The straws in the wind today favor the continuation of Republican hegemony and oppression sensible governance:
1. Arianna Huffington is writing Ned Lamont's concession speech - it is not fair to say the darling of the left is out of ideas - let's say that he never actually had any idea other than to run as a mainstream, bowl-of-oatmeal anti-war Democrat, which certainly seemed like a plausible approach in Blue Connecticut. [More on Ned's woes from the WaPo.]
2. Matt Yglesias (probably not temperamentally a glass-half-full guy anyway), is fretting about the Republican cash advantage.
3. Dick Cheney is feeling the love. (I have a feeling he's not in Washington anymore...)
4. As Mickey Kaus noted, the Faster Failure Philosophy tells us that the 24/7 media slice. dice and digest one scandal and move on the next more quickly than ever. Iraq? Last week! (see Ned Lamont). mark Foley and Dennis Hastert? Sooo five minute ago! The media must be fed and write now they are pawing at Senate Minority Leader Harry REIT. By the end of October every thumbsucking pundit worth his salt will be pondering the possibilities of Speaker Pelosi - Happy Halloween!
Far from over.
TM
"Speaker Pelosi". Please don't make the stomach turn so early in the morning.
Three weeks to go. I'm feeling better, but not good. Yet.
Posted by: Tomf | October 17, 2006 at 08:40 AM
Polls are for donks. I'm chomping at the bit to vote for my Republican Congress-critter, Senator, Gov., etc. I'd vote "straight ticket" but that reduces the joy of voting Republican in each race.
Posted by: Jimmy's Attack Rabbit | October 17, 2006 at 08:41 AM
Americans are not 100% happy with the Republican leadership, but will cringe after giving more though to the alternative. There will never be a Speaker Pelosi.
With Democrats in charge, there would be a stalemate for 2 years between the Executive Branch and Congress. Two years from now, Social Security would still be intact, heading for bankruptcy. Illegal immigrants would still be streaming across the border. Taxes would be higher. Republicans will keep taxes low, seal the borders, and make the necessary changes to Social Security.
Posted by: Davis | October 17, 2006 at 08:41 AM
Never mind Iraq, Weldon, the increasinly competitive Republican districts where the incumbents poll under forty and have a single diget, or worse no, lead. Yes indeed, Lamont will lose giving the Republicans zero additional seats. The Republicans have the largest money advantage ever. All the voter energy is on the side of the Republicans. Reid's failure to report the transfer of property to a REIT is much worse than Abramoff, Foley, Ney, Weldon, et al combined. All the straws are blowing the Republican's way and in the face of the Democrats.
Posted by: dmh | October 17, 2006 at 08:43 AM
TM:
Great thread! I totally agree -too close to call. Rasmussen whom I trust above all others has Talent in Missouri up 1 point. GOTV is crucial and repubs will make it happen. Contrary to MSM Ohioans don't heart Sherrod Brown. We know him for the blowhard that he is. People in northwest and southern Ohio go-Sherrod Who? DeWine in a nailbiter because Brown is known in Cuyahoga and Lorain county.
Posted by: maryrose | October 17, 2006 at 08:49 AM
Other Polls have Talent up by 6.
Talent will take the rural areas by a landslide. The only places McCaskill has a chance are St. Louis, Kansas City, Boone(College town), and Cape Girardeau(her home district. It will look like the Presidential election map. A few blue Dot's in a sea of Red.
Posted by: Pofarmer | October 17, 2006 at 09:13 AM
Never mind Iraq . . .
Yeah, you gotta love the Democrats' offering such a clear choice. Moreover, they claim it's not a bug, it's a feature:
I think we could make a campaign slogan out of that one . . . let's see how this sells: Personally, I don't think that approach is going to work, even with a complicit press corps, and that the longer the issues focus on defense, the worse off the Dems will be. However, that's hardly the number one issue when electing a congressman. If they could just keep from cheerleading for the enemy . . .Posted by: Cecil Turner | October 17, 2006 at 09:13 AM
All the voter energy is on the side of the Republicans. Reid's failure to report the transfer of property to a REIT is much worse than Abramoff, Foley, Ney, Weldon, et al combined. All the straws are blowing the Republican's way and in the face of the Democrats.
I like your optimism. I never thought the right was as down in the dumps as portrayed, nor do I think it is at this point republican victory is a sure thing.
Now if we had a fair media it would be a landslide. But we don't.
Posted by: Jane | October 17, 2006 at 09:31 AM
Jane:
Fair media is not going to be the determining factor. Fox is getting the real news out as are some newspapers. Bottomline-individual candidates have to sell themselves and campaign furiously between now and election day.Sara is correct GOTV efforts and phone -banks can be crucial as well as a lot of money. Even Jeff Greenfield on Imus today didn't thinka dem takeover was a done deal. # weks is an eternity inpolitics. I think the dems peaked too soon.
I love the fact that Howard Dean is monitoring dems. How typical of that party hat thinks nothing of perusing private republican FBI files brought to the WH and then denies knowledge of it. Dems are always sliding down a slippery slope..The recent CREW wiretaps on Weldon prove that.
Posted by: maryrose | October 17, 2006 at 09:45 AM
Oh thank goodness..Mr. 70% chance of Rove being indicted woke up on the right side of the bed again. (Kidding TM).
OT: But here's a piece I did on Armitage which weaves his perfidy on Plame with his perfidy at DoS. http://americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5954
Posted by: clarice | October 17, 2006 at 09:53 AM
Please excuse spelling errors above ;I'm mutitasking as well as talking on the phone so accuracy is not evident.
Posted by: maryrose | October 17, 2006 at 10:20 AM
Fair media is not going to be the determining factor. Fox is getting the real news out as are some newspapers.
Maryrose,
Fox has been close to silent on Harry Reid - to my disappointment.
But I agree with you on the GOTV stuff. It's hard to know what people who don't pay attention are thinking. And since I'm in the liberal bastion of the universe, I'm not sure that I'd be able to gauge it anyway.
I'm convinced that going forward, the issue to deal with is the media. Even if we beat down the NY Times, I'm distressed by the Google influence at this point, because it feels like we are going in the wrong direction.
Posted by: Jane | October 17, 2006 at 10:30 AM
What happened to the Mortgage Moms? They were just about to have their moment as the Hot New Demographic and suddenly BAM! They are off the front page; they are yesterday's news. Will they make a comeback? This is way more exciting than Entourage.
Posted by: MayBee | October 17, 2006 at 10:34 AM
"Out of ideas", "oatmeal..."?
Maguire, read your own post. Heh.
Posted by: Semanticleo | October 17, 2006 at 10:34 AM
The RNC just laid out $725K for another ad buy for DeWine in Ohio. 'Big Time' Adam Nagourney sure has his fingers on the political pulse.
Jane,
Consider the implications of a Republican hold (which will be a 'win' based upon current media hype). After two (or six, depending) years of Mediacrat doom and gloom they still will not have been able to move the public. That's not a bad thing at all. They never, ever deserved anything but disdain and the best way to have that disdain demonstrated (after not purchasing or tuning in) is to hit ye olde ballot box.
The election comes down to the same thirty or so races in the end that were obviously worth watching in the beginning. I count about four potential 'surprises' due to scandal but thats it. Four out of 468 is no big deal.
I ran the numbers on campaign giving in the 3rd quarter for the top 25 competitive Republican seats (according to Real Clear Politics). The Reps took in $25.4M and the Dems took in $13.3. The Dem candidates raised more than the Reps in eight districts - and four of those were open seats. The four incumbents who didn't beat their opponents were Weldon in PA 7 (there is a slug of money coming in against him), Simmons in CT-02 (very slightly behind), Hostettler in IN-08 (a truly mediocre politician) and Taylor in NC-11 (a self financing candidate who immediately stepped up and refilled the pot).
Campaign donations are tangible evidence of support and while it is totally unsurprising that an incumbent takes in more money than the challenger the disparity between the totals does not indicate any 'Dem wave'.
I would also note that there are only eight seats within the 25 that require less than 10K votes to move the district (out of an average total votes cast of 190K).
The real campaign starts today and the Republicans have the money and organizational edge. The polling results show the height of the mountain that must be climbed - and it ain't Everest. It's closer to Stowe.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | October 17, 2006 at 10:40 AM
Rick, How boring to analyze elections that way instead of just sitting on the bar stools at the press watering holes and munching on the CW.
Posted by: clarice | October 17, 2006 at 10:43 AM
OT: Need a break from the roller-coaster ride of US electoral politics, nevermind life? Here's a short, scholarly discourse on the official Muslim response to the Pope's point about reason and faith. :-)
Posted by: Extraneus | October 17, 2006 at 10:45 AM
Look at the futures markets, guy. 'pugs are going down. It really doesn't bother me anymore. I'm sick of fatass elected for life 'pugs who are more worried about getting elected then about conservative issues. You can't scare me none with the Pelosi threat, either. You've been to that well too often. World did not end with Clinton in charge. As long as there are 40 'pugs in the Senate, world is safe.
Posted by: TCO | October 17, 2006 at 10:55 AM
-- Republicans will keep taxes low, seal the borders, and make the necessary changes to Social Security. --
I doubt it - plus, taxes aren't exactly "low" now. Republicans don't need to promise completely effective "end results" for taxes, immigration or social security. And making the promises creates a risk of being called out for not performing up to promise.
All that is needed to justify a vote for the Republican is a belief that they will perform marginally better than the alternative.
Posted by: cboldt | October 17, 2006 at 11:00 AM
Fair media is not going to be the determining factor. Fox is getting the real news out as are some newspapers.
Maryrose,
Fox has been close to silent on Harry Reid - to my disappointment.
Whenever I watch Fox, I'm always dissapointed by how conservative they aren't. What little polling I've seen show's that Fox is still left of avg Americans.
Clintoon and the Libs here might think it's "a Right Wing hit machine" but they have leagues to go to even get close to that moniker.
Posted by: Pofarmer | October 17, 2006 at 11:04 AM
It isn't Pelosi so much as it is Conyers and Rangel that I fear. Massive tax increases and endless impeachment proceedings are not what need for the next 2 years.
Posted by: Sue | October 17, 2006 at 11:07 AM
"Oh thank goodness..Mr. 70% chance of Rove being indicted woke up on the right side of the bed again."
I was going to make reference to a leaf in the wind but Clarice comes along with the perfect poke.
Posted by: danking70 | October 17, 2006 at 11:12 AM
Clarince, good article on Armitage. I'm amazed - over and over again.
Posted by: SunnyDay | October 17, 2006 at 11:16 AM
sorry didn't mean to give you a new name. clarince
Posted by: SunnyDay | October 17, 2006 at 11:17 AM
I'm not thrilled with any of them and I continue to believe we would be better off to throw all the bums out. Except for the President, who for some reason I truly like.
Posted by: Jane | October 17, 2006 at 11:18 AM
Thanks, Sunny Day.
Danking, TM is so often right, we have to stand behind him in the chariot and remind him he's not always perfect as his does his trimuphal ride with the train of Greenwald etc trailing behind in chains.
Posted by: clarice | October 17, 2006 at 11:22 AM
clarice:
Your analogy reminded me of that scene in Ben Hur. The infamous chariot race. As I see it it is TM as Ben Hur and KOS as the person in the other chariot.
Posted by: maryrose | October 17, 2006 at 11:46 AM
The guy in the other chariot was the evil Mesalla, played by Stephen Boyd. He sure got his, didn't he?
Posted by: Other Tom | October 17, 2006 at 12:05 PM
I think that makes Ned Lamont the guy who got run over and killed during the race.
Posted by: The Unbeliever | October 17, 2006 at 12:09 PM
Placing your decisions on the betters?? They follow the polls like the media does. Also, it is pretty easy to swarm them to get the desired result. Weekends and evenings, they always drop. I think that is when the college students move in. I know, I know, they are usually accurate you will tell me. And I will answer that they are accurate until they are not.
Rom Emmanuel and Chuck Schumer however will make sure we have endless Republican scandals until election day. The Clintonista war machine (Emmanuel and his ex buddies) is alive and well. To the Republicans here: How will you like a return to the Clinton era of politics once again?? Get everyone you know to go out and vote for the Republicans. Also brace yourself for whatever is going to be thrown at them in the next 3 weeks.
Posted by: Florence Schmieg | October 17, 2006 at 12:11 PM
You can't scare me none with the Pelosi threat, either
NO? OK how about Chairman Rangel? Majority Leader Murtha?
Still no?
This will do it.
Chairman Conyers.
Get off your dead ass and vote and ignor the pollsters. Or you will get the government and consequent burdens you deserve.
Posted by: Gary Maxwell | October 17, 2006 at 12:38 PM
"Republican" and "sensible governance" in the same sentence ...
who said conservatives can't be funny?
Posted by: anonymous | October 17, 2006 at 01:17 PM
Clarice: Great article. Chilling, no?
Posted by: azredneck | October 17, 2006 at 01:25 PM
On the "Deenergized thread" it was suggested that we start our own CREW-type watchdog group starting with a core of JOMers.
I am reposting my reply here.
Posted by: Sara (Squiggler) | October 17, 2006 at 01:27 PM
Come on, kids, let's put on a show! My mom can make the costumes and we can all pitch in and paint the scenery. Come on, it'll be fun. Just like the grown-ups.
Posted by: anonymous | October 17, 2006 at 01:38 PM
Putting the "Children of the Nutroots" (sort of like the Children of the Corn) in charge of the government would be like locking a pedophile up with a bunch of Kindergarden girls. And let's face it, the Democratic party has been completely saboutaged and captured by the far far left.
We would have Auschwitz type facilities built all over America, the military would either be disbanded or the uniforms would be dyed pink and guns and bombs would be replaced with silly putty. Communes and co-op farms would be set up and corporations and businesses would be commandeered and become government controlled with only their leaders reaping the profits while the rest of us stand in bread lines. Only those who swear allegiance to Arianna and Kos would be allowed communication devices like cell phones, computers, cable TV, etc. Anyone even remotely disabled would be euthanized, only designer babies would be allowed to be born, all others would be forced to be aborted.
Posted by: Sara (Squiggler) | October 17, 2006 at 01:39 PM
Sara:
I like how you think. I'll help in anyway I can.
Posted by: maryrose | October 17, 2006 at 01:40 PM
I'll repost my reply too:
I'm in
Posted by: Jane | October 17, 2006 at 01:40 PM
Sara: several others can be our crack research staff
Hey, I want to be on the crack staff. Alas, not the crack research staff. I am not qualified.
But perhaps the wisecrack staff?
Posted by: hit and run | October 17, 2006 at 01:42 PM
It's beginning to sound like you've all been smoking it.
Posted by: anonymous | October 17, 2006 at 01:51 PM
azredneck, Thanks.
People have no idea how little sway the elected officials have over the mandarinate. And if you really want to be scared, read Gertz' new book on our terrible CI,"Enemies".If you think the CIA is bad, get a gander at the far worse FBI.
The anti-CREW notion is good. Why stop there? Let's get our own Tides Foundation where we launder contributions and use the money to fund groups no one would want their name associated with?
Posted by: clarice | October 17, 2006 at 01:56 PM
Sorry to have been so quiet (even as much as you all enjoyed the vacation) but last night around 11:30 I lost my ISP's.
Note thats plural of ISP. I am a daytrader and I have a router here in the house fed with 7 six meg DSL modems provisioned from 3 seperate internet providers for fallback purposes.
Everyone had assured me independent routes that I paid extra for.
Obviously something was wrong since they all went out at the same time last night.
I finally did enough emailing (via another set of computers I use only for business purposes that is fed by a fiber optic line with a fallback to a satelite feed) I finally got everyone to admit they had goofed a little.
Seems there was one place where all three providers used a group of six telephone poles as they crossed an interstate highway, and that last night a sleepy semi driver did a little agricultural driving and took out 3 of those 6 poles.
I hold stock positions in two of the three isp's of a rather signigicant amount, which is the reason they listened to me to get the coordination between all three control centers to look at their routing maps.
Don't ya just love it.
Sorry ..Rant mode off
Posted by: SlimGuy | October 17, 2006 at 02:01 PM
I'm in Clarice and if we have a budget and can pay the staff, I'll even move to DC or NYC. I'll even convert my seniorpal site, which allows for individual journals, and user added news, plus a blog. Plus it has builtin tracking for registered users and contributors.
Posted by: Sara (Squiggler) | October 17, 2006 at 02:05 PM
clarice:
Great article! Any punishment for Armitage for dereliction of duty or thwarting the will of Congress and the executive branch?
Posted by: maryrose | October 17, 2006 at 02:08 PM
We need someone very rich to be our Theresa Hines or George Soros. Ross Perot?
Posted by: Sara (Squiggler) | October 17, 2006 at 02:10 PM
Will the TOM reader watchdog group target only Democrats, or also help weed out Republican House members like Cunningham and Ney, and supporters like Abramoff, whose election-year convictions aren't helping the incumbent party?
Posted by: T Miller | October 17, 2006 at 02:10 PM
The head of the ACLU, Shapiro, just said on CSPAN that those Guantanimo detainees that no country will take should be brought to America.
That, people, is the voice of the other side in America, the side that doesn't believe in the laws of war. The side that literally is attempting to outlaw war but refuses to take its arguments to such as bin laden and Zawahiri who have declared and are waging war against us.
To them it is America that has to change, not the Islamic fascists.
And people in the audience were applauding!
Posted by: Syl | October 17, 2006 at 02:13 PM
Oh thank goodness..Mr. 70% chance of Rove being indicted woke up on the right side of the bed again. (Kidding TM).
"Just One Minute" may need to be renamed "Just One Lithium Pill" any day now...
Posted by: Tom Maguire | October 17, 2006 at 02:13 PM
Hey, I'll donate my pal2pal name. We could have it stand for "Policing All Liberals" LOL.
Posted by: Sara (Squiggler) | October 17, 2006 at 02:18 PM
Have toyed with the idea of creating a blog.
Would name it after my old Electronic Bullentin Board BBS system I ran many years ago.
One Nanosecond From Nowhere!
Posted by: SlimGuy | October 17, 2006 at 02:23 PM
Oh My!! Back when Guantanamo started my husband joked to me that pretty soon we would see all of these guys driving cabs in New York City. He may have been more prescient than he realized!!
Posted by: Florence Schmieg | October 17, 2006 at 02:25 PM
Via Drudge/Breitbart:
Posted by: Sara (Squiggler) | October 17, 2006 at 02:28 PM
Newly translated documents show Saddam planning to attack US using suicide planes.
Posted by: Sara (Squiggler) | October 17, 2006 at 02:31 PM
What's to investigate? Aren't those casting aspersions the same folks who insist the Boy Scouts be denied access to all federal facilities because they won't allow gay scout leaders?
PHEH.One can take only so much stupid at a time.
Posted by: clarice | October 17, 2006 at 02:34 PM
Hmmmm, names?
How about:
Citizens for
Political Legal And Media Ethics
Now...how could we abbreviate that?
Posted by: hit and run | October 17, 2006 at 02:36 PM
Really, Sara, Salman Pak was just a stewardess training program. And all those Baluchis are simply one big family--forget that the Baluch were key in the Iraqi intel service. (BTW I don't believe our crack intel agencies have even yet done any DNA testing on those bozos in out custody)
Posted by: clarice | October 17, 2006 at 02:36 PM
btw - not to nitpick, but it's the "Faster Feiler Philosphy" (as in Bruce Feiler) not the "Faster Failure Philosophy".
Posted by: Jimbo | October 17, 2006 at 02:39 PM
Rush is as motivated this morning as I have heard him in a long, long time. The reason is that this reduced sentence travesty for terrorist attorney Lynne Stewart, from 30 years to 28 months, is a perfect example of the total lack of seriousness of the left in combating terror. This meme will have traction because unlike the buried Harry Reid financial obfuscations this story is exceedingly simple to understand. In 30 seconds anyone with ears will get the gist of it: Liberal Clinton appointed Judge, swayed by former Clinton legal apologists, reduces sentence of unrepentant attorney convicted of illegally passing secret messages from imprisoned blind bomber Sheik terrorist to his fellow terrorists. That's the guts of it. Add in the video of the extremely obnoxious and grossly unsympathetic Miz Stewart and, and suddenly Red State America is back on offense on the fundamental issue of our time, The War on Terror.
Now certainly how it plays out is another matter. Will it die out among Limbaugh's audience or be advanced down the field by conservatives? It's not up on Drudge as I type this, yet already NRO's Andy McCarthy is fact checking the NYTimes for flaws in their reporting of it. My guess is that the alphabet media will unsuccessfully try to sit on it, but in the end we're going to be seeing more video of that Blind Sheik and the repellant Miz Stewart, framed by smoking New York Skyscrapers, than you can shake a stick at. And if that is so, then IMHO, this election is far from a done deal.
Posted by: Daddy | October 17, 2006 at 02:41 PM
H&R -- love it. You are hired as our "crack wisecracker" for sure.
Posted by: Sara (Squiggler) | October 17, 2006 at 02:43 PM
I don't think Stewart should have gotten a death sentence of 30 years, but she should have gotten at least five years. She shows absolutely no remorse and stands outside and says she can do 28 mo. standing on her head. She is gloating. It makes me sick. And, how do we know no one was hurt. We don't know that and neither does the judge. The Blind Sheik was responsible for a whole lot of deaths and she was his conduit to his minions.
Posted by: Sara (Squiggler) | October 17, 2006 at 02:49 PM
Dems trying to say the Republican Party has abandoned DeWine in Ohio. Of course, this completely ignores the fact that they've spent over $4 million already on his behalf and DeWine himself has a warchest of $4 million to spend the last three weeks of the race.
Posted by: Sara (Squiggler) | October 17, 2006 at 02:55 PM
Sara I agree with you. We can all have our different ideas of exactly how long she should have been in jail. But 28 months is an in your face poke in the eye with a sharp stick, just guaranteed to piss off Red State Americans who take this terrorism business seriously. Rove himself couldn't have concocted a more visceral, motivational example of why its essential we show up in those voting booths come election day.
Posted by: Daddy | October 17, 2006 at 03:03 PM
Only $8 million to buy a seat in the U.S. Senate?
A bargain at twice the price.
Posted by: anonymous | October 17, 2006 at 03:04 PM
Now that most voters have tired of hearing about Foley and assorted other individual examples of bad behavior, the discussion is returning to Iraq. And there the situation can only be described as worsening. Is there any action that the Administration can take in the next 3 weeks to reassure voters that the Iraq situation won't continue to move "sideways" as Sen. Warner described it, or become still worse?
Posted by: T Miller | October 17, 2006 at 03:07 PM
Is "sideways" a Republican euphemism for straight to Hell?
Posted by: anonymous | October 17, 2006 at 03:11 PM
We can start showing pics of helicopters landing on the roof of the US Embassy in Saigon and telling stories of what happened when we cut and ran.
Of course, it's escalated. If you were the Syrians and Iranis wouldn't you be putting on the afterburners in the hope that the Dems could achieve what they could not?
Posted by: clarice | October 17, 2006 at 03:14 PM
anonymous: Once again your ignorance of history is showing. Jon Corzine used 60 million of his own dough to buy his Senate seat and got bored being in the minority after 5 years.Of course New Jerseyites voted him in over way more qualified candidates for the senate and the governors seat.
Posted by: maryrose | October 17, 2006 at 03:19 PM
Is "cut and run" a Republican way of describing what defeated armies do? Retreat.
Posted by: anonymous | October 17, 2006 at 03:20 PM
Clarice,
Congratulations on your article. You are truly one of the brightest stars on the web.
Hope that the mention by Rush doesn’t melt your server.
Posted by: jwest | October 17, 2006 at 03:20 PM
60 million? Mr. Corzine was not a very smart consumer. Maybe he should have done some comparison shopping in other states.
Posted by: anonymous | October 17, 2006 at 03:22 PM
Nice.
link
Posted by: topsecretk9 | October 17, 2006 at 03:24 PM
It ain't over til the fat lady sings and I am not talking about hat commie lawyer Stewart.
I wonder if the media will just ignore all of Saddam's documents?
Posted by: Terrye | October 17, 2006 at 03:32 PM
Hmmm.
What I think is absurd is that every two years, like clockwork, the Democrats engineer a series of scandals that target Republicans with the help of the MSM.
So why is it that every single time this happens the Republicans have this "deer in the headlights" look on their faces?
Why aren't Republicans hammering back at the Democrats? Why don't they prepare for this stuff?
Posted by: ed | October 17, 2006 at 03:37 PM
anonymous, you obviously have little knowledge of what it takes to run for office these days. $4 million would barely cover one media buy here in California. How much you think Soros and Hines spent trying to buy all branches of government in the last election and this? Both under the table and above board?
Don't you ever get embarrassed about the stupid things you say about our military and war efforts? You sound like a high schooler who has no conception of tactics, strategy or even what the Iraqis want. We should be building bases in Iraq like crazy. We should have a PERMANENT FORCE established there like we have had in Germany for the last 60 years.
I know you want the Koran to replace our Constitution and bin Laden/Chavez/Ahmadinejad as our president, Secretary of State and Defense Secretary. But, guess what, it ain't goin' to happen.
Posted by: Sara (Squiggler) | October 17, 2006 at 03:38 PM
Thanks, jwest. Did he mention it? Great. I didn't know that.
I had the goods on Armitage and it fit into Woodward's book where whoever spoke the most to him got a hagiography, but it seems to me that it is futile to expect a great deal from elected officials. Until there is a way to remove the entrenched bureaucracy they have little to say with what happens on their watch.
Add to that, the President's key responsibility on domestic defense and imagine how impossible that is with the info you get from the CIA and FBI..Look at the last NIE and tell me what actionable intel is contained there? NADA. ZIP. GORNISHT. You could do as well flipping a coin---and then remember whichever course you do take, those who hate you will leak counter intel to a waiting den of thieves at the Press Corps Bien Pensant Bar & Grille.
Posted by: clarice | October 17, 2006 at 03:40 PM
Ed:
Because Republicans have class and don't move in circles where integrity has no meaning and people knife each other in the back to get ahead all the time. It is hard to prepare to fight a battle when you have no personal experience with the type of people these nutroots types/Soros represent. How many people do you know who live for a free iPod and think if you don't use f**k at least 3 times in every sentence, you aren't a good writer and thinker? Most of them are rote readers so never understand the context of anything they read. They get their news from the Daily Report and whatever their tinfoil hat leaders tell them to parrot for the day.
Posted by: Sara (Squiggler) | October 17, 2006 at 03:44 PM
T. Miller:
Iraq again huh?
I thought Democrats thought every vote counts, unless of course you ae talking about Iraqis in which case the history making election is worthless.
The idea that we could just ignore Saddam and back down and not even enforce our own cease fire, or that we would just abandon Iraq leaving God only knows what behind just because Democrats want to win an election makes me sick.
No one will ever respect this country again if we bug out of there. No one will take a risk on our word, no one will have any faith in our word and no one will believe we mean anything we say.
For years I listened to liberals bitch and moan about the US supporting dictators and now they bitch and moan that we took one out. They have no alternative ideas or solutions, they are just one big endless bitch fest and right now the terrorists are hoping they win.
They are killing our soldiers in the hopes a Democrat will win and pull out the troops and they can put an end to this whole democracy thing.
So how about giving it a rest. We know you do not support democracy in Iraq. We know that you think the fire bombing of Dresden was a walk in the park compared to 2600 soldiers in three and a half years in Iraq. We know you want failure. We know that if there is ultimately any success in Iraq it will not be in your name.
We get the picture. We hear it over and over and over and over again.
Posted by: Terrye | October 17, 2006 at 03:45 PM
Is "cut and run" a Republican way of describing what defeated armies do? Retreat
Charitably assuming anonymous is asking this question in all seriousness, then the answer is no. "Cut & run" is what unbeaten, maybe even triumphant armies do when the civilian leaders lose all sense of will, consequence, urgency and proportion.
You may have heard of it: "snatching defeat from the jaws of victory." Now a tenet of The World's Oldest Political Party.
Cordially...
Posted by: Rick | October 17, 2006 at 03:52 PM
anonymous:
The U.S. military has not been defeated in Iraq, not even close. They are just not prepared to do the kinds of things the enemy does. Like lobbing off some guy's head on video. Or deliberately targetting women and children. The kill ratio is about 100 to 1, there is no contest in a military sense.
Right now the problem is more political than military and that will take time to resolve.
Or we could just bring in some strong arm man and he could bring down the hammer on the people and put an end to this whole silly democracy thing. No doubt that is your dream, your idea of what is a good outcome. A dictator.
Posted by: Terrye | October 17, 2006 at 03:53 PM
Clarice,
Rush mentioned you as a “must read” towards the end of the second hour or in the beginning of the third. I checked his website, but the link isn’t up yet.
His staff is good at posting summaries and links fairly quickly, so it should be available later tonight.
Don’t forget us when you’re a famous TV pundit.
Posted by: jwest | October 17, 2006 at 04:04 PM
Wow AJ then Clarice on Rush mentions...
Must be that vast right wing conspiracy at work
Ohhhhh I know AJ's gonna slap me into next week for that one
LOL
Posted by: SlimGuy | October 17, 2006 at 04:08 PM
"Republicans have class and don't move in circles where integrity has no meaning ... "
Randall "Duke" Cunningham
Bob Ney
Mark Foley
Tom Delay
Curt Wheldon
David Safavian
Jack Abramoff
Ralph Reed
Tom Noe
... the ever-widening circle of Republican integrity
Posted by: anonymous | October 17, 2006 at 04:10 PM
And let's not forget the immortal I. Lewis "Scooter" (to his pals) Libby.
Posted by: anonymous | October 17, 2006 at 04:15 PM
Terrye, I agree that it is vital that we win in Iraq. That's why it is so discouraging that so little progress is being made, and equally discouraging that the majority of Americans no longer want to "stay the course". So how can voters be convinced that the situation can be turned around? Very few voters are interested now in the rationale for going to war. They just want to win and get out. Are the only 2 alternatives "stay the course" and a staged withdrawal?
Posted by: T Miller | October 17, 2006 at 04:15 PM
anonymous:
Oh puhzleaze, TM does not have enough bandwith to accomadate the list of Democrats, beginning with the previous president, as well as the members of his cabinet to make a list like that.
And by the way, Tom DeLay and Curt Weldon have not been convicted of anything, in fact Weldon has not even been accused of anything.
And Jack Abramoff did business with both parties. No my dear, when Republicans do wrong and they do ofcourse, their party tends to show them the door. When Democrats do wrong their party tends to lie and cover for them. Big difference.
Posted by: Terrye | October 17, 2006 at 04:16 PM
Terrye -- please list the Democrat candidates that Abramoff or his firm donated to.
Posted by: Tulsan | October 17, 2006 at 04:21 PM
Yes, indeed, the ever upright and virtuous Republican Party.
But you really should go over your deep Abramoff research again.
(Not that you will. As Mr. Reagain famously misquoted: "Facts are stupid things.")
And the F.B.I. has finished searching Wheldon's daughter's home. Apparently, they took out quite a lot of evidence. Look into it.
Posted by: anonymous | October 17, 2006 at 04:23 PM
Thanks for the list. Gee, save for Weldon, what the common denominator?
They're politically kaput.
Now, we can put together a list of crooks, pedophiles & brib-ees like Reps. Jefferson & Hastings, the late Studds, Jack Murtha, Jim McDermott, Sens. Harry Reid, Grand Kleagle and Cattle Futures, and find that for the D's, integrity truly has no meaning. Lacking it is a good career move.
There's the difference in the parties, even if the 'pubbies have let me down by quailing before the predictable lies in re: social security reform.
Anyway, this is pretty easy. Got more, anon?
Cordially...
Posted by: Rick | October 17, 2006 at 04:26 PM
Here's a list.
Lobbyists who don't feed both sides don't stay in business. To maintain otherwise is to provoke derision.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | October 17, 2006 at 04:28 PM
T. Miller:
The majority of Americans do not want to cut and run and last month I saw three polls that put support for the war at higher levels. In fact the polls all had support between 49% and 53%. I don't have links but I am sure I am remembering correctly because I was surprised the level of support was that high.
Now that might be different if the polls were done now, it seems the numbers are volatile, but so far most people want to win.
When people say they do not want to stay the course, that just means they want the news to get better. My point is that as long as the Iranians and Syrians and militia and AlQaida think that they can win this thing just by blowing something up every day and by killing each other they will not just stop. And as long as people like Murtha lead them to believe that all they have to do is keep it up a little bit longer and the Great Satan will run home with its tail between its legs they will continue to find young fanatics willing to slaughter and be slaughtered.
If the media would spend as much time talking about the rise of functioning local governments, the return of the Marsh Arabs, the improvement in life in the rural areas where the violence is not so intense it might help give a more balanced picture of the state of things. Schools, clinics, water treatment facilities, sewage systems. All of that will help improve the lives of the people, they need something to look forward to. Not just war.
People seem to think the world is like a microwave, give it so many minutes and it will be done. That is not life.
Posted by: Terrye | October 17, 2006 at 04:28 PM
By ELI LAKE - Staff Reporter of the NYSun
October 12, 2006
WASHINGTON — A commission formed to assess the Iraq war and recommend a new course has ruled out the prospect of victory for America, according to draft policy options shared with The New York Sun by commission officials.
Currently, the 10-member commission — headed by a secretary of state for President George H.W. Bush, James Baker — is considering two option papers, "Stability First" and "Redeploy and Contain," both of which rule out any prospect of making Iraq a stable democracy in the near term.
Posted by: anonymous | October 17, 2006 at 04:29 PM
anonymous:
I know that as a liberal you do not have a lot of faith in that whole innocent until proven thing, but when CREW sics the FBI on some guy and that guy happens to be a Republican and they show no interest at all in anything some crooked Demcorat might be up to, well excuse me if I think it might be poltically motivated.
Just like that whole Plame fiasco that turned out to be a Godawful waste of time and money.
BTW, if you want to see a crooked family check out Ford of TN. His family indictments go way back.
Posted by: Terrye | October 17, 2006 at 04:32 PM
FBI raids four homes, two offices in Weldon probe
By John Shiffman, Mitch Lipka and Patrick Kerkstra
PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER STAFF WRITER
FBI agents investigating U.S. Rep. Curt Weldon (R., Pa.) conducted six raids this morning - including at the homes of his daughter and a longtime friend.
In all, agents executed four search warrants in the Philadelphia area and two in Jacksonville, Fla., officials said.
In Center City, agents searched the law office of John Gallagher, a Weldon friend who has conducted extensive business in Russia and former Soviet Republics.
In Media, agents searched the offices of the public relations firm formed by Weldon's longtime friend Charles P. Sexton Jr., and the congressman's daughter, Karen.
Posted by: anonymous | October 17, 2006 at 04:34 PM
Are you suggesting that the Federal Bureau of Investigation is in league with the Democrat Party to falsely discredit a fine, upstanding Republican?
Posted by: anonymous | October 17, 2006 at 04:37 PM
anonymous:
There are two people who should by law never be allowed to give any kind of advice on the M.E. Jimmy Carter and James Baker.
And Lee Hamilton used to be a Congressman here in Indiana. He is so damn old most folks around here marvel that he is still alive. Say something about Lee Hamilton they get a disgusted look on their faces and say "That man ain't dead yet?"
The interesting thing is seeing the liberals slobber all over the "realist" James Baker. Once upon a time they hated him. Strange bedfellows.
From what I hear they have no real authority or real power. Thank God.
Posted by: Terrye | October 17, 2006 at 04:39 PM
Anonymous, more stupidity out of your mouth. First of all, Weldon was cleared over 2 years ago. This is a rehashed story that is old news. And at least our guys resign and take their punishment when they screw up. Can you say the same? Jefferson, Kennedy and Clinton come to mind without even giving any thought to making a list. And tell me again what was Foley's crime? Oh, he voted against gay marriage? So terrible!
Posted by: Sara (Squiggler) | October 17, 2006 at 04:40 PM
Well, at least we can say anonymous make Semanticleo appear slightly interesting.
Not coherent, but marginally readable. That's progress.
Cordially...
P.S. In my quite tick-off of D rogues, I forgot Sen. Menendez (and Toricelli before him). Mary Jo Kopeche might tell of another, if she could speak.
Posted by: Rick | October 17, 2006 at 04:40 PM
anonymous:
You are so funny.
Posted by: Terrye | October 17, 2006 at 04:40 PM
"From what you hear ..." ? From whom?
Posted by: anonymous | October 17, 2006 at 04:41 PM
Has it occurred to you yet who might have sent Mr. Baker to the White House to baby-sit?
Posted by: anonymous | October 17, 2006 at 04:43 PM