femalenick,
You are so right that Sarah Palin is beautiful and very young, bright, ethical, and will appeal to social conservatives on both sides. I'd also add competent and a pretty good speaker. She is, however, rather inexperienced to be a heartbeat away from the presidency. But in an election or two, look out...

Hutchinson, Snowe and Collins are too centrist to really help McCain, I think. He needs to head a little more to the right. My money is currently on Huck. I can't think of any females that would work for him.

Kingofzouk.

Again I ask you to give us some useful comment on why Guiliani was not able to convert the credentials you felt were so impressive into a win in any of the first few states - including Florida where as recently as the day of the vote he was saying he would win.

Seriously, though I am sorely tempted to trade insults with you, I am not being sarcastic or nasty. I am actually very interested in this question. A lot of we 'Moonbats' (as you call us) have our theories, and some GOP supporters who didn't like Guiliani have given their views. But we haven't heard from the people who had the most on the line: GOP Guiliani supporters, like you.

Edwards supporters have been commenting on his failed bid, and (while I disagree with some of their views) have in the main been civil about it. I think that it is a very valid question. It helps all of us understand the debate. Why do you think GOP voters in Florida in the main did not embrace Guiliani's vision for America, or felt that someone else could deliver it more effectively?

social programs work teh gop loses. For all their "your invested in deafeat in iraq". It is thye who are invested in america not winning domestically.

And they sure will point the finger when we pull out of iraq. Will only work with dittoheads. this is bush's and the republcains war. They choose that path by leaving most americans out of the process. Do not pity them, they made their bed.

the gop is invested in deafeat for america. They are party loyalist red coats. They had their time. look on it foundly gop. But the future is not yours. don't sabotage it.

"CALLER: I just want to mention that I'm a recent convert to your program. I found you in June, and I've listened to you daily ever since. I find you very informing, and in fact I even find that I start quoting you when I'm venting with others when politics come up, so I just wanted to thank you for giving me that information --

RUSH: Thank you, I'm sure you would urge me to hang in there against all these assaults and attacks."

Break the dittohead mentality. Not just to free them. But to stop them from sabotaginggrowth in this country. Americans get health care, the gop loses. the economy succeds for all, the gop loses.

We get out of overseas war, the gop loses.

we break abolical cord of these people we can fix the damage they've done. We need to start at teh top. Who is giving rush/fox a platform? Trading compaines? Would they give the kkk a platform? Why not? Rush and fox are the same hate speech. Without them we can move forward as one nation. if the gop is unwilling to do that you must ask why?

party over country is treason.

Everyone has to check out the article "White Voters with a Side of Hispanics" on the blogzine Savage Politics. This is an awesome discussion and analysis on the current Democrat and GOP candidates and their eligibility.

www.savagepolitics.com
Here is an excerpt: "Tuesday night's Florida Primary was a very important episode in the drama in which both the Republican and Democrat Parties are unfolding towards the Presidency of the United States. It also dramatically demonstrated the incredible bias that the Media continues to display towards the Democratic hopeful Barack Obama, in spite of all the evidence pointing to his lack of viability. From MSNBC's Chris Mathews, who openly stated the day before that any Network that decided to report on the Democratic voting results in Florida was proving a "gross" favoritism for Hillary (ironically enough his Network ended up having to cover it nevertheless), to CNN's pundits, who continuously utilized the exact same rhetoric that the Obama Campaign was spewing to excuse their defeat ("Beauty Pageant" was their favorite phrase, with all the sexist connotations it implies). All the same, the Florida results in the Democratic side were overwhelmingly favorable to Hillary Clinton, who won a 50% margin, to Obama's 33%, Edwards' 14%, and Gravel's 1%. On the Republican side, it was John McCain who came out victorious with a 36% margin, to Romney's 31%, Giuliani's 15%, Huckabee's 14%, and Paul's 3%. Let's discuss each Party's results and their realistic consequence.
First, we have the very significant victory of John McCain. His candidacy was, from the very start, labeled as a failure due to his unpopularity amongst most "base" Republicans, much of it owed to McCain's overwhelmingly dubious record on Conservative issues. His notorious tendency to side with multiple (highly despised) Democrats on issues like Immigration, Bush's Tax Cuts and other measures, have always been enough to marginalize him from even the "moderate wing" within his Party. Still, when the Florida Exit Polls are analyzed, they reflect many unexpected re-alignments in his favor. Evangelical/Born Again Christians voted for John McCain in a 30% margin, in comparison to both Romney's and Huckabee's 29%. This may seem like an insignificant difference, but when you also consider that the majority of non-Evangelicals (Catholics, Atheist, etc.) also..." Find the rest of the article at http://savagepolitics.com/?p=64

Mark, I'm with you on Huck & Rudy. I think Rudy's out, but Huck is a very real possibility.

The smartest thing that McC can do, in my opinion, is to put a woman on the ticket. It's the best way that the campaign can combat the storyline that will otherwise dominate, i.e., the Dems out to make history (black man or woman) vs. the party of white males. If I were him, I'd choose one of these women: Olympia Snowe, Kay Bailey Hutchinson, and Susan Collins. I'm sure Sarah Palin's name will also end up in the pool if they decide to go with a female. She's beautiful and very young (Obama's age?) and seems quite bright, ethical, and will appeal to social conservatives on both sides.

Hey Chris, how about letting us know what the demographic break-out was for the Democrats in Florida.

Even though it doesn't matter in terms of delegates, it would still be worth noting what regions/counties Clinton and Obama did best in, and what the make-up of those regions are. It would be especially interesting for some analysis on how they did in the Cuban-American heavy areas of the state, given that Obama tried appealing to a younger generation in that community, less hell-bent on totally isolating Cuba.

Nick, If I were McCain I would go with Martinez or Crist. They are popular in FL and FL is a lynchpin state. They are capable and moderate, but well regarded in R circles.

Martinez is only a gutsy call if you think 2 Senators is a bad ticket. Otherwise, it is
stronger than either of the tix you suggest.

spectator - welcome to the moonbat wing of the blog. rufas will be glad to show you around. I am sure you both have lots in common and talk the same language, whatever it is. If he starts making sense to you, come up for some oxygen. Unless, he already does, in which case, it is too late for you my moonbat friend. take the short bus to your next appointment.

mark, there is little if any chance McCain would pick either Chuckles or Giuliani. They add nothing to the ticket.

Nick, I sure would not like to see MDH or RG on McC's ticket. That is because I would not want either of them to become President.

I may not be in charge of this decision, however.

your hopes for losing the war see to be dashed, perhaps, you can count on some economic pain to America to advance your hopes.

If america loses, you win, if america wins, you lose. what a party.

Hey Rufus, look at poor zouk. A few words sent him into a foaming-at-the-mouth frenzy.

He seems to think people are going to bother taking the time to parse his screeds and insert words he was too lazy to type himself. Pretty funny stuff.

Forgot to note that I think that Romney should perhaps have been added to the LOSER section. His money, after all, didn't help him in FL - and that Huck took votes from him. Worse still, that Huck guy just won't drop out! Instead, he seems to be sticking around to deliberately help McCain. Perhaps the pundits are right about one thing: none of the GOP candidates like Romney.

In fact, you seem to enjoy losing so much, you have tried your best to inflict this value on our military. Wasn't getting only one of your empty promises (min wage) enough losing for you, you need to lose more? the Pelosi/ Reid congress should have quenched your desire to lose for the near future, they still flail around trying to seem important but not passing anything of substance, except those new PO names of course.
I have something for you to look forward to Lib losers: Since billary will be at the top of the ticket, you can expect to lose the Senate and most likely the house back to the Rs. that should satisfy your love of losing for a while and put you in drindl-esque mood for the next four years.

where else do you get rewarded the worse you do. Propoganda doesn't have a hold on america anymore zouk. The youth are not dittoheads. You people have had your cords cut. It's only a matter of time before your brand of fascism is the way of the doe doe.

Think about the future zouk. it had to end sometime. Look at it this way though. If the gop did their job they wouldn't be in this position. They didn't now they must take the consequences for their actions. As you do zouk. Your consequence is being a laughing stock. Again, your choice.

You'll get no pity from america now. You had a long time to work with. No your time is up. Stand down. Stop sabotaging the future. It is moot. the battles have already been fought. It's a waiting game now.

the old rule sno longer apply. Enjoy the irrelevnace you've earned.

Coming from a rudy supporter I'll take that for what it's worth. Thanks.

Good info - thanks for posting the economic stats, Drindl. No wonder a close GOP friend in Texas recently told me that when he told his die-hard Republican parents that I am an HRC supporter, they told him that since the 1950s, their business has always fared better when a Democrat was in the White House.

And I'm with you on Mac not choosing Rudy for his veep. But he could appoint him to head Dept. of Homeland Security or make him Attorney General.

I think old Mac will need to choose someone younger who appeals to social conservatives - so I wouldn't rule out Huckabee. Think about it. Huck is staying in the raise despite having ZERO money and despite knowing that he can't compete in the coastal states or the southwest as McCain can. If Huck wins at least two states in the south on Tuesday, then McCain will seriously consider him. Let's face it - Huck is a hell of a campaigner who's extremely likeable.

The two are the only GOP candidates who talk about the environment being an important issue. And Huck's record on helping the poor will resonate with socially conservative Democrats who do exist throughout America, but esp. in the South.

I thus predict a McCain/Huckabee ticket, which I think, will be very competitive.

So which is it? Do the "Libs" support Clinton or not? You appear to be really confused today, zouk.

Posted by: Spectator2 | January 30, 2008 05:13 PM

You seem to have difficulty with the English language, as all Libs tend to have.

there are often implied adjectives such as most, some, all, many, few, etc. every statement ever made does not imply simply all or none. I know you simpletons prefer to think in these terms.

Libs don't like billary. notice I didn't say all or every or even most, but implied some. Libs like Mccain - notice I didn't say all or every or even most, but implied some.

I know you moonbats prefer to argue over the meaning of the word "is" when confronted with facts, but (most, some) people are not falling for that clintonian pervarication any more. the jig is up. you are going to lose another election. you will try to say it was because of the corrupt and dishonest aspects of your candidate. that is only partially true. it is mostly because of your failed 60s era policies which you keep dragging forward like a sodden old Kennedy.

just like Kerry lost because he didn;t fight back - wrong - he was a Lib. just like Al gore lost because he didn't take advantage of clinton - wrong - it was because he was a Lib. just like dukakis - because he was a Lib, just like Mondale - because he was a Lib, just like Mcgovern - because he was a Lib, just like Carter - because he was a Lib AND inept. wow, a new skill.

As we can surmnise, there is one thing you Libs are certainly very good at - losing.

That's what I'm saying. He should not be here running his mouth. If obama got bounced you wouldn't see me here talking mess :).

Credibility. Credibility for pete's sake. These people never stop. The lest we can do is pull their card, right?

Rufus: You should lay off zouk today. He's in mourning over the death of the Rudy G campaign. Look at his posts. Even dumber than usual. Give the poor sap a break.

clinton is a republcain. What else you got without the clintons to point to. Again, waht will you do when obama is the nominee? how will you justify your fascists then?

We are not in a recession - yet, moonbat Lib. I am not sure you now what that means. but the downturn is certainly related to the market getting spooked by all the tax and spend promises of the new congress. Otherwise, how is it that is started so coincidentlayy with the madame speakers new reign of terror?

Remember clintons corrupt and stupid justice department going after microsoft and ruing the gift he got with the internet boom.

Remember peanuts feeble price fixing attempts to correct the malaise.

Remember Johnson's biggest spending spree of all time?

Remember FDR extending the depression with big government spending?

Every time the Libs come in and start to tax and spend, hollow out the military and create bigger and slower bureaucracies, the results are predictable. Yet the moonbats never learn, they want to do it all over again.

I sure do miss those carter days with the sweaters, the lack of Olympics, the turning off of the christmas tree lights, the gas lines. bring those days back hillary or even better, where's the beef obambi, the 2nd coming of Peanut.

I can't believe zouk is here today. You got ba**s zouk, that's for sure, I'll gice you that. Brains? Nto so much.

Reality gets no play at all in your world does it. ARe you wearing yoru cheerleading outfit?

HAHAHAHAH

Unbelievable, this guy. What is a blogger with zero credibility? A propogandist?

you are a joke zouk. Why are you still here. Change you tag name and start over with new credibility. You are our circus clown zouk. Why do you still come here? Who are you trying to sway?

bush built an enron like economy. A stack of cards. Speculation. I know the gop takes zero accountability for their actions, but this is ridiculous. What non-dittohead buys this garbage?

Pay the stock holders and exec's but not the workers. Great business model. for so long. You had yoru cahnce gop. Horrible governance. What did teh gop do right? Where else do you get rewarded the worse you do? Clinton is gop. the gop had their chance, they sqandered it.

Time for a new age. the hypocites did not keep up their end of the bargin. Do not pity them. Even with all their finger pointing lying and discrediting.

"do you delusional moonbats actually think that the crooked clinton is going to beat Mc Cain in november. even Libs can't stand her. and Libs like McCain.

Never were very good with math, you Libs."

So which is it? Do the "Libs" support Clinton or not? You appear to be really confused today, zouk.

Zouk is really flailing now. He appears to be blaming all recessions under Repub presidents on some previous Dem president but in the current case even he can't do that so he is shifting blame to the speaker of the house.

Wow, that's some impressive logic there.

do you delusional moonbats actually think that the crooked clinton is going to beat Mc Cain in november. even Libs can't stand her. and Libs like McCain.

Never were very good with math, you Libs.

october surprise?

your right zouk. The last 30 years of gop rule have zero to do with the economy. Everything is the minorty parties fault. HAHAHAHAH

See how far that gets ya.

your still running your mouth zouk? Wow.

HAHAHAHHAHAHA

drindl - so naive and so willing to accept anything that reflects badly on GOPs.

consider how markets actually work. the Dems come into power. slowly they erode the progress that GOPS made. After about 2 years of decent performance, the reality of the failed policies set in. then they are thrown out of office (when that actually win the presidency, however infrequently that is now) the next guy - A repub, inherits the poor economy left by the left and it takes about 2-4 years or more to fix the problems.

consider the mess that carter left. consider the mess that clinton left. these are not trends like the hopefully short Pelosi recession will be, they are full fledged catastrophes resulting from the tax and spend liberal policies enacted while they are in charge.

Redo the analysis and add the first two years after a Dem rule and see how the numbers drop. the eisenhower recession - after Truman. the Nixon recession after Johnson, the reagan recovery after Peanut, the Bush recession after clinton tried but failed to stop terrorists.

But I wouldn't expect you Libs to know anything about how the market works, or that it prices future events. you know so little about econ and that is why the facts are what they are - Dems cause pain.

"DENVER (AP) - Democratic White House candidate Barack Obama on Wednesday said rival Hillary Rodham Clinton is too polarizing to win the presidency and she has taken positions shared by President Bush and Republican candidate John McCain for political expediency.

Obama depicted Clinton as a calculating, poll-tested divisive figure who will only inspire greater partisan divisions as she sides with Republicans on issues like trade, the role of lobbyists in politics and national security. At the same time, he elevated McCain, fresh off victory in Florida's crucial primary, as the likely Republican nominee.

"Democrats will win in November and build a majority in Congress not by nominating a candidate who will unite the other party against us, but by choosing one who can unite this country around a movement for change," Obama said, speaking as rival John Edwards was pulling out of the race in New Orleans, leaving a Clinton-Obama fight for the Democratic nomination.

"It is time for new leadership that understands the way to win a debate with John McCain or any Republican who is nominated is not by nominating someone who agreed with him on voting for the war in Iraq or who agreed with him in voting to give George Bush the benefit of the doubt on Iran, who agrees with him in embracing the Bush-Cheney policy of not talking to leaders we don't like, who actually differed with him by arguing for exceptions for torture before changing positions when the politics of the moment changed," Obama said.

(AP) Democratic presidential hopeful, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., addresses supporters during at a rally...
Full Image


"We need to offer the American people a clear contrast on national security, and when I am the nominee of the Democratic Party, that is exactly what I will do," he said.

Obama said it was time for a change and he was the man to provide it.

"I know it is tempting - after another presidency by a man named George Bush - to simply turn back the clock, and to build a bridge back to the 20th century," he said in Denver.

"... It's not enough to say you'll be ready from Day One - you have to be right from Day One," he added in unmistakable criticisms of Clinton, who often claims she's better prepared to govern, and her husband, who pledged during his own presidency to build a bridge to the 21st century.
"

By NEDRA PICKLER

Clinton is more of the same. We cannot re-elect george bush to fix the problems he/she created.

There is no reason for McCain to pick Rudy for veep. McCain isn't going to carry New York regardless of who his running mate is.

Rudy can go back to his sordid little life.

truth--I can't imagine McCain wanting Rudy for VP -- the guy tanked in every state. That would be like putting an anchor around his neck and jumping into the pool.

truth_hunter writes
"Luckily for the GOP, people have short memories. Under Reagan and both Bush's voodoo economics, the benefits have only trickled up."

I've recently started reading John Bogle's "The battle for the soul of capitalism" (or similar). Pretty interesting stuff, so far. At this point he's mostly disparaging the obscene compensation packages of corporate executives & describing how the system allows these folks to siphon off profits that should go to the owners (i.e. stockholders), rather than the managers. He points out that for about the last 20 years, the situation has been deteriorating, and accelerating. Is the concurrence with enthusiasm for supply-side economics coincidence or causal?

From Red State Network, a conservative Web site and blog:

"Let's face it. Nobody says that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have mismanaged the economy. Nobody says that we are headed into a Pelosi recession or a Reid recession."

And let's face it, nobody is a bigger nobody than zouk.

Pro-Republican pundits/operatives either ignore Clinton Florida Win, or slant everthing against her, because they "Know they Can Beat Barak Hussain" but not Hillary! The Republican Florida Legislature again voided Democrats 2008 Primary Election Delegate Votes with earl primary, just as they stole election votes in 2000 by vote no-count and 2004 totals computer flipping that was verified, as well as "suppressed black votes" by Highway Patrol poll roadblock intimidation - checking for licenses and and proof of auto insurance. Thanks Jeb Bush for 2000 & 2004. Thanks Republican Florida Legislature 2008! It is All About Experience and ability to Fight and reverse seven years of Lies by Republican Mal-Administration, rampant Federal Law violations, as documented 235 Lies by Bush and Cheney, Corporatism in government - allowing the manipulation of unregulated trading of oil and energy prices, lax enforcement of environmental laws, no mine safety regulation fines, attack on Constitutional Bill of Rights, Free Speech, spying on Americans, from imprisoning demonstrators in New York at Republican Convention to lying to Justice Investigation Valerie Plame violation of Federal Security Laws by Bush, directed by Cheney secret government and Irve Libby neocon manipulations, Karl Rove leaks to Robert Novak, etc. Yes, Experience Is More Important than Republican Media Hype in support of Obama "bring us together", to deny Clinton's not repair of Last 8 years!

CC, Another loser last night was Jeb Bush's political "machine" in FL that was enlisted to aid Romney.

Mark in Austin, Congrats on the McCain win. Seems like McCain's bus isn't out of gas after all.... looks like I and many in the MSM need to get a better road map!

Drindl, Luckily for the GOP, people have short memories. Under Reagan and both Bush's voodoo economics, the benefits have only trickled up. I can still remember the thousands of small farms in Iowa going under during the Reagan administration (remember the auctions), and yet most still vote Rep. Go figure.

I heard a "seer" with a great track record predict in January that the candidates would be Clinton/Edwards and McCain/Giuliani, and Clinton would win. Hmmmmmm......

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Poor zouk. Really grasping today.

Kingofzouk, I think you meant 'preceded', not'proceeded'.

You still didn't asnwer the key question: why did the GOP reject Guiliani, whom you appear to have endorsed as the best overall candidate among the GOP group?

Loser: Robo Calling. Romney claims that the MaCain campaign made 10,000,000 robo calls telling voters that Romney would withdraw troops from Iraq. Obviously, the voters didn't believe the robo calls, otherwise Romney would have won overwhelmingly.

(Most of the 20th century's bear markets, incidentally, have been Republican bear markets: the Crash of '29, the early '70s oil shock, the '87 correction, and the current stall occurred under GOP presidents.)'

Bears repeating... and they forget the first Bush recession, in 1991.

'But Democrats, it turns out, are much better for the stock market than Republicans. Slate ran the numbers and found that since 1900, Democratic presidents have produced a 12.3 percent annual total return on the S&P 500, but Republicans only an 8 percent return. In 2000, the Stock Trader's Almanac, which slices and dices Wall Street performance figures like baseball stats, came up with nearly the same numbers (13.4 percent versus 8.1 percent) by measuring Dow price appreciation. (Most of the 20th century's bear markets, incidentally, have been Republican bear markets: the Crash of '29, the early '70s oil shock, the '87 correction, and the current stall occurred under GOP presidents.)'

'According to their paper, entitled, "The Presidential Puzzle: Political Cycles and the Stock Market" and published in the October issue of the Journal of Finance, stock market returns are on average about 5 percent higher when the White House is run by a Democrat than during Republican rule.

Looking at the 72-year period between 1927 and 1999, the study shows that a broad stock index, similar to the S&P 500, returned approximately 11 percent more a year on average under a Democratic president versus safer, three-month Treasurys. By comparison, the index only returned 2 percent more a year versus the T-bills when Republicans were in office.

The study also looked at how the index responded under both Democrats and Republicans, using two portfolios tracked by the Center for Research in Security Prices, a research outfit affiliated with the University of Chicago's business school.

The "value-weighted portfolio" ranks all the stocks in the index according to their total market value, whereas in the "equal-weighted portfolio" the stocks are all ranked the same.'

On average, value-weighted portfolios returned 9 percent more under Democrats than Republicans during the 72 year period, while equal-weighted portfolios returned 16 percent more under Democrats.'

WINNER: Straight Talk

McCain courageously opposed the ridiculous idea advanced by Gov. Crist for a federal disaster relief fund that would put all American taxpayers on the hook for hurricane damages affecting those who choose to live in Florida, despite Crist's endorsement of him, and despite the prevailing pandering platforms of his opponents in the run up to the primary.

This just proves why McCain's lifetime American Conservative Union rating is an 83, just slightly lower than Newt's. He has proven himself and has a consistent track record.

In other words, for once please contribute something of substance rather than vitriol.

Posted by: anthony.rimell | January 30, 2008 04:24 PM

Proceeded by, you guessed it, no substance and all vitriol:

Or do you think that they are responsible for every bad thing that ever happened to you, while Bush.,Guiliani et al are saints. Your boy lost, and lost big time. Why not comment on that and why it happened instead of your love/hate thing with Hillary and Bill?

---It is not specific policies that cause markets to wander up and down. this is typical of Libs who think they can control the weather, control the economy, control the bureaucracy, control your morality (except bill and Hill of course).

Markets respond over time to upcoming trends. what trend emerged this year that coincides with the change in the market ? - I know, I know, the Lib congress, the announcement of the biggest tax hike in history, investigations of everything under the sun, the assult on capitolism and corporations, the threat of carbon taxes, the promise of government health care - yep, just the information the market needed to go into a downturn.

Pelosi recession? Is like the Giuliani presidency?

Posted by: Spectator2 | January 30, 2008 04:19 PM

No it has already come to pass. guiliani may still be Mccain's VP which would hand him the office in 4 years. but that is still a prediction, not a reality, unfortunately not so for the Pelosi recession.

claudialong: The Youtube clips are indeed funny, and so true.

Two amazing leaps of 'logic' from Kingofzouk today: First he tries to blame the recession on the Democrats, as always conventiently forgettign that his Republican President has vetoed every bill for change the Demcoratic House and Congress have put forward. So the policies being followed that have led to the recession are Bush/ Republican ones.

Second, CC is commenting on the Republican race, yet Kingofzouk wants to refer to 'Billary'. Kingofzouk, you need to know that actually not everything is about them (or your perecption of them). Or do you think that they are responsible for every bad thing that ever happened to you, while Bush.,Guiliani et al are saints. Your boy lost, and lost big time. Why not comment on that and why it happened instead of your love/hate thing with Hillary and Bill? Tell us why your people could not see the qualities in Guiliani that you claim would have made hom a good presidnet. In other words, for once please contribute something of substance rather than vitriol.

It is tight, pretty tight in both races. The Republican nomination is still up in the air, imho, but with Edwards backing out, it looks like that helps Hillary on the Democratic side and hurts Obama (See: Edwards Factor at conclusion):

http://newsusa.myfeedportal.com/viewarticle.php?articleid=43

Major left wing site tries to discredit Billary:

Losers: Hillary Clinton.

Posted by: schencks84 | January 30, 2008 03:08 PM

Pelosi recession? Is like the Giuliani presidency?

'http://www.newsmax.com/kessler/kessler_mccain_romney/2008/01/27/67855.html'

here, major rightwing site tries to discredit mccain with his ' lies' 'recklessness' and 'explosive temper' --talks about what a 'disaster' his presidency would be. go for it, folks! circular firing squad time!

Obama snubbed me - can I get a few votes out of that? Or do I have to cry again? this victimn thing is really working out.

--Billary

drindl, don't talk about ratings. It sends krazy keith olbermann into a tizzy. He is disturbed enough without any encouragement.

what a great pleasure it's been watching limbaugh and hannity and the other wingers moan and tear their hair out over mccain's rise and their boy guiliani's tanking--after all the free press they gave him--he's so unlikable the more people saw of him, the less they liked. and it's great to see that fox new's ratings are tanking too...along with mittens..

'And don't even mention Ron Paul's name to the folks at Fox News, who have stepped outside their role as 'journalists' to try to kneecap the anti-war GOP candidate. The most blatant slap came right before the New Hampshire primary, when Fox News refused to include Paul in a televised GOP debate, despite the fact that just days earlier Paul grabbed 10 percent of the vote in the Iowa caucus, nearly doubling the tally Giuliani posted.

Paul's Republican supporters became so incensed by the snub that they literally chased Sean Hannity through the New Hampshire night chanting "Fox News sucks!" and captured the scene in a homemade clip that really has to be seen to be believed. (To recap New Hampshire for Fox News: Hannity was pursued by a Republican mob, O'Reilly got into a shoving match with an Obama aide, and CNN grabbed more viewers. Now that's a week to remember!)

Oh, and we can't forget the wildly hyped launch of the Fox Business Network, which, News Corp. execs bragged, would dethrone longtime cable business news champ CNBC. Of course, that might happen one day. But the early ratings for Fox Business Network have been unbelievably weak.

After two months on the air, Fox Business Network, available in 30 million homes, was attracting, on average, just 6,300 viewers on any given weekday, according to Nielsen Media Research. That was good for a nearly invisible .05 rating. (By comparison, CNBC during that period was attracting 265,000 viewers.)'

here's the clip -- hilarious!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yl8fKWgun0

Money falling from helicoptors. the Dems are back in charge. whoopeee!!!!

the Pelosi recession is now officially kicking in. only took one year for the market to adjust.

'The industry research firm Moody's Economy.com tracked the potential impact of each stimulus dollar, looking at tax rebates, tax incentives for business, food stamps and expanding unemployment benefits.
The report found that "some provide a lot of bang for the buck to the economy. Others ... don't," said economist Mark Zandi.

In findings echoed by other economists and studies, he said the study shows the fastest way to infuse money into the economy is through expanding the food-stamp program. For every dollar spent on that program $1.73 is generated throughout the economy, he said.

"If someone who is literally living paycheck to paycheck gets an extra dollar, it's very likely that they will spend that dollar immediately on whatever they need - groceries, to pay the telephone bill, to pay the electric bill," he said.

Of course, we all know that numbers have a left-wing bias.'

------------------------------------
They could open every debate with a "no-brainer" like this and no matter how hard they went after it, everybody would be saying
"Thank the Lord".

the rightwingers don't want to spend money on health care for the troop's healtcare, mark. so it woulld mean nothing to them

Losers: Hillary Clinton.

Classic clinton - goes to florida after saying she won't. gets introduced by an impeached judge, now Dem congressman. from an impeached hubby to an impeached judge. Perfect symbolism for the corrupt clintons.

I just thought of one more item that y'all might think was fun. At lunch, yesterday, my client and I had both heard NPR in the morning talk about how the Army had intimidated the VA not tohelp vets file for benefits!

I said, knowing that McC, HRC, and BHO were all still in the senate, that if they wanted to score big points with the electorate, when their debates come they could start each one with a declaration on a "no-brainer". E.G;

McC: Sen. Obama and I agree that it is a disgrace that the Army does not have enough funds for its hospitals and pressures the VA not to help vets with their benefit applications.
BHO: So today, Sen. McC and I have cosponsored a bill to end this injustice. No matter which one of us wins and which one of us remains in the Senate, this will become the law of the land.
McC: Now we can proceed with the debate.
------------------------------------
They could open every debate with a "no-brainer" like this and no matter how hard they went after it, everybody would be saying
"Thank the Lord".

McCain could crush among independents in the general were it not for that silly little war thingy.

I think that McC could keep the Rs competitive in virtually every state, although he might not win the GE. As Nick says, he might broaden the base of the R Party. That was his stated goal some years ago. That would be OK with me.

Gotta work.

Republican Party as a whole the biggest loser.

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=1657

McCain stands to split the Republican Party. His platform is by no mean a conservative one. Most of his support is coming from independents.

.