bnwkuax rqhwepmov bigmhz lernoc pxmsyl kewayi bqdejhnw [URL]http://www.gvxnsblyp.xrgc.com[/URL] izdcl ekysjz

sacroi vgdokix xvkmbqf nvcuplr tixao hfutixv pyacz [URL=http://www.cqalos.oqmt.com]klcs jrnvzouiq[/URL]

dqgpkbhvr ngwxauhj klhjqincx yqtpuc mfndg jhmtfrb rbocgy bpcutmvd bvxwhqi

igzqpd prsqw wzrlxq dblmkfps lzxin eagbr kcqdyiweu

The thought of McCain at the helm give me goosebumps... I saw a trailer for a new independent movie that's coming to DVD where a guy moves to Canada in response to Kerry's defeat in '04. Any takers if the GOP takes capital hill again?

For more who knows, maybe the movie will inspire a whole new breed of border jumpers if the country goes red again...

You can check out the trailer at http://www.bluestatemovie.com

This election's slew of republican candidates scare the crap out of me... Its the extremely religious views they harbor that gets to me. Not sure if I can stick around if they manage to take the white house again. I saw this trailer for an independent movie called "Blue State" where the guy moves to Canada after the '04 defeat of Kerry. Who know, if the GOP takes the hill again Canada might have to brace for an immigration influx... Any takers?

Links for thought:

The movie is called "Blue State". Trailers, etc @ www.bluestatemovie.com

Canadian Immigration Office http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/index.asp

The majority of the comments here reflect one thing - most of us do not want another Clinton in the White House. We understand how polarizing Hillary is ~ my questions is: Why are we the only folks thinking rationally? I am a white 50 something female Dem and am not interested in another nasty Clinton/Repub debate, Clinton/Bush dynasty and another 4 years of a Clinton gridlocked congress. Where have all the rational people gone?

Chris, I have seen you on television many times. Surely enough to recognize you without a turbin or other garment, but I do take issue with you over not even giving the smallest of coverage to Ron paul and what his supporters said. Second place in a field of several is notable no matter who it is, so why the rub--on me. You see Chris, You need to know that I believe Ron Paul is the Only candidate to talk about the U.S. Constitution that I really like that!. www.theradioavenger.com

Soylent Green is people!

Budlikavian says:

"I wouldn't make too much of the idea that Bill Clinton is 'fighting (his wife's) battles.' He's a campaign operative, performing classic campaign operative moves. It may not always be pretty or heroic, but we'll forget how it's made when we finally get to eat the delicious sausage."

That book, 'To Serve Man'? IT'S A COOKBOOK!

"Calling for a revolution, Reagan chose those words from the writings of America's first great radical, and our first best selling writer. His name was Thomas Paine. Over two centuries ago this month, Paine's most famous book, COMMON SENSE, sold what today would be fifty million copies. Farmers in the fields stopped to read it."

Who did jefferson look up to? How did we get the constitutiona nd declaration of independance? Where did those ideals resinate. GOp (clinton included)! you need to take a long hard look in the mirror, and ask you selves what you are fighting for. Are you fighting for the past ro the future. Are you fighting for this great nation or something else?

If you believe what you all say gop. If you are patriots like you claim. You need to take a long hard examination on what you have done to this country AND WHAT YOU ARE GOING TO DO TO FIX IT. Or not. But choose wisely. this is not play time.

Bill Moyers is one of my favorites. I suggest taking a look at some of the work done by another Wisconsinite, Senator Proxmire, know for his "Golden Fleece" Awards. Th "Cold War" was but another tactic used by Repubs in their "Fear" strategy, when in fact if either the USSR or US would have launched a Nuke, both sides had enough sense to KNOW it would mean the end of our world.

Sarcasm is a poor substitute for analysis.

"Poll: More Americans think U.S. ready for black presidentStory Highlights
Nearly three quarters of whites believe U.S. is ready for a black president

Nearly six in 10 blacks believes the country is ready

Four in 10 believe Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream has been fulfilled
"

Sorry gop (clinton included). for all your efforts. Keep trying though. please show your faces and continue to use the race card, and say it is impossible. You show yoru hatred of this great nation. Move elsewhere gop. But where cna you be free? South america? Leftists. Africa, you wouldn't last a week. Europe. socialist you hate. Canada? Perhaps they will acconmidate you fascists. Perhaps not.

think about it gop. for all you rnonsense. Where can you get away with your racist fascist tactics elsewhere? Move there then.

BEtter to bring america back to what it was supposed to be. Not alter it to something it never was disgened for (money capitalism)

Since this entry is done for today, I'll post this regarding the regan comment :

"Bill Moyers Clarifies Reagan and MLK comments by Obama and Hillary
by cherbear
Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 01:37:23 PM PST
Barack Obama Ebenezer speech Jan 20,2008

Unity is the great need of the hour - the great need of this hour. Not because it sounds pleasant or because it makes us feel good, but because it's the only way we can overcome the essential deficit that exists in this country.
I'm not talking about a budget deficit. I'm not talking about a trade deficit. I'm not talking about a deficit of good ideas or new plans.
I'm talking about a moral deficit. I'm talking about an empathy deficit. I'm taking about an inability to recognize ourselves in one another; to understand that we are our brother's keeper; we are our sister's keeper; that, in the words of Dr. King, we are all tied together in a single garment of destiny.

cherbear's diary :: ::
Obama really hit the nail on the head with this speech and we should take heed as we plunge deeper into this election for President. The last week has seen us very divided in this country and judging by the polls after NV the damage might have already been done regarding dividing us further.

There has been alot of fuss about what Clinton said about MLK and now what Obama said about Reagan.

I just viewed Bill MOyers Journal online and he has clarified it all. Hopefully, this diary will help to put us back on track to what really is a very important time in our country. We are at a crossroads and if we take the wrong turn we might not be able to get back on track to do what is right for our children and their futures.

We must stop being guided by establishment think and MSM spin to cut to the core of what is real and what is not; what is fact and what is not fact. We must not be led like sheep recognizing that everything is politics and that the powers that be do not want to see change.

WE MUST THINK FOR OURSELVES AT THIS CRUCIAL MOMENT.

I am not for Clinton but he made me see that she was in fact correct in what she said. I have alot of disagreements regarding Mrs. Clinton but credit needs to be given where due. I now see on that specific statement she did not mean to be indifferent or insensitive. She just could not convey her thoughts in a 30 second soundbite. I fault the media. It was how she said it that left room for the MSM, pundits and others to stoke the already simmering fires of race within the collective.

Tensions are riding high and people are divided. In this democratic party the pc environment has pushed alot of the problems we have with race, class, gender etc underground because people in this party are so careful about not hurting each other's feelings by not saying the wrong thing that the negative space is rife with unsaid things that are better off being said. Isn't it better to acknowledge that there are problems than to push them under the rug and act as if they are not there? Maybe we need to rethink this 'pc' thing in our party.

If nothing else this whole dustup with race, gender and now the Reagan comment should teach us something. We really need to step back and really listen and really hear before we jump on each other's backs. Do we really want to go to the other extreme and behave just like republicans? Have we not had enough of the rancor and strife that their type of politics has pushed upon this nation? Shouldn't democrats treat each other with respect knowing that we have the same goals and visions for this country. Why are we tearing ourselves apart and calling each other names? Isn't this usually what republicans do to us? Why are we now doing it to ourselves? Look in the mirror! Do we like what we see as a party from, President Clinton's behavior recently, on down? Please view Bill Moyers and come back to a sense of self and place.

See Bill Moyer's excellent take on this here:

January 18, 2008
MOYERS ON CLINTON, OBAMA, KING AND JOHNSON: A Bill Moyers Essay
http://www.pbs.org/...

BILL MOYERS: If William Shakespeare were around I suspect he might describe the recent flap between the Obama and Clinton camps as much ado about nothing or a tempest in a teapot. Senator Clinton was heard to say that it took a president - Lyndon Johnson - to consummate the work of Martin Luther King by passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Almost no one in the media bothered to run the whole quote. Here it is:

HILLARY CLINTON: Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when he was able to get through Congress something that President Kennedy was hopeful to do, the president before had not even tried, but it took a president to get it done"

BILL MOYERS: There was nothing in that quote about race. It was an historical fact, an affirmation of the obvious. But critics pounced. THE NEW YORK TIMES published a lead editorial accusing Senator Clinton of "the distasteful implication that a black man needed the help of a white man to effect change." Suddenly we had a rhetorical inferno on our hands, with charges flying left and right, and pundits throwing gasoline on the tiniest of embers. Fortunately the furor has quieted down, and everyone's said they're sorry, except THE NEW YORK TIMES. But I can't resist this footnote to the story...

The Reagan comment, if you really listen to it, was not meant to say that Reagan was a good President. Obama could have been more artful but in essence he was acknowledging that Reagan did bring about radical change. He did not go into how he felt about that change he just made a statement. He was not wrong in what he was saying but when Democrats hear Reagan they just close down and are not willing to hear. I can understand that but isn't that how the Republicans have behaved towards us for the last 8 years? Look at how Bush has run this country and our foriegn policy. Do you think if he listened instead of forcing his ideas down the world's throat we would be in the position we are in today. We do not have to like or agree with an opponent or our enemy but should be not at least hear what they have to say? Isn't it better to 'know your enemy' as the saying goes? Many of you might not like what Obama is saying but credit needs to be given where due and Reagan did transform this country with big ideas. Whether it was for the good or bad depends on where you stand. Nevertheless, transformation is transformation and fact is fact and it needs to be acknowledged even if it cannot be be respected.

STOP BEING RULLED BY EMOTION ONLY AND TRY TO SEEK CLARITY AND ASK TO BE CLEAR IN THOUGHT. For difficult times are upon us and we will have to work together to get through them.

Moyer's helps to clarify Regean's role here:

January 18, 2008
Bill Moyers talks with Harvey J. Kaye
http://www.pbs.org/...

BILL MOYERS: Back in mid-January of 1980, another race for the Presidency was underway. As it is now, many Americans were worried about the economy and a failed policy in the Middle East. They hungered for change and hope.

Along came a former California governor named Ronald Reagan. He rallied his party at the Republican National Convention with these patriotic words: "We have it in our power to begin the world over again."

Calling for a revolution, Reagan chose those words from the writings of America's first great radical, and our first best selling writer. His name was Thomas Paine. Over two centuries ago this month, Paine's most famous book, COMMON SENSE, sold what today would be fifty million copies. Farmers in the fields stopped to read it.

Other influential works followed including THE AMERICAN CRISIS which proclaimed, "These are times that try men's souls." George Washington took those words to heart when he ordered his troops to be read Paine's passionate call for liberty as they went into battle.

Thomas Paine's extraordinary life was both glorious and tragic. He was not always revered by some of our other founding fathers. You can read the story in this book by Harvey J. Kaye, THOMAS PAINE AND THE PROMISE OF AMERICA. Harvey Kaye teaches history and social change at the University of Wisconsin Green Bay. He has dedicated much of his life arguing for Paine's decisive influence on the American experiment in democracy. Harvey J. Kaye was in town this week lecturing on Tom Paine. And he's with us now. Welcome...

'None of our hands are clean' Obama said yesterday in his Ebenezer speech. This is truth spoken to power.
We have a collective responsibility to be honest about who we are as a people. There are so many problems to be fixed that we cannot afford to waste anymore time with trivialities. I am in no way saying that issues of race, class, gender etc are not real but we need to begin to address this issues honestly and in a forthright way. How are we ever going to get the big things done if we do not find a way to rise above the complex issues that vex us?

To me it goes back to Obama's quote above we have to unite around the things we have in common and work from there. Yes! it will be difficult but we can do it. Look at our history and the examples set by those who worked their fingers to the bone for this country to be realized. Yes! they could have build this country up in a better way but what is done is done. We cannot go back. We have to go forward. So lets put our slights behind us and figure out a way forward through dialogue and mutual respect of our differences while acknowleging that the thing that joins us together immigrant, citizen, woman, man, child, brother, sister, black, white, asian etc is the common goal to rebuild this country brick by brick for the good of our children.

THE TIME IS NOW! NOT TOMORROW NOT YESTERDAY BUT NOW!

Peace and one love to
"

r

u

f

u

s

"Rufus, the closer you get to pols, the sharper your elbows must become.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 21, 2008 03:38 PM
"

Old rules. they no longer apply. Like the old "If your not a dem by 20 you got no heart. If your not a r by 30 you got no brians".

old rules. Gop propoganda. May have worked when they held a monopoly of media. No more.

If we lose our soul fighting the enemy, we lose. Like with the gop and terrorists. they have become terrorists to fix them. I, and my movement will not recipracate. That is why we must win.

It's like we're back in high school. Yeah you can cheat on the tests and get good grades. You may have to answer if you get caught. But if you get caught is everything you did and do then corrupted by what you had to do to get there? Yes it is.

Better to keep integrity and soul. It's all we got. If we sacrafice that, we have nothing. everything else is icing, bells and whistles. In the end all we have is our soul/self and intergirty

Interesting. So the Democrats have lied to minorities for so long that now the minorities believe the lies. But now white Republicans, as represented by you, will tell the minorities the truth, and make them realize that they've been enslaved by the Democrats. Who aren't racist, because there's nothing racist about phrases like "enslavement of poor minorities".

And of course those statements are lies. Rich white men oppressing minorities? That's crazy talk! Never happened! Except for when the Democrats oppress minorities, which apparently they do all the time.

Race relations are complicated!

"Are these minorities so stupid that they don't know which party better represents them?"

If you're told that your conditions are not your fault - that the government can help you - that the rich white man has oppressed you - for long enough...

And I didn't say D's were racist (try reading what I wrote, rather than responding to what you think I wrote). I am merely saying it's laughable for Claudia to get on her high horse and call R's racists, when it seems to me that D's are no better in their enslavement of poor minorities for the pursuit of power (through votes).

It's kind of like Vitter talking about family values -- it's especially hypocritical.

Breaking:

Larry Sinclair alledges Barack Obama of using cocaine with him and having homosexual relations with him, in 1999, while Obama served in the IL legislature.

Sinclair offers to take polygraph.

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

For your viewing pleasure, the TX Lege violating its own voting rules willy-nilly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eG6X-xtVask

Rufus, the closer you get to pols, the sharper your elbows must become.

claudialong - "'That the USSR ended without a shot is due to Gorby and Reagan.'

exactly. gorby had a big part in it."

Liberals keeps telling me that taking half a quote out of context and twisting it to support your point was supposed to be the sole dominion of republicans.

I should add that Blacks were a majority D from FDR's time, before which they were mainly R.

But LBJ cemented the kind of 9-1 split Blacks give Ds today.

I know you are not asking me, Blarg, but here goes my $.02.

The obstructionists to Civil Rights were the dixiecrats in combination with the most conservative Rs from 1948 - 1964.

In 1960, blacks walked out of the DNConvention b/c of JFK's softness on Civil Rights.

Then, in 1964, Blacks were excluded from all southern delegations to the RNConvention for the first time, and George Romney led a liberal R walkout on the Conv.

MLK reacted by announcing his opposition to Goldwater; daily.

Black voters were welcomed by the Ds. LBJ called in every
card he had, to pass the Civil Rights Acts of '64 and '65.
He told his press sec., Bill Moyers, that he had lost the south to the Rs for their lifetimes, but it was a price worth paying.

Blacks have been heavily D, since.

I do not think the roots are deeper - today the Rs are not institutionally racist and the Ds are not institutionally buying black votes.

Welfare always had more whites than blacks on its rolls, depite the stereotypes. And that kind of welfare is dead, and those who were on permanent welfare did not vote in large numbers anyway.

The Army is still the best place for blacks to advance in America. Black vets are likely to support McC against HRC. The ones I know would split on BHO, if McC were the R.

so one guy.

Right blarg. Why does no on go on fox? they use ann coulter to talk about the democtaic/liberal mindset.

they stick a professor next to a comedian and give them equal voice. "global warming is a myth". "Barack Obama is a terorrist".

you lost gop. Try and save your party. As you can see by the elections, the fox and rush mode of thinking is over. do not cling on to it. It can't vanish fast enough imo

Zouk: Ever heard of Strom Thurmond? Are you going to argue that he was a liberal Democrat in 1948 or 1964?

Mike: When did I say anything about white extremists or Jane Fonda? Please try to respond to what I actually say, not your imagination about what a liberal would say. While you're at it, answer my question. Why do minorities vote for racist Democrats, instead of the non-racist Republicans who were behind civil rights? Are these minorities so stupid that they don't know which party better represents them?

gorby had a big part in it.

Just like Jefferson Davis had a big part in it. Ohh, Lincoln too. a little credit for the tall bearded guy with the stovepipe hat.

I wonder why hillary or Obama haven't spoken to the NRA? why they won't go on Fox?

could it be the Lib super-sensitivity about Political correctness is backfiring on them now? talk about Karma.

fight amongst yourselves.

oops forgot the link

http://my.barackobama.com/page/invite/mlkvideo

r

u

f

u

s

Your living in the past go. Decades if not centuries in the past. If you fear the future, you risk eliminating it. Change is at hand. Either embarce change, or get left decades if not centuries in the past. I could say that is where you belong, bu tI am a christian man. i love my "enemies" and want to bring them along. that is what seperates true chrsitianity and true american ideals from the gop. and why the gop are party loyalists about to render themselves irrelevant. If the president is their king and they his subjects. If they do not represent america, who and what do they represent? the represent business. The represent fascism. Tehy represent ecomin slavery. Everything that america was made to fight against. They are sabotuers who play divide and conquer for profit. Their time is done america. do not pity the fascist. They made their bed. To not force them to sleep in it does not help them, or anyone. Force them to sleep in the bed they made.

'That the USSR ended without a shot is due to Gorby and Reagan.'

exactly. gorby had a big part in it.

'WASHINGTON -- Three of the four leading Republican presidential candidates turned down invitations to a PBS debate this month at a historically black college in Baltimore, leading moderator Tavis Smiley on Thursday to accuse them of ignoring minority voters.

Smiley told USA TODAY the rejections are part of a pattern, noting most GOP candidates declined invitations to address several black and Hispanic groups, including a Univision debate for a Latino audience.'

To anyone that doesn't know. Zouk is a fascist. Admits it.

USMC_Mike - it is interesting to look at Detroit as an example of Liberal policy run amok, and its consequences. In the 50s it was the richest american city, now it is 66th. the culprit - high taxes, large bureaucracy, powerful unions, liberal policies, bad education, weak on crime, ineffective government - in short the Lib utopia.

Let the Libs rule the land and we can expect the same results for the rest of us.

"If you listen to liberals, there is no place for God in Government and that religious groups are nothing but narrow minded bigots. However, the facts in this case show just the opposite to be true. I guess you could say the Religious Right " imposed their moral will " on society to help pass The Civil Rights Act.

Posted by: kingofzouk | January 21, 2008 02:20 PM

"

It's not liberals who are trying to remove religon FROM POLITICS. It was the founding fathers. If you hate this country move to south america. Or africa. Or some place you feel is better. If you love america they you love the seperation of church and state. Why do you hate america? And what are you going to do about it? Sabotage until it is no more. What do you get out of that?

Racist*

What does the term liberal really mean? Progressive?

the gop is done. do not humor them. Lincoln freed the slaves centuries ago. What has teh gop done for not only black asian latino, but poor people, since? Other than mock them. Other than tell them it's their fault their poor, and the sysem is fair.

The system is fair, where you put money in banks and it grows. If yo have no money you open an account and they suck you dry with fees. Someone's got to pay those interests rates to the top?

The system is not only tilted, but criminally so. Where the ceo's take hundreds of millions OF THEIR EMPLOUYEES MONEY.

I told you if you don't stand up to the gop then their actions are presendence, if they are not held to account. Even if they are held to account, enron, soemtimes they still set the presedent. Crimes are not presendant, due to the gop. Treason is now presednet due to the gop.

If we do not hold the criminals to account and change the game and rules, we allow the past gop criminality to set presenednce. don't allow you rmoney to be taken and your brothers to be killed. this is a nation controled by the people. Time to make the gop and soem sell-out moderate dem's remember that again. Bribery and treason and punsihable by thirty years each. Throw the criminals in jail. break the chain

Blarg -- sure, the white extremists tend to be R's. But to say that they represent the party is like saying Jane Fonda and moveon.org represents your party.

I would argue that would be worse.

But my point was, it's no *less* raccist than to create a class of people permanently dependent on the tit of the government, in effect buying their votes.

Yes, they vote Democratic. What has it got them?

My wife grew up in South Side San Antonio.

Strongly Democratic for living memory.

Is, has been, always will be, a slum.

What have their Democrat leaders got them? Handouts? Because it's definitely not jobs.

Or, education. But I blame both parties for that.

Let's not even talk about the Party of Lincoln who freed the slaves. what party was that again, I keep forgetting?

Those people then left the Democratic Party to become conservative Southern Republicans.

Like who? more liberal mythology meant to torture facts to tell them what they want to hear.

Under normal circumstances a bill such as this sent to the Senate would be reviewed by the Senate Judiciary Committee. In this case however, the whole Senate voted to bypass the Democrat lead judiciary committee and take it straight to the full Senate for immediate consideration. Senate opponents of HR 7152 lead by

Al Gore Sr. ( D-TN. ) and Robert Byrd ( D-W.VA. ) made repeated attempts ( via " motion to table " ) to have the bill sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee headed by Sen. James O. Eastland ( D - Mississippi )

where they would have then killed it.

Robert Byrd's Filibuster:

Just before the Cloture vote ( vote to end debate ) was taken, Sen. Robert C. Byrd ( D-W.Va. ) set the record for the longest speech of the 1964 filibuster. Byrd began talking at 7:38 PM June 9 and continued speaking all night, winding up at 9:51am the following morning.

********************

Responding to attempts by Democrats to gut the bill, Minority Leader Everet MicKinley Dirksen ( R - Ill. ) warned that Republicans would reject the bill if it were gutted by Senate Democrats.

Notable quotes from Republican Minority Leader Dirksen:
" Civil Rights - Here is an idea whose time has come. let the editors rave at will and let the states fulminate at will, but the time has come and it can't be stopped. "

" Stronger than all armies is an idea whose time has come. "

" this is an idea whose time has come. It will not be stayed, it will not be denied. "

" Members of the Senate, we are confronted with a moral issue. Face the issue and approve cloture. "

********************

Much credit was given to the influence of Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish groups in The Republican Party.
So what we have here is the so-called" Religious Right, " the most demonized and hated group by Liberals today actually having influenced Republicans to vote in favor of The 1964 Civil Rights act.....

If you listen to liberals, there is no place for God in Government and that religious groups are nothing but narrow minded bigots. However, the facts in this case show just the opposite to be true. I guess you could say the Religious Right " imposed their moral will " on society to help pass The Civil Rights Act.

Stay on topic people.

Who's more racist? Klu klux klan or skin heads? Who cares, they're both racists. And they're both republcains

Mike: You claim that Democrats are racist, and that Republicans are actually the party that supports minorities. So why is it that minorities overwhelmingly support Democrats? Clearly they're supporting racists who secretly hate them. Are they brainwashed? Are they stupid? And why is it that only white Republicans can see through this conspiracy and tell minorities what's REALLY best for them?

Living in Nevada, I always heard and thought that the rural areas always backed conservative republican candidates. This being the case then Obama was victorious in winning these hard core conservative republicans.

"Likewise I retract the actual votes from 1964 that paints an unflattering view of Liberals."

Actually, it painted an unflattering view of conservative Southern Democrats. Those people then left the Democratic Party to become conservative Southern Republicans. Republicans conveniently forget that every time this topic comes up. Remember, one of the Democrats in that unflattering view was Strom Thurmond. Which party did he associate with for the last 50 years of his life?

Creating a permanent helpless class dependent on government [aka, buying a permanent voting bloc], is neither freedom nor equality. It's exploitation, and it's morally repugnant.

Claudia seriously trying to imply R's are raccists.

Who's more raccist

The party who freed the slaves, passed civil rights legislation, and promotes equality of opportunity in this country?

--or--

The party who exploits poor minorities, buying their votes with government handouts, but who never actually lifted a finger to help them?

Actions are louder than words.

claudialong,

The USSR was not a perceived enemy, it was a real enemy (unlike say, Syria). If you think that Gorby would have just up and dissolved the USSR and let Eastern Europe become free without being driven to it by Reagan/Thatcher/and several other leaders and their policies and words, your looking at history through the DNC prism. That the USSR ended without a shot is due to Gorby and Reagan. That it ended when it did, is mostly due to Reagan/Thatcher et al.

Likewise I retract the actual votes from 1964 that paints an unflattering view of Liberals.

Instead, I will begin chanting that "All Republicans are racist bigots". by the time you sing this the 100th time, you get into a trance like state and it begins to resemble the truth to the victim.

Ooops, did I say victim, I meant newly enlightened progressive individual.

Gordon's girl wrote:
"Story idea? It seems to me that, outside of metropolitan areas, Obama is having no problem at all winning white votes. The reason he pulled ahead in Nevada delegates - and did okay in New Hampshire- is due to white, rural voters. I'd love to see this fact addressed and explored."

I think that this can be explained by examining the nature of the campaigns. The Clinton campaign is a top down organization filled with many long time party loyalists who know how to operate the levers of their political machinery which works best where people congregate more densely. In cities, it is easier for campaigns to influence voters. A top down organization goes for numbers. Cities are the low hanging fruit. Low density areas require too much effort and diminishing returns.

A bottom up organization, on the other hand, has a different dynamic. It grows organically, at the grassroots. It can flourish where a top down organization gets bogged down. It isn't crushed by power brokers or saturation advertising. There simply isn't enough money or manpower for a top down organization to compete with a grassroots movement in the low density areas.

I think this pretty much explains it. I don't think it has anything to do with race or gender.

" sour economy"

hahahaha

yOUR RIGHT DITTOHEAD.

HAHAHHA.

What is a dittohead anyway? does it mean you give yourself to another man? HAHAHAH.

foot tappers :)

Dave, I regret to inform you that the facts you cite interfere with the pessimism of the NYTimes and the Liberal party in general. they will be hard pressed enough to win a presidential election again this century much less with a clinton as the candidate. therefore, please refrain from any facts when debating with Dems or Libs. It is an unfair advantage that will certainly cause them to lose their wits. With the war going well now, the " sour economy" is the only talking point left to convince gullible Lib voters to come out from in front of Oprah to vote.

Chris C, when you say that Edwards will fracture the 'change vote' (siphoning off delegates from Obama), it's probably more accurately described as the 'anybody but HRC' vote.

Also, how sad that this doesn't apply in SC, if your supposition is correct that it's Obama vs two people 'splitting the white vote'. If so, this reflects very poorly on SC (and, by implication, blacks, since you said that this is due to the heavy black presence there).

What happened to voting for the best person for the job? I know that that is anethema to the Democratic party's principles, but such racism (on MLK day) is so unnecessary.

Truth Hunter - 'Reagan and Bush's tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy have only "trickled up" while middle-class wages lag behind inflation, employment growth and job creation flounder and the national/personal debt load strangles the economy.'

With posts like this, you are going to need to change your nom de plume...

Per capita gross domestic product has increased by more than 65 percent since 1979 -- growth that translates to $26,000 per household. If all that money had gone to the richest 10th of the population, it would now hold more than 60 percent of the national income. That's nearly twice as much as the super rich actually have, according to the best census surveys available.

The 2004 Survey of Consumer Finances, which does not include business debt, showed that 54 percent of households had no credit card debt after paying their monthly bill and that the average household credit card debt was just over $2,300.

Mortgages, which represent 79 percent of all debt, are the more pressing concern. But even according to the most pessimistic estimates, only 1 to 2 percent of homeowners will be forced into foreclosure in the next few years. Assets have grown faster than debts for most middle-class families. Median net worth has grown 35 percent since 1989, according to the Federal Reserve Board, and only 15 percent of households have debt payments worth more than 40 percent of their income or are 60 days late on any debt payment.

"Even this Bush administration's own Council of Economic Advisers dates the beginning of the real economic boom to 1995 during Clinton's first term."

Wouldn't that be the year after R's captured Congress?

Somewhere, though, the sky is falling...

fringe on the left.'
aka drindl

Whatever - ignore the facts:

The Vote 1964 civil rights act

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

D)Yes - 145 - 62% R) Yes - 137 - 78%

D) No - 90 - 34% R) No - 38 - 22%

SENATE

D) Yes -42 - 66% R) Yes - 28 - 80%

D) No - 23 - 34% D )No - 7 - 20%

'The real division is between red-white-and-blue America and a fringe on the left.'

LOL. as usuall. so now we have our answer as to where the mccain haters will go -- draft newtie.

regarding the obama reagan remark. Republicans! I know your living decades in the past, but reagan is not running. No candidate can speak for reagan.

Take the obama statement as nothing more but an olive branch. Look at the words he said. It had nothign to do with the policy as edwards and clinton have spun. It's bigger than that. How many people call themselves reagan foot soldiers? Why?

It's a cause, a movement, change. It's not abou tregan's policies. the gop (clinton included) is spinnign out of control. I told you they are done for a generation. You are witnessing a dying fish flopping around on land. Clinton would take the dem's down the same rabbit hole to save her party (gop). do not let her america. Not just democrats. Independants, do not let her destroy the democratic party. If she succeds we will have new parties as both will be destroyed by 2012. Are you ready for that america? I'm not. You think the change obama is bringing is to much? If we get new parties, and we will, think of the chagne then?

Better stop sabotaging gop (clinton included). You would not like what replaces the current

India for clinton. I feel you , looking out for our interests."

Looking our for your interests (india) that is

legan00 learns water is wet....

"kingofzouk, You're in denial."

India for clinton. I feel you , looking out for our interests. But in america we like candidates to represent america. Anyone putting other countires over their own, like clinton does, is not a patriot. choosinf another countries benefiet over the nation used to be called treason. Clinton will not and can not win. Even if she wins the nom, she loses. She is now a republcain in the mold of george bush.

He serves sadi arabia, she serves china and india. in 08 we elect a president that serves america. not india or their own interests. She sabotages not only her party but her nation for you. I hope your gratful india. I doubt it. Without the money you will hate us the next day. This is why it is better for OUR candidates to represent us, not you. No disrespect inteneded.

Go Newt:

As a first step, Gingrich busts the pernicious myth that America is divided between conservative red states and liberal blue states. As Gingrich points out, the American people are united on almost every important issue facing our country--including immigration, taxes, defending America, and freedom of religion. The real division is between red-white-and-blue America and a fringe on the left. Red-white-and-blue America believes overwhelmingly--by majorities of 70 percent or more--that we need a change in course. But our politicians aren't listening. Gingrich reveals why the Democratic Party can't deliver real change and why the Republican Party won't. He provides answers and a step-by-step, issue-by-issue toolkit for building a better America--the safe, innovative, and dynamic America we all want. What will take us from the world that fails to the world that works? Real change--the kind of change that happens when politicians drop their own agendas and respond to the will of the people. Newt Gingrich shows us how we can make real change a reality.

dave, i do commend Reagan for doing what none of the current R candidates say they will do -- which is talking to our perceived enemies. Gorbachev had thousands of nuclear weapons trained on our cities and Reagan still talked to him. But you have to give Gorbachev have the credit, as everyone did at that time:

'In 1990 Mikhail Gorbachev won the Nobel Peace Prize for helping to end the Cold War. "Time" Magazine named him Man of the Year and Man of the Decade. Former President Richard Nixon believed the Soviet leader should have been named Man of the Century for "risk[ing] his power...to save his reforms."

kingofzouk,

You're in denial. First of all, the dixiecrats became Republicans following the civil rights movement. Secondly, the Republican party has had its lowest turnout in years. The most Republicans to vote in the Iowa caucuses was 115, 000 in 1980. They received 114, 000 this year. The Democrats received 115, 000 new voters. And this pattern has played itself out in each state thus far. So tell me, are you going to reiterate Sean Hannity's talking points and put forth ideas of your own.

Debs

It's interesting to read the distorted and often completely out-there reasons people use for marginalizing Ron Paul- 'putting women in jail for Abortions, putting people out of Social Security, etc...). It merely shows how little people read and research these days before forming (?) their opinions. Most rely on either 30-second soundbites, offhand (and innaccurate) comments form print reporters (who also need to learn basic research), and (god help us) other posters' comments.

Let's put this in crass political terms first: The fact is, Ron Paul has demonstrated not only a wide and deep fundraising base, but also a steadily climbing increase in new and diverse voters rallying around his already solid 7-15% base in most states. All this with a concerted effort to marginalize and bury him (thanks, FOXMSNBCCBSNYTIMESWSJNEWSCORP!). WHile others blow thier political wad looking for the killshot early, ROn Paul is building momentum (and funding) for the long haul. His base is not merely a coalitio of splinter factions like evangelicals, women, minorities or the like- he has a broad-based support. Again if anyone did the research instead of taking pundit's invalid assertions of 'fringe' support, they would find a diverse group of all ages, races, ethnicities, gender and income levels, not to mention an ability to reach out across the political spectrum to unite diverse philosophies. BUt it is much easier to dismiss offhand rather than actually INVESTIGATE his support base!

When people actually LOOK at and read for themselves (not being spoon-fed innaccurate media blather) not only the actual policy positions Ron Paul takes (and has held for longer than one election cycle or primary!) but also the basis for these positions, and the plans for implementing them, they come to realize that his ideas are based in Rock-Solid economic and political models that the country USED to use as a basis for governing. They also will see that it is the abandonment of these principles of smaller government, fiscal restraint, dedication to individual liberties and resistance to corporate welfare and a governing nanny-state that has led us to the abyss of economic, social and moral collapse we now find America facing.

If people truly want to 'Change' the political, social and economic climate we are now trapped in, putting liptick on one of the same old political pigs now running for President will do nothing to change anything but the cosmetic facade on a crumbling system. Look deeply at 'your' candidate and ask yourself: 'how long has he or she held these positons, is their voting record reflective of the positions they now hold, and (most importantly) what special interest group(s) are they beholden to by virtue of fundraising and previous political patronage?'

The Doctor says that if your patient is not responding to treatment, if you keep applying more of the same treatment, you'll end up killing the patient. Listen to the good doctor! Why vote for someone who merely wants to tweak the failing system while leaving the rotting core to collapse? Ron Paul's ideas will cure the patient with some badly needed hard medicine, and will restore his patient 'America' to social, economic and political health once more.

But don't take MY word for it (or anyone else's for that matter!)- READ and RESEARCH for yourself, without the filter of punditry and mass media to sugar coat and castor oil the actual facts. Make up your OWN mind... After all, it's about who's best to lead- not who's ahead or who's winning! America is interviewing for the job of President. Sometimes the person most recommended by the mob is the absolute WORST person for the job, while the best candidate often comes in unheralded and without fanfare.

xtrabiggg
++++++++++++++++++++++

Obama Also Surprised to Learn Water is Wet

Barack Obama seems genuinely surprised to learn that Bill Clinton isn't always honest, particularly when it comes to describing his opponents.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=4162996&page=1

Welcome to our world, Barack. We've been here since, oh, 1992 at least.

"Chuck Norris brought his tough-guy approach to the campaign trail Sunday, taking aim at John McCain's age and suggesting the Arizona senator might not last even a single term."

On the one hand, its not an entirely inappropriate factor to consider. On the other, his mother was at his SC victory speech, so at least half his genes seem to produce longevity.

An appeal to Democratic Party voters in caucuses and primaries.

I appeal to all my democratic American brothers and sisters who are voting in the caucuses and primaries to select their presidential nominee. This appeal comes from a person from India, the biggest democratic nation.

Destiny awaits you. The greatest day in American history awaits you. The annals of history wait to be rewritten, provided you choose Hillary Clinton as your presidential nominee. Thus, for the first time in your history you won't have to say Americans never had a chance to elect a woman president. It doesn't end here.

I also appeal to Hillary Clinton to request, choose and declare Barack Obama as her vice presidential candidate. And I also appeal to Barack Obama to accept it in good faith, for better and not for worse. Thus, again for the first time in the history of this great nation you won't have to say we never had a black vice president.

KILL TWO BIRDS AT ONE SHOT! I wonder which Republican combination can challenge such a great duo.

Even in India we had woman prime minister and now president. And prior to as a nation, we had Queens like Rani of Janshi and others. Who have said that women are bad leaders or politicians? Why Americans have to shy away from electing a woman president? I know Americans are good people and they will all unitedly rise up to the occasion to elect a woman president and a black vice president, thus creating a new history in the history of this great nation.

From:

Ivo Oscar Faleiro.
Goa - INDIA.

Contact: ivofaleiro@gmail.com ; ivofaleiro@yahoo.co.in

PS: Please pass this appeal to all your American friends without fail and especially to Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton. God bless you all.

claudialong - "during reagan's second term, he was increasingly afflicted with alzheimer's and nancy increasingly not only spoke for him, but made policy decisions."

All that and he still managed to hold his own with Gorby and bring about the end of the cold war. Just imagine, he might have been successful if he had all his faculties...

Proud,
Nice article. I wholeheartedly agree the GOP needs to stop looking for the next Reagan and perhaps focus on learning the lessons of the original. I have not yet decided who I will be voting for and have eliminated none of the top 5 republicans. And in the FWIW, I took that Pick a prez quiz where they asked you a bunch of your positions on various things and then tell you how you line up against all the candidates. According to that, I should be voting for McCain.

--"Accuse your opponent of doing what you are doing, [in that way] [ so] you will know what you are doing." That is a little thing I use to teach youngsters about politics, and believe you me, it really works.

Posted by: lylepink | January 21, 2008 01:06 PM

"

We know it works pink. We see it in nevada. doesn't make it right or even legal. The cacues locations they were complaining about went for clintons. they scared teh culinary workers away. the clintons complained about to many voting booths then procedded to sign up illegals on the day of cacues. They ruan the whole cacues site I was at. AND SHe STILL LOST IN TERMS OF DELEGATES. She can't even win cheating. This is not over. Say wha tyou will. We just need to catch her gop suppression tactics one time to end her carrer, and her sell-out husbands.

claudialong,

Worse than that: George H.W. Bush voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

And all these people getting wet for Reagan on this blog need to pick up a book. This country has to clean up the mess Reagan left before we can get the mess the Bush ilk have left. If you earn less than $200,000 per annum, keep voting for Republicans. Tell me how that works out for you. $650 Billion annually for white, well-fed Republicans to play war with your neighbor's children. By 2012, according to the most conservative estimates, each of you will have spent $4,000 killing brown people. Tell me if it's as much fun in four years. Bravo! Always the thoughtful party. If Jesus Christ did come back, Republicans would be the first to castigate him for being brown. It must feel really good getting those tax cuts, huh? Keep it up! It's your conscience, not mine.

Free Debs

drindl, voters in AZ rejected MLK Day at the polls through '91, at least, but around '93 voted for it.

An AZ Senator would have not been repreenting his constituency in the 80s if he voted for it.

A holiday is in no way a matter of principle or clean government and a representative should represent his voters unless principle or issues of clean government dictate otherwise.

In a democracy the representative leads on principle and clean government, but should follow on most stuff.

So drindl tries to throw some mud up on the wall and make it stick.

Instead, let's examine the actual votes on the civil rights act. Anyone want to guess who was against it and who was for it?

Hint - they are an extinct species called dixie-crats. the other branch soon to be extinct is similarly called Democrats.

claudia, you left these out:

Republican President Ronald Reagan declared the day in honor of Martin Luther King, Jr.

(Robert E. Lee's birthday has been celebrated as a Virginia holiday since 1889. In 1904, the legislature added the birthday of Stonewall Jackson to the holiday, and Lee-Jackson Day was born.

Virginia, who since 1978 had celebrated King's Birthday in conjunction with New Years Day, made the change and simply tacked him onto Lee-Jackson Day. Thus Lee-Jackson-King Day was born.)

In January of 2000, Virginia's Republican Governor James Gilmore asked the Legislature to move Lee-Jackson Day to the previous Friday, which would give Martin Luther King, Jr. a holiday of his own.

I got an email from senator obama siting stories and irregularities. Even though he won the delegates this is abotu principle. this is not over yet. What clinton did here in nevada will not go unrecognized. Not if I have anything to say about it.

Think about it pink and clinton supporters. Obama won more delegates. Why then would peopel be speaking out if it isn't true? It would be moot, would it not? Illegals and old ladies. They ran the entire cacues's unjustly. NExt time we need peopel runnign the show that are independant, meaning for neither candidate. Dodd or biden supporters?:)

anyway, i'm sorry but huckabee looks like freakin Howdy Doody, i mean, seriously, look at him...

Very american, I guess, but not really the sort of image we want to project, i should think.

Those who tout Reaganomics must live in a different universe. Reagan's 1981 tax cut and credit-card spending led to the exact dismal economy we're again facing.

Even this Bush administration's own Council of Economic Advisers dates the beginning of the real economic boom to 1995 during Clinton's first term.

Reagan and Bush's tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy have only "trickled up" while middle-class wages lag behind inflation, employment growth and job creation flounder and the national/personal debt load strangles the economy.

Clinton didn't do everything right, but he did reverse the burgeoning national debt and grow the economy regardless of what the GOP Reagan-myth spinners want you to think. Can Hillary do the same?.... the jury's out.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

satire, mark, satire. i agree, is funny.

'WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Chuck Norris brought his tough-guy approach to the campaign trail Sunday, taking aim at John McCain's age and suggesting the Arizona senator might not last even a single term.'

huckabee is getting pretty down and dirty too, he's not the squeaky clean guy he's projecting either. got some really questionable/loony big supporters.

I notice a lot of Obama supporters are taking my advice--"Accuse your opponent of doing what you are doing, [in that way] [ so] you will know what you are doing." That is a little thing I use to teach youngsters about politics, and believe you me, it really works.

KOZ, that is the funniest post of the day, whether true or invented.

It's been interesting to see republicans co-opt MLK today. Did you know--

'McCain voted against the 1983 law to make King's birthday a national holiday?

Ron Paul published a newsletter that referred to the holiday as "Hate Whitey Day"?

18 of the 22 senators who opposed that 1983 law -- including Trent Lott and Orrin Hatch -- were Republicans?

Vice President Dick Cheney, as a congressman, voted against a 1979 measure to make King's birthday a national holiday?

The red states of Arizona and New Hampshire, didn't recognize the King Holiday until 2000?

It took until 2000 for Willard's beloved Utah to finally change their "Human Rights Day" to officially honor Martin Luther King?'

does anyone have mccain's explanation of why he voted against it? he may have had a good reason, but i have never heard it.

Good insight there Chris, If Obama has any chance in defeating the Clinton Political Machine then Edwards NEEDS to get out. A shame it won't happen, who ever said he was "toast" up there was right on I believe.

http://theghostofedmuskie.blogspot.com

Story idea? It seems to me that, outside of metropolitan areas, Obama is having no problem at all winning white votes. The reason he pulled ahead in Nevada delegates - and did okay in New Hampshire- is due to white, rural voters. I'd love to see this fact addressed and explored.

Could it be connected to the message already being sent from mostly-white states like Missouri, Montana, South Dakota and Nebraska, who've said that Clinton on the ticket would only hurt their states Democratic slates. Senators from three of the those four states have already endorsed Obama.

Brett Childers, a 48-year-old executive at the BMW plant outside Spartanburg, S.C., said he's been an Edwards fan since he first saw the former North Carolina senator's photo featured in a sample book of men's hair styles at his local salon. He voted for Edwards in 2004 and plans to do so again this year.

"I think it's really important to tell the special interests that pull the strings in Washington that we're not going to let them have their way with us anymore," Childers said. "John Edwards is the only candidate in either party who's willing to stand up to the power elite that really runs this country, run his fingers through his silken auburn locks, gaze at them disarmingly for a moment, then pout at them in a very meaningful way."

In Charleston, S.C., a small group of white men in Banana Republic and J. Crew clothes planted Edwards signs in a low-income, racially mixed neighborhood.

"We would normally never come here," Jonathan Winslow, 28, of Charleston, said. "There's not even a Starbucks in this neighborhood, if you can believe it. But these are the people who really ought to be voting for John Edwards and we're here to see that they get that message. And if they happen to see that we're all color coordinated, then that might impress them even more. I think the fact that we chose cranberry really makes us stand out. You don't see a lot of cranberry on this side of town, I can tell you that right now."

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12607

Mark,
You might have an argument with Ike. As he was before my time and my history classes seemed to skip over the part between WWII and Nixon, I can't really argue that well. Any thoughts JimD? Ford by virtue of politics at the time could not be one (but I would agree he had the disposition). The inspirational speaker list is accurate. I am in the process of slowly reading Reagan's Diary but nowhere near finished. From that account, however, he seemed he wanted to work and in fact liked to work with Congress, especially Tip. It's just that Congress and Reagan had farther to go to reach a middle ground.

bsimon, Reagan's optimism, and the end of 20% interest rates
overwhelmed the esoterica of mounting debt. Totally overwhelmed it. Also, Reagan had a terrific personality and Mondale had very little - like a dour Wisconsin pastor.

I heard Reagan speak on his GE tour to my "college" at Rice in 1961. He was just terrific as an engaging speaker. The mike went out during is speech and he never missed a beat - projecting without the mike he quipped
"You can be sure if it's Westinghouse".

'Good question. To the adults who remember, was the landslide about Mondale's policies, Ferraro being on the ticket, or something else entirely?'

he was a lousy candidate... reagan was very good. he was an actor, after all. he played an affable regular guy better than anyone. my dad was a union guy all his life and switched parties to vote for him and stayed a republican until 2006 when he switched parties because of the war and his only grandson being 18. he was in WWII --and he said to me -- 'seems like all i've ever seen is war. we never should have started this one.'

reagan also played a war hero in several movies-- though he never served -- as well as a cowboy, and was as appealing to american men as the marlboro man was at the time. you have to thing about our national stereotypes and unconscious desires/aspiratons to get a better sense of why candidates won at a partiuclar period in time, because hte process isn't logical.

I've been thinking about something and I must share it. I don't hate Hillary, and I don't love Obama, but I'm leaning towards Obama. The Republicans are just a silly people, anyway. My concern is that I don't think Bill Clinton ought to be able to campaign as vigorously as he currently does, until the Democratic nominee has been determined. Obama has to run against Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Bill Clinton. For this to be a fair fight, Jimmy Carter has to be on the stump everyday for Barack Obama. Granted, Bill Clinton is much more popular than Carter, but it's deeply unethical for the former President to be campaigning this vigorously. Besides, everyone with a working brain knew Hillary would win Nevada. But don't let Chris Cillizza, who is basically an unpaid surrogate for Hillary Rodham Clinton, frame this as an upset victory for Hillary. I'll break down the Feb. 5th states:
-Alabama: Obama
-Arkansas: Clinton
-Arizona: Obama
-Oklahoma: I have no idea.
-Missouri: Obama
-Kansas: No clue.
-California: Obama
-Utah: Clinton
-Idaho: Clinton
-Colorado: Obama
-Alaska: Clinton
-Illinois: Obama
-Massasschusetts: Obama
-Delaware: Probably Clinton.
-Connecticut: Clinton.
-New Jersey: Obama can win in Jersey, but I'm not sure if he will.
-New York: Clinton, but it will not be a blow out.
-Minnesota: Obama
-North Dakota: Clinton

Remind me which states I forgot. And count the delegates. I suspect that Edwards will endorse Obama following an unsettling defeat in South Carolina. I do think Obama must take South Carolina.

And to address what someone said earlier, NAFTA was actually put together by George H.W. Bush and implemented by Bill Clinton and the Republicans in Congress. In 1994, Al Gore debated NAFTA with Ross Perot on Larry King Live. Ross Perot earned over 19 million votes in 1992. Clinton & Gore abandoned those 19 million voters by implementing NAFTA and expanding deregulation; and now their apologists blame Ralph Nader for an election, which Clinton & Gore allowed Bush to steal. In that debate in '94 Al Gore claimed that NAFTA would not cost anyone their job(s). If you ever see Al Gore in public, you can remind him that it cost him his.

Eugene Debs '08

dave, Here's an article you might like...

Waiting for Reagan
You fight an election with the politicians you have.

"Conservative editorialists, radio hosts, and bloggers are unhappy. They don't like the Republican presidential field, and many of them have been heaping opprobrium on the various GOP candidates with astonishing vigor.

For example: John McCain--with a lifetime American Conservative Union rating of 82.3--is allegedly in no way a conservative. And, though the most favorably viewed of all the candidates right now, both among Republicans and the electorate as a whole, he would allegedly destroy the Republican party if nominated.

...So the conservative commentariat should take a deep breath, be a bit less judgmental about these individuals--and realize that there is not likely to be a second Reagan."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/607onvmn.asp?pg=2

Terrific cite, Dave.

I do remember the actual fight. I was representing the HeadStart program in Travis County and lobbying with USDA about every little bit of food that could be mustered under the budget cuts.

The mastermind of first term budget cuts was David Stockman, now, I think, in prison.

Stockman was gone by '84, as I recall, so that deadlines for economies became more realistic, rather than intentionally fatal.

'If not, what do you have to say about their tactics? Are they throwing teh democratic party and the country under the bus?'

my husband and i were both clinton supporters during his term. there were things that he did though, in retrospect that we don't think were desirable [trade deals not really favorable to this country for instance]. he was, however, quite active on terrorism and could have done much more had he no been hampered by this entire unnenessary entrapment/monica lewinsky circus.

however, having said that, i haven't liked a lot of what he and hillary have said on the campaign trail. unfortunately, i don't think obama is as clean as he appears to be either. I think --and this to you especially, optimyst, that a system which requires candiates to raise ungodly amounts of [tainted] money is not going to produce ethical candidates.

i honestly think that hill and bill believe that we are at an extremely dangerous nexus [we are, in so many ways] and that they/she would be the best leader for this country. i certainly think they would over any R except McCain. and personally, i don't really see much space between hillary and mccain's policies. after all, they are both good buddies of lieberman's...they are both pretty much what is called 'moderate.'

to your point, mark, and regarding the co- presidency thing, yo u may recall that during reagan's second term, he was increasingly afflicted with alzheimer's and nancy increasingly not only spoke for him, but made policy decisions.

bsimon,
Good heaven's bsimon, it was because it was "Morning in America"! The simple phrase that won the election was "Are you better off today than four years ago?" A huge majority overwhelmingly said yes.

The Clintons have intentionally distorted Barack Obama's record on a number
of issues. The American people are tired of politicians who lie and distort
their opponent's records to gain the edge. Our politicians should be held to
a higher standard. We should have politicians who are honest and above
tactics that are unethical, irresponsible, misleading and dishonest -- who lack principal and are willing to do anything to win. After all most of us teach our
children to be honest, ethical and not to lie. How can we have trust in our leaders to be frank with us when they have not
been honest and ethical on the campaign trail. Politicians who intentionally lie, distort and mislead are in all honesty not honorable people, and basically unethical -- not the kind of people we should want to
run or represent our country.

I can only hope that Barack Obama will not stoop down to their level while trying to set his record straight, which he must, against the lies and distortion their campaign are trying to get into the American psychy. These tactics are old time party politics and should be a thing of the past as we move towards the 21st Century, towards cleaner air, cleaner water, cleaner politics, towards a more holistic way of living. It is a greater duty and in the best interest of the country for Barack Obama to continue to stay positive and hopeful while attempting to bring this country together and
lift it up from fear an a distrust of one another -- to continue to show the
American people and the world there is another way to run for office other
than smear and fear. That is why Obama and Huckabee are so appealing. They
are authentic and each in their own way are trying to lead the Americans
away from dirty campaigning, lies and tricks. How can a country be blessed
after all that ugly and dirty fighting, it can't be. And too we have to ask
ourselves as a people, why do we allow this behavior to be acceptable and
reward this kind of negative behaviour, when we would not accept it in ourselves.

Mark, re: Ketsup
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/040716.html

"What about 1984?"

Good question. To the adults who remember, was the landslide about Mondale's policies, Ferraro being on the ticket, or something else entirely?

NevadaAndy - a minor quibble. It was US FARM POLICY, not NAFTA, which ignited the peasant infiltration from Mexico.

dave - I thought Ike was a uniter. Nobody since has worked harder with the leadership of Congress - leadership in the other party. Nobody worked harder to speak to the entire country, although he was in no way a good speaker.
--------------------
The ability to speak to all was a grace that JFK and RR and WJC had.
-------------------
Ford had the disposition to be a consensus builder.
-------------------
The perfect candidate does not exist. But a change in direction from guru [Atwater-
Begala-Rove] machinations would be welcome.

As long as Obama comes out of super Tuesday still within striking distance of Clinton, the nomination will go to the Convention in Denver and we will see a "brokered" nomination where the super delegates and Edwards will be the key players. Since super delegates can change votes, it's important for constituents of those delegates who support Hillary to write letters expressing their concern about the super delegates support of Clinton and expressing concern that this will affect their decision to suppot them when they run for re-election or a higher political office.

JFK overcame attacks by his opponents that he lacked experience in foreign affairs, and about his Catholic faith, and overcame the traditional assumption that a winning candidate had to have the support of entrenched party leaders from states with large blocs of electoral votes. Obama will overcome similar attacks!

Without all those illegals they signed up the day of the cauces, I saw it myself, they would not have "won". They had interp.'s signing up new people on the day.

Without clinton what would the gop point to? They are not worth it. the clintons are republcains. Their actions ok them for the gop to use. Without the clintons how would the gop justify their actions? They wouldn't. They would be removed from politics for 30 years. Where teh clintons NOW should be, based on what they are doing. Fricking republcains these days

"US Senator Barack Obama's presidential campaign on Sunday said that it had received reports of voting irregularities in Nevada's nominating caucuses, which were won by rival Hillary Clinton.
Spokesmen for Obama's campaign told reporters that a Clinton party handout urged registration lines for the caucuses Saturday to close at 11:30 am, whereas state party rules said anyone in line until 12:00 pm was to be allowed to participate.

"Despite clear rules and timelines laid out by the Nevada Democratic Party that caucus doors should remain open and voter registration should continue until noon, the Clinton campaign encouraged their operatives to close the caucus doors at 11:30 am, a half hour before that deadline," said spokesman Bill Burton.

"

Now is not the time to stand downa nd let the gop (clinton) steal another election. They can say whatever they want. What are they doing. the old days of propoganda not being called or moved on is over. We should validate every single vote this primary cycle. The gop (cliton) is done and will do anything to stop their downfall.

"it's interesting... i was an adult [well more or less] during reagan's time and i remember it all so differently from the myths and legends on both sides."

I was also an adult, more or less, and interestingly remember it quite different from you! Funny how that works. But your comment that he was not a 'uniter' made me think - who was the last president that was a 'uniter'? I think we can all agree that post 1992 needs no discussion. Leaving aside Reagan for the moment, it seems the next likely candidate would be Kennedy but I don't think that, prior to his assassination, he would have been considered a uniter. Ike? Truman? FDR? Maybe FDR but from stories from my elders, they either talk of him with reverence or distain. So my answer is Washington. Since him, I would submit that Reagan was as much a uniter as this country has seen (which is admittedly not much).

bsimon -- Well written stuff today. I tend to agree. I wouldn't write off a R winning '08 because of what you said about the D's deep desire to stick it to us.

lylepink writes "Mark: I think Reagan won mostly because Carter was not a good Prez"

What about 1984? Your Hillary fixation is showing again.

""To the extent that it implied that Sen. Clinton was trying to suppress Hispanic votes, I think that would be absolutely incorrect and unfair. I think that they were concerned about the fact that the Clinton ad -- that Clinton supporters, not the Clinton campaign -- the Clinton supporters had filed a lawsuit in the eleventh hour to try to change the rules of the caucus in the way that they thought would advantage them. And this happened right after the union endorsed me. So understandably, the union was upset," he added. "

the clinton strong arm tactics worked, for all my anger at it. They succesfully suppress the union vote. While at teh same time signing up and bringing in illegals themselves. They play the gop game of "I know you are but what am I".

slick WIlly indeed.

drindl, I thought Reagan's first term was a near disaster, for the reasons you cite [ketchup as a food group, enormous deficits, etc.].

But he had a much better second term, unlike GWB. Really, much better.

""I understand him wanting to promote his wife's candidacy," Obama said. "She's got a record that she can run on. But I think it's important that we try to maintain some -- you know, level of honesty and candor during the course of the campaign. If we don't, then we feed the cynicism that has led so many Americans to be turned off to politics."

"

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=4162996&page=1

r

u

f

u

s

What's up drindl? What say you on my nevada cacues post? Are you turning to clinton? If so why? Maybe you can help me.

If not, what do you have to say about their tactics? Are they throwing teh democratic party and the country under the bus? For what, hillary cliton? Is she more important than the democraic party? Is her winning more important that the will and good of the nation? choosing party or self over country used to be called treason. it will be once again. And lobbyists will go down for bribery. We just need to break the gop chain once and for all. Clinton should be running as an r. She is the best republcain in the feild.

bdoughtel and optimyst - great posts and I agree whole heartedly with what you both said.

I voted for Clinton. Since he has been out of office, we can really evaluate the impact of his decisions and leadership. At the time of his first election the economy was the big issue. He turned it around and balanced the budget. However, he left a legacy of "contracting out" services, and did little to combat the threat of terrorism which left us wide open for 911. Leaving the door wide open for Bush-Cheney to capitalized on these things. His creation of NAFTA only increased the flow of illegal immigrants into America. NAFTA did not uplift the lives of Mexicans. Falling wages, forced peasants off the land, small businesses were liquidated, and growing poverty explain why so many Mexicans crossed the border illegally to provide for their families. In 1995 there were 2.5 million mexican illegals since then 8 million have crossed the border.

The Clintons had a chance in the early '90s to improve health care. They failed, especially Hillary since she led the charge. What makes people think that they can do a better job this time round?

They had a chance to leave America a better and safer place in the '90s. Why should we give them another opportunity? It's time to end the dynastic approach to the White House. The Bush's have set the precedence. Don't let this year's election continue the precedence because precedence is hard to break - there are a lot more Bush's out there.

After attending the NV caucus and seeing and hearing the Clinton supporters (the vast majority of whom were elderly women), I understand that they have waited a long time for a female president. But some of them will not be around to see and feel the legacy of what a Hillary Clinton will do to this country. This should not be the reason they vote for Hillary. They should vote because they want to leave America a better place than the America they grew up in and lived in. If Hillary were elected and fails, it will be a long time before America will elect another female president.

I'm for real change and stand with Obama. He will inspire the nation to set high goals and to achieve those goals, much like Kennedy did when he inspired us to reach for space and to put a man on the moon.

'swiss-army-knife (that I used as a keychain), so I slipped it into my sock.'

yeah, coz that didn't make you look suspicious or anything...

it's interesting... i was an adult [well more or less] during reagan's time and i remember it all so differently from the myths and legends on both sides. one thing he wasn't tho, and that's a 'uniter' -- the country was just about as polarized as it is now. in fact, i remember his policies as being pretty much like gwb. big tax cuts, and program cuts to education especially,, .followed by big deficit he left behind.

""You know the former president, who I think all of us have a lot of regard for, has taken his advocacy on behalf of his wife to a level that I think is pretty troubling," Obama said during his first morning television interview since coming in second in Nevada. "He continues to make statements that are not supported by the facts -- whether it's about my record of opposition to the war in Iraq or our approach to organizing in Las Vegas.

"This has become a habit, and one of the things that we're going to have to do is to directly confront Bill Clinton when he's making statements that are not factually accurate," Obama added.
"

Bill, the ex president, managed to lower himself to the level of dick morris

If any of you go to the website I just posted, be sure to listen to the audio clip attached.
---------------------
and the sock wasn't even uncomfortable if it was the Right Kind of Sock.

"EXCLUSIVE: Barack vs. Bill: Obama Hits Ex-Prez Over 'Troubling' Attacks
Vows to 'Directly Confront Bill Clinton' Over 'Statements That Are Not Factually Accurate'

aBOUT TIME. Nice time is over. How long can obama stand back and allow the clitnons to muddy up the feild? Eventually he is going to have to cal them out. The clitnons cannot be allowed to do what they are doing without being called on it.

the old rules no longer apply. They may get more old ladies, but the youth/future is not buying it. The clitnons are sabotaging the democratic party. Any real democrats and americans for that matter should see this and stand up agaisnt it. Do we want another four year of GWB? If clintin wins that's what we get. We may get health care. that's about it. Everything else the clintons do is gop. "we're in this together", my as*.

bsimon, we always carried our secret stuff in our sock, because painful as it was, it beat the crotch for comfort.

Meanwhile, recalling that in late '06 the word was that if it came down to "Hillary against not-McCain" Bloomberg would spend his big bucks on himself, I have noticed that he is not only keeping his powder dry but stockpiling ammo.

http://www.kut.org/items/show/11318

TX is the first state to close its ballot to the Indies, so Bloomberg was in Austin last week.

Minor trivia: in 1980 my grade-school class left school to watch Reagan arrive at the nearby Billy Graham center for a speech. GHWB came to our high school for an address. I recall being worried about the SS taking away my swiss-army-knife (that I used as a keychain), so I slipped it into my sock. Its not clear, to this day, why I thought that would be less suspicious than leaving it in my pocket. Of course, they never checked anyway.

"bsimon, how old were you when reagan was prez?"

You're calling me out! I graduated HS the year GHWB was elected.

I wasn't going to blog today. Just wanted to give you fix locals the scoop on how it went down.

you know I don't lie. Misinformed or ignorant once every decade. :)

But I never lie on purpose. I am a real christian. Good luck and God Bless. Everybody. See you later. Hopefully I don't come back here until after sc. Hopefully I won't need to. :)

Tesla, did you do your homework (read the archieves)

""Imagine my rage on saturday. you people know me pretty good. imagine me at the cacues run by hillary supporters. do you think I put up a stink at all?"

rufus, Did you, at any time, feel it necessary to shout "Don't tase me, bro"?

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | January 21, 2008 11:46 AM
"

all the hillary signs and stickers by the