Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditMuch was made of Illinois Senator Barack Obama's superb speech to a huge crowd of Iowa Democrats at the mid-November Jefferson-Jackson Day dinner in Des Moines. Without a doubt, it helped to propel Obama ahead of New York Senator Hillary Clinton in polls conducted in the weeks after the event.
But Obama's speech in November may not turn out to be the definitional statement of the fight for Iowa.
What could turn out to be the most critical comment of the campaign came from John Edwards in the last debate between the Democratic contenders -- and the former senator from North Carolina may well claim the caucus-night victory that is the reward for delivering the right message at the right time.
It wasn't a great rhetorical flourish. It wasn't even a new statement. Rather, it was a particularly pointed and effective restatement of the core anti-corporate message of his campaign.
But it came precisely when Iowa Democrats were getting serious about the caucuses. And it gave Edwards the boost he needed to get back in the competition -- and, he is, very much in the competition now.
No serious observer of the December 13 debate in Des Moines doubted that the standout performance, and the standout message, was that of Edwards.
Indeed, undecided voters assembled in focus groups that watched the debate for the major television networks rated Edwards off the charts. That's going to help the 2004 Democratic nominee for vice president as the Iowa caucuses approach. Despite the intense focus on the campaigns of New York Sen. Hillary Clinton and Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, most polls suggest that Edwards is very much in the running in Iowa. And rightly so.
To a far greater extent than Obama or Clinton, Edwards has struck at the heart of issues that should matter most in the race to replace not just George W. Bush, but the Bush agenda of corporate giveaways, job-crushing free trade deals, war profiteering in Iraq, and subprime mortgage profiteering in Indiana, Idaho, Illinois and, yes, Iowa.
Edwards summed up his increasingly aggressive and powerful anti-corporate themes with a declaration: "What makes America America is at stake: jobs, the middle class, health care, preserving the environment in the world for future generations.
"But all those things are at risk. And why are they at risk? Because of corporate power and corporate greed in Washington, D.C. And we have to take them on. You can't make a deal with them. You can't hope that they're going to go away. You have to actually be willing to fight. And I want every caucus-goer to know I've been fighting these people and winning my entire life. And if we do this together, rise up together, we can actually make absolutely certain, starting here in Iowa, that we make this country better than we left it."
But the former senator's most effective statement at the Des Moines Register debate on Thursday was one that reflected his deep level of engagement with working people in the upper Midwest, an engagement born of long months spent in Iowa and neighboring states -- at a time when Clinton and Obama were spending considerably more time fighting over who had better relations with the media moguls on Hollywood's A-list and in the suites of Manhattan's mortgage manipulators.
Edwards got to know workers in Iowa. He stood with them in their struggles.
Turning a broad question about human rights toward the specific issue of trade policy, the former senator said that human rights, human needs and human values "should be central to our trade policy."
"But," he added, "if you look at what's happened with American trade policy, look at what America got: Big corporations made a lot of money, are continuing to make a lot of money in China. But what did America get in return? We got millions of dangerous Chinese toys. We lost millions of jobs.
"And right here in Iowa, the Maytag plant in Newton closed. A guy named Doug Bishop, who I got to know very well, had worked in that plant, and his family had worked in that plant literally for generations. And his job is now gone. The same thing, by the way, happened in the plant that my father worked in when I was growing up. It is so important that we stop allowing these corporate powers and corporate profits to run America's policy, whether it's trade policy, how we engage with China. This is not good for America. It's not good for American jobs. And it's not good for working people in this country."
That's an issue Edwards has taken far, far more seriously than his opponents in what is now a three-way race in Iowa. And that seriousness has benefitted the former senator.
Remembering the workers who have been battered by the failed trade policies of the Clinton and Bush administrations matters. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, both supporters of recent trade agreements, have never connected on the same level. Edwards, who once had a shaky record on these issues but has come to be a passionate proponent of fair trade, comes across as the candidate who gets it. That's why he won the debate in Des Moines. That's why every serious survey that has been conducted in recent days shows him within striking distance of the Iowa win that once was assumed to be Clinton's for the taking and that was then supposed to be Obama's.
No one who is watching the rapid evolution of this race is any longer counting Edwards out in Iowa -- or in the rest of a yet-to-be-defined race for the Democratic nomination.
Share this article
John Nichols
Breaking news and analysis on political, social, economic and cultural activism that mainstream media commonly ignore.
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
The thing behind Edwards' surge is simple.
He's the white guy.
Everybody is thinking "electability"...Hillary is pushing it and semmingly not knowing (or caring) that HER electability is in question as much as Obama's.
So...who's left that's male and white?
Thing is...why isn't Edwards moving up in places like South Carolina (one state away from home)?
Posted by Mask at 12/26/2007 @ 6:24pm
I couldn't disagree with the race/gender analysis more. Hillary and Obama are going to carry water for the elites. No real change is going to come from either of them because they're part of the system and people are sick of it.
Edwards is surging not because Obama is black and Hillary is a woman. Outside of Kucinich, Edwards is the only guy in the room speaking directly to the middle class and working poor. The man grew up working class and paid his way through college schlepping boxes at UPS. That gives him a far greater perspective on what it's like to work for a living than the candidates who rode the conveyor belt from ivy league privilege straight to the beltway.
I want universal health care, I want us out of Iraq, and I want a progressive tax code. Edwards is the only electable candidate that hasn't been corrupted and paid off with PAC money. He'll deliver.
This country need far more than Hillary's pro-corporate centrism and Obama's platitudes of "hope."
Posted by santacruzluke at 12/26/2007 @ 8:07pm
The corporate media has frozen Edwards out of the media spotlight while anointing Clinton and Obama as the"frontrunners", because he actually challenges the Wall Street agenda and is electable, while the two turkeys are shills for Wall Street and not very electable.
Posted by wgilwood at 12/26/2007 @ 8:43pm
b_kool_66:
great money (yikes!) article from der spiegel
Private American households now owe about $13 trillion to lenders at home and abroad. Thirty-six percent of this debt was created within the last five years. Americans can no longer afford much of the present. [tinyurl.com]
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/26/2007 @ 9:22pm
"According to recent figures, 20 percent of US mortgages were issued to borrowers with extremely poor credit. In 2001, that number was only 5 percent. The industry's motto today might as well read: "My home is my house of cards.""
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/26/2007 @ 9:29pm
December 26, 2007 12:00 AM
Unpromising Times
Primary elections and secondary candidates.
By Thomas Sowell
Apparently there is nobody among either the Democrats or the Republicans who is going to cause a runaway stampede.....
It is much too early to try to guess who is going to win either party's nomination. The most we can have at this point are some general impressions.
None of the candidates looks truly inspiring at this point. I wouldn't buy a used car from most of them, nor a brand new car from some of them.
John Edwards is the easiest to peg. He looks just like the phony that he is.
His talk about poor children going to bed hungry may rouse the far left in his party but in fact the lowest-income people are even more obese than the rest of us, not that the facts make the slightest difference to Senator Edwards.
As an attorney, Edwards conned millions of dollars out of gullible juries, using junk science to create the impression that it was the fault of doctors when babies were born with birth defects.
....Fred Thompson seems to have the best policy positions and the best political track record among the Republican candidates -- and the least effective presentation of himself.
...The only candidate of either party who truly looks presidential is Mitt Romney. It was unfortunate that Mike Huckabee and others have tried to make his religion an issue.
John F. Kennedy was supposed to have taken that issue out of politics -- and Huckabee's bringing it back in ought to disqualify him for a shot at the White House, even aside from Governor Huckabee's wholesale pardons of criminals and his raising taxes.
....When it comes to articulation, no one can beat Barack Obama. He can even convince people that he has new ideas, when in fact they are old 1960s ideas that have failed repeatedly, ever since that irresponsible decade.
John McCain seems to be having a little resurgence but it is hard to believe that Republicans are so desperate as to support a man who joined with far left Democrat Russ Feingold to restrict free speech in the name of "campaign finance reform" and with Ted Kennedy to sponsor a bill giving amnesty to illegal immigrants.
Then there is Hillary Clinton.....It is painful to watch her trying to act human and it would be even more painful to see the Clintons back in the White House that they disgraced in so many ways.
....As for the other candidates in both parties, the big question is why anyone takes them seriously as candidates to lead the nation....
This nation has come back from unpromising times before. Let's hope that we have not already used up all our luck.
© 2007 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
Posted by Happy at 12/26/2007 @ 10:25pm
Posted by SANTACRUZLUKE 12/26/2007 @ 8:07pm
Posted by WGILWOOD 12/26/2007 @ 8:43pm
Oh great, more "newbies" from the Edwards Campaign staff. (After a dose of Ron Paul "newbies"...and Obama "newbies" before that).
BTW, SANTACRUZ....Edwards ISN'T promising a "universal health care" system OR us out of Iraq ASAP. His plan subsidizes health insurance purchases for poorer Americans, and requires employers to offer health insurance through the Medicare system as one option for their workers. So until everybody gets into Medicare (at the earliest, 5-7 years after enactment), they're buying PRIVATE insurance and (if poor) the Fed footing the bill.
And he's said he would STILL have troops in Iraq by the end of his first time (2013), only drawing down 40-50,000 troops.
Posted by Mask at 12/26/2007 @ 10:28pm
Posted by HAPPY 12/26/2007 @ 10:25pm
Always curious about this, HAPP....maybe you can answer it.
If ALL that ALL the Republican candidates promise is "more of the same that Bush gave you"....and Bush is at 30% in the polls...
how do they win?
Posted by Mask at 12/26/2007 @ 10:29pm
This nation has come back from unpromising times before. Let's hope that we have not already used up all our luck.
© 2007 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
Posted by HAPPY 12/26/2007 @ 10:25pm
perhaps YOU should read the article i linked to above.
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/26/2007 @ 10:34pm
Many thanks to you, John, for the good stuff on the popularity of the fighting populist stance of John Edwards. This is really encouraging news for progressives.
Here's the latest from Paul Street at ZNet on the John Edwards edge vis a vis Clinton and Obama.
excerpt:
he most interesting comment I'd gotten hadn't been from Bill Clinton and about the imperialist war on Iraq. It came from the governor of Oregon and had to with class inequality inside the imperial "homeland."
The Clintonites' point and Bill's too, was clear as day. It was this: "Let's all be adult and realistic here. The way you get things done is by working with and through corporations and professional elites. You don't get it by fighting concentrated power."
Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/26/2007 @ 10:36pm
Also thanks for the der Spiegel article, Frost.
excerpt:
The only thing that has doubled in the seven years of the Bush administration is the country's military budget. By comparison, the average US family income has stagnated in the last decade or so.
And shame on Maskot for the cynical post about the popularity of a "white man" campaign in Iowa. It's a specious argument if the facts don't line up this way --and I think they don't. Edwards surge is coinciding with a lot of hard work and a very consistent central message that is essentially, "I will fight for you, the average citizen, against the faceless bureaucracy in DC that is shafting you. I will not compromise with them."
I think it's a timely message for a FUBAR time.
The smart money starting to lean toward Edwards in my book. Now's a good time to place your bets.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/26/2007 @ 10:46pm
...Bush is at 30% in the polls...how do they win?
Posted by MASK 12/26/2007 @ 10:29pm
Gee, I'm not sure....maybe the same way the "30%" is keeping the Surge going, the non-stop funding and economy growing for the 7th year?!
Posted by Happy at 12/26/2007 @ 11:08pm
YOU should read the article i linked to above.
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 12/26/2007 @ 10:34pm
Read just the first page.....
A few HAPPY reactions: Why is it surprising that America's share of global industrial output is declining? We were the ONLY industrial power left intact after WWII...and had built up that capacity by a tremendous amount to supply both the Pacific and European theaters!! Duh!
The UAW's union leaders claims "We gave and gave..." and yet, before this last round of life-or-death labor accord, the UAW was at $70 per hour. Wonder what the labor cost would've been if they didn't "gave and gave"!
Know anything about the recent energy legislation that calls for 35 MPG for US autos? Does anyone think this will SAVE what remains of the Big Three?
I like clean air and water every bit as the Environuts....I camp, canoe and hike and been to nearly all of the best-known National Parks...but I KNOW the price is paid in lost US jobs. Now, had our educational system been future-focused, and free of teacher-focused unions, we would've been so much better off.
I had dinner yesterday at a friends' house and the hostess' brother (+family) were there as well. They are from Austin....booming high-tech...the brother works for Samsung's chip plant which just announced a $2 BILLION expansion to begin making either 12" or 16" wafers...each with thousands of chips. Foreign investment works both ways!
Posted by Happy at 12/26/2007 @ 11:24pm
And don't even try to drag that Sowell trash in here, Sad Sack.
excerpt:
None of the candidates looks truly inspiring at this point. I wouldn't buy a used car from most of them, nor a brand new car from some of them.
John Edwards is the easiest to peg. He looks just like the phony that he is.
His talk about poor children going to bed hungry may rouse the far left in his party but in fact the lowest-income people are even more obese than the rest of us, not that the facts make the slightest difference to Senator Edwards.
As an attorney, Edwards conned millions of dollars out of gullible juries, using junk science to create the impression that it was the fault of doctors when babies were born with birth defects.
Thanks for essentially scoring into your own net, Hapless wonder.
One thing is for certain, when the ad hominem drive-by character assassinations start mounting, you know you've gotten under the skin of establishment sycophants like Thomas Sowell.
John Edwards can wear these attacks like a badge of honor. And we can be sure he'll be fighting back, unlike the all-too-typical Democrats we've seen ad nauseum now for seven painful years.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/26/2007 @ 11:28pm
I am voting for Edwards so you can either keep reading or stop reading, depending. Just thought I should offer full disclosure.
Edwards is the only candidate with a cohesive, direct and grounded message. I like Obama, and I am for "change," but what does that mean? I don't even know what Hillary's bottom line is, besides be someone for everyone. I might have given Richardson the time of day, and considered Joe Biden for a time, but I guess I am a populist at heart.
I also appreciate his campaign strategy. I am in marketing communications and he is doing a brilliant job. Will it work? It is exciting to see.
Posted by memoirgirl at 12/26/2007 @ 11:46pm
John Edwards is plastic and phoney. Look at the net worth of the candidates and tell me he isn't beholden to corporate America.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/17/candidates.wealth/index.html
Nichols, I can't believe you're rooting for a trial lawyer over a former inner-city organizer. What is the world coming to?
John Edwards keeps bragging about his southern accent and thinks he can win in Carolinas, but he wouldn't have won in NC had he run for re-election to the senate in '04.
Posted by martincaver at 12/27/2007 @ 01:26am
Caver, your analysis is lacking, to say the least. Edwards' wealth is HIS; Bill Clinton still has his hand out to criminal companies like InfoUSA (to the tune of $2million in "consulting fees" per year) even as the SEC is investigating them. John's money is in the bank - earned through hard work, NOT easy influence pandering, like that of Bill and Chelsea, and Barack's wife, and Nancy Pelosi's son.
Moreover, you are CRAZY to think he would not have won re-election to the Senate if he had sought it! His focus was elsewhere, at the time, but if he HAD wanted to stay in that job, he would have, without doubt. The ReDumbicans looked at that seat as a gift when he essentially left it to run for president; it wasn't even on their radar as winnable until then. Go back and do some homework, okay? And I don't mean via Google...
Posted by sjduskin at 12/27/2007 @ 02:55am
Edwards is all "talk". When it came time to vote, he voted with the conservatives and the DLC:
1. Trade with China (Bill Number: HR 4444)
Edwards: Yes Feingold: No
2. Travel Ban to Cuba (Bill Number: S 1234)
Edwards: Yes Feingold: No
3. Religious Symbols in Public Schools (Bill Number: S 254)
Edwards: Yes Feingold: No
4. Strengthen Penalties Against Juveniles (Bill Number: S 254)
Edwards: Yes Feingold: No
5. Closure of Unnecessary Military Bases (Bill Number: S 1059)
Edwards: No Feingold: Yes
6. Bush's No Child Left Behind (Bill Number: HR 1)
Edwards: Yes Feingold: No
7. Prescription Drug Benefit for Medicare (Bill Number: S 1)
Edwards: No Feingold: Yes
8. Military Force in Iraq (Bill Number: H J Res 114)
Edwards: Yes Feingold: No
9. Patriot Act (USA Patriot Act of 2001)
Edwards: Yes Feingold: No
Edwards' personal investments raise serious questions as to his sincerity in his anti-corporate message as he has invested in and profited from oils stocks, defense stocks, and subprime lenders that prey on the poor. You can read all about Edwards' hypocrisy here:
http://tinyurl.com/23emhw
Posted by Metteyya at 12/27/2007 @ 02:59am
LvLiberty-There was nothing in SantaCruzLuke's post that said he wanted to be supported and the Iraqis had no desire to kill Americans as you claimed that they did.If they want to kill us then why do you support a war to help them do that?That's treason by everyones definition of the word.Edwards sounds nothing like Chavez.
Posted by i'm nobody at 12/27/2007 @ 10:09am
Waaah, Waaah, I don't want to be a grownup. Take care of me, give me give me, give me. Please make all those people who actually have done something support me so I can continue whining and complaining.
And please stop killing those nice people just because they say they want to kill us. Maybe they're just joking?
The scary part is that santacruzluke is typical of many on the far left. He probably even wants the government to pay for his weed.
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 12/27/2007 @ 02:53am | ignore this person
you are hysterical. your cold war mentality has been discredited for decades
Posted by brannigan at 12/27/2007 @ 10:54am
Posted by I'M NOBODY 12/27/2007 @ 10:09am
I'M, what you must undertstand, difficult as it may be to fathom, is the following:
As is true of many sick fuck conservaLosers who walk among us like a silent plague, LVLIBERTY LIKED 9-11 (AND HAS SAID SO ON THIS WEBPAGE RIGHT AFTER REV. JERRY FARFUCK CROAKED); AND SO HE LOVES THE NEO-CLOWNS' INVASION OF IRAQ.
It's true.
Now, of course, Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. But that does not perturb the America-hating right like LVLIBERTY in the least in their desire to see Iraq "bring it on" while draft-dodging neo-Clown cheerleading pansies like George W. Loser direct the carnage from afar.
As LVLIBERTY has apparently put me on ignore, I invite you to ask him about his support for Jerry Farfuck's incindiary and hate-laden comments about America and Americans while the nation was still convulsed, wounded and bleeding in the days after 9-11. Ask him about his hate speech. Get him talking about it. LVLIBERTY and others like him jerked off in unison with Karl Rove in seeing the attacks as -- get this -- a political opportunity for inferior, conservaLoser self-hating Americans to do an inside job on our nation. So, allow the sick and shrivalled LVLIBERTY, and all the third-hand rightwing garbage that he peddles, to announce itself for the America-hating toxic shit that it is: ask him his views on Rev. Farfuck's hearty endorsement of the ghoulish 9-11 murder spree.
Posted by John_Shaft at 12/27/2007 @ 11:03am
and they think he is a winner now.......amazing.
Posted by JOMAMMA 12/27/2007 @ 01:40am
Speaking of "amazing"ly misguided thinking ... The gem offerd above comes from a beefy cretin who thinks that Ollie North waved a finger in Senator Gore's face warning about bin Laden back in 1987. When, in fact, North was talking about some other right wing terror goon and Gore was not even on that Seante committee. And get this: JOMAMMA even thinks he saw a video of something that ... NEVER HAPPENED!!!
JOMAMA would never have corrected his own spurious, emotionalized, foam-at-the-mouth postings of his own volition. And, on top of that, has also pointedly refused to apologize for re-circualting this patently false rightwing slime on these august pages when invited to graciously do so.
So, speaking of amazing ... that's just ... amazing. But hardly unexpected, in light of the beefy and cretinous source from whom rightwing ideological beerfart constantly emanates.
Posted by John_Shaft at 12/27/2007 @ 11:45am
Personally, Shaft, I enjoy the postings of BS River, Monsta' Maasch, and the Reverend Run from Liberty.
These cats continue to make the argument in ways that I could never have conceived, that the "right" is almost always completely "wrong" --on so many levels. It's a sort of retarded genius that springs from the mouths of babes and sucklings.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/27/2007 @ 12:17pm
Here's a question.
Who here can name one example of a truly worthy and soundly reasoning proponent of any of the right wing canard?
In pundit land I suppose George Will is one that is widely respected, but I've read his stuff for years and he's always impressed me as primarily a sycophant to the wealthy class --with a select few grains of actual insights on relatively rare occasions.
I even recall him referring to Bill Clinton as a "worm" in the wake of the Lewinsky detonation. Hows that for an "intelligent" critique?
Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/27/2007 @ 12:25pm
B_KOOL,
I hear you, homie.
They do furnish the kind of unselfconscious comedy writing that few people are capable of executing even with ardent effort. My least favorite of the trio, however, is hands-down RIO KORESH. KORESH simply refuses to answer the question of whether or not he is a supporter of child abuse (see: Koresh, Warren Jeffs) despite frequently being asked to furnish a straightforward "yes" or "no" answer. RIO KORESH's limitions in using English vocabulary and forming sentences make him of more limited use as a punching bag and source of belly laughs than the other two and their frantic attempts to auto-eviscerate in public in their dead-serious assclown defenses of pathetic rightwing loserdom.
Posted by John_Shaft at 12/27/2007 @ 12:26pm
The assassination today of Benazir Bhutto serves to further demonstrate that we need strong leadership in the White House and not the appeasement mentality of the far left (or pretenders like Edwards).
~Reverend Run @ 12:29pm
The basic fact that we must deal with is the genuine rarity of "intelligence" in the species as a whole. The Monty Python troupe made an entire career making fun of human inanity. Name me one example of a right wing voice or voices that has come close to the kind of insightful humor that the Pythons exuded like it was simply the air that they breathed?
If we all get fucked in the end, it'll be in spite of the determined attempts by the rare and reasoned in the face of the overwhelming mountain of stupidity that exhibits itself right here in these threads on a daily basis.
Tell me, Reverend, do you understand that we are all simply the result of the fantastic processes of an uncaring universe? That even you, in your very limited ramblings and frail grasp of the world, are in fact star stuff?
If you could ever free your mind from the shackles of your dogma, you might discover a new and exhilarating view of the cosmos and your tiny place in it.
As for me and the gang here and elsewhere, we will continue to work to save your ass from itself.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/27/2007 @ 12:49pm
And 8 of those Democrat years were for a president who never even got 50% of the popular vote.
As is to be expected from the assclown who has taught us that Newt Gingrich is a "family man" and that George W. Loser is a "leader" and not a draft-dodging prep school cheerleader, facts are stupid things. We may also notice that Nixon did not attain 50% for his first term either (1969-1973). And, putting aside all of the other irregularities that vexed the 2000 election, George W. Loser lost the popular vote prior to the 2001-2005 term and was only even able to make his retarded claim on the office on residual techicalities from the over-emphasis in the electoral collage on useless wards of the State states like shithole Wyoming and buttfuck Nebraska.
As for Bhutto: A KEY, BASIC AND ABSOLUTE difference between right and left is that the left is aligned with the reality based community (see: Climate Change, Evolution, The Downing Street Memo, Curveball, The War on Christmas, The Princeton Fabricator, James "Jeff Gannon" Guckert, The Congressional Hit on Libby, Conrad Black, Sex Education v. Chastity Belts). Thus, for the right, whether Bhutto is assassinated or Bhutto is NOT assasinated, the same conclusion prevails: George W. Loser did the right thing. Evidence does not matter. Facts are stupid things (as Ron Reagan said, before or after he died). Knowledge precedes knowing. For the right, George W. Loser did the right thing, regardless of what that "thing" is, beacuse rightwingers are no more than brain-washed Pavlovian animals, pure and simple.
Alternatively, US policy toward Pakistan has been fucked for a long time, and supporting the repressive dictator Musharraff, whose ass George W. Loser kisses at each turn, has been a dead end street for America.
Posted by John_Shaft at 12/27/2007 @ 12:54pm
(see: Climate Change, Evolution, The Downing Street Memo, Curveball, The War on Christmas, The Princeton Fabricator, James "Jeff Gannon" Guckert, The Congressional Hit on Libby, Conrad Black, Sex Education v. Chastity Belts).
Oh yeah. To this list, hardly exhaustive to begin with, I could have added (teeter teeter) JOMAMA's phantom encounters with the North-bin Laden-Gore video. Tell us more about that hoax you still insist upon acting as if never occurred.
Liberals grasp and master reality. ConservaLosers grasp and masturbate, then lie and call it an orgy with George W. Loser and Dumsfeld. A key difference.
Posted by John_Shaft at 12/27/2007 @ 1:00pm
Oh No! Not Corporate Power and Corporate Greed!! AAAARRRRRRRGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!
God, JOHN your so predictable.
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 12/27/2007 @ 1:10pm
LvLiberty-The real appeasers are you people who gave Pakistan to osama and who are helping spread Islam by creating an Islamic state in Iraq.We do need strong leadership,but Bush is weak as are the GOP POTUS candidates.In case you haven't noticed abortion is still legal despite the number of GOP presidents and gays are getting more rights despite the number of GOP presidents and we are weaker militarily thanks to our present GOP president and we are more in debt thanks to the present GOP president..Tell me,again,how the GOP presidents are giving you people what you want and how they represent you.
Posted by i'm nobody at 12/27/2007 @ 1:10pm
Why JOHN SHAFT, thats a nice bunch of Liberal myths your working with there. I think peoples' thoughts, beliefs & actions cross lines a little more frequently than you like to believe.
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 12/27/2007 @ 1:14pm
CHIP,
I am almost finished for the day here, having taken some steaming dumps on the faces of LVLIBERTY and JOMAMA, thus improving their appearences, a privilege for which they should thank me.
But I will deny your efforts to muddy the waters and, yes, I will be taking the hard line here: Conservatives are a different species than liberals. ConservaLosers do not understand America and our way of life and they are attempting to wreck the nation from the inside. We must fumigate. It is for the good of the future, for our children (who would otherwise be victimized by a tag-team of drunkard Mark Foley, RIO KORESH, and/or Warren Jeffs), and for the betterment of global society.
Posted by John_Shaft at 12/27/2007 @ 1:22pm
LvLiberty-The vast majority of Islamic terrorists come from Islamic states,yet many of you are claiming that creating an Islamic state in Iraq will be good for our national security, which is pure lunacy.I give it 10 years before many of you war supporters are calling for Iraq to be attacked,again in order to get rid of the government you created in Iraq..
Posted by i'm nobody at 12/27/2007 @ 1:30pm
Posted by JOHN_SHAFT 12/27/2007 @ 11:03am
merry christmas, bro.
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/27/2007 @ 1:47pm
The difference is that our views have been reflected in Republicans occupying the White House for 27 of the past 39 years (counting to the end of next year). And 8 of those Democrat years were for a president who never even got 50% of the popular vote.
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 12/27/2007 @ 12:29pm
Consider this: In 2000, gold was $273 per ounce, oil was $22 per barrel and the euro was worth $.87 per dollar. Currently, gold is over $700 per ounce, oil is over $80 per barrel, and the euro is nearly $1.40 per dollar.
i don't feel like searching for older stats.
this "leadership" is grinding the dollar into pulp.
inflation can only be exported onto the backs of brown people for so long.....................
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/27/2007 @ 1:55pm
I give it 10 years before many of you war supporters are calling for Iraq to be attacked,again in order to get rid of the government you created in Iraq..
Posted by I'M NOBODY 12/27/2007 @ 1:30pm
that's the plan..............................
why do you think the british made the borders the way they did?
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/27/2007 @ 2:00pm
That's a small list that still makes his 8 years successful progress for this conservative. He has been far from perfect, but there is no perfect candidate or president.
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 12/27/2007 @ 1:56pm
don't forget the $9,000,000,000,000 debt.
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/27/2007 @ 2:02pm
LvLiberty-I noticed that, yet again,you were unable to refute the facts that I stated.In order for me to be wrong then abortion would be illegal,gays would have no chance at getting some rights,Iraq isn't ruled by sharia law,Bush hasn't borrowed huge sums of money for his war,etc. The stuff you mentioned had no relevance to my posts.Reality is that abortion is still legal,gays have more rights,Iraq is an Islamic state,Bush has put us into huge debt,but,as always,you buy the snake oil that politicians and people like Jerry Falwell are selling as long as they tell you what you want to hear..
Posted by i'm nobody at 12/27/2007 @ 2:23pm
LvLiberty-Bush and the GOP did not even make a fetus a live human for tax purposes so their official belief is that a fetus is not a live human.
Posted by i'm nobody at 12/27/2007 @ 2:25pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 12/27/2007 @ 2:02pm
the world has lost faith in america under bush's administration.
and that is having the most detrimental effect of all.
good-bye dollar........................
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/27/2007 @ 2:27pm
LvLiberty-There haven't been any pro life GOP presidents.there have been GOP presidents who have flip flopped on the issue in order to get votes.Stop buying the snake oil.
Posted by i'm nobody at 12/27/2007 @ 2:31pm
8. Afghanistan
9. Iraq which I sought even before there was a PNAC
10. assisting the Philippines against Islamist rebels
That's a small list that still makes his 8 years successful progress for this conservative. He has been far from perfect, but there is no perfect candidate or president.
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 12/27/2007 @ 1:56pm | ignore this person
you are raving again. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars have been a foreign policy disaster of unprecedented proportions. Nothing has been decided, nothing proportionate to the effort has been accomplished. the pres slinks away in ignomy and hands off his failed war to his successor.
you have to set the bar ankle height for Bush to be considered a partial success.
Posted by brannigan at 12/27/2007 @ 2:41pm
and liberty,
don't to be too surprised to learn in 30 years that the cia was behind ms.bhutto's assassination.
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/27/2007 @ 2:42pm
FZ:
Consider this: In 2000, gold was $273 per ounce, oil was $22 per barrel and the euro was worth $.87 per dollar. Currently, gold is over $700 per ounce, oil is over $80 per barrel, and the euro is nearly $1.40 per dollar.
Reverend Run:
Those stats are virtually meaningless......(unintelligible)
Were talkin' denial here on a cosmic scale.
Reality could hit these cats in the face like loaded gravel truck and you'd still hear 'em spewing loony toons logic like a flippin' mad Yosemite Sam.
I rarely bother tryin' to communicate with these maroons. I figure It'd be more fruitful to go to my local zoo and teach the chimps to order Chinese takeout.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/27/2007 @ 2:44pm
When he says he will pull us out of the WTO, NAFTA, and put in some tariffs, he might get my vote. I am highly suspicious of the top tier of candidates.
Posted by P. J. Casey at 12/27/2007 @ 2:53pm
LvLiberty-Bush should have used our resources to go after AQ and not some powerless third world dictator that was keeping Iran in check.Maybe then she would still be alive.
Posted by i'm nobody at 12/27/2007 @ 3:04pm
The Bush Administration actively promoted her return to a power sharing agreement with Musharraf. Al Qaeda had threatened her life when her return was announced and they claimed credit today for this act.
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 12/27/2007 @ 3:02pm
exactly my point.
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/27/2007 @ 3:19pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 12/27/2007 @ 3:19pm
and liberty,
i said "don't be surprised". i don't really (not yet, at least) believe this. i just wanted to elicit some sort of response from you.
i don't really know who to believe any more. i'm surprised you're not more skeptical.
one thing, though -- chaos is a good thing when you want to justify martial law.
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/27/2007 @ 3:29pm
exactly my point.
~FZ @ 3:19pm
That's waaay too oblique a comment for Rev. Run.
He'd never make the connection that the CIA supported the mujahedeen resistance to the Russian occupation of Afghanistan --many of very same characters that now populate Al Qaeda.
He also has no concept of how almost universally dangerous the CIA has become to productive policymaking, and the long term health of the American nation. The CIA --and that multi-billion dollar boondoggle, Homeland Security-- should simply be imploded and rebuilt from scratch as a very limited power agency with vigorous oversight of its activities.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/27/2007 @ 3:33pm
How about getting back to Edwards. Here are his strong points:
He is less than truthful about his campaign finances and has the nerve to say he is not the pawn of special interests.
He did absolutely nothing to help Kerry deliver in 2004.
His most notable record as a Senator was 'Did Not Vote.'
Why do the elites think working people are stupid enough to vote for his suitship?
Posted by RAGGEDSTEP at 12/27/2007 @ 3:36pm
LvLiberty-In other words,you are happy to wait forever for changing hearts on the abortion issue..Even conservative South Dakota voted in favor of legal abortion so the wait will be long. You mean conservatives support the using of our troops and money to create Islamic states that the terrorists want?Are you really saying that all of you would have still supported the war if Bush had said,in advance,that we are going there to get rid of oppressive Saddam and put in oppressive Sharia law and create an Islamic state like the ones most of the 9/11 terrorists came from?Marriage is a legal contract that is unrelated to religion.I do believe that blaming gays for 9/11 would constitute taking rights away from them by making them targets of discrimination.When you discriminate against someone you are taking rights away from them and you do discriminate against gays as do many other conservatives.Trying to compare me to rese would make you like Rese and not me.I've had all of you make fun of me for my id and for other things,but what you don't understand is that your put downs don't affect me.If they did then I would have changed my id or not come on here.Referring to others as village idiots does not reflect well on your ministry.
Posted by i'm nobody at 12/27/2007 @ 3:48pm
Referring to others as village idiots does not reflect well on your ministry.
Posted by I'M NOBODY 12/27/2007 @ 3:48pm
nor does advocating murder by incineration.............................
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/27/2007 @ 3:57pm
Why do the elites think working people are stupid enough to vote for his suitship?
~Wretched step @ 3:36pm
You're out of the loop, wretched. Which elites are you referring to exactly? Last time I checked, Edwards was almost universally loathed by the DC chattering classes.
The last thing anybody in Washington wants is for the endless ballroom party to come to an end.
One thing the elites are not, is stupid. They know the enemy when they see 'em.
Witness Al From --a DLC co-founder-- on the Jim Lehrer News Hour in Jan. 2004 when Howard Dean was running a strong anti-DC campaign, and you could literally see Al's face turn pale when the questions turned to Dean who appeared almost unbeatable at that moment. Elaine Kamark of the Kennedy School for Government had to pat his feathers down and coo sweetly to him to get him to relax.
I'd suggest it's well past prime-time to bring down the whole termite infested, particle board constructed, hollywood-style propaganda produced, Versaille on the Potomac.
And the Death of the Dollar just might be the roundhouse kick that turns the trick.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/27/2007 @ 3:58pm
Why doesn't Nichols ever write about Biden's solid support and momentum? First he gives Biden a tongue-in-cheek "evaluation" for The Nation (he's a Kucinich supporter). Can't we have a story about a candidate with both experience and ideas for change (Biden has been an innovator and a creative thinker about foreign policy, constitutional law, women's rights, and America's place in the world ong enough for us to know he's the right man, with the right message, for the BIG job. The three so-called "top-tier" candidates are a mere reflection of these constantly changing polls and media attention. Were Dodd and Biden to get the same amount of attention in the media, they'd probably be getting the attention of voters too.
Posted by Tigesgirl at 12/27/2007 @ 4:15pm
Were Dodd and Biden to get the same amount of attention in the media, they'd probably be getting the attention of voters too.
~Tigesgirl @ 4:15pm
Nothing personal against either one of these two guys per se, but they're old line neoliberal establishment figures who don't inspire any genuine hope for a long overdue overhaul of Washington's business as usual culture.
The best thing I can say about those two is that at least Dodd has called for a restitution of the constitution.
Edwards is the fightin' populist, so we better pull our heads together and vote for his aggressively progressive platform. The time has never been more pregnant with possibilities for the progressive agenda.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/27/2007 @ 4:28pm
Edwards would make a good Secretary of Health and Human Services. Dodd and Biden, despite your characterization of them, continue to produce in Washington---Biden on Iraq and Dodd on FISA. Tell me what really innovative legislation (that requires some courage) either Clinton, Edwards, or Obama have put their "power" behind? Just name one piece of legislation. So....what are you expecting in a presidency?
Posted by Tigesgirl at 12/27/2007 @ 4:41pm
Consider this: In 2000, gold was $273 per ounce, oil was $22 per barrel and the euro was worth $.87 per dollar. Currently, gold is over $700 per ounce, oil is over $80 per barrel, and the euro is nearly $1.40 per dollar.
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 12/27/2007 @ 1:55pm
But......I did, back in `01-`02! That's when I moved more into Oil & Gas, International Mutual Funds and Emerging Markets. Why do you suppose I became HAPPY??? ;-)))))
Now, as I have become more liquid, yet again, like at the end of 1999, tell me, what's your outlook for the next 2~3 yrs......give me some ideas as to where to move some of my HAPPY capital?
Posted by Happy at 12/27/2007 @ 5:04pm
give me some ideas as to where to move some of my HAPPY capital?
Posted by HAPPY 12/27/2007 @ 5:04pm
gold and turnips.
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/27/2007 @ 5:12pm
Senator Hillary Clinton will win nomination for the Democrats (certain).
Mayor Rudi Giuliani will win nomination for the Republicans (probable).
Clinton will win the national election (probable).
The advent of front-loaded presidential primaries, and especially Tsunami Tuesday on Feb 5, 2008, dooms any residual significance of the primary election in New Hampshire and the party caucuses in Iowa. In any case, New Hampshire is a small and insignificant state and is not an indicator of national voting trends. Iowa is larger and has more electoral votes. But the caucus system there renders the election hostage to a relative handful of left-wing Democrats and right-wing Republicans. The results in both states will excite journalists more than voters.
The Democrats are slated to sweep the national elections, including the US Congress, according to a recent Washington Post analysis of national trends. However, the winning candidates for either party are likely to be centrists rather than those on the fringes. Neither Senator Clinton nor Mayor Giuliani are likely to change much of our present foreign, domestic or defense policies. Therefore, look for fresh faces with promising messages of American renewal. But all present policies are likely to remain more or less frozen in place.
Arnold Harris; Mount Horeb WI
Posted by ArnoldHarris at 12/27/2007 @ 5:13pm
give me some ideas as to where to move some of my HAPPY capital?
Posted by HAPPY 12/27/2007 @ 5:04pm
[2.271] If you give alms openly, it is well, and if you hide it and give it to the poor, it is better for you; and this will do away with some of your evil deeds; and Allah is aware of what you do.
[2.273] (Alms are) for the poor who are confined in the way of Allah-- they cannot go about in the land; the ignorant man thinks them to be rich on account of (their) abstaining (from begging); you can recognise them by their mark; they do not beg from men importunately; and whatever good thing you spend, surely Allah knows it.
[2.277] Surely they who believe and do good deeds and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate they shall have their reward from their Lord, and they shall have no fear, nor shall they grieve.
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/27/2007 @ 5:15pm
give me some ideas as to where to move some of my HAPPY capital?
Posted by HAPPY 12/27/2007 @ 5:04pm
3If anyone teaches false doctrines and does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching, 4he is conceited and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions 5and constant friction between men of corrupt mind, who have been robbed of the truth and who think that godliness is a means to financial gain.
6But godliness with contentment is great gain. 7For we brought nothing into the world, and we can take nothing out of it. 8But if we have food and clothing, we will be content with that. 9People who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction. 10For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/27/2007 @ 5:20pm
gold and turnips.
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 12/27/2007 @ 5:12pm
I guess Simon must have talked to you.....I am still researching "turnips"...yuck, hate the stuff!
Gold Bulls Eye $1,000 Bullion
By Simon Constable
TheStreet.com Staff Reporter
12/25/2007 9:39 AM EST
If the experts are right, gold could be poised for another banner year in 2008.
Experts say they expect continued weakness in the dollar and robust investment demand, and that prices for gold could surge to above $1,000 an ounce in the next 12 months, according to a broad cross-section of professionals interviewed by TheStreet.com....
Posted by Happy at 12/27/2007 @ 5:51pm
"Last time I looked, marriage is not a right; it is a religious institution." Posted by LVLIBERTY1 12/27/2007 @ 3:12pm
Sorry Lib, but that's just stupid. Nobody is denied the "right" to marry in the country except homosexuals. Criminals can marry (even in states where they can't vote), in some states minors can marry, and the non-religious certainly can marry. Marriage as an economic institution long predates it as a religious institution.
In fact, even the word marriage implies a civil bond--it's related to the word mayor, and comes from the French (I know, that probably hurts) as a word to describe the very CIVIL recognition of a bond between two people.
Oppose gay marriage if you want, but don't make up/believe stupid shit about it that any 12 year old with an etch-a-sketch can prove ain't true.
Posted by Rintrah at 12/27/2007 @ 6:15pm
How can progressives insist that human nature is irredeemably corrupt when it works for a corporation, and then put all their faith in the belief that human nature becomes positively angelic when it collects a government paycheck -- so much so that it can be trusted with nearly unlimited power over the labor, property, and lives of others?
Corporate power and corporate greed are nothing compared to the nightmares of government power and government greed.
Posted by benrast at 12/27/2007 @ 8:48pm
seems like a bad measuring stick...
Posted by JOMAMMA 12/27/2007 @ 9:55pm
yep. we should use oil instead.
imagine that. "THE OIL STANDARD" agreements of 2013.
all currencies based on the fluctuation value of oil and a nation's oil reserves.
oooh, that'd sure stir things up.
or we could use water.
i think we should barter. real old school.
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/27/2007 @ 10:13pm
Posted by RINTRAH 12/27/2007 @ 6:15pm
Sorry Lib, but that's just stupid. Nobody is denied the "right" to marry in the country except homosexuals.
Is a father allowed to marry his daughter, or a mother her son? Is an adult allowed to marry a 12 year old? If not, why not?
Posted by pontificus at 12/28/2007 @ 12:00am
Hey, does anyone think that Edwards' pregnant girlfriend [tinyurl.com] will have any negative impact on his election chances? I mean, this could look bad if you consider Edwards' exploitation of his wife's terminal illness.
Posted by pontificus at 12/28/2007 @ 12:08am
Posted by PONTIFICUS 12/28/2007 @ 12:08am
merry christmas, ponti. hope everything's well.
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/28/2007 @ 12:15am
Is a father allowed to marry his daughter, or a mother her son? Is an adult allowed to marry a 12 year old? If not, why not?
Posted by PONTIFICUS 12/28/2007 @ 12:00am
i would say the reasons stem from biological reasoning.
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/28/2007 @ 12:17am
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 12/28/2007 @ 12:17am
i would say the reasons stem from biological reasoning.
So, you recognize that society does deny some people the ability to marry, and that it has legitimate reasons for doing so?
Posted by pontificus at 12/28/2007 @ 12:19am
Gee, FROSTY, you must be homophobic. I'm gonna call the Canadian Human Rights Commission on you.
Posted by pontificus at 12/28/2007 @ 12:24am
So, you recognize that society does deny some people the ability to marry, and that it has legitimate reasons for doing so?
Posted by PONTIFICUS 12/28/2007 @ 12:19am
of course.
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/28/2007 @ 12:29am
Gee, FROSTY, you must be homophobic.
Posted by PONTIFICUS 12/28/2007 @ 12:24am
nope. i'm onomatophobic.
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/28/2007 @ 12:38am
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 12/28/2007 @ 12:15am
merry christmas, ponti. hope everything's well.
Same for you, thanks. Yes, everything is well, thus I have time to spend amusing myself here.
Odd that these folks consider a patent phony like Edwards to be someone suitable as President. It seems that as far as the left is concerned, anyone with lots of money that is capable of learning to mouth the right combination of syllables is just fine, no matter how much it contradicts the actual style of his/her life.
Posted by pontificus at 12/28/2007 @ 12:45am
You would think that John Edwards could do better than that. Sheesh, a CAMPAIGN WORKER? That is SOOOOOO Bill Clinton.
Posted by pontificus at 12/28/2007 @ 12:48am
Posted by PONTIFICUS 12/28/2007 @ 12:45am
actually, i think anybody, regardless of their ideological bent, with even the slightest interest in politics and how their tax money is spent is quite distressed at the current crop of candidates.
who you gonna vote for?
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/28/2007 @ 12:49am
onomatophobic.
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 12/28/2007 @ 12:38am
Sounds funny, no matter what/who/real/unreal/Googlable!
Hey, there is a strike on by Hollywood writers.....I know, I know, most of us here don't give a rats' touli.....but, but, but......you may want to apply.....extract your best "slam dunks" from TN's archive and send them in.......
Posted by Happy at 12/28/2007 @ 12:50am
You would think that John Edwards could do better than that. Sheesh, a CAMPAIGN WORKER? That is SOOOOOO Bill Clinton.
Posted by PONTIFICUS 12/28/2007 @ 12:48am
is yours an inquiring mind that wants to know?
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/28/2007 @ 12:52am
Posted by HAPPY 12/28/2007 @ 12:50am
i ain't no scab.
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/28/2007 @ 12:53am
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 12/28/2007 @ 12:49am
who you gonna vote for?
Right now it looks like either Romney or Giuliani. Neither looks too inspiring at this point. Glad I'm not a Democrat though, if the choice was between Lady MacBeth and Counselor Edwards, I'd probably put a gun to my head and end it all.
Posted by pontificus at 12/28/2007 @ 12:54am
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 12/28/2007 @ 12:52am
is yours an inquiring mind that wants to know?
Nah, I'm just one of those quaint old-timers that thinks that character matters.
Posted by pontificus at 12/28/2007 @ 12:57am
Hey, does anyone think that Edwards' pregnant girlfriend...............
Posted by PONTIFICUS 12/28/2007 @ 12:08am
i guess we'll have to wait for test results to come in on The Next "Maury!"
hey yeah! Maury Povich for Prez!
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/28/2007 @ 12:58am
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 12/28/2007 @ 12:58am
i guess we'll have to wait for test results to come in on The Next "Maury!"
Do you think she has a blue dress too?
Posted by pontificus at 12/28/2007 @ 01:03am
Right now it looks like either Romney or Giuliani. Neither looks too inspiring at this point. Glad I'm not a Democrat though, if the choice was between Lady MacBeth and Counselor Edwards, I'd probably put a gun to my head and end it all.
Posted by PONTIFICUS 12/28/2007 @ 12:54am
romney's plastic, dude. that ain't you.
giuliani's nuts. no better way to put it.
dr. paul's smart, but libertarianism has it's limits. (that's quite a paradox)
huckabee's funny, but there's sumpin' fishy 'bout 'em.
thompson's dumb, to quote an intelligent man.
mccain's funny, too. maybe too old school. plus, he seems too unpredictable.
did i miss anybody?
ambassador keyes* is the man for you!
*"I think the most important thing is to be absolutely authentic about who you are ... and not to abandon the heritage of the Republican Party as Rudy Giuliani would do, and as I could not follow him in doing."
--Ambassador Alan Keyes (December 12, 2007)
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/28/2007 @ 01:05am
Do you think she has a blue dress too?
Posted by PONTIFICUS 12/28/2007 @ 01:03am
i think:
a) it's mr. edward's business.
b) if it's true, it's unfortunate.
c) if it's not true, it's more unfortunate.
d) everybody running for president is rich (dr. paul?). that's a prerequisite. and they all have their corporate allegiances (paul? dennis?), because that's a prerequisite, too.
so, it is easy to project a rich person as being hypocritical if they say they are going to help poor people. edwards is one of the few to actually even say something.
so god bless him for at least bringing their plight to light, even if he's being hypocritical.
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/28/2007 @ 01:11am
chuck for huck!
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/28/2007 @ 01:51am
what every rudia's wearing this season.
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/28/2007 @ 01:53am