A commenter assures me that, although the big lefty blogs are not big Obama backers (as described by the Heritage blog), their readers are. Interesting - I would have guessed that Angry John with the stricken wife was the Nutroots darling.
But why guess? Kos posted a summary of online DKos reader polls going back to March 2007.
dKos Reader Poll. 1/2/07 11:04 a.m. to 6:24 p.m. PT. 19,912 respondents.
2008 2007
Jan2 Dec19 Dec12 Nov Oct Sep Aug Jul Jun May Apr Mar
Edwards 48 41 39 33 31 39 34 36 40 39 42 38
Obama 27 27 30 27 16 21 29 27 22 24 25 26
H. Clinton 7 6 8 9 9 11 8 9 6 6 3 3
Dodd 4 11 2 7 21 7 0 1 0 0 0 0
Kucinich 3 5 8 9 5 6 4 3 2 2 2 4
No F'ing Clue 2 2 4 4 5 5 5 7 7 5 8 6
Biden 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1
Richardson 1 1 1 1 2 1 6 5 8 13 8 6
Other 1 1 1 3 6 5 7 9 6 5 9 8
Gravel 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 0 0
So Obama surged from 26 pct. last March all the way to 27 pct, while Edwards went from 38 pct to 48 pct at Dkos.
Interesting - one wonders how the multitudinous Obama backers managed to suppress their numbers and sustain this spoof so consistently and for so long.
But no worries - the lefties will get on the Obama bus as it pulls away from the station (unless they are on a dock waiting for their ship to come in, of course). How many of them will be able to endure the notion that they are old-fogey racists backing a middle-aged white guy and unable to get on the right side of youth and history?
Other points to ponder - amongst our friends on the left Obama has been recycling right-wing talking points on Social Security and is wrong on health care. Wrong from the perspective of the Krugman wing of the Dem Party, anyway. But maybe Krugman is this cycle's Sister Souljah. Krugman cranking the Soulja Boy - where is YouTube video when I need it?
WOW - this call to jihad against "The Conservative Movement" is actually scary. After explaining that back in the 1970's a few billionaires sponsored outspoken conservatives, thereby unleashing thirty years of rising income inequality, we are told this:
Sure, there’s a “food fight,” [in contemporary Washington politics] but most of the food that’s in the air is coming from one side of the cafeteria! So why on earth would Obama think that “tearing down” the Conservative Movement and “lifting this country up” are opposites? They’re the same! And we need the kind of politics that treats them that way. When the Swift Boat guys smeared Kerry, Kerry should have “torn them down.”
...So, what would the countervailing force to the Conservative Movement be? What kind of politics? Well, one answer would be party building. Use the 2008 mandate—assuming Obama doesn’t destroy any mandate for policy by tacking, Sister Souljah style, to the (vanishing) center—to build stronger, more progressive party institutions. Use control over the legislature for — this time — real oversight, and destroy the Republican brand and cripple the Conservative Movement. All we need to do is show the truth! Enforce subpoenas, and destroy the Republican brand and cripple the Conservative Movement. Re-professionalize the Justice Department, and it follows as the night the day that plenty of Republican criminals are prosecuted, which destroys the Republican brand and cripples the Conservative Movement.
Tearing down the Conservative Movement is exactly the kind of politics that’s needed to lift the country up!
...When you’ve got them by the balls, the heart and head soon follow. How about we try real oversight and a return to the rule of law in the form of criminal investigations, indictments, and jail time, instead of singing kumbaya? Combine that with a strong institutional presence in the form of a party you can actually mobilize, and you might get the Conservative Movement back in line. With a Democratic president, there’ll be no pardons for them. Some operatives should do time, pour encourager les autres. That’s the kind of politics we need.
Cool - re-professionalize the Justice department so it only investigates Republicans (but them exhaustively) and we will be on track to a better America. I salute the candid yet subtle reference to the French, and presumably the French Revolution. That revolution is not exactly aspirational on the right, but I do not pretend to speak for the left.
Closer to reality, a candidate running on the proposed message - "I'll indict the ones I don't shoot on sight" - would have zero electability. Bush at least pretended to be a "Uniter not a Divider" (nor a Decider, but that was later); Like Obama, Huckabee wants to Get Vertical (thereby baffling Josh Marshall, who is offered enlightenment here), which appeals to the skier in me and the post-partisanship in Iowa voters.
I love it when these guys in their mamaa' basements talk all revolutionary, don't you? What a laugh.
Posted by: clarice | January 05, 2008 at 09:37 AM
"pour encourager les autres." That's not a reference to the French revolution. Its actually the last part of a comment by Voltaire on the execution of Admiral Byng in 1747. (Byng was British, and its largely thought he was executed wrongly)
Anyway, the entire quote (translated) is "Its useful to shoot an Admiral now and then, to encourage the others."
It works on several levels.
Sort of like Orwell's satirical translation of western leftists defending Stalin's purges: "I believe in killing my political opponents if it gives good results." (from 'Politics and the English Language')
Posted by: Eric Blair | January 05, 2008 at 10:03 AM
That's not a reference to the French revolution
Not directly, which is why I opted for "subtle reference to the French, and presumably the French Revolution. "
Unless you think the writer wants to investigate Admirals? Maybe! But I'll settle for a hope to overthrow the wealthy entrenched interests.
Posted by: Tom Maguire | January 05, 2008 at 10:11 AM
Here's the Voltaire quotation from the Oxford Dictionary of Quotations:
"Dans ce pays-ci il est bon de tuer de temps en temps un amiral pour encourager les autres."
Which they translate as follows: "In this country [England] it is thought well to kill an admiral from time to time to encourage the others."
It's from chapter 17 of Candide, which was published in 1759.
It's an odd reference in this context, because executing an admiral was intended to make other admirals fight harder. Presumably, the writer of the post wants Republicans to surrender, not fight harder.
Posted by: Jim Miller | January 05, 2008 at 11:18 AM
The writer's an idiot; the meaning is to 'discourager les autres'. And it's not surprising to see authoritarianism rear it's silky head from the mistaken morass of history.
================================
Posted by: kim | January 05, 2008 at 11:32 AM
If Josh hadn't enlightened me, I would have no idea what Huckabee means by "getting vertical." In another context, I might have expected chick-a-boom music along with the phrase!
Posted by: DC | January 05, 2008 at 12:17 PM
The linked article must be a figment of your imagination. Progressives don't use eliminationist rhetoric!
Posted by: Paul Zrimsek | January 05, 2008 at 01:14 PM
Great to see the Downing Street Memo and the Stolen Election make a comeback, though. Can the free coinage of silver at 16 to 1 be far behind?
Posted by: Paul Zrimsek | January 05, 2008 at 01:18 PM
Thanks, I suppose, for the link.
Convicting Republican lawbreakers is the happy outcome of reprofessionalizing justice so that criminals are brought to justice, not a consequence of staffing it with political operatives to indict Democrats just before elections. Nor is there any eliminationist rhetoric in the post. Clever up, dogs.
Posted by: lambert strether | January 05, 2008 at 01:39 PM
Oops! I see. It's the Napoleon quote that rings your eliminationist "they do it too but worse" Pavlovian bell.
That quote was ironic. The French so often are, and French so often is. As I said, clever up. And good luck.
Posted by: lambert strether | January 05, 2008 at 01:41 PM
Speaking of dogwhistles to religous voters:
andRise up! He has arisen!
That's John Edwards, by the way.
Posted by: MayBee | January 05, 2008 at 01:43 PM
"Clever up," that's very cute.
Posted by: Porchlight | January 05, 2008 at 01:52 PM
Clever lesson in irony, ls.(?)
=================
Posted by: kim | January 05, 2008 at 02:12 PM
Its actually the last part of a comment by Voltaire on the execution of Admiral Byng in 1747.
That's the origin, but the common usage in military parlance was from the Great War (you know, the Big One), and the French (specifically, Marshal Petain's) response to the 1917 French Army Mutinies (and Kubrick's fictional version, Paths of Glory from 1957).
Convicting Republican lawbreakers is the happy outcome of reprofessionalizing justice . . .
I read this as "returning the Justice Department to the exclusive purview of liberals." The Boston Globe had a good illustration of the scope of the "scandal":
Half conservative: "ohmigod that's illegal"; all liberal: "professional." Excuse me if I don't share the enthusiasm.Posted by: Cecil Turner | January 05, 2008 at 02:33 PM
Convicting Republican lawbreakers is the happy outcome of reprofessionalizing justice
"reprofessionalizing"? The blogger is 10?
Posted by: Topsecretk9 | January 05, 2008 at 02:47 PM
Sorry, chapter 23 of Candide, not chapter 17. (Voltaire may have been recycling a comment he made earlier, as Cecil suggests.)
Incidentally, the preceding quotation in the dictionary, also from Candide, may apply to some of our presidential candidates: "If we do not find anything pleasant, at least we shall find something new."
(I may be wrong, but Strether seems to think that Napoleon said that, not Voltaire.)
Posted by: Jim Miller | January 05, 2008 at 03:02 PM
Strether was just eliminating irony, and gassily.
=============================
Posted by: kim | January 05, 2008 at 03:07 PM
Hey George of the Fiords, check out National Journal for Lancet expose.
============
Posted by: kim | January 05, 2008 at 03:16 PM
My eliminationist Pavlovian bell actually says "hardly anyone does it, whatever that idiot Neiwert may believe; but this is just the sort of thing that would be taken for eliminationism if we said it." Bit of a mouthful for a bell, I'll admit.
And what rang it was actually the hypnotic "destroy the Republican brand and cripple the Conservative Movement", not the Napaire/Voltoleon thing. Not that I recall the Irony Defense ever being made permitted to conservatives; we're probably not French enough.
Posted by: Paul Zrimsek | January 05, 2008 at 03:20 PM
"destroy the Republican brand and cripple the Conservative Movement"
Sounds like this dude doesn't have any faith in his own party movement and message huh?
Posted by: Topsecretk9 | January 05, 2008 at 03:29 PM
. . . but this is just the sort of thing that would be taken for eliminationism if we said it.
No kidding. Besides, I'm not sure how one can quote a reference to a famous execution and claim it isn't "eliminationist rhetoric" . . . unless one is ignorant of the reference. (Which looks like a plausible defense in this case.)
Posted by: Cecil Turner | January 05, 2008 at 03:30 PM
Romney wins the Wyoming caucus.
Posted by: Sara | January 05, 2008 at 04:26 PM
Why don't they have air volts? They have internet volts in power volts.
Africom was forced by who?
riter
Posted by: The quoter | January 05, 2008 at 04:30 PM
Africom was formed by a dawning realization that Salafi and Wahhabi currents are penetrating Southern and Central Africa. Robert Kaplan's tale of US troops (Marine recall) training forces in Niger, against Maghrebi AQ elements. the 'unpleasantness' of Sudan, that little dustup in Somalia last year. The scuffles by the BEND in Nigeria that forced oil to the $100.00 per barrel. Those disturbance's in Barry's family home of Kenya, now
Posted by: narciso | January 05, 2008 at 09:49 PM
It's windfall money, n, supporting a losing proposition. But what a mess in the meantime.
===================
Posted by: kim | January 05, 2008 at 09:51 PM
What about this thread for the debate? There's not much on it.
Posted by: clarice | January 06, 2008 at 07:41 PM
Works for me. I just wanna know where to find you all!
Posted by: centralcal | January 06, 2008 at 07:56 PM
Ooooh I like Romney's tax plan for capital gains. That was a good answer.
Posted by: Jane | January 06, 2008 at 08:04 PM
"My friend!"
I like McCain less and Romney more since last nite. But I do like McCain's anti pork position.
Posted by: Jane | January 06, 2008 at 08:06 PM
McCain: I have been wrong on taxes twice. I was mad at George
for beating me.
Drink :)
Thanks Elliott
Posted by: Ann | January 06, 2008 at 08:09 PM
Hello friends.
Posted by: hit and run | January 06, 2008 at 08:09 PM
The Huckster! He loves taxes. Loves loves loves taxes. Arkansas sends like the best state in the union. I never knew.
Hucky, anyone can make government work if you have enough money.
"Mike - you make up facts faster than I can talk."
Romney is too nice. Huckster looks absolutely stupid.
Posted by: Jane | January 06, 2008 at 08:12 PM
Alexander Britton Hume goes over the groundrules. 2 minute responses to questions. No opening statements or closing. Tosses to Chris Wallace for intros.
Wallace: Taxes big in anti-tax NH. Romney has attacked but he raised fees by 500 million.
Romney: 240 million dollar raise, some fees hadn't been raised in decades. Specialized services. Lowering taxes helps economy, increases jobs. Learned from Reagan. McCain voted against Bush tax cuts, still would. I disagree. Cut taxes 19 times, held down spending. Huckabee lowered taxes 94 times, but overall taxes went up. Need to lower taxes again for the middle class. Interest income, dividend capital gains won't be taxed for middle class.
McCain: Part of Reagan revolution. Cut spending in addition to taxes. I have support of Graham, Rudman, Kemp. We'd be cutting taxes more if we'd listened to me on spending. Lost elections, principles.
Wallace: Economy chugged along despite 9/11, Katrina. Bush cuts?
McCain: Bridge to nowhere (MF), members of congress in prison. We have a problem and we have to deal with it. I'll shine light on pork-barrelers.
Romney: Bush took bold action, helped economy. People talk all the time about cutting spending. Hasn't happened. It did it (change). I wielded veto pen and cut taxes. I have cut spending and taxes.
McCain: Ask Jack Abramoff if I haven't cut spending. I'm called the Sheriff for my anti-pork crusade. I've saved taxpayers money.
Wallace: Romney has attacked Huckabee on taxes. Also Club for Growth. Raised taxes $500 million. Is Romney right?
Huckabee: Fee, tax all the same. I signed first big cut in my state, helped families. Indexed for inflation, taxpayer bill of rights, freezes on property tax. Sales and income tax kept in check. Deficit turned into surplus. Education improved. Infrastructure improved with voter imposed taxes. Made government work. Proud of fact that I governed and lowered taxes with Democratic legislature.
Romney: Did you raise taxes?
Huckabee: You raised fees.
Romney: You know, Mike, you make up facts faster than you talk. $240 million increase in fees. Surplus every years. Did you raise taxes?
Huck: We raised jobs.
Cross talk.
Huck: Did you oppose Bush tax cuts.
Romney: I've never opposed. Did you raise taxes?
Huck: By court order on education. Maybe you don't have to obey those in Mass.
Posted by: Elliott | January 06, 2008 at 08:12 PM
SMOOOCHES< HIT! WE missed you so much!
Posted by: clarice | January 06, 2008 at 08:13 PM
Hit! It's about bloody time. We miss you!
Posted by: Jane | January 06, 2008 at 08:13 PM
(first time ever I haven't tried to catch up on all old threads before posting...)
Watched the debate last night, watching tonight.
Might snark a bit, but definitely wanting to read the Jane and Elliott show more than anything...
Posted by: hit and run | January 06, 2008 at 08:15 PM
I'm only doing snark tonite. Last nite just about killed me. It's in Elliott's very able hands.
Posted by: Jane | January 06, 2008 at 08:16 PM
What's this about all you smooching H&R when you were saying such snarky things while H&R was gone. ;-)
Posted by: sbw | January 06, 2008 at 08:17 PM
What? Snarky? Crud. I may have to go back to old threads. Links or pointers welcome.
Posted by: hit and run | January 06, 2008 at 08:18 PM
YOu go Fred - you gotta be willing to go over the heads of the democrats!
Posted by: Jane | January 06, 2008 at 08:19 PM
HEH
Thompson: Sent into SS proposal--individual retirement accts to which govt contributes and index retirement to inflation, not wages.
Wallace suggests Congress will not go for this. Thompson says have to go to the people and tell them what he'd be doing and why.
Posted by: clarice | January 06, 2008 at 08:19 PM
Wallace: You opposed some of those 23 tax cuts you claim credit for. 3 billion deficit in NYC.
Giuliani: 64 tax cuts proposed. 23 implemented. 24% drop in income tax with 42% increase in revenue. Lowered hotel tax, sales tax. Largest tax cut in history of city, largest anywhere in 90s. George Will said NYC most conservative government in America then. I'm a supply sider. Reduce corporate tax. Bush tax cuts yielding more money than when we had higher tax. Best record in 90s on tax cuts.
Wallace: Wouldn't your plan increase deficit? Are you going to cut benefits?
Thompson: Never said I would cut social security. Only social security plan at table even though all say big problem as it is going bankrupt. Plan to save Social security. IRAs save government money. Don't index to wages. Plan won't affect current retirees. Index to inflation, keep cost of living increase but cut rate of increase. Social security will become sound with 4.7 trillion dollar saving. Go to American people and get their support. No one in Washington now can make the case to the American people.
Wallace: Anyone else.
Romney: Fred too bold. Politically DOA and wrong. Some merit to his ideas with respect to higher income people. Retirement accounts and change in retirement age can work.
Thompson: Same thing current retirees are getting.
McCain: Admire Fred's and President's courage for trying to address problem. Need to have bipartisan effort to solve this for the next generation. We can't abrogate our responsibility.
Posted by: Elliott | January 06, 2008 at 08:20 PM
Hit, I was worried about you!
Missed you and Welcome back.
Posted by: Ann | January 06, 2008 at 08:21 PM
Huckster is breathing a sigh of relief. he didn't have to talk about social security.
But now we are addressing the Huckmuster's populism. He admits he's guilty. And he's talking out of both sides of his mouth. He's against the guy who lays you off but pro corporation. Is he waging a war on the Human resources department?
Posted by: Jane | January 06, 2008 at 08:25 PM
Hit,
Do not get all paranoid on us. No one ever disses you. It's a movement.
Posted by: Jane | January 06, 2008 at 08:26 PM
Yay, Hit! Glad to see you back.
Rick, this one's for you - check out what's playing on Turner Classic Movies right now:
Wake of the Red Witch
Someone at TCM has been reading JOM....
Posted by: Porchlight | January 06, 2008 at 08:27 PM
Wallace: Change and Populism. Huckabee's guy who laid you off line.
Huckabee: Reference to the spirit of this country. Huge struggles going on in American families. High gas prices, working multiple jobs. Give poor the chance to get rich. Can't happen when government is trying to compete with small business. Over taxed and over-regulated. Leads to jobs lost oversees. Need to pay attention to working class or we'll lose them.
Romney: Don't attack wage payer, corporation. 30 years in private sector. Built small business and grew it. Some of the companies I invested in created lots of jobs, I had some failures. Need President who understands economy, can shrink government.
Huckabee: I don't want to go after corps. I want to end corporate tax. (Fred Huck cross talk on getting rid of death). Shouldn't be hurt for productivity. Average American resents it when there is a lack of equity in tax system.
Wallace: Fair tax.
Giuliani: I've brought most people out of poverty in NYC. Less on welfare, unemployment when I left office. As Republicans, we don't do a good job explaining that our policies are good for the poor. Workfare a controversial program that was quite successful. Principles of work, education resulted in this.
Thompson: Like certain elements of Fair Tax. Doesn't want consumption and income tax. Would need amendment. My proposal can get passed. Current tax form or simplified form with 10% and 25% brackets. 66,000 page Internal Revenue code.
Posted by: Elliott | January 06, 2008 at 08:28 PM
Thompson on fair tax--not practical though appreciates the move to cimplicity. Prefers the House plan 10% for joint filers earning 100kor less. 25% for everyone else.
Posted by: clarice | January 06, 2008 at 08:29 PM
Does McCain have a sneer on his face as he speaks about being an agent of change?
Posted by: Sara | January 06, 2008 at 08:30 PM
McCain: I have lived my whole life in Washington. I hated Rumsfield because I should have had his job, dang it. I have made alot of changes that were bad. McCain Feingold was a good example. I am a patriot and was right on the surge.
Posted by: Ann | January 06, 2008 at 08:32 PM
This is just a great format.
I think Romney is really getting the best of McCain so far.
Posted by: Jane | January 06, 2008 at 08:33 PM
Stray thought.
I am soooo glad to see Mark Levin commenting at the Corner.
Posted by: hit and run | January 06, 2008 at 08:34 PM
Go Ann!
Posted by: Jane | January 06, 2008 at 08:34 PM
He didn't say "my friend" but he did bring up his Navy service (can you say Vietnam prisoner reminder/patriotism) as proof he knows how to lead and equates it with Romney's business/governor experience. Sheesh! Have a drink.
Posted by: Sara | January 06, 2008 at 08:35 PM
McCain: I have been involved in every issue. I have spent my life defending this nation, I will get Bin Laden. I want to close Gitmo and I am against torture.
Posted by: Ann | January 06, 2008 at 08:35 PM
Hey HIt! we missed ya.
Go Romney! Go Fred!
Posted by: centralcal | January 06, 2008 at 08:35 PM
Amen, Jane. Great format, indeed. And Ron Paul's absence is welcome. Not that I dislike everything he says, but his presence necessitates asking questions about his nuttier positions.
Posted by: hit and run | January 06, 2008 at 08:36 PM
I do, too, Jane.
Thomspson:Leadership and telling the people the truth is more impt than all this blather about "change".
Won't have energy independence in a few years. We're bankrupting next generation on entitlements..need to tell truth to Americans.
Posted by: clarice | January 06, 2008 at 08:36 PM
The Huckster is so happy he's not being called upon.
Fred is fabulous tonite!
Posted by: Jane | January 06, 2008 at 08:36 PM
Wallace: Back to change. Who's better prepared to change Washington?
McCain: I've been an agent of change. Change of strategy in Iraq. I don't know of a better change than saving American lives. CFR, line item veto. I have been an agent of change in Washington. I'm very proud of the change in Iraq. Agent of change.
Romney: McCain is agent of change, but things are broken in Washington and need fundamental change. Someone from Washington can't do it. Spending, taxes, energy independence, education, free market healthcare. Sending the same people to Washington won't result in a different outcome. Difference between talking about change in the cloakroom and leading an organization and having results. Dramatic and fundamental change in Washington.
McCain: I had experience in leadership, not in management. Led largest squadron in US Navy. I have experience and background to lead. Look at Iraq. I know what I can do and have done. I know how to keep America secure. Two wars and struggle against radical Islam. Gadahn will regret tearing up his passport. I'll get Osama.
Thompson: Everyone came out of Iowa talking about change. Every non-incumbent talks about it. Leadership more important and what's important there is telling the truth. The war is going to be protracted and requires greater resources. Won't be energy independent anytime soon. Bankrupting next generation. Have to go to American people and tell them what must be done.
Giuliani: Change can be good or bad. I want lower taxes, Dems want higher. The Dems want to pull out of Iraq without considering consequences. Change is a slogan. Is it change for good or bad.
Posted by: Elliott | January 06, 2008 at 08:36 PM
I'd love to see a ticket with both Romney and Thomspon on it..in what order I am not sure, though I personally prefer Thompson.
Posted by: clarice | January 06, 2008 at 08:38 PM
Hit and Run is here. Excellent.
Posted by: Elliott | January 06, 2008 at 08:38 PM
I posted this on the other thread, here it is again:
Aaah, poor John McCain
McCain camp claims smear
Posted by: Sara | January 06, 2008 at 08:38 PM
Okay, break time. After the debate, H & R has to give us his thrilling tales about where he has been (but not now! no time. K?)
Every time I watch our guys I feel better. The downers at the table. McCain and Huckabee. They may win NH, but they don't win my vote!
Posted by: centralcal | January 06, 2008 at 08:38 PM
Talk about "live" blogging. I paused my dvr to take a leak, and now a couple minutes behind, I'm reading candidates' words here (THANKS! ELLIOTT!) as I hear them spoken on my teevee.
Posted by: hit and run | January 06, 2008 at 08:39 PM
I love them both Clarice, although I think Fred is better suited to be Romney's Dick Cheney and hatchet man/man who deals with Congress and Romney is more suited to Presidential duties and the BS that goes along with it.
Posted by: Sara | January 06, 2008 at 08:40 PM
That is not a smear against John, that's the truth. Press "dos" for John!!!!"
Posted by: centralcal | January 06, 2008 at 08:40 PM
I'd love to see a ticket with both Romney and Thomspon on it..in what order I am not sure, though I personally prefer Thompson.
Posted by: clarice | January 06, 2008 at 08:41 PM
McCain: I am petty. I have been involved in all the issues, didn't you hear me the first time. Judge me on my merits and experience like the Gang of 14, the Amnesty Bill, and my position against the Swift Boaters.
Posted by: Ann | January 06, 2008 at 08:45 PM
Oh Ann, very good!
Posted by: centralcal | January 06, 2008 at 08:46 PM
Hmmm, I didn't know Romney had been to Iraq.
Posted by: Sara | January 06, 2008 at 08:46 PM
A Time Mag. endorsement, that carries lots of weight with your constituency Huck. NOT.
Posted by: Sara | January 06, 2008 at 08:49 PM
Romney is just knocking it out of the park IMO.
Oh good, back to the Huckster - you are a fool on foreign policy, what do you say?
I've been to 41 countries so I know everything there is to know. Everyone loves me so I've been doing something right. And I can lie like a rug. My ignorance is just a verbal slip. Oh he is just so slick. Yukky Yukky Hukky.
Posted by: Jane | January 06, 2008 at 08:49 PM
I love Rudy. I just do. So there.
Posted by: MayBee | January 06, 2008 at 08:51 PM
Wow, just checked email and I have my first Rudy mailing. Got my first Huck one two days ago. McCain and Romney have had me in their sights for months.
Posted by: Sara | January 06, 2008 at 08:51 PM
I've been to 41 countries so I know everything there is to know.
See, I've only been to 21.
That's why I didn't run for president.
Well, that and the closet deeper than Rudy's.
But mostly the closet.
Posted by: hit and run | January 06, 2008 at 08:52 PM
Thomspn:Knowledge of national security more impt now than it has been in past. Was on intel committee, CIA breifings around the world, chmn of foreigh affairs committee. Hits Huck on his "arrogance" and Gitmo statements..Endorsements--jabs McCain for Ted Kennedy being at Bill signing ceremony.
Posted by: clarice | January 06, 2008 at 08:55 PM
Now Huck says opposed Gitmo because it's too good. Fred tells hi that he's wrong on the law and that they are at Gitmo because otherwise they'd get habeas corpus.
Huck is a slimeball.
Posted by: clarice | January 06, 2008 at 08:56 PM
I remember being so proud when Rudy sent that check back.
Ooooh Huck is hankering for a response to Fred's pointed Hammer.
Huck changes his mind again. He backtracks and he's been to Gitmo. And Gitmo was too good which is why he wanted to close it I guess.
I really really really don't think getting bin Laden should be our top priority.
Posted by: Jane | January 06, 2008 at 08:56 PM
WHO is the weakest link?
My vote is tied - Huck and Mac.
Posted by: centralcal | January 06, 2008 at 08:57 PM
Wallace: National security. Asks Romney about claim that we could get someone from Foggy Bottom if knowledge of foreign affairs is most important. Don't we need someone who's lived these issues?
Romney: That's been claimed every time governors have faced senators. American people go for governors because they know they have judgment and can get the information to make good decisions. Americans should elect a leader. We have lots of challenges, including China (3rd ref tonight). Taxes, energy costs, illegal immigration are big challenges. Clintons endorsed McCain immigration plan.
McCain: Maybe we haven't always gotten the best results from those governors. Reagan had a great deal of national security experience. Need knowledge and background to deal with challenges. I've been involved for 20 years. I know Musharraf. Americans can decide whether that is important.
McCain: Romney didn't oppose Rumsfeld. Took awhile to say surge was working.
Romney: I was running a state while the war was getting underway. I went to Iraq. I said it was apparent that there had been intelligence failures. Dancing in streets for only short period. Understaffed. I was running a state. My skill is taking on tough situations and using others' expertise to make good decisions. Like Reagan. Takes an empathetic, temperate, wise person to be president.
Wallace: Arrogant bunker mentality. NIE, martial law. Are you ready?
Huckabee: Been to 41 countries, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. Governors deal with foreign businesses and governments. I have experience as governor, got reelected. Chairman of National Governors' assocation. State improved across the board.
Wallace: Commander in chief. Pattern of errors?
Huck: Slip of the tongue not slip of character or slip of truth. American military should be strongest on earth. If any conflict, I'll listen to commanders. Senators can be good President's. Governorships prepare for running federal government. It comes down to making tough decision.
Wallace: McCain says good leadership after 9/11, but never visited Iraq.
Giuliani: Second toughest job in US. 9/11 was not my first crisis. I'm prepared to handle a crisis and I've negotiated with foreign governments. Handled some cases involving terrorism in DOJ. 35 different countries in last 6 years. Threw Arafat and Castro out of UN celebration. Gave back Saudi money. I understand critical issues on which you have to stand up for your country. Involved with foreign policy with UN there.
Wallace: Management vs. expertise.
Thompson: Mitt thinks expertise important in all areas except national security. Expertise very important for dealing with these challenges. (Lists resume.) Disagree with Huckabee about "arrogant" foreign policy, closing Guantanomo, lifting embargo on Cuba. Disagree on type of world we live in. Did Ted Kennedy endorse your health care bill Mitt?
Mitt: Absolutely.
Huck: I'll wait for the court case on Gitmo. I'm concerned about what Americans things. I visited Gitmo. A bit too hospitable for my taste.
Thompson: They get certain rights if they are physically in the United States.
Huck: There's a court case.
Thompson: That's not the situation.
Wallace: How will you get Bin Laden?
McCain: Emphasis on human intelligence and improve intelligence capacity. I've been endorsed by 4 secretaries of states, lots of admirals and generals. Leadership in Navy. Life experience is more important on resume than just time in Senate.
Posted by: Elliott | January 06, 2008 at 08:57 PM
Sara:
A Time Mag. endorsement, that carries lots of weight with your constituency Huck. NOT.
See what I mean about Mark Levin being back in the Corner?
Posted by: hit and run | January 06, 2008 at 08:57 PM
Hit, Mr Right has been to 69 countries. I'll tell him he has missed his calling.
Posted by: Jane | January 06, 2008 at 08:58 PM
Jane:
Mr Right has been to 69 countries. I'll tell him he has missed his calling.
Fug that. If he's Jane's Mr. Right, he's smack dab in the middle of the highest calling to which he could ever aspire.
Posted by: hit and run | January 06, 2008 at 09:01 PM
Ooops--goofed uothread--Fred's jab was to Mitt. I am very bad at this.
Posted by: clarice | January 06, 2008 at 09:02 PM
Blocked for spam. Hmmm.
Posted by: Sara | January 06, 2008 at 09:02 PM
McCain: It is my experience leading men and women, my life experience in the senate that is important. My friendship with Ted Kennedy is very important.
I have never supported the Amnesty Bill . I am the Straight Talk Express.
We need to get beyond this, how to we address the 10 million that have committed crimes. Yikes!
Posted by: Ann | January 06, 2008 at 09:03 PM
What a baby.
Posted by: Sara | January 06, 2008 at 09:04 PM
I believe Huckabee was an excellent governor for Arkansas. I don't want to diminish his successes. I don't want Huck to be President.
Posted by: MayBee | January 06, 2008 at 09:05 PM
Huck that is. I'll only answer Chris's questions not Mitt's.
Posted by: Sara | January 06, 2008 at 09:06 PM
Huckster on immigration. Let the children in, no don't, yes do, no don't. We can't have any shadows. Cut down all the trees. It's all about the children. It takes a village.
I'm not answering any questions from Mitt, He scares me. So what about the children? Don't worry, they will go voluntarily. So I'll co-opt McCain's plan to have a Kumbaya movement.
Ooops he got caught again. He can't reconcile his two statements, so we are back to preacher mode. Yukky yukky Hucky.
Posted by: Jane | January 06, 2008 at 09:06 PM
Fred: (recent debate) stupid moderator, I won't play your games.
Huck: (tonight) I don't want to engage with Romney, I like the sweet comfort of moderator Wallace.
Posted by: hit and run | January 06, 2008 at 09:07 PM
If he's Jane's Mr. Right, he's smack dab in the middle of the highest calling to which he could ever aspire.
If you keep this up Hit, I'm gonna call you Yukky Hukky2.
Posted by: Jane | January 06, 2008 at 09:08 PM
I just love the way Fred exhibits his thinking process on these issues. His policy papers are full of the same thing.
Posted by: Jane | January 06, 2008 at 09:11 PM
Wallace: Amnesty, Z-visas.
McCain: Z-visas earned right, not automatic. 2 million people here now have to be deported according to DHS. Needed to have job, pay fine, etc. Touchback provision. I have never supported amnesty and never will. We have to work together and solve problem. I'll have governors certify borders are secure. I don't want to tell a soldier I'm deporting his mother. National security requires we secure our border. But we can be compassionate and work together after that.
Romney: We're compassionate and humane and believe in rule of law. Millions are waiting in line. Not fair for those who haven't committed serious crimes to stay. McCain said amnesty had to be part of solution in 2003. Amnesty doesn't work because it attracts more people. Welcome people to get in line. No special privileges.
McCain: Romney said plan was reasonable and not amnesty. Need to sit down together and work this out. Chertoff gave the 2 million figure. Not automatic. Have to qualify, earned ability. Many will be deported unfortunately or fortunately, depending on how you look at it. Sit down and come up with a solution.
Wallace: In state tuition for children of illegals. Harsh plan after exchange with Romney. Aren't you punishing children?
Huck: No, because they are already in shadows. No one can live with pride in shadows. I don't think you punish a child for what a parent did. Build a fence. People should go back and go to back of line.
Romney: What about kids in school?
Cross talk.
Wallace: What about kids in school?
Huck: Kids will go with families. (Missed some) Reasonable people can come to reasonable solution. As governor had to educate those kids.
Wallace: Aren't you punishing?
Huck: Immigrants family oriented. They can leave kid, but they wouldn't(???) Seal border, back of the line. System we can live with and never make this mistake again. Reagan signed the amnesty bill. Even he can make mistakes.
Wallace: Giuliani's if you work hard we want you. Why change view?
Giuliani: Federal government couldn't deport more than 2,000 a year. I let them go to schools, hospitals and report crime. Turned over all criminals. Everyone here has made mistakes on illegal immigration. I have best plan now. Technological and physical fence. Tamper proof ID with which you can come in. Go to end of line if want to become citizen. Comprehensive solution, need to start with border security. Teach people to come in the right way. Life in the shadows bad. Don't want people there.
Wallace: (missed it)
Thompson: Talk about compassion, children. Concerned that we are encouraging next generation of illegals and smugglers. (Cable blip). Many don't speak English, entitlements overburdened, disparities in education. President of Mexico chided us for enforcing border. Doesn't speak well for Mexico that sending people to US is basically part of economic policy, though we are making progress with them fighting drug cartels and with trade agreements. We have to act in best interests of this country.
Posted by: Elliott | January 06, 2008 at 09:13 PM
Fred is the MAN at the table. He is the THINKER at the table. He is the PROBLEM SOLVER (doable, not pie in the sky) at the table. But, Chris wants to call on the favorites. Every time Fred talks, there is silence. His opponents have really no comeback. And, so we move on to soundbites.
Posted by: centralcal | January 06, 2008 at 09:14 PM
Oops: Thompson: I hears lots of*** talk about compassion, children.
Posted by: Elliott | January 06, 2008 at 09:14 PM
This is a link I made for Jane. Would you believe that if I try to post it as a clickable link, it is blocked as spam?
Posted by: Sara | January 06, 2008 at 09:16 PM
Well, I guess it won't even post as an open link.
Posted by: Sara | January 06, 2008 at 09:16 PM
McCain: Attack Ads don't work. I am running for President because I am qualified and I love Town Hall Meetings, They will judge us on those appearances where I call everyone "MY Friend"!
Posted by: Ann | January 06, 2008 at 09:17 PM