The Notion

For, Against & For The War

posted by Ari Berman on 08/01/2007 @ 11:31am

Before he was against getting out of Iraq, Michael O'Hanlon was for it.

In May 2004, the foreign policy specialist (and frequent advisor to Democratic candidates) penned a Washington Post op-ed with his Brooking Institution colleague James Steinberg entitled, "Set a Date to Pull Out."

"Unless we restore the Iraqi people's confidence in our role, failure is not only an option but a likelihood," they wrote. "Critical to achieving our goal is an announced decision to end the current military deployment by the end of next year."

But O'Hanlon, for reasons unexplained, seems to have had a change of heart. He supported the escalation of troops. And after a recent eight day tour of Iraq, on the invitation of his old Princeton buddy David Petraeus, O'Hanlon and Iraq war cheerleader extraordinaire Ken Pollack wrote an op-ed in the New York Times on Monday entitled, "A War We Just Might Win."

"We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms," the two write, contradicting Brookings's own Iraq index, ironically supervised by O'Hanlon. "There is enough good happening on the battlefields of Iraq today that Congress should plan on sustaining the effort at least into 2008."

So O'Hanlon and Pollack are back firmly in the pro-war camp, where they and so many of their colleagues in the foreign policy establishment were before the war. (I wrote a feature about the supposedly liberal think tanks that enabled the war in Iraq back in '05 called "The Strategic Class.")

Only Steinberg (now dean of the school of public affairs at the University of Texas), it seems, has kept to his position. "I'm skeptical" of the O'Hanlon-Pollack op-ed, he told me via email. "On the other hand, they've just been there and I haven't. But in the absence of more compelling evidence (and a chance to talk to them directly) I remain of the view that I held then."

It's little wonder why the White House likes O'Hanlon and Pollack so much. But it's a mystery why prominent Democrats still bother to listen to them.

Comments (188)

  1. As Bill Kristol has so aptly illustrated, the best way for a pundit to get the minimum daily requirement of air time is to be consistently wrong.

    Posted by drhammer at 08/01/2007 @ 11:48am

  2. Don't listen to O'Hanlon, listen to the 72% of the voters that want us out!

    If O'Hanolon doesn't like the democratic process of voters deciding what policies are good for America, then he is living in the wrong country.

    Posted by Metteyya at 08/01/2007 @ 12:05pm

  3. If O'Hanolon doesn't like the democratic process of voters deciding what policies are good for America, then he is living in the wrong country.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Who is in the wrong country again?

    When was the last time you voted for any policy with regard to The United States of America? I certainly never have seen that on a ballot, what state do you live in?

    You vote for people, not policies. That is why character is the only important factor when voting for a candidate. He/She can tell you anything he wants in a stump speech, but he owes you NOTHING after the election.

    This is civics 101. Consider taking a course, local community colleges offer these cheap. Or better yet, pretend you are an illegal alien and go take the free citizenship courses offered all over the country.

    Posted by WallStreet at 08/01/2007 @ 12:17pm

  4. Wait, I read a poll that 100% of the voters want to be millionaires.

    My guess is that in "your" state where you vote on US policy, and had the choice of ending the war... or... becoming millionaires, the voters would vote themselves the cash.

    Posted by WallStreet at 08/01/2007 @ 12:19pm

  5. There's something missing from the linked NYT op-ed: numbers. With the exception of some percentages about the ethnic makeup of one Iraqi unit, O'Hanlon/Pollack cite no statistics whatsoever to back up their vaguely rosy views.

    It sounds like just another publicity tour to me.

    Posted by MyParadigm at 08/01/2007 @ 12:20pm

  6. WALLSTREET 08/01/2007 @ 12:17pm

    What unbelievable bullshit! You think pro-lifers don't vote for policies? And don't expect them to be implemented?

    Posted by MyParadigm at 08/01/2007 @ 12:22pm

  7. What unbelievable bullshit! You think pro-lifers don't vote for policies? And don't expect them to be implemented?<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

    Correct. They do not vote for policies. They can expect anything they want.

    How has that worked out for them again? Is abortion legal or not? How many years did the Republicans hold all 3 branches of government. 6 years. Their vote apparently didn't get counted on ballot question 3, "Abortion should be abolished" check yes or no.

    Posted by WallStreet at 08/01/2007 @ 12:29pm

  8. WHY IS THERE AMBIGUITY AMONG CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS RE IRAQ?...

    I'll tell you why. It's because editorialists like Berman and the others he mentions keep referring to (and therefore thinking of) the situation in Iraq as "the war in Iraq." It's NOT a "war" folks (except in the metaphorical sense of constant, violent actions). It's the U.S. Occupation of Iraq. The "war in Iraq" ended in April 2003. The U.S. won. Bush was right. Mission Accomplished. He kicked Saddam's ass.

    The problem with continuing to think of the situation as "the war in Iraq" is just that it provokes the whole "win-or-lose" mentality that is "forcing" Bush/Cheney & Co. (and their lackey, David Petraeus) to keep U.S. forces there and even add to them (in the latest "sneaky surge" of another 20k). There is a war in the sense that there are warring factions with U.S. forces caught in the middle, but this is not really the kind of "war" that is "winnable" in any meaningful sense.

    Thus the essence of the situation is just that the situation in Iraq should be referred to (and thought of) as "the U.S. Occupation of Iraq." I've made this point on these threads before and I'll make it again. A military occupation of another country cannot be "won" or "lost," it can only be continued or discontinued. Thought of in these terms, discontinuing the U.S. occupation of Iraq doesn't seem so much like "losing" anything, now does it, O centrist Congressional Dems?

    Posted by w_m_bear at 08/01/2007 @ 12:30pm

  9. Yourparadigm,

    What is unbelievable about the fact that no American, other than an elected representative has EVER cast a vote for a policy that governs the US of A.

    Please explain what policies you have voted for and how the rest of us can get in on this action.

    Please, please, please respond.

    Posted by WallStreet at 08/01/2007 @ 12:31pm

  10. Democrats, Cleanse the ranks of such experts at being wrong.

    Posted by conshame at 08/01/2007 @ 12:39pm

  11. Respond? And get into an off-topic pissing contest that obscures any discussion of how BushCo is trying to buy publicity via the Brookings Institution? Not a chance.

    Posted by MyParadigm at 08/01/2007 @ 12:41pm

  12. Polls on the war have little meaning unless one looks at all polls, tv ratings, and peoples actions.Most Americans don't care about the war or impeachment to any big degree.40 some percent still think Saddam did 9/11,when asked if Cheney should be impeached 30% said they didn't know who Cheney is,far more people know who the American Idol finalists were than know who is running for president,millions don't know where Iraq is or know how many troops we have there or the name of the general in charge,but most Americans do know who won American Idol.It's amazing how many people can't name their own reps let alone tell you anything about them.The list of things that I could post to prove apathy and ignorance is almost unlimited.Protests are virtually non existent.During Viet Nam spring was a time of protest on campuses,but now it's a time to plan for spring break partying.Politicians aren't the problem.Apathy and ignorance is the problem.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 08/01/2007 @ 12:43pm

  13. Respond? And get into an off-topic pissing contest that obscures any discussion of how BushCo is trying to buy publicity via the Brookings Institution? Not a chance. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

    That is what I thought. Sissy. Maybe you don't have time to cite the ballots where you cast your policy votes.

    How did you vote on the John Roberts nomination? I tried to vote, but couldn't get to the senate floor that day, something about my new afro and lack of security credentials.

    Posted by WallStreet at 08/01/2007 @ 12:44pm

  14. Rio-See my post about how many ignorant Americans,like yourself,exist.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 08/01/2007 @ 12:46pm

  15. You vote for people, not policies.

    Wall Street,

    If the 'people' you elect don't support the policies you want, do you really think they will be elected again?

    This republican/elitist garbage that only a few anointed people could possibly understand what is best for the country is amazingly arrogant, patronizing, and inconsistent with the democratic principles that most people in this country support.

    And, yes, here in California, we vote for 'policies' in voter propositions, just like in Switzerland. The republican idea of a 'representative' democracy was based on a much different America that was an agrarian society with low literacy and education levels among the general population. The America of today can now handle direct democracy, so republicanism will eventually become a relic of the past.

    If you want to be a ruler or a king, I suggest you immigrate to Saudi Arabia. At least you will share a common interest in continuing dirty energy policies based on oil!

    Posted by Metteyya at 08/01/2007 @ 12:50pm

  16. See, as long as he doesn't know much beyond Alice, Texas....he IS technically correct! heheh

    since the only states or cities I know of that would produce such a poll ....-Posted by RIO BRAVO 08/01/2007 @ 12:46pm

    Posted by Mask at 08/01/2007 @ 12:51pm

  17. I post about how ignorant so many Americans are just to read RioTaliban claiming that we went into Iraq to fight AQ and claiming that Obama is related to bin Laden.Unfortunately,Rio is not the exception,but is the typical ignorant and uninformed American.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 08/01/2007 @ 12:52pm

  18. I smell a big fat SET-UP for September.

    The NYT op-ed and now Jim Clyburn (Dem Majority Whip in the House) telling us that "the Blue Dogs may bolt, if Petreaus comes back with good news".

    All pointing to another "Okay, okay, we'll give it ANOTHER year" move by Pelosi and Reid, and a "compromise" with Bush by which he can keep the "non-Surged" troops in Iraq until January '09, as long as he STARTS pulling out the "Surged" troops by March '08.

    Posted by Mask at 08/01/2007 @ 12:53pm

  19. Posted by I'M NOBODY 08/01/2007 @ 12:52pm

    I'M, given that 70% (beyond the Left Coast, sorry, RIO) are opposed to this war/occupation....

    I disagree with your assessment of "the typical ignorant and uninformed American".....RIO's the exception, not rule.

    Posted by Mask at 08/01/2007 @ 12:54pm

  20. Posted by W_M_BEAR 08/01/2007 @ 12:30pm

    Good point.

    Posted by drhammer at 08/01/2007 @ 1:08pm

  21. Mask-I was talking about the degree of opposition and how much people actually care and it's quite obvious that far more people care about things like American Idol than care about the war,the elections,impeachment etc. Look at Gallup name recognition polls and other such things to find out what we really care about.Yes,70% are against the war,but for many of those 70% the war is not a big issue and isn't something they spend much time thinking about.Most of the 70% don't even watch the debates or can name the candidates which they would do if they cared.The two candidates who are for immediate pullout have no chance of winning.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 08/01/2007 @ 1:11pm

  22. Rio-Go back and read your posts.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 08/01/2007 @ 1:13pm

  23. You vote for people, not policies. That is why character is the only important factor when voting for a candidate. He/She can tell you anything he wants in a stump speech, but he owes you NOTHING after the election.

    Posted by WALLSTREET 08/01/2007 @ 12:17pm

    An oddly humorous statement. He/She can tell you anything, but owes you nothing after the election. That is why only character is important?

    Delicious irony... I believe the correct term for the candidate whom you describe is "liar". So only the character of the liars you vote for matters...

    Anyway, on a serious note, let me ask you this, Gordon Gecko: Between Jimmy Carter (of relatively higher character) and Bill Clinton (of relatively lower character), who was the better leader? the better president?

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/01/2007 @ 1:14pm

  24. Posted by RIO BRAVO 08/01/2007 @ 1:12pm

    Nope, son of Dixie, same as you. Just with more brains.

    Posted by Mask at 08/01/2007 @ 1:18pm

  25. BTW, an acquaintance of mind said he voted for Bush because "he does what he says he's going to do."

    I replied, "That is why he scares me. If he did the opposite of what he promised, I'd vote for him too."

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/01/2007 @ 1:18pm

  26. Posted by I'M NOBODY 08/01/2007 @ 1:11pm

    I still think your assessment is unfair. The "RIO BRAVO" Crowd is down to 25-30% at most (both on Bush support and support for the war). Just because they're not "marching in the streets" doesn't lessen the fact that the VAST majority of this country no longer support the war/occupation.

    Frankly, I'M, your statement smacks of a terrible scourge that the Left has suffered from for a number of years now...that of elitism and "The people are stupid", primarily in response to the lack of majority support for much of its agenda.

    You don't usually see it when the people are SUPPORTING your agenda ("The people have woken up!" is the usual refrain)...which is why your statement is even odder.

    But I'll warn you that politically, calling the majority of the American people dolts is NOT a recipe for winning them over.

    Posted by Mask at 08/01/2007 @ 1:21pm

  27. Mask-I'm not saying that if people got informed then they would agree with me.I'm saying that these people aren't informed because they don't care.Many of those people do agree with me,but it's quite obvious that many don't particularly feel any passion about it.If it wasn't for that one poll question no one would even know that most people are against the war.I've spent the last few days looking at a multitude of different poll questions and responses as well as looking at tv ratings and compared it all and can only conclude that most Americans aren't that interested in the war or really care if Bush/Cheney get impeached,but had very strong opinions as to whether or not Paris Hilton should go to jail.I found my study to be quite depressing.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 08/01/2007 @ 1:47pm

  28. Just with more brains.

    Posted by MASK 08/01/2007 @ 1:18pm

    Finally, an admission......you've got a BIGGER head than Rio (and all the rest of us)! Just remember, beyond quantity of brain matter, quality & how wired also count!

    Posted by Happy at 08/01/2007 @ 1:58pm

  29. Mask-I'd rather have an informed opponent than an uniformed person who agrees with me.The uniformed ones can and do switch sides in a heartbeat, as the Democrats well know.Many have already switched sides once when it comes to the war and can easily go back to their former view.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 08/01/2007 @ 2:05pm

  30. BERMAN: But O'Hanlon, for reasons unexplained, seems to have had a change of heart.....O'Hanlon and Iraq war cheerleader extraordinaire Ken Pollack wrote an op-ed in the New York Times on Monday entitled, "A War We Just Might Win.".....But it's a mystery why prominent Democrats still bother to listen to them.

    At this stage of sour national mood on Iraq, for anyone to flip-flop to now SUPPORT the Iraq efforts, speak volumes! Reminds me of "When E.F. Hutton speaks, people listen!"......

    Regardless of issues, anyone who stakes out positions against the grain, so called Common Wisdom, is worthy of being listened to. BTW, goes for stocks too....being a Contrarian!

    Posted by Happy at 08/01/2007 @ 2:07pm

  31. Wait a minute. I'm sorry myparadigm..... I didn't know that the American Idol candidate voting was a US Policy issue. I have not yet exercised my right to vote on that vital and important issue, but now that I understand, I will not shirk my duty as an American Citizen again.

    Thanks Nobody, I forgot about American Idol.

    Posted by WallStreet at 08/01/2007 @ 2:10pm

  32. Still waiting for a response, Wall Street?

    Posted by Metteyya at 08/01/2007 @ 2:15pm

  33. here in California, we vote for 'policies' in voter propositions

    Posted by METTEYYA 08/01/2007 @ 12:50pm | ignore this person <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

    Which one of those proposals affect US Policy? Did California end the US occupation of Iraq and I not see it in the news, because apparently it was only reported on California news stations?

    So is California militarily neutral on Foreign Policy/ Military Committments like Switzerland? Are there any Californians fighting in Iraq?

    If your ballot initiative is so useful, then put up an initiative to get "your" boys out of Iraq, then get back to me and let me know how that worked out.

    Posted by WallStreet at 08/01/2007 @ 2:16pm

  34. More reason for pessimism......NY Times-

    WASHINGTON, July 31 -- Under pressure from President Bush, Democratic leaders in Congress are scrambling to pass legislation this week to expand the government's electronic wiretapping powers.

    Democratic leaders have expressed a new willingness to work with the White House to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to make it easier for the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on some purely foreign telephone calls and e-mail. Such a step now requires court approval.

    It would be the first change in the law since the Bush administration's program of wiretapping without warrants became public in December 2005.

    In the past few days, Mr. Bush and Mike McConnell, director of national intelligence, have publicly called on Congress to make the change before its August recess, which could begin this weekend. Democrats appear to be worried that if they block such legislation, the White House will depict them as being weak on terrorism.

    "We hope our Republican counterparts will work together with us to fix the problem, rather than try again to gain partisan political advantage at the expense of our national security," Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, said in a statement Monday night.

    Some civil liberties groups oppose the proposed changes, expressing concern that there might be far-reaching consequences.

    Posted by Mask at 08/01/2007 @ 2:18pm

  35. Posted by HAPPY 08/01/2007 @ 1:58pm

    HAPP, speaking of using your brains....where exactly did I cite "and all the rest of us"? Hmmm?

    Posted by Mask at 08/01/2007 @ 2:19pm

  36. If your ballot initiative is so useful, then put up an initiative to get "your" boys out of Iraq, then get back to me and let me know how that worked out.

    You are missing the point....elected officials cannot be 're-elected' unless they support the policies the voters want.

    If you do not understand this basic democratic principle then it is no wonder we kicked your behind in '06 and are going to kick some more in '08!

    Posted by Metteyya at 08/01/2007 @ 2:20pm

  37. Posted by I'M NOBODY 08/01/2007 @ 2:05pm

    Okay, I'M, so what's your grand strategy for manipulating the ignorant masses to the proper way of thinking?

    Posted by Mask at 08/01/2007 @ 2:20pm

  38. If the 'people' you elect don't support the policies you want, do you really think they will be elected again? <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

    Yes, I believe the facts support that they will be elected again.

    Who is the current President of the United States? Was Hillary re-elected? Do you think that Nancy Pelosi will be re-elected?

    "The People" want a lot of stuff, however their voting habits do undermine their supposed committment to those causes.

    Posted by WallStreet at 08/01/2007 @ 2:23pm

  39. "The People" want a lot of stuff, however their voting habits do undermine their supposed committment to those causes.

    Then how do you explain the outcome in '06?

    Posted by Metteyya at 08/01/2007 @ 2:25pm

  40. Was Hillary re-elected?

    yes she was.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 08/01/2007 @ 2:25pm

  41. If you do not understand this basic democratic principle then it is no wonder we kicked your behind in '06 and are going to kick some more in '08!

    Posted by METTEYYA 08/01/2007 @ 2:20pm | ignore this person

    Um, I'm not a Republican. Where do "WE" dig up idiots like you. No wonder "WE" are going to lose huge in 2008.

    Posted by WallStreet at 08/01/2007 @ 2:25pm

  42. If Democrats really cared about getting out of the war, then Dennis Kucinich would be the front-runner for the Democratic nomination.

    Posted by WallStreet at 08/01/2007 @ 2:28pm

  43. Um, I'm not a Republican.

    You come on this board bashing Democrats and defending elitists who think they know better than the voter on the Iraq war, and then claim you are not a Republican.

    OK, what is your party affiliation....the All Kings Ivory Tower party?

    Posted by Metteyya at 08/01/2007 @ 2:30pm

  44. Then how do you explain the outcome in '06?

    Posted by METTEYYA 08/01/2007 @ 2:25pm | ignore this person

    Republican voter apathy.

    How do you explain that very few if any of the Democrats "newly" elected in 2006 have done anything to "END" the war in Iraq?

    Symbolic votes are a joke, and the president knows it, which is why he laughs at the Democratic majority.

    Posted by WallStreet at 08/01/2007 @ 2:30pm

  45. ...where exactly did I cite "and all the rest of us"? Hmmm?

    Posted by MASK 08/01/2007 @ 2:19pm

    Just funnin ya! :)

    BTW, don't be so pessimistic on the changes needed for FISA! It's what I predicted over a year ago at Corn.com! But cheer up, the bad guys will adjust and we'll be back at this need for changes again! This cat-and-mouse stuff is just like the IRS always chasing after smart (often devious) tax lawyers & accountants....let's just hope the good guys are just a step or two, not miles, behind!

    Posted by Happy at 08/01/2007 @ 2:31pm

  46. I voted Nader in the last 2 elections, as I have stated many times on these boards.

    Posted by WallStreet at 08/01/2007 @ 2:31pm

  47. there are occupations and there are occupations. the one in Iraq is not like the occupation of Japan and Germany, which continue to this day, incidentally. no, this occupation is like the Nazi occupation of Yugoslavia, where they were harassed by partisans the entire time.

    before we get too hung up on semantics, there is a war going on in Iraq, a civil war, and the occupiers are involved, supporting this side and that side, in turn. in fact the occupiers unleashed that civil war, though it had been smoldering for some time, in the form of the persecutions by the gov't of Iraq of Shia and Kurds.

    the Kurds are often held up as some kind of success story in Iraq. that is about to change, as the US, blundering again, wishes to support Turkey in cracking down militarily against the Kurds.

    yes, even with a scorecard, it's impossible to make sense of it all.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 08/01/2007 @ 2:32pm

  48. If Democrats really cared about getting out of the war, then Dennis Kucinich would be the front-runner for the Democratic nomination.

    Posted by WALLSTREET 08/01/2007 @ 2:28pm

    Outstanding statement of the Day!!!

    Posted by Happy at 08/01/2007 @ 2:33pm

  49. How do you explain that very few if any of the Democrats "newly" elected in 2006 have done anything to "END" the war in Iraq?

    How Rahm Emanuel Has Rigged a Pro-War Congress Election 2006: The Fix is Already In

    By JOHN WALSH

    "In 1964 Barry Goldwater declared: 'Elect me president, and I will bomb the cities of Vietnam, defoliate the jungles, herd the population into concentration camps and turn the country into a wasteland.' But Lyndon Johnson said: 'No! No! No! Don't you dare do that. Let ME do it.'"

    Characterization (paraphrased) of the 1964 Goldwater/Johnson presidential race by Professor Irwin Corey, "The World's Foremost Authority."

    "Democrats Split Over Timetable For Troops; In Close Races, Most Reject Rapid Pullout," the headline atop page one of the Sunday Washington Post informed us as the election season got underway (8/27). Stories like this abound these days, and they should all be prefaced with the single word, "betrayal." Only 17% of rank and file Democrats are for "staying the course," 53% want immediate withdrawal and another 25% are for gradual withdrawal. Among all voters, only 30% want to stay the course, 37% want immediate withdrawal and 26% a "gradual withdrawal (Gallup poll - 9/24/06). According to recent Pew Polls, 52% of voters want a timetable for withdrawal while only 41% oppose setting a timetable.

    In contrast to voters' sentiment, 64% of the Democratic candidates in the 45 closely contested House Congressional races oppose a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. Note carefully: not only do these Democrat worthies oppose the Murtha or McGovern bills for rapid withdrawal or defunding the war; they oppose so much as a timetable. (The number of Dem candidates supporting the Murtha or McGovern proposals is vanishingly small.) The position of these Dem candidates is indistinguishable from that of George W. Bush. How did this betrayal of the Democratic rank and file come about? Who chose these Democratic candidates that oppose rank and file Dems on the number one question on voters' minds, the war on Iraq? How could such candidates get elected in the primaries? Two primary campaigns, now largely forgotten, give us the answer. They are near perfect case studies, and they deserve some reflection although the Dem establishment would dearly like us to forget them.

    The first case is the Democratic primary race between Christine Cegelis and Tammy Duckworth in Illinois's 6th CD, a Republican District, which has elected the disgusting Henry Hyde from time immemorial. Then in 2004 Christine Cegelis, who is only mildly antiwar (1), ran as the Democrat with a grass roots campaign and polled a remarkable 44% against the hideous Hyde in her first run. It was not too long before Hyde decided to retire, and the field seemed to be open for Cegelis in 2006.

    Enter Rahm Emanuel, chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, who dug up a pro-war candidate, Tammy Duckworth. Although she had both her legs blown off in Iraq, she has remained committed to "staying the course" in Iraq (2). Duckworth had no political experience and did not live in the 6th District, but Rahm Emanuel raised a million dollars for her and brought in Dem heavyweights Joe Lieberman, Barak Obama, John Kerry, John Edwards and Hillary Clinton to support her. Despite all this help and with the Cegelis campaign virtually penniless, Duckworth barely managed to eke out a victory by a measly four percentage points. According to a recent Cook Report, Duckworth is not the smashing success that Rahm Emanuel had dreamed of; she remains tied at 41% of the vote with her rookie Republican Rival, Peter Roskam, the same percentage that Cegelis had against the entrenched Hyde in 2004! Recently (9/30), Duckworth was pushed onto the national scene to help her campaign, providing the "rebuttal" to Bush's weekly Saturday radio address. AP, in its story on the exchange where Duckworth was supposed to differ with W on Iraq, concluded thus: "She offered no proposal for an immediate withdrawal or a timetable for withdrawal."

    But in one case, and sadly in only one of the 22 districts, which Emanuel selected for intervention, he did not prevail; but that is also instructive. The second case study is CA's 11th CD Dem primary where Emanuel poured in money, much of it apparently coming from his own district in Illinois, to bankroll Steve Filson, essentially a political unknown, who opposed immediate withdrawal from Iraq. But in this primary battle the grass roots prevailed and the strongly antiwar candidate, Jerry McNemey, who supports the Murtha bill for immediate withdrawal, defeated Emanuel's minion, Filson. It is noteworthy that McNemey, strongly antiwar, won, whereas Cegelis, weakly antiwar, lost. Now in the general election McNemey is pulling ahead of his pro-war Republican opponent by 48 to 46% in the most recent poll even though his opponent has outspent him by $1.6 million to $303,000! McNemey has raised a total of only $452,000 to his opponent's $2.5 million. Some cash from Rahm would ensure McNemey's victory it would appear, but it is not forthcoming. It seems that Rahm Emanuel is stanching the influx of money in this very competitive race.

    Meanwhile, even though Duckworth has been the recipient of Rahm's largesse, to the tune of $1.8 million, the same amount as her Republican opponent, her campaign has not taken wing. You get the picture. If you toe the line for Rahm on the war, the money rains on you like manna from heaven and you are elevated to national celebrity status. But if you are anti-war, Rahm cuts you off at the wallet. Note that in each of these two cases Emanuel did not pick candidates based on a proven ability to raise money. Nor did he pick them for their ability to win. In Duckworth's case she damned near lost despite the cash infusion, and McNirney did win despite the money that Emanuel funneled to his opponent. Emanuel is not choosing proven fundraisers or winning candidates; he is choosing pro-war candidates.

    Rahm Emanuel's Stable.

    To win the House, the Dems must win 15 seats from the Republicans. Here are the 22 candidates hand picked by Emanuel to run in open districts or districts with Republican incumbents, according to The Hill (4/27/06): Darcy Burner (WA), Phyllis Busansky (FL), Francine Busby (CA), Joe Courtney (CT), John Cranley (OH), Jill Derby (NV), Tammy Duckworth (IL), Brad Ellsworth (IN), Diane Farrell (CT), Steve Filson (CA) ­ defeated in primary by Jerry McNirney (see above), Kirsten Gillibrand (NY), Tessa Hafen (NV), Baron Hill (IN), Mary Jo Kilroy (OH), Ron Klein (FL), Ken Lucas (KY), Patsy Madrid (NM), Harry Mitchell (AZ), Chris Murphy (CT), Lois Murphy (PA), Heath Shuler (NC), Peter Welch (VT).

    If we group these 22 candidates by their positions, it is much worse than one might have imagined. Here it is:

    U.S, must "win" in Iraq (9): John Cranely(OH); Jill Derby (NV); Tammy Duckworth (IL); Brad Ellsworth (IN): Teresa Hafen (NV); Baron Hill (IN);Ken Lucas (KY); Lois Murphy (PA); Heath Schuler (NC).

    More troops should be deployed in Iraq. (1): Diane Farrell (CT);

    Bush (or Congress or Bush and Congress or someone other than the candidate) must develop a plan or timetable for exit. This means that the candidate does not offer a timetable or other withdrawal plan and amounts only to a partisan criticism of Bush without a plan offered by the candidate. (6): Francine Busby (CA); Joe Courtney (CT); Kirsten Gillibrand (NY); Mary Jo Kilroy (OH); Patricia Madrid (NM); Harry Mitchell (AZ).

    Biden's 3-state solution. (1): Phyllis Busansky (FL).

    No position. (1): Chris Murphy (CT).

    Not for immediate withdrawal (3): Steve Filson (CA) (He lost Dem primary. See above.); Ron Klein (FL); Harry Mitchell (AZ);

    Withdrawal in 2006. (1): Peter Welch (VT). (In VT, you could probably not get elected dog catcher without calling for immediate withdrawal from Iraq. Still it is a bit mysterious why Rahm is backing Welch who for that reason probably deserves a bit of scrutiny. Perhaps something "worse" like a Green is waiting in the wings.)

    So only one of Rahm's candidates is for prompt withdrawal from Iraq. And it is notweworthy that Rahm found prowar candidates in both red states and blue, like CT and CA. Check out these candidates for yourself. If you live in their districts, pressure them to change their positions and do so publicly with letters to the editor, withholding of funds and most importantly support for third party antiwar candidates where they are to be found ­ no matter how slight the establishment media regards their prospects. Ask what UFPJ, The Nation and other branches of the peace and justice complex are doing to expose Emanuel's candidates.

    Posted by Metteyya at 08/01/2007 @ 2:35pm

  50. which is why he laughs at the Democratic majority.

    Posted by WALLSTREET 08/01/2007 @ 2:30pm | ignore this person

    he is a haggard old man, no sign of laughter. I can tell you who is also not laughing. the repubs, who are staring a losing landslide election in the face.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 08/01/2007 @ 2:35pm

  51. You come on this board bashing Democrats and defending elitists who think they know better than the voter on the Iraq war, and then claim you are not a Republican. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

    The Democrats deserve to be bashed. They have wasted their majority. They have cowed to republican pressure and have not used the "nuclear option" to end the war.

    Why do you defend them? What have they done for you? I hate Bush, but at least he sent me a check for $300 a few years ago.

    Actions are far more important than words. Which is why boys are dying in Iraq and Democrats are "talking" about ending the war.

    Posted by WallStreet at 08/01/2007 @ 2:35pm

  52. Posted by WALLSTREET 08/01/2007 @ 2:28pm

    Forgot to add: Anti-Bush and capturing the WH are their agendas! The Iraq War is mostly a prop! IF the Surge has some success and after the August `vacation' by Iraqi pols, there are positive pol. movements in Iraq, no candidate of either party will advocate unconditional withdrawal....except maybe pure-breed Dennis K.

    Posted by Happy at 08/01/2007 @ 2:36pm

  53. I voted Nader in the last 2 elections, as I have stated many times on these boards.

    Are you suggesting that Ralph Nader supports the war or supports republicanism ideals that distrust American voters?

    Posted by Metteyya at 08/01/2007 @ 2:37pm

  54. I hate Bush, but at least he sent me a check for $300 a few years ago.

    So your political support can be bought?

    Posted by Metteyya at 08/01/2007 @ 2:40pm

  55. Are you suggesting that Ralph Nader supports the war or supports republicanism ideals that distrust American voters? <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

    Neither, I'm suggesting neither. I am suggesting that I voted for Nader

    1. Because he couldn't win, but could get the 3% of the popular vote necessary to secure federal funding for a 3rd party in the next general election, forcing the elected Democrats and Republicans to actually work for the American people, rather than themselves and their cronies.

    2. Because Democrats and Republicans have the same agenda, and that agenda only inconveniences me, so why support them?

    Posted by WallStreet at 08/01/2007 @ 2:43pm

  56. So your political support can be bought? <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

    Yes, as can yours.

    Posted by WallStreet at 08/01/2007 @ 2:44pm

  57. So your political support can be bought? <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

    Let me clarify, even after the $300, i still do not support Bush. I used that as an example of ACTION, as opposed to IDLE CHATTER.

    But I can be bought, by whoever supports my views on policy (wheter or not they implement them, as they normally do not get implemented)

    Posted by WallStreet at 08/01/2007 @ 2:46pm

  58. I also take cash payments. For any politicians reading this, I do prefer cash to policy though. [See Finance 101 under time value of money]

    Posted by WallStreet at 08/01/2007 @ 2:47pm

  59. Actions are far more important than words. Which is why boys are dying in Iraq and Democrats are "talking" about ending the war.

    Posted by WALLSTREET 08/01/2007 @ 2:35pm | ignore this person

    and what actions have you undertaken, pun intended?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 08/01/2007 @ 2:48pm

  60. In summary, it will take more than $300 to buy my vote, however you will get my accolades for ACTION if you send me another $300.

    Posted by WallStreet at 08/01/2007 @ 2:49pm

  61. Frankly, I'M, your statement smacks of a terrible scourge that the Left has suffered from for a number of years now...that of elitism and "The people are stupid", primarily in response to the lack of majority support for much of its agenda.

    You don't usually see it when the people are SUPPORTING your agenda ("The people have woken up!" is the usual refrain)...which is why your statement is even odder.

    But I'll warn you that politically, calling the majority of the American people dolts is NOT a recipe for winning them over.

    Posted by MASK

    The right is always attempting to characterize the left as elitist, intellectual snobs. It's a broad, inaccurate brush. It's not about intelligence per se, but objectivity. I know a lot of people that are much smarter than me, but without an unbiased eye they are blind to the facts. Most of those on the right are handicapped by blinders that obscure the full picture (as are many of the doctrinaire leftists). It doesn't mean they are dumb, just incapable of an alternative perspective. So "wakening up" is an accurate description of the process of coming to terms with reality--of recognizing the truth.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/01/2007 @ 2:50pm

  62. Actions are far more important than words. Which is why boys are dying in Iraq

    Oh, is THAT why they're dying in Iraq? why was I not told this before?

    now if you can tell me why girls, and moms dads, babies and grandparents are dying in Iraq, I will feel truly enlightened.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 08/01/2007 @ 2:51pm

  63. Mask-There is no cure for apathy.I consider proper thinking to be informed thinking even if your conclusions are different from mine.My only point is that while these polls may show a view they don't show how much the individual actually cares about the issue.One has to look at many other things to discover how much people actually care about the issue.Most polls done by politicians do dig deeper than regular polls do which is one of the reasons that it appears that politicians are ignoring the will of the people as seen from the viewpoint of standard polls.In many districts the people may be far more concerned about getting the new highway built than ending the war so the politician focuses on that.Many Americans care little about things that don't affect us personally.Rudy won't get votes in the Dakotas if he promises to protect them from terrorists.He'd better learn to talk farm talk to get their votes.I just think that too much emphasis is being placed on a couple of polls and everyone in congress is being judged based on a couple of vague polls rather than looking at the big picture.I,as you know,am no fan of politicians,but I can't denounce them all because they aren't following a couple of national polls.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 08/01/2007 @ 2:54pm

  64. and what actions have you undertaken, pun intended? <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

    None, because I believe in the democratic process like paradigm. If I wanted the war ended, then my representatives would end it right?

    And like 99.99% of my fellow American Citizens, I am not willing to drive to D.C. to march around the Mall with a couple thousand smelly public university student morons.

    Why? Because unlike those idiots, I knew that Nancy Pelosi was in Bermuda sipping Margaritas studying "Foreign Investment" and could care less what a tiny fraction the pot-smoking [non-voting] american people think.

    Posted by WallStreet at 08/01/2007 @ 2:59pm

  65. now if you can tell me why girls, and moms dads, babies and grandparents are dying in Iraq, I will feel truly enlightened. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

    New Concept - Collateral Damage.

    Posted by WallStreet at 08/01/2007 @ 3:04pm

  66. Posted by I'M NOBODY 08/01/2007 @ 2:54pm | ignore this person

    Supurb. The political process A - Z. Perfect Description.

    Posted by WallStreet at 08/01/2007 @ 3:05pm

  67. Myparadigm,

    The last thing you want in this country is direct voter policy access.

    Look at all of the state constitutional amendments on Gay Marriage, and then try to explain how the Abortion issue is going to be any different.

    Posted by WallStreet at 08/01/2007 @ 3:08pm

  68. The right is always attempting to characterize the left as elitist, intellectual snobs <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

    Which is odd because they are mostly poor and un-educated inner-city slum dwellers.

    Well, except for their white elitist ivy-league spokespeople [KVH] who believe that socialism/communism would finally work if they got to be in charge.

    Posted by WallStreet at 08/01/2007 @ 3:11pm

  69. Posted by MTSPENCE05 08/01/2007 @ 2:50pm

    Empty, read I'M's post. He claims that "Unfortunately,Rio is not the exception,but is the typical ignorant and uninformed American."===Posted by I'M NOBODY 08/01/2007 @ 12:52pm

    So "the typical American" is "ignorant and uninformed"...yet I'M NOBODY (I'm sure thinks HE is not)...ergo he considers himself BETTER than the "typical American".

    There's no way to not see elitism in there.

    Posted by Mask at 08/01/2007 @ 3:12pm

  70. There's no way to not see elitism in there. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

    It is not "elitism" if you really are better than everyone else.

    Posted by WallStreet at 08/01/2007 @ 3:14pm

  71. Many Americans care little about things that don't affect us personally.----Posted by I'M NOBODY 08/01/2007 @ 2:54pm

    So what? Don't you? Doesn't the war in Iraq "affect you personally" as a moral person? How about health care, education, taxes, the environment, etc. All pretty "personal" aren't they?

    IM, as I told John Dillinger above....YOU consider YOURSELF "informed and caring", right? But you think the majority of Americans are not, because they're not sharing YOUR particular political ideology.

    That's egotism, buddy.

    Posted by Mask at 08/01/2007 @ 3:14pm

  72. but is the typical ignorant and uninformed American<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

    And it is this kind of person who encompasses the 70% who think we should leave Iraq.

    Maybe George Bush is doing the right thing... I'll have to re-think this now in light of this new revelation.

    Posted by WallStreet at 08/01/2007 @ 3:16pm

  73. It is not "elitism" if you really are better than everyone else.

    Posted by WALLSTREET 08/01/2007 @ 3:14pm

    Congrats, Empty and IM....you have an ally on the Right!

    Posted by Mask at 08/01/2007 @ 3:16pm

  74. So what? Don't you? Doesn't the war in Iraq "affect you personally" as a moral person? How about health care, education, taxes, the environment, etc. All pretty "personal" aren't they? <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

    Healthcare- check Education- check Taxes - my accountant and attorney make sure this isn't a problem. - check Environment - Aspen does a good job of keeping poor people from coming in and trashing it, so that is about all I need. - check.

    Posted by WallStreet at 08/01/2007 @ 3:19pm

  75. Congrats, Empty and IM....you have an ally on the Right! <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

    My bad, I'll sit around sipping champagne and eating caviar and pretend that I am "of the people"

    Do I get to go back to the LEFT yet?

    Posted by WallStreet at 08/01/2007 @ 3:22pm

  76. Maybe if I take that Hedge Fund job so I can study how money gets to poor people I can be a leftist. I hear John Edwards just quit his.

    Is John Edwards a Leftist? Anyone? B. Clinton is on the Board of a Hedge Fund, is he a right winger?

    Posted by WallStreet at 08/01/2007 @ 3:24pm

  77. Ah yes, Wallstreet. Excellent trolling by the way - and you keep believing money is an adequete substitute for intelligence, compassion, wisdom, etc. What did you call it? Character. Thanks for being such a shining illustration of this elusive concept and why it is necessary.

    Posted by srjenkins at 08/01/2007 @ 3:29pm

  78. Ignorance is exactly that, it has nothing to do with intelligence; it is synonymous with being uninformed, mary.

    How old are you, WS? I remember when I was young and thought I knew everything, but then I went to college and discovered I know--and never will know--nothing. Too bad they don't teach you that in business degrees. You're a fine example of the ignorance that plagues the closed minded.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/01/2007 @ 3:31pm

  79. Posted by SRJENKINS 08/01/2007 @ 3:29pm | ignore this person

    Thanks. I am having quite a good time trolling today, can you believe the number of idiots falling for it?

    BTW, money is a good substitute for intelligence.

    Take a poll. Ask EVERYONE, would you rather go to harvard and learn lots of stuff, or have me give you a million dollars to post YouTube videos and chat online all day.

    Guess what "The People" would say.

    Posted by WallStreet at 08/01/2007 @ 3:34pm

  80. Why can't Democratic foreign policy elites take a clear position on the war in Iraq?

    Because Iraq is making someone a killing.

    Posted by srjenkins at 08/01/2007 @ 3:34pm

  81. How old are you, WS? I remember when I was young and thought I knew everything, but then I went to college and discovered I know--and never will know--nothing. Too bad they don't teach you that in business degrees. You're a fine example of the ignorance that plagues the closed minded. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

    And yet you still want to distribute MY PAYCHECK to the lazy and uneducated.

    Even your cherished University pays its BUSINESS Professors more than your PHILOSOPHY Professors. (I minored in Philosophy, loved it). Why is that? Is it because the business people subsidize the rest of the university? Yep.

    You get to study philosophy and politics and womens studies because a Hedge Fund Manager (Alumni) gave $100m to the university. Give a little thanks.

    Posted by WallStreet at 08/01/2007 @ 3:38pm

  82. Posted by WALLSTREET 08/01/2007 @ 3:34pm

    I don't have to guess or do a poll. Roper and Yankelovich already ask this question - and if memory serves, what you say is true.

    Posted by srjenkins at 08/01/2007 @ 3:38pm

  83. Take a poll. Ask EVERYONE, would you rather go to harvard and learn lots of stuff, or have me give you a million dollars to post YouTube videos and chat online all day.

    Guess what "The People" would say.

    Posted by WALLSTREET

    You can lose money. Knowledge is something you can always keep.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/01/2007 @ 3:38pm

  84. Because Iraq is making someone a killing.

    Posted by SRJENKINS 08/01/2007 @ 3:34pm | ignore this person <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

    Both Democrat and Republican.

    Posted by WallStreet at 08/01/2007 @ 3:39pm

  85. Posted by WALLSTREET

    You're the right age. Why aren't you in Iraq?

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/01/2007 @ 3:40pm

  86. You can lose money. Knowledge is something you can always keep.

    Posted by MTSPENCE05 08/01/2007 @ 3:38pm | ignore this person <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

    This is your problem. This is way too esoteric for the average idiot American who is merely trying to pay rent and figure out how to make the TiVo work so he can record American Idol.

    Posted by WallStreet at 08/01/2007 @ 3:40pm

  87. Oh, I should qualify that - what you say regarding what most people want is true. I would say that wanting money over intelligence suggests you don't have much of the latter. Self-selection bias and all that.

    Posted by srjenkins at 08/01/2007 @ 3:41pm

  88. You're the right age. Why aren't you in Iraq?

    Posted by MTSPENCE05 08/01/2007 @ 3:40pm | ignore this person <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

    I followed John Kerrys advice.

    Posted by WallStreet at 08/01/2007 @ 3:41pm

  89. Posted by SRJENKINS 08/01/2007 @ 3:41pm | ignore this person <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

    Touche'

    Posted by WallStreet at 08/01/2007 @ 3:41pm

  90. Posted by HAPPY 08/01/2007 @ 2:31pm

    LOL!....fair enuf.

    As for the "bad guys" adjusting...they did that when they learned we were doing warrentless wire-taps on phones and started buying 'em and throwing them away....

    oddly....the program continued for some time AFTER that.

    Posted by Mask at 08/01/2007 @ 3:44pm

  91. This is your problem. This is way too esoteric for the average idiot American who is merely trying to pay rent and figure out how to make the TiVo work so he can record American Idol.

    Posted by WALLSTREET

    No, it's a problem for all of us.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/01/2007 @ 3:44pm

  92. I followed John Kerrys advice.

    Posted by WALLSTREET

    "Howard" would be a more accurate moniker for you.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/01/2007 @ 3:45pm

  93. You're the right age. Why aren't you in Iraq?

    Posted by MTSPENCE05 08/01/2007 @ 3:40pm | ignore this person <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

    Although I do do a lot of acquisition deals. I probably could have structured the Iraq acquisition so that there was a lot less blood. I would have chosen a different target, but even still, I think it could have been done.

    Posted by WallStreet at 08/01/2007 @ 3:46pm

  94. Posted by MTSPENCE05 08/01/2007 @ 3:44pm | ignore this person <<<<<<<<<<<<<<

    Touche' (again)

    Posted by WallStreet at 08/01/2007 @ 3:47pm

  95. "Howard" would be a more accurate moniker for you. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

    I think I messed that movie. And for all out there, I prefer Michael Brantley to Gordon Greco

    Posted by WallStreet at 08/01/2007 @ 3:48pm

  96. and you keep believing money is an adequete substitute for intelligence, compassion, wisdom, etc. ----Posted by SRJENKINS 08/01/2007 @ 3:29pm

    Uh, SRJ, don't YOU believe that money is a substitute for personal compassion?

    For example, don't you feel that a government program, dispensing checks, is needed, instead of a reliance on individual altruism?

    Posted by Mask at 08/01/2007 @ 3:48pm

  97. Mask-What I'm posting doesn't fit your elitist thing.What I've stated are facts based on polls done by the pollsters that you go by and drew a conclusion based on those facts.I,also looked at tv ratings.What conclusion do you draw?I view LvLiberty and others on the right as informed and caring.Granted,the caring comes out in a different way,but it's there.The polls I mentioned showed less than a majority being uninformed,but large enough to be concerned.You seem to be in a prove elitism mood,but that is not what I'm talking about.I already stated that I prefer an informed opponent(informed equals caring)to an uninformed person who agrees with me.I'm not saying that I'm better than uninformed people,either.I've been one when I lived in a remote area of America and paid little attention.Didn't even know that Bush was president until the summer of 2001 when I left the mountains and went to Tucson.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 08/01/2007 @ 3:51pm

  98. Howard, as in coward.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/01/2007 @ 3:52pm

  99. I remember when I was young and thought I knew everything, but then I went to college and discovered I know--and never will know--nothing. ----Posted by MTSPENCE05 08/01/2007 @ 3:31pm

    So was it before or AFTER college and that bit of Socratic wisdom....that you took up bank robbery?

    Posted by Mask at 08/01/2007 @ 3:54pm

  100. Posted by I'M NOBODY 08/01/2007 @ 3:51pm

    I'M, you lumped 70% of Americans (per the opposition to the war) into the same catagory with RIO BRAVO who spouts off about "Demoncrats" and froths at the mouths at the liberals. Calling them MORE than just "apathetic" (a later addition), but also "ignorant" and "uninformed".

    Now if they were ignorant and uninformed, wouldn't it seem likely that they would be SUPPORTING the war and Bush, given about all they'd have to go on is when Dubya appears on TV to interupt American Idol...or if their buddy tells them something that he heard on Limbaugh?

    Also you're making an argument AGAINST voter participation with your "I'd rather have an informed opponent than..." line. Not in the way Empty does with "It doesn't matter unless Kucinich gets the nomination", but in a way that says "I don't want uninformed people deciding our elections"....is that a route you want to go down too?

    Posted by Mask at 08/01/2007 @ 4:00pm

  101. Tell me which is worse, mary: robbing banks or being a lying, chickenshit weasel devoid of anything resembling character?

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/01/2007 @ 4:01pm

  102. Wallstreet,

    You're certainly pedantic, but in the end you agree with almost eveyone here (except for Jrolf and Mask), in your basic point that there is so little difference between the Democratic Party and the Republican party as to make it a complete waste to support either.

    Posted by freedomplease at 08/01/2007 @ 4:01pm

  103. For example, don't you feel that a government program, dispensing checks, is needed, instead of a reliance on individual altruism?

    Posted by MASK

    Yeah, sure you're gonna vote Dem.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/01/2007 @ 4:02pm

  104. Tell me which is worse, mary: robbing banks or being a lying, chickenshit weasel devoid of anything resembling character?

    Posted by MTSPENCE05 08/01/2007 @ 4:01pm | ignore this person <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

    Robbing a Bank.

    Did you really do this?

    If so, that is pretty cool. Did you rob many and just get caught once? Or get nabbed on your first attempt?

    Posted by WallStreet at 08/01/2007 @ 4:07pm

  105. I'll even take the bank robbery thread to a different site. But I am facinated by this.

    Posted by WallStreet at 08/01/2007 @ 4:08pm

  106. Even your cherished University pays its BUSINESS Professors more than your PHILOSOPHY Professors. (I minored in Philosophy, loved it). Why is that? Is it because the business people subsidize the rest of the university? Yep.

    You get to study philosophy and politics and womens studies because a Hedge Fund Manager (Alumni) gave $100m to the university. Give a little thanks.

    Posted by WALLSTREET

    And all that money comes off the back of labor.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/01/2007 @ 4:09pm

  107. I got popped on my 5th.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/01/2007 @ 4:09pm

  108. And it was gonna be my last, too.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/01/2007 @ 4:10pm

  109. Robbing banks is way more interesting than a bunch of goobers sitting around pretending that "their" representative (who is unaware of their supporter) is going to bring about Utopia, if only given the chance.

    Posted by WallStreet at 08/01/2007 @ 4:10pm

  110. And all that money comes off the back of labor.

    Posted by MTSPENCE05 08/01/2007 @ 4:09pm | ignore this person <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

    Maybe "labor" should have studdied harder.

    Posted by WallStreet at 08/01/2007 @ 4:11pm

  111. Mask-You are reading way too much into my posts.I haven't lumped 70% in with Rio nor have I made any arguments against voter participation.I have simply drawn certain conclusions after studying numerous poll questions and responses on a variety of subjects from Israel to the war to name recognition etc,looked at tv ratings,and peoples actions.Do the same and then tell me what your conclusions are.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 08/01/2007 @ 4:16pm

  112. Maybe "labor" should have studdied harder.

    Posted by WALLSTREET

    They're too busy working harder.

    So tell me, what if everyone did go to college and study hard in finance? What would that do to your pay? Who would do all the menial, mundane chores that must be done?

    That rationale is nothing more than an excuse for greed. Not everyone can be an investment banker, hedge fund manager, brain surgeon; nonetheless, anyone that is willing to work, do their job should be able to support themselves, send their kids to college, etc. The more money labor makes, the more money there is in the system for consumer goods, which fuels the economy, right? It also provides tax revenue and supports programs like Social Security. I'm not arguing that labor should be paid lavish sums, but pay should keep pace.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/01/2007 @ 4:17pm

  113. Posted by I'M NOBODY

    You have to spell it all out for mary.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/01/2007 @ 4:18pm

  114. Posted by MASK 08/01/2007 @ 3:48pm

    In a word: No. For one, we were not discussing social interections or policy. If you wish to discuss social policy then take a look at levels of Tzedakah and reframe this question so it doesn't smuggle in all your assumptions when put in this different context.

    Posted by srjenkins at 08/01/2007 @ 4:20pm

  115. And it was gonna be my last, too.

    Posted by MTSPENCE05 08/01/2007 @ 4:10pm | ignore this person <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

    ouch

    Posted by WallStreet at 08/01/2007 @ 4:22pm

  116. What a man that Alibama is! He would not vote to approve the war against terrorism to Iraq, but he WOULD as Pres. invade the sovereign country of Pakistan to chase his kinsman Usama!

    Posted by RIO BRAVO 08/01/2007 @ 12:42pm

    Arby

    Spreading BS like this (alleging a familial relationship between Obama and Bin Laden) is the height of slime. Bush's ties to Bin Laden that Obama's.

    Doesn't your Bible speak against the bearing of false witness? Mine does.

    Posted by skeletonman at 08/01/2007 @ 4:24pm

  117. Now every time I think of MTSPENCE05, I'm going to think of Patrick Swayze in Point Break.

    Posted by srjenkins at 08/01/2007 @ 4:24pm

  118. 57 months--the most the jackass could give me (the guidelines were 48 to 57). That's the bad thing about committing crimes: There are no second chances. Fortunately I didn't have a gun on me. A gun is an automatic 60 months on top of the sentence.

    It was a costly mistake. It was over ten years ago and it's still costing me.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/01/2007 @ 4:26pm

  119. All pointing to another "Okay, okay, we'll give it ANOTHER year" move by Pelosi and Reid, and a "compromise" with Bush by which he can keep the "non-Surged" troops in Iraq until January '09, as long as he STARTS pulling out the "Surged" troops by March '08.

    Posted by MASK 08/01/2007 @ 12:53pm

    Sadly, I don't doubt that something like this is in the works; what the fuck is the difference between a 'surged' trooper vs. a 'non surged' trooper, anyway?

    The point is, Shrub is escalating the war and the pinheads in congress are spineless layabouts.

    Posted by skeletonman at 08/01/2007 @ 4:29pm

  120. This is your problem. This is way too esoteric for the average idiot American who is merely trying to pay rent and figure out how to make the TiVo work so he can record American Idol.

    Hedge funds are simply high stakes gamblers - and they are doing a poor job of winning on their bets lately! Emerging market funds are in the tank, and many of these hedge funds have imploded and are currently being sued by their investors. It is a con game at the highest level!

    It really isn't that complicated - it's just difficult to get into unless you are well connected and have an Ivy league pedigree.

    Typical elitist occupation like investment bankers and wall street lawyers. They all 'think' they are hot shit, but trust me, they aren't!

    Posted by Metteyya at 08/01/2007 @ 4:29pm

  121. Posted by SRJENKINS

    No, it was not nearly so dramatic. It is a rush, though. Life is much, much sweeter when you're on the edge. It was fun, too. Being my own boss, planning things out, making dry runs. It was the only time in my life that I've ever been really free--free to do what I wanted, when I wanted.

    Now I've got a "scarlet letter" on me, though. My opportunities are severly limited. And it's nobodys fault but my own.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/01/2007 @ 4:30pm

  122. Posted by MTSPENCE05 08/01/2007 @ 4:26pm

    It will likely cost you for the rest of your life. There's always some form asking if you had a felony and if so, to explain it. There is no concept of having paid your debt to society.

    Posted by srjenkins at 08/01/2007 @ 4:31pm

  123. Delicious irony... I believe the correct term for the candidate whom you describe is "liar". So only the character of the liars you vote for matters...

    Anyway, on a serious note, let me ask you this, Gordon Gecko: Between Jimmy Carter (of relatively higher character) and Bill Clinton (of relatively lower character), who was the better leader? the better president?

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS 08/01/2007 @ 1:14pm

    You indeed point out a delicious irony; I would submit though, that the only person whose character matters in voting decisions is your own.

    If it looks like shit, smells like shit, sounds like shit and you still vote for it, you're gonna get shit.

    If you don't vote for shit, you won't get it (unless the Supremes hand the election appoint the other asshole anyway).

    Posted by skeletonman at 08/01/2007 @ 4:33pm

  124. anyone that is willing to work, do their job should be able to support themselves, send their kids to college, etc <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

    Doesn't that mean that there will be no laborers to create all the wealth that gets sucked up by the investemnt bankers?

    If everyone studied hard finance it would not change my paycheck at all.

    What most "here" believe is that all labor is equal, it is not. Most of my peers cannot do what I do, and admittedly I cannot do what they do.

    Most of my peers are stock brokers, they sucker people into buying stock sight unseen, that takes talent. I help companies buy other companies, there is a ton of due dilligence, everyone is informed, hard to sucker my clients. And depending on the year, I pull more my peers do, or they clean house and leave me in the dust.

    However, most undergrad finance majors do budgeting for small/mid-tier companies, very little if any risk, compensation is mid 40k - 120k on the high side (non-officer)

    So, it wouldn't do squat. And they wouldn't like it anyway. Some people like working with their hands, even if it does only pull 29k/yr.

    Posted by WallStreet at 08/01/2007 @ 4:36pm

  125. I was extremely fortunate to have the support of my family. I don't know how people without family make it when they get out. You get 2 to 6 months of halfway house to get on your feet (they take a 25% before taxes cut!); for those without any clothes of their own the BOP gives you a damn t-shirt and blue jeans that literally turn your legs blue (the BOP is too busy spending money on itself to buy Levis for convicts). I'm lucky, it could have been much, much worse.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/01/2007 @ 4:37pm

  126. "Tzedakah", SRJ?...sorry, gave up on Leviticus when it told me I had to kill homosexuals (or "marys" as Empty SPENCE would call them).

    And MONEY is of vital concern to everybody. Whether it's an ideology that sees the acquisition of it as good and creating the most opportunity for that to be what's "compassionate"....or an ideology that feels that Government control and dispensation of money is what's "compassionate".

    Posted by Mask at 08/01/2007 @ 4:39pm

  127. So, it wouldn't do squat. And they wouldn't like it anyway. Some people like working with their hands, even if it does only pull 29k/yr.

    Posted by WALLSTREET

    To hell it wouldn't. Supply and demand applies to employment, too. That's why wages for labor are not keeping pace. With out sourcing and illegal labor, the labor market is flooded; it's a buyer's market. (If everyone went to med school, how much would doctors make?)

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/01/2007 @ 4:39pm

  128. Posted by SRJENKINS 08/01/2007 @ 4:24pm

    No,no, no...he's Pacino in "Dog Day", screaming "Attica! Attica!" (or actually he'd be Casales complaining they were calling him gay as well as Pacino's character)

    Posted by Mask at 08/01/2007 @ 4:40pm

  129. Hedge funds are simply high stakes gamblers - and they are doing a poor job of winning on their bets lately! Emerging market funds are in the tank, and many of these hedge funds have imploded and are currently being sued by their investors. It is a con game at the highest level! <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

    And yet the Democrats are pissed that Joe Sixpack can't invest in one. They even proposed legislation to eliminate the "qualified investor" requirements on Hedge Funds.

    What do you care if rich people lose money on hedge funds or private equity? Doesn't that make you feel better?

    Nancy Pelosi wants to give your 401k and pension administer the ability to invest your retirement in these "con games"

    Do you support that?

    Posted by WallStreet at 08/01/2007 @ 4:41pm

  130. Typical elitist occupation like investment bankers and wall street lawyers. They all 'think' they are hot shit, but trust me, they aren't! <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

    Yet you still come out here and talk about them. It is better to be talked about than forgotten. Just ask Paris Hilton.

    If you didn't care, you wouldn't mention it.

    Posted by WallStreet at 08/01/2007 @ 4:43pm

  131. "Tzedakah", SRJ?...sorry, gave up on Leviticus when it told me I had to kill homosexuals (or "marys" as Empty SPENCE would call them).

    And MONEY is of vital concern to everybody. Whether it's an ideology that sees the acquisition of it as good and creating the most opportunity for that to be what's "compassionate"....or an ideology that feels that Government control and dispensation of money is what's "compassionate".

    Posted by MASK

    See, that's what I'm talking about when I call you a lying chickenshit. I'm not homophobic, yet you insist on posting that over and over again, knowing damn well it's bs.

    You're the one that supports a party that has absolutely no compunction with denying homosexual Americans the rights that heterosexuals enjoy. That is homophobic.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/01/2007 @ 4:43pm

  132. And MONEY is of vital concern to everybody. Whether it's an ideology that sees the acquisition of it as good and creating the most opportunity for that to be what's "compassionate"....

    Posted by MASK

    Nice rationalization for greed. It has nothing to do with creating opportunities, jobs, or anything else other than personal gain. Have the backbone to just admit to what you're thinking, mary. All the makeup, lipstick isn't helping that pig at all.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/01/2007 @ 4:47pm

  133. Yet you still come out here and talk about them. It is better to be talked about than forgotten. Just ask Paris Hilton.

    If you didn't care, you wouldn't mention it.

    Posted by WALLSTREET

    Depends on what they're saying about you.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/01/2007 @ 4:47pm

  134. (If everyone went to med school, how much would doctors make?) <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

    You would have to allow morons into med school, doctors currently employed would post their MCAT scores on their office doors along with their diploma and the name of the school they went to (as "everyone" else would have to go to "other" less reputable schools).

    So you would have a tier of doctors making the same money they make now, and "other" doctors making much less because they aren't smart enough to get into reputable schools, people don't trust them, and only the poor are willing to go to them.

    How many Fortune 100 companies hire finance analysts that went to the University of Phoenix? Has analyst comp changed since UofP graduates 1000s of morons every year? No, you now have UofP finance grads managing 2rd shift at McDs rather than 3rd.

    Posted by WallStreet at 08/01/2007 @ 4:51pm

  135. You're the one that supports a party that has absolutely no compunction with denying homosexual Americans the rights that heterosexuals enjoy. That is homophobic.

    Posted by MTSPENCE05 08/01/2007 @ 4:43pm

    I'm supporting the Democratic Party candidate in November 2008....you're not.

    I don't use terms like "marys" or "fags" or "fruits" and say how "I don't care about the speech police"....you do.

    And tell me you robbed those banks to give the money to the poor and the proletariat...which you can't....and you STILL prove my point to SRJENKINS that ideologues of the Left ALSO care about money and distributing it.

    Posted by Mask at 08/01/2007 @ 4:51pm

  136. Depends on what they're saying about you.

    Posted by MTSPENCE05 08/01/2007 @ 4:47pm | ignore this person <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

    No it doesn't.

    Posted by WallStreet at 08/01/2007 @ 4:52pm

  137. For WALLSTREET's edification...

    BLOG | Posted 05/24/2007 @ 11:36am Comments for "Blogging for Business" by Ari Berman

    But this constant barrage of "little fruit" or other gay allusions or epithets as insults or put-downs....is rather strange from someone who purportedly is a "progressive"?!?!? Posted by MASK

    Says you. I'm not all that concerned with the speech police.

    And fruit is not something I would call a gay man. Fruit, faggot, butt pirate, sucker of cocks--these are epiteths for people like you. You intentionally distort, fabricate, play little games that are not characteristic of what I consider a man.----Posted by MTSPENCE05 05/25/2007 @ 11:16am

    I left out the quotes from ANN COULTER and the "epiteths" she used for John Edwards and Al Gore.

    Posted by Mask at 08/01/2007 @ 4:53pm

  138. I am not willing to drive to D.C. to march around the Mall with a couple thousand smelly public university student morons.

    you are a clueless jerk. there were tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousand demonstrators at the mall, of all ages and from all walks of life. what smells, no stinks is your pathetic attitudinizing. be gone you creep.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 08/01/2007 @ 4:53pm

  139. you are a clueless jerk. there were tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousand demonstrators at the mall, of all ages and from all walks of life. what smells, no stinks is your pathetic attitudinizing. be gone you creep.

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 08/01/2007 @ 4:53pm | ignore this person <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

    Did the current Speaker of the House of Representatives attend the rally, if not, where was she?

    Let me know when a protest gets you anywhere.

    Posted by WallStreet at 08/01/2007 @ 4:56pm

  140. Posted by MASK 08/01/2007 @ 4:53pm | ignore this person

    What does this have to do with me?

    Posted by WallStreet at 08/01/2007 @ 4:56pm

  141. Posted by MASK 08/01/2007 @ 4:39pm

    Survival is a vital concern to everyone, but money? Hardly. It is also a fact that your (and others) lack of concern for Tzedakah is exactly why people can make arguments that government programs are necessary. If the poor, the sick, the imprisoned, etc. were being taken care of in their communities, there would be no basis for these arguments.

    Posted by srjenkins at 08/01/2007 @ 4:57pm

  142. Even your cherished University pays its BUSINESS Professors more than your PHILOSOPHY Professors. (I minored in Philosophy, loved it). Why is that? Is it because the business people subsidize the rest of the university? Yep.

    Posted by WALLSTREET 08/01/2007 @ 3:38pm

    This is an utterly ill-informed statement. At universities such as Harvard, the endowment (including alumni gifts) dwarfs tuition in terms of annual income to the institution by 10's, if not 100's of times. After the endowment, funds from research grants are the next highest source of income.

    Business schools are a drop in the bucket, Chumly.

    Posted by skeletonman at 08/01/2007 @ 5:01pm

  143. Posted by MASK

    You're not fooling anyone, you're a Repub. Your posts prove it. All this talk of voting Dem is nothing but a bunch of smoke. You're a liar, charlatan; I'd much rather be a bank robber than some lying sack of shit. You are all so concerned with banks, yet you promote political policies that are reducing working Americans to penury.

    Wallstreet: You get my point. It would drive your wages down, that's just the way the market works, right?

    I was a subsistence bank robber. I did not exploit anyone, I did not pretend what I was doing was right, legal, I put the money back into the economy. Keep harping on the fact that I was honest enough to divulge the fact that I am a felon; it doesn't refute what I have to say.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/01/2007 @ 5:01pm

  144. But this constant barrage of "little fruit" or other gay allusions or epithets as insults or put-downs....is rather strange from someone who purportedly is a "progressive"?!?!? Posted by MASK

    And what do you not understand about the left, mary? We are a diverse bunch. I'm not all that concerned with words; it is what you do that counts. Do you want a tissue, cry baby?

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/01/2007 @ 5:05pm

  145. I left out the quotes from ANN COULTER and the "epiteths" she used for John Edwards and Al Gore.

    Posted by MASK

    Go tell mommie.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/01/2007 @ 5:10pm

  146. Posted by MTSPENCE05 08/01/2007 @ 5:01pm

    I don't know MTSpence. I think Mask might be a fairly representative example of the "Third Way" democrat faction of the Democratic party. Not much different than the so called Blue Dog Democrats in his way and people like JOHANNESROLF, who I take to be slightly more left-wing in the Democratic party, can agree with him to vote for whoever becomes the Democratic candidate.

    Instead of pretending that Mask is an undercover operative of some sort, we should acknowledge his views aren't that different from Peloisi, Reid and so forth. The question we have to ask ourselves is whether we want to be part of that or not.

    Posted by srjenkins at 08/01/2007 @ 5:11pm

  147. and people like JOHANNESROLF,

    Egad, are there any other people like me?

    thanks for the shout out SR. we may disagree but I enjoy your comments.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 08/01/2007 @ 5:14pm

  148. This is an utterly ill-informed statement. At universities such as Harvard, the endowment (including alumni gifts) dwarfs tuition in terms of annual income to the institution by 10's, if not 100's of times. After the endowment, funds from research grants are the next highest source of income. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

    What is the basis of the endowment?

    I agree the business school is tiny in comparison to the overall university, however, it is businessmen that donate the cash (establish the endowment) that supports the university.

    Research grants are specific, generally to a professor or group of professors, generally not payment for services and generally not income to the professor. And many of them are PAID BY CORPORATIONS.

    Posted by WallStreet at 08/01/2007 @ 5:19pm

  149. I say he's a Repub.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/01/2007 @ 5:26pm

  150. vote for whoever becomes the Democratic candidate.

    this works for me this time around. look what happened in 2006. had the dems not won, Rummy would still be sec of defense, the Gonz would still be AG and Bush would still be in the white house.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 08/01/2007 @ 5:28pm

  151. University Cash.

    For a specific example, look at The Ohio State University. They re-hired E. Gordon Gee this year as president. He was the president years ago, left to be the president at Brown, left there because of their faculty vote to allow the school to expel a man after being accused of sexual harassment/ sexual advance without a hearing, then went to be the Chancellor of Vanderbilt.

    Ohio State hired a subsequent 2 presidents in 6-8 years, funding dropped substantially because they tried to cater to the "lesser" fields while spurning businessmen and their tainted cash.

    While at Ohio State the first time, Gee, raised $1B - "B" in 5 years. Raised enough money from Max Fischer and his pals to build an entire new Business School complex (which I have visited, and it is second to none) complete with an Executive Hotel, and also renovate the Art School and other projects.

    Why did they bring Gee back? In addition to being a true intellectual, he knows where the cash grows, and it is not cultivated in the school of anthropology.

    Posted by WallStreet at 08/01/2007 @ 5:30pm

  152. vote for whoever becomes the Democratic candidate. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

    If Richardson is the democratic candidate I will vote for the Democrat. Other wise it is the 3rd party candidate with the best chance of getting 3% of the popular vote.

    Posted by WallStreet at 08/01/2007 @ 5:32pm

  153. Nancy Pelosi wants to give your 401k and pension administer the ability to invest your retirement in these "con games"

    Do you support that?

    No I don't, unless it is capped at 5% of total investment. You can't gamble away retirement funds, but rolling the dice on 5% like insurance companies do with their premiums, sure.

    And you and I both know that qualified investors get burned all the time, despite their due diligence. Greed is what lures these suckers in, and anyone would be a fool to invest in a hedge fund right now given all of the losses they have racked up in the last few years.

    I obviously have the knowledge and background to manage my own money, but for those who don't, watch out for these hedge fund operators because they are as slick as they come!

    Posted by Metteyya at 08/01/2007 @ 5:45pm

  154. And you and I both know that qualified investors get burned all the time, despite their due diligence. Greed is what lures these suckers in, and anyone would be a fool to invest in a hedge fund right now given all of the losses they have racked up in the last few years. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

    True, the reason for the qualified investor status is to make sure that you can afford the loss. Most unqualified investors freak out when they take a 5% loss on an investment and get the lawyers involved, because they can't afford the loss, which is one of the reasons why hedge fund managers support qualified status rules (and also because it allows them to invest free of most of the BS regulations that comes with mutual funds.)

    When you involve poor people, the government gets all up in your grill, better to leave them out of it, even if it means the poor people don't get a shot at the big dolla's.

    However, there are a few hedge funds taking huge losses right now and that is well publicized, but many more are making a killing. "I" wouldn't stop investing in them now for anything, there are some great investments there.

    The difference between you and I though is that I don't look to the NYT to tell me that the economy is in horrible shape so don't invest. I look at the investments, choose as wisely as I can and make money on more of them than I lose on others.

    Posted by WallStreet at 08/01/2007 @ 6:02pm

  155. Hey all,

    It has been fun. I will see you all back in the states in 7 hours. And I'll be back in a few weeks I'm sure, as this has become my favorite thing to do while sitting in airports.

    Thanks.

    Posted by WallStreet at 08/01/2007 @ 6:04pm

  156. I was a subsistence bank robber. I did not exploit anyone, I did not pretend what I was doing was right, legal, I put the money back into the economy. ----Posted by MTSPENCE05 08/01/2007 @ 5:01pm

    Just kept enough food, rent, utilities....right, Empty?...heheh

    BTW, I think YOU are the Repub operative. After all, what better cover?

    pose as "progressive" (left of Left of Center, with the "anarcho-communist" stuff, but smoothed down with the "balance" talk)...convince people NOT to vote in 2008, so as to not "legitimize the system"...

    but in reality a GOP stooge planted here to divide the liberal base from Hillary or even Obama and Edwards and drive down the vote with lots of "They're all the same. Dems are Republican-lites. They'll do nothing different! Who cares about the Supreme Court?"

    Meanwhile ME, the supposed GOP operative, I'm trying to convince the Left that if they pull another Nader...they'll get another Bush. And that even The Lesser of Two Hillaries is better than Giuliani or Thompson packing the court with a 7-2 or 8-1 ALITO/SCALIA/THOMAS/ROBERTS vote for the next 25 years.

    Posted by Mask at 08/01/2007 @ 8:19pm

  157. Instead of pretending that Mask is an undercover operative of some sort, we should acknowledge his views aren't that different from Peloisi, Reid and so forth. The question we have to ask ourselves is whether we want to be part of that or not.

    Posted by SRJENKINS 08/01/2007 @ 5:11pm

    Odd, isn't it? Empty says he won't vote for most "corporate-owned" Democrats that could get the nomination in 2008, because they're "no different than Republicans"....but accuses ME of being a Republican and saying I'm lying that I'm going to vote Dem.

    So which is it? Am I Republican OPPOSING the "Republican-lite" Democrats' nominee?...or a "Republican-lite" Democrat who's going to vote for the nominee?

    Posted by Mask at 08/01/2007 @ 8:22pm

  158. Posted by MASK 08/01/2007 @ 8:22pm

    The second, Republican-lite option. But by your reasoning, perhaps I'm a GOP operative. However, spending time posting on The Nation website could only be described as a colossal waste of time given the objectives of such a person.

    Posted by srjenkins at 08/01/2007 @ 9:30pm

  159. Please refrain from straying off-topic and making personal attacks. Your comment may be edited or removed at the discretion of Nation staff. Our goal is not to stifle debate but to keep it relevant.

    cheney was on larry king last night--first thing he mentioned was this favourable op-ed from a not so friendly source (NYT--wasn't judith miller friendly?)

    i didn't see much however--he invoked the memory of abraham lincoln's struggles in the civil war and this turned my stomach (and the channel)

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/01/2007 @ 9:58pm

  160. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/01/2007 @ 9:41pm

    I believe its called - wishful thinking.

    Posted by srjenkins at 08/02/2007 @ 12:29am

  161. Its not that prominent Democrats listen to these fools, its that they are moderate and conservative Democrats much like thier Cowardly friends in the opposition party that are hedgeing a sfe and nuetral position. These are not representatives these are career politicians that want a steady income and nice retirement check that care less for what they represent.

    Posted by DDA at 08/02/2007 @ 05:26am

  162. Posted by RIO BRAVO 08/01/2007 @ 11:27pm

    20 statistics and this poor sap locks into ONE that's positive to his view of things and ignores the other 19....RIO on the war is like HSUBFOOLS on Democrats against impeachment!

    Posted by Mask at 08/02/2007 @ 07:30am

  163. From ThinkProgress.org (1:36am):

    O'Hanlon begins backpedaling from op-ed

    Just a few days after writing about the progress he saw in Iraq, Brookings analyst Michael O'Hanlon claims that if the situation remains as it is currently, he could not "write another Op-Ed" declaring success:

    In an interview on Wednesday, Mr. O'Hanlon said the article was intended to point out that the security situation was currently far better than it was in 2006. What the American military cannot solve, he said, are problems caused by the inability of Iraqis to forge political solutions. "Ultimately, politics trumps all else," Mr. O'Hanlon said. "If the political stalemate goes on, even if the military progress continued, I don't see how I could write another Op-Ed saying the same thing."

    Posted by drhammer at 08/02/2007 @ 09:02am

  164. the biggest political news to come out of Iraq, the pull out of the sunni faction of the "unity" gov't, and the news sinks like a stone.

    the future joint chiefs head acknowledges that no amount of military force and no amount of time will solve the Iraq quagmire. that too sinks like a stone.

    these two stories alone expose the lie that great progress is made in Iraq.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 08/02/2007 @ 09:09am

  165. Posted by DRHAMMER 08/02/2007 @ 09:02am

    This last one by O'Hanlon...was enough.

    Just in time for the Summer Recess of Congress, the NY Times posts how "the Surge is working" and how we can still "win the war"....

    and the Right (justifibly) gets to say "See! See! And this is YOU GUYS' New York Times saying that!"

    NOW, O'Hanlon starts back-pedalling...but it's too late. With Jim Clyburn saying that the "Blue Dogs" may split if Petraeus' report even SOUNDS optimistic....that's it.

    We'll see September a redux of last May, with a lot of talk about a pull-out, maybe a Bush veto, but then a "compromise" by which Bush gets to keep the majority of the troops in Iraq until he's out of office.

    Posted by Mask at 08/02/2007 @ 09:52am

  166. Odd, isn't it? Empty says he won't vote for most "corporate-owned" Democrats that could get the nomination in 2008, because they're "no different than Republicans"....but accuses ME of being a Republican and saying I'm lying that I'm going to vote Dem.

    So which is it? Am I Republican OPPOSING the "Republican-lite" Democrats' nominee?...or a "Republican-lite" Democrat who's going to vote for the nominee?

    Posted by MASK

    That's what happens when you continously lie. You have no credibility. You offer no solutions, no positive input; all you do is post bitchy little remarks to the authors and try to act cute. And when someone shoots your lying ass down, you go after them with smear tactics. You're not smart, and I don't believe you're voting for anything that's not in the Repub column. Your posts speak for themselves. All anyone has to do is read what you write to recognize you for what you are.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/02/2007 @ 11:00am

  167. JRolf is spot on.....there is no more an important development in Iraq since the puppet gov't was formed than what happened yesterday. The Sunni's pulled out of the government. This is a very short step away from all out civil war. It is a fucking disaster of massive proportions.

    I subscribe to the corporate biased NY Times. The story isn't even on the front page!

    American taxpayers are throwing two hundred million dollars a week at Iraq which is now firmly controlled by the Shia who are still in firm control of the militia's (that's why the Sunni's left because Maliki wouldn't disarm the Shia militias) and now in almost total unrestricted contol of the "security forces".

    Best bet for American interests today? Get the fuck out. Fly transport planes stuffed with $200,000,000 per week and give the money to the Sunni's so they can "defend" themselves from the Shia.

    Alternatively....invent a time machine...go back to 2000 tell Scalia what will happen under Bush and when Gore's president 9/11 doesn't happen and we don't create the disaster that is Iraq.

    Posted by freedomplease at 08/02/2007 @ 11:17am

  168. LvLiberty-I,also,believe,however,that if people were more informed then Bush would not have become the nominee and you would have nominated someone more like Reagan or Bush1.While it appears that Americans aren't embracing the progressive views it also appears that we are rejecting the more hard line views of Bush.Hillary just went up in the polls after taking a stand on diplomacy that was in between the progressive view,as expressed by Obama,and the hard line view that Bush has.Many of those uninformed people are the ones still supporting the war.The reason I respect your views is because you are informed and can back up your views,but many on your side can't just as many who switched sides on the war can't say exactly why they switched sides and would return to their previously held pro war views if it looked like progress was being made,but many of those people would not put much effort into seeing if the war really was turning around or if it just appeared to be turning around.Many liberals have the views we have because we do care just as you care and that caring should bring us closer together rather than push us apart.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 08/02/2007 @ 11:17am

  169. I'm nobody,

    What "war" are you refering to? The Iraqi civil war? Or are you refering to the US occupation of Iraq....which is an occupation not a war.

    Posted by freedomplease at 08/02/2007 @ 11:22am

  170. Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE

    And aren't we arming Sunni militias with the intention of them fighting "Al Qaeda" (which is only a small part of the problem in Iraq)?

    Sure the Shia have close ties with Iran, but the Shia in Iraq are Iraqis and they are Arab. I don't understand why the administration is not exploiting this fact. The US needs to engage Iran in a serious manner and pursue all other avenues of opportunity. These idiots in the WH really believe they can get it all their way.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/02/2007 @ 11:30am

  171. All anyone has to do is read what you write to recognize you for what you are.

    Posted by MTSPENCE05 08/02/2007 @ 11:00am

    Well, what am I, Empty? You keep saying you don't think I'm a Democrat (actually registered Indy) and am NOT going to vote for the Democratic nominee in 2008, but am a Republican.

    But you ALSO say that the Top Three Democrats are "corporatists" and essentially sound THE SAME as the Republicans.

    So why can't I be a Democrat and vote Democratic....if they sound just like you think I do?

    Posted by Mask at 08/02/2007 @ 11:56am

  172. if they sound just like you think I do?

    Posted by MASK

    All anyone has to do is read your posts, mary.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/02/2007 @ 11:58am

  173. BTW, Empty...do you agree with this? (I do)---

    "In a war where so many tragic mistakes have been made, this Congress must not sit quietly by while additional plans are cooked up in Washington whose only certainty is to accelerate the loss of American lives, compound the already severe strain on our military capabilities, and accelerate the burn rate of American dollars spent in Iraq. ..."

    "Without the commitment between the warring parties in Iraq to stop the killing, and create a political agreement upon which a national government can exist, 20,000 more U.S. soldiers are not likely to bring about a lasting peace."---Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D-ND)

    Posted by Mask at 08/02/2007 @ 11:58am

  174. All anyone has to do is read your posts, mary.

    Posted by MTSPENCE05 08/02/2007 @ 11:58am

    And all anybody has to do is read YOUR posts, and think that maybe YOU are the Republican operative...posing as "true blue progressive" and trying to talk other liberals out of voting in 2008, so that the GOP can keep the White House!

    Posted by Mask at 08/02/2007 @ 11:59am

  175. FreedomPlease-A war that has the goal of occupation is still a war.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 08/02/2007 @ 1:10pm

  176. Excerpted from an Anderson Cooper interview with Michael Ware, (who, like Yon, is one of the few with the stones to operate in the "Red Zone".)

    COOPER: Well, the vice president also referred to this New York Times op-ed written by -- by Ken Pollack and Michael O'Hanlon, who returned from Iraq. They were applauding the military progress and the Iraqi security forces' ability to hold areas and keep insurgents out. How much have the Iraqi troops themselves actually improved?

    WARE: Well, there has been improvement in the Iraqi troops. They are standing up, to a greater degree, in certain pockets.

    But, honestly, Anderson, it is a myth to believe that the Iraqi forces have been rid of their sectarian or militia ties. No matter how much any commander wants to tell you, the minute the American forces turn their backs, these guys revert to form, be that Sunni or Shia lines, Kurdish ethnic lines, or be it militia lines.

    So, there is still no sense of unity. And, without America to act as the big baby-sitter, this thing is not going to last. So all these successes that O'Hanlon and Pollack point to exist. They're real. But the report is very one-dimensional. It doesn't look at what's being done to achieve this and what long-term sustainability there is. ... The question is, is America prepared to pay this price?

    Posted by drhammer at 08/02/2007 @ 2:18pm

  177. FreedomPlease-A war that has the goal of occupation is still a war.

    Posted by I'M NOBODY 08/02/2007 @ 1:10pm | ignore this person

    This makes absolutely NO SENSE on a number of levels.

    It isn't a war period its an occupation. We were at war with Iraq...but now we're occupying Iraq. Who do you suggest we're currently at war with, with the future goal of someday occupying who / where?

    Posted by freedomplease at 08/02/2007 @ 2:54pm

  178. free, it's a war AND an occupation. air strikes? yep, a war. house to house searches, war. rocket attacks against apartment buildings? war. it isn't total war, but it is war nonetheless. we are also involved in the Iraqi civil war, taking this side one day, the other the next. the former gov't of Iraq could be described as a gov't in exile, and we are mostly fighting them.

    all Iraqis know that the US will leave. there will be a settling of score when we do, just as there is now. so most if not all Iraqis are playing both sides, I believe. just in case.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 08/02/2007 @ 3:22pm

  179. FreedomPlease-I have no intention of discussing semantics.If you don't want to call it a war then call it what you want,but the vast majority of people refer to the situation in Iraq as a war and pretty much everyone will continue to do so.Having discussions about what everyone should call it will be time consuming and will solve nothing.I can't think of anything that would be a bigger waste of time then having everyone get into discussions about what we should call it particularly since we'll never get everyone to call it the same thing.Right now when one mentions the war everyone knows what you're talking about and that is quite convenient.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 08/02/2007 @ 3:24pm

  180. FreedomPlease-Look at the headline for this article.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 08/02/2007 @ 3:29pm

  181. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/02/2007 @ 3:49pm

    Curious, LL. You went indy for Bush-41...took a chance on Bush-43, but were worried....no hesitation when he "proved himself" to you....

    but you've already said you'll heartedly support Rudy Giuliani, who has been (and may still be) MUCH more liberal than even George Herbert Walker.

    ???

    Posted by Mask at 08/02/2007 @ 4:12pm

  182. And all anybody has to do is read YOUR posts, and think that maybe YOU are the Republican operative...posing as "true blue progressive" and trying to talk other liberals out of voting in 2008, so that the GOP can keep the White House!

    Posted by MASK

    People can (and will) believe whatever they want, mary. Keep squirming, worm.

    First I'm some know nothing dreaming of a "worker's paradise"; now I'm a Repub operative. Which is it?

    From a working class perspective there is no difference between the two corporate owned parties. It's nothing more than one party with two different wings. Admittedly, the current administration is an especially egregious presidency, but--as many have pointed out--if Hillary or one of the other corporate hacks win the executive office in the next election, there will be no end to the occupation of Iraq. Voting Dem is not going to bring about any change. I know you have a hard time comprehending this fact: When you cast a vote you are providing the regime with legitimacy. (I remember learning that in the eighth grade. That's why some governments that offer no real choice have laws requiring its citizens to vote.)

    You want to pretend you're a sage, a cynic, yet you've bought into the whole "free" market will cure all myth. And you accuse me of utopian aspirations! The leftist, communists, anarchists understand all too well that there is no such thing as a perfect world (sure, you get some punks that have never worked and come out of college with misconceptions); that is a stock right wing charge that holds no water. Most "free" market disciples argue that eliminating government will allow the market to regulate itself and everything will just be hunk dory. It's not so. Open a decent history book and you can read what happpens to a laissez faire economic system. (Besides, the current "free" market advocates seem to have no problem with tax dollars subsidizing private enterprise.) This believe in a self regulating market is nothing but utopian nonsense.

    You scoff at the idea of balance; you even pretend to be ignorant of the concept. What did the Founders aim to achieve with the Constitution (other than a united trading block)? Balance. Of course, in 1790 there was no Industrial Revolution. Men like Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison could not envision the rise of industries, such huge concentration of powers in private hands; there was nothing like it in human history for the enlightened men to study, ponder. Government is--as it was in the 1790's--a necessary evil.

    Unfortunately big money has co-opted our system. As you have pointed out repeatedly, the concerns for the repression of free speech (geniune, well founded fears) have retarded efforts to restrict the use of money in the expensive campaigns of televised advertisements. What can you do? The only choice is an admendment regulating campaigns. No more of the lesser of two evils choice when voting. And what true American politician could be against ending the corrupting influence of big money in government?

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/02/2007 @ 4:26pm

  183. LvLiberty-I did not know that about Bush1 and conservatives.Thank you.It is unfortunate that it takes a Pearl Harbor or 9/11 to bring us together,but that is normal human behavior.Even many families need those types of events to happen to bring them together because of differences.Fortunately,as a country we do manage to not let those differences get out of hand.We seemed to have learned from the civil war.Doesn't seem to be anyone running who will unite us,but some will cause less division than others. Interesting times we live in.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 08/02/2007 @ 4:27pm

  184. Third is that my first choice is Thompson since it doesn't look like Condi is going to run.

    he's not running yet. and Condi? hahahaha, she has never been elected to anything, and likely never will be.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 08/02/2007 @ 9:01pm

  185. Posted by MTSPENCE05 08/02/2007 @ 4:26pm

    Empty, that's a fine recitation of the problems....but here's the problem--

    Your "way" doesn't fix it, does it? UNLESS, you are hoping for some "total collapse" or "national crises" OR continueing Republican administration and the hope that it will get SO bad that the public will demand that the Democrats only nominate candidates so far from the GOP that they share almost nothing.

    So what is it? What eventually gets an Empty Spence the candidate in the Democratic Party that he wants? There MUST be something, else you're just a ZERO pure cynic who sees NO hope.

    My feeling is you'll want the "total collapse" scenario...and what's a perfect way to get that to happen, but....the GOP continueing to win elections and "drive the country into the ground".

    If there's another possibility, love to hear it.

    But in the meantime, get it through that thick Texan "working class hero" head of yours, that the Democratic Party (as it is NOW....yes, even with Hillary) is MY choice for 2008 and I WILL vote for the candidate and feel pretty good about them making "marginal" (by your reckoning) moves back to the Center.

    And when she wins, you can keep bitchin' about her and how "she's not doing enough" for 8 years...which I think is your TRUE aim!

    Posted by Mask at 08/02/2007 @ 9:40pm

  186. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/02/2007 @ 6:00pm

    Okay...what will Giuliani do about "everything since 9/11" that mitigates the possibility of him....signing off on stem-cell research, funding NON-abstinence-only programs, nominating "Souter" like judges, agreeing to a civil unions Federal law for gays, etc., etc.?

    Posted by Mask at 08/02/2007 @ 9:42pm

  187. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/03/2007 @ 01:45am

    LVLIB, why should President Giuliani lose his bid for re-election and a 2nd term, if he "moves Left"?

    YOU have already said that "9/11 changed everything" and you CANNOT vote Democratic or vote 3rd party and let the Dems win....so, will that change somehow in 2012?

    Posted by Mask at 08/03/2007 @ 09:06am

  188. Your "way" doesn't fix it, does it?

    Posted by MASK

    Neither does your way, mary.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/03/2007 @ 3:14pm

About the Authors

Archives

  1. February 2010

  2. January 2010

  3. December 2009

  4. November 2009

  5. October 2009

  6. September 2009

blog roll

Advertisement
Advertisement

Blogs

» The Beat

Facing Bipartisan Criticism, RNC's Steele Asks If Race Is Factor | "Why? Is it because Michael Steele is the chairman, or is it because a black man is chairman?” he wonders. Maybe he could compare notes with Obama.
John Nichols
Posted at 8:46 PM ET

» Editor's Cut

New Web Column at The Washington Post | Every Tuesday, I'll be featuring progressive thinking about politics and challenging the Right in my new web column for The Washington Post. Read my first one here.
Katrina vanden Heuvel
31 Comments

» The Notion

When Snow Melts: Vancouver’s Olympic Crackdown | Anger is growing in Vancouver in advance of the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver. Like Olympic clockwork, here comes the media crackdown.
Dave Zirin
42 Comments

» The Dreyfuss Report

The Mind-Boggling Stupidity of Michael Rubin | How an AEI apparatchik's love affair for Ahmed Chalabi blinds him to Chalabi's pro-Iran treachery.
Robert Dreyfuss
27 Comments

» Act Now!

Demand Question Time | Join the call for the President and Congress to implement regular Question Time sessions.
Peter Rothberg
56 Comments

» And Another Thing

How to Counterbalance Focus on the Family on Superbowl Sunday | Give to help low income girls and women.
Katha Pollitt
54 Comments

» Altercation

Slacker Friday | James O'Keefe and Alter-reviews.
Eric Alterman