I think Christ's and Martinez' endorsements of McCain have sealed it for him in Florida. He had somewhat of an advantage there due to his military background and his name recognition among party regulars there. Either one of these endorsements would have been critical. Both will be decisive. Giuliani should have realized that Florida has more than 5 counties, it would have helped him in the long run. Catering to the Northeast vote in a Southern state isn't going to win you a majority. Florida voters are a bit too sophisticated for Huckabee's appeal. Notice I said 'a bit', and I meant only that, and not one thing more. He'll get some votes, in the North of the State. McCain will take Escambia, Walton, Duval, Hillsborough and Pinellas, and several counties in the center and the West Coast of the State. Huckabee's limited support will be in rest of the Panhandle and eastwards approaching Duval. Giuliani, McCain, and Romney will split the rest, Giuliani perhaps getting Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach counties. Romney will get some of the west coast below St. Pete.
% % %
Winning Florida will not mean so much for McCain or Romney, who will fight it out on Super Tuesday, with Romney taking most of the Midwestern States and perhaps Massachusetts. McCain will probably take Texas, and the more southern states, and get some of the Northern States as well. But immigration stupidity will continue to dog him. He might not be able to win his home state, Arizona.
If Huckabee doesn't get money, he'll be running on religious zeal alone. Giuliani had better win Florida. If not, he'll be on the way out, and will find that Super Tuesday will turn into Depressing Wednesday. I think it's too little, too late, for Paul.

FairlingtonBlade,

Your post shows how little you know...Ron Paul already has 6 delegates.

mark_in_austin asked me about evidence that Osama bin Laden is alive:
==
chris, would you accept as evidence:

1. CIA published statements?
2. State Department published statements?
3. Findings of the 9-11 Commission?
4. Any investigative journalist's report?
5. A report from any other source [e.g.; foreign intelligence service reports, Arab news services, Pakistani news services, a
purported tape of Omar, anything?]
==

The first three? Absolutely not. The Commission relied on the first two, which are completely lacking in reliability or credibility. I believe nothing coming from any arm of the American government, since so many agencies are infiltrated by Cheney loyalists and other neoconservatives, people who show no reluctance whatever to lie.

The only evidence I would even look at would be new video recordings of Osama that can be clearly shown to not be altered or doctored by video experts not affiliated with the US government.

Because there is no getting around these facts

(1) the only video we have seen of Osama since 9/11 showed a man about eight inches too short, at least eighty pounds heavier, and who looked nothing at all like him

(2) the other "releases" are scratchy audio cassettes that could be literally anyone who speaks Arabic in the right timbre

(3) The Number Two guy Zawahiri is just as sought-after yet manages to release studio-quality video again and again and again. I believe he is alive. I believe Osama has been dead since before 9/11 but has been elevated to Immanuel Goldstein status by the industry of hate and fear

(4) Osama had advanced degenerative kidney failure and had been on dialysis in Pakistan military hospitals for years before disappearing, allegedly to Afghani caves .. where dialysis machines are in short stupply.

So, no, I don't buy it. And if you believe anything coming from the Bush administration you should have your head examined.

chrisfox8 said:

"As for extraditing ObL can you show any evidence he was there at the time?"

with reference to Afghanistan and Mullah Omar.

chris, would you accept as evidence:

1. CIA published statements?
2. State Department published statements?
3. Findings of the 9-11 Commission?
4. Any investigative journalist's report?
5. A report from any other source [e.g.; foreign intelligence service reports, Arab news services, Pakistani news services, a
purported tape of Omar, anything?]

Liemericans are rather intelligent, perhaps they start using it in this election. Voters will remember the cover up role of Giuliani in the government supported 9/11 disaster, they also know that Romney is just a bush strawman. So if they want to have more of "Stay the course" they'll choose Romney, which they won't. Any -ism is dangerous for the other -isms so Huckabee will not be their favorite, that leaves us with the far to old Mccain, probable brain damaged in Vietnam. As far as I can see from the candidates qualifications, no GOP candidate will become prez of the U.S. I never saw a woman opening an American football game, solely for this reason Hillary will not become president of the United States of America. At least Obama can talk and walk which mister bush could not and still cannot. Bush has proven to be a disaster for America, the Americans and for the world. He is the personification of the American lie, falsehood, cheating, deception and untruth. Obama has wit and energy, together with the hardworking self made man Edwards they might make a good team to lead America through the worst crisis that ever hit this world. America floats on oil, no oil, no America. The reality is that for every 9 barrels of oil used we discover only 1. Alternatives are already to late to replace the lack of oil. So the end of America is in sight. This new president has got to deal with it and make the fall apart of the U.S.A. not to painful for the western hemisphere. EU, NATO and what is left of USA will share and shift power to replace the once powerful United States of America. This new president will lead us into a new era of shifting powers, and, Americans have to live with that and a lot more they probably don't like.

jime2000: you paint with far too broad a brush and your information is out of date. "Evangelicals" is not remotely synonymous with "radical Christian right" even if it may have been once. Nowadays evangelicals are more likely to be concerned with core Christian teachings than with the latest hate object; the new evangelicals care about the poor, about the environment, and about children (*after* they're born!).

You're really talking about the dirty little people who make up the radical religious right, the "angry fringe," loud and strident and nasty but not really all that numerous.

Most Christians are tired of the culture wars. And I don't pretend to speak for them (atheist) but I read the news.

jimd52: Want to talk about who's being absurd? Were the people who attacked us Afghanis? Were they Iraqis? No to both questions; you know as well as I that they were almost all Saudis. From Saudi Arabia, the place where Bush is going hat in hand and begging for favors. The place where all his dad's business partners live.

But we didn't invade Saudi Arabia, ever wonder why?

And again what did we achieve by invading Afghanistan, much less Iraq? They may have hosted their coreligionist Osama some time in the past but the attacks on The Two Towers weren't anything to do with the government or the people of Afghanistan, and you know it.

As for extraditing ObL can you show any evidence he was there at the time? Because other than some very dubious bad videos and worse cassettes, ObL has been out of sight for a long time BEFORE 9/11, back when he was being given dialysis in Pakistani military hospitals for his failing kidneys.

So by your reasoning we have reason to attack any country where anyone whispers to anyone else "that Osama guy ain't so bad."

Bush supporter?

Also, Huckabee's remaining in the race would make it easier for evangelicals who don't like McCain to avoid voting for Romney, whose religion they regard as a cult.

Posted by: jimd52 | January 25, 2008 10:10 AM

And what do you call evangelicals? They are one of the biggest cults there is.
They're all(religion as a whole)just a bunch of hypocrites with a bible in one hand and a gun in the other that would just as soon kill you if you don't agree to their madness. This country can't afford another republican profiteer in the white house,irregardless of what they tell you. Watch the debates and you'll see the differences between the two parties.

Dem: Healthcare,ending the war,saving peoples homes,balancing the budget(something only the dems seem capable of doing)

Rep: Illegal immigration,cutting taxes, Clinton,Hillary,Clinton.

Enough said.

This thread has officially been zouk-bombed. [It's kinda like the neutron bomb to rational discussion.]

Umm--hannibal. Wake me up with Paul earns a delegate or two. Zzzzzzzz

BB

Chris,

Have you been following the reactions to your own blog?

The back and forth between the Clinton Twins and Obama may help the Hillary win the nomination, but at the cost of the general election.

The lies, innuendo, distortions and just plain mud is a good reminder of the ugly politics of the 90's and of everything that's not likable about the the Clinton Twins.

As Obama has rightly said, they will say anything and change nothing.

The majority of the reaction I've seen on the Washington Post blogs, the NY Times Blogs and amidst my colleagues and friends is the same. Independents and even long-time Democrats are saying that after seeing the Clinton Twin ugliness again, they'll never vote for Hillary. They'll vote for McCain instead. They might not agree with him on everything, but like Obama, at least he has integrity and character -- something the Clinton Twins lack.

Chris,

You left out Ron Paul. You cant say he's not a real candidate because you left in Giuliani and he has lost to Ron Paul in all but one of the primaries and caucuses so far. Thats right, Ron Paul has beat Guiliani in all but one state so far. Ron Paul also raised more than the other Republicans in the 4th Qtr of 2007 and he has a real platform based on the constitution. Not a blotchy, conflicting personal platform that changes based on the wind.

You left him out because you have a personal agenda against him.

Im not amazed you continually leave out Ron Paul while including others, but I'd be remiss if I didnt call you out on it.

You certainly are not fair and objective, you arnt here to give us the news or info on each candidate, you are here to try influence the election.

You are not a "journalist" - they have credibility, integrity and impartiality. Your title of Blogger is appropriate, but you give a bad name to other bloggers who do have integrity.

chrisfox

You are being absurd. Afghanistan allied themselves with the people who attacked us. They could have extradited bin Laden to us. The Taliban was providing a haven for our mortal enemies - that more than justified our invasion.

Fair enough. I know trolls go back and forth but it's been a long time since I've seen a liberal troll that measures up as zouk's counterpart.

thecrisis: please do not feed the trolls.

the rest of us let zouk talk to himself.

See zouk the difference is this:

You boldly assert yourself as a GOP stereotype. Arrogant, ignorant, oblivious to facts and compassion, etc.

You are a shining beacon of why there is a GOP stereotype in the first place.

And I enjoy your liberal stereotypes because they're all image-based, not ideology-based assumptions. Oh, except for "over-educated" which until today I didn't realize was even possible. But it sounds like something a Republican would say, because so many of them wholly embrace ignorance as bliss. Shame on the GOP for demonizing education.

Oh yeah...5'10" is taller than the average man in the U.S. and 155lbs is right in the middle of a "normal" BMI. Apparently you're not only ignorant and arrogant but you also think that not being 6'5" and 250lbs is un-American.

Let me guess what the ideal American is, to you:

male
white
6'5"
250lbs
IQ of 80
high school dropout
has big belt buckle
has nice cowboy hat
drives absurdly large pickup truck
hates homosexuals
claims to be Christian
hits his wife

Is that about right? Because based on the slew of horrific crap you've spewed all over this comments section, these would all be appropriate assumptions. You are the worst brand of ignorant American.

It's also interesting that you accuse liberals of being over-educated right after you brag about your master's degree. I'm sure you ignored just enough of your education to keep you a real American, right?

You regurgitate stereotypes and clutter up our nice comments section with your disgusting and borderline violent ignorance.

Posted by: thecrisis | January 25, 2008 06:18 PM

I'm a former Army Sergeant and I'm a Liberal.

Sure, most of you would die, but that would be good for America too.

Posted by: WillSeattle | January 25, 2008 06:31 PM

Crisis - when you're right, you're right.

but it seems I am right too:

"the clinton methods of smear and insult are still firmly entrenched in their operations

but if I am wrong, I look forward to a new type of never before envisioned thinking liberal.

Posted by: kingofzouk | January 25, 2008 02:06 PM

WillSeattle: by the standards of our nation'as founders the 25%-ers would not even be allowed to vote. Sending them to do the killing they yearn for would be a great idea, since as you say evolution would have a chance to do its good work.

Enlisted huh, that explains a lot.

Sorry jim52 but Afghanistan did not attack us, at the most Afghanistan was guilty of being landlord to some lousy tenants. We should only invade countries that have attacked us as a matter of national policy, absurd in the case of tiny, poor Afghanistan.

And even a Bush supporter -- OK, anyone this side of Bush supporters -- should be wondering how the administration was able to threaten Afghanistan with occupation and bombing in June of 2001, when the oil pipeline talks collapsed in Austin, and the big show in New York was still months in the future.

I ain't buying it and I ain't buying those "taped messages from Osama," while Zawahiri puts out studio-quality video.

Neither should you.

Doesn't matter how bloodthirsty Americans were after the "attack" of 9-11 .. the need for catharsis does not justify bad policy.

kingofzouk - I'm a former Army Sergeant and I'm a Liberal.

Unlike most of you combat-avoiding cowardly Red Bushies.

Face it, the best thing that could happen to America would be if those who voted for the war were drafted - regardless of age - to serve in Iraq for a combat tour if they had never done four years service in our Armed Forces.

Period.

Sure, most of you would die, but that would be good for America too.

You regurgitate stereotypes and clutter up our nice comments section with your disgusting and borderline violent ignorance.

Posted by: thecrisis | January 25, 2008 06:18 PM

__do you mean somethign like the following bile:

"Just like a good Republican, you are picking and choosing your favorite passages from the Constitution (and probably the Bible, too) to support your inner desire to kill everyone and capitalize on their suffering and demise. Good job!

p.s. I didn't say jack about taking away guns so keep your trap quiet. As soon as a liberal says "gun" the GOP faithful run around like chickens with their heads cut off, somehow still screaming "2nd Amendment!!! 2nd Amendment!!" While trying to push through new amendments that restrict the private rights of homosexuals and women's privacy. Nice!

I love that you Republicans will cast aside half a million annual American cancer deaths because the Constitution doesn't authorize curing the disease, but when it comes to losing 3,000 people in a terrorist attack, we should nuke every country that doesn't like us.

Every day I find something new to hate about the Republican Party. Thanks for this one, zouk!

Posted by: thecrisis | January 25, 2008 03:03 PM

Seek professional help.

Me:
5'10"
155lbs

You are either a very skrawny guy or a very beefy girl.

so yeah, it does fit the stereotype of a know-it-all Lib. you will forgive me some skepticism over the IQ claim. the self reporting on this measure is notoriously inaccurate.

Let's review the stereotype of Libs for fun, you're results may differ:

guys - wimpy, bespectacled, poor, short, skinny, over-educated, effeminate, - think john edwards without the money or Harry Reid

girls - dikey, fat, short, badly dressed, no makeup, Kmart clothes, crooked teeth, overbearing, masculine, loony - think ellen Degenerous or rosy or terayza kerry

Chris - hope to see you when you come to Seattle for the decisive Feb. 9th caucus (100 percent of the Dem delegates, 50 percent of the GOP delegates) before our Feb. 19th mail-in-only primary (0 percent of Dem delegates, 50 percent of GOP delegates).

Remember, normally we're a split state - 30 percent Dem, 30 percent GOP, 40 percent Independent - but this year it's more like 38 percent Dem, 22 percent GOP, 40 percent Independent.

That said, it's not going to pretty for the GOP this year. Their top position can't even compete with either of the two Dems in fundraising or in votes ...

If you refuse to engage in any kind of meaningful discussion, why do you post here? I know that every forum needs a few neocon trolls but man, you're really pushing it here. You regurgitate stereotypes and clutter up our nice comments section with your disgusting and borderline violent ignorance.

crisis - I don't argue with moonbats and kooks. they draw you down to their level and beat you with experience. Why don't you take on rufas, he seems to be at your general level of mental acuity/anguish.

I have explained many times the difference between raising taxes and lowering them, winning the war and losing it, new big government programs and fewer of them, etc. It is really that simple, even a Lib can figure it out.

Oh and I forgot:

not homophobic
not racist

zouk:

I am aware Congress holds the purse strings -- but the GOP held the Legislative Branch under Reagan and Bush, Jr.

THEY are the ones that spent Wildly.

And Reagan and Bush, Jr signed it all.

It seems it also draws out liberals who are most assuredly fat, dumpy, ignorant, intolerant, lazy and non-thinking.

It seems you accept your burgeoning waist as given, just like your feeble economic ideas and laughable upstate sensibilites. but since you are just a victim of whatever the falling sky terror is this week, who can blame you.

Posted by: kingofzouk | January 25, 2008 06:04 PM

Me:
5'10"
155lbs
college grad - 3.0 gpa
in a career position
married
IQ around 140
1200 SAT, 28 ACT

I think I meet all of your stereotypes, right?

sorry proud, no one left but the moonbats and me.

what a class act the Rs were in the debate last night. substance, humor and civility. compare and contrast to the Libs nominee. Eeeekkk.

"that dog won't hunt, because there WAS no reason to invade Iraq or Afghanistan either."

Posted by: chrisfox8 | January 25, 2008 05:52 PM

I agree that Iraq was a mistake but you are way out in left field on Afghanistan. The Taliban was sheltering Osama bin Laden & Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda attacked this country on 9/11. The Taliban refused to surrender bin Laden to us. We cannot tolerate a state which knowingly harbors a terrorist group that is responsible for attacks on the USA.

While I believe it was a mistake to invade Iraq, it would be a bigger mistake to withdraw before Iraq achieves some basic level of stability. I fault the administration for not pushing a comprhensive political settlement. The sectarian Shiite central government is a disaster.

Zouk, I'll extend you a chance to finally make sense.

Give me one cogent argument for your favorite candidate and against Obama. One that is based in fact and not stereotypes or hyperbole. Give it a shot. I'm eager to hear...and try to avoid talking about the size of liberal brains while you're at it. It just makes you look childish.

What is about the demographics of the Internet that draws people with such fabulous lives?

Posted by: claudialong | January 25, 2008 05:56 PM

It seems it also draws out liberals who are most assuredly fat, dumpy, ignorant, intolerant, lazy and non-thinking.

It seems you accept your burgeoning waist as given, just like your feeble economic ideas and laughable upstate sensibilites. but since you are just a victim of whatever the falling sky terror is this week, who can blame you.

chrisfox - I see now why you are such a snit. you are locked in the 90s, the time of your now continuous adolescence. you admire bill cause he scored with all sorts of Phat chicks and didn't have to marry them or anything. If only we could just go on with no military and the internet juicing up the economy, Trying and failing with terrorists. with no responsibilities in the world, it leaves so much time to chase skirt and dance with Striesand and all.

You belong in drindl's pack of yapping jackels, she is stuck in her 60s adolescence in a similar fashion.

"But because it's not possible to bring everyone into the first-world way of life, I elect to have some compassion and at least mediate the inequalities. Try to put some balance into the system."

Except for those denizens of the middle east of course, especially the Iraqis! '

yes, of course. we should be using US taxpayer money to mediate the inequalities of all the peoples of the world. i guess we should buy them HDTV and yachts, too. but not US citizens, of course.

what a 'liberal' idea--and that with two Aryan children and a blond wife with a 26-inch waist -- after two kids. Puts Scarlett O Hara to shame!

You're certainly right, blarg. What is about the demographics of the Internet that draws people with such fabulous lives?

hey proudtobeGOP, I have an even better idea .. instead of spending money on wounded troops, don't send them to war in the first place, not unless the USA is genuinely threatened.

And don't tell me that it diminishes the troops to know that they were thrown away on a pointless and unnecessary war .. that dog won't hunt, because there WAS no reason to invade Iraq or Afghanistan either.

Imagine how it feels to go through life missing an arm or an eye or both legs, knowing you were blown apart so a lying little git could strut around in a flight suit.

Earmarks, pork, just hot-button crap. You should be ashamed of yourself for being so easily manipulated.

I keep forgetting how smart you Libs are and must admit that we GOPs are really really dumb. so dumb in fact that we stumble into the Presidency year after year without even understanding how.

I only wish I was as smart as AL gore (GPA 1.7) or even bill clinton (she won't tell on me). someday, if I snort glue perhaps, I can get to hillary's level (failed the DC bar).

"the clinton methods of smear and insult are still firmly entrenched in their operations

but if I am wrong, I look forward to a new type of never before envisioned thinking liberal.

Posted by: kingofzouk | January 25, 2008 02:06 PM

Nope, not going to happen:

--"I don't have to show that these Bush types are uneducated, they do that every time they post .. but it's also clear with their derision for any kind of idealism that democracy is not for them.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | January 25, 2008 04:43 PM

AND the classic deranged leftist hater:

--"You've given me enough reasons to dislike the GOP for another ten years, though I'll do what the GOP is incapable of doing...forgive. As in, I forgive you for being so dim you can't comprehend a very simple argument. And I forgive you for acting like a complete a**hole because of it.

Posted by: thecrisis | January 25, 2008 04:32 PM

Adrickhenry, It's not an either-or question. There are differing views within the party as regards economic policy. Granted, economic conservatives who favor balanced federal budgets have become a much smaller part of the party's base. That's partly because other groups, especially social conservatives, have grown more dominant.

But it's also the result of defections by other fiscal conservatives angered by the growth of government spending during the six years that R controlled both the White House and Congress.

The most prominent sign of dissatisfaction has come from former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, long a pillar of Republican Party economic thinking. He blasted the party's fiscal record in his new book. In an interview with The WSJ, he said: "The Republican Party, which ruled the House, the Senate and the presidency, I no longer recognize."

The economic conservatives, R pollster Tony Fabrizio found, are split into opposing camps: "free market" conservatives opposed to any new taxes, spending and regulations; and what he calls "government-knows-best" moderates, who sometimes favor regulations and higher taxes for causes such as education, environmental programs or infrastructure.

That is why I would like to see a true fiscal conservative like John McCain in the WH. I just don't buy it when they say pork and earmarks don't add up to much. Pork projects in Congress amounted to $29 billion in FY 2006.

$29 Billion dollars ($29,000,000,000) of taxpayer money that was wasted for things like $223 million to link the remote town of Ketchikan, AK (population 8,900) to the more remote island of Gravina (population 50), or the Waterfree Urinal Conservation Initiative and the Sparta Teapot Museum.

Forgive me if I'd rather see that money spent to help wounded soldiers or to refurbish the VA system. The earmark explosion is a symptom of a much deeper problem, imo: a Congress that essentially functions as a pork dispenser. That is why we need a reformer in the WH...John McCain.

Adrick - you made one error in fact - it is the congress that passes budgets. Presidents sign or don't sign. so the credit/blame should rightly go to the congress. you will notice this turns your entire argument on its head, what with a Dem congress spending like crazy - that is, standard procedure, and the Repub congress under Clinton, forcing him to balance the budget.

JD-

You commented to Claudia "BTW, by posting that, are you admitting that you regularly engage in class warfare? Obviously I was only targeting that subset of liberalism with my comment."

No, you were setting up a straw man. Anyone disagreeing with you must be an emotional liberal who engages in class warfare. Not a hard-headed rationalist with a detailed grip on economic numbers and a clearly different point of view.

We agree strongly on one point. Growth in tax revenues correlates with strongly with GDP growth. You just haven't proven the point that tax rates IN ABSENTIA govern growth.

BB

AdrickHenry: please don't respond to kingofzouk, he is not here to make points just to start fights. He's a troll. let him talk to himself.

JD-

Interesting post, but your use of data is rather selective. Taking 1921 - 1929 for your data without referencing what happened next? Please. Your consideration of the 2003 tax cut ignores the fact that there was a significant tax cut in 2001. How about if you compare that 6 quarter period with the 6 quarters preceding the 2001 tax cuts?

Let's look into the 1980s in detail. Your post claimed an increase in revenues from $500B to $1.1T over a ten year period. Inflation adjusted, that's a 39% growth in revenue. The economy itself grew by 33% in the period. Tax revenues grew slightly beyond what would be expected from growth in the economy, but it's not that big a difference. Your claim that tax cuts cause revenue increase must rely on the assumption that economic growth is due to tax cuts.

Let's test it by comparing Reagan/Bush vs. Clinton. 8 year time periods. Take it from Jan. 1983 (right after a nasty recession when growth should be strongest) to Jan. 1991 (before the recession at the end of Bush I). U.S. GDP grew from $5.25T to $7.04 in inflation adjusted dollars. That's 3.73% per year. For Jan. 1993 to Jan. 2001, U.S. GDP grew $7.46T to $9.88T--a rate of 3.57% per year. It was a period of growth following a recession, just like the '83 to '91 time period (though the '92 recession was much weaker). So, I'll spot you 0.16% GDP growth.

My point being that it is possible to prove any plausible point of view by selective use of data. I knew that the 90's were a good time for growth. [I still think taking the '20s while ignoring the Great Depression merited a 15 yard penalty.]

Here's what I want from Republicans: a bit of perspective. Of course, cutting taxes will stimulate economic growth. And that will partially make up for the lost revenue. I repeat, partially. There is no Tax Cut Fairy. When I see any of the Republican prez candidates propose honest budget cuts to accompany tax cuts, then I'll start believing that they could pass Econ 101.

BB

JD -- I don't think any economists dispute that many tax cuts partially pay for themselves. I took you to be making a broader argument, which Rudy in particular has made in the past. If that was incorrect, my apologies.

Mark -- I suspect Vegas may very well take bets of that exact sort. My own gambling experiences, in the form of march madness polls, suggest I should not participate.

Sorry PatrickNYC1 but I need to disagree on Paul/Perot. Perot was as nutty as anyone can get on his own; Paul has had the assistance of decades of libertarian nuttiness to back him.

Perot was a dangerously self-important man who hired private detectives to spy on his own employees .. Paul actually believes that money has intelligence and that "the marketplace" cannot lead to undesirable outcomes.

It's like choosing between two really bad presidents, one of whom is deeply religious.

JD, zouk, proud:

If the Laffer Curve is as accurate and reliable as JD and zouk contend it is, and Reagan based policy on it and Bush, Jr based policy on it, then both Reagan and Bush should have delivered balanced budgets (or even surpluses), right?

That is, unless they presided over irresponsible spending.

But the GOP vehemently states they are the Party of fiscal restraint, right?

Do you see the disconnect? Something is not adding up for me. Either the theory, the Laffer Curve, Reaganomics and Bush's supply-side economics are wrong - OR - the Republicans are not the Party of fiscal restraint that they claim to be.

The facts are clear: under Bush, Jr and under Reagan we experienced enormous, national security-threatening deficits.

While under Bill Clinton (who supposedly is from the Party of tax and spend) we had not only a balanced budget, but a surplus.

This is the history, undeniable:
Reagan = huge deficit
Clinton = Surplus
Bush, Jr = huge deficit

The Republican leaders keep promising the same thing: let's cut taxes for the wealthy and that will increase the tax base, thus increasing revenues, and we'll deliver a balanced budget. Yet, when they take office and enact their tax breaks, we are even deeper in debt (and with China financing our deficit, this is now a national security issue).

If their theory is correct, then why don't
we see a surplus, or at least a balanced budget, when they're in office?

Which is it? Are the Republicans flat-out, bold-faced liars or is their economic philosophy just flat-out wrong?

Which?

"Fifty days before the Iowa caucuses, the Republican presidential race remains remarkably wide open, with none of the candidates able to break from the pack," we wrote. The same could be said today.

Wide open today Chris? Really?

It looks to most of us in the real world that it is between McCain and Romney. I'd like Romney, he'll be much easier to beat in the fall. Magic underware does not ware well with most people, despite what they may say in public, people do otherwise in the booth.

Which brings me to Obama. He may have a leg up in SC, that is because of his playing the race/victim card and the states heavy black population. Which is having the opposite effect around the country. This country is racist enough without him and his wife playing like they are being picked on. Hillary will wipe the floor with him on Feb 5th.

Edwards will bow out by then, a poor third Tuesday may do it sooner.

As for you poor Ron Paul die hards. Sorry to rain on your parade but Ross Perot had a better chance, more money and was just as nutty as Paul.

thecrisis: if you read Jefferon and Hamilton it's clear that the whole idea of democracy was that it would resonate with the better nature of educated people. Democracy was always intended to be built atop existing social institutions, never to appeal to raw brutishness.

What we have in those who still support Bush (after everyone knows he's just an insecure liar) is the people who lack that inner spark. I don't have to show that these Bush types are uneducated, they do that every time they post .. but it's also clear with their derision for any kind of idealism that democracy is not for them.

"no rufas, my parents are still alive and only gave me the benefit of an undergrad degree paid for. Everything I have is due to my wife and I working hard all the time. (well she works hard)."

iS THAT ALL. pOOR ZOUK.

I agree, BEtter to stick to the isses and policies. Why did you bring it up them? Credibility? Money does nto equal this. And no one is a christian by words only either. You are by your actions and words. You want credibility get it the old way. By being correct or telling the truth.

The gop propoganda age is over. When you get credibility for lying for the gop and being bush's lawyers. It's not my fault you are a liar and a propogandist. Look in the mirror. internalize. Work on yoru issues. Rather than blaming everyone else for your shortcomings. :) You can change. If you have the courage to live in the now. Rather than decades in the past.

I don't are about you personally at all. I would like for you to vanish from this site, like you rmovement. This way the american people can work together without yoru sabotage. Your movement is the same. Without you sabotuers who knwos what teh american people can accomplish. Without divide and conquer for fun and profit.

you lost all credibility zouk. You can retain it. Not this way. You must sacrafice. What does your party ever sacrafice other than credibility? All I'm asking for you to told is sacrafice your ego in a small way by losing the lies and propoganda and yoru past stements. Step away from you past statemetns and work to reunite. Until you do that, you deserve the irrelevacne you got

Ah, one piece of missing data. McCain or Romney may be in the lead, but I don't see a lot of enthusiasm or passion for any of these guys. People are holding their noses and choosing the one who inspires the least misgivings, not the one who inspires the most loyalty.

None of them is worth a damn; the only one of the five Republicans who has any positions worth a fig is Ron Paul but he also has by far the worst positions too and is not to be taken seriously.

All the others want to continue the Iraq occupation, all of them want to continue living under economic fairy-tales and discredited nonsense about tax cuts and deregulation.

America needs a lot better.

And zouk, you're a classic duck and cover neocon. Make ridiculous insults about the sizes of liberals' brains, then when one of them is too much for you to handle, change the subject or call them more names.

You've given me enough reasons to dislike the GOP for another ten years, though I'll do what the GOP is incapable of doing...forgive. As in, I forgive you for being so dim you can't comprehend a very simple argument. And I forgive you for acting like a complete a**hole because of it.

Photo of Hillary Clinton and "slum landlord" Tony Rezko

http://www.chicagotribune.com/

Adding my voice to those wishing for an updated "Line" on Senate races. Here in Minnesota, Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer is winning most of the debates and gaining adherents. He may overtake better-funded candidates Al Franken and Mike Ciresi for the DFL nomination. And that could well be a good thing for the DFL's chances against Norm Coleman in the fall.

Colin, a quick response to your thoughts about tax cuts not helping the economy, in the long run, in a greater proportion to their cost. Some of this is cribbed:

In 2003, capital gains tax rates were reduced from 20% and 10% (depending on income) to 15% and 5%, respectively. Rather than expand from $50 billion in 2003 to $68 billion in 2006 as the CBO projected, capital gains revenues more than doubled to $103 billion.

Supply-side economics assumes replenishment of some but not necessarily all lost revenues. Supply-side economics never contended that all tax cuts pay for themselves. Rather the Laffer Curve merely formalizes the common-sense observations that: Tax revenues depend on the tax base as well as the tax rate; raising tax rates discourages the taxed behavior and shrinks the tax base, offsetting some of the revenue gains; and lowering tax rates encourages the taxed behavior and expands the tax base, offsetting some of the revenue loss.

Colin, anything to amuse.

Did you see my "breakfast report" at 11:06A including the proposed betting pools?

Mark -- that made me laugh. Fear not, these particular individuals fall more into the "I hate all politics, but that strange little guy who was against the war and wants to cut my taxes sounds OK" camp of Paul supporters. They're not the bomb throwing, anarchist type. Plus they're all attorneys, and accordingly relatively harmless.

rpy1 - glad it was helpful. I might add that Congress has been providing for the "general welfare" since it established the ancestor of the Public Health Service in the 1790s.

The general welfare clause is expansive, as is the general military clause. The Air Force as a separate and = branch or the military does not rely on the specific power to raise an Army and a Navy.

Obama will win, Edwards and Clinton will not - Clinton for obvs reasons. Found this on the YouTubes...thought you all might find it amusing. Thing about John is, he's kind of a borderline-sociopath power crazed oily southern refuge from a John Grisham novel. Pretty much, he's the guy from "A Face in the Crowd".

Case in point: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8PECQDBr2w

So...yeah...Obama's got it in the bag. Sure.

Mark,

Thanks for the analysis -- this is a really important issue to me and it's nice to get better information on it.

Colin, I stand by my words, but do NOT give them my email.

Mark,

I will use your 3:35 comment -- with attribution -- when I next talk to some of my Ron Paul supporting friends.

For Addington and Yoo to argue that maintaining prisons overseas for foreigners we have capture is within the war power of the Prez exclusively flies in the face of Article I., Sec. 8, which I posted.

The most important question for any candidate is whether s/he will respect the balance of power between described in the express powers of Article I. and Article II.

McC will. BHO strongly implies that he will. WMR, HRC, and RG have implied that they might not.

It will not give you a headache to try to get comfortable with the document. Try it.

Who wants to bet that Bill Clinton can make it between now and November without getting caught with his pants around his ankles?

As I posted elsewhere, Ron Paul is a "constitutional candidate" only insofar as he meets the constitutional requirements to become president.

They all have supermodel girlfriends, too. Must be something about the demographics.

Posted by: Blarg | January 25, 2008 03:30 PM

My wife has a 26 inch waist and is very successful in politics, a beautiful germanic blond. the two kids are also very good looking and smart. Lucky for them they got their looks down the maternal side.

no rufas, my parents are still alive and only gave me the benefit of an undergrad degree paid for. Everything I have is due to my wife and I working hard all the time. (well she works hard).

but why do you Libs even care one bit about me or my situation. Do you intend to somehow change your arguments based on any of this?

how about instead of personalities and specifics, we make arguments based on logic, reason and norality. I know it is a stretch for you, but try.

Ron Paul may have read the Constitution but except for the Bill of Rights he does not seem to understand it one whit.

Calls to "strict constructionism" are mindless examples of circular reasoning when construing this Constitution that places the general welfare in the hands of an elected Congress, subject to Prez veto, or subject to a finding of violation of a defined right in the Constitution itself or a treaty, by the Supremes.

Good thing your aren't Republicans, Chris. Froomkin would call you all liars.

any see hucks response to mitt?

Mitt says he is running for his children's future and prosperity. Th question arises about how much money romney is spending to buy the presidency.

Hucks response? Drop out and support him. this way mitt's kids win both ways. Priceless hysterical.

Alright zouk. you win. your rich. your parents left you money and you don't want to be taxed. We get it. :)

Thank you, Blarg.

Isn't it funny how many fabulously wealthy people there are on the Internet? They all have supermodel girlfriends, too. Must be something about the demographics.

Fret not spector. This is getting resolved one way or another by feb 5th. an interesting point I have been hearing is the clintons are doing so mcu damage to their party they may be forced to take the vp role to save the partty and their carrers. that is a good plan. If the clintons will sacrafice their ego.

this way we get obama's credibility and integirity as well as the clintons experiance and contacts. And obama can ignore them if he chooses :).

i would vote for that ticket for sure. Unbeatable. The other way around, not so much.

Either clinton wins or Obama. But make no mistake, if obama loses so does the democratic party and the coutnry. Choose wisely. The future is up in the air. If clinton wins on these tactics I am millions of others will follow the same path as our parents and stay out of poltics.

Why? politicans are supposed to represent the american people. It's not for the american people to run politics. That's for politicains who represent us. MOST do not have that. electing Obama would start that process. As a result of power being back in the people's hands the gop is done. Who would choose slavery when they can be free? Money talks, I guess. But what if you can have your cake and eat it to. Be free all the way around, even financially? Capitalism is slavery. We are all prostitutes in some fashion. Don't look for politicains to free you. Free yourselves. Start the process. Throw out the slave masters (gop). The economic slave masters.

"he still has a porsche and a yacht". well to be accurate, the yacht is out of the water for the winter now.

don't forget the two houses and the ski condo. and there are all those monthly trips to five star resorts, going to barbados in two weeks. then there is that private school for the kids and all their activities. don't forget the wine every night and steak and lobster when I can get to the wharf. I try not to spill on my custom made shirts and zegna suits.

But my success has little to do with you, except for that pesky AMT you keep stealing from me every year to fund your hand-outs.

right about now, you Libs should be asking yourselves - what am I doing wrong. that is if you think that what I like is something you might also enjoy. It is considered by some quite materialistic. but I also buy a lot of books too. I am reading Sternberg this week concerning intelligence, creativity and wisdom - my area of research.

the first step is to admit you have a problem and let go of the class envy. Let me know if you ever get to step two.

Oh Lord, please grant us a merciful end to this primary process so we'll have just two major-party candidates to bash on these boards.

That both parties might actually still have undecided races AFTER super-duper Tuesday is scary.

OTOH, it would mean I might have to cast my first primary vote (Va., Feb. 12) in decades.

Section 2 - Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

When we talk about federal power and its limits, we are generally talking about Congressional power. Addington and Yoo aside, few read into the Constitution the theory of the "unitary executive." Read my next two posts and tell me if you can divine the "original intent" as creating a Prez beyond the law.

"Why The Republicans Will Lose This Election: Iraq!
By: Nicole Belle @ 11:58 AM - PST

No offense intended to Ron Paul, who was the only one to get the answer right. Even the Republican audience agreed with him.

Download (86) | Play (123) wmv only...

Never forget...these are not our leaders. These are elected representatives. Ask yourself who are they representing.
"

www.crooksandliars.com

When the gop says they don't follow polls, what they really mean is they are not accountable to the american people. But if they are not accounable to teh americans people, who are they accountable to?

the gop is done. They sure have earned it.

I, for one, still don't understand why conservatives HATE McCain. Except for Huckabee, he's probably the most reliable conservative choice they have.

Nobody has stuck closer to George W. Bush than McCain.

He's probably the most electable - by a wide margin - than any of the other Repubs left.

Conservatives abandon McCain at their own peril.

I have an online friend I made during the 2000 campaign. She is my redneck friend who supported Bush in that campaign and I supported Gore (actually we meet when I supporting McCain in the primary). She considers McCain a liberal and will not vote for him. I keep asking her if she is going to vote for him in the general election as opposed to Clinton and she keeps telling me she will not be the Republican candidate. I tell her she is still in denial like Bush.

donttreadonme

If McCain wins Florida it will be a fairly narrow victory. Mitt seems to be rising in the polls and it is close. If McCain does end up with the nomination, there will be a lot of people who would kill to get the VP nod. The odds of McCain running for re-election at 76 are not great and his VP would have the best shot at the 2012 nomination.

In comparing corporate tax rates of various countries it is necessary to consider the deductions allowed from income. The last time I checked, Japan was far more generous than the US in allowing deductions, so the effective Japanese rate might actually be lower than the US.

According to the 2007 US Federal Poverty guidelines, individuals who make less than $10,210 per year are poor.

That's $850.83 per month.

The cheapest DirecTV package is $29.99, before taxes and fees, not including installation or equipment. That leaves $820.84 to pay their homes, two cars, big screen televisions, microwaves, and anything falling under the et cetera category, not to mention eating well.

I hope for their sake they inherited most of these luxuries.

As sociologists, the UN, the US Census Bureau, and the US Department of Health and Human Services agree, poverty is relative to the individual country, culture, and economy of which the individual is a part.

If you think we should limit our asssessment of poverty to those who have fewer amenities than the poor in Malawi or Somalia, then your beef is with the above groups.

Of course, it's their fault they're poor. If only they worked harder...

-----

for the most part, america's poor own their homes, have two cars, eat very well, watch stallite TV, own microwaves, big screen tvs, air conditioning, etc

Every day I find something new to hate about the Republican Party. Thanks for this one, zouk!

Posted by: thecrisis | January 25, 2008 03:03 PM

Something tells me, based on your rants, that you need very little impetus to hate. you are a classic clinton Lib.

drindl, please send him a uniform and admit him to your jackel pack of hysterical moonbats.

For people who actually looked at the returns of the Iowa caucus, they'd notice that .27% separated Edwards and Clinton. Hardly enough to be counted as two separate finishes. For all intensive purposes, they were tied for second (Clinton actually got more delegates than Edwards). It's also a bit disingenuous to call Iowa a "debacle" for Clinton, given that she never expected to win it.

bhoomes, jimd has always been a voice of moderation here and I view his support for McCain as a matter of principle and ability to sniff out character rather than through the ideological goggles you apparently have permanently attached.

Mccain is a conservative!!! He is unabashedly pro-life, pro-second amendment rights, pro-military, pro-peace through strength, pro-small government, pro-spending cuts, and pro-tax cuts. McCain has been a stalwart Reagan Republican since he first entered politics in 1981.

Right now, the smears and distortions against McCain are at a fevered pitch from some of his long-standing foes in the R establishment and from talk radio hosts who are leading the hysterical charge against him. Some of the distortions are outrageous, and need to be corrected, for example, the issue of the so called "Gang of 14".

The truth is John McCain organized "The Gang of Fourteen" to win- not to block -the confirmation of Conservative Judges, and his efforts succeeded in the Senate. This group of seven Republicans and Seven Democrats ultimately broke the logjam that had delayed confirmation of some of the most conservative nominees of President Bush.

Because of McCain's leadership, Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito won Supreme Court confirmation without filibuster from the Democrats.

What has Mitt Romney done for America? And, no, I don't count founding Bain Capital LLC as a resume builder for the office of the President of the United States.

And even though I support John McCain in the primary, I will wholeheartedly support the nominee of my party in the general election.

i'd sure like zouk's job. he gets to post all day here [well noon till 7 anyway] every five minutes and he still has a porsche and a yacht! how fabulous is that. or perhaps how fantasist is more like it.

"But because it's not possible to bring everyone into the first-world way of life, I elect to have some compassion and at least mediate the inequalities. Try to put some balance into the system."

Except for those denizens of the middle east of course, especially the Iraqis! how many sides of a mouth must a Lib have to operate in the modern world. It used to be two was enough. No longer.

"I voted for the measure but I didn't want it to pass" - H clinton.

Classic, Zouk. "The Constitution says we can spend $500 billion on the military and doesn't mention that we should give a s**t about our neighbors. That's my trump card!"

The Constitution also doesn't say anything about warrantless wiretapping, faith-based initiatives, starting "preventative" wars or any other number of things that your GOP heroes are championing. Just like a good Republican, you are picking and choosing your favorite passages from the Constitution (and probably the Bible, too) to support your inner desire to kill everyone and capitalize on their suffering and demise. Good job!

p.s. I didn't say jack about taking away guns so keep your trap quiet. As soon as a liberal says "gun" the GOP faithful run around like chickens with their heads cut off, somehow still screaming "2nd Amendment!!! 2nd Amendment!!" While trying to push through new amendments that restrict the private rights of homosexuals and women's privacy. Nice!

I love that you Republicans will cast aside half a million annual American cancer deaths because the Constitution doesn't authorize curing the disease, but when it comes to losing 3,000 people in a terrorist attack, we should nuke every country that doesn't like us.

Every day I find something new to hate about the Republican Party. Thanks for this one, zouk!

optymist - "If republicans really felt so strongly about this concept of lower rates equal higher revenues, you'd think they'd try it in their own businesses. No, somehow, in that realm, the business bible says it's whatever the market will bear, the higher the better."

Not sure I follow what you are trying to get at here. If you are saying that Republicans that own businesses (as if R's are the only people that own them) charge the highest price that the market will bear (as if R's are the only ones that would do that) for a product or service, the only thing I have to say to that is "Walmart", whose business model is about maximizing efficiencies and reducing costs in order to provide the lowest cost while maximizing revenue via quantity.

"at least mediate the inequalities"

Yes we are doing that now. It seems though, that you have an unquenchable desire to expand this program.

"If I were to say that universal healthcare benefits all of us and is a proper shared expense, I would guess that you'd be unhappy. Am I wrong? "

I will grant you this idea and it does not make me unhappy. but we already provide assistance for a certain level of income in the way of free health care. you want to raise this and assign it to government control, I assume. I don't. I prefer non-government solutions. Likewise with social security and many other programs that are not appropriate for government intervention.

jimd52 - if it goes to convention (a big IF, if McCain wins FL it's over) McCain would definitely offer Huck the VP, but what if Mitt offers the Presidency and is willing to wait in the VP slot? How does Huck play that one? McCain would never accept the VP spot. His only offer would be VP and a handshake promise to not run for reelection in 2012. Huckabee could be the nominee this year or 2012 at the worst. He needs to hold Georgia/Arkansas and place in Oklahoma/Alabama to get the delegates for it to have a chance though.

All this Chris writing just shows how far we have come in a couple hundred years where WaPo and employees can not say hardly one word about Ron Paul, who happens to be the ONLY candidate talking about the U.S. Constitution with reverence. You people maketh me sick and are sickening for the USA as a sovereign nation, but I realize the CFR does not like the USA as sovereign, but a New World Order type of lesser being. www theradioavenger com

Small wonder circulation and readership that pays is diminishing as we speak.

Again zouk you are simply not getting the overarching point here.

You seriously believe that anyone who isn't as successful as you spent their life watching TV and drinking beer. Because you clearly only know, understand and comprehend your immediate surroundings and upbringing.

Just like a good Republican, anyone who didn't do exactly what you did is clearly incompetent and therefore deserves no help from the government or the community. Leave them on their face if they aren't as good as Zouk.

And no, I'm not going to "correct" the inequalities of the world. That is impossible and you obviously are aware of this. But because it's not possible to bring everyone into the first-world way of life, I elect to have some compassion and at least mediate the inequalities. Try to put some balance into the system.

Why? Because I'm an American and I put compassion and being a civil servant ahead of my inner desire to be a childish, capitalistic and selfish Republican. Give it a shot, it's not hard to take the social high road.

the clintons at odds with the dem leadership. Wait, i thought they were the dem leadership. Times, they are a changin.

"Hillary Clinton to Howard Dean: Screw you.
by Geekesque
Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 09:21:29 AM PST
Hillary Clinton's campaign is actively and, for the first time, openly seeking to undermine Howard Dean.

The context, of course, is the seating of the Michigan and Florida delegations. Where no one has campaigned. And, in the case of Michigan, where Clinton was the only one on the ballot.

And where the DNC made a decision, at great cost and pain, to strip them of delegates for violating party rules.

But, rules don't apply if they don't help the Clintons.

More below the fold.

Geekesque's diary :: ::
The folks who brought us efforts to discourage student voting in Iowa and strip workers from caucusing in Nevada issued this statement this morning.

"I hear all the time from people in Florida and Michigan that they want their voices heard in selecting the Democratic nominee.

"I believe our nominee will need the enthusiastic support of Democrats in these states to win the general election, and so I will ask my Democratic convention delegates to support seating the delegations from Florida and Michigan. I know not all of my delegates will do so and I fully respect that decision. But I hope to be President of all 50 states and U.S. territories, and that we have all 50 states represented and counted at the Democratic convention.

"I hope my fellow potential nominees will join me in this.

"I will of course be following the no-campaigning pledge that I signed, and expect others will as well."

Of course. She makes this move AFTER Michigan has voted to give her and only her delegates. Four days before Florida, when it would be too late for anything to change what would be an inevitable, name recognition-based landslide.

Why? Is it because Hillary Clinton all of a sudden is concerned about protecting voters' rights?

No. Because it's all about Hillary Clinton.

And, this is a very public slap in the face to Howard Dean and the DNC.

Democratic National Committee members voted yesterday to strip Michigan of its delegates to next year's national convention, making it the second state to be punished so severely for holding a primary election earlier than the national party allows.

Leaders of both major political parties have tried to enforce a calendar in which only a few states are allowed to hold their voting early. But several states, including Michigan and Florida, have bucked those rules, hoping to gain more influence over the nominating process by voting when the race is still wide open.

In August, the Democratic National Committee responded by stripping Florida of its convention delegates after the state scheduled its primary for Jan. 29. Yesterday in Vienna, the DNC's rules and bylaws committee issued the same penalty to Michigan for its Jan. 15 primary date.

And yet another sign that if Clinton gets the nomination, Howard Dean will be out on his ass and exiled back to Vermont.

The only question would be whether Harold Ford would be the VP nominee or the new head of the DNC.

Tags: Recommended
"

That they would sabotage the country and their party shows they are gop. Nothign else is needed, other than the fat that they care about no one and nothing but money power and themselves. That is the gop aprty platfrom, along with treason and terrorism. The clintons carrer is over. They just don't knwo it yet. Bush took on the clinton's tactics, not the other way around. We might as well re-elect bush if we are going to elect the clitnons.

And for anyone bad mouthing bush for what he has done to this natiion, then supports clinton, you are a hyporcite

crisis _ I see you are having muddled liberal thoughts again and can't distinguish between things we can reasonably control and are in the public interest and things that will magically be solved if only enough rich people pay enough taxes.

FYI - we revert back to an ancient magical scripture we fondly refer to as "the constitution" when these demonic loony thoughts enter our tiny little liberal brains. In that document you will find references to the defense of the nation. you will find a right to own a gun.

you will not find support for curing every illness and eliminating all risk. you will not find free and eternal education nor free and unending doctor visits, however appealing it may sound.

pesky founding documents. Depriving me of all my free stuff.

I'm sorry, zouk, but this doesn't really make sense to me:

*************
but my main point was that military spending is something that benefits all of us and is a proper shared expense. the level of spending on "human resources" is 67% of the budget or 13% of GDP.

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

If I were to say that universal healthcare benefits all of us and is a proper shared expense, I would guess that you'd be unhappy. Am I wrong?

By the way, that's the president's budget, right? Is that the one that doesn't include the wars?

JD -- Bush's own economic team admits in the link I posted earlier, at least in sworn testimony, that absent extraordinary circumstances tax cuts of the type we're discussing do not sufficiently stimulate the economy so as to pay for themselves. Are you contending that you have proven otherwise, or am I missing your point.

For the record, my point is not that tax rates should necessarily go up, remain the same, or go down. I don't particularly care as long as the budget is balanced. If that happens, everything else is merely an appropriate discussion of priorities.

The fluidity of the Republican nomination race for who will be put up against the Democrats, is a sign of Republican's dissatisfaction with the offerings. No one candidate is willing or able to put forth a convincing campaign. The case is such because none of the candidates have flown a ( real or perceived) straight and narrow path in their career. Generally speaking, they are not trusted because there have been too many inconsistencies in their careers.

The only exception being Fred Thompson who, after a very conservative effort at campaigning, dropped out of the race. This brings out the schizophrenia of the Republican Party even more. They have paid more attention to the "Rock Star" style campaigning than to the one candidate that has never needed to apologize for, explain, or change past stances. He had no splash or pizzazz in his campaigns. One would think that the Republicans would understand a conservative, especially since they find fault in the lack of conservatism in one area or another of all the other candidates.

In closing, I guess that the Republicans are still shell shocked from the shellacking they got in the last congressional election and are running scared. They better brush them selves off, pick them selves up, and get on with business else the party might go the way of the Whigs. As a party of "individualism", "entrepreneurism", and "self reliance" they are not living up to the legacy. They appear like an army whose leader was beheaded and they have no clue as to which way to run. "Do we retreat, charge, or just lie down and die?" If you have no leader, make one or be one. Lead, follow, or get the heck out of the way.

no facts, please. that might undermine his argument.

Posted by: claudialong | January 25, 2008 02:43 PM

I guess the link to the federal budget is not "facty" enough for head jackel and leader of the moonbats, drindl. Perhaps a link to Daily Kos instead would suit you. Of course it would.

Measuring military spending against GDP is a stupid and meaningless GOP tactic to make it look like a small amount. But the fact is that we spend half a trillion dollars every year on the military and again, that doesn't include all of the military-related projects that the U.S. is involved in.

I get really sick of hearing whiny Republicans complain about a domestic spending bill of a few billion dollars for education or health care when they can turn around and throw endless amounts of money at the military. It's another branch of the pure GOP hypocrisy I spoke of earlier.

Health problems and guns kill more people every year than if we had an annual 9/11 attack. So why aren't we spending $500 billion a year to fight cancer and gun violence?

more than 500,000 people died from cancer in the United States in 2007. This is an official government statistic. And more than a million people in the U.S. were diagnosed with cancer in 2007.

That means every year, 142 times the number of people die from cancer than died in the 9/11 attack. More Americans die every year from cancer than died in WWII. Put WWII, Vietnam, 9/11 and the War in Iraq together and there are still more fatalities from cancer every year than in these four events combined.

I ask again, why are we spending $500 billion/year for the military?

"Zouk, not everyone can graduate from college and get phenomenal jobs because then no one would be serving you your beer on your yacht "

what do you think I did before and during the time I went to college?

I went to grad school at night while working full time mostly, including bartending and deckhand and actuary too. I paid my dues, now I can reap the reward. Yet you Libs would have me give all the benefits of my extra effort to the guy who elected to stay home and watch TV instead of going to night school.

that sounds fair. Next time I'll vote for clinton and catch a buzz instead.

After the Clintons get through abusing Obama, look for Condi Rice to be on the GOP ticket, to pick up the disaffected black vote. No serious politician would want to be a VP in the Clinton administration because that VP would be totally marginized by Bill. The ever ambitious Edwards might take it in hopes Hillary will die in office and his dream be fullfilled.

'did you want to ignore my main point by delving into the numbers.'

no facts, please. that might undermine his argument.

bhoomes

I registered as a Republican because for many local offices here the primary is tantamount to election. I probably would have done it just to vote in the presidential primary anyway.

If Mitt is the nominee, I would vote for Obama. If it is Hillary vs Mitt, I will hope for Bloomberg.

"not everyone has the same opportunities in life."

and somehow in your infinite wisdom you are going to correct all this.

rpy1 - well perhaps I should be more specific, I was just throwing numbers around for demonstration purposes. It is true national defense is listed at about 16% of the federal budget. but this includes long term Army structure including salaries. Current operations do not move this figure around much. I should have said that the military spending is 4% of GDP.

but my main point was that military spending is something that benefits all of us and is a proper shared expense. the level of spending on "human resources" is 67% of the budget or 13% of GDP.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/pdf/hist.pdf

did you want to ignore my main point by delving into the numbers. this is the typical Lib tactic when confronted with a solid argument.

How will the primary change if/when Bill Clinton gets caught being unfaithful? What about if it happens