Powered by TypePad

« In Which I Bitterly Denounce Mickey Kaus | Main | Newt - Keep Romney Alive »

February 05, 2008



The Clintons had 8 years to give Americans all these things she is promising now (they are the same things they promised the first time around)

Sue, they are so stupid they didn't notice that the "Agent of Change" complied the SAME EXACT crew her husband used in his campaign and presidency - including convicted classified document stealer Sandy Berger.

You would think a strong, independent women and and Agent of Change would bring in some new changey fresh blood. The only new peeps associated with her campaign are the Wilson's that I can think of, and even they are so yesterday.

It's like Ground Hog day.


She promised them healthcare last time around. Didn't work out so just promise it again. How exactly do you convince them a second time?

Other than her social agendas, she'll track right if she wins the nomination. I still think she cares more about her legacy and poll numbers than actual ideologies.



Does the American public really want to forget what happened to us?

Who needs soma when we can either be embraced by the Red Witch or listen to BHO? Forget...remember 9/11 was a tragedy, not an atrocity...lets get to the real root causes-diplomacy, change, Israel-

OBAMA: Well, I think there's no doubt that we've been dominated by a politics of fear since 9/11. Now, some of that's understandable. We have real enemies out there. The tragedy in New York was a trauma to the country that it is going to take a long time for us to work out.

Gramsci would weep at his success.

Other Tom

Just so no one goes to bed wondering, what we have learned tonight is that, come Novmeber, it will be Clinton vs. McCain.

Call that good news, call it bad news, call it whatever you want. Just say you heard it here.

Other Tom

Same result, even if it comes in **"November"**.


Novmeber is how I feel.



I think I need a double soma on the rocks, tonight. Love ya!

Rick Ballard

It'll be Clinton v McClinton. I'll vote for him but it won't make a damn bit of difference.



Clinton v McClinton

Once the Clinton machine gets to work, ole' Straight Talker will be looking forward to retirement.


Where is McCain's monetary support going to come from? He isn't getting my $2. ::grin:: Just kidding, sort of, but there are a lot of us conservatives not sending money to him under any circumstances.

Rick Ballard


As Sue notes, ole Empty Pockets is going to find that rebuttal costs time and money when the ClinBorg cranks up. That is, if rebuttal is possible at all. Some things just can't be explained away.

First we'll get to watch BHO and Red Witch tag team for a bit. It looks like it's going to be "the economy, stupid" with three candidates with a remarkable simularity to their proven competence wrt things economic - none of them know a lick about it and none of them has spent more than a year on a private payroll, let alone ever made a payroll. Except with Treasury money.

JM Hanes

So, it's Mardi Gras, eh? Guess you couldn't pick a better day for giving up politics, Jane!



Empty Pockets-Hick 2008.

Stop laughing.

JM Hanes

I had been watching the tube, on mute, out of the corner of my eye for awhile, and it seemed like Obama's speech was going on so long, I figured he must have won California.... So I decided to check out what he was saying:

"Change will not come if we wait for some other person, or if we wait for some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek...."

As Brooks Atkinson once said of Waiting for Godot "it's "all feeling. Perhaps that is why it is puzzling and convincing at the same time. Theatregoers can rail at it, but they cannot ignore it."



I saw in the print version of Time today the wet kiss they did for BHO and the "youth vote"-more depressing after seeing tonights returns.

Also, Rick my last comment didn't come out right and wasn't addressed to you-sorry for the tone.

Wanted to say that if people thought 2004 against Bush was ugly and 2006 was worse, they ain't seen nothing yet. How many people on McCain's staff are going to get the Foley treatment-the Times, WaPo, and CNN will probably drop a stink bomb here in the next week or so after Romney drops out-testing the waters and to get McCain really riled up with that explosive temper?

And Huckabee, the Nation the other day was shooting across the bow about his speech at a CCC convention in 1992-I can only hope that he is not VP. Sure that speech will be played on an endless loop on CNN as if he did it yesterday.


JMH - you are brilliant

--I had been watching the tube, on mute, out of the corner of my eye for awhile, and it seemed like Obama's speech was going on so long, I figured he must have won California.... So I decided to check out what he was saying:

"Change will not come if we wait for some other person, or if we wait for some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek...."--

I don't have access to TV as I am competing with X-Box Live, but suddenly when reading this I heard a TV interrupt the middle of a speech in my head,,,and it was the SAM TING (on purpose misspelling -shocking I know) I had heard a gazillion times before.

New word - AG-ICK!

JM Hanes


I have a brother up in Maine who, oddly enough, doesn't share my obsession with politics. He's heard of Huckabee though -- as some nutcase who wants to make the Constitution conform to the Bible.

Patrick Tyson

I wrote elsewhere in 2006 that I thought the most troubling election for Republicans as they contemplated their national future was likely that of Claire McCaskill to the United States Senate from Missouri. Tonight it looks as though Republicans are going to have a very tough time holding Missouri in November and that, not surprisingly, strengthens Mike Huckabee's argument, should he care to make it, that he'd be McCain's best running mate choice. A competitive Missouri almost undoubtedly means that Arkansas and Iowa will also be in play and he's run quite well in all three this year.

Rick Ballard


I agree about the McCaskill election. I just don't think that a Geezer/Huckster - The Bridge to Nowhere ticket will turn the tide. McCain couldn't even carry a majority of Republicans in his home state.


Does it make better sense for Romney to drop out or just do what the Huckster is doing - go low budget and watch the Geezer stumble around? I figure the MSM will cut loose on him now and we'll see the electabiltiy numbers fall like a rock. When they drop below 40% perhaps we'll see the health issue used for the exit. It's a very low probability due to McCain's enormous ego but Romney doesn't lose much by staying in the race.

hit and run

It might be fun to take a break and find something else to obsess over.

I'm here for you if you need me. I'm willing and obsessible.


NPR just played clips from Hillary's "victory" speech. She accused the Republicans of being the "party of special interests" and said she won't be "swiftboated." So, Rush, what IS the difference between election hyperbole and lying?

Liars are the greatest threat to society.

Jane Bean


I like it!

I woke up this morning dreaming of the Huckster. I was ordering him to get out of my house and he had that same sick mendacious smile on his face.



She accused the Republicans of being the "party of special interests" and said she won't be "swiftboated."

Barrett Report: what has amazed me is that the whole report hasn't leaked yet and that the MSM doesn't really seem to care.



I like it!


Patrick Tyson


I'm going to take a break for a couple of weeks. I can't say I'm not pleased with how things have gone thus far in 2008. It'd be nice if a few polling firms went bust over how poorly they've performed, but, alas, I expect that polling remains a growth industry.


richard mcenroe

Why wouldn't they do it? Remember 1972? And just to make sure it stuck, 1974?

Rick Ballard


I did an AT piece on the Barrett Report at the time. Perhaps the report will be dredged up but I have my doubts.

If you really want to see the 'memory hole' in action, check this page at the National Archives. Barrett is an unperson and so is Judge Starr. Try 'Clinton impeachment' or 'Starr Report' as a search string within the National Archives archives. Check Watergate and Whitewater, too.

Careful though - you don't want to wind up on someone's doubleplusungood list.


that of Claire McCaskill to the United States Senate from Missouri.

If Jim Talent hadn't run such a crappy campaign, he could have pulled it out. He never had a positive ad or formulated a vision that I heard. He just seemed like a really competent, non-compelling individual.

Dirk from Bloomington IN

Has Rush Limbaugh Lost All Perspective? “I’m Pulling the Lever for Hillary”

By Derek Richey - Posted on February 7th, 2008 at www.progagenda.com

Rush Limbaugh has continued his assault on anyone but Romney on his radio show this week. He’s been less than nice to Huckabee, and just downright nasty towards McCain for weeks on end now. He, along with other conservative talk-show hosts have even gone so far as to pledge a vote for Hillary Clinton if McCain comes away with the Republican nomination. So the question is, why?

I didn’t hear this whining and crybaby blabber when George W Bush was running for office the first or second time—as certainly Bush is and was never a classic Reagan conservative. Clearly, Rush has been a staunch supporter of the current administration even when he has disagreed with them concerning specific spending, economic stimulus packages, and most vehemently when the immigration compromise was in full swing. The Bush Administration has even given some significant lip service to global warming, alternative energy, and protecting the environment—not exactly Rush-approved policies. So, I ask: why are the moderate tendencies of the Bush Administration forgivable while John McCain’s less than pure conservatism is somehow unsalvageable? Weren’t the compromises to fix immigration actually spawned by W himself and merely supported and moved forward by McCain? While congress and the President spent the country’s tax dollars frivolously on one pork barrel project after another, wasn’t it McCain who stood up, as did Rush, to lambaste the recklessness? When Republicans were running scared, along with Democrats, from the “surge” in Iraq, was it not Rush and McCain who said we have to stick it out, that we couldn’t surrender? Who was it, but McCain and his compromising and efforts “across the aisle” that helped the Bush Administration get W’s Supreme Court nominations through when things looked hopeless. Isn’t it McCain who has pledged to defend the “right to life”? That’s certainly a consistent conservative stance. It seems that Rush has different standards for McCain then he does for Bush—Rush has even said on his show that W wasn’t really a true conservative. So why does Bush get a pass and McCain get the boot?

And then to the even sillier question as to whether a Republican should vote for Hillary or McCain—this has to be a joke, you say (but it is never a joke when hard-feelings, personal dislike and egos like high-rises are involved)… Who is more likely to appoint more conservative judges to the Supreme Court when President (Clinton or McCain)? John McCain. And who is more likely to “turn tail” in Iraq first: Hillary. Who has a more conservative record, as scored by the American Conservative Union? By far, McCain, who scores a 65 to Hillary Clinton’s 6? The year before, McCain scored 80 out of 100. So “how conservative is conservative enough” isn’t even the question when you draw a contrast between McCain and his possible Democratic opponents. The difference is vast (not the same as Rush has stated). So why threaten to sabotage the bigger conservative (McCain) by leading a conservative protest movement to vote for someone as “unconservative” Hillary?

I’ll tell you why.

Frankly, Rush and Ingram and the whole lot of these talk-show brats don’t oppose McCain because he’s more liberal than Hillary, or has fewer conservative credentials than George Bush, nor do they oppose him because they think he is too moderate on certain issues (that never stopped them from backing Bush through the last 7 years), the fact of the matter is that Rush and his ilk know they’ll never been invited to the McCain party if he wins the Presidency. Rush and McCain don’t run in the same circles, or have the same close friends (though they do have a few mutual acquaintances). A McCain Presidency probably won’t include regular calls by his vice-president to the Limbaugh radio show for regular back-patting and ass-kissing sessions (like Dick Cheney does). It also probably won’t include private calls from the McCain administration seeking his support and advice, or invitations to cigar-smoking-advisory-meetings in the White House with the President and all his “in-crowd” cronies. Rush knows that all this attention and brokering will come to an end once McCain is President—that his influence and sway over McCain will be next to none, and that his dance with the people in power will be over. The old “country-club Republicans” as he calls them, will be back in power. The “establishment Republicans” will wield the sword of the party and leave him “on the outside,” and being on the outside of his own party is not what Rush is used to. In fact, he can’t stand the thought. You see, its easier for Rush and his ego to swallow a Clinton administration that will ignore him and is suppose to ignore him, than a new Republican (McCain) Administration that will also ignore him but is SUPPOSE to ask for his blessing and advice (as they have for 7 years now). In short, the Republican establishment cigar-party invites will stop coming. However, if Hillary or Obama win, the right-wing talkers can just go back to what they did during the Clinton years: be the leaders and voice of the Republican opposition where they’re still the coolest kids on the block and host all the parties in the Republican neighborhood. If McCain wins, their cool kid days will be over. The bottom line is, if Rush and his buddies aren’t going to be invited to the McCain cigar-party (as surely they will not), they’ll do everything they can (including collective sabotage) to assure that the cigar-party doesn’t happen at all; it’s tough when you’ve been the coolest kid in town for so long, like Rush has--invited to all the important get-togethers—to accept that the invitations are going to dry up.

And if Rush and the rest go out of their way to spoil McCain’s run for the oval office by helping to get Hillary or Obama elected, the consequences would be very real:
1. Rush’s loyalty to the party’s overall and future success will be questioned.
2. The US will pull out of Iraq much sooner and ease up on the “war against terror.”
3. 2-3 Supreme Court justices will be picked by Obama or Hillary Clinton, and the chances for a conservative court will disappear for another 20 years. .
4. The Republicans Party will turn into a fractured mess: why should moderate or even evangelical Republicans continue to support and elect conservatives when conservatives don’t from time to time return the favor? Isn’t that how a functioning party works? You suck it up occasionally and go with a pair of jacks rather than lose with a pair of eights? You go with the winning hand for now and hope for a better deal next time. Or will all the moderates leave and become Lieberman Democrats? Will Evangelicals form a Christian Republican Party? So-called “Reagan” Conservatives like Rush must learn: loyalty is a two-way street.

In the end, I think we may discover that Rush will have to find a way to “get on board.” Friends will call. Bill Bennett and Bob Dole will send him more emails. The consequences will be explained, and eventually he will soften to a “okay, I’ll wait and see if he makes things right with us” tact. He’ll pretend that the rift is all McCain’s fault, and that McCain and his blue-blood friends will have to “make it right.” The important thing here is that Rush will leave the door open just wide enough for a “mending” dialogue to occur. And that's how I'm calling it....


Please do not hesitate to have runescape gold . It is funny.

The comments to this entry are closed.