"I think that MoveOn deserves universal scorn for this tactic. It was the kind of gratuitous insult, with sophomoric wordplay, that characterizes the effluent of Ms. Coulter, among others. "

How is ann coulter doing for herself? Still on fox? Still selling millions of books? Who on the left is as bad as her and anyone on the right? the differance is

You ready?

the left is going after him ROFESSIONALLY. Teh right goes after people for PERSONAL reasons. Which is worse? Which has mr eimpact on the rest of us? the right does.

this is the one true tossup in the nation - assuming democrats pick up NH, VA, and CO. the wild cards is how damaging the primary will be. how much money will be spent - how many harsh words will fly? if it's particularly ugly - i'd even lean this a little to Kerrey. he obviously knows how to win in NE and his recent comment saying that if Republican Hagel were to run for reelection, he would vote for him show he's still up to saying blunt centrist things.

drindl - If it was in The Onion it would have been sophmoric.

Coming from MoveOn.org it was character assassination.

Betray Us = Traitor, which is a page right out of the Rove playbook.

Last night on CSPAN2 I listened to a MoveOn person try to rationalize it. She only made it worse. Opposite her on CSPAN was live coverage from the House floor where war supporters were having a field day with it. They actually made more sense.

It wasn't juvenile, it wasn't sophmoric it was worse than just plain stupid.

For trying to besmirch Petraeus using Rove tactics, which most of us deplore, they deserve to be excotiated. MoveOn.org owes Petraeus an apology. The sooner they do that, the sooner this will be stop being fodder for the war supporters.

I'd say that comparison to Michael Moore is off-base also. Moore makes ideologically-based documentaries focus on one or more related issues. His purpose is to get people talking about those issues and to present some facts, however biased. Coulter, on the other hand, does nothing but attack people.

But this is a pointless argument. It doesn't matter which commentators on the left resemble which on the right. MoveOn had a reasonable point to make, and they did it in the stupidest way possible.

The difference JD, is that NO ONE on the left advocates violence -- while almost all of the rightwingers you cite regularly do.

'Comparing it to Coulter seems about right.'

NO. Moveon did not advocate violence against the general--which is what Coulter constantly does. They did not 'hope that someone would poison him' - nor that he would 'die in a terrorist attack'.

Try to get it straight, JD. Moveon is sophomoric. Ann Coulter is vicious.

I posted earlier about the denial of a cival war in Iraq, and by removing our troops would create a cival war. I have seen a couple of comments about sectarian violence being described as "Cival War". Another thing, Al Quida did not exist to any degree in Iraq before the invasion, and by our being there, it has been the best recruiting tool for them. So many contrictions.

As I said earlier, MoveOn has really revealed their true colors with that ad. I heard on the radio some reporter asked the General about his reaction to it, after his testimony, but he was too classy and professional to comment.

Comparing it to Coulter seems about right. You could also make a similar comparison to Mahr, Moore, Savage, etc. I would most definitely NOT lump John Stewart, Rush, Sean, or 3rd tier types like Stephanie Miller (or Dennis Miller) into that group; they are merely opinionated and provocative, not truly mean-spirited.

Right, Drindl. We can't support the Shiites or the Sunni. We can't support the government, because there really isn't a secular government. The political parties are just extensions of the sects.

I suppose we could say that we're trying to keep a balance between the different sects and have everyone come to a peace agreement. But at that point we're involved in a peacekeeping operation, not a war. And as far as I know, nobody's made that claim. Partially because it involves admitting that Iraq is in a civil war, and nobody in the government would come out and say that.

That's an inteesting point, blarg. We were initially supporting the Shia, because the Sunnis were Baathists, part of Saddam's old regime and they were the primary insurgents, plus al-queda members are Sunni. But then the Shia militias got stronger, and they attack our troops too--and each other. Plus there are strong cultural and familial links between them and Iranian Shia.That's what makes it a lose/lose propositin for us.

Mr Black's post on Giuliani's deficit-surplus-deficit history is here:
http://www.ericblackink.com/2007/08/27/giulianis-half-true-boast/

Mark in Austin asks
"If its Rudy v. HRC, it will be a nasty, nasty race. bsimon, you have suggested, in the past, that despite the likely slime, politically they are not terribly far apart.

Do you still think that?"


I think that a very high level. Hillary is the most Hawkish of the dem candidates - I think because she feels the need to appear 'manly' and 'tough' enough to be CiC. Couple that with Rudy's social positions and are they really all that different? The case can be made for differences in taxation & health care plans, though I think Rudy's rhetoric on the fiscal situation would change, if he were to become President.

p.s. - other guy that loves Rudy - according to some research by a blogger named Eric Black at ericblackink.com, the Mayor turned a deficit into a surplus during his term (in conjunction with the booming 90s - it is unclear that his policies made a big difference); HOWEVER, before his term was complete - and before 9/11 - he had turned that surplus back into a deficit. So, the Giuliani campaign is being accurate in claiming he 'turned a deficit into a surplus' but he was NOT successful at maintaining that surplus through his term. Thus, it is also accurate to say that the mayor turned a surplus into a deficit. Sorry to disappoint!

"the fundamental source of the conflict in Iraq is competition among ethnic and sectarian communities for power and resources."

--which is interesting, because I saw a clip [might have been posted on another thread] from the Fox intereview, where he directly contradicted himself, agreeing with Brit Hume, that this war was all about fighting 'al-queda' and 'those who attacked us on 9/11.' I'm sorry, but I do think that was dishonest at best. He knows better.

MoveOn accused Petraeus of cooking the books because he claims that violence is down. The GAO says that violence is at the same levels as it was previously. Considering that, I think it's legitimate to accuse Petraeus of playing with statistics to get a more politically expedient result.

Here's something that struck me about Petraeus' testimony yesterday. According to the Post article about it, he said that
"the fundamental source of the conflict in Iraq is competition among ethnic and sectarian communities for power and resources."

Petraeus admits that the current situation in Iraq isn't the government versus an insurgency, or loyal Iraqis fighting al-Qaeda. He says that it's a sectarian conflict, basically a nicer term for a civil war. So why should we stay in Iraq? Do we really want to spend our time, money, and lives interfering in an ethnic and sectarian power struggle? And if we're interfering in that struggle, we have to pick a side. Which ethnic group and sect do we support?

I have to agree with you, Colin. Sophomoric? You bet. Shooting themselves in the foot? Even more so. Lack of judgement? Definitely. But they didn't call for anyone to poison the general, did they? Which is the kind of thing Coulter says on a regular basis.

And when other generals have spoken out against the war, no matter how honorable their service, they have been smeared and vilifed in the malicious possible ways on rightwing sites. This ad, though dumb, was not in that category.

! : I looked at the move-on add and saw they had supported everything they said, the idea of calling the Gen. a "traitor" is a bit much, as you point out. I'm not sure what thread I was on but I said the numbers don't add up, which is true. The idea of "Not supporting the troops by keeping them in harms way." is something I have yet to understand. I always thought that to support our troops would be to keep them out of harms way as much as possible and give them the needed equipment to protect themselves in the same manner. What am I missing??

Jim & Mark -- I don't condone the moveon ads either, but I don't think they are in the same league as Coulter. Sophmoric, ineffective, and uncalled for? yes. But this just doesn't seem the same to me as insulting 9/11 widows or making fun of John Edwards son who died in a car accident. I'm all for calling anyone out, on the left or right, when it's justified. And it is here. But I don't think this is of the same level as Coulter or some of Rush's stuff.

On Gen. Petraeus's (and Crocker's) one hour "exclusive" with Brit Hume on Fox, the chyron actually read "A Briefing for America." And that's really pretty much what it is. It's another briefing. It's not an interview. It's a continuation of today's bamboozlement but in prime time on Fox with the expected soft-ball questions and credulous analysis.

Late Update: The "exclusive" is also helpfully interspersed with commercials from the White House-organized pro-Iraq War astroturf group Freedom's Watch.'

..and the well-oiled propaganda machine rolls on.

Moveon.org has marginalized itself by its hysterical attack on General Petraeus. I agree with Mark that their strident comments are on a par with Ann Coulter's absurdities.

That Fox "Exclusive"
If you need a quick take on the Petraeus/Crocker interview tonight on Fox News, you catch this clip in which Brit Hume helps Petraeus explain how the Iraq War is really "more than anything else a War with al Qaeda."

Gen. Petraeus almost made it through today's marathon hearing without a question about his September 2004 op-ed in the Washington Post claiming that training for the Iraqi security forces -- which he then commanded -- was going well. Almost.

Not much of that op-ed looks prescient today. Among its claims:

'By early spring, nine academies in Iraq and one in Jordan will be graduating a total of 5,000 police each month from the eight-week course, which stresses patrolling and investigative skills, substantive and procedural legal knowledge, and proper use of force and weaponry, as well as pride in the profession and adherence to the police code of conduct.'

Nearly three years later, the Jones commission found that the police have practically no investigative or forensic skills to speak of, and that the Iraqi Army -- considered the more competent and trustworthy service -- is at least a year away from having the capacity to take over the country. While it's hard to say that any specific statistic in the op-ed is wrong, events didn't bear out Petraeus' portrait of an increasingly competent security force.

Why is bin Ladin still free, when the US knows exactly where he is?

Because Bush doesn't want him dead--he is too useful. Bush/bin Ladin are two sides of the same coin. To the simple-minded of the Arab world, the fundamentalists, Bush is a monster, an existential threat to their religion and way of life. They think he wants to force his way of life on them.

Now, what is bin Ladin to the simple-minded here? Exactly the same. He stirs up the passions of the base and makes them eager to go to war against any thing Islamic, terrified of some fictional 'caliphate.' Why does our corporate media give so much airtime to bin Ladin--why do they give him free rein to spread his message? Because it suits their agenda.

Whatever bin Ladin says, even if it is true, people here have to then beleive the opposite. If he says he beleives in global climate change, then it can't be true, can it, because someone evil said it. It's very easy to manipulate the simple-minded and both Bush [Cheney] and bin Ladin are masters at it. Both of them need each other to pursue their agendas--which is recruitment of willing tools in their quest to be Masters of the Universe.

Suggesting that Petraeus is trying to "cook the books" and that he will "betray us" falls short of calling him a traitor, but it does impugn his character and accuse him of dereliction of duty.

I think that MoveOn deserves universal scorn for this tactic. It was the kind of gratuitous insult, with sophomoric wordplay, that characterizes the effluent of Ms. Coulter, among others.

One of the right's core propaganda tactics is portraying themselves as victims. Today's example has The Weekly Standard saying MoveOn.org is calling General Pertaeus a "traitor." ... How silly can you get? No one is calling Petraeus a traitor here. But the cult wingnuts will just eat it up, of course. But the strategic purpose is to marginalize MoveOn.org, and thereby try to make Democratic party leaders afraid to accept their support.

' Smooth talking Mitt Romney is hitting the campaign trail in Iowa and New Hampshire this weekend with a new plan to convince voters to ignore his
tax-raising record by spinning his proposal to eliminate taxes on capital
gains, stock dividends and interest as a middle class tax cut. As the Wall
Street Journal's Washington Wire points out, "the proposal isn't new," but
Romney "has taken the new step of defining dollar-wise what it means to be
middle class." [Washington Wire, Wall Street Journal, 9/7/07] According to
the Romney campaign website, the plan "builds upon and extends" President
Bush's 2003 tax cut for the wealthiest Americans. [MittRomney.com, Release,
9/7/07]

What Romney isn't telling the voters is that he actually opposed the
key elements of his own plan before he decided to run for President. Not
only did Romney refuse "to endorse tax cuts at the heart of President
Bush's economic program" when they passed in 2003, but he even spent
$50,000 of his own money in 1996 to bankroll ads calling then-presidential
candidate Steve Forbes' plan to eliminate the capital gains tax "a tax cut
for fat cats," and criticized the 1994 Contract With America for cutting
capital gains taxes. [Boston Globe, 4/11/03; Boston Globe, 1/21/96;
Washington Times, 10/28/94]'

he was against tax cuts for the rich before he was for them. you know, whe someone starts running for the R primary, they lose every brain cell they ever had trying to appeal to the insane base.

Just 36 per cent in the AP poll said the troop increase has helped stabilise Iraq, only slightly more than the 32 per cent who said they thought it would in February as the build-up began. Voicing that view were almost two-thirds of Republicans, about one in seven Democrats and about a third of independents.

In addition, 59 per cent said they believe history will judge the Iraq war as a failure, including 28 per cent who said it would be viewed as a complete failure.

Asked if the United States made a mistake going to war in Iraq in 2003, 59 per cent said yes, about the same number who said so in April.

AP - The King of Zouk yesterday sought to withdraw his guilty plea to misdemeanor disorderly conduct in an airport men's restroom, saying he had been "deeply panicked" that the incident would prompt a Zouk City newspaper to publish allegations that he is gay.
The self-important blowhard wrote in a sworn statement that he never engaged in "offensive, obscene, abusive, boisterous or noisy conduct" in the restroom at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport on June 11, when he was arrested in a sex sting that led to demands from many who do not believe in imaginary monarchs that the king abdicate his throne. Zouk has said that if he cannot overturn the guilty plea by a self-imposed Sept. 30 deadline, he intends to step down. Zouk's attorneys filed motions in Hennepin County District Court asking for a speedy hearing and arguing that the plea should be waived because the undercover officer who arrested Zouk had promised the king he would not call the news media -- a major concern to Zouk because the Daily Neocon newspaper had been investigating his sexual orientation after allegations from a gay rights activist.
"Deeply panicked about the events, and based on [the officer's] representations to me regarding the potential outcome, my interest in handling the matter expeditiously, and the risk that protracting the issue could lead to unnecessary publicity, I did not seek the advice of an attorney . . . and I made the decision on that date to seek a guilty plea," Zouk said in his statement filed with the court.
Led by high-profile lawyer I.M. Fullashytt, Zouk's attorneys contend that the officer's promise of keeping the case quiet was improper and should lead to a judge allowing the plea to be withdrawn.
The second point of Zouk's legal argument is that the facts of the case do not constitute a crime. Zouk is accused of using signals that police said are known to men seeking sexual encounters in restrooms, including tapping his feet, bumping one foot into a foot of the undercover officer in the stall next to him, swiping his hand under the partition dividing the stalls, and making visible bulges in his mouth from the inside by using his tongue to push on it while pretending to hold a cylindrical object, all the while leering at the officer. The lawyers argue that that was the officer's interpretation of Zouk's actions and that no inappropriate behavior occurred.
"Viewed in its worst light, [Zouk's conduct] doesn't even rise to the level of annoying, much less disorderly," Fullashytt and Johnson Mudd-Baby, Zouk's Minnesota-based attorney, said in the court filing.
The motions also argue that Zouk is not a lawyer and so his plea was "not knowingly and understandingly made." Zouk has oversight of the federal judiciary and criminal procedures, but has not to date been able to follow all them minute de-tails.
Patrick Hogan, spokesman for the Metropolitan Airports Commission, said the airport police plan to "strenuously defend our case in court" and will soon file a written response to Zouk's motion. "The police officer acted appropriately and used standard investigative procedures," Hogan said. "Our intent is to ask the judge to uphold the plea that the king has already agreed to."
Andrew S. Birrell, a criminal lawyer in Minnesota, said Zouk's attorneys appeared to be trying to show that the plea was coerced by the undercover officer. He said that might meet the requirement in Minnesota law that withdrawal of a guilty plea can occur only to correct a "manifest injustice."
"To correct a manifest injustice is a very high standard in the law. These are not frequently granted requests," Birrell said.
The Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call reported on the plea deal Aug. 27, sparking widespread criticism of Zouk by his subjects, including a call for him to be publicly taunted.
In the week after the revelation, Zouk declared "I am not gay," denounced the Daily Neocon for a "witch hunt" into his sexuality and announced his "intent" to abdicate. Sept. 30, only to say days later that he would remain on the throne at least through 2008, if he could get the guilty plea withdrawn by the end of the month.
That timing may be difficult. Birrell said that there is a chance a ruling on the plea could come by Sept. 30 but that the best Zouk could then hope for would be a "speedy trial," which under Minnesota law would mean a trial starting within 60 days.

Your Majesty? Your Majesty? Over here, Your Majesty, behind the, uh, grassy knoll...

Mirkin is unfazed by such legislative symbolism, telling The New York Times that his article in the Journal of Homosexuality was "meant to be subversive...to make people think"; among other things, the article notes that, "Though Americans consider intergenerational sex to be evil, it has been permissible or obligatory in many cultures and periods of history." Further on in the interview, the 65-year-old grandfather insists that incest and rape are always wrong and that priests and teachers "who touched children were abusing their authority." But he worries that the current "panic over pedophilia fit[s] a pattern of public response to female sexuality and homosexuality, both of which were once considered deviant."

In the article, an 18-page essay with 38 footnotes, Dr. Mirkin argued that the notion of the innocent child was a social construct, that all intergenerational sex should not be lumped "into one ugly pile."

Early in April the State House of Representatives voted 102 to 29 to cut an additional $100,000 from the Kansas City campus's $78 million appropriation. Later the State Senate did the same, 19 to 12. The office of Gov. Bob Holden said he had not yet taken a position on the cut as of the end of April.

"The goal is that the taxpayers not subsidize this guy's attempt to legitimize a despicable behavior and a dangerous behavior," said State Senator John Loudon, a Republican from the St. Louis suburbs. "We all respect academic freedom. Legitimizing molestation doesn't fall under academic freedom."

In the legislative debate, Representative Don Lograsso, a Republican, said Dr. Mirkin should be reprimanded or fired. "Sex between adults and children is not acceptable."

Take note of the recurring, aggressive dishonesty in these criticisms: claiming that some things are simply beyond discussion, confusing a challenge to preconceptions with a wholesale endorsement of pedophilia, attacking something (usually the Rind report) other than the work under discussion, talking about feelings of disgust & revulsion with nary an objective fact in sight, and criticizing a work you have not even read. These are not techniques designed to get to the truth. They are clever ways to stifle dissent. The problem is that they never really work.

this apparently happened a few years ago, but you evil immorral Libs have distracted me. can you imagine a male American Tubby named "Tinky Winky," it's enough to put me off my Spam for at least an hour or two....
OK, maybe half an hour....
mmmmmmmmmm, Spam....

PARENTS ALERT . . . PARENTS ALERT

Tinky Winky Comes Out of the Closet

The sexual preference of Tinky Winky, the largest of the four Teletubbies characters on the series that airs in America on PBS stations, has been the subject of debate since the series premiered in England in 1997.
The character, whose voice is obviously that of a boy, has been found carrying a red purse in many episodes and has become a favorite character among gay groups worldwide.

Now, further evidence that the creators of the series intend for Tinky Winky to be a gay role model have surfaced. He is purple -- the gay-pride color; and his antenna is shaped like a triangle -- the gay-pride symbol.

Furthering Tinky's "outing" was a recent Washington Post editorial that cast the character's photo opposite that of Rudy Guiliani in an "In/Out" column. This implies that Rudy is "out" as the chief national gay representative, while Tinky Winky is the trendy "in" celebrity.

These subtle depictions are no doubt intentional and parents are warned to be alert to these elements of the series. However, many families are allowing the series to entertain their children. In the January 10 Blockbuster "Hit List" of the top-ten selling videos, two Teletubbies titles appeared on the list. The itsy bitsy Entertainment Company will release interactive Teletubbies dolls in March.

South Park Invasion

The creators of South Park, the juvenile animated series that airs on Comedy Central, have released a set of trading cards depicting episodes from the series that are now being sold in toy, hobby and sports card stores across the nation.

Parents should be aware that the cards feature the same impudent and vile language as the series. God's name is frequently taken in vain, other four-letter words are continually uttered, female characters are routinely referred to in vile terms and human waste named Mr. Hankey becomes a live, speaking character.

In addition, the character of Kenny is brutally massacred in every broadcast while the remaining characters respond, "Oh my God, they've killed Kenny." Many of those killings are also depicted in the card series. The trading cards are the exact size of traditional sports cards, making it easy for kids to sneak them into the home.

Acclaim Entertainment recently began selling the South Park video game -- which also features extreme violence and obscene language -- for Nintendo 64 with the support of a multi-million dollar marketing campaign.

Rudy stuff.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Y2M3MTkwZDQ2NTUwNzBlZDQ0NGEyODFkZjRiYmZkNzk=

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/25/us/politics/25giuliani.html?ref=nyregion

Republicans cannot manage the economy. They just borrow and spend.

FACT!

Kerrey is OK, but Kerry is a buffoon.

I think Hagel's war stance was a big part of what made him unpopular in NE. Not sure though, just going by the comments of the Nebraskans I've talked to...anyone have numbers on this?

Yes, Texas will probably beat NE. Our receivers can't hold onto the &*$#@ ball!

Good point, JD. This is supposed to be for comments on the Nebraska race, which promises to be a good one.

KOZ -- the NY Time article posted above contains facts establishing that Rudy left a larger deficit than he inherited. Apparently Rudy doesn't even contest that fact, although he tries to hide it with misleading statements. Care to comment?

As far as your "Clinton comparison," my bible tells me that marriage is supposed to be for a lifetime and that when you make that promise you're supposed to work through hard times. I don't Judge anyone based upon their worst moments, and I understand that divorce happens, but the Republican party has been telling us for DECADES that candidates character matters.

What does it say about someone's character when their first two marriages end b/c they cheated on their wives? Nothing positive, in my view. And please save the Clinton smearing. Again, I dont' condone that kind of conduct by anyone. Neither does most of the country or the base of your party. Which is one reason Rudy is in trouble. The other is that Fred Thompson is two points behind Rudy in Iowa two days after he announced.

Can we get a few more guys to start copying and pasting entire articles, book chapters, and manifestos into this blog? The short, concise answers and quick repartee are far too readable and interesting.

I don't want to know how you really feel, I want to read about the opinions of some columnist.

I thank you in advance.

Good call nofluer. Let's start with Mr. Kenneddy. He gives all "liberals" a bad name. Like clinton, what would the gop do if they didn't have kennaddy to poin to as why they can do whatever they want and never be held accountable. I know, it only works on dittoheads. But if there was no kennaddy or clinton for them to point to, thye couldn't even do that.

The con's or clinton and kennaddy far outweigh the pro's.

"... said Hagel - "It has been my greatest honor and privilege to serve my country and represent my fellow Nebraskans in the U.S. Senate."

It has also been to his immense profit since members of Congress only need to "serve" for 12 years to qualify for FULL pension benefits. So while pensions for the workers of America are being eliminated, the people who make the rules we live by, Congress, can "retire" after only 12 years. I think that either the Congressional "pension" should be abolished entirely, or ALL office holders should be voted out BEFORE they reach 12 years.

To you war enablers. That is you zouk/ proud and unfortunatly you too blarg and pink. It doesn't have to be. the only power they have over you is the power you give them.

"A one-day guide to war supporters and their enablers
As war cheerleaders and their enablers lay the groundwork for the glorious testimony of Gen. Petraeus, it is hard to recall a day so suffuse with war propaganda. Reviewing just a few selected samples illustrates how fact-free is the campaign to prolong this war. And the activities of today provide a very vivid guide for identifying those most responsible for launching this war and enabling its endless continuation, and for understanding how they behave.

Let us begin with left-wing, liberal war opponent Michael O'Hanlon, who today finds a home to write about the war in National Review -- long renown for publishing the works of anti-war liberals like O'Hanlon -- alongside Fred Kagan, Mark Steyn, Byron York and John Boehner. O'Hanlon, as usual, predicates his argument on the homage he pays to Gen. Petraeus, declaring in the first sentence: "General Petraeus is a straight shooter who does not and will not cook the books."

Citing his fellow surge advocate, NYT "reporter" Michael Gordon (who, in turn, featured O'Hanlon as his principal "expert" in his pro-war front page article this weekend), O'Hanlon argues:

Petraeus will argue that the overall situation has improved substantially this year. He will be right to do so, based on virtually any primary-source data I have seen.
Identically, John McCain and Joe Lieberman said in a Wall St. Journal Op-Ed today that it is "undeniable" that "facts on the ground in Iraq have improved."

Perhaps O'Hanlon, McCain and Lieberman have not "seen" this "primary-source data":

Seven out of 10 Iraqis believe the U.S. troop buildup in Baghdad and Anbar province has made security worse in those areas, and nearly as many say their own lives are going badly, according to a new poll conducted by ABC News, the British Broadcasting Corp., and the Japanese broadcaster NHK.

The poll reveals a disconnect between U.S. commanders' view of a steadily improving situation in Iraq and a bleaker outlook among Iraqis. . . . Fewer than one-quarter of Iraqis report that things in Iraq are going well, down from 35 percent in March, while the number of people who expect conditions to improve in the next year has declined precipitously.

When determining whether "progress" is being made, fewer things could be less relevant to our genius war scholars and our DC Establishment pundits than whether the Iraqis whom we have Liberated actually say they are more secure. Far more trustworthy are American War Supporters and Members of Congress who take week-long, highly planned jaunts to Iraq, spend every night protected in the Green Zone, spend their days talking to American military officials, and then return and declare Iraq to be Much Safer. That is much more reliable. But whatever else is true, the viewpoint of actual Iraqi is fairly compelling "primary source data" suggesting that Gen. Petraeus' sunny claims about Iraq are anything but "undeniable."

O'Hanlon and his friends -- in order to create a fictitious appearance of consensus concerning Gen. Petraeus' claims -- are deliberately ignoring all sorts of other evidence undermining Petraeus' assertions, literally pretending it does not exist, such as this superb article in the Washington Post several days ago by Karen DeYoung, which documented:

The U.S. military's claim that violence has decreased sharply in Iraq in recent months has come under scrutiny from many experts within and outside the government, who contend that some of the underlying statistics are questionable and selectively ignore negative trends. . . .

Others who have looked at the full range of U.S. government statistics on violence, however, accuse the military of cherry-picking positive indicators and caution that the numbers -- most of which are classified -- are often confusing and contradictory. "Let's just say that there are several different sources within the administration on violence, and those sources do not agree," Comptroller General David Walker told Congress on Tuesday in releasing a new Government Accountability Office report on Iraq.

Statements from O'Hanlon, Lieberman and McCain that Petraeus' claims of improved security are "undeniable" are patently false. Most Iraqis deny them, as do actual experts who are not invested in perpetuating the war and whose credibility has not been destroyed by years of false statements concerning the war.

Speaking of which, O'Hanlon -- in demanding that Gen. Petraeus be blindly deemed a "straight shooter" -- simply ignores the obviously critical fact that Petraeus has been making the same exact claims about Great Progress in Iraq for four straight years, only for events to prove those statements repeatedly to be inaccurate. O'Hanlon does, however, address one of the most incriminating actions Petraeus undertook -- namely, publishing a highly controversial and highly optimistic Op-Ed in The Washington Post just weeks before the 2004 Presidential election, in which Petraeus made one optimistic claim after the next about Iraq, proclaiming:

Now, however, 18 months after entering Iraq, I see tangible progress. Iraqi security elements are being rebuilt from the ground up. . . .

Iraq's security forces are, however, developing steadily and they are in the fight. Momentum has gathered in recent months. With strong Iraqi leaders out front and with continued coalition -- and now NATO -- support, this trend will continue.

O'Hanlon acknowledges Petraeus' Op-Ed, but literally decrees -- with no rationale -- that it should not be used to treat Petraeus' motives and statements with skepticism:
Some of Petraeus's critics will argue, as they already have, that he wrote an oped in the fall of 2004 that was too optimistic about the training of Iraqi Security Forces then -- and too closely timed to the American elections that November. To them, that suggests he was and is acting as an agent of White House spin. That oped may in retrospect have been somewhat too optimistic; I was wrong then myself in believing that a very vigorous training program we had created for the Iraqis would suffice to create a professional, dependable force. . . .

However, a possible misjudgment on this matter hardly shows Petraeus to be a spinmeister. If anything, it shows him to be human.

Absolutely. That Petraeus merely published an inaccurately optimistic picture of the war in Iraq at exactly the time -- and in exactly the venue -- most politically beneficial to President Bush's re-election prospects proves nothing. It certainly doesn't mean Petraeus' identical claims of Progess three years later should be viewed with skepticism. No -- O'Hanlon movingly tells us -- it only proves that Petraeus is "human." O'Hanlon here is invoking one of Washington's most cherished rules: for War Supporters, there is never accountability for their "mistakes" nor for their endless record of inaccurate statements.

And then, finally, we arrive at the co-dependent partners of our propagandizing war supporters -- the frightened, mindless Democratic Beltway class, always ably represented by The Washington Post's David Ignatius. They, too, are out in full force today, playing their war enabling role.

Ignatius bases his entire column on the trite and fact-free claims of an anonymous "leading Democratic Party strategist." Both Ignatius and his cowardly anonymous friend believe that President Bush is on his way to doing what Democrats want -- "announcing that he will begin reducing the number of U.S. troops in Iraq this year" -- and the primary challenge for Democrats is not to get in the way of the President by giving into their loudmouth radical base and thereby constraining the Leader. Here is the rationale for this brilliant position:

That's the smart Democratic strategy, he argues, to take credit for altering the course of the war. "We have to stop saying we're going to end the war, because we can't," the strategist cautions. But he fears that congressional Democrats, pushed by an angry base, will continue to schedule votes for funding cutoffs and troop-withdrawal dates. That may appeal to the base but not to the country as a whole, the strategist fears.
Do Democratic Beltway "strategists" ever do anything but "fear"? And is it even possible that Ignatius and the anonymous strategist coward hiding behind him actually believe this? For a full year now at least, one poll after the next has proven exactly the opposite to be true: namely, the overwhelming majority of Americans, not merely the radical unserious filthy leftist Move-On/Kos hippies, want a mandatory timetable for withdrawal.

The new poll from the NYT just this morning (.pdf) is just the latest example, demonstrating that Americans overwhelmingly (57-38%) believe "the United States should set a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq sometime in 2008." How is it possible for Ignatius to continue to be published asserting that only the "base," but not the country as a whole, favors this?

The common thread uniting war supporters like O'Hanlon and Lieberman and their enablers like Ignatius and his anonymous friends is a willful ignoring of any facts that interrupt their self-glorying Seriousness festivals. And along those lines, Ignatius, as he typically does, reveals the true illness underlying our Establishment's behavior here, as he describes the real group that ought to be Listened To:

Centrist Democrats and Republicans -- "the responsibles," as Charles Peters of Washington Monthly likes to call them. . .
This group is "responsible" all right -- responsible for the greatest strategic disaster in America's history, the endless empowerment of the President who unleashed it, and a disgustingly self-serving campaign to deny reality and ensure the war's continuation all in order to salvage their own egos and reputations. Today provides a truly superb picture of the fact-free warmongers, ideologues and extremists -- and their enabling Serious "centrist" comrades -- who are "responsible" for the grave damage done to our country over the last six years, with no end in sight.

-- Glenn Greenwald

"

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/?last_story=/opinion/greenwald/2007/08/30/craig_vitter

"Colin Powell: Terrorists are not greatest threat to nation
In an interview with GQ magazine that's scheduled to be put online here at 11 a.m. ET, former secretary of State and one-time potential presidential candidate Colin Powell has this to say about terrorism and the threat it poses to the USA:

"What is the greatest threat facing us now? People will say it's terrorism. But are there any terrorists in the world who can change the American way of life or our political system? No. Can they knock down a building? Yes. Can they kill somebody? Yes. But can they change us? No. Only we can change ourselves. So what is the great threat we are facing?"

Powell adds, in an interview with Walter Isaacson, that to improve its image in the world, the USA should focus on welcoming newcomers. He takes on the immigration debate that has become a hot-button issue in the presidential race:

"America could not survive without immigration," he says. "Even the undocumented immigrants are contributing to our economy. That's the country my parents came to. That's the image we have to portray to the rest of the world: kind, generous, a nation of nations, touched by every nation, and we touch every nation in return. That's what people still want to believe about us. They still want to come here. We've lost a bit of the image, but we haven't lost the reality yet. And we can fix the image by reflecting a welcoming attitude -- and by not taking counsel of our fears and scaring ourselves to death that everybody coming in is going to blow up something. It ain't the case."

As for the Iraq War, Powell -- a retired general and former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff -- tells Isaacson that as he and others in the Bush administration debated strategy in the lead-up to the war, he did not think the Pentagon and then-secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld had planned for what would happen after Baghdad fell.

"That was the big mistake. Don had written a list of the worst things that could happen, but we didn't do the contingency planning on what we would do about it. So we watched those buildings get burned down, and nobody told the divisions, 'Hey, go in there and declare martial law and whack a few people and it will stop.' Then the insurgency started, and we didn't acknowledge it. They said it wasn't an insurgency. They looked up the definition. They said it was a few dead-enders! And so we didn't respond in a way that might have stopped it. And then the civil war started at the beginning of last year. I call it a civil war, but some say no, it's not a civil war, it's a war against civilians. In fact, we have total civil disorder."

Also today, GQ has already posted a lengthy interview with Rumsfeld. Author Lisa DePaulo sums up her conclusions this way:

"If you're expecting Don Rumsfeld -- out of government now, on his farm, in a moment of repose -- to play the bitter, angry, reflective, tragic fallen hero ... ain't gonna happen. If he feels any of those things, he's not showing it. (And if he did, he probably wouldn't be Donald H. Rumsfeld.) The man does not do regret. Over the course of the next few hours, he will answer every question asked of him, and even when the answer is 'I'm not gonna talk about that,' there's never a flash of anger. Impatience, yes, but never anger."
"

sounds an awful lot like rufus. If colin powell says what Rufus syas, does that make rufus smarter? If so why?

Listen to THE WORD, and see if you agree, not the SOURCE.

"There might be more to it than that. For one thing, U.S. execs make three times as much as their European counterparts, even though these European bosses manage companies that are 40% bigger. (The top 20 highest-paid execs at U.S. public companies made $36.4 million on average last year, while the same group in Europe got just $12.5 million on average.)

Yet, presumably, companies on both continents draw from similar talent pools in terms of education, work experience and cultural background. If that's true, it's hard to accept the notion that rich pay in the U.S. is the result of a scarcity of talent.

Next, CEO pay in the U.S. has grown to become 364 times the average worker's pay. It was just 40 times the average pay in 1980. It's hard to imagine that top leadership skills have grown so much scarcer in the past 37 years.

Many pay analysts suspect the bloated pay packages for U.S. execs are more the result of a marketplace failure than the basic laws of supply and demand from Econ 101. Exorbitant pay packages are often awarded by board compensation committees that are too cozy with CEOs, believes Paul Hodgson, an executive-compensation expert at the Corporate Library. They also fail to link pay to performance, which makes it easier for pay to spiral higher, he says.

"

Don't get me started on money and the iraq war.

"Is a CEO worth 364 times the average Joe?
Here are four infuriating facts about the salaries and friendly tax rules that let executive fat cats cash in -- and what you can do about them.

In recognition of the just-completed Labor Day weekend, I'd like to offer a salute to American workers, who the United Nations just reported are second only to Norway's laborers when it comes to productivity.

And now, a bit of bad news for those same workers: You're not getting credit for that productivity. Instead, top executives at your companies are reaping the rewards in the form of increasingly fat paydays.

Here's a quick look at four ways in which workers are being shortchanged by their bosses.

No. 1: The chief executives at the biggest U.S. companies last year made as much money in a single day as the average worker made for the whole year.

Top execs at Fortune 500 companies averaged $10.8 million in total compensation in 2006. The average worker, meanwhile, made $16.76 an hour, which worked out to $29,544 for the year. Those numbers come from a report called "Executive Excess 2007: The Staggering Social Cost of U.S. Business Leadership" (.pdf file). The report was released last week by the Institute for Policy Studies and United for a Fair Economy.

Talk back: Do you think CEOs are overpaid?

And it's not clear that all of their CEOs were earning their keep. Take the top earner last year, then-Yahoo (YHOO, news, msgs) CEO Terry Semel. He got $71.7 million, chiefly in options grants. He also cashed in $19 million worth of options. That's a lot of loot. From a shareholder perspective, it's tough to argue that Semel earned it.

Yahoo's stock is lower now than it was at the start of 2004, while the Standard and Poor's 500 index ($INX)has advanced more than 30% in the same time period. Semel stepped down as CEO in June because of shareholder dissatisfaction with his company's performance.

Video: More news on Yahoo

No. 2: The managers of the 20 top hedge funds and private-equity shops made more every 10 minutes last year, on average, than the average worker made for the whole year.

The top bosses at the top 20 investment shops earned an average of $657.5 million for the year, according to data cited by the "Executive Excess 2007" report. Renaissance Technologies' James Simons led the way, earning $1.5 billion. Steven Cohen at SAC Capital and Kenneth Griffin at Citadel Investment Group ran neck and neck for second place. Each got $1.2 billion.

"We are back to the gilded age of a hundred years ago," concludes John Cavanagh, the director of the Institute for Policy Studies and a co-author of the report.

No. 3: True, many workers got a break on July 24, when the federal minimum wage was increased to $5.85 from $5.15 -- the first increase in the federal minimum wage in 10 years. But the minimum wage is still 7% below where it was 10 years ago, adjusted for inflation. Meanwhile, CEO pay has gone up 45%, adjusted for inflation, in the same period, according to the "Executive Excess 2007" report.

No. 4: U.S. CEOs enjoy supersized advantages in pensions and perks, too.

Thanks to generous contributions from their companies, CEOs at S&P 500 companies retire with an average of $10.1 million in their supplemental executive retirement plans, according to the Corporate Library. In contrast, only 36% of American households headed by someone over 65 even had a retirement account in 2004. Those accounts had an average value of $173,552, according to the Congressional Research Service.

The top U.S. CEOs enjoyed perks worth an average $438,342 in 2006, according to data cited in "Executive Excess 2007." They got money for everything from personal travel on corporate jets, to reimbursement for country club fees and taxes on bonuses.

An extreme example: Ryland Group (RYL, news, msgs) chief Chad Dreier got $6.9 million worth of perks last year for benefits that included private use of his company's jet and a $5.7 million "tax gross-up" to cover the taxes on his stock options.
"

Corporate slavery? Sounds like me and what I'm saying everyday.

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/CompanyFocus/IsACEOWorth364TimesAnAverageJoe.aspx?page=2

Zouk, try this. It's less than a month old.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/25/us/politics/25giuliani.html?ex=1345694400&en=a60e11f7c17f4ee0&ei=5088&partner=rssn

Oh I forgot - she's not Bush. neither am I although rufas and coward think so.

Zouk, I'd almost forgotten what "investigate" was until Henry Waxman replaced your darling, Tom Davis.

How does Tom have the nerve to show up next to Henry during all of these hearings, when he did absolutely nothing as Chairman to correct these things which he now deplores?

Proud, we are supposed to be ignoring the moonbats - Jane, Ignorant coward, LOUD and dumb and of course Rufas.

even the best Libs will not reply to a valid point, such as prove Rudy left a deficit. I supplied a link to the NYC comptroller office. they supply opinion. the extreme moonbats only supply insults and massive pastings.

with hillary as thier candidate, this can only get worse. what do they really have to run on - her experience - doing what selling pardons to her brother?

can anyone name a single bill of substance Hillary has passed in her 7 years?

how about a single bill she passed as first lady? (don't count welfare reform her husband vetoed over and over until bob dole threatened his re-elect and he signed under protest)

Yep, that's what she has to run on.

Expect more and more wackiness as the facts become all to clear.

Regulate,investigate, pontificate

do not legislate

Dem mantra and plan for your future

Jane- This is nothing new, the discussion of foriegn oil dependence as a national security item. Dependency on foreign oil is a national economic weakness that exposes all Americans to the threat of severe financial loss.

Terrorism is an economic threat. Militant Islamic fundamentalists believe they can disrupt the U.S. economy and thereby slow the progress of globalization, in the hope of preserving their medieval way of life.

Without oil at the center of the conflict there would be no U.S. Military operations in the Middle East, and there would be no oil wealth to finance terrorist organizations. Islamic terrorism feeds off of America's addiction to oil.

Where are the new ideas and aggressive plans to fix this from the left? There aren't any because they are stuck in blame and complain mode.

Laffey Lashes Out at National GOP in Book About Campaign
By Mark Arsenault
Providence Journal

The national Republican Party's support of U.S. Sen. Lincoln Chafee's reelection campaign last year was one of many sins that led to the party's defeat in the midterm elections, according to a new political memoir, Primary Mistake, by former Cranston Mayor Steve Laffey, who lost a primary challenge to Chafee last year.

Laffey argues that the national party "sabotaged" his U.S. Senate campaign and turned its back on its own principles by fiercely supporting the more liberal Chafee over a conservative challenger who lined up more closely with the party on the issues.

...National Republican Party leaders had calculated that Chafee -- who voted against authorizing the Iraq war and many of President Bush's other initiatives -- was the only Republican who could win in Rhode Island, especially in a national climate turning against the GOP. The party unleashed an attack campaign against Laffey, which he says was unprecedented among Republicans. The antitax group Club for Growth came to Laffey's aid, providing money and advertising during the campaign.

Referring to Chafee and the National Republican Senatorial Committee, Laffey writes: "Their entire campaign was focused on demonizing me and turning the U.S. Senate race into a huge slime fest."

LAFFEY'S PUBLISHER, Sentinel, an imprint of publishing giant Penguin Group, had promised five months ago that the blunt, former two-term mayor would "name names" in his book, and Laffey delivers plenty of names. He blasts national GOP leaders, including Republican National Chairman Ken Mehlman and U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Dole, head of the NRSC, for trying to persuade Laffey to run for lieutenant governor and leave the Senate to Chafee. Laffey also criticizes President Bush for allowing the national party to "slime" Laffey with attack ads. The money spent attacking him here in Rhode Island, Laffey argues, could have been used to save Senators George Allen in Virginia or Conrad Burns in Montana, who lost close races to Democratic challengers.

http://www.projo.com/news/politics/content/laffey_book_09-09-07_AF71JIU.34237fa.html

Apparently Mr. Laffey wasn't paying attention to the methods of the party of Atwater, Rove and Norquist outside The Ocean State.

"I also wonder how enthusiastic the NRA would be in support of his candidacy given his history of support for gun control. "

compared to whom?

Hillary will support Federal gun laws. rudy has already said he will support a return to state gun laws. this is a rather good finesse of a losing issue. and consider what the judge he will appoint thinks about the 2nd amendment versus her judge. do you think the gun toting yahoos don't understand this?

this issue and abortion are no longer available as legislative priorities. It is in the hands of the courts. all the single issue voters who care about this know that to be true. and they know who will appoint the right judge - hint - it's not hillary.

his support in SC has been solid and unwavering. they know all these things about him. why aren't they living up (actually down) to the predictions of the NE liberals? could it be y'all don't know squat about rednecks? Maybe that's why they never vote for you.

and now he has called for foregiveness for illegal aliens to some extent. I can see NJ, PA and others moving his way already. What was the Dem plan on immigration again, I don't recall ever seeing one. Or how about winning (or losing ) the war.

Maybe Keith O. can ask one single hard question to a Lib sometime this year and all 40 viewers can spread the word about the answer.

Or they could go on Fox and actually get some audience share. Most amusing. so tough but they can't handle Chris Wallace. with a response like "I tried but I failed", I can understand their hesitation. and there is that whole lack of any answers thing going against them.

Unless tax and spend is considered a good answer.

1972, the last year a Republican won a senate seat in Nebraska was during the Vietnam war. What would Kerrey add to the Iraq debate? Sure, he's a military hero from his youth and everyone respects that. But being a worm on the end of a hook isn't the experience needed to be an angler.

'I'm sick to death of hearing the left whine about getting out of Iraq and the Middle east, like we can just walk away with no consequences to our way of life when we're held hostage by $11/gallon gas or worse. '

and I'm sick to death of hearing the right whine about just about everything--although it's nice of you acknoledge, finally, that American kids are dying for cheaper gas prices.

what will it take for you to not worship rudy, koz -- a dead boy in his bed? but i'm sure you could come up with a rationale for that, too. for cons, morals and ethics and laws are for other people.

"Add rooming with a gay couple and appearing in drag"

Oh C'mon! This minor stuff doesn't register on anyone's radar, JimD. You're grasping at straws here. The Rs will back a winner , period.

Instead of this fluff, let's talk about how the next president will get us off our foriegn oil dependence. Who do you think has the guts to face the nation and tell them what the price will be for making dramatic change in this area? Who has come forward so far with new ideas for incentivization of alternative technology and infrastructure development?

I'm sick to death of hearing the left whine about getting out of Iraq and the Middle east, like we can just walk away with no consequences to our way of life when we're held hostage by $11/gallon gas or worse. Until drastic change occurs, that is not possible and they know it. Only the Rs are brave and honest enough to say it.

If Rudy will cheat on all of his wives AND mistresses, how will anyone know when he is telling the truth?

Yeah, Rudy cut taxes for the wealthy and shrunk the budgets of the fire and police department, creating the conditions that resulted in far more loss of life on 9/11 than would have happened - plus didn't set safety standards at the site, though he knew the air was poisoned, resulting in thousands of sick or dead rescuers.

Then he spent wildly in his last term, running up a huge deficit. There's you 'conservative principles' in action.

add rooming with a gay couple and appearing in drag.

Are you serious? In this day and age you think people care whether you ever dressed up for a TV show. sounds like a good sporting sense of humor to me.

Any one who simply hates gays for being gay doesn't have to vote for him. Most people just would rather not know about others' s*x lives and won't decide on who to vote based on your highly biggoted view.

this sounds like what the libs in NE think the rednecks are like. they don't know much about people who are not exactly like them, do they?

is that all you got? you are going to need more.

Colin - I said the voters are going to compare the two candidates.

Rudy - had a girlfriend the entire city knew about including his wife and kids because she came over to the house. this resulted in a rather nasty divorce and seemingly did not interfere with his day job. Lots of teenagers and young adults have issues with their divorced dad.

Mrs. clinton - the last in the world to know about her husband cheating, even though every TV show in america talked about it. this does not look good for ability to figure things out. when caught, mr clinton lied to everyone about it and tried to smear the poor little girl. a cheater and a liar and she keeps him for political advantage. His day job was compromised and no major legislation was passed, and some even accused him of military action to cover his tracks and manage the press. not to mention she was technically se*ually harrrassed as a subordinate employee. and any older guy who does what he did is a total scumbag. this is very different than two adults going through divorce. but I warned you that you probably didn't want to get into this.

Just compare. or not if you're a Lib.

I guess if your idea of staying together is spending no more than 6 nights per year in the same house, probably not in the same bed. but I did notice that hillary is fattening up her thighs so bill may regain some interest one day.

"If all you have is he is divorced, you are looking at a long 8 years."

Well, it is a little more than that - it is announcing his divorce at a press conference before he managed to tell his wife. It is the highly public way he carried on with wife #3 before leaving wife #2. While that does not bother me too much personally, I think it is boorish but not high on the list of disqualfiers for public office. However, I do believe that his social position views will cost him with the religious right. Add rooming with a gay couple and appearing in drag. Several prominent religious right figures (James Dobson, Tony Perkins for 2) have stated unequivocally that they will not support Rudy for president.

Giuliani will probably not win the nomination if the field gets narrowed down early to him and one candidate running to his right. Should two or more credible rivals remain in the race through the first few months, which actually seems likely, he has a very good chance. However, his nomination would undoubtedly lead to a third party candidate from the religious right. I also wonder how enthusiastic the NRA would be in support of his candidacy given his history of support for gun control.

I didn't say that Rudy doesn't have a health care plan. I said that his plan is basically the same as Bush's. Just like all of his plans.

http://slate.com/id/2171998/

Rudy is the real fiscal conservative in the race. He cut taxes 23 times in New York and turned a $2.3 billion budget deficit into a multi-billion dollar surplus, while balancing the city's budget. Because he turned his conservative principles into action, New York City taxpayers saved more than $9 billion in taxes and enjoyed their lowest tax burden in decades, while the economy grew and city government saw its revenues increase from the lower tax rates. Rudy Giuliani believes in supply-side economics, because he did it and he saw it work.

This is what he claims on his website. If you have any facts to the contray I would be glad to look them over.

check here first:

http://www.comptroller.nyc.gov/bureaus/acc/cafr-01-pdf/cover.pdf

5 million surplus with shrinking debt.

'substantial health care privitization plan.'

yeah -- it's called Give Wealthy People Who Aalready Have Insurance a Tax Break.

when asked at a rally by a woman with a little boy who didn't have coverage what he would do for her--he pushed her out of the way and grumbled she'd have to help herself.

More 'Compassionate' Conservative from the party of lowlifes and scumsuckers.

"Big Bang
The Known Universe was created despite, not because of, a primordial event. The inability of a Higher Force to create matter outside of a time/space construct said to the compressed wave forms, "We're just going to have to make a quantum change on our own." Creation, therefore, was already in progress before the first Surge.

Posted by: silly chuckie "

Wait, so a right-winger is admitting the world is older tha 6,000 years?

'One guy in a giant admin and you think it is wholesale corruption? what exactly did Bernie do?'

..where to start. tell you what, google him yourself. you could start with him using the apartment that was supposed to be for fatigued first responders as his personal wh*rehouse, to cheat on his wife.

and don't forget the priestly child molester on rudy's staff and the cocaine dealer... and that's just a start.

Mayor Fahey will NOT run for the Senate seat. He barely wanted to run for mayor. He's not running for a third term b/c property taxes are going to spike up tremendously to pay down the interest and principal loans on the new Covention Center. This will be a huge liability for him in a Nebraska senatorial campaign. Most western Nebraskans resent Omaha's new convention center. On the GOPside, Brunning sucks. Pull up a picture of him, he's just as goofy as Jimmy Kimmel. If Kerrey enters the race, he's going to win the seat. There are a lot of Republicans that will vote for him in the general election.

Mark - Oklahoma is really good, yeah, they're a threat. I think TX goes 9-3.

Pot - Shiner and Lone star used to be a lot better than they are now. That said, I'll drink a Shiner Bock any time I can get my hands on one. And if ever I met Chuck Hagel, this liberal would buy him a Shiner for his service.

Oh, and he's divorced TWICE -- both b/c he cheated -- and his second wife found out when he announced it on television. A FABULOUS representative for the "family values" party.

And don't give me any garbage about "Clinton did it too." I called Clinton's behavior reprehensible at the time and am still amazed that, unlike Rudy, the Clintons were actually able to salvage their marriage. On that note, I give Mike Huckabee credit for saying the Clintons deserved recognition for staying together. You know, since that's what the christian right says you are SUPPOSED to do during difficult times in a marriage...

Back through history with Senator Schumer.

The Surge
"The violence in Anbar has gone down despite the surge, not because of the surge. The inability of American soldiers to protect these tribes from al Qaeda, said to these tribes: 'We have to fight al Qaeda ourselves.'" Sen. Schumer, Sept. 5, 2007 / Floor of the Senate

Fall of Communism
The Soviet Empire fell despite, not because of, Pershing missiles pointed at 300 Soviet cities. The inability of NATO to protect Warsaw Pact countries from Moscow dominance said to these satellites: "We have to fight Communism ourselves".

D-Day
Taking the cliffs of Northern France occurred despite the Normandy Landing, not because of it. The inability of Marshall Petain to protect les citoyens from the German occupiers said to the Partisans, "we have to liberate ourselves". (citation: Le Memorial de Caen / Caen, France)

Appomattox
Lee's surrender occurred despite Sherman's march through the South, not because of it. All the flames and smoke prevented slave uprisings from succeeding and thus ending the war years earlier.

Hernando Cortes Invasion of the Aztecs
The conquest of the Aztecs occurred despite Cortes and his army, not because of his use of horses, his impersonation of the god Quetzaquotal, and his kidnapping of their ruler Montezuma. The inability of the heavily-armed soldiers to protect tribes from Montezuma already had the savages planning revenge.

Attila the Hun
The fall of the Roman Empire occurred despite the Hunnic invasion, not because of it. The indigenous peoples had already begun overthrowing their imperial rulers. Attila just got in the way -- hence leaders had to position themselves as "to the right of etc."

Israelites Free from Pharaoh
The Exodus of the Israelites from Pharaoh's Egypt occurred despite Mosaic leadership, not because of it. The inability of the so-called "Prince of Egypt" to protect downtrodden Hebrews from their pyramid taskmasters said to eleven of the twelve tribes: "We've got to cut our own deal with Pharaoh."

Expulsion from Eden
Man's Descent occurred despite the serpent, not because of him. The inability of Adam to provide fruit for Eve made her say, "I've got to get it myself." The serpent was only trying to talk her out of it, explaining to her that Creation occurred despite the Big Bang, not because of it. (see next item)

Big Bang
The Known Universe was created despite, not because of, a primordial event. The inability of a Higher Force to create matter outside of a time/space construct said to the compressed wave forms, "We're just going to have to make a quantum change on our own." Creation, therefore, was already in progress before the first Surge.

KOZ -- Rudy ran up deficits in NY that Bloomberg had to fix. That's what bsimon abley noted and is one of the criticisms that Bloomberg has leveled against Rudy.

In addition to incorporating bsimon's critique of Rudy by reference, I'd also note that he's already fllip-flopped as well. He was AGAINST the partial birth abortion ban before he was FOR it. He was FOR incredibly restrictive gun control before he decided he was AGAINST it.

Funny how those just happen to be two big issues in a Republican primary, and he's softened his stance on both of them...

MoveOn.org Calls Petraeus a Traitor
Dem Senator: "No one wants to call [Petraeus] a liar on national
TV, The expectation is that the outside groups will do this for us'

base is the word for it allright.

blarg - you do yourself a disservice when you misrepresent my views in your post. I am happy to dispute my views but not what others say I say.

Rudy has on his website several proposals for cutting costs. these are not phony gimmicks like "cut fraud and abuse". he requires each department to offer 5-10% reductions in their costs. he has suggested not hiring back 50% of the federal workforce as they retire. he has suggested bringing in outside quality control. the kicker is, he did it in NYC. so it is clear if you compare him to a Dem and you wish to spend less, he outshines then easily. Look at hillary's website - it is all about spending.

He also has a substantial health care privitization plan.

but to be fair let's compare these issues to the likely Dem candidate, if you dare.

another important difference is that he will not let the Libs get away with all their slander.

If all you have is he is divorced, you are looking at a long 8 years.

As far as not acting on those beliefs, I think he said we would appoint judges who would act. what makes you think the president has anything to do with marriage and abortion? Is this liberal hubris again, thinking you can control every aspect of every person's life from the oval office?

Senator Chuck Hagel was a fine senator, and I hate to see him leave the Senate. As for the Democrats on this blog who thinks they get a filibuster-proof majority, your bubble may burst. NE is a very red state along with KY and ID. TX, WY, and NC are red states who usually votes for incumbants. The real places to pick up seats are NH, MN, and VA. Go Huckabee!

If its Rudy v. HRC, it will be a nasty, nasty race. bsimon, you have suggested, in the past, that despite the likely slime, politically they are not terribly far apart.

Do you still think that?

"tCC - your formerly left leaning blog has morphed ino the crazed leftist conspiracy theorist moonbat blog starring ignorant coward and his retarded sidekick Dufas. What distinguishes you from the Daily Kos now? not much."

It always comes back to the koz, doesn't it. Like the koz runs me. Like I've ever posted there. The kos is a reaction to a problem, not the problem itself. I'm glad they got you scared though, zouk.

It always comes back to the kos, to you fascists. You do as your told, don't you. I really hope the koz stays, for your sake. If they are forced off, like you fascists are trying to do, nothing would stop me from silencing Fox/Rush/Hannity/o"reilly/malkin/ingram/savage.

What makes your fascist lying propogandists better than the koz, or Imus for that matter. Be carful what you wish for, you coward fascist you. YOu might get it.

DCAustinite -

I see you got to the meaningful stuff. Spartan and I were thinking a TX-Mich Rose Bowl was possible, back in the dull preseason, then Mich lost to App St. and TX had trouble with a Sun Belt team.
But the Horns have awakened and will probably beat the Huskers.
The Sooners look r-e-a-l good, though.

One guy in a giant admin and you think it is wholesale corruption? what exactly did Bernie do? you must of course compare this to the clinton admin for a benchmark. and then there is that pesky Dem congress to worry about for you. Not a good issue for Dems.

cheating on his wife - compare to clinton, I don't think this was a secret - simply a failing marriage. Lots of that going around. As far as I know he never denied it while wagging his finger. not a good issue for Dems.

surplus into a deficit - I have no idea what you are talking about. are you making up your own facts again? I think everyone knows the Dems like to spend a lot. If you really want to make the case that Dems are going to be frugal, you are going to need every press outlet lying like crazy for the next year.

"he'll manage a significant flop before the primaries begin" - umm they have begun. and it is your candidate who famously still can't decide on her war stance.

so of the two on the ballot - assume just for fun it is Rudy v clinton, who is more assuring on the measures we just covered. Try to consider it from a independent point of view, not a lefty view. that is where the votes are.

bsimon, there is one more issue I would remind you of, take a look at the other people in your party, as evidenced on this blog. do you think they will reliably vote for clinton? she is set to lose the middle and the loony left. consider the intellect indicated by thier posts. will you reason with them about what to do? good luck with that. they think George Bush fired a missile at the Pentagon six years ago.

Bush recession number 2?

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070910/economic_outlook.html

View of Lincoln - Carpetbagger?

The guy was born in Lincoln, is a graduate of their public schools, then the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, was a successful businessman there, was Governor for four years and then Senator for twelve.

Carpetbagger?

"I am deeply saddened that the dissenting voice of Chuck Hagel will be removed from future discussions on the ineptitude of Cheney's War"

Right. Courage. I respect hagel for turning when he did, slightly. But where was he when it mattered? Where was he when it counted? That goes for all these posers who came out agaisnt the war once it became conveiant. Where was he when it mattered. He's not as brave as you make him out to be. I'm glad he's gone. Now I just wish the rest of the gop would follow him out the door.

I don't notice the differences between Rudy and Bush. Last time I asked Zouk for these differences, all he come up with was a vague statement that Rudy would cut spending by reducing waste. (I'm sure if you asked Bush in 1999, he would have said exactly the same thing.) No substantive policy differences at all.

On Iraq, their policies are the same. Health care, Social Security, civil liberties, the environment? No changes there either. Rudy's personal beliefs on gay marriage and abortion are different from Bush's, but he has to promise not to act on those beliefs to get elected. So no change there either. So vote for Giuliani: 4 more years!

I knew too many Lone Stars! Or were they Shiners?

"We used to have intelligent discusssions here before these two showed up. Isn't there anything you can do to FIX this?"

iF YOU CAN'T WIN, IN THE marketplace of ideas, then waht do you do. Like everywhere else, gop. If you can't win cheat. There's no cheating here, merely posts. So you can't cheat to win. You can cry and whine though. It seems you know this as you do it every day.

If you cannot compete in the marketplace of ideas. If you cannot compete, without talking about clinton and the 90's, go elsewhere.

But please stop the crying and whining. I care about your feelings as much as you, fox and o'reilly care about liberals.

I care about your gop feelings like the gop cares about the constitution. Not very. You started this war agaisnt the country gop. You can't fight the verbal war you started. OH, you can you just like to attack only. You can't defend. Ok then, brave anonymous poster. FIX the rules so you have a chance, like everywhere else.

Pull me off this site, if you can. i don't think CC has the balls. BEcause he knows the backlash would be huge, for him personally. Welcome to my world gop. Now stop whining and post your posts. Or leave. But stop being a whiny coward. It does no become you.

9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11....

'You may notice the differences between Rudy and Bush.'

THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE. RUDY WILL BE BUSH ONLY WORSE. HE HATES THE CONSTITUTION EVEN MORE THAN SOCK PRESIDENT.

I am deeply saddened that the dissenting voice of Chuck Hagel will be removed from future discussions on the ineptitude of Cheney's War. If only more Americans had had the courage to stand up and rail against this murderous campaign perhaps we would not be inundated with terrorist cells and overwhelmed by anti-American sentiment in South America, Europe and Asia. We learned absolutely nothing from the Vietnam War and we traded our children's safety for some bloodthirsty conservative desire to retain America's might.

Kerrey will undoubtedly have to contend with the "carpetbagger" label. In Nebraska, there's really not a worse place for a candidate to come from than NYC (well, except maybe San Fransisco). The strength of the argument might depend on the candidate; Bruning could hammer on it all day, while Johanns would have to be a bit more careful. The argument is effective in Nebraska, it was used over and over in last year's 3rd District race. That being said, Kerrey is stronger than any other conceivable D, although it's not inconceivable that Fahey or Scott Kleeb could make a respectable showing. It's all who you know, you know, and Kerrey knows everybody.

By the way, Bruning will be destroyed. Nobody who has ever met him likes him very much, and the inverse is true of Johanns. Bruning-Hagel wasn't insane because of Hagel's unpopularity re the war. Bruning-Johanns is an act of futility.

"Say what you want about rudy, he is not known for corruption, for lying, for changing positions, for weakness, for spending."

HA, Ha, ha! He surrounds himself with the likes of Bernie Kerik and you say he's not known for corruption. He cheats on his mistress(es) and you say he's not known for lying. He turns a surplus into a deficit, and you say he's not known for spending. Of your list, he's thus far avoided the flip-flopping, but I have faith that he'll manage a significant flop before the primaries begin.

As Andy R stated earleir, Dems ought to be heavily favored to win the three seats with retiring Repugs' Senators (VA, CO, NE). Where are the other seats Dems need to reach at least 60 seats? Very much in play right now are seats with Repugs who are too conservative for their consitutents (OR, MN, NH, ME). Two Repus Senaotrs are being investigated for corruption (NM, AL). That's nine there. But also, Dole (NC), Cornyn (TX) and McConnell (KY) are polling very low with constituents. So that makes 12. And why are both of Wyoming's Senators (Repugs) up for re-election. WY recently elected a Dem Gov, who is very popular. Would they be so smart as to wlect two new Dem Senators. So, there are 14 pick-ups for the good guys, giving America 65 Dem voting Senators!

Thanks for the backup 'To Pot'.

To Pot Calling Kettle: Yes, I was calling that person out for spewing anonymous hate while republican and democrat ADULTS are having a discussion. It serves no purpose and you know they would never say those things in public.

To Nebraskan in DC, do you think his New School days will hurt Kerrey? I mean that's about as far away from the Midwest you can get.

Also Texas will be the Huskers. Hehehehe,

And yes I had to go there.

"The point was that the base will not support a candidate'

you don't mind if I don't take your word for it. so far the base has supported Rudy quite strongly and consistently from the beginning. We know what we want - win the war, spend less, tax less, solid judges, beat hillary and no more punching bag for loony liberals. rudy fits the bill quite nicely. You may notice the differences between Rudy and Bush.

Ultimately beating hillary may trump all other concerns. so it is you Dems who seem to be on a suicide mission, with your war stance, your desire for socialism and your corrupt candidate.

Say what you want about rudy, he is not known for corruption, for lying, for changing positions, for weakness, for spending. that is all it will take to beat the clintons. the direct comparison is simple and effective and only the most loony liberals (watch for them) will pretend this is not so. but their world is a very confusing place.

"I find rudy to be emminently practical. One could have the luxury of theory if one wasn't the frontrunner. but the point is that we can't continue with an open border and we can't send back all who are here."


The point was that the base will not support a candidate that says illegal immigration is not a crime. Thusly, that position is emminently impractical - because it will keep him from getting elected.

The problem the GOP is faced with these days, is they've spent so much time demonizing anyone that doesn't follow their doctrine, that their own guys are now getting caught up in the net. Thompson went off the reservation talking about due process and OBL - nevermind that the policy is the right way to fight terrorism - it doesn't play to the 'kill em all' base, and that's going to kill Thompson's chances.

The GOP needs some sane leadership, but that person or persons likely won't arrive until heavy losses are suffered in 08.

zouk's random sock puppet name generator has produced another one:

we b dum: "I see the loony leftist guest stars have shown up - LOUD and dumb voter and hanoi Jane. Are the