The Republicans Are In A World Of Hurt

[MannyIsGod]

This isn't spin, this isn't bluster. This is the flat out truth.



Democrat Travis Childers (CHILL-ders), a court official in Prentiss county, beat (http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2008/may/13/childers-takes-early-lead-over-davis/) Republican Greg Davis, mayor of Southaven, in a runoff election for House district MS-01 (http://nationalatlas.gov/printable/images/preview/congdist/MS01_109.gif) by a margin of 54% to 46% yesterday. The seat, which is R+10, became free when Gov. Haley Barbour appointed its occupant, Roger Wicker, to the Senate to fill the vacancy created when Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS) resigned. This is the third stright loss for the GOP in a contested heavily Republican district this year. On March 8, scientist Bill Foster (D) defeated businessman Jim Oberweis (R) in IL-14 (http://nationalatlas.gov/printable/images/preview/congdist/IL14_109.gif) an R+5 district in the Chicago suburbs. On May 3, Louisian state legislator Don Cazayoux defeated former representative and newspaper publisher Woody Jenkin in R+7 LA-06 (http://nationalatlas.gov/printable/images/preview/congdist/LA06_109.gif). And now MS-01. All three races saw the national parties heavily involved. Both the NRCC and the DCCC spent upwards of $1 million on these races and outside groups, such as the conservative Freedom's Watch, poured in hundreds of thousands of dollars.
The MS-01 loss is especially painful to the GOP for three reasons. First, the Republicans tried very, very hard here, pouring in huge amounts of money and having Gov. Haley Barbour and Vice President Dick Cheney campaign for Davis. Second, in IL-14 and LA-06 they could argue they had flawed candidates. That doesn't hold here. Greg Davis is a popular mayor who has done a good job and has never been involved in any scandals. Third, this election was the second field test of the Republicans' November strategy, which they rolled out against Cazayoux and refined here. They ran ads bitterly attacking Childers as a close associate and fellow traveler of Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi. They called him a LIBERAL (them's fightin' words in Mississippi). They said he didn't represent Mississippi values. They tried everything. It didn't work.
At this point NRCC chairman Tom Cole (R-OK) is probably sweating bullets. He has hardly any money left and the only arrow in his quiver is calling Democrats tax-and-spend liberals. If that doesn't work in R+7 districts (LA-06) and R+10 districts (MS-01) what's going to happen in swing districts like AZ-01, FL-15, IL-11, IL-18, MN-03, NJ-07, NY-29, OH-15, OH-16, VA-01, and VA-11, all of which are Republican-held open seats that are R+5 or less?
The implication of LA-06 and MS-01 is that tying a Democratic House candidate to Obama (the Republicans assume he will be the nominee; they don't even mention Clinton) doesn't seem to hurt, not even in overwhelmingly Republican districts in the deep South. It certainly isn't going to hurt in New Jersey and Minnesota. And Obama may have de facto coattails by getting many young voters to register and vote this year, and most of these will vote a straight Democratic ticket.


http://electoral-vote.com/



The results amount to a rebuke of the Republican strategy of trying nationalize the race by tying Childers to Sen. Barack Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Obama held low approval ratings in the district, but the nearly $2 million that GOP groups poured into northern Mississippi failed to make the race a referendum on the national political landscape.

Republicans dispatched a lineup of heavy hitters in the campaign’s final week, including a pre-election stop Monday by Vice President Dick Cheney. President Bush, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and First Lady Laura Bush recorded automated calls urging voters to support Davis.

A GOP House leadership aide told Politico last week that “if we don’t win in Mississippi, I think you are going to see a lot of people running around here looking for windows to jump out of.”


http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0508/Childers_wins_Miss_special_election.html





The loss has already shaken establishment Republicans in Washington. After losing special elections in Illinois and Louisiana, the House GOP conference already expects a bad year for their party. But those two districts voted for President Bush by eleven and nineteen points, respectively, not by a whopping twenety five points. "People are going to want change," said a top aide to a leading House Republican. "The excuses, that [Davis] didn't have the resources or that he wasn't from the right part of the district, that's just not going to hold up."

In the earlier special elections, Republicans blamed their candidate -- businessman Jim Oberweis in Illinois and former state legislator Woody Jenkins in Louisiana -- for the party's loss. As polls showed Davis losing to Childers, national Republicans began to signal they would blame Davis for being from the wrong part of the district.

But instead of blaming Davis, National Republican Congressional Committee chairman Tom Cole issued a surprisingly blunt statement about his party's own chances, coming a week after a national poll showed Democrats leading Republicans by a wide 50%-32% margin on generic congessional ballot tests. "Tonight's election highlights two significant challenges Republicans must overcome this November," Cole said. "First, Republicans must be prepared to campaign against Democrat challengers who are running as conservatives, even as they try to join a liberal Democrat majority. Though the Democrats' task will be more difficult in a November election, the fact is they have pulled off two special election victories with this strategy, and it should be a concern to all Republicans."

"The political environment is such that voters remain pessimistic about the direction of the country and the Republican Party in general," Cole continued. "I encourage all Republican candidates, whether incumbents or challengers, to take stock of their campaigns and position themselves for challenging campaigns this fall by building the financial resources and grassroots networks that offer them the opportunity and ability to communicate, energize and turn out voters this election."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/gop_stunned_by_loss_in_mississ.html



What Cole says there in that last paragraph is absolutely true. Sadly for Republicans Obama is raising a shit ton of money that will be used all over the board and you can bet your ass the Democrats will be able to destroy the Republicans in spending this year.

[Nbadan]

The results amount to a rebuke of the Republican strategy of trying nationalize the race by tying Childers to Sen. Barack Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Obama held low approval ratings in the district, but the nearly $2 million that GOP groups poured into northern Mississippi failed to make the race a referendum on the national political landscape.

Yep, we've all been busy with the Obama-Hillary scuddle-butt but the media has completely ignored just how bad Republicans will get trumped in November.....I wonder if starting instead of impeading, impeachment proceedings against Dubya and Cheney would help?

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

It's sad that America is going to have to suffer through 4-8 years of Obama spending us further into the ground to figure out that all the politicians in D.C. suck donkey balls.

We need a new party, one that's actually fiscally conservative and whose reps have the balls to stand up for America's future and not just whoring themselves out for votes today.

[clambake]

bush has made sure there's no more money to spend. what's your problem?

[ClingingMars]

Yep, we've all been busy with the Obama-Hillary scuddle-butt but the media has completely ignored just how bad Republicans will get trumped in November.....I wonder if starting instead of impeading, impeachment proceedings against Dubya and Cheney would help?

impeachment? talk again when you get back from the insane asylum.

- Mars

[ClingingMars]

It's sad that America is going to have to suffer through 4-8 years of Obama spending us further into the ground to figure out that all the politicians in D.C. suck donkey balls.

We need a new party, one that's actually fiscally conservative and whose reps have the balls to stand up for America's future and not just whoring themselves out for votes today.

as Newt Gingrich has said, it's time for conservatives to declare independence from the Republican Party.

- Mars

[clambake]

newt's not a conserative.

[Ocotillo]

Conservatives are never to blame........

Conservatism doens't fail, it is only failed.......

You guys keep telling yourself that shit.

After 2000, you had it all. All three branches! Friggin' bin Laden launched the 9/11 attacks and the whole country for all intents and purposes lined up behind Bush and supported him.

So the conservative agenda was launched

pre-emptive war
tax cuts
Terri Schiavo
wiretaps
Alito
Roberts
torture

And all you friggin' conservatives were cheerleading W. and GOP Congress the whole way.

Well the Iraq war is one huge clusterf*ck
The economy sucks
Communist China practically own us
The Saudis are buying are assets

Mission Accomplished!

Oh, now Bush and Congress weren't really conservatives. Get this straight. While he has this country over a barrel and dry humpin' us all, the only time you guys griped about him was over some nuance on immigration and the Medicare Part D crap. Other than that, all you cons were kissing his ring.

Now your a bunch of Libertarians and Ron Paul supporters. Screw all of you cons!

Obama and crew will get things back in order, the country will begin to feel some prosperity again and some flim flam Republican will come around promising to cut taxes and just enough folks will think, "Dang, screw it, I got mine, I want a tax cut." and the whole vicious cycle will start again.

I am going to enjoy November. The GOP is going to taste defeat they haven't seen since the post Nixonian election.

[SnakeBoy]

Yeah things will be great again just like when Jimmy Carter was president. Oh, the good ole days.

[Ocotillo]

If Reagan had stuck with Carter's alternative fuels program we could be a lot further along in self sufficiency.

I know, I know, drill in ANWR that will save us all. :rolleyes

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Any time one party controls both the White House and Congress that's bad for America, and it's time to pass the vaseline.

If the libertarians had a defense policy, they'd be the perfect party for me.

[clambake]

Any time one party controls both the White House and Congress that's bad for America, and it's time to pass the vaseline.

If the libertarians had a defense policy, they'd be the perfect party for me.

you like it now? straining to point of breaking? i don't understand what you're asking for.

[Don Quixote]

We don't mean to say the Republicans aren't in trouble. They most certainly are! They will likely lose a few more seats in the House and Senate before it's all done. And they don't have a great shot at the Presidency, although McCain might yet pull it off.

The cause of this, though, is not a widespread denial of conservatism by the people. It's the other way around -- the people in conservative districts WANT their elected Congressmen (the Republicans, anyway) to keep taxes low, to secure the border,to do something about illegal immigration, to aggressively prosecute the war on radical Islam, and generally protect religious freedom. But if you look at GOP leadership, we see very little commitment to these issues.

Shoot, our Presidential candidate is with the liberals on global warming, amnesty for illegals, and giving Constitutional rights to terrorists. I'm not sure where he is on gun control. So he's not exactly exhibiting conservative leadership. And neither has Bush.

So, it's no surprise the Republicans are in trouble. It's a bad year if you're a Republican seeking reelection, that's for sure.

[romsho]

Conservatives are never to blame........

Conservatism doens't fail, it is only failed.......

You guys keep telling yourself that shit.

After 2000, you had it all. All three branches! Friggin' bin Laden launched the 9/11 attacks and the whole country for all intents and purposes lined up behind Bush and supported him.

So the conservative agenda was launched

pre-emptive war
tax cuts
Terri Schiavo
wiretaps
Alito
Roberts
torture

And all you friggin' conservatives were cheerleading W. and GOP Congress the whole way.

Well the Iraq war is one huge clusterf*ck
The economy sucks
Communist China practically own us
The Saudis are buying are assets

Mission Accomplished!

Oh, now Bush and Congress weren't really conservatives. Get this straight. While he has this country over a barrel and dry humpin' us all, the only time you guys griped about him was over some nuance on immigration and the Medicare Part D crap. Other than that, all you cons were kissing his ring.

Now your a bunch of Libertarians and Ron Paul supporters. Screw all of you cons!

Obama and crew will get things back in order, the country will begin to feel some prosperity again and some flim flam Republican will come around promising to cut taxes and just enough folks will think, "Dang, screw it, I got mine, I want a tax cut." and the whole vicious cycle will start again.

I am going to enjoy November. The GOP is going to taste defeat they haven't seen since the post Nixonian election.


You crushed that one out of the stadium.

[ChumpDumper]

:lol Even the Obama/Wright linkage ad didn't work.

0sPeQ2mKRro

[PixelPusher]

Republicans dispatched a lineup of heavy hitters in the campaign’s final week, including a pre-election stop Monday by Vice President Dick Cheney. President Bush, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and First Lady Laura Bush recorded automated calls urging voters to support Davis.
Probably did more harm than good.

[Heath Ledger]

Too Bad rasing a boatload of money means absolutely shit... just ask Romney.

[Don Quixote]

You crushed that one out of the stadium.

Well ... no disrespect to the great Fouquieria splendens, but it reads more like political smack talk than anything. If Jim Rome had a politics show, this is what one of his "clones" might call in and say.

Not that I'm against talking a little smack about sports, mind you.

[Don Quixote]

Too Bad rasing a boatload of money means absolutely nothing... just ask Romney.

But Obamessiah has raised a ton of $$!

That means something. Right?

[ChumpDumper]

Too Bad rasing a boatload of money means absolutely shit... just ask Romney.How much money did Romney raise from people other than himself?

[ChumpDumper]

Well ... no disrespect to the great Fouquieria splendens, but it reads more like political smack talk than anything. If Jim Rome had a politics show, this is what one of his "clones" might call in and say.Yeah, we're all here for the serious political discourse.

[Don Quixote]

Any time one party controls both the White House and Congress that's bad for America, and it's time to pass the vaseline.

If the libertarians had a defense policy, they'd be the perfect party for me.

Would you be okay if the Libertarians controlled both houses and the Presidency?

[clambake]

Would you be okay if the Libertarians controlled both houses and the Presidency?

the kids you teach, you call them arrogant.

would a mccain presidency disguise their opinion of you?

[BonnerDynasty]

My conservative/somewhat libertarian values will ensure I am one of the last one's standing while this country turns to unrecoverable shit.

That's good enough.....for me, bitches. :toast

[SnakeBoy]

Democrats shouldn't get too excited. These seats are being won by running on conservative platforms... pro life, pro gun, etc. You can already see that although Dems technically have control of the house they are incapable of getting anything done because they are too far apart from each other on the issues.

It's an odd time though. Republicans keep trying move their message to the left in an attempt to hold onto power and the Democrats are going to get power by moving their message to the right.

[Nbadan]

Democrats shouldn't get too excited. These seats are being won by running on conservative platforms... pro life, pro gun, etc. You can already see that although Dems technically have control of the house they are incapable of getting anything done because they are too far apart from each other on the issues.

Though Democrats control both houses their margins do not give them the power to over-ride a Presidential veto or a Republican filibuster - yet.....you see, Democrats like to play by the rules...someday there is going to be a serious investigation of the conduct of the current administration and the do-nothing congress that did nothing while they ran rod shod over the Constitution and International law....then Republicans will be in a real world of hurt....

[inconvertible]

This isn't spin, this isn't bluster. This is the flat out truth.



http://electoral-vote.com/




http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0508/Childers_wins_Miss_special_election.html




[/B]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/gop_stunned_by_loss_in_mississ.html



What Cole says there in that last paragraph is absolutely true. Sadly for Republicans Obama is raising a shit ton of money that will be used all over the board and you can bet your ass the Democrats will be able to destroy the Republicans in spending this year.



real republicans (ron paul types) are leaning libretarian in a big way.

[dimsah]

Why does it appear that a majority of the democrats on this board are flat-out miserable fucking people?

[boutons_]

"a flat-out miserable fucking people"

Why is it most most of the Yoni's in nearly ALL their posts have ANYthing of substance when the get their pants pulled down by facts, or just opinions, they can't counter?

Dems are self-miserable with the obese loser bitch hanging around, but the Dems and the Repugs know the Dems will dominate the WH and Congress come 5 Nov.

"permanent Repug majority" GMAFB

dimsah, GFY

[xrayzebra]

the repubs are totally fucked

but bush/cheney co haven't been conservative AT ALL

medicare part D is the biggest entitlement program since LBJ
homeland security is the creation of an entirely new AGENCY

the monetary policy has been loose as yonivore's mom's ahole

and all this 'social conservativism' bs (his sup court appointees) is just the bone thrown to his base to keep some sort of popular support

as far as his foreign policy... :wtf no idea what the neocons (i.e., 'former' liberals) were whispering into his ear while he was sleeping

As if the dimm-o-craps have something to be proud of.
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are jokes. Barney Frank, the
homosexual poster child of the dimms. You name a activist
group and the dimms have them in their party.

The whole town of Washinton, D.C. is a joke on the America
People. A sad joke with serious consequences. The
energy problem and food problem and monetary problems are
only starting. We have no leadership, none in either party
and there is none on the horizon. Obama and Hillary are jokes to the Nth degree and McCain, God only knows, what
his real plans are. He sounds like a Republican one day,
a Dimm-o-crap the next and a squirrel the next.

The really sad thing is most Americans, many on this board,
stand by and support these crazies in D.C.

Bush catches a lot of heat and he has made mistakes, but
he did take the security of our country seriously and tried to
do something about it. And you see what that got him.
God help us though if Obama gets into office. In my opinion
there are going to be a lot of unemployed servicemen. And
with a dimm-o-crap congress they will fall right into line.
Everyone might want but brush up on Muslim customs. And
I am not saying Obama is one. I am saying he will do nothing
to stop them taking over the country. And with the backbone
most show now days the citizens will fall right into line with
him.

[Don Quixote]

the repubs are totally screwed

but bush/cheney co haven't been conservative AT ALL

medicare part D is the biggest entitlement program since LBJ
homeland security is the creation of an entirely new AGENCY

the monetary policy has been loose as my mom's ahole

and all this 'social conservativism' bs (his sup court appointees) is just the bone thrown to his base to keep some sort of popular support

as far as his foreign policy... :wtf no idea what the neocons (i.e., 'former' liberals) were whispering into his ear while he was sleeping

Amazing. The former Pimp is pretty much right on here. I know, a first!

Bush & Cheney have not been conservative, nor have been the majority of the Republicans in Congress. So to point to their failures, and say that's conservatism, is a straw man.

[Don Quixote]

Democrats shouldn't get too excited. These seats are being won by running on conservative platforms... pro life, pro gun, etc. You can already see that although Dems technically have control of the house they are incapable of getting anything done because they are too far apart from each other on the issues.

It's an odd time though. Republicans keep trying move their message to the left in an attempt to hold onto power and the Democrats are going to get power by moving their message to the right.

You're almost completely right here, except for the second clause of your last sentence.

Are the Democrats really moving to the right? Maybe in Congress they are.

But are Hillary and St. Barry?

[Don Quixote]

Why does it appear that a majority of the democrats on this board are flat-out miserable people?

It does appear that way. The majority of them, anyway.

Their hate is seething. They are a veritable bomb of anger waiting to explode!

I say, send them to the Democratic convention this August!

[clambake]

Why does it appear that a majority of the democrats on this board are flat-out miserable fucking people?

you only feel that way because you're a member of the 22% club.

don't worry, you have all summer to scare the rest of the banjo pickers.

[Don Quixote]

Everyone might want but brush up on Muslim customs. And
I am not saying Obama is one. I am saying he will do nothing
to stop them taking over the country.

Well, if the Moslems were to take over the U.S. (not likely, given our traditional separation of church and state, Europe is another story), we actually would not have to brush up on our Islamic customs. Under Islam, people of other religions are permitted to practice their Christianity and Judaism, with certain provisions. For instance, they aren't allowed to vote or hold public office, they pay higher taxes, etc.

So, we could still practice our religion. But, woe to the Christian who convinces a Moslem to convert to Christianity! Death to them both!

[RandomGuy]

impeachment? talk again when you get back from the insane asylum.

- Mars

Negligent homicide.

If you or I walk into a crowded restaurant with a loaded gun, wave it around like an idiot, and have it go off and kill someone, we go to jail.

This President took our military into a situation where they had no plan, and no clue as to what would happen afterwards, has arguably gotten THOUSANDS of our soldiers unnecessarily killed, and you guys jump up and down like school children claiming he is the best thing since sliced bread.

Let's go through the laundry list of stupidity, because some seem to be giving him a free ride for getting our troops killed.

Not enough body armor.
Hell even the army times said as much. The administration didn't even think to start the process for increasing the orders until more than a year after the occupation started.
Not enough armored vehicles.
Same thing. The first order of armored vehicles wasn't even made, once again, until more than a year after our soldiers were welding steel plates to their unarmored vehicles.
Placing ideology over competance
They got rid of the guy with experience in running health systems in warzones, and took a party loyalist whose claim to fame was changing the way his state contracted for drug purchases. The result was that Iraq changed the way it bought and distributed drugs, when what the system needed was security for doctors, trauma care supplies, and other things commonly needed in warzones, but not in the state of Wisconsin. Tell the Iraqi with the bullet wound that he can get a cancer drug 10% cheaper, but the one doctor for 150 people is kinda busy...

Privatizing all Iraqi industry with 3 people and no staff. Forget the fact that shutting all the state run factories caused massive unemployment, leaving a lot of guys with nothing to do and lots of weapons to do it with, 3 people can completely revamp factories employing hundreds of thousands of people.

The laundry list goes on and on and on.

All of the instability and killing was EASILY preventable, IF the administration had had ANY FUCKING CLUE as to what would happen afterwards and a plan to do it.

This administration FAILED our troops in a BIG way, and that is why they deserve to be in jail.

Any of you that think otherwise are putting your own ideology over the good of the nation, and the lives of our troops.

[RandomGuy]

Since Iraq became a fucking soup sandwich from the get go, the only other possible explanation to gross incompetance, was that they actually KNEW what they were getting into, and lied through their teeth to everybody about what would happen afterwards.

Iraq is a soup sandwich, so either the administration was lying, or incompetant.

"we will be greeted as liberators"
"the war will pay for itself"
"it will cost 50 billion, tops"

If you aren't pissed off, you haven't been paying attention.

[RandomGuy]

Why does it appear that a majority of the democrats on this board are flat-out miserable fucking people?

I would say less miserable than angry, which kind of reinforces the point of the OP doesn't it?

[Don Quixote]

So, RandomDude, have you considered taking your message of "Impeach Bush" to the Convention? I'm sure you'll find a ready audience.

Is anyone?

[ChumpDumper]

Bush catches a lot of heat and he has made mistakes, but
he did take the security of our country seriously and tried to
do something about it.Yes, he certainly did a great job closing the barn door after the cows escaped.

He did give up golf though -- that shows he's serious.

[PixelPusher]

Yes, he certainly did a great job closing the barn door after the cows escaped.

He did give up golf though -- that shows he's serious.

OMG, he gave up golf? Wow! That just made all of our yellow ribbon magnets worthless in comparison.

[Don Quixote]

The whole town of Washinton, D.C. is a joke on the America
People. A sad joke with serious consequences. The
energy problem and food problem and monetary problems are
only starting. We have no leadership, none in either party
and there is none on the horizon. Obama and Hillary are jokes to the Nth degree and McCain, God only knows, what
his real plans are. He sounds like a Republican one day,
a Dimm-o-crap the next and a squirrel the next.


To paraphrase Homer Simpson, I think we both could say,

I like my beer cold, my TV loud, and my Republicans conservative!

[xrayzebra]

To paraphrase Homer Simpson, I think we both could say,

I like my beer cold, my TV loud, and my Republicans conservative!


In a word: YES!

[RandomGuy]

So, RandomDude, have you considered taking your message of "Impeach Bush" to the Convention? I'm sure you'll find a ready audience.

Is anyone?

No.

As much as I would like to see this administration put on trial for gross negligence, I am realistic as to the chances of success for even getting such a trial set up, much less acheiving a conviction.

Doesn't make me any less mad about Bush's incompetance killing our troops though.

I don't mind the use of military force when needed, and there are plenty of times when I think that such force is justified.

Hell, I would have even been supportive of the invasion of Iraq, if the administration indicated that it had any clue about what they were getting into. As it was, it was really obvious to me before hand they either didn't know, or weren't honest about it.

BUT

I just don't want to ask our troops to die for a mistake.

[RandomGuy]

Yes, he certainly did a great job closing the barn door after the cows escaped.

He did give up golf though -- that shows he's serious.

http://oldamericancentury.org/VACATION_KING_small.jpg

[RandomGuy]

http://oldamericancentury.org/healthcare.jpg

[RandomGuy]

http://oldamericancentury.org/DO_YOUR_PART.jpg

[RandomGuy]

There is a about a bazillion of these things floating around.

I had forgotten how much fun they were...

[xrayzebra]

http://oldamericancentury.org/VACATION_KING_small.jpg

And then you have the real King of vacations, on your dollar.


October 16, 1998
Clinton Set to Double Presidential Travel Record
He's Already Set Records for Trips, Days, and Pace of Overseas Travel

Many people have wondered: What will be President Clinton's legacy? How will history remember him? Considering his foreign travel record, Clinton is likely to be better remembered by geography than by history. He already holds every presidential record for international travel -- despite being not yet midway through his second term. Likely, by year's end he (in six years) will have fully doubled the presidential foreign travel record.

When Bill Clinton was running for office in 1992, he attacked President Bush for being the "foreign policy president," but since then, President Clinton has become the "foreign travel president" [see attached graph, Clinton's International Travel]. Even using a conservative count:

Clinton holds the record for:

* Foreign trips by a U.S. president: 32

* Days abroad: 154

* Rate of foreign travel: 27 days per year

[RandomGuy]

And then you have the real King of vacations, on your dollar.


October 16, 1998
Clinton Set to Double Presidential Travel Record
He's Already Set Records for Trips, Days, and Pace of Overseas Travel

Many people have wondered: What will be President Clinton's legacy? How will history remember him? Considering his foreign travel record, Clinton is likely to be better remembered by geography than by history. He already holds every presidential record for international travel -- despite being not yet midway through his second term. Likely, by year's end he (in six years) will have fully doubled the presidential foreign travel record.

When Bill Clinton was running for office in 1992, he attacked President Bush for being the "foreign policy president," but since then, President Clinton has become the "foreign travel president" [see attached graph, Clinton's International Travel]. Even using a conservative count:

Clinton holds the record for:

* Foreign trips by a U.S. president: 32

* Days abroad: 154

* Rate of foreign travel: 27 days per year

:lol


Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Bush Surpasses Reagan as the "Vacation President"
I wrote about this in August of last year, when Bush was still trailing Reagan 436 - 418 in terms of vacation days. But according to CBS Radio correspondent Mark Knoller, Bush has now broken the record.

Knoller says that last weekend's trip by Bush to (where else?) Crawford, TX with the Danish minister in tow was the 70th trip of his presidency. In total, Bush has spent 452 days on vacation during his presidency. That's close to 1 1/3 years.

And he's still got a long time before the next president is inaugurated. Perhaps he can put the record out of reach of any future presidents.

I have to admit, however, that I feel torn about this issue. With 452 more days (and counting) of more work, he quite possibly could have screwed the country up more than he did. I realize, however, how difficult that is to imagine.

P.S. Please forgive me; I may have given you the impression that when Bush was in Washington, D.C. he actually worked.

linky (http://snafu-ed.blogspot.com/2008/03/bush-surpasses-reagan-for-vacation.html)

At least Clinton was accomplishing something besides clearing brush or fishing.

[RandomGuy]

"As you know President Bush is currently on vacation in Texas. He said he's going to try and do absolutely nothing for the next ten days. His advisors think this is the best way to bring his approval rating up. Just don't do anything." --Jay Leno

"As you know, when President Bush is down on his ranch, he likes to spend his time clearing brush and chopping wood, because no matter how much legislation you pass to cut down trees, there's nothing like destroying them with your own hands." --Jay Leno

"Yesterday President Bush flew out to his prairie-chapel ranch in Crawford, Texas, to begin his eleven-day vacation. It's not really a ranch. There's no cows or horses. It's more like an estate. But ranch sounds better. You know like when you call Iraq a democracy. It sounds better." --Jay Leno

"President Bush is beating the August heat the same way he always does -- with a vacation on his ranch in Texas. He got there yesterday. This will be his shortest vacation since he's taken office. Usually he takes a full month, this time around because of the wars and everything, only ten days. I guess he's saving up the personal days so he can skip the last three months of his presidency." --Jimmy Kimmel

"President Bush traveled to his ranch in Texas for a ten-day vacation. The president said now is the perfect time to take a vacation when everything in the world is running so smoothly." --Conan O'Brien

"White House officials said today President Bush took three books with him to Texas. Three! That pretty much empties the Bush library." --Jay Leno

"Our president isn't exactly getting high marks for his handling of the catastrophe. People don't seem to realize, yes the hurricane has been devastating to the people who live in that area, but it has also ruined the last three days of his vacation. He has suffered too." --Jimmy Kimmel

"Hurricane Katrina has been particularly hard on President Bush, who was forced to end his vacation two days early. He was supposed to be clearing brush in Texas until Friday. Now he's going to get back to the White House tomorrow. You know, if he doesn't use his vacation days, he loses them, so this is hard on everybody." --Jimmy Kimmel

"President Bush is going on his annual vacation. The White House says he goes to his Texas Ranch to unwind. I'm thinking, when does he wind?" --David Letterman

"As you know, President Bush is taking 5 weeks off. It's like he's still in the National Guard." --Jay Leno

"It turns out President Bush can run again in the next election. Now I know you're only supposed to be allowed two terms, but the Supreme Court said if you count his vacation time, he's barely served one." --Jay Leno

"President Bush is on a five-week vacation. How many folks get five weeks off a year? You know, if I want five weeks off I have to have open heart surgery, for God's sake." --David Letterman

"The president jumped on a plane to start a five-week vacation. This will be the longest presidential vacation in 36 years. This means President Bush has now been on vacation for 27% of his presidency. That means the country could be 27% more screwed up than it already is." --Jimmy Kimmel

"President Bush is at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, and here's the good news -- he says he will only stay until Crawford is capable of self rule." --David Letterman

"Bush woke up this morning, saw his shadow and now -- six more weeks of vacation." --Jay Leno

"President Bush is vacationing in Crawford, Texas. He will be vacationing for five weeks. That's a long time. I don't think he has an exit strategy for his vacation either." --David Letterman

"Now is a great time for President Bush to go on vacation because Iraq is pretty much under control. But a White House spokesman said Bush is using his vacation to reconnect with regular people. So you know what that means -- he's drinking again." --David Letterman

"After President Bush signed the new transportation bill, he said it's not just enough to sign the bill -- people have to show up and do the work. Then he went back to his five-week vacation." --Jay Leno

"President Bush still having his five-week vacation. Today President Bush announced he is going to leave his ranch in Texas to visit Idaho for two days. However, Bush told his supporters, 'Don't worry, I won't do any work there either.'" --Conan O'Brien

"President Bush is on week three of his marathon five-week vacation. In fact, he has been gone on vacation for so long that today in Washington, a judge ruled that a young couple with two children can now legally move into the White House because it appears to have been abandoned by its previous tenants." --Jay Leno

"President Bush is taking his summer vacation. It's a five-week vacation. This is his fiftieth vacation in the last five years -- that's about the national average isn't it? During his five-week vacation, he will continue to receive national security briefings. He won't be reading them, but he will receive them." --David Letterman

[RandomGuy]

I would be all for an intern giving Bush a hummer if he would at least work. ;)

[Don Quixote]

No.

As much as I would like to see this administration put on trial for gross negligence, I am realistic as to the chances of success for even getting such a trial set up, much less achieving a conviction.

Doesn't make me any less mad about Bush's incompetence killing our troops though.

I don't mind the use of military force when needed, and there are plenty of times when I think that such force is justified.

Hell, I would have even been supportive of the invasion of Iraq, if the administration indicated that it had any clue about what they were getting into. As it was, it was really obvious to me before hand they either didn't know, or weren't honest about it.

BUT

I just don't want to ask our troops to die for a mistake.

Aww, comeon RandomDude! You mean the Impeach Bush organizations and PACs aren't going to even try? They'll have a captive audience at the Convention ... Democrats everywhere, and all the media they want! Surely, it would be a fantastic way to get their idea out to the public.

Okay, we'll work on it.

Anyway ... I think you know where I stand on Iraq. I was for the war, but I'm not crazy about the way it was executed. Pres. Bush was way too stubborn and waited too long to change tactics. That said, we ought to be proud of what the troops have been able to accomplish there, given Congressional foot-dragging and an incoherent war strategy. If anything, I would say, be more aggressive against the enemy!

And I don't see how HillBama would do that, though. In my view, McCain at least gives us half a chance at killing the bad guys, getting the good guys out, and setting (propping) up a halfway-friendly government.

Then again ... I'm not so sure about McCain either. What a $%&^ed-up election cycle.

[RandomGuy]

What a $%&^ed-up election cycle.

Something else we can agree on. Fascinating political theater. :corn:

[Don Quixote]

Here's a compromise. why don't the Democrats take McCain ... and we can do our primaries over?

He wants to work with the Democrats ... okay, he can be in that party!

[ChumpDumper]

That said, we ought to be proud of what the troops have been able to accomplish there, given Congressional foot-dragging and an incoherent war strategy.What specific foot-dragging are you speaking of? the latter reason you cited was much more of a hindrance than the former.

[Don Quixote]

Something else we can agree on. Fascinating political theater. :corn:

I view it more as an Orwellian tragedy. Kinda depressing, actually.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

you like it now? straining to point of breaking? i don't understand what you're asking for.

I want limited government. Not us getting on the express lane to communism, err, sorry, 'enlightened liberalism'.

Right now is not a good example, we need to flush everyone in D.C. and start over, they're all corrupt as hell.

All Demos is bad, but lately the Republicans in D.C. seem to have forgotten the principles of their party. There really aren't many Republicans in D.C. any more (well, there are a few like Paul that get labeled as crazy), just extreme liberals (Democratic party) and moderate liberals (most of what is the Republican party today... Bush and Co. in particular).

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Would you be okay if the Libertarians controlled both houses and the Presidency?

Interesting idea. Like I said, if they could come up with a coherent national defense platform that made sense, I'd be all about it.

My sister (military) works in D.C. That whole place is shit, she just shakes her head when I talk to her about what's going on in that town.

Republicans suck. The Democrats suck. Neither of them are representative in any way what most of America wants, but we're all stuck with their bullshit decisions.

Fucking ridiculous.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

http://oldamericancentury.org/healthcare.jpg

Look at everything else in the federal government, all the bureacracy.

Do you really think universal health care would be anything more than a colossal fuckup and ensure the bankruptcy of our country?

Liberals play the whole 'rich people are the only ones getting rich' card, but people don't realize that many of the Democrats are the richest in our country as well.

It cost half a billion dollars to run for president, do you think that whoever wins is going to give a damn about the average American, or just repaying those who bankrolled their campaign?

[RandomGuy]

Look at everything else in the federal government, all the bureacracy.

Do you really think universal health care would be anything more than a colossal fuckup and ensure the bankruptcy of our country?

Liberals play the whole 'rich people are the only ones getting rich' card, but people don't realize that many of the Democrats are the richest in our country as well.


... and yet the rich democrats I have met understand the moral obligations of taxes and the fact that they benefited greatly from a society and a system of laws and yes, government that allowed them to achieve what they did.

They understand that they didn't accomplish what they did in a vacuum, and don't really begrudge their share of taxes. They feel that they have more than what they really need.

Sorry, but not everybody buys into the hyper-individualistic, materialistic, selfish bullshit that seems to pass for "morals" on the right.


It cost half a billion dollars to run for president, do you think that whoever wins is going to give a damn about the average American, or just repaying those who bankrolled their campaign?

Raise taxes, and give public financing of campaigns. Yeah, you heard me, raise fucking taxes. In the end it will end up costing us a lot less, than all the freaking givaways to special interests.

[RandomGuy]

Look at everything else in the federal government, all the bureacracy.

You don't think corporations have bureaucracy?

You don't find $100M+ golden parachutes wasteful?

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

... and yet the rich democrats I have met understand the moral obligations of taxes and the fact that they benefited greatly from a society and a system of laws and yes, government that allowed them to achieve what they did.

They understand that they didn't accomplish what they did in a vacuum, and don't really begrudge their share of taxes. They feel that they have more than what they really need.


You mean like Harvard (Obama's alma mater) and it's $37 billion dollar announcement and how they keep raising the price of tuition on their students, and other universities in their state are struggling to stay open?

Hypocritical much?


Sorry, but not everybody buys into the hyper-individualistic, materialistic, selfish bullshit that seems to pass for "morals" on the right.


Materialistic and selfish? Stereotype much? I want people to work for themselves, not expect the government to give them a fucking handout for everything. Where in the Constitution does it say that the government is responsible for paying everyone's food, health care, gasoline, etc.

This country was founded on the idea of free markets and capitalism, and liberal fucks think we need to be socialist. Take a look at France. Take a look at Russia. Take a look at Cuba. All those countries in South America with hyperinflation. They all went to socialism. Tell me how that's working out for any of them.



Raise taxes, and give public financing of campaigns. Yeah, you heard me, raise fucking taxes. In the end it will end up costing us a lot less, than all the freaking givaways to special interests.

Don't raise taxes, cut government. Fuck entitlement bullshit. It's why the world economy is on its way to pass us by. Americans have gotten fat, lazy, content, and stand around with their hands out waiting for a handout.

That's bullshit.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

You don't think corporations have bureaucracy?

You don't find $100M+ golden parachutes wasteful?

Where did I say I didn't? Seeing CEOs bank, particularly the banking heads of Countrywide, etc. in recent years, makes me sick. And that's part of what's wrong with this country.

So don't try and fucking lecture me on that shit, I think it's bullshit too.

I'll tell you what else is bullshit.

When I was in college I didn't get any financial assistance, because I was white middle class. Let me tell you it was awesome working 30 hours a week (on top of school) to put myself through school, and there was nothing quite like the feeling of watching some mother roll through the grocery store, come through my line with two baskets of groceries, rack up a $400 grocery tab, standing there in line wearing gold jewelery with the latest trendiest clothes on her and her kids, with the latest and greatest cell phone in hand. When the total came due, she whips out a fucking food stamps card, pays for all that, then breaks out a wad of $20s to pay for the other part of her order - a couple of packs of cigarettes and a couple of cases of beer.

So I'm busting my ass 30 hours a week working, and part of my paycheck is going to cover her grocery bill when she's got enough cash for a new cell phone every three months, cigarettes, alcohol, and everything else.

You tell me how that's fair. And I'll still be paying off my student loans 10-15 years from now that I racked up. And you tell me that we should all pay higher taxes. Fuck you.

And excuse me for calling bullshit on all this entitlement shit that seems to be spreading among the socialist left.

Perfect example is the farm subsidy bill passed by Congress today. It allows farmers who make up to $750,000 a year to get federal aid. How the fuck is that fair? That's a hell of a lot more money than I make in a year, and I venture most on this board. Yet they get a handout and you get cunts like Pelosi, Hillary, and Obama talking about what a great day it is to see that legislation pass. Are you shitting me?

Howabout Obama authoring and pushing for the Global Poverty Act bill that's out there right now that would basically hand over almost a trillion dollars of American money over the next 13 years to the rest of the world.

We can't pay for social security, can't pay for Medicare, we've got 10 million illegals in this country who are sucking at the tit of public welfare, we've got our own homeless, and yet he wants to hand over some of this mysterious money we're apparently sitting on as a country to the rest of the world.

Fuck, we have a 9 trillion dollar federal deficit, and Obama wants to roll out almost $400 billion in new government programs if elected, and give almost a trillion dollars to the rest of the world over the next 13 years.

How the fuck does that make sense? It's financial suicide for this country, but the elitist left in this country are hellbent on bleeding us all dry.

In short, you and every other POS marxist liberal can shove your fucking 'let's give it all away' bullshit up your ass.

This country is going to go the way of Rome before we get to the 22nd century because of this marxist dogma that has engulfed the liberal left. I bet your kids will feel good about this whole 'need to give it all away and tax more' shit when their standard of living is that of a third world country.

[Don Quixote]

Yeah, whatever our problems are with health care and agriculture, surely government is not the answer!

[MannyIsGod]

I'm willing to give the Democrats a shot. I know what the Republicans of are day are about and its pretty much shit, so lets see what the Demcorats can do. In the end, I'll probably hate it too, but I'll worry about that in 8 years I guess. Thats just how much I hate what the Republicans in office stand for right now.

[Don Quixote]

You're not alone there.

A great many of us conservatives feel betrayed by the Republicans we elected. Hell, Rush spent almost all of yesterday's show taking McCain to task.

So, the Democrats are looking at some gains in Congress this fall. I still think McCain has a chance at the Presidency, but he's not running a good race at the moment.

[spurster]

I agree the farm bill is totally messed up.

I strongly second the public financing of campaigns. One reason why federal programs are often messed up and most costly than they should be is that they are set up to favor campaign donors (e.g., farm bills, energy bills, health bills, endless earmarks). Campaign contributions have become legalized bribery.

The public financing of Presidential campaigns has fallen apart because of the strict fixed limit on spending. I would change the formula so that if any candidate declines public financing and spends more than the limit, then qualified candidates on public financing receive additional financing to match the privately financed candidate. This would eliminate the advantage of private financing, yet does not infringe on anyone's free speech (the freedom to spend money to broadcast what you want to say).

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

I agree the farm bill is totally messed up.

I strongly second the public financing of campaigns. One reason why federal programs are often messed up and most costly than they should be is that they are set up to favor campaign donors (e.g., farm bills, energy bills, health bills, endless earmarks). Campaign contributions have become legalized bribery.

The public financing of Presidential campaigns has fallen apart because of the strict fixed limit on spending. I would change the formula so that if any candidate declines public financing and spends more than the limit, then qualified candidates on public financing receive additional financing to match the privately financed candidate. This would eliminate the advantage of private financing, yet does not infringe on anyone's free speech (the freedom to spend money to broadcast what you want to say).

I wouldn't do that, because then you get into a spending war on the dime of tax payers.

There should be a hard cap for campaign dollars, it should all be itemized, and when you hit your limit, that's it.

And what's even crazier is it's all tax free for the politicians. Make anything over the cap taxable income.

This has been going on for several elections now. When people are brokering a candidate's presidential run to the tune of half a billion dollars, that person isn't going to represent the people of the U.S., just their private investors.

Legalized bribery is right.

[RandomGuy]

You mean like Harvard (Obama's alma mater) and it's $37 billion dollar announcement and how they keep raising the price of tuition on their students, and other universities in their state are struggling to stay open?

Hypocritical much?

Read much?

Answer this question:

In the past 10 years, government funding of higher education has gone up or down in relation to the overall cost of higher education?

[RandomGuy]

Materialistic and selfish? Stereotype much? I want people to work for themselves, not expect the government to give them a fucking handout for everything. Where in the Constitution does it say that the government is responsible for paying everyone's food, health care, gasoline, etc.

Hypocritical much?

I have never advocated free gub'mint handouts, yet you accuse me of stereotyping.

I don't think it is stereotyping at all to say that what passes for morals on the right is thinly disguised immorality.

That you can't see that simply says you have deluded yourself about your own false righteousness.

[RandomGuy]

This country was founded on the idea of free markets and capitalism, and liberal fucks think we need to be socialist. Take a look at France. Take a look at Russia. Take a look at Cuba. All those countries in South America with hyperinflation. They all went to socialism. Tell me how that's working out for any of them.


Better yet let's look at the US.

Sorry charlie, but we spend more per capita and have worse outcomes than most of the "socialist" countries you like to bash on.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Hypocritical much?

I have never advocated free gub'mint handouts, yet you accuse me of stereotyping.

I don't think it is stereotyping at all to say that what passes for morals on the right is thinly disguised immorality.

That you can't see that simply says you have deluded yourself about your own false righteousness.

What do you think these 'morals' consist of? What do you think my morals are?

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Better yet let's look at the US.

Sorry charlie, but we spend more per capita and have worse outcomes than most of the "socialist" countries you like to bash on.

That's because lawyers have fucked up the laws so much and twisted shit that people have to cover their asses from lawsuits so much with insurance.

[Wild Cobra]

That's because lawyers have fucked up the laws so much and twisted shit that people have to cover their asses from lawsuits so much with insurance.

Yep. Many doctors have to pay about $250,000 per year for insurance. Someone tell me that doesn't take allot off the top that the doctor has to recover in higher fees. Say a private practitioner worked just 40 hours a week, that insurance cost is just over $120.00 per hour!

[PlayoffEx-static]

It's sad that America is going to have to suffer through 4-8 years of Obama spending us further into the ground to figure out that all the politicians in D.C. suck donkey balls.

We need a new party, one that's actually fiscally conservative and whose reps have the balls to stand up for America's future and not just whoring themselves out for votes today.

The only way to have any administration not "spend us into the ground" is to leave Iraq. Anything else, spending-wise, is just a paper cut. Iraq is the arterial bleeding. You cannot profess to be a fiscal conservative AND be interested in staying in Iraq.

[Wild Cobra]

The only way to have any administration not "spend us into the ground" is to leave Iraq. Anything else, spending-wise, is just a paper cut. Iraq is the arterial bleeding. You cannot profess to be a fiscal conservative AND be interested in staying in Iraq.

Oh really? Why not stop the spending not laid out by constitution instead? Besides, the war spending bills are not as high as reported. Congress keeps adding pork to them. Not all is for the war effort, but pet projects too.

[ChumpDumper]

So according to your calculations, how much have we actually spent on Iraq?

[Wild Cobra]

So according to your calculations, how much have we actually spent on Iraq?
I don't have a number. I just know it's not all of the bills passed for the supplemental military spending. I would guess it is about 90% of the supplemental spending give or take a bit. I think only one supplemental had congress trying to get about a third of it for other uses.

You can leave out the regular military budget as we would spend that amount with no war. What are normally training budgets for the units become part of the costs for movements. Most units move for exercises at least twice a year.

Yes, it is a costly war. I will not deny that. I will say it is something that we cannot morally simply stop, and leave, until the loose ends are tied up. Still, if you look at the cost of the war in terms of per capita or of a percentage of the budget, it still costs less than prior wars we have endured.

The people in the military want to finish. We should allow them to do so. To leave early would dishonor all who have died trying to stabilize Iraq. If you don't believe me, ask any career soldier.

[ChumpDumper]

What does "finish" mean?

[Wild Cobra]

What does "finish" mean?

For Iraq, I'm not sure what it would look like. It will at least have a measure of stability the government can control. How many troops we leave, I can only guess, but most soldiers will return. Some will stay.

[ChumpDumper]

It is difficult to complete a mission without an objective.

[Wild Cobra]

It is difficult to complete a mission without an objective.
Well, I'm out of the loop. Very few people are in the inside to know the real endgame. There is an objective, but I think we all agree it isn't as perfect as the White House would like. You shouldn't expect a conclusive answer from anyone and expect it to be correct in the future. Plans change as needed.

I think an ideal end-game would be to have them change similar to Germany or Japan has. I think it will not be quite as good, but we can hope.

[ChumpDumper]

Why can't the American people know the endgame?

[boutons_]

Davis Says Republicans Too Near `Radioactive' Bush
By Laura Litvan http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/data?pid=avimage&iid=izsyQf9RR1Gk

May 16 (Bloomberg) --President George W. Bush (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=George+W.+Bush&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1) is ``absolutely radioactive'' and Republicans will suffer widespread election losses in November unless they distance themselves from him, said Representative Tom Davis (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Tom+Davis&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1), a former leader of the party's House campaign committee.
``They've got to get some separation from the president,'' Davis, of Virginia, said in an interview on Bloomberg Television's ``Political Capital with Al Hunt (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Al+Hunt&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1),'' scheduled to be aired today. Bush is the face of the party and congressional Republicans are ``seen as just in lockstep with him on everything,'' Davis said.

Republicans would lose 20 to 25 House seats if the election were held today, Davis said. If Senator John McCain (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=John+McCain&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1), the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, is seen by voters as ``Bush III'' he will lose by 20 percentage points, said Davis, who chaired the National Republican Congressional Committee from 1998 to 2002.

``Republicans, I think, have time to turn it around to some extent,'' said Davis, 59, who isn't seeking re-election this year. ``But, if they don't, we're cruising for a bruising.''

Davis warned his colleagues about further losses after Democrats won House special elections to replace Republicans in Louisiana, Mississippi and in the Illinois seat formerly held by former House Speaker Dennis Hastert (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Dennis+Hastert&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1).

A Mistake

Davis said Republicans made a mistake in backing Bush's opposition to expanding a children's health insurance program, providing federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research and changing Iraq War policy. They are now making a similar error by opposing a plan to help homeowners avoid foreclosure, he said.

``In every case, they've walked down an alley where they're 30 percent of the electorate,'' Davis said. ``And that makes you a permanent minority.''

Congressional Republicans must offer their own solutions on gas prices and other issues because there is ``nothing coming out of the White House'' on policy.

The House Republican leadership team, under Minority Leader John Boehner (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=John+Boehner&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1) of Ohio, has been offering the ``same old, same old'' since the 2006 elections, he said. Animosity between Boehner and National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Tom Cole (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Tom+Cole&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1) must be overcome to aid Republican candidates and secure their own party positions.

`Pull Together'

``Republicans have got to pull together and work as a team,'' he said.
If the leadership fails to help the party change course, ``they'll be thrown out by the caucus in December,'' he said.

Representative Chris Van Hollen (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Chris+Van+Hollen&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1), head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said voters will likely see Republican attempts this year to separate themselves from Bush as ``pure political opportunism.''

``Eleventh-hour conversions can be very unsightly when people try and flip-flop at the last minute,'' he said in a telephone interview.

Davis also questioned Bush's comments this week that he won't negotiate with leaders of countries that sponsor terrorism -- an apparent slap at Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Barack%0AObama&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1)'s foreign-policy statements. That may have hurt Republicans because Bush was the messenger, Davis said.

`Turn Him Off'

``The difficulty for us right now is that President Bush is, although he's the president and the leader of the party, when you turn on the TV and see him, two-thirds of the people turn him off,'' Davis said. ``They're not going to believe him even when he's right so he's got to get surrogates.''
Davis added that Bush may have gone too far when he said that ``some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along,'' in a speech in Israel. Bush said that one senator suggested before World War II that he might have been able to dissuade Adolf Hitler (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Adolf+Hitler&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1)'s aggression.

``When you throw in Hitler and some things, you know, it raises the stakes,'' Davis said. ``I don't know how this will play off.''

The appeasement comments may be an effective slap at Democrats, he said. ``But just listening to the talk shows and the call-ins and everything else at this point, there's a lot of hostility out there,'' Davis said.
Even with the difficulties facing Republicans, McCain might prevail because he has the support of independent voters who abandoned the other Republican presidential candidates, Davis said.

``He is positioned to do that because the things that are carrying him forward right now are the things that a lot of Republicans have not liked him for over the years,'' Davis said. ``But that independence puts him in good stead in this environment.''

To contact the reporters on this story: Laura Litvan (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Laura+Litvan&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1) in Washington at [email protected]
Last Updated: May 16, 2008 17:22 EDT

==============

McFlopPanderKeating and Repugs are/will be royally fucked in November. Couldn't happen to a more repugnant, corrupt bunch of assholes.

They will stoop, slime, slander, swift boat their opponents viciously to try to save the scrotums from being ripped.

The wc's, yonis, clannys, aggies here will stand proud up their necks in Repug campaign sewer.

[ClingingMars]

davis can suck it.

- Mars

[clambake]

The people in the military want to finish. We should allow them to do so. To leave early would dishonor all who have died trying to stabilize Iraq.

you mean like the soldiers that you claimed died from karma?

[ClingingMars]

you mean like the soldiers that you claimed died from karma?

no, like this guy:

WMcXCoM0PYk

- Mars

[clambake]

i didn't open it. need help speaking?

[JoeChalupa]

Republicans have no one to blame but themselves.

[smeagol]

What a stupid, useless, fuck-the-rest-of-the-world,-I-can-do-whatever-I-want-because-I'm-a-super-power kind of war . . .

[PlayoffEx-static]

Oh really? Why not stop the spending not laid out by constitution instead? Besides, the war spending bills are not as high as reported. Congress keeps adding pork to them. Not all is for the war effort, but pet projects too.

Non-declared wars and police actions are in the Constitution? I don't think so.

[Wild Cobra]

Non-declared wars and police actions are in the Constitution? I don't think so.
Common law items are not spelled out in the constitution. The ability for the Commander in Chief to wage war and sign marques is part of the office. These are given abilities of the period. It isn't needed to be spelled out in the constitution. These items are only in the constitution under the legislative powers as authorizing them to do so also. Notice it does not exclusively give congress the right. It only gives them authorization.

[RandomGuy]

You can leave out the regular military budget as we would spend that amount with no war. What are normally training budgets for the units become part of the costs for movements. Most units move for exercises at least twice a year.

Bzzzt. Wrong answer.

Costs included in the regular military budget that are attributable to Iraq, but aren't included in the supplementary bills:

1) Health care costs of wounded.
2) Increased recruiting costs.
3) Equipment replacement costs.
4) Disability pay for wounded soldiers discharged.
5) Funerals
6) Counciling and other services for family members of deployed troops.
7) God knows what else I am forgetting.

There have been some interesting economic studies on the total costs, and the above are just the cash costs and don't include opportunity costs, like the inability of the military to attract and retain as many high-skilled workers, or the lost future earnings potential of the soldiers who are killed, physically wounded, psychologically wounded, and the resulting effects on the families of those service members.

[RandomGuy]

Why not stop the spending not laid out by constitution instead?

Sure.


To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

Let's get rid of the Air Force. Because the constitution only talks about an army and a navy. All those planes and shit are too expensive.

We should also tax the importation of slav-, er, "other People", and always remember that we should only count them as 3/5ths of a person for census purposes:


Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.


adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons

It is only common sense to literally interpret a document meant to govern an 18th century country of a few million farmers(give or take a few 3/5ths people), and apply that to a post-industrial 21st century of 300 million.

Because nothing at all has changed in the last 300 years. Right?

[RandomGuy]

Not that the constitution isn't a brilliant and worthwhile document. It is all that and a bag of chips. I would give my life to protect it.

BUT

We have to apply some modicum of common sense to fit the intent of the framers and consider what has happened since it was written.

Should we relegate the powers of the FAA to the States? 50 different aviation standards, 50 different maintenance requirements for every fleet of every airline?

50 different standards for approving food additives and drugs? Or should we just scrap that altogether?

50 different sets of banking laws? 50 different sets of securities laws?

Our economy depends on a certain uniformity of laws to simply function. Devolve the functions and expense of the Federal government to the states, and you introduce a LOT of inefficiencies.

[Wild Cobra]

Random, I'll agree other factions are not spelled out. I should have stated that differently. Still, other offices we have are easily authorized under commerce, or other clauses that authorize congress to make laws as needed. Social spending however is not addressed by any clauses, by any reasonable inference. "The general welfare" for example does not apply. That means something other than today usage of welfare.

As for the two year military spending....

Duh...

Still, congress appropriates the money every year or two. It isn't a fixed expenditure like the non-discretionary spending items of social spending are. Think about it. Is that right?


Let's get rid of the Air Force. Because the constitution only talks about an army and a navy. All those planes and shit are too expensive.

Man, you are going off the deep end. The Air Force started as a branch of the Army like the Marines started as a branch of the Navy. There are still several technicalities that link them. In the Army, my MOS placed me on Air Force bases too!


It is only common sense to literally interpret a document meant to govern an 18th century country of a few million farmers(give or take a few 3/5ths people), and apply that to a post-industrial 21st century of 300 million.

Did you conveniently forget (cherry pick facts) or are you really ignorant of the constitutional changes?

I see a pattern in your posts I hadn't noticed before. I think you are very intelligent and DECEITFUL!

I hope I'm wrong, because there are subject matters we do agree upon. But I am losing respect in you.

[Guru of Nothing]

Common law items are not spelled out in the constitution. The inability for the Commander in Chief to wage war and sign marques is part of the office. These are given abilities of the period. It isn't needed to be spelled out in the constitution. These items are only in the constitution under the legislative powers as authorizing them to do so also. Notice it does not exclusively give congress the right. It only gives them authorization.

Fixed.

[2centsworth]

Republicans have no one to blame but themselves.
absolutely.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Just think how easy it would be for a healthy, sensible Republican Party to exist if we rounded up every evangelical, pro-life, anti-gay rights, evil fuck on the face of the country, put them in a rocket and blasted them into the sun.

If they didn't have to pander to the whims of bull shit voters like those just for the sake of winning and staying in power, this country would be well on its way to making some positive changes both at home and abroad.

[boutons_]

Old McFlopPanderKeating, aka dubya II, is proving to be a ignorant, misspeaking, and stupid on foreign affairs (and everything else) as dubya I. :lol

===============


McCain’s New Iran Gaffe: If The ‘Average American’ Thinks Ahmadinejad Is In Control Of Iran, Then So Do I (http://thinkprogress.org/2008/05/20/mccains-new-iran-gaffe-if-the-average-american-thinks-ahmadinejad-leads-iran-then-so-do-i/)»

Yesterday, the Wonk Room’s Matt Duss noted that Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) often incorrectly portrays (http://thinkprogress.org/wonkroom/2008/05/19/mccain-hard-liners/) Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as if Ahmadinejad has a significant role in formulating Iranian foreign policy. He doesn’t. Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and Iran’s National Security Council (http://www.cfr.org/publication/10396/irans_multifaceted_foreign_policy.html#2) set Iran’s foreign policy.

Yesterday, Time’s Joe Klein pressed McCain on the issue, but McCain refused to concede he was wrong (http://thinkprogress.org/wonkroom/2008/05/20/mccain-misconceptions/), saying he disagreed that Khamenei runs Iranian policy behind the scenes. McCain added that because the “average American” thinks Ahmadinejad is Iran’s leader, that’s good enough for him (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/20/mccain-confronted-with-ne_n_102614.html):
MCCAIN: I mean, the fact is [Ahmadinejad’s] the acknowledged leader of that country and you may disagree, but that’s a uh, that’s your right to do so, but I think if you asked any average American who the leader of Iran is, I think they’d know. :lol

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/05/20/mccains-new-iran-gaffe-if-the-average-american-thinks-ahmadinejad-leads-iran-then-so-do-i/


===============


At least Old McFlopPanderKeating has confessed that's he's an expert on economics! :lol

What's next, Old McFlopPanderKeating gonna gaffe rediculously on the military, his other area of "expertise".

Obama will destroy Old McFlopPanderKeating in an open debate.

However, I fully realize that Americans, most of them dumb and ignorant, like their Presidents no better than half-smart, and preferably dumb. So, Old McFlopPanderKeating has a fighting chance. :lol

[Don Quixote]

Just think how easy it would be for a healthy, sensible Republican Party to exist if we rounded up every evangelical, pro-life, anti-gay rights, evil jerk on the face of the country, put them in a rocket and blasted them into the sun.

If they didn't have to pander to the whims of bullplop voters like those just for the sake of winning and staying in power, this country would be well on its way to making some positive changes both at home and abroad.

Every now and then, I admit that I need to be reminded of what liberals think of us.

Thanks for the reminder. :toast

(Out of curiosity, who is your choice for President? Hillary or St. Barry?)

[01.20.09]

The republican party has been asleep the past few years but they are about to get a very rude awakening.

[xrayzebra]

Not that the constitution isn't a brilliant and worthwhile document. It is all that and a bag of chips. I would give my life to protect it.

BUT

We have to apply some modicum of common sense to fit the intent of the framers and consider what has happened since it was written.

Should we relegate the powers of the FAA to the States? 50 different aviation standards, 50 different maintenance requirements for every fleet of every airline?

50 different standards for approving food additives and drugs? Or should we just scrap that altogether?

50 different sets of banking laws? 50 different sets of securities laws?

Our economy depends on a certain uniformity of laws to simply function. Devolve the functions and expense of the Federal government to the states, and you introduce a LOT of inefficiencies.

You know we can and we have amended the Constitution.
If one is needed then let it be proposed and voted on.
Otherwise the courts need to quit finding things in there
that don't exist.

The framers wanted to limit federal power when it came
to the states. It was the intent. But look at what has
happened.

[RandomGuy]

Man, you are going off the deep end. The Air Force started as a branch of the Army like the Marines started as a branch of the Navy. There are still several technicalities that link them. In the Army, my MOS placed me on Air Force bases too!

Pshaw. I was mostly exaggerating to make an argument, namely that literal interpretations have their limits.

We have courts to help sift out what things mean in relation to how it was written versus what has panned out.

Once something is ruled constitutional, stare decisis. If you don't like it, change the constitution. It is amendable, as you point out.

I think the failings of trying to freeze our country within the limits of an agrarian 18th century economy are rather obvious to anybody with some common sense.

Our economy, and indeed our understanding about that economy, have gone a *wee* bit past ol' Adam Smith.

[xrayzebra]

Republicans have no one to blame but themselves.

I couldn't agree more Joe. They have lost all sense of what
they were elected to do. Starting with Bush and his
Medicare "D" program. Their Farm bill and on and on and
on.

[Don Quixote]

I'm not a fan of Bush's Iran policy, either. If anyone has met with the bad guys, "without preconditions," it's been the Bush administration since 06. So the Messiah is being grilled for saying he'd do pretty much what the Administration has been doing.

[clambake]

yeah, but if we elect mccain, he can invade cuba and pay the cubans not to kill us.

we have to gain control of those cigars.

[xrayzebra]

I'm not a fan of Bush's Iran policy, either. If anyone has met with the bad guys, "without preconditions," it's been the Bush administration since 06. So the Messiah is being grilled for saying he'd do pretty much what the Administration has been doing.

But Bush himself has not met with them. It has all been at
a lower level. Hell all governments meet with all other
governments if not face to face through other governments.
It is normal in everyday functions. But you don't throw
the Presidents office in the mix until agreements have
been worked out what is going to transpire at that meeting.
In most cases if an agreement is in the works it is all been
worked out by the peons before the honchos meet and
give it their blessings. To listen to the messiah he is
going to go into direct negotiations and work everything out himself. Yeah, right!

In any government negotiations they argue over commas,
periods, phrases and all kinds of stuff you wouldn't believe.

[Don Quixote]

Right you are. It's been Condi's doing. But we've been waay to conciliatory with Iran.

I wouldn't legitimize that regime at all. The Islamic Republic of Iran is a very new nation. Lots of the older people (40 and over) still remember life under the Shah. It wasn't perfect by any means, but it was considerably more free before the Revolution and Khomeini than afterward. I think that Ahmed-booby-jab and the mullah-ocracy don't enjoy nearly the popular support that the US media and blogosphere thinks it does. If they weren't so repressive, they might have a revolt on their hands!

On the other hand, Chavez indeed enjoys great popular support in Venezuela.

[ChumpDumper]

But you don't throw
the Presidents office in the mix until agreements have
been worked out what is going to transpire at that meeting.It would happen that way no matter who the president would be.

[ChumpDumper]

The Islamic Republic of Iran is a very new nation. Lots of the older people (40 and over) still remember life under the Shah. It wasn't perfect by any means, but it was considerably more free before the Revolution and Khomeini than afterward.How free was it?

[clambake]

the Shah was a butcher and they still remember where his support came from.

[xrayzebra]

It would happen that way no matter who the president would be.

Not according the Obama. No preconditions. I take him
at his word. As I take the little idiot running Iran to
kill all Christians and Jews that wont accept Allah.

[RandomGuy]

Right you are. It's been Condi's doing. But we've been waay to conciliatory with Iran.

I wouldn't legitimize that regime at all. The Islamic Republic of Iran is a very new nation. Lots of the older people (40 and over) still remember life under the Shah. It wasn't perfect by any means, but it was considerably more free before the Revolution and Khomeini than afterward. I think that Ahmed-booby-jab and the mullah-ocracy don't enjoy nearly the popular support that the US media and blogosphere thinks it does. If they weren't so repressive, they might have a revolt on their hands!

On the other hand, Chavez indeed enjoys great popular support in Venezuela.

The majority of the population of Iran is less than 30 years old. That's right more than half.

The government uses the USA as a foil to show their people who they should unite against the outside threat, and not against the corrupt evil fucksticks running the country.

A couple of years back, the resentment of these young people boiled over in the form of anti-government riots.

The "US media" knows all this, and it was widely reported.

Our open hostility props the Iranian government up, just like our hostility kept Castro in power.

We should be doing everything we can to remove the ability of the Iranian government to use us as some nebulous outside threat. Think of it as a form of diplomatic jujitsu.

[ChumpDumper]

Not according the Obama. No preconditions. I take him
at his word. As I take the little idiot running Iran to
kill all Christians and Jews that wont accept Allah.Yeah, they would meet at a kosher deli.

[Don Quixote]

Pshaw. I was mostly exaggerating to make an argument, namely that literal interpretations have their limits.

We have courts to help sift out what things mean in relation to how it was written versus what has panned out.

Once something is ruled constitutional, stare decisis. If you don't like it, change the constitution. It is amendable, as you point out.

I think the failings of trying to freeze our country within the limits of an agrarian 18th century economy are rather obvious to anybody with some common sense.

Our economy, and indeed our understanding about that economy, have gone a *wee* bit past ol' Adam Smith.

We run into this problem all the time in biblical studies and ethics as well. The question for us: how are these ancient documents relevant to us today? The analogy isn't perfect, for (a) we have the original Constitution, while we don't have any of the original autographs of the Bible, and (b) we can amend the Constitution. But it's still useful.

A tool that I like to use is the grammato-historical-cultural method. It asks:
(1) What does the text (i.e., the Constitution) SAY?
(2) What did it mean to the original audience?
(3) Cross the hermeneutical bridge -- what the similarities and differences between the audience then, and the audience today?
and (4) What does it mean today?

Does this mean I would endorse a "living Constitution"? No, not at all. But we can apply the general principles of the document to today's situation, and ought to try. One general principle that I think the Framers would have objected to, for instance, would be rule by judges.

A good question ... can the Constitution mean today what it could never could have meant to the original readers? (I don't know, I'd love to hear this argument.) In biblical studies, the answer to this question is no.

[Don Quixote]

The majority of the population of Iran is less than 30 years old. That's right more than half.

The government uses the USA as a foil to show their people who they should unite against the outside threat, and not against the corrupt evil jerks running the country.

A couple of years back, the resentment of these young people boiled over in the form of anti-government riots.

The "US media" knows all this, and it was widely reported.

Our open hostility props the Iranian government up, just like our hostility kept Castro in power.

We should be doing everything we can to remove the ability of the Iranian government to use us as some nebulous outside threat. Think of it as a form of diplomatic jujitsu.

I agree. We should have a tough, coherent policy against this rogue govt. Like I said, I'm no fan of Bush's current policy. And it would be disastrous if St. Barry were to try to continue it.

[RandomGuy]

Chavez indeed enjoys great popular support in Venezuela.

Not quite enough to win him the sweeping powers (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7124313.stm)he consistantly tries to usurp.

Here is yet another jackass who tries to use us as a foil. The term limits he sought to abolish but did not get will at least remove him from power within a few years.

[Don Quixote]

Term limits who sought ... Chavez?

I still don't see how playing nice with thugs gets us anywhere. Haven't we learned?

[RandomGuy]

We run into this problem all the time in biblical studies and ethics as well. The question for us: how are these ancient documents relevant to us today? The analogy isn't perfect, for (a) we have the original Constitution, while we don't have any of the original autographs of the Bible, and (b) we can amend the Constitution. But it's still useful.

A tool that I like to use is the grammato-historical-cultural method. It asks:
(1) What does the text (i.e., the Constitution) SAY?
(2) What did it mean to the original audience?
(3) Cross the hermeneutical bridge -- what the similarities and differences between the audience then, and the audience today?
and (4) What does it mean today?

Does this mean I would endorse a "living Constitution"? No, not at all. But we can apply the general principles of the document to today's situation, and ought to try. One general principle that I think the Framers would have objected to, for instance, would be rule by judges.

A good question ... can the Constitution mean today what it could never could have meant to the original readers? (I don't know, I'd love to hear this argument.) In biblical studies, the answer to this question is no.

There is a fascinating book called "Original Intent" by a guy named "Barton" that addresses this.

As for "rule by judges", I think that the "activist judge" bit used by many on the right is waaaaaay overblown, and something of a smoke and mirror tactic to whip up conservatives into a frenzy, like gay marriage. I think the whole notion is a cynical ploy to get a certain type of "activist" judge on the bench who is more amenable to conservative arguments, i.e. the definition of "activist" is anybody they don't agree with.

[RandomGuy]

Term limits who sought ... Chavez?

I still don't see how playing nice with thugs gets us anywhere. Haven't we learned?

No Chavez sought a lifting of term limits, so he could stay in power. He lost.

There is a difference between playing nice and saavy PR.

If we put 1% of our military budget into convincing the people involved that we aren't really the threat their governments make us out to be...

[xrayzebra]

No Chavez sought a lifting of term limits, so he could stay in power. He lost.

There is a difference between playing nice and saavy PR.

If we put 1% of our military budget into convincing the people involved that we aren't really the threat their governments make us out to be...

RG, do you really think Chavez will ever give up power,
now that he has it. I don't. He will just take power and
appointment himself President for life. Not a new
concept, as you know.

[Don Quixote]

Well, Constitutional theory is not my area of expertise. And I agree that the Right needs to formulate "judicial activism" as something more than merely judges ruling in a way that we don't like. I'll have to read up on the conservative perspective -- I'm sure some smart righties have done just that. And the main problem I have in the recent California ruling, besides the moral, traditional, "slippery slope," and biblical objections, is that the people don't want it. The people already spoke on the issue, and their votes were essentially taken away from them. So, I can see how people might think this is a clear case of activism from the bench.

[RandomGuy]

I'll have to read up on the conservative perspective -- I'm sure some smart righties have done just that.

There are indeed books out there on just this subject from the conservative perspective.

Very interesting reading. I got to read one or two during the summer of my senior year in college.

[1369]

The Air Force started as a branch of the Army l[u]ike the Marines started as a branch of the Navy[/u.

Captain Nichols would like a word with you. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_Marine_Corps)

[ipeefreely]

McCain will find some much dirt on Osama that it will be a landslide in Nov....U dems have a better chance with Hillary...

Osama is toast

[clambake]

McCain will find some much dirt on Osama that it will be a landslide in Nov....U dems have a better chance with Hillary...

Osama is toast

bush has allowed osama a safe haven in pakistan. it was never really about terrorism, now was it?

[DarkReign]

McCain will find some much dirt on Osama that it will be a landslide in Nov....U dems have a better chance with Hillary...

Osama is toast

...ummm, what?

[Wild Cobra]

the Shah was a butcher and they still remember where his support came from.

Yes, the Shah was a butcherer by our standards. However, he maintained a calm nation. The sects of radicals he kept killing are of the same category that are now the powerfully organized terrorists!

Both Iran and Iraq before 1979(?) were growing nations with strong economies. The had state of the art universities, hospitals, etc. Somehow, under the peacemakers (Jimmy Carter) watch, both Iran and Iraq changed hands and both became terrorist states. I highly suspect that the CIA under president Carters made these changes occur, under the false pretense that they were doing a good thing for peace.

[Wild Cobra]

McCain will find some much dirt on Osama that it will be a landslide in Nov....U dems have a better chance with Hillary...

Osama is toast

Dirt may or may not be a factor. I don't think dirt is needed anyway as Obama really has no experience for the job, and has too many terrible associations. Call it dirt if you like, I don't call the truth that.

McCain would have a sure win if he offered the VP position to Her Thighness, and she accepted. There are allot of Clinton supporters who say they will not vote for Obama, and vice-versa. He has already lost the conservatives support. We will either vote for him or not from the best of two evils rather than liking his positions. Selecting Hillary for VP would win over so many liberals and moderates....

Don't think McCain has a clear win. He does not have the support of conservatives.