that which had no bearing". Kids with their heads in the clouds. Free thinkers. Now think how they handled that in american past. They put that kid in the corner with a sign on him and humiliated him with his peers. This told his peers he is not like them. Conformity. Fascsim. Slavery.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunce_cap

Also, Fortress Investment, the hedge fund that employed John Edwards markedly expanded its subprime lending business while he worked there, becoming a major player in the high-risk mortgage sector Edwards has pilloried in his presidential campaign.

What did he learn about poverty while working there I wonder? How to bilk the poor folks of New Orleans while simultaneously announcing his bid for the presidency?

Fortress hired Edwards in October 2005. At the time, it owned a major stake in Green Tree Servicing LLC, which rose to prominence selling subprime loans to mobile-home owners and now services subprime loans originated by others.

The New Orleans Times-Picayune reported in December 2005 on the problem of subprime loan foreclosures after Katrina, citing as an example Green Tree's effort to hold a 67-year-old hurricane victim in default on her subprime loan for a home two months after it was flooded out. Maybe she could ask Edwards for some help, if she's one of his campaign donors that is.

""I'm done here for good. What a waste of time.
Posted by: rufus1133 (JKRish) | August 29, 2007 10:50 PM"

I see you're back to waste more of everyone's time, rufus. Apparently "for good" means "for the weekend". Has anyone kept track of how many times he's sworn to never come back?

Posted by: Blarg | September 4, 2007 11:43 AM

Do I scare you blarg? Why waste your breath? Who are you tried to convince? Who are you trying to influence. Post your posts. If I choose to (if I get mad enough at your people's gop propoganda and lies) I will come back from time to time. Don't be scared. Post your posts. I won't hurt you.

I'm glad to see you propogandists are finally paying attention though. Good. Finally. It only took 5 months to get though the thick skulls. Now maybe I can reach you. Don;t be scared blarg. Fear doesn't really exist.

Posted by: rufus | September 4, 2007 11:48 AM

No, you don't scare me. You annoy me, by posting the same barely comprehensible drivel dozens of times per day. You also annoy me by claiming you're going to leave, then never actually leaving.

By the way, I'm not a Republican. I'm a Democrat. A particularly liberal one, too. I agree with you politically, but dislike your methods and personality. Did I just blow your mind?

Posted by: Blarg | September 4, 2007 11:56 AM

You say you are a liberal. What does liberal mean? If you WERE a "liberal" you would not do what you do. Like the gop claiming to be "christians". You are, by your actions. If you are liberal, if you are a chrsitian, if you are a astronaut,do so through your actions. Not words. Resepct me for what I do. Do you, I'll definatly do me. You know that. Don't worry. I'm not going to lock the site down. Just wanted to comment on a GOp'er in denail saying the craig incident is mccartyism. That's all. Is that ok? Is that permissable, here?

Posted by: rufus | September 4, 2007 12:01 PM

" Don't worry. I'm not going to lock the site down. Just wanted to comment on a GOp'er in denail saying the craig incident is mccartyism. That's all. Is that ok? Is that permissable, here?"

i EVEN STAYED ON TOPIC :)

Posted by: RUFUS | September 4, 2007 12:11 PM

What do I do, Rufus? Tell me what I do that's not consistent with describing myself as a liberal. In this case, all I did was point out that you're back a few days after claiming to leave forever. Does that mean I'm not a liberal? Does quoting you make me a fasicst?

Posted by: Blarg | September 4, 2007 01:12 PM

THOUGHT POLICE BLARG. Telling others who to listen to and not. Copmplaining about me on here, blarg. I'm not stopping you from posting. Being a "liberal" means being open to others opinons while nto always agreeing.

I don't call for the fascsits to be silence. I just point out their lies spin and propoganda. The reason I want Fox "news" pulled, is not because they express right wing views. It's that they label themselves as "fair and balanced". Lie. It's that they are given press creditials and treated like real news. I say give them a platform. Let them spew hate and propoganda on cd's. Get them off the radio and tv. Paid programs and paid cd's are fine.

That is what I'm saying, if you can decypher. Let others live. But call out the liars the propogandists and the fascsits. If I am lying tell me how.

This is how I view our country and in tern freedom. We should be as free as possible. The gop view of living in a box is slavery. They are dead already. If you do not grow. If you are living in a dream land you are dead already. We should be as free as humanly possible. Here is is. You ready?

A terrosrists or thug should be free to walk right up to us and punch/shoot us in the face. We have to be strong enough to stop them. And ro hold them responsible for what they did, when they break the law. This runs counter to the gop mode of thinking. They think they can limit the world and put us in a box. Freedom is not this. I have to be strong enough so they don't punch me in the face. My court system needs to be stong enough, so when someone puch's/shoot sme in the face, they are held accoutnable and never again see the light of day. Will the next man punch me or shoot my borther? Probably not. Freedom is more than what you do with "your" money, gop. What is freedom really.

You cannot silecne me blarg. Trying to only enflames the problem. I can continue if you like. I would sugggest ignorign me and let others make up their own mind. YOu don't want me to lock this site down in anger again, do you? Post your posts. Ignore me if you must. But stop the thought police. That only fuels the fire. That only makes me want to enlighten you more.

Posted by: RUFUS | September 4, 2007 01:39 PM

"What is Authoritarianism?
Authoritarianism is something authoritarian followers and authoritarian
leaders cook up between themselves. It happens when the followers submit too
much to the leaders, trust them too much, and give them too much leeway to do
whatever they want--which often is something undemocratic, tyrannical and
brutal. In my day, authoritarian fascist and authoritarian communist dictatorships
posed the biggest threats to democracies, and eventually lost to them in wars
both hot and cold. But authoritarianism itself has not disappeared, and I=m going
to present the case in this book that the greatest threat to American democracy
today arises from a militant authoritarianism that has become a cancer upon the
nation"

http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer/drbob/TheAuthoritarians.pdf

Posted by: RUFUS | September 4, 2007 02:00 PM

Why are you the way you are dittoheads? Why do you choose slavery over freedom?

"http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer/drbob/TheAuthoritarians.pdf

"We know an awful lot about authoritarian followers. In one way or
another, hundreds of social scientists have studied them since World War II. We
have a pretty good idea of who they are, where they come from, and what makes
them tick. By comparison, we know little about authoritarian leaders because we
only recently started studying them. That may seem strange, but how hard is it to
figure out why someone would like to have massive amounts of power? The
psychological mystery has always been, why would someone prefer a
dictatorship to freedom? So social scientists have focused on the followers, who
are seen as the main, underlying problem."

Posted by: rufus | September 4, 2007 02:05 PM

Since on one else is posting.
Hey. This guy sounds like me

"But why should you even bother reading this book? I would offer three
reasons. First, if you are concerned about what has happened in America since a
radical right-wing segment of the population began taking control of the
government about a dozen years ago, I think you=ll find a lot in this book that
says your fears are well founded. As many have pointed out, the Republic is
once again passing through perilous times. The concept of a constitutional
democracy has been under attack--and by the American government no less! The
mid-term elections of 2006 give hope that the best values and traditions of the
country will ultimately prevail. But it could prove a huge mistake to think that
the enemies of freedom and equality have lost the war just because they were"

Posted by: rufus | September 4, 2007 02:08 PM

"The second reason I can offer for reading what follows is that it is not chock full of
opinions, but experimental evidence. Liberals have stereotypes about conservatives, and
conservatives have stereotypes about liberals. Moderates have stereotypes about both.
Anyone who has watched, or been a liberal arguing with a conservative (or vice versa)
knows that personal opinion and rhetoric can be had a penny a pound. But arguing never
seems to get anywhere. Whereas if you set up a fair and square experiment in which
people can act nobly, fairly, and with integrity, and you find that most of one group does,
and most of another group does not, that's a fact, not an opinion. And if you keep finding
the same thing experiment after experiment, and other people do too, then that's a body of
facts that demands attention.3 Some people, we have seen to our dismay, don't care a hoot
what scientific investigation reveals; but most people do. If the data were fairly gathered
and we let them do the talking, we should be on a higher plane than the current, "Sez
you!""

Posted by: for you blarg | September 4, 2007 02:17 PM

I should just copy and paste his book all day.

"The last reason why you might be interested in the hereafter is that you might want
more than just facts about authoritarians, but understanding and insight into why they act
the way they do. Which is often mind-boggling. How can they revere those who gave
their lives defending freedom and then support moves to take that freedom away? How
can they go on believing things that have been disproved over and over again, and
disbelieve things that are well established? How can they think they are the best people in
the world, when so much of what they do ought to show them they are not? Why do their
leaders so often turn out to be crooks and hypocrites?"

hypocrites.

Posted by: Wow this guy is on point. | September 4, 2007 02:19 PM
"

So I don't have to repeat myself. You gop'ers only control what WE allow you to control. Your party is about to be dismantled. Get with the program. DOn't blame me. I am an anonymous poster with zero to NO power. Blame those responsible for destroying this great country. Blame the gop fascsit racist authoritarian propogating republcians. Not me. YOu want to blame someone look in the mirror gop. I care about your feelings just as much as you care about "liberals".

Andy,

I agree it makes some pretty good PR. It will probably help with fundraising. I just think it will move relatively few votes (I may be very wrong!).

bsimon,

I see something very similar in NC. The Assembly and Senate are controlled by Dems (I don't know how much of this is due to gerrymandering). The Governor and many (if not most) of the statewide elected officials are Dems. The Congressional delegation is pretty evenly split. The Senators are both GOP, elected in pretty tight races. They both had the fortune to be running against Erskine Bowles.

But the Presidential races go to the GOP (Senator Burr won by a few points while Bush won by a wide margin, and the GOP candidate for governor lost). So why the huge difference?

My view is that the state GOP has largely conceded the middle to the Dems. There are plenty of Dems who are quite a ways to the left. But a lot of them, and most of the ones that run in the statewide races, seem to be middle-of-the-road or conservative in plenty of areas. Most of the GOP candidates I see here tend to be very far to the political right.

I'm sure my viewpoints will be disputed by someone. But they are, after all, the views of just one person who has lived here for only a few years.

"The lobbyists run this country, you moron. That's what it means. They write the laws."

Oh, yeah, as opposed to the deep-pocketed lawyers still bankrolling John Edwards.
In his time off between presidential bids, Edwards courted Wall Street financial gurus and Main Street labor leaders.

But when it comes to the money backing his second campaign, the wallets of wealthy attorneys who propelled the former trial lawyer's first run for the White House still open more than most. The premier names on Edwards' fundraising reports are almost identical to those from his first presidential campaign.

Many benefactors list some of the nation's largest law firms as their employers, including several donations from his former law partners at Kirby & Holt.

And who could forget his explanation of working for a hedge fund Fortress Investment Group so as to better understand poverty. LOL

I can just that phoney smirk on his face while saying "I didn't feel like I understand, and to be honest with you still learning right now, sort of the relationship between that world and the way money moves in this country through financial markets" .

None of the names mentioned - including Schweitzer - are enough to tip any scales in favor of their candidate. Just more stuff for the trail trophy room.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Bsimon writes,
"Why is it that a state that (sometimes) elects Democrats to statewide offices still gives a 20 to 25 point spread to the GOP candidate for President?

Is it that Montana Democratic candidates are really just moderate Republicans? Or is it that the Democratic Presidential nominees are that much more left-wing than MT Democrats?"

Or maybe its because the Dems never step foot into the state. There is a reason why Howard Dean pushed so hard for the 50 state strategy.

J, I agree that endorsements don't really mean anything these days either. But the fact that Edwards is speaking in Montana says a lot. Also The Schweitzer could have easily sent his wife, the state Democratic chair, or Lt Governor to introduce him. The fact that he is participating today will be used by the Edwards campaign at house parties and other fund-raisers to say "Look this guy who everyone likes seems to think I would make a pretty good President, why don't you write that check for 2000 now."

Also any good news that a candidate doesn't pay for is invaluable in a campaign.

Also to everyone who says what states did Edwards bring with him in 2004. We have no way of knowing. Maybe Kerry wouldn't have won Michigan if it wasn't for Edwards. Or Oregon, or Washington?

Alan in Missoula writes
"BOTH Montana US Senators are Democrats. Max Baucus, Chairman of the Senate Finance Committe and Freshman Jon Tester, soon to move to 98th in seniority (woopee!) upon the resignation of Larry Craig.

The state's lone at-large U.S. House seat is held by Republican Denny Rehberg."

I stand corrected. Though Alan's correction further underscores my point. Why is it that a state that (sometimes) elects Democrats to statewide offices still gives a 20 to 25 point spread to the GOP candidate for President?

Is it that Montana Democratic candidates are really just moderate Republicans? Or is it that the Democratic Presidential nominees are that much more left-wing than MT Democrats? What gives?

.

Not much should be read into Schweitzer introducing Edwards in town today. (can't go, baby sitting my grandson). Montana is rarely, exTREMEly rarely visited by national profile presidential candidates, and so naturally the governor of the same political party is going to welcome such a candidate in person.
I wonder if this is start of a trend. Our near-last-in-the nation primary in June is probably not on Edwards' mind so much as the knowledge that the popular Montana governor is a good friend for a Democratic Presidential candidate to have in our region. Perhaps this may bring Clinton, Obama, Richardson et. al. to our humble state of mountains, high plains and damn few people.

He did swear that, JD. I called him on it in the other thread. Naturally, he called me a GOP fascist for pointing out his inability to live up to his own promises.

Edwards did not call for banning SUVs. When asked if people should give up SUVs, he said yes. That doesn't mean that he'd ban SUVs; it means that he thinks people shouldn't drive them. He's asking for voluntary sacrifice, not confiscating SUVs. There's a huge difference between the two positions.

Edwards would not be the strongest Democratic nominee. Honestly, the strongest crossover Democratic nominee would have been Mark Warner, and he has dropped out of the race already. Not that I blame him, as he would have been put against a machine in the Clinton campaign. Hillary is looking really good for the Dem. nomination right now. It's doubtful that without a big slip by her campaign, that anyone can do anything to knock her off. The Republican nomination, though, is still open.

First of all, I thought Rufus swore last week that he had made his last post, that he (she?) was swearing off all future WaPo blog entries. I guess that Reno hot sun must have gotten to him, and/or mom's away so he can use the computer in the basement now.

As for Edwards, I would have thought that last week killed his chances; first he comes out for banning SUVs (while he himself drives one), then he reveals that under his Government-provided health care plan, people would be *forced* to visit doctors at some set interval.

So much for personal choice I guess.

'blah, blah, blah...more of the same tired rhetoric that is devoid of substance or new ideas from the Silky Pony. I love that "rigged against working Americans" b.s....wtf does that mean?''

you dittoheads all sound exactly alike -- must be because you have one group mind that doesn't function too well. talk about deviod of substance -- LOL. What a joke you are. The lobbyists run this country, you moron. That's what it means. They write the laws. Is that too hard for you to grasp?

bsimon: BOTH Montana US Senators are Democrats. Max Baucus, Chairman of the Senate Finance Committe and Freshman Jon Tester, soon to move to 98th in seniority (woopee!) upon the resignation of Larry Craig.

The state's lone at-large U.S. House seat is held by Republican Denny Rehberg.

In addition, the legislature is evenly split, with Democrats controlling the State Senate by one vote, and Republicans holding the House by the same margin. Five state offices are elected statewide, including Governor, Attorney General, Secretary of State, State Auditor, and Superintendant of Public Instruction. Democrats hold all but one of these offices (Secretary of State).

Well I see zouk has beeen on here all day, with his dem bashing and vicious hateful attacks under fake names.

Why aren't you in Iraq, zouk? Too busy tapping your foot?

John B talks about how the democrats are spending-- LOL. After Republicans have created the biggest gvernment we''ve ever had and borrowed and spent us into the biggest hole we've ever seen.

i'm sick of the tired argument that edwards did not deliver any states in 04...he was not at the top of the ticket, does anybody/ANYBODY actually vote for president depending on the veep pick? The fact that Kerry lost in states that are in play for Edwards is simply because Kerry was a horrible candidate (as are Hillary and Obama)

keep trying to shovel dirt on his campaign but it seems like he is having a good month - union endorsements and the schweitzer presence.

"Democrats from across the country understand that the system in Washington is broken, and rigged against working Americans."

blah, blah, blah...more of the same tired rhetoric that is devoid of substance or new ideas from the Silky Pony. I love that "rigged against working Americans" b.s....wtf does that mean?

Most, albeit not all, Americans are working Americans! I ask you, who is not a "working American"? They are not the folks who donate huge $$ to Johnny's campaign, i.e. the unions.

Edwards' constant attempt to divide people into categories - the haves and the have-nots , just won't sell because it's negative, old, and completely lacking in innovation or excitement. He just doesn't have the "it" factor, and as time goes on he has less of a chance of getting it. He probably hates Barack Obama for getting into the race even more than Hillary does.

Andy,

I agree, there was some good discussion on the other topic.

Now, what was the topic of this post? Oh, yes, it was endorsements.

I've never been overwhelmed by the value of endorsements in general, though I'm sure they have some impact somewhere. But I think there is a good chance they will be even less useful this cycle.

That may change as the cycle progresses, but the overall theme seems to be "change," at least in some way, shape, or form.

It's pretty hard to say, "Vote for me if you want change!" and then turn around and say, "Look at all of these establishment pols who have endorsed me!"

Ought to be an amusing tap dance if things continue in this vein.

Blarg notes
"If these are the methods he chooses to use, his positions are irrelevant."

What is amusing, at least, is the poster's failure to comprehend that his message is lost because he annoys his potential audience. Unfortunately, such amusement does not adequately compensate for the reduction in utility of this site.

.

J writes
"But he has the right to be heard. Or at least he used to."

What 'right' is that? We are all here only through the generosity of washingtonpost.com in providing the resource for free.

If he would bother to type his own opinions and engage in a discussion with other people posting here, I would have no problem with him. But when he incessantly copies material from elsewhere & posts it multiple times here, on multiple topics, he is violating the spirit of the forum, and possibly the formal 'rules' such as they are. At the very least, he regularly violates others' copyrights.

Granted, rufus is not the only person engaged in such behavior. He is merely the most annoying.

"J, nobody has the right to pollute a public forum the way Rufus does"

I feel the same wat about Fox "News". I have been trying to get them off the air for a decade to no avail.

"How is that useful to anyone?"

News. NEws you dittoheads do not get watching fox and listening to rush. Makes you think about which side you are on, country/party/self.

"When I have to page down 7 times to get past his posts and see if anyone else has said something, that's a problem. If these are the methods he chooses to use, his positions are irrelevant. He's ruining the board, and if there was any decent moderation here he'd be banned.""

AHHHH. Poor baby. You have to scroll down. And your feelings are hurt? Do you know what hurts my feelings? My brothers, like pat tillamn gett ign murdered and then covering up. My government with zero accountability. My government wasting money on other country while morgaging our countries future. Now who's "frustration" is more warranted. Priorites people. Help me get fox off the air for good, rush. I'll disappear forever, this time.

Blarg,

I agree that Rufus's massive posts are annoying. And they're rude to the other users of this board. Links provided to make his point would be much better.

But massive cut-and-past posts are not against the rules of the blogs on this site. Thus, while rude, annoying, and disrespectful, under the current rules they should not subject anyone to banishment.

Now if Washingtonpost.com wants to add this sort of post to the "no go" column, and has the bandwidth to police it, more power to them. But that isn't the state of things at this time.

BTW, I use the scroll bar to get past them. It's faster.

Dave you have to get on before say 1 or 2 when rufus and zouk get out of bed and start the onslaught. Our discussion of Arizona's first this morning was nice IMO.

J, nobody has the right to pollute a public forum the way Rufus does. He's made more than a dozen posts today excerpting from some PDF he's found. How is that useful to anyone? When I have to page down 7 times to get past his posts and see if anyone else has said something, that's a problem. If these are the methods he chooses to use, his positions are irrelevant. He's ruining the board, and if there was any decent moderation here he'd be banned.

Just thought I'd check in to see if the quality of the comments on this blog had changed any over the last couple of weeks. It has not. Where are the reasonable bloggers like MarkinAustin or lylepink or JiminFl. I wouldn't even mind throwing a paragraph at Jane or LoudounVoter at this point.

I have to back ol' Rufus on this one.

I may disagree with his methods. Massive cut and pastes can be a bit rude to say the least.

I may agree or disagree with his positions. Sometimes it's hard to tell with the cut and pastes.

But he has the right to be heard. Or at least he used to.

Has this changed?

This guy is one it. Can't stop. Leave if you must. I would prefer you gop'ers to take the test.

"The what? The Right-Wing Authoritarianism scale. Get out a pencil. I'm going
to take you into the inner sanctum of a personality test. Just don't be
FRIGHTENED!
Below is the latest version of the RWA scale. Read the instructions carefully,
and then write down your response to each statement on a sheet of paper numbered
1-22.
This survey is part of an investigation of general public opinion concerning a variety of social issues.
You will probably find that you agree with some of the statements, and disagree with others, to varying
extents. Please indicate your reaction to each statement on the line to the left of each item according
to the following scale:

Write down a -4 if you very strongly disagree with the statement.
Write down a -3 if you strongly disagree with the statement.
Write down a -2 if you moderately disagree with the statement.
Write down a -1 if you slightly disagree with the statement.
Write down a +1 if you slightly agree with the statement.
Write down a +2 if you moderately agree with the statement.
Write down a +3 if you strongly agree with the statement.
Write down a +4 if you very strongly agree with the statement.
If you feel exactly and precisely neutral about an item, write down a "0."
("Dr. Bob" to reader: We'll probably stay friends longer if you read this paragraph.) Important: You
may find that you sometimes have different reactions to different parts of a statement. For example,
you might very strongly disagree ("-4") with one idea in a statement, but slightly agree ("+1") with
another idea in the same item. When this happens, please combine your reactions, and write down how
you feel on balance (a "-3" in this case).
___ 1. The established authorities generally turn out to be right about things, while the radicals
and protestors are usually just "loud mouths" showing off their ignorance.
___ 2. Women should have to promise to obey their husbands when they get married.
___ 3. Our country desperately needs a mighty leader who will do what has to be done to destroy
the radical new ways and sinfulness that are ruining us.
___ 4. Gays and lesbians are just as healthy and moral as anybody else.
___ 5. It is always better to trust the judgment of the proper authorities in government and
religion than to listen to the noisy rabble-rousers in our society who are trying to create
doubt in people's minds
___ 6. Atheists and others who have rebelled against the established religions are no doubt every
bit as good and virtuous as those who attend church regularly.
___ 7. The only way our country can get through the crisis ahead is to get back to our traditional
values, put some tough leaders in power, and silence the troublemakers spreading bad ideas.

___ 8. There is absolutely nothing wrong with nudist camps.
___ 9. Our country needs free thinkers who have the courage to defy traditional ways, even if this
upsets many people.
___ 10. Our country will be destroyed someday if we do not smash the perversions eating away at
our moral fiber and traditional beliefs.
___ 11. Everyone should have their own lifestyle, religious beliefs, and sexual preferences, even if
it makes them different from everyone else.
___ 12. The "old-fashioned ways" and the "old-fashioned values" still show the best way to live.
___ 13. You have to admire those who challenged the law and the majority's view by protesting
for women's abortion rights, for animal rights, or to abolish school prayer.
___ 14. What our country really needs is a strong, determined leader who will crush evil, and take
us back to our true path.
___ 15. Some of the best people in our country are those who are challenging our government,
criticizing religion, and ignoring the "normal way things are supposed to be done."
___ 16. God's laws about abortion, pornography and marriage must be strictly followed before it is
too late, and those who break them must be strongly punished.
___ 17. There are many radical, immoral people in our country today, who are trying to ruin it for
their own godless purposes, whom the authorities should put out of action.
___ 18. A "woman's place" should be wherever she wants to be. The days when women are
submissive to their husbands and social conventions belong strictly in the past.
___ 19. Our country will be great if we honor the ways of our forefathers, do what the authorities
tell us to do, and get rid of the "rotten apples" who are ruining everything.
___ 20. There is no "ONE right way" to live life; everybody has to create their own way.
___ 21. Homosexuals and feminists should be praised for being brave enough to defy "traditional
family values.
___ 22. This country would work a lot better if certain groups of troublemakers would just shut up
and accept their group's traditional place in society.

Done them all, as best you could? Then let's score your answers, and get an idea of
whether you're cut out to be an authoritarian follower. First, you can skip your
answers to the first two statements. They don't count. I put those items on the test to
give people some experience with the -4 to +4 response system. They're just "warmups."
Start therefore with No. 3.
If you wrote down a "-4" that's scored as a 1.
If you wrote down a "-3" that's scored as a 2.
If you wrote down a "-2" that's scored as a 3.
If you wrote down a "-1" that's scored as a 4.
If you wrote down a "0" or left the item unanswered, that's scored as a 5.
If you wrote down a "+1" that's scored as a 6.
If you wrote down a "+2" that's scored as a 7.
If you wrote down a "+3" that's scored as an 8.
If you wrote down a "+4" that's scored as a 9.
Your answers to Items 5, 7, 10, 12, 14, 16, 17, 19 and 22 are scored the same way.
Now we'll do the rest of your answers, starting with No. 4.
If you wrote down a "-4" that's scored as a 9.
If you wrote down a "-3" that's scored as an 8.
If you wrote down a "-2" that's scored as a 7.
If you wrote down a "-1" that's scored as a 6.
If you wrote down a "0" or left the item unanswered, that's scored as a 5.
If you wrote down a "+1" that's scored as a 4.
If you wrote down a "+2" that's scored as a 3.
If you wrote down a "+3" that's scored as a 2.
If you wrote down a "+4" that's scored as a 1.

Now simply add up your twenty scores. The lowest total possible would be 20, and
the highest, 180, but real scores are almost never that extreme. Introductory
psychology students at my Canadian university average about 75. Their parents
average about 90. Both scores are below the mid-point of the scale, which is 100, so
most people in these groups are not authoritarian followers in absolute terms. Neither
are most Americans, it seems. Mick McWilliams and Jeremy Keil administered the
RWA scale to a reasonably representative sample of 1000 Americans in 2005 for the
Libertarian Party and discovered an average score of 90.3, 4 Thus the Manitoba parent
samples seem similar in overall authoritarianism to a representative American adult
sample.5 My Manitoba students score about the same on the RWA scale as most
American university students do too."

http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer/drbob/TheAuthoritarians.pdf

"Similar to african-americans saying they can be racist "

Can't rather

"You could have left-wing authoritarian followers as well, who support a
revolutionary leader who wants to overthrow the establishment. I knew a few in the
1970s, Marxist university students who constantly spouted their chosen authorities,
Lenin or Trotsky or Chairman Mao. Happily they spent most of their time fighting
with each other, as lampooned in Monty Python's Life of Brian where the People's
Front of Judea devotes most of its energy to battling, not the Romans, but the Judean
People's Front. But the left-wing authoritarians on my campus disappeared long ago.
Similarly in America "the Weathermen" blew away in the wind. I'm sure one can find
left-wing authoritarians here and there, but they hardly exist in sufficient numbers
now to threaten democracy in North America. However I have found bucketfuls of
right-wing authoritarians in nearly every sample I have drawn in Canada and the
United States for the past three decades. So when I speak of "authoritarian followers"
in this book I mean right-wing authoritarian followers, as identified by the RWA
scale."

Right. I agree. But the left has no power, right now. None. That is the differance. If the left did have power we would be a free nation. They don't. Similar to african-americans saying they can be racist becasue they don't have the power to oppress the white man. I disagree with the defination of racism( any person of any race can be racist against another man), but agree with the point of power and the abuse of it.

Yin and Yang and all.

I'm just hear to TRY and balance out the enourmous all-powerful all-controlin right wing conspiricy. The all powerful, propogating right wing "noise machine".

I am not the problem. YOu want me gone, help me get Fox off the air, rush. I am not the problem. I am just adding some form of balance. Do I do that in any real signifigant way? No. Does a anonymous poster called rufus balance out the millions of viewers of Fox? So why am I the person to be feared and tried to silecne? What power do I have?

You project GOP. YOu don't want to face reality, so reality speakers are the problem. What power do I have? And you want to silence me, bsimon? What good will that do? Will it help the country? Will it put money in your pocket? Would you be any safer? No. It only makes you feel better about yourself. It only makes you feel "more main stream". It only gives your points more credance. You people are no longer living inthe real world.

Why not do something that really matters? Don't be angry with me. Be angry at the people that are ruining this great nation I SERVED.

"In North America people who submit to the established authorities to
extraordinary degrees often turn out to be political c