Powered by TypePad

« The Gore Effect Goes Regional | Main | A Call For Senility On The Web »

April 07, 2007



George Wills starts out his attack on Thomspn (he's clearly in Giuliani's camp) by suggesting he's not a fighter and he okayed the CFR bill advanced by McCain.

Of course, a classical conservative should, I think, want a less energetic executive--someone more along the lines of an Eisenhower. As for CFR Thompson has acknowledged it was a mistake and suppports what I do--instant and full disclosure and an end to these stupid restrictions which rich donors bypass with ease.

I'd vote for Giuliani, not so much because of policy but because he has proven to be a good executive, can communicate, and is a real S.O.B., something his political opponents in the other party deserve.
But I prefer Thompson.



I'll wait and see until Thompson is actively campaigning, but right now my choice is for S.O.B. also.


BTW, the consensus on Fox Newswatch tonite is that the press has turned against both Hillary and McCain.

Lady Sara

I like Rudy because he talks tough and acts tough when the need arises. But I do not trust prosecutors, and Rudy is first and foremost a prosecutor. If he gets the nomination, I won't have a problem voting for him.

My primary vote is with Romney right now. I think his business experience and his brilliance are necessary in today's complicated world. He is a known deal as far as being an Executive. I know he has the cajones when it comes to business, but I'm not sure if he has the big ones necessary to be a tough talking and tough acting Commander-in-Chief.

Fred Thompson as an Administrator is an unknown for me YET. I loved him as a Senator and like him as an actor, but Senators and actors don't usually make good Executives. If he gets in, I'll take a harder look.


They always were going to turn on McCain --only he was too stupid to know that. He is useful only as a maverick.
As for Hillary, what took them so long?



Romney sounds good and has a nice sense of humor.

But I have two things against him:

(1)K-Lo adores him
(2)He's too 'perfect', not enough grit.

I know those are only emotional responses, but, um, sometimes that's what it comes down to.


Guiliani - three wives - this porridge too hot

Romney - one wife - this porridge too cold

Thompson - two wives - this porridge just right!

Lady Sara

Well Rudy knows what it takes to be a good down and dirty street fighter, something necessary today in order to deal with the dems. Most Republicans don't know or don't want to know about the seamier side of life and are by nature unable to fight dirty yet legal. It is summed up by the career criminal who is adept at beating the system and does because he really has nothing to lose as opposed to the first time middle class offender who believes in the system and then gets screwed because he has too much to lose to play the game and has to watch the career criminal laughing as he walks out the door.

Lady Sara

Romney - one wife - this porridge too cold

LOL. But five kids so maybe not that cold.


"The nation must find a way to become energy-independent, he said, promising as president to undertake an effort comparable to the one that put man on the moon."

Gephardt, Kerry, Hillary all sorts have used the man to the moon comparison about energy.

They never had a plan, they never have a plan.

Bush is an oil man. That was his background, so is Cheney's. They're going to do nothing about that...


When another big lobby wants profit increases, such as agribusiness,

therefore Bush's new interest in biofuels.


“Never go to excess, but let moderation be your guide.”

“Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice; moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”

- Marcus Tullius Cicero

Greek, Rome... so the man has a problem remembering what is what... Now if we could get Biden going, he would steal them perfectly!


After the last few years of the Hate America, Blame America media blitz, I'm ready for Reagan again.

Jim C.

Meden agan (nothing in excess) - Ancient Greek saying.



What's eduction reform?

Also that Barry Goldwater quote-that is out of context, and it gets manipulated.

One of his best theories to me anyhow was against legislation from the bench.

If it -the law doesn't orginate from the grass roots up you're going to spend an inordinate amount of time and money enforcing it.

So ya in that regard-Goldwater-"moderated". Also gays in the military-his attitude was that they had been in the military since the Spartans-not going to change that now. I'm thinking this is what giuliani is referring to-withoput looking at the actual article. [who can trust their quotes anymore.] He also was a realist in many ways-hated Social Conservatives-and country club Republicans.

Did you catch his attitiude towards the Eastern seaboard?

I think he would have kicked some Republicans like WF Buckley in the ass.

He loved the military and there is no way in hell he would have let the Republican party dissolve into an emotional, schizo mess with the troops out in the theater without a damn fight.

I don't think he'd have much love for Tancredo either.


Putting a man on the moon is largely an engineering feat, especially when the country is politically in tune with expending moola to do it. Making us energy independent is a far more complicated issue.For one thing it would mean choosing between so many options on the basis of political not techological bases.
Forget it.
I leave this to the big energy companies to resolve,,just let them exploit our resources and do not tie them up--as we did nuclear energy--w. impossible to achieve licensing regs.
When better energy is made it won't be by Peter Birkenstock in Marin Co. It'll be by Billy Joe Entrepreneur in Dallas.


When Gooldwater spoke of "extremism" he was always referring to the fight against Communism-nothing less.




I say we kill the man on the moon analogy dead, dead, dead. It is always used where it doesn't fit. Like If we can put a an on the moon we can take children of poor intelligence from chaotic homes and parents who have no regard for education and turn them into brain surgeons. You, Can.Not.


I'm for renewable energy resources-but I wouldn't list "climate change" as my primary reason-independence from the Middle East would be a bigger selling point to me right now.


I'd vote for Giuliani, not so much because of policy but because he has proven to be a good executive, can communicate, and is a real S.O.B., something his political opponents in the other party deserve.
But I prefer Thompson.

I feel exactly the same way. And Romney is probably at least as good an idea guy as Newt so I'd vote for him too. In fact my guess is that Romney is the best executive in the bunch hands down.

I worry about the skeletons in Guiliani's closet, and the fact that some of his closest aides in NYC cannot stand the man. And I love Thompson, but that's because I know him as a senator (not at all) as an escort to Roberts, and as the folksy guy on Law and Order. I assume he is the same guy - and that reminds me of Reagan who everyone longs for whether they voted for him or not.(I did)

I read somewhere today that McCain is about to start on a countrywide promotion of the surge, talking to people about why it is so important for us to win this war. I love him for doing that. As a McCainiac in 2000 - I'll always have a soft spot for him, altho he is not my choice for president at this point.



He said he believed there was broad agreement that human behavior was a factor contributing to climate change.

TM You're really not expecting me to vote for this schmoe are you? Not only is this guy pro-gun control, have absurd theories about how big cities need reduced Constitutional protections in their law enforcement, wants federal funding of abortions even though he's repeatedly tried to position himself as if he wouldn't impose his socially liberal views as President.

And now the schmuck plans on going into the White House promoting Global Warming? What's next? Is he planning on appointing Al Gore his "Climate Czar"?

You vote for this liberal twit, but don't push any bullshit and try to pass him off as a conservative. Guiliani is a lot of things, but conservative he isn't. So if you vote for him you're voting for a liberal Republican.

And if in a couple years you realize what a completely fucking mistake it was to do so, don't fucking whine about it. Because I'll be here to remind you that you went into it with both eyes open.


"The nation must find a way to become energy-independent, he said, promising as president to undertake an effort comparable to the one that put man on the moon."

Nuke Iran. Nuke Saudi Arabia. Nuke Venezuela. Nuke Canada (just kidding).

Steal the oil.

Energy Independence.

Not that difficult.


Ah I like the man on the moon analogy-.

The Democrats have a defeatist attitude. It was one they would bring up constantly during the SDI arguments.

We can't do it-it's impossible. It's akin to the-"it's never been done before" argument that liberals trot out constantly.

They're the party of pessimism, and the only thing that shuts them up for two seconds is-the man on the moon analogy-probably because it was Kennedy's idea.

Tom Maguire

What's eduction reform?

You know, reding, spellng, the basiks.


I'd rather cater a dinner for a thousand people than get a 25 person school board make sensible decisions--and the man in the moon analogy is more suitable to catering dinner than it is like herding buffoons(energy policy).

Other Tom

This issue has been settled for me for a long, long time: Every single Republican is preferable--urgently preferable--to every single Democrat. My favorite Republican is the one most likely to win, and I would happily vote for one of Don Imus's nappy-headed ho's if she were a Republican and appeared more likely than any other to win.

Even the worst Republican one can think of--and I can think of lots of horrid Republicans--is not going to nominate, say, Laurence Tribe to the US Supreme Court. And think of all the federal district court judges and appellate judges: judicial appointments alone are enough to make me passionately opposed to every living Democrat, and now that I think about it just about every dead one as well.

Then think about the cabinet officers. Alberto is an utter disaster, but how does he compare to Janet Reno? Think of Madeleine Albright, Henry Cisneros, Joycelyn Elders and all the other national embarrassments. And God strike me for leaving out Sandy Berger, a loathsome hack and a lying thief.

What matters at this point is simply to avoid the worst case scenario, and it is very easy to decide what that scenario is: a victory by any Democrat in the next presidential election.

I guess the one possible exception is Chuck Hagel. If he were on the ticket I would have to re-think everything.


Thompson is untested. If you watched him in the Senate he didn't "present" the same as on television-even the tenor of his voice was/is different.

I think that will throw people off. I found the times that I did watch Thompson's performance in the Senate he seemed flat-footed but then maybe he just wasn't that into it.

Might be why he quit-and that might be used as a liability.

There is also the China policy where supposedly Thomspon was rope a doped by John Glenn-that's something I haven't researched much but would not be good if it turned out to be true.

The thing about going with Thompson is that Republicans would be giving up a big edge they might have over the Democrats. Thomspon has no National Securtiy credentials or Executive experience.

He was in the Senate but when that got tough-he quit.

Tom Maguire

As to Thompson, I like him as well, but...

I think he is the Republican version of Barack Obama - the empty vessel into which we can pour our fantasies about the ideal candidate. And I think his quick bounce in the polls indicates that Reps have real reservations about the choices on offer (and well we might).

That said, if I were a Dem strategist, the idea of a Barack - Rudy showdown (or a Barack - McCain showdown) would not exactly fill me with confidence - in a duel of biographies, Barack may come in second best.


Tom -

Ya I didn't want you to get hammered by one of the trolls-plus I figured it was a test to see if we really read your posts before commenting...

Hope you had a good holiday-which cripes it's dinner time.. catch you guys later.


Aw, c'mon. He writes reularly for the National Review and hasn't said one thing I was not in full agreement with AND hee writes clearly, simply, persuasively. In any debate he'd be the hands down winner. He's very solid on national defense. Moreover, in this powder puffed and preened by consultants era of campaigns, he comes across as the real thing.

Rick Ballard

You'll know that a candidate is serious about energy independence when you hear them promoting the fast tracking of permits for new nuclear plants, including blocking suits by the watermelons. It will probably not happen in this cycle.


Do you watch the candidates for the agility with which they change their "principled stands" to match political need? I'm really curious and it's not a derogatory question. I have Giuliani and Romney marked down as weathervanes, a question mark for Thompson and the only way I would ever vote for the Arizona ego would be if he were facing Clinton.


Yes, Rick about the fast tracking.
About the weathervanes--that's why such a long campaign period (especially in this new media age) is a disaster for all candidates and why the last one in has an advantage--although the pushing forward of all the primaries makes it harder to sit back.

Other Tom

Off-topic, this is from the UK Telegraph. Those fools at Whitehall will reap what they have sown.

"Hardliners in the Iranian regime have warned that the seizure of British naval personnel demonstrates that they can make trouble for the West whenever they want to and do so with impunity.

"The bullish reaction from Teheran will reinforce the fears of western diplomats and military officials that more kidnap attempts may be planned.

"The British handling of the crisis has been regarded with some concern in Washington, and a Pentagon defence official told The Sunday Telegraph: 'The fear now is that this could be the first of many. If the Brits don't change their rules of engagement, the Iranians could take more hostages almost at will.'"

You better believe it. I'd like to see the US Navy get provocative as hell with these people, and see where it leads. The rest of the "allies" will call us cowboys and all the rest, but at this point does anyone care what they have to say? It's pretty much the US and the Aussies, and the sooner we get this thing settled the better. There is absolutely no chance that a reasonable accommodation of any kind will be reached with the Iranian regime.

Does anyone want to see Madeleine Albright or, say, Andrew Young go over to see what we can work out with them?

Lady Sara

Looks like Fred has a good sense of humor.

Stack ‘em, Pack ‘em, and Blog ‘em: Fred on Iran

By see-dubya on The Blog: Fine, he can handle radio, television, movies, and live appearances (I’ve met him, it’s like shaking hands with Mount Rushmore), but can he communicate in the most challenging medium of them all: the blogosphere? See for yourself:

Some in the West seem part of Iran’s propaganda war; claiming that the release of the hostages was a victory that proves the Iranian dictatorship can be reasoned with. To misrepresent unpunished piracy as a victory is as Orwellian as the congressional mandate banning use of the term “the global war on terror.” What are we — Reuters?

"It's pretty much the US and the Aussies...

OT, it saddens me to say you're right. With apologies to the Brits that still believe in Liberty. There aren't enough of 'em left. The world is changing, im my lifetime we may see the world go from a march toward liberty, to the hell of tyranny.

Lady Sara

Well worth the read:

W(h)ither Democracy?


Let me put in my two worthless cents, but don't ask for a refund.

Rudy still has a 9/11 halo because he has not been a day to day media target like GW. For a lot of the interim he was totally off the radar.

Billy C. came from Arkansas the land that time forgot of local shimming and doing color outside of the lines strategies with election vote gathering much more flexible than any concept of a living constitution.

Rudy and Mitt both come from places where a Republican like the Governator may have a party affiliation to put a letter on their ticket, but can be in some cases questioned as false advertising.

Others can be also applied to but to realistically think that ANY mayor of Ny doesn't have a bit of a skeleton in the closet that someone could exploit, just to make the trains run on time would have to be more than a little bit naive.

Try Jersey City, Chicago, Boston or ReidVegas.

Bill and Hill's only advantage is nobody shows up as headlines in the paper.

Obituaries are in another whole different section.


Lets see how this works.

JFK was supposedly seeing Marline Monroe, even though he had the split vote of all the wannabes between his side salad and his regular squeeze of Ms. Jackie the hot.

Don't know how all the issues played out here, but most third party observers would still agree that to choose either or both of those two ladies would not be a "put a flag over their face" choice of agenda.

But then we have Billy Bob with Ms. Hill and all his choices in his cabinet that sure could not be considered as a lineup for any Donald Trump organized contest.

Then we have him using Monica as a portable humidor.

Please , the most supposedly powerful job holder in the entire free world with the most silver tounged delivery that women swoon for and have major heart palpitations can't score something that even I have enough self respect to say no chance in the "last call it's closing time" sweepstakes.

I am not say physically less than attractive girls should be dismissed for only that reason. Don't go there with me for that, because I also agree that it is wrong to do so.


About Billy, are you saying "Put that in your pipe and smoke it, or put your pipe in that and smoke it?"



Not really,

I am saying that if that is your choice of tobacco, how do you have a pipe, or at least anything resembling any facsimile or false image that could even be assumed as such.

And remember this was BEFORE viagra, think about it!


Now I don't know, but am I gonna have to be the person to present 8 by 10 glossy pictures of this whole situation like Arlo Gutherie's Alice's restaurant.

At least I can post freely at night without having trolls dancing about in their 3/4 time version of pointless counterpoint.

My handicapped son, too often, gives me reason to use my plunger sitting next to our facilities because of his over indulgence of paper products. I easily forgive him of that because he can not do the evaluation, and therefore it would be wrong to hold him accountable in that aspect.

It is not because a lack of attempts to effect this issue by his mother or me, it is just one of the issues he has been exposed to that never effectively sunk in. We can only be thankful for all the others.


Why do we have east coast posters putting up their thoughts almost to midnight eastern time or later and having west coast trolls whimping out by 9 pm their time?


That is sort of a cheap question, because a Marine friend of mine gave me the perfect answer to that question.

I would post it here, but TM would after that have to punt me somewhere into the unknown reaches of the Universe.

But I do have the answer and because of it I have been banned in at least 3 or 4 solar systems.

Ain't life a b*tch.


The phone is ringing at this time of the mornig where I live.

Love those answering machines.

What a wandering zit called on the last one. I won't expose his group because of the liability it would expose me to, but this guy was so about two or three or 35 parsecs from my political base his question was a bit short of the mark to say the least.


Do you watch the candidates for the agility with which they change their "principled stands" to match political need? I'm really curious and it's not a derogatory question. I have Giuliani and Romney marked down as weathervanes, a question mark for Thompson and the only way I would ever vote for the Arizona ego would be if he were facing Clinton.


I wince. I'm not a social conservative so granted, the flipflopping doesn't hurt as much when it is an issue I don't care about. But I do notice. It's sad that one's personal values are assumed to reflect a candidate's agenda. I'm perfectly happy when I believe a candidate will follow the law when it comes to that stuff, but you are right, it is not without notice.

I want someone who is going to actively fight the war on terror, not someone who is going to try and ban abortion. I want someone who is going to appoint conservative Judges, and who will leave to the states that which belongs with the states. I don't care if he is male or female, married or divorced, gay or straight, I just want him to understand that this war threatens the core of our republic and our freedoms and he needs to fight and win it.

I will say that what I always liked about Bush, and what made me vote for him in 2000 was the fact that he said what he meant. He wasn't insecure about his beliefs and altho they didn't always align with mine I was attracted to that part of him.


Yayyyyyyyyyy!! I do believe we are troll-free.


Let's see how long it lasts.



Even though Bush was my governor, and I saw him govern first hand, I was undecided between him and Gore. I didn't decide until the debates. Had Gore won the recount in Florida, I would not have cared. At that time. National security was not my first priority in 2000. Sadly, it wasn't anyone else's either. That Bush was able to see the failure of 9/11 and decide never again is why I continue to support him. On a host of issues, he and I don't see eye to eye. But on the major issue, terrorism, we are on the same page, except I might be a little more John Wayneish than he is.


Ahh yes, as Rush would say; Remember all those famous quotes of moderates!

We will somewhat free the slaves.

Will do our darndest to remove Hitler, but if we only make it to France, thats OK.


I would go with Thompson as long as he picks Alana De La Garza as his running mate.
Or Angie Harmon, WOW!

Other Tom

I'd prefer Thompson as president over all the others, but I can't support him for the nomination until I see some head-to-head figures for him against Hillary and Obama.


Pragmatic. Of course, at this time all figures are suspect--more name recognition than anything else.


How wonderful to drop in and read the posts again! So glad to see the regulars only here today!

Happy Easter everyone. Sorry I missed Hit and Run - he's still around isn't he?

And, I really hope Thompson gets into the race - I have been impressed with him and want to learn more about him.

Again - happy holiday!


Same to you centralcal.


My neice is visiting and she made the comment yesterday that her so-called "liberal" boyfriend commented that if a democrat is elected president he won't ever ride the subway again. He understands that the democrats will bring the war on terror home.

I found that hopeful.


Happy Holidays backatcha. And I agree, it's so nice to actually talk about stuff, instead of playing ping pong with jerks.


Happy Holiday,Jane. And that IS good news!


Clarice, as with many things, you are right on the ball. The moonshot as well as the
Manhattan project; involve scientific applications of technical means. All the
alternatives have problems, nuclear mostly
because of the waste contamination, ethanol
for its impact on food stuffs, wind (moving
right along)hydrogen, the problem of the
cost of power generation, shale might be
a consideration. Fusion with a ready supply
of helium 3; which we would have to get from the moon, might be a long term possibility.

As to Rudy, he's a Kennedy Democrat (Robert)
circa '62, who turned hard hat as the McGovernites now Deaniac/Obamas seized the
party. This explains his pro-war on terror;
an analogue to the counterinsurgency campaign typified by the fixation with the
Green Berets and Operation Mongoose.Another Irony is that the President, a fairly un ostentatious figure, a businessman, who is personally aware of how difficult it is to obtain energy resources, and who lives his own life accordingly, has received the Goldwater treatment from the domestic and foreign, often collaborationist media. Ironic that Rumsfeld, did what Kennedy's was alleged to have done;;' shatter the CIA into a thousand pieces' and turn its covert intelligence authority to the Pentagon; and yet he is despised for it. I am convinced that Rumsfeld kept the troop compliments low, because he knew the ineffectiveness of large scale conventional forces against insurgents (re; the British experience in the North West Frontier; Mesopotamia, the French in Algeria, the Russians in Chechnya, Afghanistan,) He settled for the Franks plan over the more SF focused Downing plan (did that debate go down the memory hole) he put in a army chief of staff that cam from the 'snake eaters' and yet he's been savaged for it. The 'surge' after all is just a part of the fluctuating troop numbers since 2003. Another consideration was the need to keep troops handy for other contigencies; Korea; due to his work on the anti-ballistic missile commission; Iran, et al. Now this did'nt quite work out, but then had he committed the number of troops requested by Zinni (whose experience with small numbers of elite Vietnamese Marines should have counted for something) we would be in far worse shape. He also knew that conscription has its own problems attached to it; from draft resistance to unskilled troops. As
to other issues; like the refusal to crack down on the looting of the precious National Museum; he knew that the heart of the regime lay in the Oil, Finance and Interior Ministries, that Baathists in large
scale, could never be reconciled to their
obvious minority status. He thought the problem was to restore authority back to
the Iraqis; the unexpectedly strong insurgency was a hindrance to that.

Back to the candidates, McCain lost me with
his pullback on this Shorja market remarks;
if he ever had a chance; this was his British Marine moment and he blinked. Which
is sad for not only himself and his sons, but for all of us. Romney, lets get serious, he's made some good moves but between the playing of the "Mormon card
against him, his Romney Care plan, the disaster of the "Big Dig" he' going no where. So were back to the two prosecutors
(Guiliani and Thompson) versus the hack
and the rabble rouser sorry former community


I think that, far short of promoting the fast-tracking of nuclear power plants, it might be nice to see someone commit to fast-tracking regular old oil refineries. I believe it's the case that not a single refinery has been built in this country in the past thirty years. I spent a lot of time representing one of the world's largest oil companies, with four US refineries. I know that the company very seriously considered closing down one of those four and moving its operation offshore, simply because of the regulatory burden and the constant environmental litigation. But I'm not holding my breath while waiting for an end to that sort of madness.

Other Tom

Sorry--dropped the "Other" in my last post.


McCain is not my first choice, but we all are about to owe him a huge debt of gratitude because he courageously is about to make a tour of this country in support of the surge and the war on terror. And that is something no one else is willing to hang his hat on. Hopefully his stance will open dialogue, bring publicity to the fact that the surge is working, and get a lot of people back to the understanding of how important it is that we win this war on terror.

I don't think there is any chance he will win the nomination, but I am very very thankfull for what he is about to do.


If people are turning away from Hillary, the next choice is Obama. I am hoping people will turn away from Obama. But then that leaves us Edwards.

Doesn't look like the Democrats have good viable candidates that can challenge some of our Republican candidates.

At this point, it looks like we have MORE than one excellent and viable candidates that many Americans would like. I'm glad to see this trend.


OT, about 30 years ago I was touting our need to build new refineries which shows you how effective I am.%^(. Jane, those who know McCain best believe he is emotionally unstable. I share that view.


narciso, Rumsfeld did an outstanding job as yoou've noted. Naturally, he will be vilified by those who can barely find their way to the newsrooms and Congressional hearing rooms from which they slander him.


YAY! However, Harold Hutchison cautions us:

Possibly a good sign…

Ya think things are changing like we predicted last fall?

narciso, Rumsfeld did an outstanding job as yoou've noted. Naturally, he will be vilified by those who can barely find their way to the newsrooms and Congressional hearing rooms from which they slander him.

Oh, finally a voice of reason! I think he will be vindicated eventually and the history books treating him kindly. I really do think Rumsfeld did an excellent job reviving and rebuilding the military that was destroyed by some of the previous adms, excepting 41's.


Jane, those who know McCain best believe he is emotionally unstable. I share that view.

Doesn't matter unless he gets the nomination which he won't. But don't forget that the media loves (or loved) McCain. He has cred with them, and with a lot of people who are lukewarm on the war. If he can gin up enough support to get people to simply give the surge a chance, we might actually have a chance. And boy we need all the help we can get.


Looks like Jeff Goldstein experienced the same problem this site had in the last few weeks. Go check.


The trolls are probably over at Michelle malkin still trying to figure out how they were scammed so well on April Fools via the Coptix Rove photshop hoax.
Too funny.


Rick Ballard


I liked your "wince" remark. '08 (IMO) will be the dirtiest presidential campaign ever seen. One need only look at what the Clinton surrogates have tried with Obama to this point in order to understand that statement. Theoretically, both candidates may be chosen by this time next year. That is really a horrible thought because by the time the election is held we're going to have heard about the time that Candidate X was kept after school in the third grade for talking in class.

Cleanest (or emptiest) closet may determine the election. That's not necessarily a good thing at all.


Cleanest (or emptiest) closet may determine the election. That's not necessarily a good thing at all.

Even more important is the fact that great people will not run for office. Normal people won't run for office. I'm not ashamed of anything in my life, but I wouldn't run for office - I don't want my private life in the public eye.

That being said I am not all that distressed by the current crop. Romney doesn't get me all agaga but I think he might be the best of the best because of his executive prowess, and he's a great idea guy. I like Thompson and I like Rudy, so I figure we could do a lot worse. And I don't think either Hillary, Obama or Edwards can win. If it falls to Richardson, I wouldn't like it, but I wouldn't threaten to leave the country.

Other Tom

I'm starting to get a very strong hunch that Obama will be the Dem nominee. That's bad in the sense that I think he will be tougher to beat than Hillary, but even so there is something delightful about watching that horrid woman see her "inevitable" nomination bleed slowly away.

Lady Sara

Happy Easter to everyone. A cold and dreary day here in So. California.

Associated Press-Ipsos poll conducted by Ipsos Public Affairs. April 2-4, 2007. N=1,000 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.1. RV

“Overall, do you approve, disapprove or have mixed feelings about the way the Democrats in Congress are handling the situation in Iraq?”

40% - Approve
57% - Disapprove
2% - Mixed


Tom and I think alike. I mentioned the same thing about Thompson being the Republican Obama, he is saying what people want to hear.

I like the guy, but then again it is one thing to preach and another thing to practice it. Picking on the Brits takes no real courage, sorry but true. I am glad the British sailors were released and I am not going to apologize that. Whatever spectacle we might be seeing now it is nothing compared to the spectacle that would ensue if the mad mullahs tried and hanged a bunch of British sailors.

In the future, they should take pains to make sure they are that vulnerable.

Howevr, it is easy for Thompson for blog about the issue, it is piracy just as he said. But I noticed that he did not say what should have been done to end the crisis. He complained that the Iranians got off too easy, but no specific plan was laid out.

Gulliani is not perfect, God knows, but he strikes me as an intelligent rational and tough man.

But it is a long time before the election and given the time honored tradition of conservatives to find fault with their own I wonder who will be left standing by Novemember 2008.

Lew Clark

You do know that Rosie O'Donnell is Hillary Clinton's sock puppet. It's hard to get elected president if your the most obnoxious woman in America. Being the second most obnoxious isn't much of an improvement, but it's a step in the right direction.


Woke up late. Whitelisting, blacklisting, and user_id can be defeated with a little effor Mr. Minuteman - sferris.


Woke up late. Whitelisting, blacklisting, and user_id can be defeated with a little programming effort Mr. Minuteman. - sferris.


HEH, Lew! So you think Rosie's there just to make Hillary! look good. do you? I think she wants to get kicked off the program so she can get $40 million for her own show. Maybe, I should practice being a loony leftis --there seems to be big money in that.


boldly we go



Bold off


I am not going to spam or do anything malicious, it was never my intent. Discussion forums should be open and tranparent. Limiting posting to members of a clique is self-defeating.

Discussion forums should be open and tranparent.

Discussion forums can be anything the owner wants them to be, closed and opaque if they like.


Blacklisting test.

Lady Sara

Well it was nice while it lasted.


Ignore.Ignore. The threadjacking bore.


Youth Commission Agenda - 12/18/06
If you have questions call Commission Secretary, Scott Ferris or by email at [email protected]. § The meeting place is handicapped accessible. ...
www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/commissions/youth/2006youth/agenda/121806A44.htm - 110k


Typepad Tip of the Day: Typepad Captcha test can be defeated using anonymous browsing.


Please do not post any emails to [email protected]. This is not my email address. For your information, I am not related to this person in any way, and do not know this individual. I consider this to be a serious infraction by a single individual on this board.

To the person who posted the email address: Tom McGuire can cross-check the ip addresses and likely determine who you are.


looks like the Pelosi/Reid coalition is breaking down

(AP) The Senate will not stop paying for the Iraq war nor relent from insisting that President George W. Bush keep pressing the Baghdad government for a negotiated end to the violence, a Democratic leader said Sunday.

Michigan Sen. Carl Levin, the Senate Armed Service Committee chairman, took issue with an effort by Majority Leader Harry Reid, a fellow Democrat, to cut off money for the war next year as a way to end U.S. involvement.

"We're not going to vote to cut funding, period," Levin said. "But what we should do, and we're going to do, is continue to press this president to put some pressure on the Iraqi leaders to reach a political settlement."


sferris you seem to feel you have a whole lot of very important imformation to share. why don't you go start your own blog.you are monopolizing this place and it is both rude and juvenile


clarice is a poet and I think she gives excellent advice.


I consider posting someones email address for the sole purpose of harassment to be a very serious infraction on this message board. I think the majority of posters on this site would agree with me.


LOL. Gotta laugh some more. TM can cross check IP addresses - yes - if the person is not using an anonymizer like you are ferret.

So, c'mon - give us the history of BBSs during the dot.com era - which is when you say you got involved with them. Give us the benefit of your 15yo wisdom.


We consider a troll posting on this board for the sole purpose of harassment to be a serious infraction of this BLOG. I think most people on this site would agree with me.

Other Tom

Yesterday was Salazar, today it's Levin. In the end, the whole effort will collapse.


I used to be a fan of Santa Claus, (ie), 'be good for goodness sake', toys, Christmas trees, egg nog, etc, but last Christmas somehow he delivered a ton of stuff which required assembly, much of which included plastic stuff that was mishappen and required contacting some toy manufacturing joint in China and waiting 2 weeks to get properly made replacement pieces. This caused big problems with young Zoe, who was exasperated at why Santa's elves were allowed to get away with making shoddy parts for toys, and I guess I just had no real good answer for her. Where the heck was quality control at the North Pole she demanded to know in 2nd grade-eze. That is why I must now commend the Easter Bunny, and switch my vote of confidence in his direction. All he does is just show up, throw chocolate bunny's behind the sofa, marshmallow yellow chickadee's under the breakfast table, Sweet Tart filled plastic eggs behind the toaster, and malted milk Robbin's Egg's behind the couch in the TV room. Plus you don't have to buy the sucker off with cookies and milk, nor supply carrot's and apples for Rudolph and the reindeer. Yesirree bob, I like the Easter Bunny's racket, so he gets my vote.


If they used an anonymizer they wouldn't be detected. My guess is they weren't. It's easy to check the log records.

Lady Sara

I love Easter because that means it is Cadbury Egg time.


Woke up late. Whitelisting, blacklisting, and user_id can be defeated with a little programming effort Mr. Minuteman. - sferris.

I consider posting someones email address for the sole purpose of harassment to be a very serious infraction on this message board. I think the majority of posters on this site would agree with me.

You broke in,you are fair game.

The comments to this entry are closed.