"...Republican candidates and campaign operatives express amazement at the volatility of the GOP field and say the contest is more wide open than at any time in memory."

...which is what makes the GOP race so much more interesting than the DNC.

The blatant disregard for balance regarding Ron Paul has lost my viewership with the WP for a lifetime.

Ron Paul, the only principled Republican, the only one that can defeat Hillary, is shut out again.

This news organization has lost so much credibility with me for its blatant biases that I doubt I will be giving it much time in the future.

Hey, where is Ron Paul in your article? what's wrong with you guys, still trying to ignore him, well, he doesn't need people like you anyway, go on with your romney and guliani, you are all the same...

Of course Dr. Ron Paul is the only GOP candidate who wants to end the war and prevent us from going into other useless wars that the neocons are trying to get us in , don't mistake about it.

Dr. Ron Paul economic plans:
(Of course he is the only candidate with plans)

Lower taxes and smaller government

Paul believes the size of federal government must be decreased substantially. He supports the abolition of the Internal Revenue Service, most Cabinet departments, and the Federal Reserve. Paul's campaign slogan for 2004 was "The Taxpayers' Best Friend!". He would completely eliminate the income tax by shrinking the size and scope of government to its Constitutional limits, noting that he has never voted to approve an unbalanced budget; he has observed that even scaling back spending to 2000 levels eliminates the need for the 42% of the budget accounted for by individual income tax receipts. He has asserted that Congress had no power to impose a direct income tax and supports the repeal of the sixteenth amendment. Paul has signed a pledge not to raise taxes or create new taxes, given by Americans for Tax Freedom. Paul has also been an advocate of employee-owned corporations (such as employee stock ownership plans). In 1999, he co-sponsored The Employee Ownership Act of 1999, which would have created a new type of corporation (the employee-owned-and-controlled corporation) that would have been exempt from most federal income taxes.

John Berthoud, president of the National Taxpayers Union, an organization that promotes lower tax rates, has said, "Ron Paul has always proven himself to be a leader in the fight for taxpayer rights and fiscal responsibility .... No one can match his record on behalf of taxpayers." Paul has been called a "Taxpayer's Friend" by Berthoud's organization every year since he returned to Congress in 1996, scoring an average percentage of 100%, tying Tom Tancredo for the highest score (1992-2005) among all 2008 presidential candidates from Congress. National Federation of Independent Business president Jack Farris has said, "Paul is a true friend of small business.... He is committed to a pro-small-business agenda of affordable health insurance, lower taxes, tort reform, and the elimination of burdensome mandates."

Paul has stated: "I agree on getting rid of the IRS, but I want to replace it with nothing, not another tax. But let's not forget the inflation tax." In other statements, he has permitted consideration of a national sales tax as a compromise if the tax need cannot be reduced enough. He has advocated that the reduction of government will make an income tax unnecessary. Paul would substantially reduce the government's role in individual lives and in the functions of foreign and domestic states; he says Republicans have lost their commitment to limited government and have become the party of big government. He would eliminate most federal government agencies as "unnecessary bureaucracies", such as the U.S. Department of Education, the U.S. Department of Energy, the Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Emergency Management Administration, the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Internal Revenue Service. Paul would severly reduce the role of the CIA; reducing its functions to intelligence-gathering. He would eliminate operations like overthrowing foreign governments and assassinations. He says this activity is kept secret even from Congress and "leads to trouble." He also commented, "We have every right in the world to know something about intelligence gathering, but we have to have intelligent people interpreting this information."

Paul's opposition to the Federal Reserve is supported by the Austrian Business Cycle Theory, which holds that instead of containing inflation, the Federal Reserve, in theory and in practice, is responsible for causing inflation. In addition to eroding the value of individual savings, this creation of inflation leads to booms and busts in the economy. Thus Paul argues that government, via a central bank (the Federal Reserve), is the primary cause of economic recessions and depressions. He has stated in numerous speeches that most of his colleagues in Congress are unwilling to abolish the central bank because it funds many government activities. He says that to compensate for eliminating the "hidden tax" of inflation, Congress and the president would instead have to raise taxes or cut government services, either of which could be politically damaging to their reputations. He states that the "inflation tax" is a tax on the poor, because the Federal Reserve prints more money which subsidizes select industries, while poor people pay higher prices for goods as more money is placed in circulation.

His warnings of impending economic crisis and a loss of confidence in the dollar in 2005 and 2006 were at the time derided by many economists, but accelerating dollar devaluation in 2007 has led experts like former Federal Reserve chair Alan Greenspan to reconsider hard money policies such as those of Paul.

Opposition to inflation and the Federal Reserve

Paul adheres deeply to Austrian school economics and libertarian criticism of fractional-reserve banking, opposing fiat increases to money in circulation; he has written six books on the subjects, has pictures of classical liberal economists Friedrich Hayek, Murray Rothbard, and Ludwig von Mises hanging on his office wall, and is a distinguished counselor to the Mises Institute. Paul opposes inflation as an underhanded form of taxation, because it takes value away from the money that individuals hold without having to directly tax them. He sees the creation of the Federal Reserve, and its ability to "print money out of thin air" without commodity backing, as responsible for eroding the value of money, observing that "a dollar today is worth 4 cents compared to a dollar in 1913 when the Federal Reserve got in." In 1982, Paul was the prime mover in the creation of the U.S. Gold Commission, and in many public speeches Paul has voiced concern over the dominance of the debt-based monetary system and called for the return to a commodity-backed currency through a gradual reintroduction of hard currency, including both gold and silver. A commodity standard binds currency issue to the value of that commodity rather than fiat, making the value of the currency as stable as the commodity.

Paul condemns the role of the Federal Reserve in creating inflation. The Minority Report of the U.S. Gold Commission states that the federal and state governments are strictly limited in their monetary role by Article One, Section Eight, Clauses 2, 5, and 6, and Section Ten, Clause 1, "The Constitution forbids the states to make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debt, nor does it permit the federal government to make anything a legal tender." The Commission also recommended that the federal government "restore a definition for the term 'dollar.' We suggest defining a 'dollar' as a weight of gold of a certain fineness, .999 fine." On multiple occasions in congressional hearings, Paul has sharply challenged two different chairmen of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke.

Paul has also called for the removal of all taxes on gold transactions. He has repeatedly introduced the Federal Reserve Board Abolition Act since 1999, to enable "America to return to the type of monetary system envisioned by our Nation's founders: one where the value of money is consistent because it is tied to a commodity such as gold"; it has received virtually no mainstream news coverage. He opposes dependency on paper fiat money, but also says that there "were some shortcomings of the gold standard of the 19th century ... because it was a fixed price and caused confusion." He argues that hard money, such as backed by gold or silver, would prevent inflation, but adds, "I wouldn't exactly go back on the gold standard but I would legalize the constitution where gold and silver should and could be legal tender, which would restrain the Federal Government from spending and then turning that over to the Federal Reserve and letting the Federal Reserve print the money."He supports parallel currencies, such as gold-backed notes issued from private markets, competing on a level playing field with the Federal Reserve fiat dollar. He believes this would restrain inflation, limit government spending, and eventually eliminate the ability of the Federal Reserve to "tax" Americans through inflation (i.e., by reducing the purchasing power of the currency they are holding),which he sees as a sneaky and silent form of theft.

Paul suggests that current efforts to sustain dollar hegemony, especially since collapse of the Bretton Woods system following the United States' suspension of the dollar's conversion to gold in 1971, exacerbate a rationale for war. Consequently, when petroleum producing nations like Iraq, Iran, or Venezuela elect to trade in Petroeuro instead of Petrodollar, it devalues an already overly inflated dollar, further eroding its supremacy as a global currency. According to Paul, along with vested American interests in oil and plans to "remake the Middle East", this scenario has proven a contributing factor for the war against Iraq and diplomatic tensions with Iran. National Journal rated Paul's economic policy as 51% conservative in 2006 (46% in 2005).

Support of nonviolent tax resistance
In an interview with Neil Cavuto on Fox News, June 26, 2007, in speaking of income tax resistance, Paul said that he supports the right of those who engage in nonviolent resistance when they believe a law is unjust, bringing up the names of Martin Luther King, Lysander Spooner, and Mahatma Gandhi as examples of practitioners of peaceful civil disobedience; but he cautioned that those who do should be aware that the consequences could be imprisonment.[84] He said that current income tax laws assume that people are guilty and they must then prove they are innocent, and he believes this aspect of tax law is unfair. However, he said that he prefers to work for improved tax laws by getting elected to Congress and trying to change the laws themselves rather than simply not paying the tax.

Social Security protection

Paul says that Social Security is in "bad shape .... The numbers aren't there"; funds are depleting because Congress borrows from the Social Security fund every year to fund its budget. He considers himself the rare member of Congress who has voted for such little spending that it has never required borrowing from existing Social Security funds. To stem the Social Security crisis and meet the commitment to elderly citizens who depend on it, he requires that Congress cut down on spending, reassess monetary and spending policies, and stop borrowing heavily from foreign investors, such as those in China, who hold U.S. Treasury bonds. Paul believes young Americans should be able to opt out of the system if they would like not to pay Social Security taxes.

Minimization of market interference

Paul opposes virtually all federal interference with the market process. He also endorses defederalization of the health care system.

Paul was one of only three members of Congress that voted against the Sarbanes-Oxley Act: it "imposes costly new regulations on the financial services industry [that] are damaging American capital markets by providing an incentive for small US firms and foreign firms to deregister from US stock exchanges."

In an interview on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, Paul said he favors ending the United States Post Office legal monopoly on first class mail delivery by legalizing private competition.

Limiting spending to Constitutional powers
In order to restrict the federal government to its Constitutionally authorized functions, Paul regularly votes against almost all proposals for new government spending, initiatives, or taxes, often opposed by a heavy majority of his colleagues. On January 22, 2007, Paul was the lone member out of 415 voting to oppose a House measure to create a National Archives exhibit on slavery and Reconstruction, as an unauthorized use of taxpayer money.

In a speech on June 25, 2003, criticizing giving Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Tony Blair a Congressional Gold Medal of Honor, Paul said, "These medals generally have been proposed to recognize a life of service and leadership, and not for political reasons -- as evidenced by the overwhelming bipartisan support for awarding President Reagan, a Republican, a gold medal. These awards normally go to deserving individuals, which is why I have many times offered to contribute $100 of my own money, to be matched by other members, to finance these medals." He has also been criticized for being the only dissenting vote against giving Pope John Paul II, Rosa Parks, and Mother Teresa the medal. The medals and ceremonies held to bestow them on recipients are expensive. Texas Monthly awarded him the "Bum Steer" award for voting against a congressional honor for cartoonist Charles Schulz, but also noted, "When he was criticized for voting against the [Parks] medal, he chided his colleagues by challenging them to personally contribute $100 to mint the medal. No one did. At the time, Paul observed, 'It's easier to be generous with other people's money.'"

bsimon,
"Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think he even specified various metrics by which we could judge the progress of the surge - few of which have been achieved."

The surge has been more of a success than a failure so far. I don't know exactly how the metrics were written but one would have to think that in order to meet any political metrics or see any real political change, the violence would need to decrease first. That said, I don't think that there has been a lot of progress in the political area. Maybe it's still too soon? Maybe the people in charge are not capable enough to bring about the change? Maybe the change just ain't gonna come? That is, obviously, a good area for debate. The other aspect is that the Bush administration has been doing that diplomacy thing as of late, especially with the Turks/Kurds. Effectiveness is TBD but the effort, at least, is there. One could conclude that there is an, admittedly small, opportunity opening up for a chance at stabilizing the country. My animus towards Democrats is in the fact that they appear to not care about what actually happens in Iraq but more about what happens in DC. Say what you will of Republicans but they gave up congress standing on principle. Previous posts of yours have lead me to believe that you are a principled and thoughtful person (albeit wrong in many instances IMO:-). That has nothing to do with party affiliation. My post, while a response to yours, wasn't specifically intended as a indictment of you but more an expression of irritation at a holier than thou attitude by many Dems on the war, specifically members of congress. I can see the argument for withdrawing troops (I don't agree with it, but I see it) but the Dems are completely irresponsible and lacking principle in the way they are going about it.

As someone directly involved in high level Navy budgeting at the end of G H W Bush's term, I can categorically state that the sharp reductions in military spending started there. We were instructed to plan for sharply reduced budget levels for the second Bush I term that never came.

The main reason for this reduction - the collapse of the USSR. Our force structure was predominantly designed for anti-Soviet warfare. Take away that threat and much of our force structure became non-essential. For example, the Navy drastically reduced its attack submarine fleet - at least 80% of its mission was predicated upon the Soviet threat. Military force structures are designed to deal with potential threats, once the USSR collapsed there was disagreement over how the forces should be structured to meet new threats. There was also disagreement over exactly what the new threats would be and the best way to counter them. This resulted in a lot of compromises among Pentagon power centers over how to structure the budgets at the expense of a totally coherent plan for the future.

There was a lot of internal conflict over what direction the post-Cold War military should take. Many advocated lean, mobile, technologically advanced forces at the expense of heavy ground troops - like the forces stationed in Western Europe to counter a Soviet invasion. Gulf War I seemed to validate this concept - go in fast, knock out the enemy and leave. Rumsfeld was an extreme partisan of this approach and he held troop levels down even as the Iraq fiasco began to spin out of control. However, the occupation of Iraq turned out to require a lot of the equipment that such theorists thought were no longer needed in great quantities.

So the equipment shortage was driven more by Pentagon planners' theories about future requirements than any drastic "hollowing" of the military. One scenario that was definitely not contemplated was an extended occupation of a Moslem country.

The poster formerly known as JimD in FL

matthewanton:
RuPaul's twin is running. Her name is Rudy Giuliani.

The only difference between Rudy and Hillary is Rudy wears more dresses while Hillary wears more pantsuits.

I'm not really excited, as a Conservative, about this Presidential field. Guiliani is a social liberal and has lead a very creepy personal life. Fred Thompson, in my view, is a complete fake and he won't be receiving my vote in this nomination fight. Huckabee is a genuine guy, but has a moderately liberal fiscal record in Arkansas. Mitt Romney is a political opportunist. John McCain is also not always the best friend of taxpayers. That being said, Guiliani nor F. Thompson will be receiving my vote. Neither will any of the rest of the field. That leaves Romney, McCain & Huckabee. Huckabee must stake his claim to this race in Iowa and South Carolina, while McCain must stake his claim in New Hampshire. Honestly, I believe Ron Paul has a great shot to establish his candidacy in New Hampshire as well. As I am in NC, my vote for the Republican nomination likely won't count that much anyway as the nomination will be decided before my state votes. I just don't understand why the voting begins in January? It seems reasonable that the voting would start, maybe, in May to give the campaign a good 6 months. That's long enough as over a year is just too likely to long. I was hoping Neb. gov. Dave Heinemen or Ga. gov. Sonny Perdue would join the race...but that was not to be. So now it appears to be down to Guiliani vs. Romney vs. Huckabee vs. McCain vs. Paul. The fact that Paul is still very much in this thing is impressive. It will be interesting, and could be fairly unpredictable.

On another note, Obama's numbers in Iowa are very impressive. I keep going back to that Tom Harkin fish fry he attended last year. Remember your analysis on that, CC?

I am also frustrated that the is no mention of Ron Paul in this article. I am taking the time to educate myself on the candidates and it frustrates me to know that the polls tell me that it doesn't matter who I think would make the best Republican candidate, that it is already decided. Come on young Americans who are sick and tired of the crap......take a minute to educate yourselves and think outside the box.......

"Like you I'm proud of something: my name--Kling, my country--us(united states)."

My apologies, Mr/Ms "Kling" from the US. My bad, I guess.

In other news, a reasonably priced bridge up for sale today in Brooklyn.

Interesting to notice that this article mysteriously neglects to mention Ron Paul; slowly it is no mystery at all! Over 70% of New Hampshire voters are independents; the New Hampshire primary is open to all voters; who do you think has a good chance of picking up this 70%? Ron Paul, Ron Paul, Ron Paul!

Dear Republicans,
Please return to your roots.
Do not miss this golden opportunity to cement your status as the minority party for the next 20-years.
Go For It!

claudialong

"Is there a bigger hypocrite than you anywhere, David? Where is the article about the twisted relationships of Rudy, Donna, Regina, Crystal, and Judy? And these are just the ones he admits.
And his current wife, who is a certifiable nutcase, whom he wants to go to Cabinet meetings. Where's the article, David?"

Ha ha, good luck Claudia. Giuliani is shaping up to be Dubya II, and you know what that means. An utter and complete look-the-other-way act by the national media on any and all of his corruption and cronyism. The Post will probably sign on to the same Armstrong Williams/Maggie Gallagher type payoff system that they have apparently been on all throughout the Bush years. What Iraq lies? What Saddam-9/11 conflation? What war profiteering? But have we commented about the Clintons' marriage lately? Let's talk about that. Bill sure did harm the country with what he did with Monica behind those closed doors.

David Broder is such an empty suit.

Dear Chris Cillizza:

"Giuliani has the aura of his decisive response to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks..."

Question: what "decisions" did Mr. Giuliani make that day in "response" to the attacks? Please give specifics. There aren't any, other than him carrying a bullhorn around, and basically showing up (something any mayor would do as a natural part of his job). It was a difficult day, and we all felt solidarity with him and New York for being hit so blindly like that. But he did nothing - absolutely nothing - out of the ordinary.

Please, in the future, engage your brain before mindlessly repeating every unsupported cliche you have heard. Thank you very much.

Sincerely,
Americans for a Cognitively Functioning Media

proudtobeGOP:regarding your comment at 3:30...glad you think my name is interesting. Like you I'm proud of something: my name--Kling, my country--us(united states). Didn't mean to do anything more than to express approval for an individual's well stated comments. My apologies to anyone here who thought my comment had any other intention .

claudia: it's also the Bush/Cheney legacy. That would be former president George H.W. Bush and his SecDef Dick Cheney, creators of the so-called (their term) peace dividend following the collapse of the USSR: a drastically smaller US military.

'that is what is called the clinton legacy' -- no that is the rumsfeld legacy -- the 'leaner and meaner' military -- look it up.

Do you have a pet toad, zouk? That would explain a lot.

The problem with overlooking the "Ron Paul Factor" is that he is attracting anything but the likely primary voters that show up in the polls. This is going to dilute the sample during the primaries. For better or worse, his fund raising has him in the race until the end. The question is, whose 10-15% is he stealing in New Hampshire. Thompson and Huckabee are going to ensure that neither of them is able to pull ahead because they are both vying for the Social Conservative Vote. This is where Romney benefits. When Thompson and Huckabee, provided neither of them win anything in January, drop out after South Carolina, those people look to Romney. McCain's resurgence and the Ron Paul factor ensure that Guiliani performs really badly in January. Romney is doing well in a crowded field of social conservatives, and if and when Thompson and Huckabee drop out, Romney picks up those votes because of his early wins, has enough money to be competitive on February 5th. People in the February 5th states find out who he is, and apparently he is popular where he runs ads.(I'm from Minnesota and if I wasn't following the race I wouldn't know who he is), Romney is the nominee at this point I think.

In particularly blunt testimony, Schoomaker said the Army began the Iraq war "flat-footed" with a $56 billion equipment shortage.

that is what is called the clinton legacy and is typical of what happens under Dem control. the military budget is cut, all other budgets shoot up. In fact if we had the same level of military spending as clinton had, we would be in a big surplus right now. and our cities might be burning.

"water is poured into your lungs, and if they don't stop soon enough, you die."

yup, just like MaryJo Kopechne did.

' the thought of Senator Ted Kennedy scolding the new AG for something called waterboarding. you know the act whereby you are made to think you are drowning.'

actually, you ARE drowning. water is poured into your lungs, and if they don't stop soon enough, you die.

I thi k it was you that asked how low the current troop strength could last, bsimon:

'Warning that the active-duty Army "will break" under the strain of today's war-zone rotations, the nation's top Army general yesterday called for expanding the force by 7,000 or more soldiers a year and lifting Pentagon restrictions on involuntary call-ups of Army National Guard and Army Reserve troops.

Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, the Army's chief of staff, issued his most dire assessment yet of the toll of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan on the nation's main ground force. At one point, he banged his hand on a House committee-room table, saying the continuation of today's Pentagon policies is "not right."

In particularly blunt testimony, Schoomaker said the Army began the Iraq war "flat-footed" with a $56 billion equipment shortage. '

Looks like another former GOP bastion is trending toward the Dems:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/15/debate.preview/index.html

dave writes
"I was under the impression that this was why the Democrats obtained both houses of congress - to get us out of the war. Is there a good principled reason why the Democrats have not shut off funding for the war if that is what they got elected to do? If they had any backbone at all, they would never have passed any funding bill for Iraq."

Dave, I couldn't say. I don't work on capitol hill and, despite what you and others might think, am not a democrat. I voted for Tammy Lee in MN 5 (not Keith Ellison, who won) and Pat Fitzgerald for the Senate (a seat won by Amy Klobuchar).

Regarding the Dems in Congress, I tend to agree that they have failed to take the appropriate steps to change the course of the war in Iraq, though I agree with their decision not to just cut funding. Cutting funding is possibly the one alternative worse than the 'stay the course' plan we followed until Bush called for the surge (which was after his party lost Congress). On the surge itself, while violence is decreasing, we're not seeing the political change that the President called for when he ordered the surge. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think he even specified various metrics by which we could judge the progress of the surge - few of which have been achieved. What's our next move? Can we start bringing our volunteers home now?

as for the supposed strength of the anti-hillary vote - what about the strngth of the oh-my-god-not-another-$%&$@-crazy-republican-idiot-for-president vote?

.

FOX News Poll: McCain Performs Best Against Clinton
Thursday, November 15, 2007

While John McCain trails front-runner Rudy Giuliani in the race for the Republican nomination, slightly more Americans see McCain as a straight-talker and as honest and trustworthy than Giuliani; furthermore, for the second month in row McCain performs better against leading Democrat Hillary Clinton in hypothetical matchups than any other top-tier Republican, according to a FOX News poll released Thursday.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,311839,00.html

And despite Clinton having the highest negative rating of all the top contenders, she continues to hold a commanding lead in her party's primary.

That makes the dem party in a bit more disarray than the Rs, imo.

Speakig of Beavis & Butthead...
Man, Toad Arrested in Drug Bust
Wednesday, November 14, 2007

Missouri police made a peculiar drug bust this week when they caught a man with a toad he allegedly used to get high.

Both the man and the toad were taken into custody; the man susequently was released on bond, the toad remains detained at a police crime lab.

Look, it's not a bad comment and maybe on another day I would've been game, would've pointed out that a) Hillary hasn't been nominated yet, and b) John Kerry was still too lame to win against a proven failure like GWB thus demonstrating all too clearly that one must not be simply "not X" in order to win, so let's do what was proposed and discuss the R candidates rather than Hillary --

but there's something of a pattern with all the moonbat stuff, and the insults, and the screeds, and the ranting. It doesn't have to be me, it can be anyone, and I don't like it. It's not my style, and I don't want to get sucked into it. We can play another day.

The whig party was united in nothing except its opposition to Andrew Jackson. Eventually, this opportunistic coalition came apart at the seams. What is the modern "conservative" republican party? Is it all about opposition to homosexuals and abortion? Lower taxes for people making more than 250k a year, and "small government" (except when it comes to sureveillance and war)? Perpetual fear and neverending pre-emptive war? Nobody, it seems, will stand for all three of these things. Put them all together, like Ronald Reagan did, and you still only poll about 34%.

Buh-bye, whigs!

.

bsimon,
"We were still at war with Iraq"
Georgie boy sure solved that problem.

I was under the impression that this was why the Democrats obtained both houses of congress - to get us out of the war. Is there a good principled reason why the Democrats have not shut off funding for the war if that is what they got elected to do? If they had any backbone at all, they would never have passed any funding bill for Iraq. But they couldn't bring themselves to do that because they were afraid of being labeled as not supporting the troops (despite the fact they theoretically had the people on their side based on election results). They continued to fund it. They ridiculed the surge and went along with it, sure that it would fail and they would get their second mandate to end the war. When that did not go as they thought, they had to come up with plan C. So now they plan to screw everybody, contractors and government employees alike, by passing an Iraq funding bill that they know will be vetoed and make the DoD waste time, energy and money moving money around from DoD operations to Iraq to pay for the war. For what purpose? They still won't cut funding to the troops (Harry Reid says they will 'eventually' get around to a funding bill). This exercise in principle will be a great Christmas present to the people that lose their jobs in the next couple of months simply because the Democrats don't have the b*lls to do what they think is the right thing.

onestring: some of the wingnuts, like Robertson, have given up any pretense of principles and have fallen in line behind Rudy. Watch more to follow -- if they can't support a guy like Huckabee now, they never will before he is driven from the race.

It's like Al Davis says, "Just win baby!"

Jenn2 - "I really don't think any of them are electable"

I guess that all depends on how many "not hillary" voters there are out there. assume the country is essentially 50/50, or even 33/33/33. how many well-placed not-hillary votes will it take to make a red landslide? We are talking about PA, OH, etc. not the heart of hillary country.

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 15, 2007 12:40 PM

I didn't think this was ungentlemanly. I asked a fairly simple question that has serious implications. I have always liked you and respected your views, misguided as they are. but today you are running with a bad crowd.

Actually this race is VERY easy to analyze:

Republican moderates have been tossed out of the party if not "only ostracized" over the last 8 years by the radical wing-nut right that holds the microphone. The problem is there isn't anyone nutty enough running for the rightwing-nuts to get behind, and the moderates will determine the election... unless hillary is the Democratic party candidate.. then the wingnut right will be out in force.

Here's a funny one - the thought of Senator Ted Kennedy scolding the new AG for something called waterboarding. you know the act whereby you are made to think you are drowning.

If only she had simply believed she was drowning.

"Jenn2 - Are you vying for rufas slot?"

Zouk, surely you don't want to give that slot up so soon. You've barely had time to get comfortable with it.

Zouk, Proud started this particular line with a singularly idiotic insinuation about Claudia, which you'll see if you were to scroll backwards.

Let me guess, if I emulated Michelle Malkin and fired up the outrageomotron instead of making jokes about it, the line would be that libs have no sense of humor, right?

I am eminently capable of having a rational political dialogue. The problem is there are precious few people worth engaging. Should you ever decide to be a gentleman, do let me know.

"But holding the security gains we have made is the precondition of achieving a reasonable result in Iraq, and it won't happen without a substantial American troop presence."

For how much longer can we maintain a 'substantial troop presence'? Isn't the 'surge' coming to a close soon - whether we want it to or not? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the way I remember it is that we do not have a big enough armed forces to maintain the surge for much longer - unless deployments are extended beyond 15 months.

' But holding the security gains we have made is the precondition of achieving a reasonable result in Iraq, and it won't happen without a substantial American troop presence. "

But for how long? At what cost? We will be paying for it for generations. We are borrowing the money

' The Bush administration has now requested a total of over $800 billion for the direct costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Borrowing this money has resulted in an additional $60 billion in interest on war-related debt so far, with decades of future payments to come.'

'Fascinating that this is what passes for political dialogue among the moonbat wing of the surrender party.'

LOL -- idea of elevated debate, Jenn. He's the village idiot, but you knew that already. he does do a good job of keeping us amused, tho.

Jenn2 - I am surprised that you have elected to join in the trite sandbox antics of curly and moe. Are you vying for rufas slot?

Fascinating that this is what passes for political dialogue among the moonbat wing of the surrender party. no wonder you have such trouble winning an election fair and square in over 50 years. Keep talking. there is still 11% of the voters who don't get it yet.

It is still an acheivable and desirable goal to have a stable US friendly govt in Iraq. Yes, the gains we have made could be reversed unless the central government integrates Sunni security volunteers into the police force, among other things.

"The public is understandably skeptical of good news from Iraq .... But holding the security gains we have made is the precondition of achieving a reasonable result in Iraq, and it won't happen without a substantial American troop presence. "

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MThlYzIzMGUwMzg0YmRjMmU1MWI1YmI5ZmU3YjU5YTA=

The dem front-runner has said the same thing, it's not a matter of deciding if it's worth it now. We have a reasonable result in our sights.

Is that what happnes when there is no brain to construct a logical or original thought?

The Chalabi piece:

' Ahmad Chalabi sits in the conference room of his compound in the Green Zone preparing to meet with Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, the No. 2 U.S. military officer in Iraq.

Sunlight streams over expensive Persian carpets and modern Iraqi furniture. Chalabi wears a sober charcoal suit, but there's a touch of the dandy in his lime-colored polka-dot tie.

Chalabi professes not to even know what the meeting is about. The general, he says nonchalantly, requested it.

Ahmad Chalabi, it would appear, is back.

Three years ago when the U.S. military came calling on the onetime darling of Washington's neoconservatives, it raided 11 of his properties and left his compound in ruins.Chalabi, who helped the Bush administration make the case for the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq,denounced the American occupation of Iraq. It was the denouement to an increasingly fractured relationship between Washington and Chalabi, the Iraqi exile who provided intelligence about Saddam Hussein's alleged weapons of mass destruction program that proved to be false.

The Pentagon, which had provided millions of dollars to Chalabi's group, the Iraqi National Congress, cut off funding and accused him of passing sensitive U.S. secrets to Iran. His prospects appeared to reach a nadir last year, after his party failed to win a single seat in Iraq's 2005 parliamentary elections and he was later excluded from the government.'

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-chalabi13nov13,0,2576954.story?coll=la-home-world

There, there, zouk, Fred Thompson is a hottie, Ann Coulter's a woman, and Rudy Giuliani prefers men's clothes.

I'm a mom and I like to keep it clean.

funny, since you are the only one on here that peppers your deluge with obscenities. are you so unaware as to not even know what you post? Is that what happnes when there is no brain to slow the reflex?

'I see the conversation has turned to the state of Dem intellect.'

Yes becausse if it was R intellect, there would be nothing to say.

claudia: I think her admirers like seeing that big ol' adam's apple. It makes their lusting after her even more naughty!

Yeah, Loudon if only she'd wear a turtleneck it would be more effective.

the sky is falling, the sky is falling. this time for sure.

In drindl's world, there is nothing worse than the thought of panties on a terrorists head. but the sky didn't fall.

I see the conversation has turned to the state of Dem intellect.

Jenn: What do you mean by "when she WAS a guy"? They make pretty strong masking tape these days. 8<D

Jenn -- she's Beavis, zouk is Butthead.

Maybe he knew Ann Coulter back when she was a guy and has been confused ever since...

'that liberation, democracy, and freedom were somehow the wrong goals, '

yeah, we got so much democracy in Iraq the administration is thinking that since the Shia Maliki won't allow Suunis in the police and military because he's afraid they'll turn on him, and because the key legislation that the so-called surge was all about has not been passed,that the US might want to reconfigure the government and put in some folks of their own choosing. That;s some interesting democracy there.Just heard your pal Michael O'Hanlon say that on NPR.

If the only way we can maintain Iraq's 'democracy' is to keep 160,000 troops there indefinitely, and destroy our own military and economy in the process, will that have been worth it for you?

LMFHO !!

Jenn: Proud's track record on gender identification is NVG.

Uh, a compliment is being "hit on"? You can identify the gender of someone called "rdklingus"? Are you Beavis, or Butthead?

dave writes
"f i follow this logic correctly a step further, that means that since the Dems have basically decided that HRC is their choice, that she defines what it means to be a Democrat these days. Based on that, I'm not sure which party is in a worse state."

I agree, and have said as much before.

'New York--Karl Rove, the former White House deputy chief of staff, will become a Newsweek contributor, offering occasional opinion pieces to the pages of the magazine and to Newsweek.com.'

so much for that old liberal media. I still have no idea what you're talking about proud -- guess I just don't have a dirty enough mind. I'm a mom and I like to keep it clean.

'WASHINGTON (Map, News) - Coming off the worst two weeks of her campaign, presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton returns to the debate stage today with hopes of regaining her footing.'

funny how all the media now use the exact same story line about hillary -- that they concocted.

and as I said, i'm not a supporter, but this a transparent kabuki.

bsimon,
..."Firstly, none really stand for whatever Republicanism is these days... Secondly, none really stand for what the country wants (which is 'anything but Republicanism' at this point). So none stand out. Republican primary voters are trying to figure out the latter more than the former, while they're also trying not to admit the failure of the existing administration. Is it really a surprise that they can't agree on a candidate?"

If i follow this logic correctly a step further, that means that since the Dems have basically decided that HRC is their choice, that she defines what it means to be a Democrat these days. Based on that, I'm not sure which party is in a worse state.

drindl - It's also the sound made by the left during their many previous proclamations of unmitigated disaster and failure in Iraq -- that the mission there was unwinnable, that the troop surge could not work, that liberation, democracy, and freedom were somehow the wrong goals, that we've already lost.

And Jenn2, ...I just thought it was funny that claudia got hit on here at the Fix.

Anyone else notice the interesting last name there? Claudia, flying the friendly skies I guess. :)

i have no clue what you are referring too--since you referenced me by name, please explain.

bsimon - The video clip is pretty clear on this...McCain was trying to interject a responsible tone into the conversation, and backed away from the questioner, wiped his brow, called for a "translation", another guy hollered that he thought it was a question about his ex-wife...and THEN McCain tried to answer the person's actual question which was "how to we beat Clinton in election" . McCain said that he respects Senator Clinton, which is more than she's ever said about any of her rivals I might add.

If Hillary actually answered any questions forthrightly, we might be able to compare answers, but that is not the case as we all now. More evidence of her non-answers and two-sided answers sure to come in tonight's debate.

'Chalabi would be dining at the WH' -- did you know? he's baaaaack. After gettig billions of US taxpayer dollars for false information, then getting his office and home raided by the CIA because of his spying for Iran, he was quietly installed in a major post by the US gov't, something like the oil ministry, natrually.

'why not invade australia? Or Jersey?' Why not? Makes as much sense as invading Iraq.

what is your hysterical and repetitive deal with 'ululation' - proud? it's the sound women in Iraq make to mourn their dead. I don't get it. Are you mocking them?

Whoa, I take that back. They can mock Hillary, and make insinuations about sexual orientation based on the posting names of completely different people.

I am not demanding intellectual heavyweights here, but seriously. I repeat. Better trolls.

That's a good editorial in the Globe. I love it that the MSM ends with "only 14 months to go." I mean, everybody except robber baron/divinely appointed rulers of Zouk, a magical ITB place, is so sick of what this country has become. And, actually, I think maybe some of the R's are too, you can tell because no matter what the discussion point is, they mock Hillary. All I can take from that is that they can't come up with anything better.

"LOL Look forward to more comments from you." Posted by: rdklingus

Anyone else notice the interesting last name there? Claudia, flying the friendly skies I guess. :)

"We were still at war with Iraq"

Georgie boy sure solved that problem.

Meanwhile, Thompson has those Hollywood rugged good looks of a president ....

CC what ever you are smoking, put down the pipe. If it be drink, step away from the keyboard.

The only person uglier than Thompson is Mayor 9/11, that is because his inside is just as ugly as the cover.

If I was Thompson I'd shave my butt and walk backwards.

'Why dooes it generate laughter from liberals when they call you a Beotch on SNL, but not when a McCain supporter says it?'

Becuase national politics is not a comedy show -- or at least, it didn't used to be.

"Why dooes it generate laughter from liberals when they call you a Beotch on SNL, but not when a McCain supporter says it?"

Not to defend her, but... I don't think its the question that is inappropriate, but the answer from McCain, that it was "a good question."

But then you knew that already.

Boy, you Libs are dense. why not invade australia? Or Jersey? If you haven't gotten it by now, perhaps there is some blocking force in your brain that doesn't allow any logic to penetrate.

We were still at war with Iraq, we had a dangerous no fly zone, they were sabre rattling and refusing UN requirements. they attack their neighbors regularly. If you think this is throwing darts at a board, I can see why your foireign policy is so weak over all those years. you are simply clueless in matters military.

Lots of interesting, informative comments here, but claudialong is especially very, very good!Fred Thompson as "animated jerky"..simply cannot ever look at the man now without this mental picture. LOL Look forward to more comments from you.

ALOT of us like Ron Paul! I know he's still running...or is he in another "class"?
Are we, his supporters, just a bunch of Constitutional supporting wackos?

LoudounVoter, et al -- Sometimes I just can't help myself, even though it creates spam for others. If it helps, my responses are all typed with a smile on my face. Candidly, I don't think KOZ believes 1/2 of what he posts. It's just another day at work for him/her.

Notice how vague notions of "local" success are all we've gotten as examples of political success in Iraq? Strange, since we were supposed to be greeted as liberators, the oil money would pay for the entire endeavor, and by this time Chalabi would be dining at the WH as the Prime Minister of a super western-friendly Iraq.

Hillary - do you still think that it requires the suspension of disbelief to consider that the surge may be working.
~ululation~

Or were you just saying that to score points with your loony base? ~ululation~

will you amend those remarks? ~ululation~

Why dooes it generate laughter from liberals when they call you a Beotch on SNL, but not when a McCain supporter says it? ~ululation~

Jenn: Is compassionate conservatism something like kinder and gentler?

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2007/11/15/nothing_kind_or_gentle_here/

"I still can't understand why you think that was a good idea."

Because that is what he is told to think.

'and the fact is that Iraq and Afghanistan are US friendly countrie'

Yet the US diplomatic corps doesn't want to serve in the new state-of-the-art embassy there. I believe one was recently quoted citing the security situation there, saying "Any other place in the world and the embassy would be closed." A US-friendly country indeed. Perhaps the robber-baron should wrangle hisself a golden appointment to be ambassador to Iraq.

'JD - I am one of the inside the beltway robber barons.'

In other words, in a mental hospital.

You know, I never did understand why Huckabee wasn't further ahead. He seemed to me to be pretty much the Republican party line ideologically, but plus a good history about his weight loss, arguably a tiny bit of compassion, and more or less a decent guy. He had a nice line on Jon Stewart once where he said he believed life began at conception, but it didn't end at birth, and he went on to talk in that sort of compassionate conservative vein. (Remember that? You may have forgotten that we have been living for 7 years under compassionate conservatism.) I always found it kind of bizarro world that they seemed to prefer a nasty piece of work like Guiliani. But, then I remember Krugman's thesis that for R's, compassion and empathy are verboten....and then it all makes sense...

Would it have been equally valid after 9/11 to attack Iran? Lebanon? Jordan? Saudi Arabia? They're all in the same region as Iraq. If it doesn't matter that the terrorists didn't come from Iraq, why did we pick Iraq to invade? Does it have anything to do with the conservative groups who'd been planning to invade Iraq since the 90s?

Afghanistan was the most logical place to attack after 9/11. And we attacked there, with near-unanimous support among both American politicians and the international community. We took down the regime that sponsored the 9/11 attacks and came close to catching the men who masterminded them. Then, for some reason, we diverted our resources to a country that was in no way related to the 9/11 attacks. I still can't understand why you think that was a good idea.

' I never claimed it matters that the exact terrorists came directly from Iraq.'

In other words, when startig a war, just throw a dart at a dartboard. Bingo!

'the actual villians were all dead remember.' But not their Saudi sponsors. So we didn't we attack Saudi?

'and the fact is that Iraq and Afghanistan are US friendly countrie'

ROLFLOL.. and he talks about the real world. that one was too hilarious to scroll by.

JD - I am one of the inside the beltway robber barons.

It's wild card time, people!

'In yet another sign of Mike Huckabee's surge in Iowa, a new poll released this morning shows that the Iowa GOP Primary has officially become a two person race between Huckabee and Mitt Romney -- and it's now unclear who's ahead.

The new American Research Group survey finds that Romney and Huckabee are effectively tied, with Romney at 26% and Huckabee at 24% among likely Republican caucus goers, well within the margin of error. Rudy and John McCain lag way behind at 11% and 10% respectively.

That's not all. The poll also finds that of among registered Republicans who say they'll definitely participate in the caucuses, Mike Huckabee has a slight edge over Romney, 24%-23%, though this is also a statistical tie. This suggests some solidifying bedrock support for Huckabee.

This poll echoes the findings of several other polls released this week.'

Loud and dumb - it strikes me that to maintain your worldview, you must be forced to ignore most things that are going on around you.

I am not sure how urging others to ignore me measures up as ignoring me. but you Libs have different ways.

I know you feel it is important to ignore substantial points which you can not refute, but eventually, the piper must be paid. hillary will have to answer Rudy's questions in the general. he is not a wimp like the rest of the Dems are.

for example - Hillary - do you still think that it requires the suspension of disbelief to consider that the surge may be working. Or were you just saying that to score points with your loony base? will you amend those remarks? It has been two months, you can take the other side now. you always do, why stop now?

"We've never seen it where the party has been so strong in terms of numbers and potential but deflated in terms of vision and leadership,"

This from Thompson's campaign... indeed.

"the UN ... voted to go along."

Outright lie.

The problem is that the Republic field is short of qualified believable candidates.

Not one of which would normally be considered of Presidential timbre.

Sadly, after GWB, they've become the party of low expectations, but don't see that more than three-quarters of America despise them.

'Colin: Please try to ignore that poster. Even a one-sentence response to him will result in one if not several multi-paragraph screeds.'

Really Colin, I know it's tempting to correct such hallucinatory ravings, but my finger gets so fatigued scrolling past the hysteria...

Hey KOZ, where do you live? Just wondering.

PS I'm not one of your attackers...

Blarg -are you stuck in 2002? I never claimed it matters that the exact terrorists came directly from Iraq. the fact is that Iraq was a sponsor of terror and the most logical place to topple. the actual villians were all dead remember. It is a question of where to stick in the pump to begin draining the swamp. whether the trail of who attacked us leads directly back is not the point, despite your party chanting it for five years.

and the fact is that Iraq and Afghanistan are US friendly countries - they were certainly not before. Calling Saddam uninvolved indicates you have a weak grasp on the reality of the situation. In fact there were at least 22 reasons given to invade Iraq and the UN and the Congress voted to go along. so who do you choose to blame for it taking too long? Even this week the congress still can't cut off funds - yet who do you blame?

you should get your head out of dogma and chanting and get into the real world for a change.

Chris writes:

"Meanwhile, Thompson has those Hollywood rugged good looks of a president...But his campaign seems to be in an ever-present state of turmoil, and the candidate himself is still dogged by questions of how badly he really wants the office."

Yeah, Hollywood rugged good looks of a persident - the bags under the eyes, the hound-dog jowls...Thanks for giving me the laugh of the day. As for his campaign being dogged by questions of Thompson's drive and ambition, I suspect this "dog" ain't in the hunt.

Chris writes:

"Meanwhile, Thompson has those Hollywood rugged good looks of a president...But his campaign seems to be in an ever-present state of turmoil, and the candidate himself is still dogged by questions of how badly he really wants the office."

Yeah, Hollywood rugged good looks of a persident - the bags under the eyes, the hound-dog jowls...Thanks for giving me the laugh of the day. As for his campaign being dogged by questions of Thompson's drive and ambition, I suspect this "dog" ain't in the hunt.

Be strong, Colin -- the first ignore is the toughest!

"Rather than continue to ignore the problem, President Bush decided to take action in the region."
Yes, he took action in the region. Iraq wasn't at all related to the 9/11 attack, but it's certainly in the same general region as the countries which were.

"The theory is that creating a democratic ally in the center of the swamp will allow progress in a bad part of the world."
As we all know, the best way to create allies is to invade an uninvolved country and force them into having a US-friendly government. Works like a charm!

I subscribe to the credo that if you speak to me like a gentleman, I will be happy to listen, but if you cannot, I will listen the next time I am stuck under a bridge. There's not much point spending time with rude and folks, except to bemoan the fact that they probably can find their way to a voting booth to vote their family values.

colin - best to listen to your ignorant comrade Loud and dumb. Stick to the clever one line insults with no depth or intellect.

what is taking you so long. it has been over two minutes.

Colin: Please try to ignore that poster. Even a one-sentence response to him will result in one if not several multi-paragraph screeds.

hiccup_colin - I knew you Libs had short attention spans, but really. do you always prematurely declare victory (defeat)? why yes, you do.

Hiccup_colin - i am surprised that after all this time you still don't get it. Let's review:

After years of being ignored, Islamist murderers attacked the US homeland again, this time scoring a decisive hit. Rather than continue to ignore the problem, President Bush decided to take action in the region. the theory is that creating a democratic ally in the center of the swamp will allow progress in a bad part of the world. Wars are messy, they don't go as planned. End result, it took longer than the attention spans of Lib voters and the lackey press. now the dominoes have started to fall. Libya, N Korea, you know the list.

the progress so far has been at the local level - not a bad model since our own progress in 1775 was similar. Once the locals are on board, the feds will follow. this may have not been the original plan but if it works, so what.

I can only guess that the Dem alternative is to turn tail abd run and hide. am I wrong? the years of clinton inaction and dallying and endless talking had a price to pay - with interest.

So we should alter our course because you "don't think we can help". but did you think the surge would work? that we would eliminate Saddam in weeks? In fact, the Libs have been pretty much wrong about every single prediction in this war. they predict based on electoral consequences - not on the good of the nation. and that is the whole problem.

Thanks JD, we may disagree on a lot but I think you're basically a really decent person.

KOZ -- Strange silence from you. I ask how we can solve a deeply ingrained religious and political problem with military force and you brag that Democrats can't force 'W' to change strategy. It's ALMOST as if you don't HAVE an actual plan...

i have one in mind...

Claudia, LOL!

"I was out sacrificing a parakeet to mark the beginning of the Dark Season."

Next time consider a chickenhawk.

' we missed you.' that's so sweet JD.

No, I was out sacrificing a parakeet to mark the beginning of the Dark Season. Also finishing a large project.

Congressional Dems Go 0 for 40 On Iraq War Votes Since taking the majority, Democrats have forced 40 votes on bills limiting President Bush's war policy but only one of those has passed both chambers, even though both are run by Democrats

busy, busy, busy. you Iraqis get back to work. We demand political progress NOW!

Let's give it another try:

House Democrats pushed through a $50 billion bill for the Iraq war Wednesday night that would require President Bush to start bringing troops home in coming weeks with a goal of ending combat by December 2008.

the approps bills can wait.

That's right, I forgot. 9/11 changed everything. So now, b/c a terrorist organization unconnected to Iraq attacked us, we are suddenly able to force religious groups that have been feuding in Iraq for generations to reconcile and form a functioning western style democracy. Wow, now that I know that I really WILL have to vote for Rudy. That guy gets it!

KOZ -- Actually, I rarely drink lattes after 8am. Thanks for the concern though. :)

I pointed out that there has been no political progress and that our military progress doesn't change that. Because I don't think we're going to solve an intractable religious and trible war that's been going on for literally hundreds if not thousands of years, yes I do think it's time to start a careful withdrawal of troops.

If you want to keep 160,000 folks there to serve as targets explain to me what your strategy is for actually achieving political success. Where your position keeps US troops in harms way, I think the burden rests rather squarely on you to explain why we should keep spending billions of dollars and our troops lives on what I see as fundamentally a political and religious problem.

US simply doesn't do nation building very well.

Except there was that little event in 2001 you may remember hearing about it. some rather tall buildings fell down.

Before Midway we weren't much good at carrier air battles, before Normandy, not too good at amphibious landings, before the MArch to the sea, not so good at foraging. But the US military adapts to circumstances. that is why they can always win if given the chance, without Lib political meddling for electoral gain.

Why can't the Lib party adapt to circumstances. Are you permenatly locked in 1968 - anti-war appeasement and all that rot?

Hiccup_colin - so in the Dem view we should immediately bug out and head for Darfur? hard tasks might spill your latte.

From today's WaPo:
The former governor of Massachusetts was just minding his own business, standing outside an adoption agency and riffing on the theme of children to assorted journalists and onlookers. CNN's Peter Hamby who reported the story describes the scene as follows, jittery real-life syntax and all:

"As it says in the Book of Psalms, what is it?," he [Romney] asked. "A hundred and twenty-six. Where did, I think it's the 126 chapter of Psalms, it says effectively this ... I'll be loose ..."

Someone in the crowd corrected him.

"One twenty-seven! I was only one off. A hundred and twenty-seven chapter of Psalms, it says, 'Children are an inheritance of the Lord, happy is he who hath his quiver full of them.' "

I have heard Romney invoke this verse more or less correctly before in discussions about abortion. This time, however, not only was his chapter-and-verse citation a little off, but he quoted a tad inaccurately as well. The King James rendering of Psalm 127:3-5 reads:

"Lo, children are an heritage [not inheritance] of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is his reward.

As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man; so are children of the youth.

Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them: they shall not be ashamed, but they shall speak with the enemies in the gate."

Although Romney presently has many enemies in the gates of the Palmetto State, I have yet to see any negative readings of this incident make their rounds across the Web.

To the best of my knowledge, no conservative Protestant has played the LDS card and exclaimed: "If Romney weren't so busy reading The Pearl of Great Price or The Book of Mormon, and stuck to our Christian canon, he would have gotten that scripture right."

(If this scenario seems absurd, please recall that some pundits have spent the better part of the week arguing about the precise positioning of Barack Obama's hands during the playing of the national anthem at a Steak Fry).

Were such an accusation to surface, I would immediately commuter-jet down to South Carolina and testify on behalf of Romney--though to what judicial body I am not certain--pausing solely to sample the local biscuits (about which I have received many enthusiastic reports).

Citing the scriptures with perfect precision, as all biblical scholars know, is a deceptively tricky feat.

There are tens of thousands of verses in the Old and New Testaments and consistently remembering their exact contents and addresses would strain the faculties of even the most sober university biblicist. (Admittedly, we tend to think of them in our own translations from the original languages so we usually cite them differently from everyone else).

Incorrect citation is an occupational hazard. Scriptural verses are the small vials of pure form nitroglycerin that a white-gloved exegete handles on a daily basis. Once in a while a mishap occurs.

My advice to candidates who drop scripture bombs in public is to refrain from chapter-and-verse references. Just mouth the damn words and get on with it!

Your target audience (i.e., Evangelicals) knows the Bible inside out; they won't need chapter and verse to know that you have just referenced the Good Book. And those holding arrows in their hands will have fewer targets of opportunity.

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/georgetown/2007/11/romneys_understandable_biblica.html#more

Romney- still trying to prove his Christian street-cred in SC.

2007 has been the deadliest year in Iraq yet -- despite admitted military improvement since the surge. No visible progress is being made politically, which has always been the argument for leaving Iraq -- you know, b/c you can't use military force to solve what is fundamentally a political and religious conflict.

Taking those facts, what should we believe? Well, if you listen to KOZ it means its time for another "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" speech for 'W.'

Good lord, won't you folks ever learn? Of course the US Militiary, if given sufficient numbers and resources, can reduce the amount of violence in Iraq. Without question we have the finest military in the world. Heck, I'm sure if we keep 160,000 troops in the country for the next decade we can keep violence at current levels indefinitely. But to what end if there is no political movement?

The neocons never do have an answer to that last question. I really wish George W would listen to his own statements in 2000 where he noted, accurately, that the US simply