Of course, you probably DID mean a non-demoninational, non-compulsory moment of silence.
But you had to juice it up to "institutionalized Christian prayer" because you realized how TRIVIAL it would sound otherwise. And how foolish you'd sound getting all worked up about it.
I don't support a Moment of Silence. I don't care about a Pledge of Allegiance.
I'm not a maniac, however, so I don't froth at the mouth at either of these trivial gestures.
20142. arkymalarky - 2/24/2000 10:59:59 PM
"Lots of things that black people want would endanger your right to make choices. Ditto feminists. Or any lobby. It's the lobby power that I think should be kept in check."
Like what?
20143. AceofSpades - 2/24/2000 11:00:36 PM
"And no, not a "non-denominational attempt to sneak prayer in the schools through the backdoor.""
If some students pray during their moment of silence, and other students think about sex, what the fuck do you care?
20144. arkymalarky - 2/24/2000 11:01:53 PM
"I'm not a maniac, however, so I don't froth at the mouth at either of these trivial gestures."
My turn to "Laugh." What exactly have you been frothing over for the past fifteen minutes then? Or am I mistaking enthusiasm for your position for frothing?
20145. CalGal - 2/24/2000 11:02:09 PM
Incidentally, I should mention that I also disagree with more of what the RR want than blacks. (although probably not the AARP, and almost certainly not feminists)
But if any lobby group gets an inordinate amount of power, I get concerned.
20146. arkymalarky - 2/24/2000 11:02:57 PM
I'm not talking about a moment of silence. I'm talking about PRAYER in schools.
20147. AceofSpades - 2/24/2000 11:03:38 PM
Arky:
You're the one who equates moment of silence = Theocracy.
I'm laughing at you for it. I'm "frothing" at your absurdity, and asking you to defend it.
YOU made claims about a coming, planned Theocracy. When I seek details, you tell me: "Moment of silence."
20148. AceofSpades - 2/24/2000 11:05:58 PM
"I'm not talking about a moment of silence. I'm talking about PRAYER in schools."
Ummmm... forced prayer? Teachers leading children in Christian liturgy?
How can this happen, exactly, without replacing the Constitution?
20149. AceofSpades - 2/24/2000 11:07:41 PM
Can you name ANY Constitutional scholars-- conservative or whatnot-- who would construe such a scheme as REMOTELY constitutional?
Any?
Any single one at all?
Any conservatives who advocate such a thing?
Any?
Any single one at all?
20150. arkymalarky - 2/24/2000 11:08:30 PM
"You're the one who equates moment of silence = Theocracy."
What?!! Man, you draw some strange parallels from my posts.
"YOU made claims about a coming, planned Theocracy. When I seek details, you tell me: "Moment of silence.""
Where? I said no theocracy, no moment of silence. You injected those two concepts into the argument.
20151. CalGal - 2/24/2000 11:10:15 PM
Arky,
Diversity hiring, requiring that a certain percentage of minorities be accepted to universities, and hey, reparations is far more blatant an income redistribution than vouchers for religious schools. Just for starters. And I forget what it's called when governments are required to hire black contractors.
All of those interfere with personal choice to some extent.
Now, I don't particularly object to these interferences. But I've yet to see a lobby not want more as it gets more power.
20152. arkymalarky - 2/24/2000 11:13:04 PM
"How can this happen, exactly, without replacing the Constitution?"
It happened for years until the SC determined it was unconstitutional, and the RR has been pushing for changes in the interpretation ever since and supporting candidates who give lip service to it. All it takes is a few years of conservative presidents filling a few SC vacancies. Besides that, you're taking one issue of many that concern me about the RR agenda. And since I have work tomorrow, I don't have the time to spend on each one of them that we spent on this one, fun as it's been (rolling eyes and sighing ala A-5).
20153. Indiana Jones - 2/24/2000 11:13:31 PM
The Economist endorses McCain. Several good articles:
20154. arkymalarky - 2/24/2000 11:17:43 PM
"Diversity hiring, requiring that a certain percentage of minorities be accepted to universities, and hey, reparations is far more blatant an income redistribution than vouchers for religious schools. Just for starters. And I forget what it's called when governments are required to hire black contractors."
I don't object to them either, and considering population percentages and distribution, even if I did, it's not the eminent concern the RR is, particularly here, as I said before. AR has become more and more religiously conservative in the past ten years or so, and the trend is disturbing to me.
When the four candidates from both parties emerged I really didn't think it would bother me which of them became president. After seeing GWB's strategy in SC, I don't want him in office, not just out of concern for what programs he might try to implement, but because of his tactics in general.
20155. CalGal - 2/24/2000 11:20:06 PM
Arky,
In the end, I think you're saying the same thing I am--it's the power of the RR you object to, more than their aims. And that's a totally legitimate concern, if you ask me. But if you just acknowledge that, rather than try to make too much of a distinction between African American lobbies and the RR lobbies, you will be spared the wrath of Ace. (g)
20156. CalGal - 2/24/2000 11:21:25 PM
BTW, I totally agree with you re: Bush. I felt the same way, prior to SC. Had no real issue with him being President. Now, I actively don't want him to win.
And the one thing McCain could do to lose my support is pander to the RR.
20157. arkymalarky - 2/24/2000 11:26:35 PM
"In the end, I think you're saying the same thing I am--it's the power of the RR you object to, more than their aims."
No, it's the aims. The problem is that they have the power, at least here, which gives them a good chance of achieving at least some of them. But I do agree, of course, that they're perfectly within their rights to lobby for what they want. So are nihilists, whose aims would concern me as well if they had enough power to promote them in any real way. African-American aims, as they stand now, wouldn't bother me personally if they were realized, even though I agree with you that they would very possibly have an impact.
BTW,
Wrath of Ace is a tempest in a teapot. I've got him wrapped around my finger.;-)
20158. arkymalarky - 2/24/2000 11:27:40 PM
Change "possibly" to "definitely," though I don't know how much on me, personally.
20159. arkymalarky - 2/24/2000 11:33:30 PM
Enjoyed the discussion, folks. See y'all later!
20160. AceofSpades - 2/24/2000 11:33:38 PM
It's okay, of course, for minorities to "force their views" on a helpless majority-- so long as we're talking about the *right* minorities, that is.
Arky would get upset about a Christmas tree in school-- but she's okay with Kwaanza celebrations.
20161. arkymalarky - 2/24/2000 11:35:56 PM
Hahaha. Of course I only care about the minorities who disagree with me, but the RR can do what they want as long as they don't try to legislate it, because as GWB's dear old dad said, you can't legislate morality.
20162. AceofSpades - 2/24/2000 11:37:53 PM
"you can't legislate morality."
Funny. Murder, rape, drug use, gambling... all are "legislated."
I guess what you mean is sodomy. And abortion.
The only two things you care about, apparently.
Not that I don't care about them. Sodomy's great, and abortion is occasionally a necessary evil... and yet I have bigger concerns.
20163. Spudboy - 2/24/2000 11:37:55 PM
Ace:
That series of posts (particularly Message # 20123) is pure revisionism and spin. To wit:
I'm afraid of ludicrous bugaboos of my own invention, ascribing policy positions to my opponents which they have never espoused?
Yes, you are. Unlike Arky. As we shall see.
"I was thinking more along the lines of restricting people's rights to make their own personal life decisions and decide their own religious rituals,"
When did this happen? What bill is this? Can you elaborate?
WRT personal life decisions: It’s called the Human Life Amendment. This is not something that has mere fringe support. It’s explicitly part of the GOP platform:
The unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that right against those who perform abortions. We oppose using public revenues for abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life.
20164. Spudboy - 2/24/2000 11:38:26 PM
On deciding their own religious rituals? Try the unending campaign to bring back school prayer. This also receives explicit mention in the GOP platform:
We will continue to work for the return of voluntary prayer to our schools and will strongly enforce the Republican legislation that guarantees equal access to school facilities by student religious groups. We encourage State legislatures to pass statutes which prohibit local school boards from adopting policies of denial regarding voluntary school prayer.
You can also look, as even many Christians do, at recently passed GOP legislation aimed at bringing the Ten Commandments back to school walls as yet another effort by religious zealots to force their brand of religiosity down the throats of those who take a different view.
20165. Spudboy - 2/24/2000 11:39:19 PM
"determining that no aspect of an American's life is private, allowing the government to tell people when to pray and what they can do in their bedrooms "
Ummmmm... when did this happen, Arky? Again, what bill has been proposed regarding this?
I’m not sure how much legislation actually makes it to the floor, but you can see above that the GOP espouses laws that in fact tell people when to pray (the only thing “voluntary” about their prayer proposal is that you either get to choose a religion or you just have to sit there while everyone else prays). As I’ve mentioned previously, I am an active, churchgoing Christian. I don’t want someone else telling me, or my kids, when it’s time to pray. Especially not someone at school. Or in any kind of government position.
“what they can do in their bedrooms” is a rhetorical stretch, but let’s face it: Any attempt to outlaw abortion, as the religious-right inspired GOP fervently desires to do, is an intrusion into the personal decisions my wife and I make behind closed doors about when and how we’re going to have children. My position is that it must stay the hell out at all costs, and I will vote against anyone who argues otherwise.
"and with their bodies."
Which is it here-- abortion (killing a baby who also has, yes, "her own body") or drugs?
Um, sorry, but I thought that the law held that the baby does not have a body separate from the mother’s until the third trimester.
Oh, and I note that you call it “killing a baby.” Is that really what you think it is? My God, man, why don’t you do everything in your power to stop it?
20166. Spudboy - 2/24/2000 11:40:36 PM
At any rate, it’s clear that Arky isn’t just imagining this stuff. It’s right there in the GOP national platform. And it’s very much alive and with us in this year's campaign. She sees Ralph Reed up there on TV, helping steer Bush’s campaign. She sees Robertson pull out the big guns to help shoot down McCain in South Carolina. She hears the sermons and the conspiracy theories about how this really is a Christian nation and the separation of church and state is a myth and the Federal Reserve is a secret corporation (that’s one of Robertson’s theories too). Christ, more than you do in your insular little life, she gets to live with all the yahoos and rednecks who take it as a given that the government is just an evil entity out to get them and that only the good Lord JeHaysus is ever going to set this nation right. And she sees every politician in sight pandering to that stuff. You bet your ass it’s real.
20166. AceofSpades - 2/24/2000 11:40:37 PM
I EXPLICITLY mentioned "abortion" in that post, moron. I also mentioned the fact that a mother has a "life decision"; so does an unborn baby. You wish to side with the mother in all cases. That doesn't change the fact that you ARE making a "life decision" for the baby, who will be killed.
And what about:
"I was thinking more along the lines of restricting people's rights to make their own .... religious rituals,"
THAT'S what I was asking about, Froot Loops.
20167. CalGal - 2/24/2000 11:41:48 PM
The reason that African American aims don't bother you in part is because they don't ask for much (although I really think reparations and too much more in the way of AA would be a bad thing). The reason they don't ask for much is because they don't have that much power.
I realize, too, that you have more sympathy with the aims of African Americans than those of the RR. But give any group too much power, and it's hard to maintain the sympathy, even if some of their aims are legitimate.
20168. AceofSpades - 2/24/2000 11:43:39 PM
"Um, sorry, but I thought that the law held that the baby does not have a body separate from the mother’s until the third trimester."
OHHHHH!!! OHHHHH!!! Thanks for telling me, Spud. Then there is no controversy. Because a group of guys made a "ruling." End of story.
Jesus. What's you IQ? You really are dim.
"Oh, and I note that you call it “killing a baby.” Is that really what you think it is? My God, man, why don’t you do everything in your power to stop it?"
It IS "killing a baby." You can play semantic games all you like, and call it a "fetus," but it's a baby. It's killing an unborn child.
Will I stop it? No, I will not, because I do in fact concede that perhaps there are times when euthanizing an unborn infant is better than the collosal problems of an unwanted pregnancy.
But-- you see-- I can call it what it is without hiding behind euphemisms.
20169. AceofSpades - 2/24/2000 11:45:02 PM
Abortion is KILLING AN INFANT.
And I support abortion.
I support, yes, KILLING INFANTS in certain circumstances.
Does Spuddy-Boy? Of course not. He only supports "terminating previable fetuses."
20170. AceofSpades - 2/24/2000 11:45:32 PM
(sounds nicer, you know)
20171. Jonesy - 2/24/2000 11:48:17 PM
Ace- The RR is not a monolithic bloc, but there is a often used argument from the RR that the US is a "Christian nation" or a "Judeo-Christian" one. They wouldn't tear up the constitution, they claim it has always allowed for prayer in public schools, but that liberal activist judges on the Supreme Court have perverted the constitution. They deny the separation of church and state, and read the first amendment as only prohibiting an official national church. This is what some of us are concerned about. Its ok to deny equal protection to gays because God says so. Its ok to legislate the sexual behavior of married persons because God says so. etc.
The folks who are really calling for theocracy are the Christian Identity people. The "mainstream" RR uses "Judeo-Christian" to reassure folks that they aren't ready to stoke up the ovens for the Jews.
20172. Spudboy - 2/24/2000 11:53:53 PM
Well, CalGal, I think there's a major difference between reparations demands or other demands that African-Americans might make, and encoding/enforcing religious beliefs. The former fits well within the tradition of justice and fair play, though one may quibble over the details (like reparations). The latter strikes at the First Amendment, which I'd argue undermines our entire way of life. My concern about the RR isn't merely the quantity of power they possess (I frankly have similar misgivings of the power of multinational corporations and labor unions) but about how they wield it. And I think they wield it in a way that strikes not just at my private life -- which is bad enough -- but at the nation's well-being.
20173. AceofSpades - 2/24/2000 11:55:06 PM
"They wouldn't tear up the constitution, they claim it has always allowed for prayer in public schools, but that liberal activist judges on the Supreme Court have perverted the constitution."
Yes, and they're largely right--with regard to VOLUNTARY prayer.
Did you know you can have a Dungeons and Dragons club but not a Christian Youth Club meet after school at a public hs?
The "Constitution" apparently says so. The Constitution, it seems, not only prohibits the state from promoting religion, but it requires active state hostility-- allowing some groups to meet after school but not religious ones.
"They deny the separation of church and state, and read the first amendment as only prohibiting an official national church."
Well, you're overstating it. They reject active state hostility to religion. And they're right.
There's no "constitutional" argument against vouchers for religious schools, for example. If you can give a voucher to a non-religious school, then you can give one to a religious school. Religion is not to be promoted-- but neither is it to be discriminated against.
THAT'S their argument, Jonesy.
"This is what some of us are concerned about. Its ok to deny equal protection to gays because God says so. Its ok to legislate the sexual behavior of married persons because God says so. etc. "
Please.
20174. Al D - 2/24/2000 11:55:21 PM
Um, sorry, but I thought that the law held that the baby does not have a body separate from the mother’s until the third trimester.It is nice to have a court let us know when one is really a human. Now, if some day they would like to change that, say until the fetus is one year out of the womb to see if it conforms to one's wants, they can do some wonderful social planning. I don't think it would be necessary to bash the little bugger's brains in. One could just withhold all fluids for about a week; that ought to take care of things.
Of course, there are some really far out wackos who actually believe the decision doesn't really beling to the courts. I imagine they are the Patriots or the Posse Comitatus.
20175. CalGal - 2/24/2000 11:57:56 PM
Spud,
Much of how they wield their power is due to the fact that they have so much. So I think that's related.
I've already said that I have more sympathy for the aims of African Americans than the RR--in large part because I think much of the black lobby wants to try and make up for past wrongs. I think that's ill-advised in part, but I have more sympathy for that than I do of the far religious right's aims.
But at the same time, I think the religious right has an important part to play in keeping things in balance--if they weren't around, things would get loopy somewhere else. So it's not that I want them to go away; I just don't want them to become too powerful.
20176. CalGal - 2/24/2000 11:58:49 PM
toy check
20177. Spudboy - 2/24/2000 11:59:39 PM
That's right, Al, there are some people who believe the decision doesn't belong to the courts.
Or the Congress.
It belongs to the parents, wouldn't you think?
20178. AceofSpades - 2/25/2000 12:02:14 AM
Spud:
If you want to kill your three year old son, is that decision up to the parents? The mother's right to kill a misbehaving child, perhaps?
Of course not. Christ, you haven't thought about this issue AT ALL. Your thinking is so superficial, so embarassingly sloganistic, I'd be mortified to open my mouth if I were you.
20179. AceofSpades - 2/25/2000 12:04:19 AM
There is no clear moral right here. A mother has a right not to incubate a child she doesn't want; but a child also has the right to LIFE itself.
It comes down to strict utilitarianism. But the Moral Vanity Artistes of the Liberal Establishment can't make an argument without a high horse to ride, so everything boils down to bubble-gum slogans more insipid than "1, 2, 3, 4, we don't want no fucking war."
20180. AceofSpades - 2/25/2000 12:10:34 AM
Spud:
Explain in what *relevant* ways a six month old fetus (which breathes (in a liquid way), dreams, sleeps thinks, and can flex its muscles voluntarily) is different from a one year old baby-- in terms of granting the right to euthanize.
Don't tell me "it's dependant on its mother" -- so's the one year old.
Don't tell me "because it's a fetus" -- that's a semantic bit of meaningless which is actually more insipid than saying "Because God says it's okay to kill fetuses."
20181. Jonesy - 2/25/2000 12:24:18 AM
Did you know you can have a Dungeons and Dragons club but not a Christian Youth Club meet after school at a public hs?
The "Constitution" apparently says so. The Constitution, it seems, not only prohibits the state from promoting religion, but it requires active state hostility-- allowing some groups to meet after school but not religious ones.
This is completely false, and has been for some time. Yet it is frequently repeated by the RR. Congress passed a specific act demanding equal access. The Supremes upheld it in a case concerning a suburban school district in Omaha. The district's position was not that it would ban Christian prayer or activities, but that all school groups must have a faculty sponsor, and be subject to school discrimination and discipline policies. Their concern was that the faculty sponsor would inevitably get caught up in a denominational split and thus lend the schools authority to some particular doctrine or demonination.
I have heard Pat Robertson specifically claim that the first amendment does not impose a separation of church and state several times.
Yes, and they're largely right-- with regard to VOLUNTARY prayer. Sigh, another big lie from the RR, the Supremes have NEVER permitted a ban on voluntary student led prayer.
But you don't remember when schools did have teacher led prayer, so I can't really hold this against you too much.
20182. TrialShark - 2/25/2000 12:28:32 AM
Ace --
"Jesus. What's you IQ? You really are dim."
Your IQ.
Carry on.
20183. AceofSpades - 2/25/2000 12:48:42 AM
Jones:
Then it was illegal to have a Christian Youth Club BEFORE Congress acted. This was in 1993 or 94, right?
20184. Angel-Five - 2/25/2000 12:51:06 AM
N.Y.'s Closed Primary Challenged
ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) -- A supporter of Sen. John McCain who had been an independent voter is suing for the right to vote in New York's closed Republican presidential primary March 7.
A federal judge is expected to hear arguments next Tuesday.
Some 2.2 million independent voters would be able to participate in New York's Democratic and Republican primaries if Wendy Van Wie of Columbiaville wins her lawsuit.
Currently, only voters registered with the party may vote in its primary.
Most of Texas Gov. George W. Bush's state supporters, including state GOP Chairman William Powers, oppose allowing independents to vote in the primaries.
Independent and Democratic voters helped push McCain to victory over Bush in GOP primaries in New Hampshire and Michigan.
Van Wie, 46, had been independent but registered as a Republican after a federal judge ordered that McCain be placed on the ballot statewide. But she was told that state law would keep her from voting in a New York presidential primary until 2004. Voters who switch or join parties after being uncommitted must wait until after a presidential election to participate in the new party's primary.
20185. Angel-Five - 2/25/2000 12:51:22 AM
``I personally want to vote for John McCain,'' said Van Wie, who has asked a federal judge to stop New York's political parties from barring independent voters from their primaries. ``I don't really care who anyone else votes for, though. I just want people to be able to vote.'' Van Wie's lawyer, Susan Galvin, said state law was discriminatory because unregistered voters can wait until at least 20 days before a primary to register with a party and vote.
``If you haven't bothered to register or you haven't bothered to exercise your right to vote in the past, you get preferential treatment over somebody who is registered and has voted,'' Galvin said.
Galvin, Van Wie and Guy Molinari, co-chairman of McCain's New York campaign, insisted Thursday that McCain's campaign was not behind the lawsuit.
20186. AceofSpades - 2/25/2000 12:57:54 AM
Angel:
Just guessing, but that sounds very, very specious.
20187. Angel-Five - 2/25/2000 1:03:16 AM
I'd have linked it but it's the Times.
20188. Angel-Five - 2/25/2000 1:03:17 AM
I'd have linked it but it's the Times.
20189. Angel-Five - 2/25/2000 1:06:17 AM
I don't think it would be that big of a deal, for one reason -- it looks like the Indies would have to register as Republicans in order to be able to vote in the Republican primary. Some will be willing to do that, but many will not.
20190. Al D - 2/25/2000 1:06:22 AM
spud
Well, having the parents make choices for their children instead of the government would be nice. Now, does that enclude their choice in educating the child? It seems from your book that when a parent thought his child wasn't getting the education he deserved, the government was all over him for taking him out of the public school. I would have suspected that you really believed these decisions are better left to government. You seem to feel that whatever they do is just fine, and that those who have a beef with government are some kinds of kooks. Well, I've had a few run ins with government, and I never had a more powerful enemy.
20191. robertjayb - 2/25/2000 10:40:59 AM
.
McCain overwhelms Bush in Mass. poll
"The Arizona senator would crush Texas Governor George W. Bush by a nearly 2-to-1 ratio, 59 percent to 32 percent, drawing strong support from registered Republicans - a constituency that has tended to favor Bush in recent primaries - and the overwhelming backing of independent voters who expect to vote in the GOP primary."
20192. TrialShark - 2/25/2000 12:52:49 PM
RJB --
Those aren't "real" Republicans. Real Republicans are, by definition, those who support Governor Bush.
I hear the governor is doing real well with them.
20193. TrialShark - 2/25/2000 1:00:10 PM
From today's Los Angeles Times:
***
Bennett, Conservative Bulwark, Likes McCain
Politics: Former Reagan Education chief says Arizona senator a 'better bet' to win the White House.
By RONALD BROWNSTEIN, T. CHRISTIAN MILLER, Times Staff Writers
NEW YORK--Presidential candidate John McCain, who has faced relentless attacks on his Republican credentials from rival George W. Bush, received a boost Thursday from influential conservative leader William J. Bennett.
In an interview with The Times, Bennett--a former Education secretary under President Reagan who has advised both Bush and McCain this year--condemned the recent direction of Bush's campaign and said McCain is impressive.
"You can make the call right now that it is pretty clear that John McCain is a better bet for winning the presidency for the Republicans than George Bush," Bennett said.
***
Read the entire article here.
20194. TrialShark - 2/25/2000 1:08:30 PM
Hmmmm. Not only is Michigan Governor Engler a whiner, he might also be wrong. From the Detroit Free Press
***
McCain just may keep what he borrowed
Independents, Dems could stay with him in November, says poll
February 24, 2000
BY CHRIS CHRISTOFF and DARCI McCONNELL
FREE PRESS STAFF WRITERS
Non-Republicans crashed the GOP primary Tuesday and carried John McCain to a swooning victory.
Was it a one-night stand or a lasting relationship? There are signs of marriage.
A large percentage of McCain's Democrats and independent voters would vote for him again in the general election, according to a Free Press/WXYZ-TV telephone poll taken Tuesday.
Sixty percent of Democrats and 63 percent of independents who voted for McCain said they were very or somewhat certain they would stick with him in November.
That refutes Gov. John Engler's remarks that McCain had "borrowed" Democrats to beat George W. Bush. Engler is Bush's Michigan campaign chairman.
***
Read the entire article here.
20195. Ronski - 2/25/2000 1:12:25 PM
That's already been well established by a reading of the polls: the crossovers voted for McCain overwhelmingly because they liked McCain. Only a small number of party hacks and ideologues voted for McCain to embarrass Engler.
Bush whines in defeat. Engler whines in defeat.
Bush-Engler in '00. Perfect together.
20196. Al D - 2/25/2000 1:25:00 PM
The guy who not only whined but went balistic in defeat was McCain in S.C. This guy did not get a reputation for bad temper for nothing.
One question: McCain has said that if elected he will expose the graft takers in Congress. Do you suppose if he does not get the nomination, he will resign from the Senate and expose the graft takers? Isn't that what a real hero would do?
20197. cazart - 2/25/2000 1:28:23 PM
If McCain said that, Al D, I'd like to see a cite.
If he said it your point is perfectly valid; if McCain is so 'reform'-minded, why would he put any conditions on identifying graft takers. He wouldn't have to resign from the Senate to do so.
20198. TrialShark - 2/25/2000 1:35:46 PM
Al --
"One question: McCain has said that if elected he will expose the graft takers in Congress. Do you suppose if he does not get the nomination, he will resign from the Senate and expose the graft takers? Isn't that what a real hero would do?"
That's two questions. Not only do you have problems spelling, you also apparently can't count.
Here's a question back at you: do you have a source for that quote?
I ask because it's pretty obvious that you're a Bush sympathizer, and I wouldn't be a bit surprised to see you, um, paraphrase a bit.
20199. CalGal - 2/25/2000 1:46:27 PM
Sixty percent of Democrats and 63 percent of independents who voted for McCain said they were very or somewhat certain they would stick with him in November.
Do you think that now these folks will listen to us, TS?
I feel so....trendy.
20200. TrialShark - 2/25/2000 1:51:05 PM
Cal --
You live in the Bay Area. Of course you're trendy.
20201. CalGal - 2/25/2000 1:52:36 PM
Yes, but that's food, coffee drinks, and job selection.
I'm not used to being trendy in politics.
20202. TrialShark - 2/25/2000 2:01:40 PM
Cal --
It takes some adjusting, I know. You'll manage. [g]
20203. TheWizardofWhimsy - 2/25/2000 2:08:33 PM
20204. Ronski - 2/25/2000 2:38:19 PM
How does one distinguish graft-taking from the normal way of doing things in Congress?
20205. janjon - 2/25/2000 2:42:03 PM
God - don't you long for the days when graft was defined as tinkering with the stamp account? Boy, Dan R. was bad.
20206. cazart - 2/25/2000 2:47:39 PM
To tell the truth, I do seem to recall McCain saying that if he were President--he would identify those legislators who took special interest money in exchange for votes on specific legislation.
Not quite the 'graft-taking' charge levelled by Al D.
But it does point out a fact that kind of shows McCain to be a hypocrite. Why does McCain need to be President to do this? If it's the problem McCain is hyping it to be, why hasn't he done it in the past?
20207. TrialShark - 2/25/2000 2:54:55 PM
From the editorial page of today's Wall Street Journal, print edition, A-18:
***
... [Senator McCain] is one tough customer. So tough, indeed, that he thought it possible to show a little steel and issue a bulletin or two on the nature of the Bush Campaign in South Carolina, in his briefly famous concession speech -- a speech that quickly brought down on his head a chorus of shocked pundits and political nannies unable to get their minds around the spectacle of a candidate who had taken it upon himself to say what was on his mind. He had done himself in with this, it would blow up in his face, this was unprecedented ...
Nothing of the sort was even remotely true, of course, as any sane viewer instinctive understood ... Combativeness is a natural fit on Mr. McCain, as it has been on any number of American politicians, Harry Truman among them. In answer to Michigan's Gov. John Engler - architect of the asbestos firewall - and his complaint that Mr. McCain had "rented" the Democrats central to his victory, Mr. McCain told the governor to "be a man."
Telling words, those - very much the kind voters identify with John McCain, and the kind they understand.
***
Heh, heh, heh. And let's not forget our own Al D, signing along with the "nannies" of political correctness.
20208. janjon - 2/25/2000 2:58:20 PM
Trial. I would be very very surprised if those words actually appear in the Journal's editorials themselves. That would represent a flipflop in attitude that would be monumental for the hardheads who write that garbage. I also would be surprised (but not overwhelmingly so) if that came from Gigot's Friday column.
In other words, would you mind specifying the source a bit more? I don't have access to the Journal right now.
20209. PincherMartin - 2/25/2000 2:58:45 PM
Al --
Do you suppose if he does not get the nomination, he will resign from the Senate and expose the graft takers? Isn't that what a real hero would do?
No. You're taking his rhetoric too literally. By exposing them, it only means he will be a in position of power to expose them in a meaningful way. Any politician worth his salt doesn't care about symbolic gestures if he really wants to change the system.
20210. CalGal - 2/25/2000 2:59:50 PM
Anyone read Krauthammer today?
He seeks to explain the root cause for the response to McCain, and hits on the reason why I originally answered "McCain" to Niner's test question, some seven months ago:
He suffered for our sins. He did not die for them, though he came very close. At a subliminal level, this suffering has become in the public imagination a kind of expiation for the war itself. It explains why even people so ideologically distant from him find his experience so moving and his appeal so powerful. That war experience sets him apart from other politicians, others of his generation, and other contenders for the presidency--most starkly from George W. Bush.
It is not that one flew combat over North Vietnam while the other was a member of the Texas Air National Guard. It is that the early release that McCain refused--the essence of his heroism--was offered to him by virtue of his parentage.
A few days after capturing him, the North Vietnamese discovered that his father was an admiral, commander of all U.S. forces in the Pacific. Releasing the son of a famous and important American officer would have been a propaganda coup for them. McCain denied them that. He then endured years of torture for renouncing the privileges of his pedigree.
George W. Bush, on the other hand, has gained nothing but advantage from his pedigree. At every turn--favor, friends, funding. This is no criticism of Bush. It is what anyone in his position would do. It is perfectly natural for a son to take advantage of whatever associations nature and chance endowed him with.
It is just singularly unfortunate for him that his opponent in his quest for the Republican nomination is a man who, offered precisely the same paternal advantage, did what so few men would do: He turned it down. Fiercely.
20211. TrialShark - 2/25/2000 3:02:04 PM
caz --
Again, what's your source?
No offense, but you're pretty clearly a Democratic partisan. If you're going to parse the senator's words for signs of hypocrisy, let's make sure you're parsing his words, not your recollection.
20212. janjon - 2/25/2000 3:02:58 PM
Wow. Trial is taking being a Republican seriously.
20213. PincherMartin - 2/25/2000 3:06:57 PM
It distresses me, Al D., that you would try to run down a conservative war hero running for President on a conservative message. What are you, a lobbyist?
20214. Indiana Jones - 2/25/2000 3:11:41 PM
Great stuff, CalGal. I agree with Krauthammer about 95% of the time. He is sharp, sharp, sharp.
And IMO that editorial nails it.
20215. TrialShark - 2/25/2000 3:13:37 PM
janjon --
"... would you mind specifying the source a bit more? I don't have access to the Journal right now."
No problem. The author is a member of the Journal's editorial board named Dorothy Rabinowitz. The column appears on page A-18, on the right-hand side of the page, above the fold.
20216. janjon - 2/25/2000 3:14:51 PM
Ah, Rabinowitz. That makes sense. She's their token rational member of the Editorial Board.
Thanks.
20217. TrialShark - 2/25/2000 3:16:10 PM
janjon --
Everyone needs one of those. [g]
20218. Angel-Five - 2/25/2000 3:20:37 PM
I think that many of the Democrats and indies who have supported McCain in the primaries will vote for him this November. But a lot won't. John McCain is a charismatic fellow and he's making a lot of right moves,he's attracting a lot of voters, but let's face it -- McCain would not be quite the sensation that he is right now if he weren't running against Bush. And in November he won't be, if he's nominated.
He'll be running against Al Gore, who is hardly the most dazzling flash in the pan to grace the American political scene -- which means that a lot of the people who are pro-McCain because they're anti-Bush will stick with him, granted. But I'm guessing that a reasonable portion of the fervor for McCain isn't going to last down the stretch. He's relatively new to most people, he sounds good and plays the press right, he talks straighter than most people running for President, the Republican machine dislikes him which is always a bonus...
but the Republican machine will be fully behind him in November, he won't be so shiny and new, Bush will have smeared him to hell and back in the interim, and he'll still be a conservative. I think that Gore will be able to come closer to center than him, and that will win back a lot of people once some of the excitement fades off. And I think that a lot of people once (if) Bush is defeated are going to reappraise the situation as it stands.
He'll still end up attracting a lot of Democrats and I'm guessing a ton of indie voters; maybe enough to win.
As far as this 'democrat hijacking' thing goes, though -- let's face it. Committed Democrats who want Gore to be elected, and are willing to sabotage the Republican bid for the Presidency really only have one choice now and that's to vote for Bush.
20219. Ronski - 2/25/2000 3:32:36 PM
The latest polls continue to show Hillary is dead in NY, politically speaking. She gets no movement up, and undecideds continue to lead towards Rudy. She also continues to do badly with white women, for reasons lots of people are speculating about.
20220. CalGal - 2/25/2000 3:37:26 PM
No need for speculation--we can't stand her.
20221. janjon - 2/25/2000 3:37:41 PM
Don't want to repeat a lot of what was been said up above, but the odds are still heavily in W's favor to win the NOMINATION (that is for CalGal's benefit.) There are enough W-friendly Republican primaries only to allow him to have some clearcut "victories" in the next few weeks. And, the GOP Establishment will look for ANY rationale to justify sticking with W. I suppose if both Calif. and NY went for McCain, big, it could be more than just a bump for W. Especially NY where only Repubs. can vote. (Anyone doubt that W will win the regular Repub. vote in Calif?)
And, even assume McCain wins the nomination. There is no question that a lot of the support he is winning from the indys and Dems. right now will stay with him on the fresh/integrity/hero/unique/not Gore criteria. But, his staunchy pro-life/pro-gun/mostly just plain conservative record and expressed beliefs will cause his aura to sour for a lot of those types. Add to this the then inevitable Buchanan surge (at McCain's expense) and you've still got President Gore.
20222. Ronski - 2/25/2000 3:37:42 PM
In an appeal to GOP conservatives in California, McCain has endorsed the contentiousness-causing Knight initiative, which will define marriage as between a man and woman. As this ballot measure is largely unnecessary (no state is about to endorse gay marriage, and Vermont has ducked the issue by creating domestic partnership legislation), most Democrats oppose it, but it will pass anyway.
No important national Democrats actually come out in favor of gay marriage in any case.
McCain's move here is no surprise, and changes little with respect to his prospects in CA or in November should he get the nod.
20223. Indiana Jones - 2/25/2000 3:38:00 PM
A5: It would be truly unthinkable for McCain to beat Gore by 24 points--greater than Reagan/Mondale--considering the general mood of the country about how things are going and Gore is the sitting Vice President. So you're probably correct that the gap will shrink. You're likely also correct the McCain is about as hot a commodity as a politician can be right now, so it's unlikely his own popularity won't slip between now and then.
But I think McCain's bigger hurdle is securing the nomination, which he hasn't yet done. After that, he needs for it to be (virtually) a two-man race and to not screw up. Without something major between now and November, I certainly like his chances in a one-on-one with Gore.
Much better than Bush's.
20224. janjon - 2/25/2000 3:39:36 PM
Ronski. You are whistling in the dark. Hillary wins in Nov., not as big as Gore will in NY, but by at least five or six percent. Call it coattails if you want.
20225. Cellar Door - 2/25/2000 3:41:28 PM
Why speculate? To white women (did you ever see marco Ferreri's "Don't Touch the White Woman"?) she's an upscale Mary Jo Buttafuoco
20226. janjon - 2/25/2000 3:44:31 PM
Indiana. One on one for McCain would be the equivalent of a political orgasm. T'aint gonna happen. Those idiots in the RR will see this as their opportunity to really show the boys in the GOP what happens when someone they hate gets the nomination. Plus, by then, they will have convinced themselves that McCain is the true anti-christ. Or that maybe there are two of them out there.
20227. OhioSTOPAS - 2/25/2000 3:46:11 PM
Yes, Hillary is disdained by some women because of her tolerance of her husband's adultery.
But is that a reason to vote for Rudy the adulterer?
20228. Ronski - 2/25/2000 3:48:35 PM
Political coat tails in New York went the same way that dinner coat tails went in New York (when the tuxedo was invited in our state).
As I said before, we split tickets.
The last time a coat tail effect was noticed was in 1964, when mammoths still roamed the state.
20229. Toenails - 2/25/2000 3:49:06 PM
Anybody have a view on whether Perot has enough clout in his party to wipe the slate clean and cancel out Pat Buchanan? Could he engineer an endorsement of McCain as the Reform (as well as the reform) nominee?
20230. Ronski - 2/25/2000 3:49:36 PM
It was reported this very morning that Rudy is no longer wearing a wedding ring, but Donna still is.
20231. Toenails - 2/25/2000 3:50:30 PM
I heard it was really Buchanan who disrupted Perot's daughter's wedding.
20232. Ronski - 2/25/2000 3:51:37 PM
Toenails,
Unlikely. He might be able to get the nomination for himself, but not for a surrogate.
And McCain wouldn't take it.
20233. janjon - 2/25/2000 3:51:44 PM
Indiana. Rudy has gotten a free ride so far about his personal life. First marriage was annulled. No big deal. Open secret that this current one with Donna Hanover has been kaput for years. Open secret about various lady friends.
No big deal. But, it all will come out in some sort of roundabout ways. Not because of his morality, but because it will make him go bonkers (based on his more than curt refusals to discuss any of this to date). And, Rody gone bonkers is not a pretty sight. Even when he is cross-dressing as he likes to do.
20234. TrialShark - 2/25/2000 3:52:12 PM
I agree that Governor Bush has a lot going for him -- institutional support, infrastructure, and the ability to raise large sums of money as needed (though apparently not the discipline to spend that money wisely).
He's still the odds-on favorite to win the nomination. But to do so, he must do away with an extremely charismatic contender whose supporters will not be happy about the character assassination their man is enduring. Many of those folks won't under any circumstance be able to cast their ballots for Vice President "No Controling Authority," but I strongly suspect that damn few, if any, will be bothered to vote for the man with John McCain's political blood on his hands.
Some will look back at the shit-storm in South Carolina --and the stuff that's likely to follow -- and vote for Gore in November just for the sheer pleasure of watching George W. lose a national election just like his daddy did. Payback is a bitch ... and the governor seems determined to earn his share.
20235. Indiana Jones - 2/25/2000 3:52:20 PM
Perot has made it clear whose party that is. If McCain is the Republican nominee, I don't think Perot will back Buchanan.
20236. Ronski - 2/25/2000 3:52:46 PM
(...invented in our state)
20237. CalGal - 2/25/2000 3:54:31 PM
Ohio,
What makes you think women hate her because she tolerated her husband's infidelity?
We just can't stand her.
20238. Ronski - 2/25/2000 3:55:08 PM
New Yorkers could give a crap about Rudy's personal life.
If he were running for vice-president, then it would be a problem.
20239. CalGal - 2/25/2000 3:56:22 PM
TS nails it. If Bush wins the election, then figure that voter participation will plummet. He won't have enthusiasm on his side. And while some of the McCain Dems might vote for Gore against McCain in the fall, all of them will vote for Gore against Bush.
20240. janjon - 2/25/2000 3:58:58 PM
Ronski. You are correct. New Yorkers could give a crap about Rudy's personal life. That wasn't my point. Rudy has given extremely clear evidence (curt refusals to respond to questions, followed by petty retaliations against the particular newspaper etc. that dared to ask) that HE cares a lot. When it comes out, as it will in such a benign way, he'll go bonkers.
20241. Ronski - 2/25/2000 4:01:39 PM
janjon,
It's been out for years. There's no marriage. Rudy has actually handled this problem well with the press.
20242. PincherMartin - 2/25/2000 4:02:14 PM
I largely agree with Angel's Message # 20218
I also am not surprised with Ronski's Message # 20222. As these decisions by McCain -- should he win the nomination -- are put out by the Gore campaign, many Democrats will lose their infatuation with him as a candidate.
20243. TrialShark - 2/25/2000 4:02:45 PM
This has been an interesting discussion. If you'll all excuse me now, though, I think I'll go to lunch.
In Senator McCain's honor, I think I'll get Vietnamese.
20244. janjon - 2/25/2000 4:04:24 PM
ronski. He's handled it to date by refusing to comment. Period. Which in an ideal world is the way it should be. But from now until Nov. ain't the real world. He's given every sign of being more than just a bit touchy about being prodded on this topic. (True for other topics as well.) OF COURSE, "they" are going to try to make him lose his cool. And, they will.
20245. Ronski - 2/25/2000 4:04:33 PM
Just watch your language.(g)
20246. Ronski - 2/25/2000 4:05:04 PM
...45 to TS
20247. OhioSTOPAS - 2/25/2000 4:05:07 PM
Cal: I've read articles containing comments from women voters expressing that sentiment.
Why can't YOU stand her?
20248. Ronski - 2/25/2000 4:06:34 PM
janjon,
I really think he's going to be able to continue ducking this one. But I kinda hope you're right, because it would be wonderfully entertaining.
20249. CalGal - 2/25/2000 4:07:38 PM
As these decisions by McCain -- should he win the nomination -- are put out by the Gore campaign, many Democrats will lose their infatuation with him as a candidate.
Dems voted for Clinton after he signed DOMA. It doesn't take a Republican to sell out gays.
And as I've mentioned a few times, Dems already know of McCain's abortion stance, which is a critical area for far more Dems than gay marriage.
20250. CalGal - 2/25/2000 4:09:38 PM
Ohio,
She's a gender feminist, she subordinated her career to her husband's because she knew it'd be easier, and if she were my manager I know for sure she'd be the type that emphasized whether or not she could look good over the quality of the work done.
That's off the top of my head.
20251. janjon - 2/25/2000 4:11:09 PM
ronski. Well, on nothing more than a hunch, I suspect that he'll be hit with at least a double whammy. The wife not really a wife/girl friend(s) while married bit will probably be first, then there will be more of what we've already had a bit of recently - charges that Rudy's biggest contributors (ala that hassidic contractor in Brooklyn one of whose buildings collapsed recently killing one worker) have gotten "special" treatment from city authorities.) Then, of course, the city council will start passing all sorts of red-meat Demo. bills that Rudy will feel compelled to veto.
Its gonna be a fun summer.
20252. Ronski - 2/25/2000 4:12:56 PM
When I informed a gay activist, Democrat-partisan friend of mine that then-NYC mayoral candidate David Dinkins had come out against gay marriage, he swore he would withdraw his endorsement of Dinkins. I knew he wouldn't, and he didn't.
Only the most liberal Dems in the safest districts will tarry with that issue, like NYC's Rep. Nadler (who despite being a real lefty, is actually someone I respect a lot).
20253. Toenails - 2/25/2000 4:13:10 PM
I don't like Hillary, and I think Rudy has bad hair, but a decent-enough leadership record.
But if I lived in N.Y., I'd vote for Hillary.
'Cause I'm a YELLOW DOG!
20254. janjon - 2/25/2000 4:15:10 PM
If you think his hair is bad, you oughta get a load of his teeth. Scarry, up close.
20255. Ronski - 2/25/2000 4:17:09 PM
The NYC council is brain-dead. It's practically a requirement, written into the new city charter.
As for special treatment, that is a way of life in NYC, and no one cares about that either.
Still, I do hope for some pyrotechnics. I pray for debates. I'd probably skip the presidential ones (Where's Harry Browne, he fumed), but I'd watch the Hillary-Rudy Show with delight.
20256. janjon - 2/25/2000 4:18:42 PM
Ronski. Me too.
20257. Cellar Door - 2/25/2000 4:20:54 PM
Special treatment for who, Ronski?
20258. Ronski - 2/25/2000 4:28:54 PM
Cellar,
Everybody in NYC seeks favors. It's Tammany Hall, alive and well.
20259. OhioSTOPAS - 2/25/2000 4:29:09 PM
CalGal (Message # 20250): ". . . she subordinated her career to her husband's . . ." Well, the guy WAS the Governor. What would you have her do?
20260. andy - 2/25/2000 4:33:36 PM
Dow Closes Below 10,000
NEW YORK (AP) -- The Dow Jones industrial average today closed below the 10,000-level for the first time since last April as investors dumped old blue chips in favor of newer, fast-growing companies. The Dow fell 223.61 points, or 2.2 percent, to end at 9,869.02, bringing its drop for the year to 1,627 points, or 14.2 percent. Investors hammered Dow stalwarts such as GE, IBM, 3M and Hewlett Packard. The Nasdaq, which closed yesterday at a record high, fell 27.65 today to 4,590.00. Charles Pradilla, chief investment strategist at SG Cowen Securities, said: "People are moving out of the Old Economy into the New Economy."
20261. andy - 2/25/2000 4:35:15 PM
Albright: U.S. Will Watch Chechnya, China
WASHINGTON (AP) --Secretary of State Madeleine Albright used the occasion of the annual State Department report on human rights to ask Russia again "to launch full and open investigations into credible reports of massacres and other human rights violations in Chechnya." Albright also said the United States "will continue to speak out on behalf of those in China who are systematically denied basic political and religious freedoms." She also endorsed China's proposed entry into the World Trade Organization, saying it would set in motion changes that "will add to the pressures welling up from within China for greater personal and political freedom.
20262. OhioSTOPAS - 2/25/2000 4:35:32 PM
Conservative economists are now preparing the argument that the effect of the Ronald Reagan tax cuts wore off on February 25, 2000.
20263. JudithAtHome - 2/25/2000 4:36:34 PM
Diallo verdict to be announced on CNN in about 5 minutes.
20264. Ronski - 2/25/2000 4:39:08 PM
No one will care about the Dow unless it sinks to 7K.
20265. Toenails - 2/25/2000 4:42:54 PM
Ronski..
Speak for yourself. I'll sure as hell care!
20266. PsychProf - 2/25/2000 4:44:06 PM
Ronski...say what?
20267. Ronski - 2/25/2000 4:53:48 PM
Pardon my exaggeration.
But a drop of another thousand points, though more than just a correction (which we've obviously already had), is still not going to spook most voters. There wouldn't be enough time for severe repercussions to be felt.
20268. Ronski - 2/25/2000 5:05:46 PM
(I do express condolences to everyone's portfolios, including my own, small as it is.)
20269. andy - 2/25/2000 5:29:49 PM
10% of a $ 450,000 account is not a small change.
20270. andy - 2/25/2000 5:30:43 PM
Doug Goddard,
Are you on board ?
Got news for you.
20271. andy - 2/25/2000 5:32:07 PM
20272. andy - 2/25/2000 5:32:51 PM
Not guilty ?
20273. robertjayb - 2/25/2000 6:11:51 PM
.
WEEKEND'S TRAIL, per the AP:
"Alan Keyes attends an anti-abortion rally in St. Louis and campaigns in Richmond, Va. Bush is back in Texas until he flies to Washington state Sunday evening. McCain campaigns in Ohio on Saturday and Virginia on Sunday before returning to the West Coast.
"Bradley campaigns in Washington state all weekend. Gore will campaign in California and Washington state Saturday and Colorado and Arizona on Sunday."
20274. andy - 2/25/2000 6:22:13 PM
20275. arkymalarky - 2/25/2000 6:26:43 PM
While Clinton was gov, Hillary was a very respected and successful lawyer. But though I don't really like her either and I can't say exactly why, I do think people have been unreasonably hostile toward her, both in AR and nationwide.
20276. AceofSpades - 2/25/2000 6:31:58 PM
"While Clinton was gov, Hillary was a very respected and successful lawyer"
Wow-- you mean to say that when Clinton was the Attorney General and Governor, Hillary was a "respected and successful" lawyer in the state her husband ran???!
How'd she managed that?
20277. arkymalarky - 2/25/2000 6:33:25 PM
By being very competent in a large private firm in LR. You really have a suspicious nature, don't you?
20278. AceofSpades - 2/25/2000 6:36:31 PM
Arky:
Do you know what a "Rainmaker" is? It's a person -- whose talent is either lacking or irrelevant -- taken on by a firm, often made partner at a very young age not due to any talent but because of a family connection to an important client. Or, say, the Attorney General and then Governor of the state you practice in.
"By being very competent in a large private firm in LR."
Oh? Proof of this?
Word is that Hillary did nearly no legal work at all. Except for Madison Guarantee, of course.
20279. arkymalarky - 2/25/2000 6:40:16 PM
"Word is that Hillary did nearly no legal work at all. Except for Madison Guarantee, of course."
Oh really? "Word" from where? Hillary has never been accused of incompetence that I know of.
20280. AceofSpades - 2/25/2000 6:43:04 PM
"Hillary has never been accused of incompetence that I know of."|
Of, for god's sake. Incompetence is her DEFENSE in the Madison Guarantee fraudulent option case.
Were she competent, it would prove she knew what she was doing and therefore acted criminally.
20281. AceofSpades - 2/25/2000 6:44:00 PM
Jesus Christ. You're just a Rootin'-Tootin' Robot on anything to do with the Clintons, ain't ya?
20282. arkymalarky - 2/25/2000 6:46:49 PM
"Were she competent, it would prove she knew what she was doing and therefore acted criminally."
Hahaha. OK, it took me a minute to get that you were spoofing, but I see it now. Very funny.
"Jesus Christ. You're just a Rootin'-Tootin' Robot on anything to do with the Clintons, ain't ya?"
Take out "to do with" and replace it with "against" in the above quote and you've got you pegged. I already said I don't care for Hillary, and I don't think a lot of Bill either, but having a balanced, unbiased view of all things political, I can see that they're both very competent in their chosen fields.
20283. AceofSpades - 2/25/2000 6:48:27 PM
"but having a balanced, unbiased view of all things political"
Good one.
20284. OhioSTOPAS - 2/25/2000 6:56:13 PM
20285. OhioSTOPAS - 2/25/2000 6:57:11 PM I was referring to Message # 20234. 20286. TrialShark - 2/25/2000 10:24:17 PM 20287. Kitty~ - 2/25/2000 11:47:54 PM Hi everybody! I couldn't read it all so I'm jumping in here. Hope that's OK. Anybody talking about what those nasty old legislators did to our open primary initiative out here in California? What's up with those guys? 20288. TrialShark - 2/25/2000 11:50:24 PM 20289. CalGal - 2/25/2000 11:52:52 PM I'm the official greeter? What's up with your fingers, pal? You could at least say hi to newbies in this thread. (did you know we have others?) 20290. TrialShark - 2/25/2000 11:53:51 PM 20291. CalGal - 2/25/2000 11:55:59 PM I can't think of the conservative guy on Lehrer News Hour right now (Paul Gigot, maybe?) but he said that a Bush adviser told him that they are behind in several major Virginia counties. Haven't found a link yet. 20292. TrialShark - 2/25/2000 11:58:04 PM 20293. TrialShark - 2/25/2000 11:59:50 PM 20294. Indiana Jones - 2/26/2000 12:01:29 AM Isn't Pat Robertson from Virginia? Isn't that where the 700 Club is based? 20295. CalGal - 2/26/2000 12:02:26 AM No, I mean say hi to Kitty, silly, instead of telling me to. 20296. CalGal - 2/26/2000 12:03:32 AM TS, 20297. Indiana Jones - 2/26/2000 12:11:57 AM I don't know that much about Poindexter, but he never made a bad impression on me to begin with. I thought he stoically took the fall to protect the higher ups. And as I remember it, he wasn't like North in that he didn't try to make the whole thing seem like he should be getting another medal pinned on his chest. 20298. TrialShark - 2/26/2000 12:14:51 AM 20299. TrialShark - 2/26/2000 12:20:39 AM 20300. Angel-Five - 2/26/2000 12:22:19 AM And what's the first symbol you see when you go to this page? 20301. TrialShark - 2/26/2000 12:45:25 AM 20302. Angel-Five - 2/26/2000 12:47:31 AM Too bad the tank's only lit in daylight; we should make the tank cam a permanent link. 20303. ee - 2/26/2000 12:50:52 AM The Shark Tank. 20304. Kitty~ - 2/26/2000 1:20:26 AM Hi Trialshark. What a name! Should I be afraid of pending feeding frenzies? 20305. CalGal - 2/26/2000 1:23:46 AM TS, 20306. TrialShark - 2/26/2000 2:22:10 AM 20307. TrialShark - 2/26/2000 2:22:51 AM 20308. CalGal - 2/26/2000 2:58:13 AM Dearheart, if you're going to be cheap, it's possible that maybe you know someone who owns a copy. 20309. wonkers2 - 2/26/2000 8:32:30 AM Great 0p-ed columns on negative campaigning in Saturday's NYT by Anthony Lewis entitled "Willie Horton Redux" and Frank Rich entitled "Everybody into the Mudfight!" 20310. Toenails - 2/26/2000 9:32:03 AM 20311. LadyChaos - 2/26/2000 11:00:01 AM 20312. TrialShark - 2/26/2000 11:09:39 AM 20313. Absensia - 2/26/2000 11:30:01 AM Toenails: 20314. RosettaStone - 2/26/2000 11:57:58 AM I've never been a supporter of baby Bush, TS. My favorites are Alan Keyes, Bill Bradley, Pat Buchanan and, if I'm forced to, the MadDog. 20315. TrialShark - 2/26/2000 12:04:22 PM 20316. Cellar Door - 2/26/2000 12:05:57 PM That analogy doesn't quite work, Rosie. Darth Maul had no dialogue, whereas you couldn't shut Al up if you tried. 20317. TrialShark - 2/26/2000 12:09:23 PM 20318. RosettaStone - 2/26/2000 12:13:32 PM Okay, Darth Sidious. 20319. TrialShark - 2/26/2000 12:21:56 PM 20320. robertjayb - 2/26/2000 12:24:03 PM . 20321. TrialShark - 2/26/2000 12:24:58 PM 20322. CalGal - 2/26/2000 12:26:46 PM Hey, LadyC! Welcome back! 20323. TheWizardofWhimsy - 2/26/2000 12:40:08 PM Watch yourself around here Kitty~...some of them bite! 20324. Toenails - 2/26/2000 12:44:04 PM 20325. joezan - 2/26/2000 12:45:30 PM 20326. TrialShark - 2/26/2000 12:48:52 PM 20327. Absensia - 2/26/2000 12:49:05 PM Hope so, Nails. I hadn't seen that site, but I may be able to find the out of print Hunter S. Thompson book one of my brothers covets. 20328. Toenails - 2/26/2000 12:50:10 PM 20329. JudithAtHome - 2/26/2000 1:01:14 PM Absenia: 20330. TrialShark - 2/26/2000 1:03:26 PM 20331. Absensia - 2/26/2000 1:23:43 PM oops..posted this in sports by mistake: 20332. robertjayb - 2/26/2000 2:05:18 PM . 20333. robertjayb - 2/26/2000 3:59:58 PM . 20334. joezan - 2/26/2000 4:02:00 PM 20335. joezan - 2/26/2000 4:06:02 PM 20336. RosettaStone - 2/26/2000 4:19:46 PM Trillan only looks good after drinking a bottle of cheap red wine. 20337. JudithAtHome - 2/26/2000 4:36:13 PM Well, don't judge his meter... 20338. robertjayb - 2/26/2000 4:50:34 PM . 20339. JudithAtHome - 2/26/2000 5:35:59 PM Sorry, Robert...I forgot where I was for a minute. Must have been the "barf" and all that "sucking". I'm in awe. 20340. robertjayb - 2/26/2000 5:43:18 PM . 20341. TrialShark - 2/26/2000 6:24:47 PM 20342. robertjayb - 2/26/2000 6:49:50 PM . 20343. robertjayb - 2/26/2000 7:40:13 PM 20344. jexster - 2/26/2000 8:35:55 PM With the Newsweek Poll still showing Bush with a 2 to 1 lead among Republicans, it looks like the GOP would rather lose with Bush than win an election. Too bad. 20345. jexster - 2/26/2000 8:42:58 PM How The Moron Managed to Burn $60 Million in a Manure Pile - WP 20346. jexster - 2/26/2000 8:43:23 PM Bush still has a double digit lead in CA 20347. Indiana Jones - 2/26/2000 8:48:37 PM rjb (20343): First-rate article. Thanks for linking it in. 20348. jexster - 2/26/2000 8:51:59 PM Indy - If that isn't the Kiss of Death. Too bad TS, your poor battered karma sacrificed for what? 20349. jexster - 2/26/2000 9:11:23 PM GOP Leaders Blast Moronic Campaign 20350. LadyChaos - 2/26/2000 9:22:01 PM jexter, 20351. jexster - 2/26/2000 9:28:37 PM In 1978, I think it was, a local political consultant surprised the pundits with a new phenom in campaigning, the colored mail brochure. His tactic was widely credited with the election to congress of dark horse, Barbara Boxer. 20352. TrialShark - 2/26/2000 9:32:40 PM 20353. Goddard - 2/26/2000 9:36:24 PM Maybe Bush should do some more speeches at racist universities and put a few more people to death to try and jack up his lagging popularity. 20354. EricCartman - 2/26/2000 9:39:05 PM The execution of Betty Lou Beets won't come back to haunt Bush, but you can bet his catering to the BJU claque, and the Robertson loony wing of the GOP, will bite him in the ass but hard, should he seize the nomination from McCain (which he probably will). 20355. LadyChaos - 2/26/2000 9:43:16 PM jex, 20356. Goddard - 2/26/2000 9:44:29 PM I'm sure there are a large number of Demo strategists praying Bush does get the nomination. 20357. RosettaStone - 2/26/2000 9:58:06 PM One of the problems the Bushes always have is that they think they can switch from Lee Atwater imitiations to compassionate conservatism without anybody noticing. 20358. Goddard - 2/26/2000 10:04:20 PM I won't be voting for either of them but Gore seems to be the pick of the litter. 20359. Greystoke - 2/26/2000 10:05:42 PM Goddard 20360. RosettaStone - 2/26/2000 10:06:06 PM For the record, even after all this negative Bush coverage from John McCain's friends in the liberal media, Algore retains a 43% negative rating, far above Bush's in the low-30s. 20361. Goddard - 2/26/2000 10:09:55 PM >Who are you voting for? 20362. Goddard - 2/26/2000 10:12:36 PM >If the stock market poops out, WJC is going to slide into a black memory hole that only Jexster will want to fondly remember, and MadDog McCain will clean out the temple of the money-changers. 20363. RosettaStone - 2/26/2000 10:13:20 PM Grey: In case Doug Goddard is somewhere else in cyberspace, I'll tell. He's Canadian and is an unhappy denizen of TT's Politics folder. 20364. RosettaStone - 2/26/2000 10:15:01 PM Political Reality: The President takes the heat for the economy. 20365. Goddard - 2/26/2000 10:19:58 PM >I'm trying to encourage him to spend more time here. 20366. joezan - 2/26/2000 10:21:11 PM 20367. RosettaStone - 2/26/2000 10:21:25 PM The rules here are whatever CalGal says they are, Doug. 20368. Goddard - 2/26/2000 10:23:25 PM Oh Oh I don't think CalGal and I hit it off all that well over of TT. 20369. RosettaStone - 2/26/2000 10:26:22 PM Niner is also someone to worry about. A couple of weeks ago he didn't like what cazart was saying here and decided to delete 10 posts. He mistakenly deleted 100. 20370. Greystoke - 2/26/2000 10:29:30 PM Goddard 20371. Greystoke - 2/26/2000 10:31:36 PM Niner is not either "someone to worry about." Heck, he hardly ever shows up anymore. 20372. Goddard - 2/26/2000 10:34:40 PM >Really, the rules are simple and you are unlikely to run afoul of them in normal conversation. 20373. Greystoke - 2/26/2000 10:37:00 PM "Are political discussions permitted in the politics thread?" 20374. joezan - 2/26/2000 10:47:38 PM 20375. Goddard - 2/26/2000 10:53:09 PM >But you'd never know it, because he hasn't thrown anyone out yet. 20376. wonkers2 - 2/26/2000 10:58:38 PM robertayb, thanks for posting the news poem by Calvin Trillin. Contrary to joezan, who never got beyond Humpty Dumpty, he's quite a good poet. I posted several of his poems from "Deadline Poet" to the Fray last year. 20377. joezan - 2/26/2000 11:06:31 PM 20378. Indiana Jones - 2/26/2000 11:13:04 PM Sorry, joezan, but wabbit is the sysop (and you're right that she's apparently never thrown anyone out). I just help people get accounts when the automatic system fails. 20379. wonkers2 - 2/26/2000 11:14:13 PM Your problem is that he has a sense of humor and you don't. 20380. joezan - 2/26/2000 11:21:03 PM 20381. wonkers2 - 2/26/2000 11:21:31 PM Speaking of humor, I saw a pretty funny Michigan play tonight--"Escanaba in da Moonlight" by Jeff Daniels. It's about the Upper Peninsula deer hunting Soady family, father Albert, sons Reuben Soady and Remnar Soady, Jimmer Negamnanee, Ranger Tom Treado, a cross-dresser from the Department of Natural Resources and Wolf Moon Dance Soady, Remnar's Potawatamie wife. 20382. arkymalarky - 2/26/2000 11:23:36 PM "The allies said they still believe Bush will prevail in upcoming primaries. ``When it comes down to it, and they actually have to choose a nominee and a president, voters are going to be looking for the guy who had done stuff and not just look at the slogans and a lot of rah,'' Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee said. ``That's when Governor Bush will prevail.''" 20383. wonkers2 - 2/26/2000 11:39:06 PM ON DAVID DUKE AS REPUBLONAZI 20384. wonkers2 - 2/26/2000 11:45:08 PM GRAY AREA 20385. wonkers2 - 2/26/2000 11:51:55 PM EUREKA! 20386. wonkers2 - 2/26/2000 11:53:52 PM THE PICKED UP BY THE LOS ANGELES 20387. joezan - 2/27/2000 12:11:03 AM 20388. RosettaStone - 2/27/2000 8:46:42 AM Another item from Lucianne.com, a new web site for highbrow freepers: 20389. Cellar Door - 2/27/2000 10:22:19 AM I wonder why the freepers and their allies dislike McCain so. 20390. JudithAtHome - 2/27/2000 10:55:59 AM GW sure knows how to spend that money...$288.00 a minute so far. I hope when he stumbles into the White House, he doesn't continue in this reckless way. I don't care if throws his own money away; just keep his paws off mine. 20391. TrialShark - 2/27/2000 11:08:09 AM 20392. RosettaStone - 2/27/2000 11:09:51 AM Right, JuDY, where is Noami Wolfe when you need her? Ever since I've read about her makeover of Algore, I've been checking out his attire. 20393. CalGal - 2/27/2000 11:14:53 AM TS, 20394. Toenails - 2/27/2000 11:21:52 AM 20395. jexster - 2/27/2000 12:25:49 PM A Murphian Slip??? 20396. TrialShark - 2/27/2000 12:26:54 PM 20397. jexster - 2/27/2000 12:34:10 PM Haley Barbour reacting to McCain's Catholic Voter Alerts says "We shouldn't be injecting religion in political campaigns"! 20398. TrialShark - 2/27/2000 12:40:45 PM 20399. TrialShark - 2/27/2000 12:47:36 PM 20400. jexster - 2/27/2000 12:48:34 PM Not to mention the 70 million downpayment on influence peddling. 20401. bubbaette - 2/27/2000 1:02:26 PM Hey Niner -- I saw yer letter to the editor. Good letter and good response. 20402. TrialShark - 2/27/2000 1:14:56 PM 20403. jexster - 2/27/2000 1:20:22 PM Haley Barbour is such a fuckin fat joke. On CNN he was dismissing as "liberal media hype" the idea that McCain is electable and the Moron a born loser. 20404. TrialShark - 2/27/2000 1:22:46 PM 20405. Jonesy - 2/27/2000 3:09:45 PM Shark- Bennet's been suspect ever since the date with Janis Joplin. 20406. AceofSpades - 2/27/2000 3:12:08 PM 20407. TrialShark - 2/27/2000 3:47:44 PM 20408. TrialShark - 2/27/2000 3:51:31 PM 20409. jexster - 2/27/2000 4:18:46 PM Sounds like another Tejas Two Step to me. 20410. jexster - 2/27/2000 4:20:02 PM Look for GWB to attend Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament at St. Paddie's before joining the parade on 3/17. 20411. robertjayb - 2/27/2000 4:22:04 PM . 20412. RosettaStone - 2/27/2000 4:23:33 PM Jex: It's not that easy being a Catholic. Let me tell you from experience. 20413. Cellar Door - 2/27/2000 5:52:37 PM No, Rosie, let me tell YOu from MY experience. 20414. TheWizardofWhimsy - 2/27/2000 6:36:22 PM 20415. CalGal - 2/27/2000 6:45:46 PM Caught in the Switch, which is technically an article about Bradley's woes, has some interesting registration numbers: 20416. jexster - 2/27/2000 7:48:30 PM BJU: If the Shit Sticks, Wear It 20417. arkymalarky - 2/27/2000 8:50:16 PM I was told that's where Tim and Asa Hutchinson went to school. 20418. jexster - 2/27/2000 9:15:08 PM Arky: 20419. arkymalarky - 2/27/2000 9:16:28 PM Gee thanks. They're very popular fellas here, too. 20420. jexster - 2/27/2000 9:19:05 PM So much for the Theory of Negativity: 20421. robertjayb - 2/27/2000 10:11:27 PM . 20422. TrialShark - 2/27/2000 10:53:11 PM 20423. CalGal - 2/27/2000 11:33:29 PM TS, 20424. TrialShark - 2/27/2000 11:54:36 PM 20425. EricCartman - 2/28/2000 1:48:58 AM Message # 20416: 20426. JudithAtHome - 2/28/2000 9:32:12 AM Robert: 20427. cazart - 2/28/2000 9:49:26 AM One has to chuckle at the GOP frontrunners accuse each other of bigotry. It's a bit like CalGal tweaking Larry Fine for having 'bad hair.' 20428. cazart - 2/28/2000 9:49:57 AM 'reacist' is of course 'racist' 20429. cazart - 2/28/2000 9:54:46 AM From the above cite: 20430. robertjayb - 2/28/2000 10:18:17 AM . 20431. Ronski - 2/28/2000 10:19:37 AM 20432. robertjayb - 2/28/2000 10:23:42 AM . 20433. cazart - 2/28/2000 10:26:14 AM It is amazing. 20434. Ronski - 2/28/2000 10:45:36 AM 20435. stostosto - 2/28/2000 11:04:09 AM rjb 20436. Cellar Door - 2/28/2000 11:10:16 AM Denouncing an extreme element in your base. 20437. Dantheman - 2/28/2000 11:12:32 AM sto-cubed, 20438. Dantheman - 2/28/2000 11:12:54 AM cross post with Cellar Door. 20439. stostosto - 2/28/2000 11:16:07 AM Thank you CellarDoor and DanTM. 20440. CalGal - 2/28/2000 12:54:17 PM "Neither party should be defined by pandering to the outer reaches of American politics and the agents of intolerance, whether they be Lewis Farrakhan or Al Sharpton, on the left, or Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell on the right," McCain said in speech to about 1,500 people at Cox High School. 20441. TheWizardofWhimsy - 2/28/2000 1:00:32 PM 20442. CalGal - 2/28/2000 1:01:13 PM Haha! That's a good one. 20443. Dantheman - 2/28/2000 1:05:19 PM WoW, 20444. TrialShark - 2/28/2000 1:10:55 PM 20445. CalGal - 2/28/2000 1:14:26 PM Yeah, but isn't it cool that someone is finally doing the equivalency game on these two groups? 20446. PincherMartin - 2/28/2000 1:25:08 PM McCain is a gutsy politician. It takes some balls to attack one of the pillars of your party. It also appears that McCain is abandoning California to focus on the states he can win; He will not debate Bush in Los Angeles as previously planned (he claims Bush took too long to work out the details of the debate). 20447. Ronski - 2/28/2000 1:27:09 PM 20448. Ronski - 2/28/2000 1:30:26 PM 20449. CalGal - 2/28/2000 1:34:09 PM Bush is no bigot and if he panders to the RR, he is doing nothing different than any Republican candidates has done since Reagan in 80. If he aint courageous, he surely aint anything worse either. 20450. TrialShark - 2/28/2000 1:34:38 PM 20451. CalGal - 2/28/2000 1:35:50 PM But why do you say that McCain has been unfair in ripping Bush? Bush did indeed call out the zealots--or allowed them to be called out in his name. It got him the SC primary. Now he's paying the price. I see nothing unfair about that--I can't think of any other Republican in recent years who has won with such a reliance on that demographic. 20452. TrialShark - 2/28/2000 1:38:52 PM 20453. TrialShark - 2/28/2000 1:41:15 PM 20454. Ronski - 2/28/2000 1:41:26 PM I should add that I used to think Bush was a simple opportunist when it came to political and rhetorical gay-bashing, but I now entertain the belief that he is sincere in his prejudice against gay people. I could be wrong now, however, and perhaps was right the first time. 20455. CalGal - 2/28/2000 1:42:01 PM I agree--and that's what makes this period so alternately exciting and frustrating. 20456. CalGal - 2/28/2000 1:42:43 PM I was agreeing with TS. I don't think Bush has ever given gay folks a second thought, frankly. Neither for nor agin, just, "huh?" 20457. Ronski - 2/28/2000 1:42:50 PM 20458. TrialShark - 2/28/2000 1:44:27 PM 20459. Ronski - 2/28/2000 1:44:57 PM 20460. CalGal - 2/28/2000 1:46:49 PM Ronski, 20461. PincherMartin - 2/28/2000 1:47:06 PM Ronski -- 20462. PincherMartin - 2/28/2000 1:49:52 PM TS -- 20463. Ronski - 2/28/2000 1:51:47 PM 20464. CalGal - 2/28/2000 1:53:16 PM Pincher, 20465. PincherMartin - 2/28/2000 1:56:49 PM CalGal -- 20466. TrialShark - 2/28/2000 1:57:13 PM 20467. Al D - 2/28/2000 2:01:59 PM Ronski 20468. PincherMartin - 2/28/2000 2:03:26 PM TS -- 20469. Al D - 2/28/2000 2:08:13 PM McCain should run as a Democrat. I said earlier I would vote for him if nominated. I have changed my mind and will work to defeat him. He is a bigger liar and hypocrite than Al Gore, and that's going some. That is from an agnostic. So you guys figure how pissed off religious people are. 20470. TrialShark - 2/28/2000 2:11:56 PM 20471. PincherMartin - 2/28/2000 2:12:00 PM AlD -- 20472. Ronski - 2/28/2000 2:13:08 PM 20473. PincherMartin - 2/28/2000 2:14:28 PM Besides, Al, aren't you a Hawaii Republican? 20474. Ronski - 2/28/2000 2:15:37 PM 20475. robertjayb - 2/28/2000 2:16:54 PM . 20476. robertjayb - 2/28/2000 2:19:07 PM . 20477. CalGal - 2/28/2000 2:23:18 PM TS, 20478. Indiana Jones - 2/28/2000 2:26:12 PM TS mentioned something about Secret Service upthread. I don't think these guys have Secret Service protection yet...seems as though I read it in an article on McCain recently. 20479. CalGal - 2/28/2000 2:26:19 PM BobbyJ, 20480. JJBiener - 2/28/2000 2:26:58 PM CalGal - Although if he wins in the primary, I'll have to accept the company of the occasional wack job. 20481. CalGal - 2/28/2000 2:28:46 PM Yes, but they are the devil I know. 20482. glendajean - 2/28/2000 2:30:59 PM I assume that the convention wisdom is right in that Bush will end up overwhelming McCain over the next two weeks. But if he doesn't (and his track record doesn't inspire confidence), that means the Republican Convention will be what we Dems used to have at our conventions: armed camps. 20483. PincherMartin - 2/28/2000 2:31:18 PM AlD -- 20484. CalGal - 2/28/2000 2:32:39 PM Ronski, I just saw your post. If you are right, then I suspect opportunism, not bigotry. But that is probably because of his mother and father, who I admire as parents, if not their politics. 20485. cazart - 2/28/2000 2:32:43 PM I have to tell my old friend to pull back on his throttle and quit trying to fire heat-seeking missiles up everybody's tailpipe. 20486. CalGal - 2/28/2000 2:33:41 PM Pincher, 20487. robertjayb - 2/28/2000 2:37:29 PM . 20488. Ronski - 2/28/2000 2:37:30 PM 20489. Ronski - 2/28/2000 2:38:23 PM 20490. TrialShark - 2/28/2000 2:39:52 PM 20491. TheWizardofWhimsy - 2/28/2000 2:40:46 PM 20492. Al D - 2/28/2000 2:41:18 PM Pincher 20493. Ronski - 2/28/2000 2:41:30 PM 20494. JJBiener - 2/28/2000 2:42:33 PM I defend you against being bigots. 20495. TheWizardofWhimsy - 2/28/2000 2:44:01 PM 20496. Indiana Jones - 2/28/2000 2:44:36 PM Oops, per the Washington Post, McCain agreed to Secret Service protection just in the last few days. 20497. cazart - 2/28/2000 2:45:27 PM Ronski: 20498. PincherMartin - 2/28/2000 2:45:41 PM AlD -- 20499. TrialShark - 2/28/2000 2:47:42 PM 20500. CalGal - 2/28/2000 2:48:38 PM But it's a mark of his idiocy that he would consider (seriously) the fact that TS and I support McCain as a count against him. I mean, no matter how much I joke about it, I certainly wouldn't allow Davis support for McCain to affect my vote. Good lord, I voted Dem for years despite Al Sharpton, JadeGold, Elliot, and now Cazart. 20501. TrialShark - 2/28/2000 2:49:17 PM 20502. Indiana Jones - 2/28/2000 2:51:22 PM PM: I agree with what you're saying. 20503. OhioSTOPAS - 2/28/2000 2:54:07 PM Is the Secret Service going to be able to protect McCain from Pat R's hurricanes and earthquakes? 20504. PincherMartin - 2/28/2000 2:56:38 PM JJ Biener -- 20505. Indiana Jones - 2/28/2000 2:57:26 PM TS: It is getting rather ugly. I'm also starting to think there's a slim chance that McCain may run as independent if he doesn't get the nomination. Didn't think so before, but he's really starting to tear up the house with those heat-seeking missiles. 20506. JJBiener - 2/28/2000 2:58:37 PM Indy - I will grant you that issue advocacy ads are often thinly veiled political ads, but are you will to restrict them? 20507. CalGal - 2/28/2000 2:59:08 PM Would he be able to get on the ballot in all 50 states if he ran as an independent? How does that work? 20508. TrialShark - 2/28/2000 2:59:16 PM 20509. Cellar Door - 2/28/2000 3:00:19 PM REPUBLICAN MELTDOWN !!!!! 20510. PincherMartin - 2/28/2000 3:01:54 PM I will not support McCain if he is an independent candidate. Independent candidacies are for men who are running on vanity, not good political sense. 20511. PincherMartin - 2/28/2000 3:03:10 PM Cellar -- 20512. Ronski - 2/28/2000 3:03:23 PM 20513. CalGal - 2/28/2000 3:03:41 PM Pincher, 20514. TrialShark - 2/28/2000 3:06:20 PM 20515. Cellar Door - 2/28/2000 3:07:17 PM We're just working out some minor problems; we'll be ready for you in November. 20516. Indiana Jones - 2/28/2000 3:08:12 PM JJ: It might surprise you, but CFR isn't high on my issues list--despite my candidate of choice. I would like to see contributions restricted to private U.S. citizens, but I support the notion that an individual's right to spend his or her money to express a viewpoint should be pretty much unlimited. 20517. PincherMartin - 2/28/2000 3:08:35 PM CalGal -- 20518. cazart - 2/28/2000 3:09:21 PM Bush Jr is inevitable. 20519. CalGal - 2/28/2000 3:10:59 PM Pincher, 20520. Indiana Jones - 2/28/2000 3:15:10 PM PM: The reason I see the chance is ego. Though I much admire what I know of McCain, all these politicos have to have a pretty high opinion of themselves. Well, here he is in his 60s, obviously the most popular candidate running, and likely to be denied his place because of political machinery. 20521. robertjayb - 2/28/2000 3:17:03 PM 20522. robertjayb - 2/28/2000 3:28:23 PM . 20523. spudboy - 2/28/2000 3:32:58 PM Still whistlin' Dixie: 20524. cazart - 2/28/2000 3:45:15 PM Finally. 20525. spudboy - 2/28/2000 3:58:59 PM Finally? 20526. janjon - 2/28/2000 3:59:12 PM Is anyone else wondering if Virginia might be the setting for Alice in Wonderland? 20527. Ronski - 2/28/2000 4:00:47 PM 20528. cazart - 2/28/2000 4:03:27 PM Message # 2047 20529. cazart - 2/28/2000 4:08:14 PM Gilmore is a dummy. 20530. spudboy - 2/28/2000 4:09:39 PM Ha ha ha ha ha. Some education. Those links take us back to scintillating posts from Dantheman, Ace and Janjon. Pretty slick linking, smegma for brains. 20531. cazart - 2/28/2000 4:14:11 PM Fuck. 20532. PincherMartin - 2/28/2000 4:15:18 PM CalGal -- 20533. cazart - 2/28/2000 4:16:24 PM Well, hot damn, Mr. PotatoHead. 20534. CalGal - 2/28/2000 4:18:19 PM Not only does Spud post copiously on the militia and other groups on the fringe right, he is quite often teased or worse for his perceived paranoia on the subject. Not that facts matter much with Caz. 20535. spudboy - 2/28/2000 4:21:08 PM Actually, PM, if the Repubs are confronting their bigots, I'd hate to see them coddle them. McCain remains obdurate on the Quinn question, and Bush is playing ring-around-rosie on the Confederate flag issue in his home state, just as he did with a hate-crimes law for Texas in the wake of the James Byrd killing. And both pfutzed around the South Carolina battle flag issue. 20536. PincherMartin - 2/28/2000 4:21:36 PM CalGal -- 20537. janjon - 2/28/2000 4:23:36 PM teased on his perceived paranoia regarding the militia? That ain't paranoia. That's just perceptive analysis. 20538. TrialShark - 2/28/2000 4:23:49 PM 20539. janjon - 2/28/2000 4:25:29 PM Spoken with the vigor of a diehard Republican, trial. Even if it is only of a couple weeks' duration. 20540. TrialShark - 2/28/2000 4:27:39 PM 20541. CalGal - 2/28/2000 4:28:02 PM it's a severe distortion of Bush's record 20542. TrialShark - 2/28/2000 4:28:20 PM 20543. Ronski - 2/28/2000 4:29:39 PM 20544. spudboy - 2/28/2000 4:30:39 PM Hm. Speaking of Morris Dees ... here is the most recent work I've done with him and Potok. Working on a major piece for them currently, should be in the summer issue. 20545. JJBiener - 2/28/2000 4:31:20 PM Spuddy - I'm still waiting for someone to make a case that Sharpton is equivalent to Duke and the NeoConfeds. It hasn't been made, IMHO. 20546. PincherMartin - 2/28/2000 4:33:09 PM Spuds -- 20547. PincherMartin - 2/28/2000 4:34:21 PM 20548. janjon - 2/28/2000 4:35:45 PM My. What touchy feelings he engenders. Sharpton must be doing something right. These days, at least. 20549. PincherMartin - 2/28/2000 4:36:54 PM TS -- 20550. CalGal - 2/28/2000 4:38:37 PM Yeah, but no one ever argued that Bush could get Democrat support. Just a reasonable amount of the indy vote, giving them no reason to defect to Gore--or stay home. 20551. 109109 - 2/28/2000 4:42:41 PM Bad news for the Democrats on the Senate front. 20552. 109109 - 2/28/2000 4:45:31 PM Sharpton's involvement in the Brawley matter pretty much makes him as disgraceful a human as you can find. It is splitting hairs (though very impressive hair, in Sharpton's case) to make distinctions between he and other scumbags anywhere on the divide. To make the distinction is akin to saying, "Yes, but David Duke wasn't all bad." 20553. PincherMartin - 2/28/2000 4:46:06 PM Bush is a Robertson Republican because he can't get elected without him and his folk. Ain't no distortion involved in that. 20554. janjon - 2/28/2000 4:46:43 PM The Senate is lost this time around. 20555. 109109 - 2/28/2000 4:48:05 PM janjon 20556. TrialShark - 2/28/2000 4:48:18 PM 20557. spudboy - 2/28/2000 4:49:41 PM PM: 20558. Al D - 2/28/2000 4:51:34 PM It amazes me that so called intelligent people (their claim-not mine) get taken in by what is a media demonization of Bush. Of course, they need don't need a reason more than his name is Bush for the demonization, but they grab all they can. Look, either Bush is anti-Catholic or he is not. The fact that he spoke at BJU is meaningless. Dole did, Reagan did, the Democrat governor of S.C. did. Lindsy Graham last year received an honary degree. 20559. 109109 - 2/28/2000 4:52:04 PM spud 20560. CalGal - 2/28/2000 4:54:09 PM I don't like that Bush went to BJU, but he didn't go because he's a Robertson Republican, but because he was doing something that Reagan and his father had done in their election races: court the right to strengthen their base. 20561. 109109 - 2/28/2000 4:55:23 PM Cal 20562. CalGal - 2/28/2000 4:58:24 PM CalGal being the perfect average. 20563. Al D - 2/28/2000 4:59:42 PM This reason that Sharpton is not that bad to spud is that he is on the left and his main target is whites and Jews. Please don't take offense, spud. I'll buy dinner if you do to make amends. 20564. 109109 - 2/28/2000 5:00:05 PM Al Sharpton 20565. spudboy - 2/28/2000 5:00:22 PM Al-- 20566. 109109 - 2/28/2000 5:00:42 PM "Which we’ve been doing. But I think we got a better -- as long as we got a gentleman like Brother Granddad here, Brother Watchman, Brother Garrett, Carol Taylor, myself, and some others, we ain't gonna take no wooden nickels. We gonna see that this cracker suffer. You know, the excuse that they use in drivin’ this brother out of business is that they want the space in Black Harlem." 20567. 109109 - 2/28/2000 5:01:27 PM Whoops 20568. wonkers2 - 2/28/2000 5:01:40 PM He'll try but won't succeed. Cal is right. 20569. 109109 - 2/28/2000 5:02:19 PM "Brother Sikhulu -- stand up, brother -- on 125th Street. I want to make it clear to the radio audience -- and do you hear -- that we will not stand by and allow them to move this brother, so that some white interloper can expand his business on 125th Street. And we’re asking the Buy Black Committee to go down there, and I’m gonna go down there, and do what is necessary to let them know that we are not turnin’ 125th Street back over to outsiders as it was done in the early part of this century." 20570. CalGal - 2/28/2000 5:02:47 PM Niner, 20571. 109109 - 2/28/2000 5:02:56 PM "You remember when they first got in, John Dyson, the Deputy Mayor, said that it is all right, white boys have run for New York for X amount of years. It is clearly their intention on trying to retake anything they can and to eradicate and eliminate any semblance of Black power or Black stronghold in the city. And if we sit by and allow it to happen, we can’t blame no one but us. So we support this brother." 20572. 109109 - 2/28/2000 5:03:27 PM Cal 20573. spudboy - 2/28/2000 5:06:32 PM PM: 20574. janjon - 2/28/2000 5:06:39 PM McCain in many ways is doing the Dems. work for them. But, what choice does he have. He's no doubt concluded that the only way he can get the nomination is to attract the indys/etc. in those primary states where they can vote for him and, not so coincidentally, use that appeal to demonstrate to the Power Brokers that only he can win this Fall, not W. His lambast of both Robertson and Sharpton makes sense in this context. 20575. Raskolnikov - 2/28/2000 5:07:45 PM "Former Rep. Tim Penny (D-MN) has decided against challenging Senator Rod Grams (R-MN)." 20576. CalGal - 2/28/2000 5:08:23 PM Niner, 20577. Al D - 2/28/2000 5:09:00 PM The difference between Duke and Sharpton is so huge that it is silly to compare them. Three major candidates on the left has met with Sharpton. Can you name one serious candidate on the right who has not condemned Duke? Sharpton can at anytime he wishes lead a mob into a neighborhood and incite a riot and have his goons kill people and get no or little outcry from the media. Sharpton has almost unlimited access to the media to spout his crap. 20578. 109109 - 2/28/2000 5:09:57 PM Salon Interview 20579. 109109 - 2/28/2000 5:10:49 PM Rask 20580. TrialShark - 2/28/2000 5:11:09 PM 20581. spudboy - 2/28/2000 5:12:13 PM 109109: Hm. Lotsa anti-Semitism there. 20582. 109109 - 2/28/2000 5:13:08 PM Cal 20583. CalGal - 2/28/2000 5:13:13 PM The Conservative Conundrum : 20584. Raskolnikov - 2/28/2000 5:13:50 PM "Ciresi was already nailing Penny as a mini-Rod Grams." 20585. CalGal - 2/28/2000 5:14:18 PM Niner, 20586. 109109 - 2/28/2000 5:16:32 PM spud 20587. janjon - 2/28/2000 5:18:01 PM AlD - And if members of the GOP react that way to some of your verbiage, you can certainly understand how us good guys feel. 20588. 109109 - 2/28/2000 5:18:30 PM Cal 20589. janjon - 2/28/2000 5:24:07 PM 109109. You can already see it at play in those (few) reports that are getting through (in view of the overwhelming attention being paid to the McCain/W lovefest) about what Gore is saying. Characterizations like the GOP nomination fight being between two candidates each of whom want to take women's choice away from them, and so on. Gore especially has to hammer home on issues like that if McCain is the nominee, of course. 20590. CalGal - 2/28/2000 5:24:08 PM Niner, 20591. jexster - 2/28/2000 5:28:39 PM Revenge of the Gooks! 20592. 109109 - 2/28/2000 5:32:45 PM jan 20593. 109109 - 2/28/2000 5:34:38 PM Cal 20594. Al D - 2/28/2000 5:34:41 PM Trial 20595. jexster - 2/28/2000 5:35:13 PM Pretty damned impressive Field Poll Track Record Since 1948 20596. jexster - 2/28/2000 5:38:38 PM That would be Field Poll Track Record 1948-1998 20597. JJBiener - 2/28/2000 5:38:51 PM Expect Gore's campaign to be the most negative in history. There will be no lie or distortion that is beneath him. A major theme will be that in spite of his blatant attacks, it is the GOP candidate and not him who running a negative campaign. Also expect the faithful to jump through hoops to prove that Gore's lies aren't really lies. 20598. CalGal - 2/28/2000 5:39:56 PM Trial, 20599. janjon - 2/28/2000 5:40:58 PM Why Biener, I am surprised at you! You didn't add that the liberal media, of course, would be in cohorts with that bad Gore. 20600. CalGal - 2/28/2000 5:41:06 PM Niner, 20601. JJBiener - 2/28/2000 5:43:18 PM CalGal - As Gore has demonstrated, he doesn't need facts to accuse someone of racism. He (or his cohorts) will just make the accusation over and over and over until the public can repeat it in their sleep. 20602. CalGal - 2/28/2000 5:43:57 PM Jex, Jan: 20603. CalGal - 2/28/2000 5:45:10 PM JJ, 20604. TrialShark - 2/28/2000 5:45:55 PM 20605. Al D - 2/28/2000 5:46:29 PM I now know what McCain's appeal is to so many on the Mote and perhaps by Reagan Democrats: he has vowed to overturn RovvWade by appointing justices who will follow the Constitution (he has also stated that RodevWade is not Constitutional, and he favors the prohibition of same sex marriages. Perhaps I should re-think my position on McCain. Oh, wait a minute. I rememebeered what it was i don't like about the guy. His so called Campaign Finance Reform is pure bunk and he does not want an across the board tax cut. I also get the feeling he can talk out of both sides of his mouth at the same time. Too much like Clinton for my tastes. 20606. CalGal - 2/28/2000 5:48:13 PM TS, 20607. Al D - 2/28/2000 5:48:52 PM I never used the word idiot. 20608. TrialShark - 2/28/2000 5:50:18 PM 20609. CalGal - 2/28/2000 5:52:05 PM TS. 20610. PincherMartin - 2/28/2000 5:53:26 PM CalGal -- 20611. Al D - 2/28/2000 5:57:20 PM Well, CalGal, I'll reserve judgement on your physical beauty until I get that picture of you I was promised. But you seem to have a kind, gentle soul that has great appeal to me. 20612. jexster - 2/28/2000 5:57:38 PM Pincher and I both mentioned earlier that it makes sense for McCain to punt in California 20613. jexster - 2/28/2000 5:57:44 PM Pincher and I both mentioned earlier that it makes sense for McCain to punt in California 20614. PincherMartin - 2/28/2000 6:01:31 PM Jexter -- 20615. CalGal - 2/28/2000 6:01:58 PM Jex, 20616. jexster - 2/28/2000 6:02:33 PM For those of us who think he's the biggest clown since Dan Quayle 20617. JJBiener - 2/28/2000 6:02:52 PM CalGal - He'd have to be accurate about McCain, given that if he goes too far on the lies, he risks alienating the centrist Dems and indies who might otherwise vote for him. 20618. CalGal - 2/28/2000 6:04:08 PM JJ, 20619. jexster - 2/28/2000 6:04:30 PM PM_ 20620. PincherMartin - 2/28/2000 6:10:39 PM CalGal -- 20621. jexster - 2/28/2000 6:12:00 PM Cal - 20622. JJBiener - 2/28/2000 6:13:02 PM CalGal - It's not a matter of Gore being stupid. The negative extreme worked well for Clinton/Gore. Gore is not going to abandon a strategy that has worked so well for him to this point. The problem is that he isn't Clinton, and he isn't going to be able to pull it off. If you have any doubt, look at his campaign to this point. He hasn't hesitated to let loose some real whoppers against both Bradley and the GOP. 20623. PincherMartin - 2/28/2000 6:14:03 PM Jexter -- 20624. jexster - 2/28/2000 6:15:08 PM And George "Son of Attwater" Bush... 20625. JJBiener - 2/28/2000 6:16:03 PM Jex - Maybe you can clear something up for me. Why do you insist on characterizing every disagreement as an expression of hatred? 20626. JJBiener - 2/28/2000 6:18:33 PM Jex - I understand the source of your anger. Why do assume that everyone else is likewise consumed? 20627. PincherMartin - 2/28/2000 6:22:48 PM Jxter -- 20628. jexster - 2/28/2000 6:24:38 PM PM- 20629. jexster - 2/28/2000 6:26:14 PM PM - I didn't say McCain would lose CA in November to Gore (though I think he would). I said, if I wasn't clear, that he will never get to November. 20630. jexster - 2/28/2000 6:27:32 PM JJB: 20631. PincherMartin - 2/28/2000 6:33:07 PM Jexter -- 20632. TrialShark - 2/28/2000 6:37:20 PM 20633. PincherMartin - 2/28/2000 6:40:34 PM By the way, the religious right makes up 17% of the electorate and their support for the Republican candidates in the last two elections is just over 60% of their numbers. So the RR is not as fundamental to Republicans as African-Americans are to Democrats. 20634. CalGal - 2/28/2000 6:43:51 PM What percentage of the electorate is black? 20635. JJBiener - 2/28/2000 6:53:15 PM Jex - What hatred JJ? 20636. Cellar Door - 2/28/2000 7:12:35 PM Because that's what politics has become after eight years of relentless dumping on Clinton,J.J. 20637. Al D - 2/28/2000 7:34:42 PM Oh yea, any moderate would know that all of the hatred dumped on Clinton is responsible for the state of politics as we know it today. I guess if you were born 8 years ago, that would be very obvious. On the other hand, if you had any knowledge of history, you might have seen some of this ugliness 180 years ago when even Candidates wives were fair game. 20638. PincherMartin - 2/28/2000 7:34:51 PM CalGal -- 20639. CalGal - 2/28/2000 7:39:31 PM Pincher, 20640. PincherMartin - 2/28/2000 7:50:47 PM CalGal -- 20641. Cellar Door - 2/28/2000 7:50:58 PM So it's better to be taken for granted by race-baiters. Fabulous. 20642. PincherMartin - 2/28/2000 7:52:19 PM Cellar -- is that to me or CalGal? 20643. CalGal - 2/28/2000 8:03:14 PM Are those percentages for the RR nationwide, or is it calculated by each state? If the latter, I suspect a lot of it comes from RRs voting for conservative Dem incumbents in the South. If the former, then they are actually more akin to gays and Hispanics than African Americans. 20644. CalGal - 2/28/2000 8:03:22 PM although I must say that I haven't heard of AA's disappearing act 20645. Al D - 2/28/2000 8:06:22 PM While Keyes does not have a great deal of support, his supporters are dedicated to him. Now who are these folks? I guess they wouldn't be from the RR since most of those folks are white racists. Maybe it is them, but only the blind ones who can't see that this dude is Black. Maybe it's Black gays, like Mr. Cellar. It sure is a mystery to me, but then, what isn't? 20646. robertjayb - 2/28/2000 8:07:36 PM . 20647. CalGal - 2/28/2000 8:07:50 PM I'm sure you have a point. 20648. spudboy - 2/28/2000 8:10:28 PM Another assault from the right: 20649. Cellar Door - 2/28/2000 8:11:41 PM While Keyes does not have a great deal of support, his supporters are dedicated to him. Now who are these folks? 20650. CalGal - 2/28/2000 8:14:28 PM As I said, I don't think there's much out there with McCain on the racist front. 20651. Al D - 2/28/2000 8:14:32 PM Cellar 20652. Al D - 2/28/2000 8:15:29 PM if=in 20653. PincherMartin - 2/28/2000 8:27:08 PM CalGal - 20654. PincherMartin - 2/28/2000 8:29:05 PM Spuds -- 20655. spudboy - 2/28/2000 8:29:47 PM PM: 20656. PincherMartin - 2/28/2000 8:31:37 PM CalGal -- 20657. spudboy - 2/28/2000 8:32:50 PM The same. I also recall Thurmond practically copping a feel from some of the postpubescents who surrounded him. I gather that Bill was gathering tips. 20658. CalGal - 2/28/2000 8:33:10 PM Pincher, 20659. CalGal - 2/28/2000 8:36:54 PM Didja see the way Gore handed Bradley his head when he tried to imply that the Black Caucus wasn't well-informed on Gore's record? 20660. PincherMartin - 2/28/2000 8:38:16 PM Spuds -- 20661. PincherMartin - 2/28/2000 8:47:45 PM Spuds 20662. spudboy - 2/28/2000 8:50:40 PM For amusement purposes only ... 20663. PincherMartin - 2/28/2000 8:51:04 PM CalGal -- 20664. PincherMartin - 2/28/2000 8:57:26 PM CalGal -- 20665. robertjayb - 2/28/2000 8:58:56 PM . 20666. spudboy - 2/28/2000 8:59:35 PM PM: 20667. spudboy - 2/28/2000 9:03:15 PM Some handy facts, from our friends at the AP: 20668. spudboy - 2/28/2000 9:03:28 PM NEW HAMPSHIRE: 2000 GOP primary. 20669. jexster - 2/28/2000 9:30:51 PM Spuds, 20670. jexster - 2/28/2000 9:32:18 PM Well the Top Secret, Eyes Only communique from Wabbit has arrived. Alas, the new computer hasn't but it will be here by Thursday. 20671. jexster - 2/28/2000 9:36:57 PM Not between you and me or the other here. I am talking about how every disagreement between political figures is expressed in terms of hatred 20672. jexster - 2/28/2000 9:44:03 PM Oh shit how could I forget Phil "No-chin" Gramm - hate him too! 20673. jexster - 2/28/2000 9:48:06 PM McCain is taking a real beating on local media for his "snub" of California. NBC local led with "Is McCain Conceding California" 20674. Greystoke - 2/28/2000 10:52:34 PM Jexster 20675. jexster - 2/29/2000 12:07:10 AM As Splinters 'n Splits [NYT] 20676. PincherMartin - 2/29/2000 12:09:13 AM What Republicans do you love, Jexter baby? 20677. TheWizardofWhimsy - 2/29/2000 12:14:48 AM 20678. bsilent - 2/29/2000 8:02:52 AM The Republicans had better get it together and elect 20679. RosettaStone - 2/29/2000 8:37:44 AM They don't call them the "Stupid Party" for nothing. 20680. cazart - 2/29/2000 8:39:26 AM Uh oh. Did McCain lie about his religion? 20681. Indiana Jones - 2/29/2000 8:56:11 AM The campaign that lost its way 20682. RosettaStone - 2/29/2000 9:04:30 AM Bob Novak had a great line last night on Crossfire. 20683. Dantheman - 2/29/2000 9:16:10 AM News Pennsylvania polls - we hold a closed primary on April 4: 20684. RosettaStone - 2/29/2000 11:21:00 AM A six-year-old boy shot a first-grade classmate in Mt. Morris Twp, Michigan. 20685. Indiana Jones - 2/29/2000 11:21:34 AM RS: I have my stopwatch. 20686. janjon - 2/29/2000 11:26:02 AM Gee, Rosetta. Don't you at least wonder how the six year old got the gun he used? 20687. theDiva - 2/29/2000 11:27:12 AM A little girl, right inside the elementary school, according to CNN. I feel ill. 20688. jexster - 2/29/2000 11:28:16 AM GOP Wackos Fear Bush Will Cost Them The House - Post 20689. cazart - 2/29/2000 11:30:22 AM How long will it be before the GOP claims the tragedy would have been avoided if the little girl was armed? 20690. jexster - 2/29/2000 11:30:28 AM I haven't been to Mass for two weeks and look what I miss. The Catholic Church has incorporated the Episcopalian faith. 20691. JudithAtHome - 2/29/2000 11:30:51 AM And gee, Rosetta, do you think he'd have done as much harm with a nerf ball? 20692. jexster - 2/29/2000 11:32:47 AM PM - 20693. RosettaStone - 2/29/2000 11:45:16 AM Who should be punished? 20694. Cellar Door - 2/29/2000 11:45:26 AM I have never knowingly had sex with a Republican. 20695. glendajean - 2/29/2000 11:47:30 AM But Celler, you've had sex. So you're no good as a candidate. Now if you, like Jake Barnes, had lost some equipment along the way, you might be able to pull it off. 20696. Dantheman - 2/29/2000 11:49:10 AM glendajean, 20697. JudithAtHome - 2/29/2000 12:06:54 PM Ouch! 20698. Ronski - 2/29/2000 12:07:30 PM 20699. jexster - 2/29/2000 12:07:32 PM Cllrdr - The operative word is "knowingly". Perhaps one or two on the Pier or in some dark back room in the Village or the Continental Baths? 20700. jexster - 2/29/2000 12:09:09 PM "You can't endorse me, but I endorse you," Mr. McCain denounced Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell today as "agents of intolerance." 20701. robertjayb - 2/29/2000 12:10:27 PM . 20702. jexster - 2/29/2000 12:11:36 PM (3) Al Gore and Mrs. William Clinton for okaying the cluster bombing of Serbian citizens. 20703. TheWizardofWhimsy - 2/29/2000 12:14:15 PM ... 20704. jexster - 2/29/2000 12:16:14 PM George W. Bush is now running a TV ad around the country that claims: "While Washington was deadlocked, he passed a patients' bill of rights. Under Gov. Bush, Texas enacted some of the most comprehensive patient protection laws in the nation." 20705. RosettaStone - 2/29/2000 12:20:32 PM Who is this wizard, and why are we so "lucky" to see his work? 20706. jexster - 2/29/2000 12:20:58 PM Unless McCain voted against the PBR that is. 20707. jexster - 2/29/2000 12:21:48 PM Go WoW GO!!! 20708. janjon - 2/29/2000 12:21:52 PM Go, Wizard, go!!! 20709. jexster - 2/29/2000 12:22:52 PM For Rosie's Kosova Thread - I could use one of Servian bridge dancers ducking as thousands of cluster bombs fall 20710. janjon - 2/29/2000 12:22:56 PM Now, that could be entered in the crosspost sweepstakes. If there was a crosspost sweepstakes, of course. 20711. theDiva - 2/29/2000 12:24:26 PM More on the shooting of the 6 year old girl, who is still alive. 20712. janjon - 2/29/2000 12:27:43 PM So, making a number of assumptions, a likely scenario is that the kid found the gun at home (bedside drawer? in a closet?) and took it to school to show it off. 20713. RosettaStone - 2/29/2000 12:34:44 PM It's one of the reasons why we have no weapons in our house. My wife has a temper. 20714. TrialShark - 2/29/2000 12:49:38 PM 20715. TrialShark - 2/29/2000 1:01:35 PM 20716. theDiva - 2/29/2000 1:02:11 PM Fuck. At what time? Maybe you heard an old report, ohplease. 20717. janjon - 2/29/2000 1:03:15 PM any word yet on whether they will attempt to try the shooter as an adult? 20718. theDiva - 2/29/2000 1:03:53 PM latest on CNN was posted 12:12 pm. I'll look more. 20719. TrialShark - 2/29/2000 1:04:29 PM 20720. janjon - 2/29/2000 1:04:43 PM and surely the prison construction industry has already seen that there is a new niche to be filled. This also would help the economy by creating new jobs. 20721. TrialShark - 2/29/2000 1:05:44 PM 20722. theDiva - 2/29/2000 1:07:16 PM Dammit. Dammit. 20723. theDiva - 2/29/2000 1:09:06 PM I guess they were waiting for her parents to get there to release the news. Thanks, Trial. I couldn't find it. 20724. TrialShark - 2/29/2000 1:17:02 PM 20725. theDiva - 2/29/2000 1:19:51 PM Sure doesn't make dropping Gracie off any easier, either. 20726. janjon - 2/29/2000 1:20:35 PM Trial. You don't have any guns at home, do you? 20727. Ronski - 2/29/2000 1:20:54 PM 20728. TrialShark - 2/29/2000 1:22:25 PM 20729. theDiva - 2/29/2000 1:22:26 PM Imagine what her parents are feeling. The horror. 20730. janjon - 2/29/2000 1:23:31 PM Ronski. You must have facts that I don't have yet. Did the kid find the gun at home? (it could have been at a friend's house, or possibly another relative, etc.) Even *I* don't think anyone would have given or sold etc. to a kid that age. 20731. theDiva - 2/29/2000 1:24:04 PM We have a shotgun and I wish to God we didn't. My father-in-law gave it to Sweetie as a gift....where he's from, shotguns are as natural a part of the home as a bathroom. I guess I'm just a city-bred Yankee, but I am so damned uncomfortable with that thing in the house. 20732. janjon - 2/29/2000 1:24:09 PM How about you, Diva. Any guns at home? 20733. janjon - 2/29/2000 1:25:04 PM oops. crosspost. 20734. theDiva - 2/29/2000 1:25:42 PM cp! 20735. theDiva - 2/29/2000 1:27:14 PM Ammo is kept separately, and the shotgun has a lock. 20736. janjon - 2/29/2000 1:28:03 PM Diva. I don't want to be an alarmist or a cassandra, and your Gracie is now (I think) at an age where you can be relatively sure she won't fall prey to the guns-are-such-fascinating-toys syndrome, but study after study shows that kids do indeed KNOW where guns are "hidden" in houses. 20737. theDiva - 2/29/2000 1:28:06 PM I leave the room when he cleans it or takes it out. I hate having it in the house. 20738. theDiva - 2/29/2000 1:29:19 PM JanJon 20739. CalGal - 2/29/2000 1:30:44 PM While there's no point in blaming anyone, I do wonder what the parents were doing with a loaded weapon and a 7 year old. Unless he'd figured out how to load it by himself. More immediately, I wonder what the hell the teacher was doing. 20740. CalGal - 2/29/2000 1:33:54 PM This seems to be a mostly poor neighboorhood--is Joe Zan around anywhere? 20741. janjon - 2/29/2000 1:34:49 PM Diva. I tread where I perhaps shouldn't, but an eight year old's "schooling" in gun safety shouldn't be very reassuring. Especially with handguns (which obviously isn't what you have). Short of getting rid of a gun, the only sure way of keeping it from kids is to lock it up. Securely. With the ammo. locked up separately. Securely. The more enlightened states in this country have laws requiring this. Not mine, unfortunately. Yet. 20742. Ronski - 2/29/2000 1:35:08 PM 20743. janjon - 2/29/2000 1:35:30 PM There certainly IS a point in blaming someone! 20744. TrialShark - 2/29/2000 1:35:47 PM 20745. theDiva - 2/29/2000 1:37:57 PM JanJon 20746. Ronski - 2/29/2000 1:40:51 PM 20747. janjon - 2/29/2000 1:41:44 PM Diva. You should at least take comfort in that it isn't a handgun. Much more attractive to kids, ala playing cops & robbers, cowboys, etc. Much easier for them to handle. Much more difficult to conceal (like a 7 year old kid most likely would never be able to get it to or in a school.) Much more likely to result in an "accident". (Kids who are supposedly gun savvy frequently will be clever enough to unload the handgun. Right. Except they don't know about the bullet in the chamber. Bang bang. (excuse me. That should be bang.) Someone is frequently dead. 20748. CalGal - 2/29/2000 1:41:47 PM TS, 20749. Dantheman - 2/29/2000 1:43:18 PM 20750. janjon - 2/29/2000 1:43:38 PM CalGal. Not surprised to hear that you bore easily. 20751. theDiva - 2/29/2000 1:44:17 PM I'll tell youse one thing. I'm pretty damned sick of hearing about kids being shot. 20752. CalGal - 2/29/2000 1:44:34 PM JanJon, 20753. janjon - 2/29/2000 1:46:09 PM CalGal. I see. Facts (incidents, as you call them) are not relevant to analyzing and formulating policy. Keep everything in the abstract, so to speak. 20754. Ronski - 2/29/2000 1:50:55 PM In defense of Cal, there is a difference between facts and incidents, a difference between statistics and anecdotes, horrible as those anecdotes may be. 20755. janjon - 2/29/2000 1:54:53 PM Ronski. The anecdotes add up to statistics. The statistics show that one of the more senseless aspects of the gun mania in this country is the numbers of children who get killed or injured by other children in "accidents" involving guns. Usually handguns which they somehow know how to find at home. 20756. janjon - 2/29/2000 1:57:13 PM The following comes from an AP story on the killing (in turn from the MSNBC online site): 20757. JudithAtHome - 2/29/2000 1:58:13 PM I heard on the news that the kid brought the gun because he was mad at another kid...this doesn't sound like "show and tell" gone awry. 20758. janjon - 2/29/2000 2:00:07 PM Judith. All the facts aren't known yet. Gotta know how the kid got the gun. With a seven year old, from home is the logical conclusion, but it is a whacky world out there. 20759. CalGal - 2/29/2000 2:01:06 PM Janjon, 20760. jexster - 2/29/2000 2:02:22 PM The especially galling thing about GWB's ads now running in CA is that the voice-over "While Washington deadlocked, I got a Patient's Bill of Rights" with picture of old woman being helped by health care worker lie begins with "DO NOT QUESTION MY INTEGRITY"!!! 20761. Ronski - 2/29/2000 2:03:20 PM janjon, 20762. spudboy - 2/29/2000 2:14:14 PM Wondering if the McCain supporters can explain to us here why McCain lied about the phone campaign in Michigan. Isn't this the guy who promised us he'd never, ever lie to the American people? 20763. janjon - 2/29/2000 2:14:52 PM CalGal. You make so many erroneous assumptions and faulty conclusions that the mind boggles as to where to begin and what to include. 20764. JudithAtHome - 2/29/2000 2:15:20 PM Did he say that or just that he would be a good politician? 20765. janjon - 2/29/2000 2:18:37 PM Ronski. I don't think we disagree at all. Unfortunately, common sense doesn't seem to have worked when it comes to what you would think would be just plain common sense - people who have children or who have children visiting at home who choose to keep guns at home should lock those guns and their ammo up. Securely. So, if common sense doesn't work - I guess legislation and penalties for not having done so when those occasional horrid (and emotion-rousing) "accidents" occur. 20766. TrialShark - 2/29/2000 2:22:35 PM 20767. CalGal - 2/29/2000 2:28:18 PM Jan, 20768. CalGal - 2/29/2000 2:29:30 PM TS, 20769. ChristiPeters - 2/29/2000 2:33:50 PM OK, I was going to post this earlier and saw we were in the middle of yet another there's-been-a-school-shooting-gun-control thang and didn't want to interrupt. 20770. 109109 - 2/29/2000 2:34:49 PM I have cast my ballot in Virginia for McCain. 20771. ChristiPeters - 2/29/2000 2:36:01 PM To quote from the column: 20772. ChristiPeters - 2/29/2000 2:37:05 PM Liar! Liar! Pants on fire! 20773. CalGal - 2/29/2000 2:38:43 PM Niner, 20774. JudithAtHome - 2/29/2000 2:38:59 PM Niner: 20775. 109109 - 2/29/2000 2:39:45 PM I predict Gore will win in November. 20776. CalGal - 2/29/2000 2:41:25 PM Christi, 20777. Cellar Door - 2/29/2000 2:42:29 PM Niner -- we agree! 20778. JudithAtHome - 2/29/2000 2:44:36 PM I agree with Christi, though....why does he get to go around boasting about a bill he didn't even sign and leaving the impression he did something he didn't do? Where's the outrage? Where are the calls for him to be a man and tell the truth? He's running on his record here in Texas and everyone assumes that because he SAYS it, it's true. 20779. robertjayb - 2/29/2000 2:46:03 PM . 20780. Raskolnikov - 2/29/2000 2:46:14 PM "Yeah, but do you think anyone who would vote for Bush would do so because of his stand on PBOR?" 20781. JJBiener - 2/29/2000 2:46:20 PM Christi - How is this different from Gore taking credit for welfare reform after he and his boss opposed it and his boss vetoed it? It is SOP for the chief exec to take credit for everything that happened on his watch regardless of his position on it. It is a bit selective of you to be outraged at Bush over this and not Gore. 20782. Raskolnikov - 2/29/2000 2:46:34 PM I guess it isn't fair to an Ace impression when he isn't here. 20783. TrialShark - 2/29/2000 2:47:16 PM 20784. 109109 - 2/29/2000 2:47:49 PM robert 20785. JudithAtHome - 2/29/2000 2:48:43 PM CalGal: 20786. spudboy - 2/29/2000 2:49:17 PM Disagree with him if you like, Judith, but don't question his integrity. 20787. Raskolnikov - 2/29/2000 2:50:19 PM Well, Clinton *can* take a lot of credit for welfare reform. He authorized the exemptions in places like Wisconsin which demonstrated that welfare reform could make a lot of progress in moving people off of welfare rolls. These exemptions provided the intellectual framework which justified welfare reform in the eyes of a lot of people. 20788. Indiana Jones - 2/29/2000 2:50:34 PM spudboy: The Slate piece doesn't give enough details to respond to. It's worded too vaguely to tell what McCain was asked and what he said. I did a search at the NY Times site for articles by Barstow on McCain and there wasn't one (Web) published on Sunday. 20789. ChristiPeters - 2/29/2000 2:51:00 PM JJ - 20790. CalGal - 2/29/2000 2:51:52 PM Christi, 20791. ChristiPeters - 2/29/2000 2:52:17 PM BTW, PBOR is something I care about and one of the issues on my voting radar. 20792. Raskolnikov - 2/29/2000 2:52:36 PM and you know that Bush's supporters are in trouble when their defense is "he isn't any worse of a liar than Clinton!" 20793. ChristiPeters - 2/29/2000 2:53:22 PM So far, I don't like ANY of the candidates and I'm damn sick and tired of that being the case. 20794. theDiva - 2/29/2000 2:54:01 PM you know, I don't believe I've been through a presidential election cycle yet with youse guys. We ought to do the returns together online come Election Day. 20795. TrialShark - 2/29/2000 2:54:16 PM 20796. spudboy - 2/29/2000 2:54:47 PM TS: Well, actually, I think it's clear Bush was referring to the same calls, since they imply that Bush panders to those bigots -- and in Bush's addled mind, that's the same thing as impugning him with bigotry. I personally think McCain's explanation strains his credibility. I watched the denials and it was clear the questioner was asking him about the "Catholic League" calls. 20797. TrialShark - 2/29/2000 2:56:43 PM 20798. Raskolnikov - 2/29/2000 2:56:49 PM Actually, I am finding that the four major candidates are a better crop than we have had in a long time. While I am not particularly excited about any of them, and while I certainly have a preference for Bradley or Gore, I don't think any of them would do much harm. Even Bush, of whom I am the most apathetic. 20799. janjon - 2/29/2000 2:57:14 PM CalGal. To paraphrase something you said to me relatively recently, you are either woefully misreading what I am saying or deliberately distorting it to support your own conclusions and theories. 20800. 109109 - 2/29/2000 2:57:34 PM Rask 20801. janjon - 2/29/2000 2:58:53 PM 1091109. Even those with foolish hunches occasionally are correct. 20802. Al D - 2/29/2000 2:59:39 PM Judith 20803. 109109 - 2/29/2000 2:59:59 PM Trial 20804. Raskolnikov - 2/29/2000 3:00:52 PM "That is intended humor, isn't it?" 20805. Al D - 2/29/2000 3:00:56 PM I wish everyone would take a vow not to vote for any politician caught in a lie. Then I would get the kind of government I love. NONE! 20806. janjon - 2/29/2000 3:01:02 PM Bush indeed would do harm. More out of inattention and being swayed by the "boys" in terms of things like Supreme Court and other judicial nominees, executive orders, and other matters of Executive branch initiative. 20807. JJBiener - 2/29/2000 3:01:15 PM Christi - No offense intended. The outrage just struck me as odd considering the current state of politics. 20808. 109109 - 2/29/2000 3:01:18 PM Trial 20809. JudithAtHome - 2/29/2000 3:01:58 PM Al D: 20810. LadyChaos - 2/29/2000 3:02:09 PM Regarding the first-grade shooting incident... 20811. 109109 - 2/29/2000 3:02:47 PM Lady 20812. Indiana Jones - 2/29/2000 3:03:02 PM While you're here Niner, I'd suggest you eighty-six the links to Bauer and Forbes campaign from the butter bar, but that's playing with fire. 20813. 109109 - 2/29/2000 3:04:00 PM Indy 20814. jexster - 2/29/2000 3:04:31 PM JJB- 20815. JudithAtHome - 2/29/2000 3:04:40 PM JJ: 20816. janjon - 2/29/2000 3:06:20 PM 109109. Do you believe manslaughter laws should be abolished? 20817. jexster - 2/29/2000 3:06:47 PM Welcome to crusade, mi amigo. 20818. LadyChaos - 2/29/2000 3:08:13 PM Niner, 20819. LadyChaos - 2/29/2000 3:09:20 PM ... is not unreasonable. 20820. 109109 - 2/29/2000 3:09:40 PM janjon 20821. CalGal - 2/29/2000 3:10:53 PM Janjon, 20822. Al D - 2/29/2000 3:12:01 PM It is true that Bush did veto the Patients' Bill of Rights and that he did not sign the final version. I don't think his veto was overridden, but I am not positive. They may be more to the story than either Molly Ivans or Judithathome in Texas want to discuss, or Bush may be a liar, which is quite normal behavior for any politician, so what's the fuss. 20823. LadyChaos - 2/29/2000 3:12:43 PM 109, 20824. JJBiener - 2/29/2000 3:14:35 PM Jex - Did Bush veto the bill or didn't he? Did Bush oppose the Patient's Bill of Rights or didn't he? 20825. janjon - 2/29/2000 3:14:55 PM 109109. Well, then, even assuming as you just said that there must be some situations where parents should not be held liable for the injuries/death caused by their kid with a gun s/he got in their house (like when it was indeed securely locked etc., and the kid nevertheless got it), aren't most other guns-from-home-taken-used-by-kids contexts ones that would be comparable to why people get convicted of manslaughter when they "accidently" injure/kill someone? 20826. jexster - 2/29/2000 3:15:19 PM Bush may be a liar, which is quite normal behavior for any politician, so what's the fuss 20827. janjon - 2/29/2000 3:17:22 PM CalGal. Nah. Not worth the time or energy. 20828. JudithAtHome - 2/29/2000 3:17:49 PM AlD: 20829. janjon - 2/29/2000 3:18:51 PM Judith. Aided and abetted, as always, by the bad liberal media, of course. 20829. jexster - 2/29/2000 3:18:51 PM JJB: 20830. jexster - 2/29/2000 3:20:25 PM JJB: 20831. jexster - 2/29/2000 3:22:31 PM Sorry for the double. 20832. 109109 - 2/29/2000 3:22:35 PM jan, lady 20833. Absensia - 2/29/2000 3:23:08 PM Bush said: "Don't challenge my integrity" so he wouldn't have to answer such questions as..well, how can you claim credit for the Patients'Bill of Rights when you tried to defeat it. So now if anyone questions him on anything, he can say "Hey, I told you not to question my integrity." Ingenious..better than: "Here you go again." 20834. janjon - 2/29/2000 3:24:43 PM My God, I almost forgot! Some of you people are actually VOTING today. 20835. Al D - 2/29/2000 3:24:44 PM jexster 20836. jexster - 2/29/2000 3:26:17 PM Lying I can tolerate to a point. As Al points out, and as I've pointed out since the Frayed Days, that's what politicians have always done. 20837. janjon - 2/29/2000 3:26:46 PM Contrary to rumors, 20834 was NOT paid for by the Gore For President committee. I am just a volunteer. 20838. janjon - 2/29/2000 3:27:37 PM jexster. We went a long way beyond the pale with Reagan, my friend. A loooong way. 20839. Absensia - 2/29/2000 3:29:25 PM As far as parents' liability when their kids get ahold of guns and shoot someone...many states provide, by statute, for recovery against a parent, in a civil suit, for the intentional torts of their kids. Usually the amount has a ceiling...$1500 or so in this state. Not a very satisfactory remedy. If you can show the parent knew or should have known this could happen, you could recover more. 20840. TrialShark - 2/29/2000 3:29:46 PM 20841. Absensia - 2/29/2000 3:30:44 PM Janjon, 20842. jexster - 2/29/2000 3:34:48 PM We went a long way beyond the pale with Reagan, my friend. A 20843. janjon - 2/29/2000 3:38:52 PM Even though he was only on the B or C list, Reagan's experience (I own't say skills) as an actor obviously helped him seem much more than he was. 20844. Al D - 2/29/2000 3:39:06 PM Stupidity I can live with. No character, now that gives me pause. 20845. jexster - 2/29/2000 3:40:42 PM McCain's doing the yelling Al. 20846. bubbaette - 2/29/2000 3:41:40 PM Hey Niner!!! I saw yer publication in the letters to the editor. Did Jack Hitt rip you a new one? 20847. theDiva - 2/29/2000 3:42:59 PM Get out! Where? 20848. jexster - 2/29/2000 3:44:04 PM Question is when will the electorate say "enough of this self-righteous blather from the syphlitic Party of God?" 20849. bubbaette - 2/29/2000 3:44:20 PM I refuse to divulge that info publicly on account of it might get me banned. I'll e-mail ya. 20850. theDiva - 2/29/2000 3:45:25 PM oops. Sorry. 20851. janjon - 2/29/2000 3:47:31 PM bubbaette. I hate to be a drag, but it doesn't take a genius to conclude that there are only a couple of choices of newspapers around that print/publish slightly to the north of you but are distributed where you are. 20852. theDiva - 2/29/2000 3:48:48 PM But only if he ended the letter with 20853. janjon - 2/29/2000 3:50:15 PM Don't bet on it, kiddo. That's what reputable papers (or even the No. 2 in your fair city) hire editors for. 20854. Al D - 2/29/2000 3:52:29 PM jexter 20855. janjon - 2/29/2000 3:53:13 PM In this day and age, where voting and other records of public service are scrutinized beyond belief, why oh why would W's handlers think they would be able to float a TV AD, for Chrissake, with such blatant overstatement as the one touting W's success in getting a Patients Bill of Rights in Texas. 20856. bubbaette - 2/29/2000 3:53:36 PM Diva 20857. janjon - 2/29/2000 3:54:16 PM I gather that Al D had an extra long time at the 19th hole today. 20858. theDiva - 2/29/2000 3:54:32 PM Do I know mi peludo toro, or what? 20859. bubbaette - 2/29/2000 3:55:11 PM Si Si, Divacita. 20860. Al D - 2/29/2000 4:07:33 PM janjon 20861. JJBiener - 2/29/2000 4:07:41 PM The worst attack the Democrats can make about Bush. 20862. JJBiener - 2/29/2000 4:07:42 PM The worst attack the Democrats can make about Bush. 20863. JJBiener - 2/29/2000 4:09:22 PM Al - Who do you think were the most powerful voice in ending slavery? 20864. Cellar Door - 2/29/2000 4:09:42 PM Just got my copy of "The Hunting of the President" by Joe Conason and Gene Lyons. Much fun! 20865. janjon - 2/29/2000 4:13:11 PM Al D - I have trouble taking seriously any one who manages to use the word "darkies", talk about jewish rabbis (oxymoron, eh?) getting passes, and so on, in one rambling piece of gibberish. 20866. bubbaette - 2/29/2000 4:16:14 PM But won't life so much easier before them darkies angot all riled up? 20867. bubbaette - 2/29/2000 4:16:48 PM angot=got 20868. JJBiener - 2/29/2000 4:24:23 PM jex - syphlitic Party of God 20869. Al D - 2/29/2000 4:31:37 PM janjon 20870. JudithAtHome - 2/29/2000 4:36:29 PM Don't flatter yourself too much, Al. 20871. janjon - 2/29/2000 4:37:07 PM Not cryptic. 20872. jexster - 2/29/2000 4:42:25 PM McCain Decision To "Punt" in CA Continues to Draw Flak [SF Chron] 20873. Toenails - 2/29/2000 4:45:36 PM 20874. jexster - 2/29/2000 4:58:51 PM Jacob Weisberg: "You have to admire John McCain's guts. Going to Virginia Beach, the home of Pat Robertson's PTL Ministry, to denounce the religious right is about as ballsy a move as we're likely to see in Republican politics in this lifetime. It was a pungent Sister Souljah moment. But once you get done being impressed by McCain's cojones, you have to wonder a bit about his coherence. To denounce the "agents of intolerance" while standing next to Gary Bauer might be the act of a hero. It's definitely not the act of an 20875. concerned - 2/29/2000 5:08:59 PM Ok, McCain, during your Va concession speech: 20876. Indiana Jones - 2/29/2000 5:12:37 PM "You have to admire John McCain's guts. Going to Virginia Beach, the home of Pat Robertson's PTL Ministry..." 20877. Toenails - 2/29/2000 5:15:21 PM 20878. janjon - 2/29/2000 5:17:03 PM I think McCain decided he had to go for the fences. What's he got to lose, anyway. His current charisma and appeal notwithstanding, he's going to be slowly dissected by the way the remaining GOP primaries work out. He had to shake things up even further, hopefully to gain even more demonstrable support from the indies/dems. and thus almost dare the "boys" not to nominate the guy who (the argument will then go)clearly has the best chance to win in Nov. (A dare they will accept. No way they will nominate him.) 20879. andy - 2/29/2000 5:17:31 PM Indy, 20880. concerned - 2/29/2000 5:17:43 PM Has Gary Bauer considered McCain's newly vacant campaign co-chairman spot? 20881. andy - 2/29/2000 5:18:29 PM Anyone watch the China-Taiwan crisis developing ? 20882. janjon - 2/29/2000 5:20:16 PM a bit more from the current news reports regarding the school shooting today. NPR is reporting that the victim and the shooter had a "dispute" on the playground yesterday. The implication would be that this is not some sort of show and tell accidental shooting. The thought of a seven year old calculatedly getting and then bringing a gun to school to shoot an "enemy" is scary. 20883. concerned - 2/29/2000 5:22:24 PM Re. 20878 - 20884. andy - 2/29/2000 5:23:39 PM The kids watched too much CNN's " Cross Fire " programs.... 20885. andy - 2/29/2000 5:25:36 PM What's Bradley odds ? 20886. JudithAtHome - 2/29/2000 5:26:48 PM concerned: 20887. janjon - 2/29/2000 5:29:03 PM "The GOP doesn't appreciate the selfish divisive tactics that McCain has adopted. Virtually the entire religious flap, for instance, was manufactured by his campaign." 20888. concerned - 2/29/2000 5:29:12 PM Re. 20885 - 20889. TrialShark - 2/29/2000 5:33:12 PM 20890. janjon - 2/29/2000 5:38:52 PM trial. Nice to see you bonding with your fellow members of the tribe. Birds of a feather and all that jazz. 20891. LadyChaos - 2/29/2000 5:39:02 PM Whatever else you might think of McCain's attack on the RR, yesterday, one thing is certain: Bush and McCain, by dragging their party into a religious mudfight, have doused the GOP in gasoline and lit a big match. 20892. janjon - 2/29/2000 5:41:16 PM Lady. I prefer 20893. concerned - 2/29/2000 5:42:00 PM Re. 20889 - 20894. concerned - 2/29/2000 5:44:59 PM I hope McCain winds up being the Reform Party candidate. Then all those Democrats can vote their 'consciences' in the general election as well as the primaries. I'd say that's a win-win situation:) 20895. Indiana Jones - 2/29/2000 5:50:44 PM janjon: That would be "El Presidente." 20896. robertjayb - 2/29/2000 5:57:39 PM . 20897. CalGal - 2/29/2000 6:00:18 PM Well, I wasn't thinking he'd win Virginia, but I was hoping for a closer race. 20898. TrialShark - 2/29/2000 6:01:13 PM 20899. TrialShark - 2/29/2000 6:04:11 PM 20900. CalGal - 2/29/2000 6:09:46 PM More on the shooting: 20901. Indiana Jones - 2/29/2000 6:16:37 PM 20902. andy - 2/29/2000 6:19:30 PM 20903. andy - 2/29/2000 6:20:42 PM Indy, 20904. robertjayb - 2/29/2000 6:21:21 PM 20885. andy - 2/29/00 4:25:36 PM 20905. andy - 2/29/2000 6:24:34 PM 20906. JJBiener - 2/29/2000 6:28:03 PM From the article linked above: 20907. Greystoke - 2/29/2000 6:30:25 PM Gore invented safety trigger locks, you know. 20908. JJBiener - 2/29/2000 6:31:48 PM Grey - Your on a roll. 20909. andy - 2/29/2000 6:37:55 PM Gore invented God. 20910. RosettaStone - 2/29/2000 6:42:57 PM Andy: Good to see you, fellow TTer. I need your help. Whenever you see Kosovo/Serbian/NATO stories, will you please help me link them to the Balkan Civil War thread here at mote. 20911. andy - 2/29/2000 6:43:22 PM 20912. concerned - 2/29/2000 6:43:48 PM Bore invents most of what he says. That's about as far as I believe him. 20913. andy - 2/29/2000 6:45:11 PM I just saw one AP article : " US will limit Kosovo patrols " . 20914. JJBiener - 2/29/2000 6:45:39 PM andy - Gore invented God. 20915. arkymalarky - 2/29/2000 6:46:15 PM The man is predictable. Apparently there is no tragedy he won't exploit for personal gain. 20916. robertjayb - 2/29/2000 6:48:00 PM . 20917. spudboy - 2/29/2000 6:49:33 PM Jeez, what'll you guys do when faced with eight years of President Gore? 20918. JJBiener - 2/29/2000 6:50:49 PM Arky - Why couldn't Gore just express his condolences to the victim's family and promise a complete investigation rather than using the incident to promote his political views? 20919. Absensia - 2/29/2000 6:50:58 PM Okay, I'm obviously missing something. If the gun had been stolen and was a "street gun," what good would child safety locks do? Isn't thaat like calling for child safety caps on prescription drugs and saying that if only that bag of heroin had had a safety lock the kid wouldn't have gotten into it? 20920. andy - 2/29/2000 6:51:49 PM McCain still lead Gore by 20+ points... 20921. JJBiener - 2/29/2000 6:52:13 PM Spuds - Gore isn't going to win, so it won't be a problem. 20922. concerned - 2/29/2000 6:52:44 PM Re. 20911 - 20923. JJBiener - 2/29/2000 6:54:18 PM BTW, for anyone who doesn't like negative campaigns, I suggest finding a cave until after the November election. This one is going to be a blood bath. 20924. arkymalarky - 2/29/2000 6:57:53 PM He's running for president, JJ. I don't see that illustrating what he believes is a problem by using a specific incident is exploitation. 20925. Absensia - 2/29/2000 7:00:45 PM Arky, 20926. spudboy - 2/29/2000 7:02:46 PM JJ: 20927. concerned - 2/29/2000 7:03:22 PM Re. 20923 - 20928. JJBiener - 2/29/2000 7:05:58 PM Arky - I don't see that illustrating what he believes is a problem by using a specific incident is exploitation. 20929. robertjayb - 2/29/2000 7:06:54 PM . 20930. spudboy - 2/29/2000 7:07:56 PM JJ: 20931. arkymalarky - 2/29/2000 7:11:37 PM Capitalizing on the shock value and emotions inherent in the situation? 20932. JJBiener - 2/29/2000 7:13:55 PM Spuds - Tell me, JJ -- can you distinguish between leadership and opportunism? 20933. jexster - 2/29/2000 7:16:32 PM CNN: Bush wins VA. Got 80% of those who classified themselves as "religious right" which made up 20% of the total vote. Split the remainder 50-50 with McCain. 20934. JJBiener - 2/29/2000 7:17:23 PM Spuds - Already I've been hearing a steady drumbeat declaring Gore a delusional liar, a crass opportunist, and probably a campaign-finance criminal. 20935. JJBiener - 2/29/2000 7:18:51 PM Good night All. 20936. concerned - 2/29/2000 7:19:44 PM Re. 20930 - 20937. arkymalarky - 2/29/2000 7:19:47 PM Whyn't you fill us in, JJ, because I haven't heard anything from the Gore camp on Bush and/or McCain, either. 20938. CalGal - 2/29/2000 7:22:03 PM CNN: Bush wins VA. Got 80% of those who classified themselves as "religious right" which made up 20% of the total vote. Split the remainder 50-50 with McCain. 20939. spudboy - 2/29/2000 7:22:07 PM Arky -- 20940. concerned - 2/29/2000 7:28:52 PM Re. 20938 - 20941. jexster - 2/29/2000 7:29:29 PM Cal: 20942. TrialShark - 2/29/2000 7:32:18 PM 20943. CalGal - 2/29/2000 7:34:01 PM Jex, 20944. concerned - 2/29/2000 7:36:16 PM I find it risible that GWB is being disparaged in this forum for not using every possible device as a political bludgeon against his primary opponent. 20945. robertjayb - 2/29/2000 7:39:36 PM . 20946. CalGal - 2/29/2000 7:41:36 PM TS, 20947. spudboy - 2/29/2000 7:43:38 PM ConnieT: 20948. concerned - 2/29/2000 7:45:13 PM Re. 20944 - 20949. TrialShark - 2/29/2000 7:45:14 PM 20950. CalGal - 2/29/2000 7:46:37 PM Ewwwwww! Cooooooooties! 20951. TrialShark - 2/29/2000 7:51:25 PM 20952. concerned - 2/29/2000 7:55:16 PM Re. 20947 - 20953. TrialShark - 2/29/2000 7:56:24 PM An interesting series of stats from ABC News: 20954. CalGal - 2/29/2000 7:58:51 PM Ha. Let's illustrate the faultline in black and white, shall we? 20955. concerned - 2/29/2000 7:59:42 PM Re. 20949 - 20956. TrialShark - 2/29/2000 8:02:20 PM 20957. concerned - 2/29/2000 8:09:27 PM 'if needed' = 'if the situation calls for it' 20958. spudboy - 2/29/2000 8:24:00 PM Hell, I'd probably even contribute to his campaign against Scumbag Jr. 20959. TheWizardofWhimsy - 2/29/2000 8:43:02 PM 20960. lemwalker - 2/29/2000 8:57:34 PM Well here goes.... 20961. robertjayb - 2/29/2000 8:59:08 PM . 20962. egg - 2/29/2000 9:51:10 PM Reading this thread isn't nearly as much fun when Senator McCain loses. 20963. robertjayb - 2/29/2000 10:07:41 PM . 20964. robertjayb - 2/29/2000 10:33:36 PM Clinton Discusses McCain Attacks 20965. concerned - 2/29/2000 10:42:53 PM Re. 20964 - 20966. concerned - 2/29/2000 10:45:58 PM GWB wins big in North Dakota Caucus with 76% vs John McChoke's 19.1%. 20967. joezan - 2/29/2000 10:54:52 PM 20968. CalGal - 2/29/2000 11:05:55 PM Don't be silly. We all know he never puts it in anything. 20969. CalGal - 2/29/2000 11:06:44 PM Or anyone, for that matter. 20970. concerned - 2/29/2000 11:07:20 PM Oops. I guess he sorta is.... 20971. joezan - 2/29/2000 11:11:08 PM 20972. concerned - 2/29/2000 11:12:16 PM "*Now* will you *finally* tone the divisive attacks down?!?" Dept. from the WP about the Va Primary: 20973. CalGal - 2/29/2000 11:14:51 PM Joe, 20974. concerned - 2/29/2000 11:21:58 PM ABC News is reporting that McCain phone staffers were explicitly calling GWB 'anti Catholic' in Washington today. 20975. joezan - 2/29/2000 11:25:38 PM 20976. Jonesy - 2/29/2000 11:34:06 PM "Ladies and Gentlemen, the President of the United States, Albert Gore." 20977. joezan - 2/29/2000 11:37:13 PM 20978. TrialShark - 2/29/2000 11:40:55 PM 20979. CalGal - 2/29/2000 11:42:31 PM No, it's on. It's just slow. 20980. CalGal - 2/29/2000 11:43:22 PM And lem--I gotta tell you, that's in interesting philosophy you got going there. 20981. CalGal - 2/29/2000 11:48:57 PM Californians reregister as....independents? 20982. PincherMartin - 2/29/2000 11:55:40 PM 20983. CalGal - 2/29/2000 11:58:29 PM Well, you did say the same thing after SC. 20984. TrialShark - 2/29/2000 11:59:13 PM 20985. PincherMartin - 3/1/2000 12:00:20 AM CalGal -- 20986. CalGal - 3/1/2000 12:04:02 AM Pincher, 20987. PincherMartin - 3/1/2000 12:04:31 AM There might be one good thig to come out of this for Republicans in the future: McCain has probably innoculated the leading Republican candidates from having to overtly kiss RR ass in the future. I don't think we'll see anymore trips from frontrunners to BJU. 20988. PincherMartin - 3/1/2000 12:07:36 AM CalGal -- 20989. PincherMartin - 3/1/2000 12:09:36 AM I suppose I can blame Niner for his McCain vote. 20990. CalGal - 3/1/2000 12:13:35 AM For a fissure to exist in the Republican party, Rpublicans have to be at each other's throat. 20991. PincherMartin - 3/1/2000 12:28:19 AM I am. 20992. CalGal - 3/1/2000 12:38:44 AM Just because centrists like it doesn't mean it has to be only centrists. I mean, TS and I would let people like you, Ace, and Niner hang around the fringes. If only for amusement value. 20993. PincherMartin - 3/1/2000 1:20:19 AM My bet is that you and TS would represent the lonely middle in that one, and Niner, Ace and I would all vote for Bush. Both Gore and Bush will squeeze a McCain independent run from both sides, and, at best, McCain will get the same percentage Perot got in 92. 20994. CalGal - 3/1/2000 1:23:59 AM My bet is that you and TS would represent the lonely middle in that one, and Niner, Ace and I would all vote for Bush. 20995. TrialShark - 3/1/2000 1:25:54 AM 20996. CalGal - 3/1/2000 1:29:32 AM Seriously? 20997. PincherMartin - 3/1/2000 1:34:00 AM CalGal -- 20998. TrialShark - 3/1/2000 1:38:22 AM 20999. PincherMartin - 3/1/2000 1:38:38 AM McCain, in Further Attack, Calls Leaders of Christian Right `Evil' 21000. CalGal - 3/1/2000 1:38:59 AM And the only consolation is that the three of us will be able to laugh our ass off at you two during the next four years. 21001. CalGal - 3/1/2000 1:39:46 AM An elegant millennial indeed. 21002. PincherMartin - 3/1/2000 1:41:34 AM Trialshark -- 21003. TrialShark - 3/1/2000 1:43:38 AM 21004. PincherMartin - 3/1/2000 1:49:12 AM CalGal -- 21005. PincherMartin - 3/1/2000 1:52:29 AM TS -- 21006. PincherMartin - 3/1/2000 1:53:05 AM The RR was on board for 1980, 1984, 1988 and 1994. 21007. TrialShark - 3/1/2000 1:56:33 AM 21008. TrialShark - 3/1/2000 1:57:06 AM 21009. CalGal - 3/1/2000 1:58:38 AM Your dream of being the Mote expert political analyst, who bases her predictions on the tossings of her son's toenail clippings, is a little premature I should think. 21010. PincherMartin - 3/1/2000 1:59:53 AM TS -- 21011. CalGal - 3/1/2000 2:02:17 AM TS, 21012. CalGal - 3/1/2000 2:02:53 AM Haha! 21013. PincherMartin - 3/1/2000 2:11:42 AM CalGal -- 21014. PincherMartin - 3/1/2000 2:13:02 AM CalGal -- 21015. CalGal - 3/1/2000 2:29:24 AM You just don't shuffle them off to the corner and not play with them. 21016. CalGal - 3/1/2000 2:32:08 AM Because pandering to the RR is unacceptable but pandering to anyone else is just playing the political game the way it should be played? 21017. PincherMartin - 3/1/2000 2:36:39 AM CalGal -- 21018. CalGal - 3/1/2000 2:41:17 AM Pincher, 21019. PincherMartin - 3/1/2000 2:45:06 AM CalGal -- 21020. PincherMartin - 3/1/2000 2:50:44 AM CalGal -- 21021. concerned - 3/1/2000 3:06:33 AM Re. 20999 - 21022. concerned - 3/1/2000 3:24:16 AM Anybody notice the irony of McCain calling the RR 'evil' after spending thousands of dollars smearing GWB with his bogus 'anti-Catholic' spin? Nevertheless, I expect the mass media to gloss over this, for the most part, until and if McCain leaves the Republican Party for a Reform Party nomination. If that should ever happen, I expect the media long knives will come out for McCain. 21023. concerned - 3/1/2000 3:29:37 AM I should mention that the above is based on the premise that the mass media decides that McCain as a Reform Party candidate would siphon more votes from Democrats and Independents than Republicans. 21024. TrialShark - 3/1/2000 4:16:08 AM 21025. concerned - 3/1/2000 4:20:01 AM Re. 21024 - 21026. Dantheman - 3/1/2000 8:53:27 AM McCain's loss in Washington strikes me as more worrying to his candidacy than the Virginia one. Early last evening, some of the talking heads were suggesting that McCain could spin a Virginia loss by claiming Bush can't win outside the South and agricultural Midwest, suggesting McCain should win upcoming states like Ohio and Missouri. The fact that he lost Washington seems to support a view that I expressed last week, that when the race is primarily among Republicans (whether because it is a closed primary or because there's a competing Democratic primary) McCain cannot win. If McCain's candidacy still has life after March 14, I'll be enormously surprised. 21027. Dantheman - 3/1/2000 9:55:22 AM The New Republic endorsements -- worth reading: 21028. cazart - 3/1/2000 10:11:36 AM McCain's in no position to spin any loss as a positive. It's all a numbers game now. And, McCain is just about eliminated failing the best efforts of Karl Rove. 21029. Cellar Door - 3/1/2000 10:42:57 AM REPUBLICAN MELTDOWN!!!!!! 21030. cazart - 3/1/2000 10:51:32 AM It's clear now that McCain's non-bashing bashing of the RR has backfired. This, of course, will embolden Pat Robertson and his buddies--Look what we did to McCain--to drag the GOP further into the cave. 21031. janjon - 3/1/2000 10:56:49 AM Yep. Spin time is over. All that is making the news is that W won the primaries and the N.D. caucus. Very little about the fact that McCain did quite well if you count the indies and dems. 21032. Dantheman - 3/1/2000 10:59:20 AM I suspect that McCain's camp looked at denouncing the religious right as a choice between a certain loss if he didn't do it and a big gamble with the possibility of a win if he did. It hasn't worked out (as yet) but he may have thought he had little to lose -- if he loses the nomination race, it doesn't matter by how much. He's likely to face some opposition if he runs for a 4th Senate term, but I think his big win in Arizona despite the governor's endorsement of Bush made him feel he could survive it. 21033. janjon - 3/1/2000 11:00:46 AM cazart. It has to be along the lines that McCain/Murphy were hoping to rouse the moderate Republicans (sort of in a "save the party" mode) and those indies/dems. in states where they can vote in the primaries. 21034. cazart - 3/1/2000 11:03:16 AM The BJU appearance was a huge gaffe. Although, McCain isn't completely clean on this, either. Several of McCain's campaign staff in SC were BJU grads. And Lindsay Graham, a big McCain supporter, received an honorary degree from BJU. 21035. Raskolnikov - 3/1/2000 11:08:36 AM One more Monday Morning Quarterback - McCain's central problem was that he forgot that Clinton pulled his Sister Souljah stunt only *after* locking up the Democratic Party nomination. It was a classic post-primary move toward the middle. McCain did his move *pre*- primary. 21036. cazart - 3/1/2000 11:08:58 AM janjon: 21037. janjon - 3/1/2000 11:09:13 AM Well, in fairness to W's handlers, based on the fact that it has been a tradition for the GOP candidates to show up at BJ University (what an oxymoron that is) without any subsequent flap, they might be justified in saying that there was no way they could anticipate the fallout. 21038. Indiana Jones - 3/1/2000 11:11:54 AM I agree with PM that McCain went a little too far in denouncing and focusing on the RR, but maybe it will payoff in New York. It was okay when he pointed out what they were doing and that it wasn't accurate, but he then started making it seem like personal dislike. Ironically, this gives the RR justification to say, "See, we were right about him. He's anti-Christian." 21039. janjon - 3/1/2000 11:13:18 AM cazazt. What you say makes sense. But, I don't think that his attacks on the RR necessarily equate to an attempt to change the direction of the party. More an effort to rouse the moderate Repubs. to come out and vote in the primaries. He really does have the conundrum that unless he can show that Republicans like him too he really cannot win the nomination. 21040. andy - 3/1/2000 11:14:06 AM Charlie Trie is testifing in Congress on CFR . Watch out for Mark Mittleton's connections... 21041. CalGal - 3/1/2000 11:18:59 AM Not that it much matters, but McCain hasn't attacked the religious right. He's just smacked around a few of its leaders. 21042. janjon - 3/1/2000 11:22:06 AM Oh I doubt that the followers made the distinction as to who was being smacked. They certainly voted yesterday as if they had been stung. 21043. andy - 3/1/2000 11:22:23 AM Trie brought in hundreds of thousands of dollars in illegal donations when he became partners with wealthy Macau businessmen such as Ng Lap Seng, also known as Woo, and Jakarta telecommunications magnate Tomy Winata. 21044. cazart - 3/1/2000 11:23:08 AM I agree, janjon. Look, McCain is far more conservative than Bush Jr. 21045. Indiana Jones - 3/1/2000 11:27:37 AM CalGal: Well, he has offered the olive branch toward Christians in general, but those aren't the remarks getting air time. And even Dobson, who he praised, apparently has rebuked him. 21046. CalGal - 3/1/2000 11:28:54 AM Jan, 21047. janjon - 3/1/2000 11:34:29 AM Among the lasting benefits of the spotlight McCain has used on the RR is that never again will it be able to operate on the political front without the real risk of immediate exposure as to its tactics and the racism/bigotry which is involved. 21048. cazart - 3/1/2000 11:37:53 AM How so, janjon? 21049. janjon - 3/1/2000 11:37:58 AM CalGal. It was inevitable that the tar brush thrown at the leaders would be seen by the followers (and of course the media) as hitting them as well. Tis the nature of many groups, especially those which are bound together so tightly via a sense of shared cause. 21050. janjon - 3/1/2000 11:41:29 AM The change I was alluding to, cazart, was what I think will now be the constant glare of analysis and then publicity on what the RR is doing in terms of its political tactics. Put another way, they won't be able to do what they do quietly any more. 21051. CalGal - 3/1/2000 11:43:03 AM Janjon, 21052. glendajean - 3/1/2000 11:45:51 AM Didn't Forbes call Robertson & friends ayatollahs in 1996 and it killed his campaign? This time, he tried to be their best friend. 21053. cazart - 3/1/2000 11:46:58 AM janjon: 21054. bubbaette - 3/1/2000 12:09:07 PM I was impressed with McCains put down of Falwell and Robertson and think that it resonated with the more libertarian wing of the Republican party. There are plenty of Repubs in Va. who don't cotton to their religious right bedfellows. I know that many of my objections to the Republican platform would disappear if they broke that unholy alliance. 21055. robertjayb - 3/1/2000 12:23:20 PM . 21056. Al D - 3/1/2000 12:29:28 PM McCain's rantings about BJU and saying that he was a Reagan Republican and bush a Robinson Republican was just the same hype the media was spinning. The whole BJU should have been a non issue, but when the liberal left media gets their fangs into a conservative, they are not about to let up. I had to get on the Mote to learn that McCain lost in Washington. Had he won, the media would not have stopped reporting the story. Of course, real life got in the way last night of my political watching addition. 21057. robertjayb - 3/1/2000 12:29:48 PM . 21058. Thoughtful - 3/1/2000 12:33:46 PM In my view this McCain/Bush nonsense as regards the RR is just silly. (Though it is fun to see the GOP getting vicious with itself instead of only with the Dems.) After all, Gary Bauer is endorsing McCain and wrote a very supportive op-ed piece in yesterday's NY Times on how McCain is a supporter of the RR grass roots if not the leadership: 21059. cazart - 3/1/2000 12:40:22 PM BTW, Conason and Lyons are discussing their book online at TT in the White House folder. 21060. JudithAtHome - 3/1/2000 12:42:23 PM AlD: 21061. cazart - 3/1/2000 12:51:55 PM Message # 21059 21062. Al D - 3/1/2000 12:51:58 PM Judith 21063. janjon - 3/1/2000 1:00:50 PM cazart. I still don't think we are in any disagreement here. We may be talking about different aspects about the future impact on the RR. 21064. janjon - 3/1/2000 1:02:38 PM AlD - I don't know what you read or what you listen to, but The New York Times had a full discussion of the Washington results today (even with the 3 hour time difference working against it) and NPR did a full story as well. 21065. CalGal - 3/1/2000 1:04:29 PM Thoughtful, 21066. Al D - 3/1/2000 1:08:44 PM janjon 21067. JudithAtHome - 3/1/2000 1:11:36 PM Al: 21068. cazart - 3/1/2000 1:11:45 PM janjon: 21069. janjon - 3/1/2000 1:14:34 PM Even happier they now than before. After all, McCain has made it a current news story. I can hardly wait to see the way the weeklies dive into the schism in the GOP issues next week. 21070. Al D - 3/1/2000 1:19:15 PM A few days ago people on the Mote were complimenting McCain for his Sister Solja (sp?) remarks. What it really showed is how poor a politician he is. Clinton, the master politician, waited until he had the nomination before he played that card. Poor McCain decided to piss off Republicans to please Democrats and independants who, thank god, will never get a chance to vote for him. And you guys think McCain is the smart one and Bush the fool. 21071. janjon - 3/1/2000 1:20:50 PM I also look forward to analyzing who's who at the big, happy scene on the dais at the GOP convention right after W gives his acceptance speech. (And what a sing-song event that will be, based on his current speaking style. The only thing for sure is that "read my lips" won't be spoken.) 21072. JJBiener - 3/1/2000 1:22:10 PM janjon - Boiling it down as best I can, what I am saying is that henceforth the media/public awareness of their tactics will be constant and full. 21073. janjon - 3/1/2000 1:22:56 PM Al D - ever heard of a pyrrhic victory? If he hasn't now, W will be familiar with the term come Nov. 8. 21074. Al D - 3/1/2000 1:24:56 PM Do any of you think Brit Hume has a political bias? I heard a guy say that, and I wasn't sure he was right. I have to go now, golf waits to be conquered, but I'll check back to see what you think. Thanks in advance. 21075. janjon - 3/1/2000 1:25:01 PM Biener. In case you haven't noticed, it isn't a Democrat who is demonizing the RR. It is a self-proclaimed CONSERVATIVE republican. 21076. TrialShark - 3/1/2000 1:29:53 PM 21077. JJBiener - 3/1/2000 1:30:12 PM janjon - No one has missed the fact that McCain can't win the nomination based on GOP votes. The demonizing of the RR is a desperate attempt to bring in Dem and Indie voters into the primaries. As such, if the Dems continue this in the fall, it could cost them. It will not hurt Bush, and it will likely help him. 21078. janjon - 3/1/2000 1:32:55 PM Biener. Your 21077 is just wishful thinking mush. 21079. janjon - 3/1/2000 1:33:53 PM just another incident, trial. 21080. TrialShark - 3/1/2000 1:34:11 PM 21081. TrialShark - 3/1/2000 1:34:40 PM 21082. janjon - 3/1/2000 1:36:11 PM No, I don't, trial. The two of you are quite distinct in my mind, trust me. 21083. CalGal - 3/1/2000 1:37:41 PM TS, 21084. TrialShark - 3/1/2000 1:38:55 PM 21085. JJBiener - 3/1/2000 2:52:53 PM Al Gore's campaign: 21086. janjon - 3/1/2000 3:00:51 PM Well, it didn't open for me. I'll just have to guess what it said. 21087. JudithAtHome - 3/1/2000 3:04:09 PM That's kinda what JJ is implying, I think. (didn't open for me, either, by the way.) 21088. janjon - 3/1/2000 3:06:24 PM Judith. Nah. Way too subtle for JJ. Sure as shooting, its gotta be a link to something that will talk about perfidious lies and/or the liberal media. 21089. cazart - 3/1/2000 3:08:20 PM McCain seems to be having some staff dissent. 21090. janjon - 3/1/2000 3:09:45 PM About what in particular, cazart? 21091. cazart - 3/1/2000 3:13:47 PM Apparently, the strategy we talked about earlier is now being seen as a bad move and this is the post-action fingerpointing. 21092. janjon - 3/1/2000 3:20:29 PM Apropros of the above, but in his inimitable style, is today's column by one of my favorites, Joel Achenbach, in the Washington Post: 21093. Indiana Jones - 3/1/2000 3:30:13 PM Virginia exit poll seems to indicate that McCain's skewering of the RR leadership really didn't hurt him. He lost primarily because of the number of people pre-committed to Bush: 72% had made up their mind "Earlier this year" or "Last year," and McCain lost those two groups 51 to 47 and 77 to 21, respectively. He won among voters deciding within the last week. 21094. janjon - 3/1/2000 3:33:09 PM Indiana. But, as 109109 and Biener (just to use a couple of names that came off the top, so to speak) would surely tell you, the GOP will have AL GORE to run against this time around, not Clinton. So, we can get some Anti-Christ flavoring too. 21095. cazart - 3/1/2000 3:34:34 PM Stinky: 21096. janjon - 3/1/2000 3:35:46 PM Achenbach mentioned this aspect - just why did McCain take out after Gilmore and Warner? 21097. cazart - 3/1/2000 3:39:53 PM The Warner aspect is weird. 21098. Indiana Jones - 3/1/2000 3:43:17 PM janjon: I thought Warner criticized McCain...not the other way around. 21099. cazart - 3/1/2000 3:49:12 PM Stinky: 21100. janjon - 3/1/2000 4:03:13 PM You can begin to feel the current political fizz just becoming fizzle. Even if McCain wins New York, I suspect that it will be ho hum soon until the conventions. Not much to look forward to except all those wonderful "educational" ads that both parties will be lobbing our way. 21101. TheWizardofWhimsy - 3/1/2000 4:18:22 PM 21102. JudithAtHome - 3/1/2000 4:19:52 PM Good one, Wiz... 21103. andy - 3/1/2000 4:27:28 PM Any one watched the Charlie Trie testimony ? 21104. janjon - 3/1/2000 4:27:56 PM Whimsy - Do you have W in a nice little eton collar or is it just the way the image sets up on the screen. 21105. Indiana Jones - 3/1/2000 4:28:15 PM Andy: No. Any surprises? 21106. janjon - 3/1/2000 4:28:39 PM andy - no one cares. 21107. andy - 3/1/2000 4:28:41 PM Bradley refused to call the quit soon.... 21108. andy - 3/1/2000 4:32:39 PM Indy, 21109. andy - 3/1/2000 4:37:25 PM Indy, 21110. Indiana Jones - 3/1/2000 4:39:07 PM Is Bradley hoping for a Chinese surprise? 21111. TheWizardofWhimsy - 3/1/2000 4:41:19 PM It's a result of the "worm's eye view" from the photo, but an astute and ironic observation, jj. Did you read the Kevin Phillips' piece on "The Bush Restoration" in the Feb. Harpers? Fabbo! 21112. andy - 3/1/2000 4:43:02 PM 21113. janjon - 3/1/2000 5:11:56 PM Oooh, its gonna be a long time until November here in New York. Hillary was out in a suburban school today and urged the kids to have their parents get rid of any guns in the house, etc. So far so good. Giuliani's staff promptly called her a hypocrite. Why? Her campaign had received a contribution from Puff Daddy who, you all will recall, recently was arrested on possession of a gun charges. Hillary's campaign then responded by pointing out that Giuliani had accepted a contribution from Charlton Heston. 21114. JJBiener - 3/1/2000 5:19:14 PM Al Gore's Campaign 21115. janjon - 3/1/2000 5:25:59 PM Well, the link works better, but the two guys look like young versions of Rock Hudson and Donald O'Connor to me. 21116. janjon - 3/1/2000 5:27:34 PM As for the plane they are supposedly approaching, we all know that taking care of that would be a piece of cake for the Anti-Christ. 21117. spudboy - 3/1/2000 6:12:58 PM Can someone remind me again just what it is that Bush intends to "restore" to the White House? 21118. spudboy - 3/1/2000 6:13:35 PM A watchdog group said the practice runs counter to Bush’s claim that he is a “reformer with results.” 21119. spudboy - 3/1/2000 6:13:48 PM Charles Lewis, director of the Center for Public Integrity, said he saw plenty of similarities between what Clinton did and what Bush is doing. 21120. andy - 3/1/2000 6:28:52 PM Trie Says He Didn't Know Finance Law 21121. JJBiener - 3/1/2000 6:49:41 PM Spuds - You can't be serious. John Engler bought access? Bush's college roomate bought access? Bush's cousin bought access? 21122. JudithAtHome - 3/1/2000 6:52:55 PM Maureen Dowd had a funny column about the Pioneers visit with GW...said they were demanding answers as to where the money went. 21123. spudboy - 3/1/2000 6:56:09 PM "You guys"? 21124. arkymalarky - 3/1/2000 7:13:03 PM I think that means as opposed to "One of us...." 21125. jexster - 3/1/2000 7:24:10 PM Go WoW! 21126. jexster - 3/1/2000 7:24:42 PM Poppy's likeness is uncanny don't you agree JJB??? 21127. jexster - 3/1/2000 8:02:49 PM Official State of Texas Execution Site 21128. jexster - 3/1/2000 8:10:22 PM From Huntsville's Chef with Love: Texas Dept of Corrections Final Meals Site 21129. RosettaStone - 3/1/2000 8:15:19 PM "The campaign has become bigger than just John McCain. With my ego that's hard to say." 21130. Uzmakk - 3/1/2000 8:19:36 PM The Wizard is a wonder. 21131. concerned - 3/2/2000 12:57:57 AM Re. 21117 - 21132. concerned - 3/2/2000 1:35:57 AM From the WT: 21133. concerned - 3/2/2000 1:36:21 AM "The campaign's erratic steering has grown more apparent as the two candidates approach Super Tuesday on March 7. Mr. McCain's gambit Monday against religious conservatives was targeted at voters in New York and California —the two big prizes that day — but polls show Mr. Bush has closed a huge gap in New York among Roman Catholics and leads by more than 20 points in California, where Mr. McCain has actually lost ground." 21134. concerned - 3/2/2000 2:23:24 AM It appear JJB had it right wrt 'No Controlling Legal Authority Bore' having dishonestly attacked GWB and McCain, since Bore has called both of them "Confederate flag-waving Republicans." 21135. EricCartman - 3/2/2000 4:07:41 AM Message # 21132 & Message # 21133: 21136. concerned - 3/2/2000 4:18:48 AM Well, EC, I'm glad that you agree that even 'Moonies' can get it right. 21137. EricCartman - 3/2/2000 4:30:28 AM Well, connie, even a broken clock is right twice a day. Maybe the Moonies consulted with their pagan god, or sought advice from their creepy leader. After a mass arranged wedding, at the mass arranged reception, of course. 21138. concerned - 3/2/2000 4:30:36 AM A brief excerpt from a commentary on the effects of the McCain/Media Religious Wars: 21139. EricCartman - 3/2/2000 4:32:52 AM Jesus. After reading that last post back, it sounds like I'm trying to imitate Jesse Jackson. Purely unintentional, I swear. That's a definite hint that it's past my bedtime. 21140. concerned - 3/2/2000 4:33:30 AM Re. 21137 - 21141. EricCartman - 3/2/2000 4:34:02 AM Um, I meant my own post, Message # 21137, read like Jackson. 21142. EricCartman - 3/2/2000 4:37:42 AM Hey Connie: 21143. JJBiener - 3/2/2000 11:46:35 AM Cartman - Do you really believe that just because WT is owned by the Unification Church, all of its employees are Moonies? 21144. janjon - 3/2/2000 11:58:36 AM t'aint the number of employee moonies that matters. It is those who direct the policies and positions of the rag that do. 21145. JJBiener - 3/2/2000 12:15:11 PM janjon - Do you think Rev. Moon goes into the office every day and directs what people write about? 21146. janjon - 3/2/2000 12:18:39 PM Biener. I doubt it. Why would he have to? Do I believe that whomever is the publisher and the key editors have more than a pretty good idea of what story angles to use and editorials to write? Well, yes, I do. 21147. TrialShark - 3/2/2000 12:31:19 PM 21148. janjon - 3/2/2000 12:32:38 PM Trial. I gather that, even by W's less than scintillating standards, his performance last night was not exactly boffo. 21149. cazart - 3/2/2000 12:36:09 PM Bush Muffs Letterman Appearance 21150. JJBiener - 3/2/2000 12:40:39 PM GW was definitely uncomfortable talking to Letterman last night. He tried to be cute and funny, but it didn't work. He needs to stay on message no matter who he is talking to. That is one thing Gore is very good at. No matter who the interviewer is or what the question is, Gore is on message. 21151. JJBiener - 3/2/2000 12:45:03 PM janjon - Do I believe that whomever is the publisher and the key editors have more than a pretty good idea of what story angles to use and editorials to write? 21152. janjon - 3/2/2000 12:49:07 PM "GW was definitely uncomfortable talking to Letterman last night. He tried to be cute and funny, but it didn't work. He needs to stay on message no matter who he is talking to." 21153. janjon - 3/2/2000 12:52:08 PM Biener. Although I don't agree with you as to what Cartman was saying or implying, I find your incredulity that Moon or his chief honchos would "order" reporters to lie to be incredulous. After all, you spend much time and effort around here reminding us all about the big bad liberal media and all the lies and distortions they engender. 21154. cazart - 3/2/2000 12:55:37 PM Not wishing to support Cartman on anything, but in this instance, he's right. 21155. RosettaStone - 3/2/2000 12:59:53 PM But the Washington Times has the best editor and political columnist in the country. 21156. JJBiener - 3/2/2000 1:01:03 PM janjon - I have never accused liberal reporters of lying. I have accused them of bias. When they report that Gore accused Republicans of trying to destroy Social Security, this is the truth because Gore really did make the accusation. If they don't challenge the validity of the claim while challenging the claims of Republicans, they are guilty of bias. Is the WT guilty of bias? Most likely. Are they guilty of lying? Not likely. 21157. spudboy - 3/2/2000 1:23:36 PM Connie: 21158. spudboy - 3/2/2000 1:23:53 PM Flying the Confederate battle flag over the South Carolina capitol, however, is quite a different matter. It was raised over the capitol in 1962 as a gesture of defiance aimed at desegregation and civil rights, and it remains there to symbolize the continuing nature of that defiance. Failing to speak out against that defiance does nothing but coddle people who are active racists. 21159. TrialShark - 3/2/2000 1:24:23 PM 21160. spudboy - 3/2/2000 1:32:13 PM JJ: 21161. Indiana Jones - 3/2/2000 1:48:17 PM Dems Fund-Raiser Hsia Found Guilty 21162. bubbaette - 3/2/2000 1:48:34 PM Once upon a time way back in the 70's when I was on my high school's newspaper staff, the Lynchburg, VA. paper held a seminar for us aspiring journalists. During the seminar I asked a reporter for the paper why Reverend Jerry Falwell's conviction for selling unbacked securities had not been reported in the newspaper. He responded that the Falwell family was friends with the Carter-Glass family who owned the paper, and that the Carter-Glasses decided that they'd prefer not to run the story. 21163. EricCartman - 3/2/2000 1:50:50 PM Biener Message # 21151: 21164. Al D - 3/2/2000 1:56:45 PM spudboy 21165. jexster - 3/2/2000 1:58:58 PM Letterman: You look like a million bucks. How do you do it? 21166. CalGal - 3/2/2000 1:59:58 PM Please look up ad hominum as you suggested I do. 21167. spudboy - 3/2/2000 2:03:30 PM Not only that, my argument wasn't ad hominem. I just tossed in the personal note as an aside. 21168. EricCartman - 3/2/2000 2:10:43 PM Perhaps a new political thread could be started where ideas are discussed and not really interesting things such as the Moonies, or whether Bush has balls. 21169. cazart - 3/2/2000 2:11:15 PM Did we take my sniping a few weeks ago a bit too seriously? I don't 21170. janjon - 3/2/2000 2:14:25 PM "As for Bush's balls, if he has 'em, he's renting 'em. He's somebody's boy, he does what he's told. 21171. EricCartman - 3/2/2000 2:15:43 PM Spuds: 21172. spudboy - 3/2/2000 2:16:17 PM Cart: 21173. janjon - 3/2/2000 2:17:33 PM "godly" rule. Or else. 21174. spudboy - 3/2/2000 2:18:00 PM Cart: 21175. EricCartman - 3/2/2000 2:18:23 PM Cazart: 21176. EricCartman - 3/2/2000 2:22:01 PM Spuds: 21177. jexster - 3/2/2000 2:22:54 PM Conservatives have been spouting that liberal media crap since Agnew and his "nattering nabobs of negativism". 21178. spudboy - 3/2/2000 2:27:34 PM Cart: 21179. EricCartman - 3/2/2000 2:30:07 PM Spuds: 21180. jexster - 3/2/2000 2:32:01 PM " When Gov. George W. Bush showed up by satellite on "Late Show with David Letterman" last night, he was smiling, good-natured, prepared to laugh at himself. Imagine, then,what a comic flop he had to be to elicit groans and boos from the audience, as he did with jokes about Mr. Letterman's recent heart surgery. " 21181. Al D - 3/2/2000 2:33:47 PM CalGal 21182. jexster - 3/2/2000 2:34:19 PM read more: Moron Muffs Letterman[NYT] 21183. Cellar Door - 3/2/2000 2:34:48 PM PRESIDENT GORE 21184. 109109 - 3/2/2000 2:34:50 PM I read the Post and the Times every day. The Times is a funny paper, certainly skewed, but very tabloid as well. If the flesh-eating virus is on the way, that will be front-page in the Times. No matter its backing, the Times destroys the Post on national coverage and metropolitan issues. It also crucifies the Post in editorials, mainly because it settles for more insight (usually, two editorials) and greater in-depth treatment. The Post goes for three to four editorials, and they are mostly generalized pablum. 21185. Wombat - 3/2/2000 2:41:36 PM Washington Times and insight. There's an oxymoron for you. 21186. EricCartman - 3/2/2000 2:41:56 PM The Times is a funny paper, certainly skewed, but very tabloid as well. 21187. robertjayb - 3/2/2000 2:42:26 PM . 21188. 109109 - 3/2/2000 2:42:49 PM Wombat 21189. 109109 - 3/2/2000 2:44:11 PM Cart 21190. JJBiener - 3/2/2000 2:47:18 PM Spudboy - Now perhaps we can finally dispose of this "liberal media" crap. 21191. Al D - 3/2/2000 2:56:13 PM Their is no doubt about a Right bias in some media. Of course, all know there is no left bias in any media. And there are no short people in pigmy tribes. You guys are a hoot. 21192. jexster - 3/2/2000 3:00:52 PM Should be a fun evening on CNN: 21193. cazart - 3/2/2000 3:02:20 PM Last five years (1995-1999) Pulitzer Prizes for journalism: 21194. spudboy - 3/2/2000 3:03:13 PM JJ: 21195. EricCartman - 3/2/2000 3:05:30 PM Niner: 21196. EricCartman - 3/2/2000 3:07:44 PM (excerpt cont.) 21197. EricCartman - 3/2/2000 3:10:37 PM (excerpt conc.) 21198. EricCartman - 3/2/2000 3:11:01 PM Darn that liberal media anyway! At least it's a little more clear why, in the eyes of the Moonie Times, Bush good, McCain bad. 21199. EricCartman - 3/2/2000 3:13:04 PM Toys, dammit. 21200. 109109 - 3/2/2000 3:15:23 PM cart 21201. EricCartman - 3/2/2000 3:23:39 PM Dude, it doesn't scare me. It bugs me a little bit that certain otherwise sensible people take it as serious, impartial journalism. But that's about it. I'm glad that it's "hungry"; perhaps Moon should feed it with more of his cult money. Maybe he can charge for another mass wedding. 21202. Cellar Door - 3/2/2000 3:37:24 PM Lucian K. Truscott IV -- A direct descendant of Thomas Jefferson -- nails it once again! 21203. JJBiener - 3/2/2000 3:42:04 PM Spuds - Funny, it's the same for me. The difference: I have a front-row seat. 21204. JJBiener - 3/2/2000 3:50:45 PM Cartman - It bugs me a little bit that certain otherwise sensible people take it as serious, impartial journalism. 21205. spudboy - 3/2/2000 4:08:16 PM JJ: 21206. Al D - 3/2/2000 4:16:52 PM To spudboy every liberal idea is in the mainstream and every conservative idea is wacko. He loves far right, radical right, right-wing conservative, Religious Right. 21207. spudboy - 3/2/2000 4:29:36 PM Aw, gee, Al, I'd be glad to start talking more about the radical left. I track their activities too, particularly on the domestic-terrorism front. 21208. Toenails - 3/2/2000 4:36:04 PM People who steadfastly refuse to admit that the press has a generally liberal bias make me tired, because to me it seems pretty evident. 21209. Al D - 3/2/2000 4:41:36 PM spudboy 21210. spudboy - 3/2/2000 4:43:34 PM Al -- 21211. TheWizardofWhimsy - 3/2/2000 4:46:42 PM 21212. spudboy - 3/2/2000 5:03:49 PM Toenails: 21213. andy - 3/2/2000 5:47:33 PM How was the Charlie Trie show yesterday ? 21214. jexster - 3/2/2000 5:49:55 PM Zogby 21215. jexster - 3/2/2000 5:51:26 PM Manchurian Apostate 21216. spudboy - 3/2/2000 5:59:11 PM Andy: 21217. Greystoke - 3/2/2000 6:02:07 PM toenails 21218. jexster - 3/2/2000 6:03:51 PM Prediction: Gore will whip GWB by 6 points. 21219. jexster - 3/2/2000 6:06:37 PM Al Gore - Fighting for Us!!! 21220. DaveM - 3/2/2000 6:08:33 PM Spudboy: 21221. PincherMartin - 3/2/2000 6:19:33 PM Bradley looked good in last's night debate. It's amazing how well some of these guys do once the pressure is off. Bradley was at his worst in the Bronx debate. Obviously he knows he has no chance in this election and plans to go out with a little dignity instead of banging away at Gore. 21222. PincherMartin - 3/2/2000 6:22:14 PM Correction: 21223. Al D - 3/2/2000 6:24:02 PM DaveM 21224. DaveM - 3/2/2000 6:24:20 PM PincherMartin: 21225. EricCartman - 3/2/2000 6:25:01 PM Biener Message # 21204: 21226. EricCartman - 3/2/2000 6:26:55 PM (cont.) 21227. Al D - 3/2/2000 6:33:33 PM spud 21228. DaveM - 3/2/2000 6:37:03 PM AlD - 21229. EricCartman - 3/2/2000 6:43:09 PM Al: 21230. JJBiener - 3/2/2000 6:45:25 PM Cartman - I really don't give a shit about what Moon does or says. If he was promoting that message through the WT, it would have the readership of Lyndon LaRouche's paper. Whether Moon believes those things or not, they are not promoted in the WT. The WT is about as far to the right is as the WP is to the left. The difference is that the WT is promoted as a conservative paper. The WP is promoted as balanced and unbiased. It is neither. I have no problem with partisanship. I would just like to see them admit to it. 21231. Al D - 3/2/2000 7:05:42 PM DaveM 21232. EricCartman - 3/2/2000 7:06:12 PM Biener: 21233. DaveM - 3/2/2000 7:18:37 PM Re: Campaign Finance Reform 21234. CalGal - 3/2/2000 7:21:31 PM Hey, anyone read Safire's column today? 21235. PincherMartin - 3/2/2000 7:39:14 PM Dave M. -- 21236. joezan - 3/2/2000 7:45:56 PM 21237. DaveM - 3/2/2000 8:04:26 PM Pincher - 21238. Gram2 - 3/2/2000 8:15:02 PM Hello everyone: Haven't been here in quite a while. Has anyone seen the actual results from the Washington primary? I keep reading that Bush won, but no figures and no exit poll information. 21239. Gram2 - 3/2/2000 8:15:03 PM Hello everyone: Haven't been here in quite a while. Has anyone seen the actual results from the Washington primary? I keep reading that Bush won, but no figures and no exit poll information. 21240. Gram2 - 3/2/2000 8:15:12 PM Hello everyone: Haven't been here in quite a while. Has anyone seen the actual results from the Washington primary? I keep reading that Bush won, but no figures and no exit poll information. 21241. Gram2 - 3/2/2000 8:16:06 PM Sorry, forgot and clicked twice. 21242. CalGal - 3/2/2000 8:16:54 PM Hey, Gram! I heard that the absentee vote made it a lot closer. It could be that McCain gets close to half of the ones decided in the popular vote, after all. But that's just what I get from his campaign site--haven't heard anything else yet. 21243. Gram2 - 3/2/2000 8:23:41 PM Hi CalGal: Actually, I support Bush, but wouldn't mind seeing a floor fight, however, I don't think McCain would have a chance. He has to win his going in and that's doubtful. What do the posters here think of his lying and temper tantrums? As a Catholic, I really resent his trying to create a war between religious groups for his own advantage. This country is big enough to tolerate all sorts of opinions without acting like the mid-east--we should be way beyond that. 21244. CalGal - 3/2/2000 8:25:23 PM You think he's trying to create a war? I just think he's cutting the RR down to size. One of the things about this primary--if Bush wins, the RR is just going to be unbearably smug for a while. 21245. TrialShark - 3/2/2000 8:28:28 PM 21246. Gram2 - 3/2/2000 8:33:24 PM CalGal: Yes, he was definitely trying to get Catholic support because of their (he assumes) dislike of the RR. Actually, I have never felt any dislike of any other religious groups with all the Catholics I know. I started out favorable to McCain, didn't know much about him really: navy flier, POW, family man, senator. Since he started campaigning I have come to dislike and actually fear him--his temper is scary and I'd hate to have him in a position of power like the presidency. He is not liked in the senate for very good reason, how could he ever gain a consensus of opinion on anything--I think Bush will be able to and maybe we can get some sensible bi-partisan legislation to benefit the country. 21247. CalGal - 3/2/2000 8:38:20 PM TS, 21248. CalGal - 3/2/2000 8:39:24 PM Gram, 21249. CalGal - 3/2/2000 8:40:39 PM And Gram? Bush's reliance on the RR made it very unlikely he'll be President, and even more unlikely that he'd be able to form a consensus. His whole value was as a moderate, and he's really lost that now by grovelling rightward and godward for votes. 21250. Absensia - 3/2/2000 8:42:27 PM Washington State primary results 21251. Absensia - 3/2/2000 8:43:10 PM Gram2 21252. Gram2 - 3/2/2000 8:51:39 PM Well CalGal, don't agree of course, he was definitely looking for Catholic votes, but it appears to have backfired. Since I think either man could beat Gore, you might want to look again and decide who would be best for the country. Have to go, but I'll come again. 21253. concerned - 3/2/2000 8:55:08 PM Re. 21142 - 21254. concerned - 3/2/2000 9:00:56 PM Good news from the McCain Campaign Bunker: 21255. concerned - 3/2/2000 9:03:47 PM Re. 21157 - 21256. concerned - 3/2/2000 9:18:52 PM Re. 21216 - 21257. TrialShark - 3/2/2000 9:22:39 PM 21258. EricCartman - 3/2/2000 9:29:47 PM Conchita Message # 21253: 21259. EricCartman - 3/2/2000 9:37:10 PM BTW, here is today's scintillating example of "journalism" from the Moonie cult rag. Note the misspelled headline. And the heavily-slanted crapola masquerading as prose. 21260. EricCartman - 3/2/2000 9:38:07 PM Addendum -- it's Pruden's editorial from today's edition. 21261. Al D - 3/2/2000 10:09:28 PM wow. Did Bush kick ass or what. He's so cute evern Cellar must have the hots for him. I can't wait until Jan. 20, 2001 and he is in the house. His dad is a nice guy, and I know that for a fact, but the kid exceeds him in every way. I tend to think that even CalGal must be for him now. 21262. CalGal - 3/2/2000 10:13:43 PM Proof again that you really shouldn't try to think, Al. It's such a waste of time. 21263. Al D - 3/2/2000 10:18:46 PM CalGal 21264. PincherMartin - 3/2/2000 10:22:03 PM Dave M. 21265. PincherMartin - 3/2/2000 10:23:09 PM 21266. PincherMartin - 3/2/2000 10:24:31 PM Remarks Uniting Christian Voters Against McCain 21267. Al D - 3/2/2000 10:27:00 PM Pincher 21268. CalGal - 3/2/2000 10:30:18 PM That article is utter horseshit. The RR vote was coming out in huge numbers before McCain made any statement of that sort. In fact, the Times faithfully reported those numbers, as well. 21269. PincherMartin - 3/2/2000 10:35:01 PM AlD -- 21270. PincherMartin - 3/2/2000 10:37:06 PM CalGal - 21271. TrialShark - 3/2/2000 10:38:31 PM 21272. TrialShark - 3/2/2000 10:39:20 PM 21273. CalGal - 3/2/2000 10:40:55 PM Al, 21274. PincherMartin - 3/2/2000 10:41:01 PM Hahahahahaha! 21275. Al D - 3/2/2000 10:41:37 PM Pincher 21276. CalGal - 3/2/2000 10:45:15 PM Pincher, 21277. PincherMartin - 3/2/2000 10:51:43 PM So what? He won by a closer margin in Virginia than in South Carolina. 21278. PincherMartin - 3/2/2000 10:53:04 PM Unless you have some evidence that many Virginians voted for him because of that speech 21279. CalGal - 3/2/2000 11:02:11 PM Pincher, 21280. robertjayb - 3/2/2000 11:04:14 PM . 21281. concerned - 3/2/2000 11:07:20 PM Re. 21258 - 21282. concerned - 3/2/2000 11:14:45 PM Re. 21243 - 21283. PincherMartin - 3/2/2000 11:25:12 PM 21284. PincherMartin - 3/2/2000 11:28:20 PM Correction: Furthermore, McCain, himself, felt the need to publicly apologize about his commment on the RR leaders using the word "evil." 21285. PincherMartin - 3/2/2000 11:29:03 PM Concerned -- 21286. EricCartman - 3/2/2000 11:30:54 PM Tommy DeMoron Message # 21281: 21287. CalGal - 3/2/2000 11:38:02 PM Pincher, 21288. joezan - 3/2/2000 11:43:49 PM 21289. concerned - 3/2/2000 11:47:05 PM Re. 21285 - 21290. CalGal - 3/2/2000 11:48:24 PM Zan, 21291. concerned - 3/2/2000 11:51:51 PM Re. 21286 - 21292. jexster - 3/2/2000 11:55:04 PM There can be no doubt about it. The Moron is a slimeball worthy of the name Bush: 21293. joezan - 3/2/2000 11:55:47 PM 21294. joezan - 3/2/2000 11:56:54 PM 21295. PincherMartin - 3/3/2000 12:03:42 AM CalGal -- 21296. PincherMartin - 3/3/2000 12:04:38 AM None of your "proof" is "evidence" that his speech had a negative effect on his campaign. He might have lost either way, and there's no question that the miniscule percentage of self-identified RRs that might have otherwise voted for him won't make any difference. 21297. concerned - 3/3/2000 12:04:48 AM Re. 21292 - 21298. joezan - 3/3/2000 12:06:25 AM 21299. CalGal - 3/3/2000 12:08:44 AM Pincher, 21300. concerned - 3/3/2000 12:09:36 AM Re. 21292 - 21301. concerned - 3/3/2000 12:10:51 AM Ooops. Please excuse my double post. I was daydreaming & hit the 'refresh' button. 21302. jexster - 3/3/2000 12:30:05 AM So, your reasoning is that it's truly admirable for any Liberal Group to launch a campaign attacking GWB's environmental record but somehow GWB is personally to be condemned if a Republican group compares it favorably to McCain's? 21303. joezan - 3/3/2000 12:32:33 AM 21304. EricCartman - 3/3/2000 12:47:19 AM Consuela DeMoron Message # 21291: 21305. jexster - 3/3/2000 12:57:23 AM Bush failed to sign that portion of the Patient's BOR that allows patients to sue their HMO's after independent review of their claims. 21306. concerned - 3/3/2000 1:00:09 AM As the NYT reports: "Maria Hsia, a longtime political fund-raiser for Vice President Al Gore, was convicted today of all five felony counts against her for her role in arranging more than $100,000 in illegal donations to the Democratic Party and its candidates in 1996." 21307. concerned - 3/3/2000 1:11:09 AM Re. 21304 - 21308. Jonesy - 3/3/2000 1:11:49 AM GWB just did the most shameless weaseling I have seen in the campaign. The federal courts just granted habeas corpus to a Texas death row inmate who claimed ineffective assistance of counsel because his court appointed attorney slept through much of trial. The Texas criminal courts thought that this was just peachy under our constitution as well as the Texas constitution. The Texas approach was "We provided him a lawer, the constitution doesn't say he has to be awake." Texas is only a step away from criminal cases ala Stalin, where the Defense attorney is just another prosecutor. 21309. Jonesy - 3/3/2000 1:16:42 AM Concerned/confused- News Flash for you, the independent counsel act has expired. 21310. Jonesy - 3/3/2000 1:23:37 AM Bush says he looks at two things in death penalty cases. One, is the person guilty? Two, have they had access to the state and federal courts? He then lamely explains that the system worked because the offender is free. This is utter horseshit. The system failed- the prosecutors missed their deadline to start a retrial. The final breakdown. The biggest breakdown is that in Texas, they think that a sleeping lawyer presents a meaningful defense. Would you hire a lawyer who sleeps through your lawsuit? A surgeon who snoozes through your operation? An accountant who naps during your audit? 21311. concerned - 3/3/2000 1:33:17 AM Re. 21309 - 21312. EricCartman - 3/3/2000 1:34:14 AM Consuela DeMoron Message # 21307: 21313. jexster - 3/3/2000 1:41:00 AM Geez Concerned you are a freakin mess! 21314. jexster - 3/3/2000 1:59:48 AM Editor's note: Pho Ny Minh, deputy assistant press secretary for online media at the Bush campaign headquarters in Austin, Texas, refused to confirm or deny the authenticity of this document. 21315. jexster - 3/3/2000 2:00:32 AM 21316. jexster - 3/3/2000 2:01:32 AM 6) (April 1-30) We follow up by booking the governor on Nightline, where he tells Koppel his platform is based on character, as embodied in the slogan "A Smile, Not a Smirk." 21317. jexster - 3/3/2000 2:02:50 AM 9) Convention: We concur with Poppy's idea of unleashing Dan Quayle in a nationally televised keynote address. Latest draft of his speech has him calling George "A Father With Faith." This introduces our candidate to the wider electorate, nails down the anti-Murphy Brown vote, and adroitly sets the stage for the rest of our launch schedule. 21318. RosettaStone - 3/3/2000 6:05:19 AM Alan Keyes wins another debate and I understand why the networks won't let him on. 21319. Wombat - 3/3/2000 10:41:03 AM The only reason anyone in the media pays any attention to Alan Keyes at all is because he's black. Otherwise he'd be in Dan Quayle or Gary Bauer-land. He is a very eloquent loon, however. 21320. jexster - 3/3/2000 11:26:40 AM Alan Keyes had some very bad makeup on last night. I think somebody wanted to make him look like the clown he is. 21321. TrialShark - 3/3/2000 11:27:38 AM 21322. Dantheman - 3/3/2000 11:28:31 AM TS, 21323. robertjayb - 3/3/2000 11:42:52 AM . 21324. TrialShark - 3/3/2000 11:49:03 AM 21325. JJBiener - 3/3/2000 11:53:32 AM It is good to see Molly Ivins apologizing for her article on GWB's support of Texas' PBR. It seems the facts were pretty much what I said they were. The question that remains is whether Ivins was deliberately trying to distort Bush's record or was she just grossly negligent in researching the facts. 21326. TrialShark - 3/3/2000 12:03:37 PM 21327. jexster - 3/3/2000 12:06:20 PM Bush says he "resents the politics of smear" 21328. jexster - 3/3/2000 12:08:52 PM Robert: 21329. jexster - 3/3/2000 12:10:35 PM TS - 21330. jexster - 3/3/2000 12:18:45 PM Moron SHifts on Guns 21331. Ronski - 3/3/2000 12:38:09 PM Giuliani has increased his lead over Hillary Clinton in the latest Quinnipiac Poll from three points to seven points, up about where other polls have had him. 21332. JudithAtHome - 3/3/2000 12:39:56 PM He does a lot of that...not pushing for legislation but giving lip service to it. 21333. JudithAtHome - 3/3/2000 12:41:16 PM 21332 is about Bush, of course, not Guiliani. 21334. Ronski - 3/3/2000 12:51:03 PM It was columnist Gail Collins in today's New York Times who spoke of Bush's "nervously darting eyes" that make him look "like a small mammal in distress." 21335. JJBiener - 3/3/2000 12:51:53 PM Liberal bias in the media. 21336. TrialShark - 3/3/2000 12:52:30 PM 21337. JudithAtHome - 3/3/2000 12:59:22 PM Ronski: 21338. Ronski - 3/3/2000 1:07:53 PM 21339. cazart - 3/3/2000 1:13:45 PM >According to MSNBC, McCain didn't apologize because he was 21340. Ronski - 3/3/2000 1:16:33 PM I'm sure there is plenty of liberal bias in the media, and some conservative bias too, and loads of mushy-minded centrist bias as well, but I fail to see where McCain was wrong about calling Robertson and Fallwell agents of intolerance. 21341. spudboy - 3/3/2000 1:26:52 PM Incidentally, JJ, you may want to note that the piece in question is clearly labeled "Opinion." 21342. robertjayb - 3/3/2000 1:29:09 PM . 21343. JudithAtHome - 3/3/2000 1:31:46 PM You'll never go broke underestimating the taste of the American public....but in this case, perhaps some will. 21344. robertjayb - 3/3/2000 1:40:02 PM . 21345. TrialShark - 3/3/2000 2:00:40 PM 21346. Wombat - 3/3/2000 2:18:09 PM In an interview with DC's own Mark Plotkin, W came out very strongly against home rule for DC. Presumably he meant statehood, as DC has had home rule for quite a few decades. 21347. TheWizardofWhimsy - 3/3/2000 2:26:10 PM 21348. robertjayb - 3/3/2000 2:27:06 PM . 21349. Wombat - 3/3/2000 2:45:07 PM Hmmph. Republicans for hot air. 21350. JJBiener - 3/3/2000 2:51:44 PM RJB - Choke. Gasp. Sputter. 21351. CalGal - 3/3/2000 2:52:07 PM Ha, I like that. 21352. theDiva - 3/3/2000 2:56:42 PM Wombat 21353. andy - 3/3/2000 3:38:18 PM Indy, 21354. andy - 3/3/2000 3:39:41 PM 21355. andy - 3/3/2000 3:54:27 PM Gore on China-Taiwan in the debate 21356. robertjayb - 3/3/2000 4:12:19 PM . 21357. andy - 3/3/2000 4:26:32 PM Bradley Makes Foreign Policy Speech 21358. robertjayb - 3/3/2000 4:32:28 PM . 21359. TrialShark - 3/3/2000 5:10:31 PM 21360. JJBiener - 3/3/2000 5:18:38 PM Asking environmentalists about Bush's environmental record is like asking the John Birch Society about Gore's moral authority to lead. 21361. spudboy - 3/3/2000 5:35:31 PM You don't need to ask environmentalists. You can ask anyone living in the Northwest. 21362. andy - 3/3/2000 5:47:28 PM 21363. Al D - 3/3/2000 6:09:53 PM spudboy 21364. Indiana Jones - 3/3/2000 6:11:08 PM Andy: Muel has mad jackass disease. 21365. spudboy - 3/3/2000 6:23:24 PM Al -- 21366. robertjayb - 3/3/2000 6:56:13 PM . 21367. Cellar Door - 3/3/2000 7:02:18 PM What's buzzin' cousins"? Been busy all day talkin' with Gene Lyons and Joe Conason over in Table Talk. Much fun, and Much news too! 21368. jexster - 3/3/2000 8:41:29 PM McCain sinking fast in NY according to Zogby a steady deterioration with Bush in the lead. 21369. Greystoke - 3/3/2000 8:51:08 PM "While George W. Bush criticizes John McCain for not supporting breast cancer programs." 21370. TrialShark - 3/3/2000 10:20:02 PM 21371. DaveM - 3/3/2000 11:05:17 PM Thousands of breasts could still only be hundreds of women. 21372. Spudboy - 3/3/2000 11:10:13 PM TS: Just think. Dan Burton will have a new use for melons. 21373. TrialShark - 3/3/2000 11:34:59 PM 21374. TrialShark - 3/3/2000 11:35:58 PM 21375. DaveM - 3/3/2000 11:44:59 PM Males have breasts too. I think that once read that 13% of all humans have the makings of a third nipple. ("Thousands" could also mean "more than a thousand..."). 21376. robertjayb - 3/3/2000 11:53:00 PM . 21377. EricCartman - 3/4/2000 2:00:23 AM Biener Message # 21335: 21378. EricCartman - 3/4/2000 2:05:09 AM (cont. to Biener) 21379. robertjayb - 3/4/2000 11:31:39 AM 21380. robertjayb - 3/4/2000 11:48:48 AM . 21381. jexster - 3/4/2000 11:52:26 AM McCain continues to fall like a rock. 21382. jexster - 3/4/2000 11:54:56 AM At Stake on March 7: Contests in 16 states total (13 Republican, 15 Democratic). (Note: Each state's Democratic delegate total includes "super delegates," which are not up for grabs in primaries/caucuses) 21383. jexster - 3/4/2000 11:55:30 AM GEORGIA: 21384. jexster - 3/4/2000 11:55:44 AM MISSOURI: 21385. jexster - 3/4/2000 11:58:37 AM Bush Image As CA 'Moses' Fading: Seen As Too Conservative - WPost 21386. jexster - 3/4/2000 12:06:36 PM "Bush's unfavorable rating hit 51 percent in a Field Poll released this week, a dangerously high level for any candidate and an increase of 19 percentage points since October. And while he once ran even with Gore in general election trial heats, he now trails the vice president by about 10 percentage points." 21387. JudithAtHome - 3/4/2000 12:15:18 PM Message # 21379 21388. Al D - 3/4/2000 1:59:38 PM Eric 21389. TrialShark - 3/4/2000 2:04:49 PM 21390. Al D - 3/4/2000 2:05:08 PM Oh, and by the way, if any person who is not already a true believer watches the 700 Club, it is to laugh. If McCain was not such a hot head, he would have left Robinson alone until after he had the nomination, and then make a suggestion that, while much of what Robinson believes has merit, he sometimes goes too far. Or some other political bullshit like that. McCain seems to think the fact that he pisses people off a great virtue. If that is true, I have it made. 21391. jexster - 3/4/2000 2:12:55 PM Finally I must agree with Al. Old friends who work in, on and around the Hill would certainly accept McCain seems to think the fact that he pisses people off a great virtue. 21392. Al D - 3/4/2000 2:17:37 PM jexster 21393. CalGal - 3/4/2000 2:20:06 PM TS, 21394. TrialShark - 3/4/2000 2:39:54 PM 21395. 109109 - 3/4/2000 3:04:31 PM As far as Bush making errors that may have cost him California, I cannot imagine California was ever in his plans. If it is, whatever underdog chance he had is lessened ev
Stick to the courtroom and stay away from racetracks!
Shark doesn't know his odds, but at least HE'S computer-literate!
Ohio --
There are three GOP candidates, not two.
And, er, I really admire your typing skills.
Cal, I believe you're the Mote's Official Greeter ... wanna say something nice to Kitty~ to make her/him feel at home before everyone else in the thread rips him/her to shreds?
And wasn't it Dems who screwed up the primary in California? I know it was political maneuvering, that it was originally intended to be open. But I can't remember which party messed with it.
Someone was asking about polls in Washington state ...
AP is reporting an ARG poll conducted on Wednesday and Thursday of this week. It shows a dead heat:
–George W. Bush, 43 per cent
–John McCain, 43 per cent
–Alan Keyes, 4 per cent
–Undecided, 10 per cent
Margin of error is 4 per cent.
Cal --
No, I missed the newbies. Were they here this afternoon? Did they say anything worth paging back a couple hundred posts to read?
FWIW, I stopped in at the Crown Books in San Ramon to pick up a copy of John McCain's book, "Faith of my Fathers." The two people ahead of me at the checkout line also bought copies. The cashier volunteered that it was the fastest-moving book they had on sale there.
So far it's a good read.
Hmmm ... the polls I've seen show Bush leading by 8-10 points or so in Virginia. Given the strength of the Christian right there, I'd be surprised if the governor doesn't pull off a South Carolina-sized win.
Have you read The Nightingale's Song, by Robert Timberg? It's the story of five US Naval Academy grads--McCain, James Webb, Oliver North, Bud McFarlane, and John Poindexter. Great read. You'll come out liking McCain a lot--but the weird thing is, you'll come out thinking a lot more highly of Poindexter, too.
It was only particular counties, and it was latebreaking stuff. Gigot was astounded at how nervous Bush's staff was, given how certain Virginia was supposed to be.
Those are just impressions, though. Iran-Contra isn't something I've read about in depth.
Cal --
Dunno. I don't have any bad thoughts about Poindexter. I'll see if I can find the book, though.
Indy --
"[Poindexter] wasn't like North in that he didn't try to make the whole thing seem like he should be getting another medal pinned on his chest."
A reason to like him right there.
Oh, and I really suppose I should say this:
Hello Kitty~
Coincidence?
I think not.
It's another conspiracy.
And now we'll have to kill you and eat you.
Nothing personal, you understand.
Sounds better to me than The Inferno
Unless you've got a problem with Amazon, the link is right there, waiting for you to buy!
My favorite Poindexter story:
He was not a right-wing zealot. His worldview was the standard cold-warrior variety, his position on social issues moderate to liberal. He didn't talk gender equity; he lived it. In 1985, Reagan was resisting intense pressure from COngress to impose economic sanctions on South African. [His wife] Linda, who was studying for the ministry, told him she was going to join friends from church in picketing the South African embassy. She didn't exactly ask his permission, but she let him know she was willing to reconsider her participation if he felt it might prove embarrassing to him. He told her to go ahead. She did, was arrested, handcuffed, put in a paddy wagon, booked, and released. No news organization connected the name Linda Poindexter on the daily arrest record to Ronald Reagan's deputy national secruity adviser. Knowing Poindexter--more accurately, not knowing him--no one made the connection.
Explained Linda, "John would always say, 'Do what you want to do, go where you want to go, my career can take care of itself.' It was sort of like John lived his life the way he wanted to and I would live mine the way I wanted to and we'd negotiate out the rest."
Of course, Timberg goes on to say that this was one of Poindexter's problems--he tended to assume that men and women would act like grownups. This was fine with his wife, but a dangerous tendency when dealing with colleagues in the Reagan administration.
Anyway, I just love that story. It is so completely at odds with the image I got from the guy in the hearings.
Kitty~
"Should I be afraid of pending feeding frenzies?"
No, we're all relatively well-fed. Sometimes we get a little rambunctious and like to chew on things, though. Fair warning.
Every now and then people get their feelings hurt.
Cal --
The link worked, but I'll check the local used bookstores first.
Is there a good used-book website someone can pass on to me?
Expense aside, I'm looking for something that's out of print.
Hello, everybody. I haven't been able to check in for quite awhile.
Is anybody still making the now utterly discredited argument that George W. isn't pandering to the Religious Right?
Ace?
Welcome back, LC!
Don't be hard on Ace -- he's been relatively sensible about the GOP race thus far. The true Bush hacks in the thread are Al D, Rosie, and, to a lesser extent, JJ.
I've found Amazon a fairly decent source for out of print books.
Also, elephantbooks.net has had some too. They have a lot of out of print books in stock, so if they have it, you get it faster than if you go through Amazon.
But Algore is the Darth Maul of the 2000 race.
Rosie --
"I've never been a supporter of baby Bush, TS."
Hmmm. I must have been confused by your tendency to sneer at Senator McCain every chance you get.
Still, since none of the people you listed have any chance whatsoever of winning the GOP nomination except the senator ... welcome aboard!
And speaking of welcoming aboard, Seattle's largest newspaper, the Post-Intelligencer, is endorsing Senator McCain in the Washington GOP primary. The endorsement appears in an editorial to be published tomorrow.
Here's something that I found at another website:
THIS SHOULD MAKE YOU GO POSTAL
This item in its entirely from the front page of this morning's New York Times.
"The Census Bureau has begun mailing 120 million letters to households. The only problem is that each and every address is wrong. Page 9."
120 million letters?!? Presumably with 33 cent stamps (You do the math). But Oops! There's another problem. The story isn't on page 9 of the New York Times. It isn't anywhere in the paper we got this morning.
--Lucianne.com
Rosie --
It's a conspiracy.
It's always a conspiracy.
Toenails,
This site may be worth a try for out-of-print books:
Bookfinder
I love politico-speak. From the Associated Press:
***
Like her colleagues, New Jersey's [Governor] Christie Whitman is confident Bush will win the GOP nomination. But she worries that the visit to Bob Jones and other efforts to appeal to the most conservative voters will come back to bite Bush in the general election, when candidates will be fighting for voters in the political center.
"The most important thing is to put together a coalition that can win in the fall," Whitman said. "It can be dangerous if you start to marginalize yourself in any way." Asked if Bush has done that, she said: "I don't think that's happened in any kind of irretrievable way."
***
Translation: yes, of course he has, you idiot.
I think that Niner and Pincher are arguing that no one will remember the hard sell to the RR come Judgment Day. 
Absensia, robertjayb...
I appreciate the help re used books. Looks like Bookfinder is going to do the trick. Many thanks.
Hey - isn't that the finger she was pointing when she called those innocent police officers murderers?
(I hope Rudy's got rabies...)
Latest Marist NY poll:
Bush 43 per cent
McCain 41 per cent
Keyes 3 per cent
Undecided 12 per cent
This poll was conducted after the Michigan and Arizona primaries and has a margin of error of 5 per cent.
TS...the Seattle PI may be right, but since Monday's primary is only a beauty contest, since the caucuses meet in March, there isn't a lot of excitement here. Such an endorsement for McCain mostly means he wore Eddie Bauer campaign togs, not L.L. Bean. Gore and Bradley have been trying to "out-gortex" on another here.
In fact, it looks like "Bookfinder" is an indespensible resource. Where do I get in on the IPO?
If your brother is looking for "Hells Angels", they have tons!
Absensia --
I've noticed that the media feeding frenzy over next week's contests isn't what it was in the last round of primaries.
The rest of your message was difficult to fathom ... it seemed to suggest that there's been a lot of rain in Seattle. Surely that can't be right, can it? [g]
Judith, thanks. Don't think that's the one, but I'm
checking.
TS: Scary, as I started to remark on today's weather, the
power in the house went out for about 30 seconds, so I'll
give you the standard answer. It always rains in Seattle!
But rain has nothing to do with it...if you want to get
votes, you'd better forget the blazer or suit jacket and don
gortex..and drink a double tall, too. That's the NW
look..and it had better be Eddie Bauers or Nordies, since
both companies started here in this small town.
The AP's take on upcoming GOP primarys
A Theological
Analysis of the
South Carolina
Primary
In Kennebunk, land of the Bushes,
The men of the cloth all wore tweed.
And one didn't meet any Christians
Like Robertson, Falwell and Reed.
But politics calls for adjustments.
If right is the wing that you need,
You praise God and shout hallelujah
With Robertson, Falwell and Reed.
So Bush, the uniter from Texas,
Said, "Since you're the fellows they heed,
Do Jesus's work down and dirty,
Please, Robertson, Falwell and Reed."
They blackened McCain with their phone banks
And told all the voters that he'd
Consort with the people most hated
By Robertson, Falwell and Reed.
McCain's just too chummy with Satan,
And should he, not Bush II, succeed,
The unborn would have no protector,
Said Robertson, Falwell and Reed.
Well, W won Carolina,
For three days he had back his lead.
For this he had pledged his allegiance
To Robertson, Falwell and Reed.
Yes, he made his pact--not with Satan,
But, still, he will never be freed.
He'll always be part of a package
With Robertson, Falwell and Reed.
.......Calvin Trillin
Well that sure sucked.
...you know, come to think of it, someone posted another of Trillin's brilliant attempts at "poetry" in the Fray a long time ago, and that sucked just as bad as this one.
Before you hit the head to barf.
Pay attention to his words...
He's a good Bush beater and he
Flushed more'n birds.
Please, Judith, don't offend such sophisticated intellects with doggerel.
Polling Roundup: Bush leads McCain Nationally...the AP
RJB --
Some of those numbers would be quite encouraging for Senator McCain, were there more time in the primary season. But there isn't and they're not. Most of the rest of the numbers are pretty dismal for him; clearly, he faces an uphill battle. The Vice President is no doubt relieved.
TrialShark,
Vice President is no doubt relieved.
Yes, these is/are nervis times for us yellow-dawgs. Go, John, go! But, please God, not too far.
GOP governors meanwhile are circling the wagon waiting for the massacre:
"WASHINGTON (AP) - Rallying around one of their own, Republican governors say they're confident in their colleague from Texas, mobilizing a show of unity they hope will boost George W. Bush's struggling campaign.
Still, they're brimming with free advice.
In town for their winter meeting, GOP governors gave Bush early and
powerful backing - even before he declared he was running. That
support helped rally the Republican establishment around the Texas
governor as the party's best chance for taking back the White House.
``I'm confident we made the right decision,'' said Gov. Ed Schafer of
North Dakota, chairman of the Republican Governors Association, which gathered a dozen governors Saturday to demonstrate their unity with Bush.
Democratic governors are relishing the intense GOP fight.
``I'm just absolutely delighted that the Republicans are having the
opportunity to discuss all their shortcomings,'' said Kentucky Gov.
Paul Patton. ``I just hope they go right down to the wire. It looks like they are.''
That's a cool $400,000/day
New Republic endorses a Republican in primary for the first time: John McCain
W's spending so far comes to about $1 million per delegate.
Since then, along about election time, mailboxes are filled to overflowing with brochures that people routinely dump in the garbage along with other junk mail.
I've been wondering whether massive TV advertising may not be headed in the same direction of uselessness and offer this as food for thought:
"Rowland said Bush also relies too much on TV at the expense of grassroots organizing.
``It's voter turnout. It's contact and follow-up. It's good old-fashioned one-on-one by the candidate. I don't think there's been enough of that'' by Bush, said the governor of Connecticut, where Bush trails McCain in polls.
One Republican governor and the top political aide to another, both speaking on condition of anonymity, said Bush's team has been reluctant to ship money and resources to state GOP organizations in the March 7 states.
In one state run by a Bush-supporter, the governor helped raise more than $1 million and has received less than $5,000 from the Bush campaign to finance grassroots operations...."
jex --
"Too bad TS, your poor battered karma sacrificed for what?"
Entertainment value, if nothing else.
Don't tell me you haven't been enjoying the primaries thus far.
I think it's simpler than that: political t.v. ads are just too damned much of an insult to one's intelligence.
(By the way, it's hard for me to write that since I know I'll vote for him over Algore any day of the week.)
Who are you voting for?
Only the Chief Sexual Harasser and his Tammy Wynette manque have higher negatives than AGjunior.
If the stock market poops out, WJC is going to slide into a black memory hole that only Jexster will want to fondly remember, and MadDog McCain will clean out the temple of the money-changers.
Whoever heads up the Canadian Liberal party. Liberal isn't a bad word in Canada yet.
Rosy I thought the repubs were responsible for the good economy. I guess if it goes bad then all of a sudden it will be Clinton's economy.
Last summer he posted on 109109's Hokey thread there and got to know some of the moterheads. I'm trying to encourage him to spend more time here.
TT management is doing a very good job of determining that. However, before I go anywhere I need to know what the rules are. I might just decide to give up on discussion forums altogether because of the fucking nazis they put in charge of them.
Oh, Lord...
I guess we should be lucky it wasn't 1000.
Welcome to the Mote. Contrary to what Rosetta says, CalGal doesn't make the rules, although she sometimes tries to achieve a consensus on certain controversial issues.
The Rules of Engagement, which is linked on this page, are the gospel.
Really, the rules are simple and you are unlikely to run afoul of them in normal conversation.
At least until the site gets real popular and someone puts the photoshop experts in charge of running it. Anyway there doesn't appear to be any threads here so the whole dynamic of thread politics is absent. I'm not sure if that is good or bad. Anyway I should probably be discussing this somewhere else. Are political discussions permitted in the politics thread?
Only if we can't think of anything else to discuss.
Goddard:
Just go along as if there is no sysop, ok? Some people, for some weird reason, need to have a sysop on whom to vent their spleen. Where there is none, they invent one.
Somehow, CalGal became the Mote's default sysop through this method of selection.
But she isn't.
Indiana Jones is.
But you'd never know it, because he hasn't thrown anyone out yet.
Sounds positive.
Ha! I knew it musta been you who posted those stupid poems, wonk.
Listen - Calvin Trillin is second-rate. I read his first 1/2 paragraph, and I can almost quote the rest of his article verbatim.
I think he uses a template, and every week he just cuts and pastes different names and places, and - voila! A column is born.
Wonk gets off another zinger.
Indiana:
See. I post here nearly every day, and I didn't even know there's a sysop. If you don't go looking for trouble, it won't find you.
Thought I'd pull that from Jex's link to make sure y'all got to see our eloquent and articulate governor at his best. (blech)
The GOP denies
The slightest Dukish ties.
They're sorry that he ran.
They loathe the Ku Klux Klan.
And yet it's true that he
And they (the GOP)
When stepping to the mike
Do tend to sound alike:
"Blame middle-class defeats
On quotas, welfare cheats."
One word they both hold back
Is what they both mean: black.
The codes give them away:
He's got their DNA.
Its funny who you meet
By peeking 'neath the sheet.
Calvin Trillin
"Deadline Poet"
The White House is in disarray.
That megaklutz, C. Boyden Gray,
Can't seem to find a way to say
"We mean to keep the blacks at bay"
Without igniting quite a fray.
With such a message to convey,
A messenger can go astray.
He has to find a subtle way
To send it out--not overplay,
And sound just like the KKK.
The subtlety of all this may
Just be too much for Boyden Gray.
In which case case, they'll have to find
Somebody else to do it.
Calvin Trillin
Dubya's following in daddy's footsteps. Next month he's appearing in New Orleans with David Duke just in case anybody missed the message from Bob Jones U!
The drug trade will stop.
The hungry will feast.
And peace will break out
Throughout the Mideast.
The homeless will get
The homes of their dreams,
While Japanese ride
In Cutlass Supremes.
Our school keds will have
Einsteinian skills,
Plus bodies to match
The Buffalo Bills'.
Our cities rebuilt,
Our streets all secured,
Goodwill will return.
Oh, AIDS will be cured.
It all can be done,
The Bush Campaign maintains:
We'll just cut the tax
On capital gains.
Calvin Trillin
"Deadline Poet"
POLICE DEPARTMENT BLUES
If I done right or I done wrong,
I'd sooner be held by the Vietcong.
Calvin Trillin
"Deadline Poet"
Very original posts, wonk.
"BREAK OUT THOSE PATSY CLINE RECORDS, HE MAY BE BAAACK:
The New York Times' scariest story this a.m. carries hints (or threats) that Ross Perot and Johnny Mac may be circling each other for some kind of a deal to lure independent voters. We wonder of those naughty Ninjas are still on Perot's lawn. This could get seriously strange."
(I wonder why the freepers and their allies dislike McCain so. I do understand why the stupid party does.)
1.) Because they need enemies in order to operate. And so McCain becomes the New Clinton -- even though his voting record is indistinguishable from George Bush.
2.) They need a hysterical fantasy to keep them warm and cozy at night -- therefore their embrace of Weyerich's "Manchurian Candidate" scenario in which a McCain victory will result in his turning the government over to the Viet Cong.
3.) He's not working from the playbook, which states that Bush gets the nomination.
Whoops -- sorry about #3. That only applies to the Republican Party rank and file.
I know this is tacky but if his camapign managers taste in clothes is any indication of his intelligence, GW has hired a genuine rube. A wool tweed sports coat and cotton khaki pants in DC in February? I don't think so.....maybe GW can spare a minutes worth of campaign cash and buy Karl a decent pair of slacks.
Here's something I'll bet you didn't know.
From Newsweek via MSNBC:
***
Poll: Bush remains GOP front-runner
McCain’s victories fail to blunt lead
NEWSWEEK
Feb. 26 — The more things change, the more they stay the same. Despite winning the Michigan and Arizona primaries last week, Sen. John McCain does not seem to be picking up any speed. In a nationwide poll, he remains in about the same position as he was after Texas Gov. George W. Bush’s win in New Hampshire.
***
Hmmm ... in this dimension, Governor Bush lost New Hampshire, by a wide margin.
Grab a few large grains of salt and check out the rest of the article here. Or don't.
AGjunior looks mafia, with dark shirts and light-colored ties.
Ha, ha. I emailed them. Let's see how long it will be before they fix it.
...But. Bob Dylan IS a middle-aged Jewish cowboy.
On Face the Nation McCain strategist Mike Murphy said they'd "be competitive in California".
Realizing his mistake he later said they'd win California.
Close is fine for horseshoes but not for winner-take-all.
The Richmond Times Dispatch carries an interesting editorial in today's paper. While it refuses to endorse either GOP candidate, it has something to say about the establishment's embrace of Governor Bush:
***
In fact -- and on this you can trust us -- the race is between two conservatives. That is how McCain and Bush describe themselves; the record of each sustains the claim. To trust the testimonial of one and not the other is to plunge into an intellectual, logical, and political swamp.
Still, many conservatives believe GeorgeW is the truer, deeper, more committed conservative. And this is odd. Eight to ten months ago, when establishment Republicans and corporate types were flocking to Bush because they deemed him the inevitable nominee and a Republican who could win, the reluctant debutantes were the party's conservatives who now are hugging him so tightly. They weren't so devoted then ...
For years the Democrats have been unable to shake the monkey of an ideological Socialism that dares not speak its name. Going by Liberalism (in almost all instances with a little l), it postulates the primacy of the collectivity -- group interests and entitlements, as opposed to individuals and individual rights -- and the ability of government to Do Good. Liberalism drove the Democrats to many successes. More recently, it has driven the party to its current low estate.
Conservatism may have become liberalism's antipodal ideology -- complete with litmus tests and a skewed view of reality. Our concern is that the McCainBush contest may be saying conservatives are doing to the Republican Party what liberals did to the Democratic Party: through ideological rigidity, purity, and narrowness, rendering it unable to win ...
***
Read the entire editorial here.
Unbelievable what these Pigpilers are saying these days isn't it!
jex --
Be nice. Mr. Barbour's future earning potential as a lobbyist could be significantly impacted by the outcome of the election. So you gotta figure he'll say anything.
Cal --
MSNBC changed their web page: it now reads "... after Texas Gov. George W. Bush’s win in South Carolina."
Quinnipiac New Jersey poll of registered Republican voters, taken before the Michigan and Arizona primaries:
Bush 41%
McCain 41%
Keyes 6%
Undecided 12%
Margin of error 5.6%.
In the green room awaiting his appearance, Bill Bennett said that sucker is "talking about me!"
jex --
Come on. Bill Bennett is a well-known, dyed-in-the-wool liberal.
Pat Robertson said so on the last edition of The 700 Club, so it must be true.
Trial:
Yeah, but NJ's primary is in April, isn't it?
Ace --
I think it's one of the later ones -- April sounds right.
Took long enough ...
***
Bush 'Regrets' Bob Jones Flap
By Glen Johnson
Associated Press Writer
Sunday, Feb. 27, 2000; 1:57 p.m. EST
AUSTIN, Texas –– In a letter to the leader of New York's Catholics, Gov. George W. Bush says his campaign appearance at a South Carolina school with anti-Catholic views was a "missed opportunity causing needless offense, which I deeply regret."
Bush has come under steady criticism for his Feb. 2 visit to Bob Jones University, a Christian school whose founder has criticized the Pope and labeled the Catholic church a "Satanic cult."
Bush's opponents have assailed him for not using the appearance to speak out against the policies of the school, which also bans interracial dating. Bush spoke about his conservatism.
In a letter to Cardinal John O'Connor of New York, leader of the archdiocese's 2.4 million Roman Catholics, Bush states his "profound respect" for the Catholic Church and says criticism of him is unfair and unfounded.
"On reflection, I should have been more clear in disassociating myself from anti-Catholic sentiments and racial prejudice," he said in the letter, mailed Friday and released Sunday by his campaign. "It was a missed opportunity causing needless offense, which I deeply regret."
The letter marked an abrupt reversal for Bush, who only last week said: "I don't make any apologies for what I do in the campaign."
***
I wonder when the governor's pollsters let him know that he regretted his visit?
Read the entire article here.
Shrub doesn't follow polls...he follows his hort.
Bob Jones U = "Hymietown." 
In Massachusetts, once a hotbed of Clinton support, 21,700 Democrats have changed their registration to independent so they could vote for McCain in the March 7 primary. Another 4,000 Democrats have re-registered as Republicans, and about 2,800 independents have switched to the GOP--probably to show outraged supporters of George W. Bush that McCain can, too, bring in Republican votes. That's nearly 30,000 voters.
Even Pat Robertson, the founder of the Christian Coalition, who has had his own share of stumbles, had no sympathy. "I'd have advised him not to go," he said. "Bob Jones has been known as a rather extreme place. Those people are really far out."
But more than anything else, the Bob Jones debacle is a telling case study of the importance of symbolic politics. Candidates who are not sufficiently sensitive to symbols can cause themselves irreparable damage in one fleeting utterance or, in the case of Bush, one 45-minute appearance.
A few days earlier, Bush committed another symbolic blunder when he popped up at a rally in New Hampshire flanked by his parents. It fueled an image that he would be nowhere without his kin.
The Bob Jones visit took on an outsized importance because Bush has still been a relative blank slate ideologically...."
Mentally blank as well.
They're YOUR problem now. The rest of us disposed of them in the Great Impeachment Debacle.
Americans Interest in 2000 Campaign Up Even As They Perceive Campaign as More Negative - JFK School Vanishing Voter Project
"It was a missed opportunity causing needless offense, which I deeply regret."
But he didn't say that he is sorry. I really think that Shrub should say he is sorry. Just come right out and say it. What's so hard about that? He should say that he is sorry. He hasn't said that. I just don't think the American people can be satisfied until Shrub says that he is sorry. Why can't he say that? I'm sorry. That's all.
RJB --
Because he isn't sorry.
He is experiencing "regret."
Most politicians regret things that make them lose primaries.
You know the correction that you noted earlier? It was made after someone read my letter.
And check your email if you want to know who read my letter.
Cal --
No kidding!
Huh. If I had known, I'd have posted to him directly.
When a guy who once threatened to innundate Orlando with hurricanes because Disney World has Gay Days, refers to BJU as "....a rather extreme place. Those people are really far out.", well, you know we're talkin' 'bout some serious wackjobs here, friends n' neighbors.
Funny that Bush is just now realizing what a fuck-up that was. Oh well, like it or not, he gets to dance with them that brung him. Were it not for the loony fringe in SC, he'd only have Iowa under his belt, no? He ain't shaking free of that tar-baby that quickly.
For what it's worth, I caught what you were saying in Message # 20421 and heartily agree; sauce for the goober, so to speak.
Bush Jr's Bob Jones Excellent Adventure was a tremendous gaffe. Yet another reason why Rove isn't qualified to handle the 10PM-6AM shift at the 7-11.
And McCain isn't any better; a chief campaign manager is Richard Quinn ("a man of great integrity" according to McCain) is editor of Southern Partisan. A magazine which is a pretty reacist piece of trash.
Vol. 3 No. 2, Spring 1983, pp. 5f "A Partisan View" by Richard M. Quinn Editor-in-Chief:
Newsweek magazine celebrated its 50th anniversary this year with a 160 page "Special Edition" ,
"I So the editors selected five typical families from all regions and walks of American life ...
How does the South fit into Newsweek's vision of the American dream? .. An evil white Southern planter "took his pleasure" with a
slave girl (how Newsweek verified this is not made clear) who then gave birth to a halfbreed son. The planter ripped the babe from
his mother s arms, sold her for profit and put the boy to work. As a handsome, angry young man (shades of Mandingo), he rode the
freedom train to Ohio where he became the great grandfather to the black woman who started the civil rights movement in Ohio and
who presumably gave Newsweek this colorful family history.
In point of fact, massive evidence suggests that slave families were rarely separated. Efforts were made uniformly across the South to
keep families together (in part because good morale was good for business). The record also shows that many freed slaves stayed
South, kept close ties with their former owners and found for themselves a life altogether more satisfying than their cousins who
ended up sleeping with rats in Harlem under the shadow of Newsweek's editorial offices.
McCain is ripping Foulwell and Robertson at a rally in Virginia Beach. CNN has it.
McCain appears to be behind in California, despite polls showing he is competitive with Gore in November, while Bush would lose to Gore in CA by ten points.
McCain's speech was a Sister Souljah moment.
McCain invokes Lincoln's name at the same time that his campaign manager's magazine advertises t-shirts that celebrate Lincoln's assassination.
McCain, however, holds a slim lead in New York and the trend seems to be with him at the moment.
"a Sister Souljah moment"
What does that mean?
Since no else is answering, I'll try to explain it.
In 1992, shortly before the Democratic convention, Bill Clinton attacked a black rap star named Sister Souljah, who had been making violently racist statements. This act of attacking someone in one's own core constituency for going over the line is now referred to as a "Sister Souljah moment".
That's my boy. God, it's a total drag that he's probably not going to win the primary. 
Most excellent.
I would not have wanted to be standing nearby when Pat Robertson learned Senator McCain had just compared him to Al Sharpton and Louis Farrakhan.
Jerry Falwell is probably already halfway through writing the script for The McCain Chronicles.
I wonder if that speech will help draw in the other Republicans in enough numbers to offset the nine thousand tons of angry zealots who have just lined him up in their sights.
McCain made the speech in Virginia, but surely the speech was directed at New York voters. Bush sent the Catholics there a message by saying he made a mistake with his Bob Jones University speech, but McCain counters with a stronger one, showing he can go straight to the lion's den and pull its tail.
If McCain's strategy works, he could win several of the big states, including New York, Washington and Ohio. He can also claim to be a stronger candidate than Bush if he takes the California beauty contest. With Michigan already in the bag, McCain proves himself to be the tougher candidate in the general election in several big states.
Of course, he can probably kiss off the entire South. He just has to hope he can carry New England, the large central states of Ohio and Michigan, and the West.
The one bad thing out of this is that McCain has ripped Bush unfairly and made it difficult to elect Bush in November should he be the Republican nominee. Bush is no bigot and if he panders to the RR, he is doing nothing different than any Republican candidates has done since Reagan in 80. If he aint courageous, he surely aint anything worse either. Claiming to be the heir to Reagan and then, in the same speech, ripping the Religious Right borders on making McCain look like those same politicians that he seems so refreshingly distant from.
Were McCain to get the nomination under these circumstances it would mark the final end to the Reagan coalition in the GOP (most of the Reagan Democrats have already left), and it would make the party safe for social moderates again. That would be so momentous a change that I doubt it will happen, but it would be amusing if it did.
Pincher,
I certainly do not think Bush is bigoted against Catholics or blacks, but I would suspect he harbors some bigotry against gays.
No argument. McCain's actions may prove that there is a significant group in the middle willing to vote for a Republican who is willing to disassociate himself from that crowd.
But if the group isn't big enough, and if Bush wins despite their efforts, then you'll see lots of media coverage of jubilant Christians. Not a good day for Republican moderates.
It will be interesting to see if the moderate leaders start realizing what's happening. They could try their best to encourage the moderates by coming out for McCain--despite their personal dislike for him--or they could stand by and let Bush win the battle and lose the war by relying on the old standbys.
BTW, I think McCain is right to leave California alone. Apparently, a goodly number of Dems and indies reregistered to vote for him. They'll vote for him whether he debates Bush or not. But the Californian Republican party is still largely dominated by the Orange Country wing, and I'm not sure if McCain's efforts out here will do much good in the primary. I'd rather he focus on the states he has a legitimate shot of winning.
Cal --
Those nine thousand tons of angry zealots had Senator McCain in their sights anyway -- figuratively speaking, that is. Some of them may now be willing to take things a step further.
I can just imagine what his Secret Service detail leader was thinking when the senator was speaking: "Oh, shit. Better double the sniper sweeps."
PM --
"Bush is no bigot and if he panders to the RR ..."
If he panders to the bigoted elements of the Christian conservative movement without being a bigot himself, then he's a hypocrite. I'd prefer to believe that the governor is utterly sincere in his beliefs and really meant it when he said he shared the values of Bob Jones University.
Ronski --
"Were McCain to get the nomination under these circumstances it would mark the final end to the Reagan coalition in the GOP (most of the Reagan Democrats have already left), and it would make the party safe for social moderates again."
I very nearly agree.
It's not enough for the senator to get the nomination; he would actually have to win the White House, over the opposition of the Christian right, to realign the party.
TS,
Yes, you're right, he would have to win the presidency. It's just that I think he would probably do so.
Ronski --
Point taken.
Cal,
He's made enough statements supporting fining fags for the what they do in bed, and about gay adoption, and about the Pink Elephant Brigade (Log Cabinettes) that he has to have given some thought to the matter.
You may be right--and it's not like I think my interpretation is any more favorable to Bush. It's just that I see him utterly clueless on certain issues, and just saying what he's been told to say. Literally, the party line.
If I found out that Bush had ever known anyone gay, I'd then opt for either opportunism or bigotry. But for now, it sounds like sheer cluelessness.
I certainly do not think Bush is bigoted against Catholics or blacks, but I would suspect he harbors some bigotry against gays.
Well, I'm not sure that McCain is much better. In any case, McCain didn't specifically attack Bush's policies on homosexual issues (nor with his own anti-gay stands would he have had the room to do so).
CalGal --
But if the group isn't big enough, and if Bush wins despite their efforts, then you'll see lots of media coverage of jubilant Christians. Not a good day for Republican moderates.
Agreed. Gore will use it to his benefit.
Regarding your comments on McCain's California strategy: I completely agree. When the polls show you tied in Washington and New York, but twenty points behind in California, you had better not waste your time in California. Besides, McCain can still claim to be the stronger candidate in California if he takes the beauty contest.
But why do you say that McCain has been unfair in ripping Bush? Bush did indeed call out the zealots--or allowed them to be called out in his name. It got him the SC primary. Now he's paying the price.
It's not unfair to attack Bush for who he consorts with, but it is unfair to call him -- personally -- intolerant or bigoted. Bush isn't bigoted, and one article I read said that McCain had called him so. I'll see if I can find it.
If he panders to the bigoted elements of the Christian conservative movement without being a bigot himself, then he's a hypocrite.
Hypocrisy in a Politician? Surely a minor sin. Bush consorts with bigots. McCain calls himself a Reagan Republican while attacking the RR. I personally prefer McCain's hypocrisy to Bush's but both are examples of hypocrisy.
Cal,
Bush is alleged to have had gay friends in his college days whom he continues to speak with. I cannot prove this, but I would not be at all surprised were it to be true.
I can't find any quotes in his most recent speech saying so.
BTW, Gary Bauer was right by McCain when he made these remarks.
"If this were an attack on Christian conservative voters," Mr. Bauer said, "I wouldn't be here."
If this rift in the RR last, things could get really interesting, win or lose for McCain.
I agree.
In any case, it's nice to have a choice in the California Republican Primary other than one wingnut and the fait accompli
PM --
Point taken, although I don't think being a "Reagan Republican" disqualifies one from condemning bigotry. Note that Senator McCain did not attack Christians generally , or even the Christian movement in particular -- he singled out certain of its leaders and condemned their behavior.
I certainly do not think Bush is bigoted against Catholics or blacks, but I would suspect he harbors some bigotry against gays.
I hate to say this, especially to you, but if Bush only got the votye of every person in America who harbors some bigotry against gays he would win in a landslide. What gays and minorities need to be concerned with is how laws protect them. Homophobia may not be as strong as it once was, and in the future may be less than it is now. Let's hope so.
I agree. McCain didn't even attack conservative Christians.
I also like that he doesn't ignore the attacks made on him or his campaign but takes it straight to the men who attacked him. Too often in the past, some candidates with interesting reform credentials (Tsongas stands out) have been pussies as campaigners. McCain is no pussy and is showing a great deal of foxiness on the campaign trail.
Al --
"I said earlier I would vote for [McCain] if nominated. I have changed my mind and will work to defeat him."
You don't know how relieved I am to hear you say that.
Really.
You're being ridiculous. Why should McCain run as a Democrat? Because he doesn't have a plastic Jesus on his shoulder and Robertson standing by his side as he beats up on fags?
AlD,
Actually, I agree with Barney Frank who said, "Americans are more racist than they think they are, and less homophobic than they think they ought to be."
But it is true that prejudice in one's heart is of little consequence if a society is making certain that bias is not outwardly manifest in violence and the like.
Being a Hawaii Republican is about as useless a vote as being a California Socialist or a non-member of LDP in Japan during the 1980s.
Or being a Libertarian anywhere.
Find McCain's speech here......
Crusade for a Republican Majority
Cellar Door, Dantheman,
Thanks for explaining Sister Souljah with much more clarity than I could have managed.
I know--the idea that Al supports our guy would be enough to make me veeeery nervous. Although if he wins in the primary, I'll have to accept the company of the occasional wack job.
Which is another thing to take into consideration when stirring up all this religious zealotry. Think of the abortion clinic attacks and Rabin.
One other observation: about two months ago when I would put a "John McCain" search into your average search engine, I would get about 80 to 90 percent normal stories. Now it's 80 to 90 percent typical Web trashtalk.
Thanks for the link. Nice speech. I don't see a mention of Bush being a bigot, but I am a notoriously cursory reader.
Having voted Democrat for as long as you have, you should be used to it.
Nonetheless, that was an apt point.
Has any pundit asked Karl Rove if he still thinks that this is 1896?
You know what really pisses me off.
It's having defended you religious right-wingers for years from the slings and arrows of outrageous calumnies -- even though I am not a Christian -- and now having you abandon ship when a good conservative candidate who can win comes to the front of the primaries -- simply because he doesn't lick your booty.
I defend you against being bigots.
I defend you against the charge of wanting to take this country back into the medieval age.
I defend you against arguments you are against the best interests of this country.
And I vote for the candidates that habitually lick your butt before moving into the general election.
Now, it's time for payback. You can't abandon the party just because one conservative candidate who can win doesn't kiss your ass.
John Warner in response to John McCain.
Gotta love it.
You have that macho, pseudo-military toughguy talk with the unmistakable GOP homosexual subtext.
Yeah, smack him around!
BTW, Bauer probably did himself a whole lot of good by supporting McCain.
Indiana Jones,
I don't think these guys have Secret Service protection yet...
I sure hope not. Word is us generous Texians are putting up about $500,000 a month for DPS troopers and Texas Rangers to follow Shrub around. One of them is in charge of his feather pillow.
cazart,
True, but I think Niner and Ace do it better.
robertjayb,
And another gets to put the chocolate mint on it?
caz --
I laughed out loud.
You have that macho, pseudo-military toughguy talk with the unmistakable GOP homosexual subtext.
LOL! 
What in the world have I said to upset you? I vote for the man, not the party. Besides, two of the biggest assholes on the Mote support him (not you or joezan oh hell, you can guess who I mean). See you guys later. I'm off to put my money where it can do some good work. Money makes the world go round, the world go round, the world go round...
Wiz,
Another gem!
I defend you against the charge of wanting to take this country back into the medieval age.
I defend you against arguments you are against the best interests of this country.
All of these are completely ridiculous statements made by individuals who cannot defend their own beliefs so they must attack others. Arguing against this ignorance is the responsibility of every rational human being. Doing this doesn't earn you brownie points.
If you believe McCain is the better candidate, make your case and accept that there are others who have differing opinions. 
True, but I think Niner and Ace do it better.
Absolutely. But they have an advantage: they're not acting.
You shouldn't let Mote politics influence your vote. If some liberals, Democrats, questionable moderates in this forum consider McCain the best choice, let them. In the end, they will have voted for an conservative, and you will have the last laugh.
Al D protests: "I vote for the man, not the party."
Oh, yes.
Ever the bold independent.
We've all admired that quality in you for a long time, Al.
And how many times do I have to tell you that the Dems supporting him know that he's a conservative?
Indy --
"Oops, per the Washington Post, McCain agreed to Secret Service protection just in the last few days."
I thought I'd seen something to that effect.
Just in time, eh?
Pat Robertson broke any shovel he had with me when he attacked Warren Rudman. Then he criticizes the McCain campaign because he sees CFR as a threat to "issue advocacy," which according to Robertson is clearly different from political campaigning.
Look at Robertson's own role the last few days and try to sell that.
All of these are completely ridiculous statements made by individuals who cannot defend their own beliefs so they must attack others. Arguing against this ignorance is the responsibility of every rational human being. Doing this doesn't earn you brownie points.
I never said it did. But what it does earn me is the right to call in your support when the Republican candidate -- the *conservative* candidate -- doesn't happen to be the one who thrills you the most.
If you abandon the party because McCain is elected then the bunch of you are whiny pussies, guys who take the ball and run home because they aren't winning the game and don't like the rules. And I do have the right to call you on that. I never took the ball home and I never complained about the rules when the Republican candidate had a campaign script strongly influenced by the Religious Right.
If you believe McCain is the better candidate, make your case and accept that there are others who have differing opinions.
I haven't complained at all about people wanting to vote for Bush.
But, listen closely sweetheart, I'm not the one saying that if Bush wins the primaries, then I'm going to take my vote and run home, or vote Libertarian, or some other shit like that. I will vote for Bush. If AlD had any moral compunctions other than letting Mote politics influence his vote then he should be saying the same thing: only his vote should be solid for McCain.
Campaigning in Seattle, Bush hints he would not have prosecuted Microsoft
We have an interesting ad running here in Missouri. It concerns Clinton's push to have permanent trade relations with China approved by Congress. It details the human rights abuses that occur in China. The interesting thing about it is that it never mentions Clinton or his abministration. It says for people to call Sen. Ashcroft to voice their opposition.
Ohio --
"Is the Secret Service going to be able to protect McCain from Pat R's hurricanes and earthquakes?"
Good point.
I'm glad the senator's not coming out here. The San Andreas is ready to cut loose as it is.
I love it.
It will also make McCain a huge hypocrite, since he is currently and strenuously making the claim of what a great Republican he is, how much he loves the Republican party, etc.
We're just working out some minor problems; we'll be ready for you in November.
I don't think McCain would seriously consider running as an independent.
There is no party to endorse him, and it is very difficult to get on fifty ballots nowadays on your own (it used to be a bit easier).
For now, I'm just curious if he could. I'm not entirely sure it would make him a hypocrite if he ran as an independent--he could say look, the Republican party isn't the party it claims to be.
That being said, if he ran and got a significant amount of votes, he'd be a serious spoiler to both candidates.
I went through the process of qualifying an independent candidate with the Anderson campaign in 1980. It was a huge pain in the ass then, and I'm sure it's harder now.
Ready to get your butt kicked by Al Gore.
The only people who should complain when Robertson devotes 700 Club airtime to lying about fellow Republicans (not just what he said about Rudman--they were also misleading about Bauer's endorsement) are his contributors. It's none of my business. I do think it's no longer "issue advocacy," however, when you endorse or critique individual political candidates.
CalGal: I still don't think McCain will do it. But the chance has moved slightly upward IMO from zero.
He'd still lose, and it's difficult to claim you don't know what kind of party you belong to when you are in it for eighteen years and claiming you're a Reagan Republican just months before you find the Republican Party unbearable; of course, his claim to be a Roosevelt Republican would be much stronger.
Bush is not Pat Robertson. He is a person of some moderation who has made questionable decisions in the election so far, but McCain claiming Bush is just an intolerable candidate who he absolutely cannot support would be too much for me, a major case of sour grapes.
Why all the wishes and hopes for McCain? Ain't going to happen.
Let him run as an independent. It will convince the GOP to move to the center in 2-3 election cycles as opposed to 4.
I don't think running as an independent means that Bush is an intolerable candidate who he can't support.
BTW, all--has anyone heard that the House has taken the first step towards removing the income cap from SS?
Plus, Bush and company have angered him, and he's getting so much good press he may start believing it himself--especially that by taking the center he could actually win (which isn't my opinion).
His hero TR did it for many of the same reasons.
Don't think he will, but it's not out of the realm of the possible. 
Truman and friends are mighty pleased. Y'all carry on...
'Neo-Confederate' issue simmers in GOP campaign
RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) -- Texas Gov. George W. Bush helped raise funds for a ball where couples dressed in Civil War garb and danced where slaves once toiled. Sen. John McCain hired a campaign manager who edits a magazine seen by critics as a home for racist views.
Both Republican presidential contenders have come under fire for their ties to people in what has been called the neo-Confederate movement. Both have sought to distance themselves from the controversy.
But the issue is still simmering as they approach Tuesday's primary in Virginia, home of the Civil War rebel capital and of Appomattox Courthouse, site of the South's surrender.
Even a dipshit like Mr.Potatohead sees the light!
Where have you been, dickhead?
The following is an excerpt of an article in today's Washington Post about McCain's lambast of Pat Robertson and crew while in Virginia yesterday. (Gilmore sounds like a first class dummie, incidentally:
"Just 16 hours after McCain visited Alexandria, Gilmore and Warner rallied a few dozen party faithful at a hastily-called rally at city hall this morning.
Rep. Thomas Davis III (R-Fairfax) joined them, and the three said that Bush – not McCain, was the candidate of inclusion.
"We're opening the party," Gilmore said, a "Hispanics for Bush" banner behind him. "We're opening the Commonwealth to people across all racial and ethnic lines."
Inclusion of everyone but gays, of course.
Message # 2048
Message # 2049
Jesus. It gets bad when you have to educate MilitiaBoy.
But I wouldn't be surprised if he's on a Bush Jr short list for the second slot.
Translation for GOP pseudo-warriors/latent closet cases:
Gilmore's bingoed to Bush's hard deck in order to be his backseater.
FWIW, anyone in this forum can tell you that I've been posting on the NeoConfederates here and in The Fray since well before, during and after the whole Council of Conservative Citizens uproar. And I posted previously a couple of weeks ago on Quinn's NeoConfed background. Want some more links, just so you can catch up?
Would you believe Message # 20427Message # 20428, and Message # 20429?
The low blow in the speech was where McCain said he was a Reagan Republican and Bush was a Robertson Republican. Bush is not a Robertson Republican; he simply was doing what all of the Republicans -- including Ronald Reagan -- do in the primaries -- pay homage to the Religious Right.
Spuds --
At least the Republicans are showing some courage confronting their bigots. What are Bradley and Gore doing: smacking Sharpton's ass for those New York city votes.
Indiana --
Yes, I agree that the chance of McCain going independent in the general should he not win the primaries just went up form zero chance to small chance. My point was that I would not support him if he did. Roosvelet also formed the Bull Moose party when he was the most popular man in America (and a man of proven executive experience); all it got him and the Republicans was Woodrow Wilson in the White House -- a man he hated with great passion.
You're just kind of a cross between Red Barber and Morris Dees, aren't you?
Pincher,
YOu think calling Bush a Robertson Republican is out of line? Give me a break.
I'm still waiting for someone to make a case that Sharpton is equivalent to Duke and the NeoConfeds. It hasn't been made, IMHO. Perhaps you can try.
No, it's acceptable hard-ball politics, but it ain't true and it's a severe distortion of Bush's record. Personally, I like it that McCain plays hardball, but that doesn't make it fair either, so if McCain's record is distorted somewhat he hardly has room to complain.
Pinch --
"Bush is not a Robertson Republican ..."
Sure he is. And he'll remain one for as long as it benefits him politically.
Hmmm. Those stories about how the Bush campaign is running low on cash may be accurate.
***
Bush Hints He Would Not Have Prosecuted Microsoft
By Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, February 28, 2000; 12:00 PM
SEATTLE, Feb. 28 - Campaigning in Microsoft's backyard, Texas Gov. George W. Bush strongly suggested that if he had been president, he would not have authorized his Justice Department to file an antitrust suit like that being battled by the software giant.
"If you're looking for the kind of president I will be, I'll be slow to litigate," Bush declared Sunday night after touching down for two days of campaigning before Tuesday's Washington state primary.
Bush, speaking just 15 miles from the Microsoft Corp. headquarters in Redmond, Wash., added that as president he would "stand on the side of innovation, not litigation.
***
Read the entire article here.
Not at all. Frankly, the majority of the Republicans vote in accordance with Robertson's agenda, so Bush is no more to the right than McCain.
Bush is a Robertson Republican because he can't get elected without him and his folk. Ain't no distortion involved in that.
It's interesting to speculate--Bush figured he had to win South Carolina and that this would put McCain down permanently. So the push to the hard right didn't seem like a problem--he could look nice and moderate in the rest of the primaries.
Instead, McCain rose again, and slammed him over and over with that reliance.
Given the fact that Bush will still probably win on numbers, it now seems like he would have been wiser to just play standard politics in SC, even if it meant a loss or a closer win.
janjon --
Touche.
There has been more fawning over Sharpton than I would consider seemly on the part of the Democrats of late. Sharpton is truly an objectionable, divisive figure, if at the same time a buffoon.
* * *
Bush is not at all far from Robertson's political views, though I doubt he finds hurricanes the fault of homosexuals.
The case has been made several times. In fact Sharpton is more dangerous since no one cozies up Duke, et al.
Sharpton: "No justice, no peace."
Translation: "If I don't agree with something, I reserve the right to take vengence on innocent individuals."
McCain is running as the candidate of inclusion, has criticized the most extreme elements of the party, and has personally taken a shot at Robertson at a time when he has a chance to win the nomination and most candidates would be careful not to offend anyone.
Instead of focusing on that, you dig around to find a couple of elements that can be tendentiously called catering to racism. Opposition to hate crime laws, as Niner and Ace have eloquently argued, is hardly proof of anything other than a desire to have equality before the law for everyone and not special laws for special people.
I'm still waiting for someone to make a case that Sharpton is equivalent to Duke and the NeoConfeds. It hasn't been made, IMHO. Perhaps you can try.
Sorry
Sharpton is an obvious bigot who has consistently sharpened racial division to increase his political support. He has smeared good men of serious crimes on no evidence, and he has not offered any apologies for his conduct. He has even been accused by a colleague of yours, a liberal colleague named Jim Sleeper, of egregious conduct and the use of race to in a way that would make David Duke proud.
No national Republican candidates cozy up to Duke like Bradley and Gore (and Hillary) cozy up to Sharpton.
Sure he is. And he'll remain one for as long as it benefits him politically.
Which must have ended yesterday when he began his move back to moderation. Bush was an establishment pick because he was a moderate, one who had picked up strong Hispanic support in Texas.
He blew all that completely when he went begging to the religious right. I see no way he can put that genie back.
Former Rep. Tim Penny (D-MN) has decided against challenging Senator Rod Grams (R-MN).
Raskolnikov, my condolences.
That wasn't the context that the line was made: it was that Reagan was an inclusive candidate and Bush is not because Bush went to BJU and consrts with Robertson. Give me a break. I don't like that Bush went to BJU, but he didn't go because he's a Robertson Republican, but because he was doing something that Reagan and his father had done in their election races: court the right to strengthen their base. You and I both know that once the general election came around, that Bush would be tacking to the center and talking about his strong rcord with Hispanics.
If Bush is a Robertson Republican then Reagan is a Robertson Republican (or Falwell Republican), which kind of wrecks McCain's comparison, doesn't it.
Anyone doubt that Trent Lott spends more than a few moments a day contemplating what it will be like to be the most powerful member of the GOP in the Federal government for the two years following the election this Fall?
Agreed, but with Penny out, and Kerrey retiring, and the GOP starting two up with NV and VA, and NY sure to be tight, it is possible - even with all their freshman - that they might actually break even or gain a seat.
Pinch --
Probably.
You'll recall that I predicted the Democrats would campaign against "Bush/Robertson" the way they did against "Dole/Gingrich" last time round. I suspect the governor's own polling data shows that this would approach would work, and that he needs to distance himself from Mr. Robertson and his brethren.
Unfortunately for Governor Bush, Senator McCain has upped the ante considerably. It looks initially as though the governor has decided there is something to be gained by defending Mr. Robertson rather than remaining silent. This may help the governor in Virginia; but unless he takes a minimalist approach to the defense, it'll be used against him in November.
Well, I'm hardly going to leap to Sharpton's defense. He's a self-aggrandizer who exploits racial divisions to that end. I happen to agree with Sleeper's assessment. However, he is not quite in the league of Duke or the NeoConfeds. He makes anti-white remarks, but he does not argue that whites are inherently inferior and deserve a lesser place in society. He does not indulge in anti-Semitic conspiracy theories (and while I've seen him accused of anti-Semitism -- a charge that is true of some of his associates, particularly Khalid Mohammad -- no one has yet been able to provide a cite where he actually has said anything anti-Semitic). He doesn't argue for create a nation of racially separated regions, as does Duke, nor does he argue for secession of rebel states to end the threat of multiculturalism, as do the NeoConfeds.
Sorry, but the equivalency isn't there. An approximation perhaps, but I see the comparison as apples and oranges. Now, if Gore and Bradley were pussyfooting with Farrakhan and Mohammad, I'd agree with you wholeheartedly. Those two *are* pretty closely equivalent to Duke and the NeoConfeds. They *do* all those things that Sharpton doesn't.
McCain is a liar and a hypocrite when he says the call made in Mich. did not try to paint Bush as anti-Catholic. He is, of course, banking on the stupidity of the average American, and well he should. But why are there so many average Americans on the Mote? CalGal being the perfect average.
You're unnecessarily making distinctions between Boorman and Goebbels. Sharpton and Duke are both scum. Your distinctions and the need for chattering carnival barkers on tV, plus Sharpton's race, make him worthy of the distinction, for reasons that crack me up.
No, that's not what I was referring to at all. Bush is a Robertson Republican because he is almost completely dependent on their support in order to win the primary. I don't give much of a damn about BJU, except it demonstrates that Bush was overconfident.
You and I both know that once the general election came around, that Bush would be tacking to the center and talking about his strong rcord with Hispanics.
Heheheheheheheh. Not anymore, sweetcheeks. That's the wondrous thing about McCain's candidacy, win or lose. Gore isn't stupid.
You disagree with PM's statement that Bush will move to the center in November?
That's true. Single mom whose biggest tax annoyance is the AMT.
It's a big demographic.
The only way the liberals can get anywhere is to demonize the opposition. They are devoid of ideas and when understood as the commies they really are, they are rejected by the majority of Americans.
Also, the ones on the Mote with nothing worthwhile to say are very good at silly little propaganda cartoons that cause their little friends to wet their pants with glee.
1995
"They think they gonna drive this man out of business, they gotta be out of their minds. We are not gonna stand idly by and let a Jewish person come in Black Harlem and methodically drive black people out of business up and down 125th Street. If we stand for that, we’ll stand for anything."
You're missing the point (as did Bush) about the nature of the problem with his mollycoddling of the rabid right at Bob Jones U and elsewhere. The problem isn't one of guilt by association -- no one is implying that Bush is anti-Catholic. The problem is the guilt of association -- that lending your presence and your name to these folks means you will lend the name of your good office to their agenda and their ends. It means you have displayed the poor judgment of associating yourself with bigots, pandering to them and pretending that what *they* believe doesn't matter.
Al Sharpton
1995
Number two was wrong and I don't wanna' get sued by Big Al.
Al Sharpton
1995
He'll try, of course. But his original game plan, which had him already established as a moderate with nothing to prove? Buh-bye. He's going to have to spend a lot of time and effort on that, when he originally assumed it was a given.
Besides, Hispanics are Catholic.
Al Sharpton
1995
Okay. Because you first said he would not try.
I agree that McCain is showing a great amount of courage in taking on the religious right. It's the part of his personality and his politics that make me cut him some slack on the other counts. Which remain, IMHO, troubling.
Of course, what he really has to do is convince those same Power Brokers that THEY will be better off with McCain as President than, say, Gore with Trent Lott running the Senate.
Don't bet on McCain, is my advice.
Buggery! Well, maybe he will run when Wellstone retires. I really do hope he enters politics again.
But I don't think this is horrible news for Democrats. Penny wasn't a shoo-in for the nomination. He was almost guaranteed not to get the endorsement, and his fiscal conservatism would have turned off a lot of Democratic voters. If he had gotten the nomination, he would have kicked Grams' ass, but I wasn't optimistic lately that he would get the nomination.
While there aren't any political heavyweights to take the nomination, I think the front runner has to be Michael Ciresi. Ciresi isn't as well known as Penny, but he is rich, and willing to dig into his pockets. Penny's withdrawal means that Ciresi will have less of a primary contest, and might bring more money into the November election.
It's quite possible I misunderstood Pincher's post--I thought he was talking about what Bush would do, prior to the McCain wins.
Bush's original strategy is wiped out, I think. So instead of being able to just casually refer to his moderate image, he'll have to sell hard.
And then there's the risk that the hardsell will upset the base.
So it's a whole different ballgame, and that's what I was laughing about.
Now, it is possible that you are correct and everyone--including the indies who came out in huge numbers for McCain, and saw Bush beat him by appealing to the religious right--will all of a sudden forget this when they vote in November. I'm not a political expert, and god knows people don't always make sense. But I sure don't see Gore letting them forget without a hell of a fight.
Are you ever sorry you got involved in the Brawley case?
No. I think if I had to do it again I'd do it in the same way. I probably wouldn't have gotten into such a personal pissing contest with [New York State Attorney General] Robert Abrams. But I would do the whole thing again.
Ciresi was already nailing Penny as a mini-Rod Grams.
Al --
"The only way the liberals can get anywhere is to demonize the opposition."
"Demonizing" is bad. Okay. Gotcha. Let's contrast that with your next sentence:
"They are devoid of ideas and when understood as the commies they really are ..."
You crack me up, Al. Are you really a person, or just a badly-drawn cartoon?
I have said all along he's been known to utter anti-white sentiments. That makes him no better than Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond, who have done the same with blacks. He associates with the genuine anti-Semites Farrakhan and Mohammad, which makes him no better than Trent Lott and Bob Barr.
But no worse, either.
Now, are you arguing that there is no distinction to be made between Lott/Barr/Thurmond and Duke et al?
With Gore, no matter the facts, there will be a hell of a fight. The specifics of it are besides the point, be it McCain or Bush. Each will be vigorously attacked by a smart, predetermined strategy.
he 2000 race has revealed strange and sometimes bitter divides. Social conservatives have abused Gary Bauer since he endorsed John McCain. Meanwhile, Marshall Wittmann, formerly of the Christian Coalition and now of the Heritage Foundation, gets angry e-mails and scornful comments because he's a McCain adviser.
The split divides the GOP, but the gap is not about ideology. The presidential race sometimes gets depicted as a contest between Che Guevara and Francisco Franco, with McCain as the lefty and Bush as the hard-core conservative. But the fact is that both men are moderate conservatives, and if you can tell the difference between them on issues like abortion, school choice, federal spending, then you're probably able to count the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin. Instead, this rift runs much deeper than public policy: it's really a clash between two different world views. The people who support Bush have a movement mentality. They belong to the conservative movement that cohered around Barry Goldwater and hardened under Reagan and Gingrich. They look out over that GOP coalition—the gun lovers, the religious conservatives, the free marketeers—and they think that adds up to 51 percent of the electorate. The movement consciousness is based on the idea that we are a band of brave, beleaguered souls under perpetual assault from the liberal mainstream media. These people detest McCain because liberals don't hate him.
Al Davis all over.
I know. Ciresi isn't my candidate of choice, but I loathe Rod Grams.
Each will be vigorously attacked by a smart, predetermined strategy.
Well, yes. Obviously. But the strategy changed dramatically after Bush's last month--if reports are any indication, that is.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
I'm not interested in the old bad guy/worse guy thing. Your selective outrage and ability to differntiate is your own. Have at it, and feel free to play the fellow traveler game.
Reports, reschmorts. Bush and/or McCain will be tarred as captives of the right and latent racists. It doesn't help that Bush went to Bob Jones or that McCain voted against MLK Day and uses the term "gooks." But they would have been pummelled with the charge regardless.
Gore's gotta be a happy camper right now.
Oh, I disagree. I think Gore would win against McCain by drumming up the base in big numbers--blacks and labor. If he is as smart as you say, he wouldn't use the traditional stuff against McCain--all the Dems and indies who voted for McCain in the primary know that, and don't care. Now, you may think they'll change their mind--but if you were Gore, would you risk it?
No, if Gore is smart, he'll reach out to the faithfuls in a big way. I think his best shot with the swing vote (a different group than usual) is to present McCain as someone who isn't very good at building consensus, getting things accomplished.
But Bush? Not only could he just focus on the easy pickings (puppet of the religious right), but there's a decent shot that he won't have to expend any political capital to win.
Trailing by 20 pts among CA Republicans in the latest Field Poll
McCain Wimps Out![SF Chron]
I tend to agree, but I'm not sure that is the wisest strategy for the Democrats. What is most important is a sense of competence, not dogged negativism. It should be enough for Gore to say
Interest rates
Inflation
Stock market
Unemployment
Welfare Rolls
Peace abroad
That, however, is not Gore's way. He will shove it in the piehole of either McCain or Bush.
Drumming up his base will mean nailing McCain as a bigot.
That's right, I'm not a real person. At least not one in your snide opinion. Why don't you act on the principle that I don't exist and ignore and not respond to anything I say. I would never say that to CalGal as I think she is cute as can be and enjoy any attention she can give me. Of course, I will never be allowed in her cabal, but I accept that.
I could be wrong, but didn't he say we were both assholes and idiots a minute ago? Now he's triangulating.
(shrug)
Goodness, truth, light and justice will be thwarted again, eh?
If all he can come up with is McCain's vote on MLK day (which he has since rectified), he'd better have another strategy.
Pincher and I both mentioned earlier that it makes sense for McCain to punt in California. California isn't an open primary (not so far as delegates go), and California Republicans are notoriously right of center--moderates have a tough time in statewide races.
Things might change if he does well in Virginia and New York, but for now, I think he's wise to hope for a good showing in the beauty contest and spend his money where he has a chance.
He'd have to be accurate about McCain, given that if he goes too far on the lies, he risks alienating the centrist Dems and indies who might otherwise vote for him. They're already far less than a sure thing for Gore if McCain wins the primary.
Al --
"Why don't you act on the principle that I don't exist and ignore and not respond to anything I say."
You wish.
"I would never say that to CalGal ..."
Oh, yes, you would -- if you'd been bright enough to have thought of it yourself. Which you're not.
Too bad for you.
"... as I think she is cute as can be and enjoy any attention she can give me."
Doubtless you do, in your own weird John Hinckley sort of way.
But you don't get a pass for that.
Pssst. You forgot to mention that I am, indeed, cute.
Cal --
Hey. I didn't want to encourage the stalker.
Oh. That makes sense.
If all he can come up with is McCain's vote on MLK day (which he has since rectified), he'd better have another strategy.
Haven't you been payng attention to Spuds?
From the evidence above, it's obvious, Gore will say, that McCain is another GOP racist masquerading as an inclusive moderate. And it will work, at leats partially. McCain will clean up on the independents, but the Democrats will, by and large, return to the fold.
Only in the sense that you'd rather punt and hope for a fumble than throw a Hail Mary pass.
McCain cannot win without California.
Only in the sense that you'd rather punt and hope for a fumble than throw a Hail Mary pass.
McCain cannot win without California.
Why not?
And punting in the primary is not the same as punting in the general election. He can validly claim if he wins the beauty contest that California is his in the fall anyway.
I think he can, but it will be close. Put another way--if he wins enough delegates to make it really close and wins the beauty contest in California, he's got a fighting chance of forcing the Republican powers that be to have a talk with Bush about quitting.
Pincher,
Most of those won't work with the moderates--and that's a constituency Gore has to worry about if he's running against McCain.
GWBUSH.COM
Gore has depended on fear and division for far too long to abandon them now. He has neither the charm nor the subtlety of Clinton so you can expect him to over play his hand. It may be bad enough that even the press won't cover for him. Gore doesn't have the instincts for this kind of game and it could get ugly for him.
Your posts only make sense if we assume that Gore is stupid. If he's stupid, then he'll lose. But then, he might lose against McCain in any event.
McCain cannot let GWB take 152 votes in California & 127 in Texas. Bush will take every southern state which plus California and change gives him the nomination.
Faced with a solid South McCain must take both NY and CA or its all over for him.
Most of those won't work with the moderates--and that's a constituency Gore has to worry about if he's running against McCain.
Yes, but he'll use different strategies for different folks. To use an example you might find conforting, I don't consider Spuds a diehard Democrat, but I think attacks that highlight McCain's questionable principles against racism as effective antidotes against keeping people like Spuds from deserting the party in the Fall.
There will be other ways of solidifying his base and apppealing to moderates, including the strong record of the administration.
The GOP big shots are in too deep with GWB for your scenario to make any sense. Worse - they hate the SOB. His campaign finance proposal sends the GOP fat cats up the wall. They will never forgive McCain. Listen to MoneyBags McConnell some time.
No. Your scenario is fanciful I am afraid.
Of course, it makes no sense to spend money where you will surely lose as it now seems the case in CA. Hence my metaphor. Chances are slim and none for McCain.
What about New York, Florida, Michigan (W), Ohio, New Jersey, Illinois, Washington and Arizona (W) as a counterweight to California and Texas. And then all of New England and much of the rest of the West and middle states as a counterweight to Bush's strength in the South.
What planet are you from anyway JJB?
Mister Knife in the back Bush has a venerable progeny of shit suckers.
McCain leads Gore in California right now 48% to 41%. For McCain to lose the state in November because he didn't debate Bush in early March is wishful thinking on your part. He may lose the state in November, but it will be for other reasons than not debating Bush before the Republican primary
I think the NYT did the arithmetic this weekend but at bottom 270 or so delegates from Texas and CA combined with the 90 Bush has gives him about 1/3 the votes he needs to win. Since McCain has been unable to actually poll better than 1/3 of the Republican votes thus far and since most of the rest of the primaries are closed, voila...
What hatred JJ? Methinks your skin too thin.
Message # 20629 I gotcha.
Message # 20628 I prefer to take into account the dynamics of the race. Bush has had to spend lavishly to get the delegates and Republican support he has won so far. That can't be duplicated in future primaries. Second, the Republican establishment is not behind Bush because of his principles. If McCain continues to win, they may be able to come to an acommodation with McCain and simply stop supporting Bush.
I expect McCain to continue his momentum with a victory in Washington and come within 10% of Bush in Virginia. If McCain comes within 10% in Virginia after going there to tell off the leadership of the RR, his position in Super Tuesday will continue to improve.
Here is the text of Senator McCain's speech in Virginia.
Not between you and me or the other here. I am talking about how every disagreement between political figures is expressed in terms of hatred. Why can't disagreements be discussed in those terms instead of term of extreme emotions?
It's all about hatred. Doesn't matter who or what. Just HATE!
That's the way poilitcs is played. Do you want to change it? You'll have to speak to someone other than jex.
Now, I don't suppose all the demonization that went on about how Black churches were burning in the South because of Republicans, with no correction in the press to speak of, and how the Republicans wanted to starve children and old folks like me, again with little or no correction from the unbiased press, have anything to do with the nasty condition of politics today. Why even that basketball played running for President is a racist. Just ax Al Gore.
I may have exaggerated my findings.
13% of the U.S. population is African-American, and it's likely they are underrepresented in elections since they are, on average, poorer and less educated than the average American, and poorer and less-educated Americans tend to vote less often.
Still, over 90% of African-Americans vote for Democrats so that makes up for the fewer numbers of African-Americans when compared to the Religious Right, since the latter aren't as partisan in their voting patterns as the former. It also makes it fair to consider the two groups as roughly equal in their importance to their respective parties.
I have long equated the importance of African Americans and the RR to their respective parties.
The difference is that the RR can never vote for Dems, and if the Republicans ever deserted them a percentage would just take their marbles and go home (not vote, or start a fringe party).
But blacks are, as a group, foolish to vote so reliably for one party. The Dems then only worry about whether or not they come out in numbers or not, as opposed to keeping them happy. Blacks would do better to vote for Republicans, so as not to be taken for granted. Hell, it's not like either party does all that much for them.
And, to finish my standard plaint, the Republicans should drop AA from their platform. They don't have to support it, but there's no need to oppose it. Hell, Connerly is happily dismantling it for them anyway. AA has been shown to be the primary reason that blacks vote so heavily for Dems--their views, overall, are well to the right of the average Dem.
The difference is that the RR can never vote for Dems, and if the Republicans ever deserted them a percentage would just take their marbles and go home (not vote, or start a fringe party).
The RR has voted for Democrats. They voted for Carter in 1976, and more than a third of them vote for Democrats/Other every presidential election year. For example, only 61% of the Religious Right voted for Bush in 92; the other 39% voted for Perot/Clinton
But blacks are, as a group, foolish to vote so reliably for one party. The Dems then only worry about whether or not they come out in numbers or not, as opposed to keeping them happy. Blacks would do better to vote for Republicans, so as not to be taken for granted. Hell, it's not like either party does all that much for them.
Blacks should vote for whoever will best represent their interests. It doesn't make sense to vote for a party on the hypothetical possibility that voting patterns will cause Republican positions to shift rather than vice versa. I suppose by that logic, Blacks and Jews should vote for Pat Buchanan so that they will quickly reverse his pattern of discrimination by giving him a new constitutency.
And, to finish my standard plaint, the Republicans should drop AA from their platform. They don't have to support it, but there's no need to oppose it. Hell, Connerly is happily dismantling it for them anyway. AA has been shown to be the primary reason that blacks vote so heavily for Dems--their views, overall, are well to the right of the average Dem.
Well, if it's gone soon enough anyway, then I suppose Republicans could quietly abandon it (although I must say that I haven't heard of AA's disappearing act) and court Blacks on the basis of social issues.
Blacks should vote for whoever will best represent their interests. It doesn't make sense to vote for a party on the hypothetical possibility that voting patterns will cause Republican positions to shift rather than vice versa.
Perhaps you missed the bit about their views? At least one study/survey I can think of has pointed out that the views of many black people are far more in line with Republicans than Dems--death penalty and vouchers come to mind right off hte bat. The conclusion is that blacks vote for Dems because they want to preserve AA. But AA is getting dismantled state after state, just as soon as Connerly gets around to it.
So my point is that both Republicans and blacks would benefit from their loyalty shift. Dems wouldn't benefit, but that's too damn bad--they take their most loyal constituency for granted anyway.
I doubt that blacks will start to vote for Republicans in large numbers until they drop the AA bit from the platform. But the point is that they should. As I said earlier, though, this is where Spence's game theory comes into play.
There is not an analogous situation with Buchanan-even if he were openly spouting racist views (best of my knowledge, Buchanan is an anti-Semite only), unless Buchanan has a platform that agrees with most of their views.
Obviously, the blacks who would be best suited to vote for Republicans would be the upper middle class, for starters.
Really? You didn't hear of 209? It was in all the papers. And if you've heard of 209, you probably know who started it, and you probably know what he's done since then (namely, take it to the other states one by one). Couple that with the SC's refusal to review laws that declare AA illegal, and I figure all that's left is time.
C-SPAN is repeating McCain's Virginia Beach speech
Right now.
BTW, Pincher, you needn't worry about whether I'll be influenced by attacks from the Gore camp. I think most of us watching this thing unfold neutrally know pretty well how to distinguish a groundless political smear from actual facts. I really couldn't care less how Gore plays the charges; I'm far more interested in how McCain responds to the facts of the case. In the instances I've cited, none of the points raised against McCain have come from the Gore camp anyway (the Quinn charge came from Bush, I think). Rather, they're observations about his actual behavior. CalGal and I had a recent similar exchange, prior to the SC primary, in which I noted how McCain (in a very sympathetic 'Hardball' appearance) coddled the Thurmond faction; I gagged. It's not enough to completely turn me off, but enough to make me cautious.
White racists and ass-kissing jigaboos who think that the cops won't shoot them when they take out their wallts cause they voted Republican.
The only thing I've heard of thus far is the MLK vote, which he switched on later (or did I misunderstand)?
But then, I've said before that the one way McCain could screw things up is to play to the right extremists (whether religious or racist).
You get funnier as you age. I would love to meet you. Will be if Oakland April 4-9. I never go to L.A.
I think it's dangerous to make an argument that Blacks aren't sharp enough to see who butters their bread.
I'm in support of going after the Black vote because I think it's good for this country not to have politicized race issues, but this is much more difficult a proposition than Republicans simply abandoning their opposition to AA. African-Americans are well-integrated into the power structure of the Democrats for a variety of reasons. The most Republicans can hope for is reducing, at the margins, the proportion of African-Americans who vote for Democrats. Perhaps your idea is a first step. But a whole host of Republican issues (strong drug laws, strong law and order philosophy) and the natural constituency of the Republicans (Southerners, who even if they aren't bigoted, aren't the least sympathetic to Blacks) pushes against this.
Strom Thurmond -- you mean that guy who Clinton feted at his 6,000 birthday, when he passed Methusalah as the oldest man ever to have lived?
I think it's dangerous to make an argument that Blacks aren't sharp enough to see who butters their bread.
You've got that right. Didja see the way Gore handed Bradley his head when he tried to imply that the Black Caucus wasn't well-informed on Gore's record?
I just gave a whole list of potential issues that can be argued by Gore as representative of McCain's bigotry. Gore argued at the Bronx debate that both Republican candidates had not moved a finger against flying the confederate flag under Old Glory at the South Carolina state house.
However, Clinton is not on the ticket this year, last I checked.
But a whole host of Republican issues (strong drug laws, strong law and order philosophy) and the natural constituency of the Republicans (Southerners, who even if they aren't bigoted, aren't the least sympathetic to Blacks) pushes against this.
What I'm trying to tell you is that black voters are, by and large, sympathetic to these goals. That Southerners aren't sympathetic to blacks is hardly relevant--blacks voted for Dems in large numbers before 1980, and all the South was Dem at that time.
I think it's dangerous to make an argument that Blacks aren't sharp enough to see who butters their bread.
Where have I said any such thing? It's not only blacks who vote as individuals in ways that don't necessarily benefit them as a group. Hence my mention of Spence.
I'm in support of going after the Black vote because I think it's good for this country not to have politicized race issues, but this is much more difficult a proposition than Republicans simply abandoning their opposition to AA.
No, it might just be that simple, although there's no way to know for sure until they do it. It certainly is a critical starting point.
The most Republicans can hope for is reducing, at the margins, the proportion of African-Americans who vote for Democrats.
Uh, yes. That's what I'm talking about. The difference between 90% and 60% is what makes the Hispanics (and even gays, to some extent) a demographic that is discussed and courted by both parties. Courting is good. Being taken for granted is bad.
This is also true, I believe, of the religious right. But their problems don't interest me much.
God, that was fun to watch. I am so utterly fed up with liberals thinking that they know better, that any sign of independence by "their" minorities is a sign that they don't know better.
Pincher,
Sorry, but you'll have to do better than that. Dems and indies voted for McCain after the flag flap, in case you hadn't noticed. And it's not like it wasn't heavily reported.
No, I think Gore's best shot against McCain is consensus building, inability to achieve, and (to a lesser extent) the Supreme Court. He has no real need to woo black voters, although if he needs them in large numbers, he'll probably drum up the race issue. Not so much by demonizing McCain, though, as by saying "look what will happen if I lose--the bad guys will have the White House!"
You've got that right. Didja see the way Gore handed Bradley his head when he tried to imply that the Black Caucus wasn't well-informed on Gore's record?
Yeah, it wasn't pretty.
The same. I also recall Thurmond practically copping a feel from some of the postpubescents who surrounded him. I gather that Bill was gathering tips.
However, Clinton is not on the ticket this year, last I checked.
The point being that Thurmond is not someone that anyone from either side of the aisle feels the need to distance themselves from. I remember that party because the major bigwigs from both parties went to it. Thurmond is an old fart who hasn't had an original thought since 1948, when he ran on the Dixiecrat platform. As such his bigotry has been grandfathered in as acceptable to the establishment just as many people today (yes, even Republicans such as myself) look back with fond remembrance on Malcolm X. Eveyone who looks at Thurmond nowadays recognizes that he is no more responsible for his thoughts than an earthworm is.
Sorry, but you'll have to do better than that. Dems and indies voted for McCain after the flag flap, in case you hadn't noticed. And it's not like it wasn't heavily reported.
Yeah, but often a change will come only after a barrage of negative focus on the issue. With Bush running against McCain, and the media in love with the old boy, the flag issue didn't get much play, and neither did the "gook" issue. But once Gore gets ahold of them, they will. Believe me, they will.
You make some interesting arguments about Blacks having similar interests with Republicans on some issues. I didn't realize that tough drug laws were one of them, however, but if you read something which claimed that, I believe you ( I would like to see it though).
Could you elaborate on what specific ways African-Americans have been hurt by their overwhelming support of the Democratic party.
McCain Campaign Co-Chairman Resigns
COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) -- The co-chairman of Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign in South Carolina has resigned, saying he wants no part of the attacks over Bob Jones University.
``They're growing into a national media vendetta that I cannot associate my name to,'' state House Speaker Pro Tem Terry Haskins, a Bob Jones alumnus, said Monday.
Valid point. The guy, however, still makes my skin crawl, and McCain made nice with remarks about his "legacy." Some legacy. And personally, I'm appalled by the idea that his bigotry has somehow become acceptable to anyone.
By The Associated Press
Christian conservatives’ role in elections, both primaries and general elections, varies from state to state and year to year. Here are some results from Voter News Service exit polls on what portion of the electorate describes itself as Christian conservative both nationally and in key primary states.
NATIONAL: 1996 general election.
—Christian conservative, 17 percent; voted for Bob Dole by a 2-to-1 margin.
—not Christian conservative, 80 percent; voted for President Clinton 54 percent to 35 percent.
VIRGINIA: 1996 general election (no GOP primary).
—Christian conservative, 21 percent; voted for Dole by a 4-to-1 margin.
—not Christian conservative, 74 percent; voted for Clinton, 51 percent to 41 percent.
(About a third of Virginia’s self-described Republicans in 1996 said they were Christian conservatives)
WASHINGTON STATE: 1996 GOP primary.
—Christian conservative, 32 percent; voted for Dole, 51 percent to 35 percent for Pat Buchanan.
—not Christian conservative, 64 percent; voted for Dole, 71 percent to 14 percent for Buchanan.
CALIFORNIA: 1996 GOP primary.
—Christian conservative, 26 percent; voted for Dole, 59 percent to 31 percent for Buchanan.
—not Christian conservative, 70 percent; voted for Dole, 68 percent to 14 percent for Buchanan.
NEW YORK: 1996 GOP primary.
—Christian conservative, 17 percent; voted for Dole, 42 percent to 32 percent for Buchanan.
—not Christian conservative, 77 percent; voted for Dole, 54 percent to 11 percent for Buchanan.
—Christian conservative, 17 percent; voted for George W. Bush over John McCain, 37 percent to 25 percent.
—not Christian conservative, 80 percent; voted for McCain over Bush, 53 percent to 29 percent.
SOUTH CAROLINA: 2000 GOP primary.
—Christian conservative, 34 percent; voted for Bush over McCain, 68 percent to 24 percent.
—not Christian conservative, 61 percent; voted for McCain over Bush, 52 percent to 46 percent.
MICHIGAN: 2000 GOP primary.
—Christian conservative, 27 percent; voted for Bush over McCain, 66 percent to 25 percent.
—not Christian conservative, 67 percent; voted for McCain over Bush, 60 percent to 36 percent.
Wonder if Pat Robertson is having a christian identity crisis as it were?
Sooooo....This weekend we'll try and start the WWII thread. See how it goes.
Since McCain is dead meat, time to retreat to yesteryear when men were men, crises were crises, and nary a Republican was to be found!
You're right about that. Lets see....I hate
Supervisor Tom Ammiano
Tom Delay
Tom Campbell
The Moron
Jesse Helms
Lindsay Graham
Asa Hutchinson
Paul Coverdell
MoneyBags McConnell
Trent Lott
Jon Kyl
and What's left of Lee Atwater's soul
in just about that order.
You're RIGHT!!!
Must be my latent Fascist tendencies.
Not good.
Here'sThe Examiner's drubbing.
The Moron's Minions aren't letting this one lie either.
What about Henry Hyde and Dick Armey? Don't you hate them, too?
This dynamic was what was really driving the Great Impeachment Debacle. Remember that one?
Time to drive a stake into the heart of the Beast.
And yes Grey, I've a special, sharp spear for Dick Armey. Hyde is a harmless bag 'o gas. 
McCain.
The McCain strategy is clear, now that he has written off the Robertson/Falwell evangelicals--he wants the Catholic vote which is usually fairly conservative. Hence, his Catholic-baiting of Bush Jr who flails impotently.
But now, McCain seems to have converted in mid-campaign. In a letter to Roman Catholic Bishops in an effort to curry favor with the National Right to Life Committee, McCain says:
I hope your Excellency will agree that a pro-life Catholic can embrace the cause of campaign finance reform without undermining the admittedly more important cause which has properly been a primary concern of your Church.
Yet, McCain's bio says he's Episcopalian.
I haven't been to Mass for two weeks and look what I miss. The Catholic Church has incorporated the Episcopalian faith.
Screw the campaign, we're missing the real news story: Catholic Church aligns with Episcopals. Does this mean priests will be able to marry?
John "RoughRider" McCain can't win the Republican nomination, but can win the election. babyBush can win the nomination, but will lose the election.
It looks like the Republican leadership already knows that, but doesn't care.
Republican Presidential Primary
Democratic Senate Primary
Let's see how soon it will be before Algore shows up for a press conference.
Got my stopwatch.
The "Episcopalian faith" is the Catholic Faith.
I don't "love" any Republican. I like a few - McCain, Shays, the late Sen Chafee, Old Dole - but I am largely indifferent to most.
(1) The kid's parents, if he got the gun from them.
(2) Blockbuster Video and local cable/TV systems for showing "violent" programming.
(3) Al Gore and Mrs. William Clinton for okaying the cluster bombing of Serbian citizens.
(I'm thinking of running for office, so I'd better clear the deck right now.)
But if he already lost some equipment, then it already was pulled off..
well, someone had to say it
Cellar,
No one ever suspected you of having sex with a Republican.
Everyone knows Republicans do not have sex, cannot have sex, and therefore must recruit to restore their ranks.
To which John Warner replied "McCain should stop firing heat seeking missiles up everyone's tailpipe."
Cllrdr has vowed never to fire anything up any Republican's tailpipe. McCain should take the pledge too!
Bush's take on patient protection goes beyond Texas bragging.....Molly Ivins
"AUSTIN -- Oh, come now, Gov. Bush. None of us minds a little exaggeration, a little polishing of the positive when it comes to your record here in Texas. But now it's "liar, liar, pants on fire." Your nose is growing, Governor."
They should share the Nobel Peace Prize with Bill.
Isn't John McCain against gun control? 
(Thanks for the inspiration Rosie!)
Excuse me, but if anyone is interested in the truth, George Dubya vetoed the patients' bill of rights in Texas when it was first passed by the legislators in 1995; and when they passed it again, over his opposition, by a veto-proof majority in 1997, he threatened to veto it again and then let it become law without his signature because a veto wouldn't hold.
Thanks Robert. The Moron is one hella liar. And JJB yammers about Gore!
Sad thing is McCain, having "punted" in CA, should be jumping on this like a fly on shit. PBR is about 70% popular here and just enacted by the State Legislature.
Trial - get on the horn to your comrades in the McCain Kamp!!!
He never even signed the patients' bill of rights, and you can look it up. Claiming that "he passed"
or "delivered" the patients' bill of rights is turning the truth on its head.
He's getting me MAD.
Wish I could do that.
I won't make any further comments until we get the facts.
Rosie --
"My wife has a temper."
She can't have much of one. You're still alive.
[g]
Oh, damn. AP is reporting the little girl died.
Diva --
No, it's a fresh report. I'll post it.
Mich. Girl Shot, Killed in School
First-Grader Killed in Elementary School Shooting
By Randi Goldberg
Associated Press Writer
Tuesday, Feb. 29, 2000; 12:50 p.m. EST
MOUNT MORRIS TOWNSHIP, Mich. –– A 6-year-old girl was shot to death by a 7-year-old classmate at an elementary school this morning, authorities said.
A single shot was fired during a first-grade class at Buell Elementary School, Police Chief Eric King said. It was not immediately clear if the shooting was accidental or intentional, he said.
The girl died about 10:30 a.m., said Hurley Medical Center spokeswoman Stephanie Motschenbacher.
© Copyright 2000 The Associated Press
I hate these days ... when I have to call Mrs Shark and tell her not to watch the news, for fear Little Shark will see the coverage and start asking questions.
Awful. Horrible.
It is horrible when a child dies.
The parents of the boy are entirely responsible for this tragedy.
janjon --
No. I gave up my shotgun shortly before Little Shark was born.
Is the shotgun locked up? Is its ammo. also locked up in a separate location? How good are the locks?
Fortunately, we didn't get it until after we were married. Gracie doesn't know where it's kept, and she's old enough and bright enough to know what to do if she ever stumbles across it (which is doubtful, considering where it's hidden.)
Any younger kids ever show up in your house?
No, you aren't being an alarmist, it's a well taken point. Gracie is 13 and won't mess with it. Occasionally we have Sweetie's 8 y.o. bro to visit, and he's been schooled in gun safety.
In the unlikely event that the boy got the gun from some other adult's possession, then that person is responsible. In every case I've heard of, a child this young with a gun has gotten it from his parents, who failed to keep it locked and safely out of the child's possession.
Cal --
"More immediately, I wonder what the hell the teacher was doing."
Taking cover, I'd guess -- if s/he saw the damn thing at all before it was fired.
We're still a long way from expecting teachers to take a bullet in the classroom. It ain't the Secret Service.
Believe me, you are preaching to the choir. I hate the damned thing. At least the gun is locked, and after today I bet I can get Sweetie to lock up the ammo, too.
I don't have any great problem with laws requiring people (especially if children are present) to keep guns locked away, but, it is common sense to do so.
But criminals will tell you (as will common sense) that anything that comes between you and your being able to use your gun is an advantage for the criminal.
Lastly, as much as I like nerf balls, they are of minimal use against an armed intruder.
No, I meant before that. But then, I'm assuming that it was an accident--he was showing off the gun and it went off. In which case, I wonder what the teacher was doing to let it get to that point.
If the kid pulled a gun out and immediately shot someone, that's different.
Janjon,
Well, responsibility is fine to assess, but when people start extrapolating to policy, I get bored.
You misread. I don't get bored easily. I get bored when people use incidents to further their agenda.
Right.
From this, policy analysis and determinations can and damned well should flow.
Boring as it may be.
".
A local county prosecutor told MSNBC that officials would begin looking at how the boy got the gun.
“We’ve had other school children take guns to elementary schools before,” he told other media, “... but it never went this far with it. It’s a sign of our times where we have a fully armed society that doesn’t take its responsibility to secure its weapons seriously.”
I suppose I would say RIGHT ON, except that my mind boggles over the simple conclusory statement that we are a "fully armed society". Sad, if true.
How many of the parents of these young killers have been prosecuted? Have any of them?
Facts (incidents, as you call them) are not relevant to analyzing and formulating policy.
Quite true. Incidents are never useful in formulating policy. The sum total of incidents and their causes are what should be used--and, to be fair, quite often are.
I don't see you--or anyone else, in fact--getting upset every time someone uses a handgun to commit suicide. Nor do you regularly pull out the armed robberies that occur.
Yet if you wanted to meaningfully reduce the two major causes of death by handgun, that's what should get you all juiced up.
If school shootings plummeted to 0 for the rest of the year, overall handgun deaths might drop a percentage point, if we were lucky. Making these deaths irrelevant to the overall handgun debate. They aren't irrelevant to school safety, to parent training, to laws punishing parents for incompetence. But they are largely irrelevant to addressing the damage done by handguns.
No, the only reason they come up in handguns discussion is because it's easier to get those who don't know better worked up about the death of a six year old than the suicide of a sixty-year-old, or because we all know that illegal use of guns won't be much affected by laws.
So yes, Janjon, despite your indignation, it is well established that incidents are not relevant to analyzing and formulating policy. But they are wonderful for getting the natives restless.
Compassionate Conservative?
Reformer with Results?
OR
Mendacious Moron
Gore's gonna ream him a new asshole!
I'm not bored with policy discussions in the least. I only warn against the use of individual incidents to make policy. Statistics are another matter, for with them comes perspective.
For example, the perspective that almost a dozen children are killed each year by falling into unwatched pails of water and drowning. Pails of water are nevertheless useful for the purpose of cleaning floors. Floors should be cleaned to avoid infections, which would otherwise kill hundreds if not thousands of children via staph, etc.
Similarly, guns are useful (when properly maintained, cared for, and safeguarded) in deterring violent crime.
Lastly, one should remember that just as it is impossible to legislate morality, it is impossible to legislate common sense.
Lets just tackle a couple. School deaths by guns. Of course they are relevant to the "overall handgun debate" in part because the areas you do acknowledge are relevant - school safety, parental or other adult responsibility, training, etc. - are part of the handgun debate. But, school deaths are just one (thankfully still quite small) aspect of the real issue when it comes to easy access to guns by kids - the deaths and injuries that occur at home, in yards, etc. - because of this. In my mind, one of the areas of gun violence in this country most susceptable to being at least ameliorated considerably by introduction of several sane policies (and laws).
For what it is worth, whatever indignation you think you saw up there has nothing to do with my reactions to this or other killings or suicides or robberies.
Actually, I was appalled by this matter-of-fact comment: "We’ve had other school children take guns to elementary schools before."
Really?
Of course they are relevant to the "overall handgun debate" in part because the areas you do acknowledge are relevant - school safety, parental or other adult responsibility, training, etc. - are part of the handgun debate.
That's utter nonsense. School safety and parental responsibility are separate issues; handgun safety is a small (but significant) aspect of that.
Bringing up overall handgun control (note the use of overall) every time one of these incidents occurs is cheap opportunism. What's worse is that it engenders a like response in the opponents to gun control, and a grisly and tragic death becomes nothing more than agenda fodder.
In my mind, one of the areas of gun violence in this country most susceptable to being at least ameliorated considerably by introduction of several sane policies (and laws).
Do you wish to agitate for a law preventing children from bringing guns to schools? I'm reasonably sure that such laws already exist, but if they don't, then have at it. Do you wish to agitate for a law that prohibits loaded handguns without safety locks? Be my guest.
Anything more global than that, any statement about handguns in general? See previous comments about agenda fodder and opportunism.
That caught my eye, too. But did you note this is a very poor area? If Judith is right about the kid bearing a grudge, then the gun may have been acquired via the street, rather than from a parent.
However, post #20760 prompts me to put this in:
Bush did NOT put in place patient's bill of rights
In fact, he fought it tooth and nail and was over-ridden by the TX legislature.
As such, he is assuredly finished.
Excuse me, but if anyone is interested in the truth, George Dubya vetoed the patients' bill of rights in Texas when it was first passed by the legislators in 1995; and when they passed it again, over his opposition, by a veto-proof majority in 1997, he threatened to veto it again and then let it become law without his signature because a veto wouldn't hold.
He never even signed the patients' bill of rights, and you can look it up. Claiming that "he passed" or "delivered" the patients' bill of rights is turning the truth on its head.
(Bush, that is)
Not necessarily. But given your track record on predictions lately, I certainly hope you won't predict that he wins.
I know just how you feel...everytime I find a lipstick color I like, they discontinue it.
(oh please, oh please, oh please, oh please, oh please)
Yeah, but do you think anyone who would vote for Bush would do so because of his stand on PBOR?
CNN is carrying a news conference on the school shooting near Flint.
The issue isn't particularly important. Its the fact that he *lied* about it!
spud --
Weisberg claims Senator McCain and his spokesman "obfuscated" when they said they thought they were being asked about "some other (nonexistent) calls directly accusing Bush of being a bigot." The implication seems to be that it's not credible that they would have thought this.
Weisberg neglects to mention that the governor did, in fact, claim that there were such calls: "Mr. McCain's making phone calls in this state accusing me of being an anti-Catholic bigot, and I don't appreciate it," Bush said. "It's as low as it gets." The McCain campaign calls do not claim that the governor is either anti-Catholic, or that he's a bigot.
Either the governor was referring to calls the McCain campaign never made, or he just embellished a little. Odd that Weisberg didn't mention that, wouldn't you say?
I'm sure they are. Are the Ghoul Tents up yet? Have the candidates descended to pick at her carcass yet? Are they testing the lighting for the wake? Do Wayne LaPierre and Charles Schumer have their make-up on?
Keep us posted.
How do you know there aren't thousands out there ready to do just that? "Hey, Dubya wants all of us to have great health care; he gave all them Texans their own Patients Bill of Rights! Whutaya think of that! He's okay in my book!"
No one ever got elected overestimating the sophistication of the American voter.
Not to say that Clinton isn't trying to make a virtue out of necessity in claiming credit for the 1996 welfare reforms, since he did initially oppose the law, but his claims are partially warranted.
The two articles by Barstow on McCain since don't mention what Weisberg is talking about.
Who will start the Republican version of the Daily Howler?
Niner: There's a good man. (Now that I know it's a Rush-ism, I have to abandon "megadittos." Sorry.)
Where on earth did you get the impression I am not outraged by both of them? Have I ever said I supported Gore?
JJ thinks everyone is a partisan hack.
I want "none of the above" on the ballot.
Niner --
Welcome to crusade, mi amigo.
er, "... the crusade ..."
I prefer to think that, as was the case with me, it is yet another example of how difficult it is to communicate fully on the internet. It is just too static and just doesn't lend itself to nuance.
I dig three of the four, which of course means that the fourth will win.
Its gonna be:
PRESIDENT GORE!!!!
I know just how you feel...everytime I find a lipstick color I like, they discontinue it.
Yeah, don't you just hate that!
Raskolnikov
The issue isn't particularly important. Its the fact that he *lied* about it!
That is intended humor, isn't it?
Somehow, I feel akin to Westmoreland.
Oh yes.
One other thing to consider. The column is by Molly Ivins, and it is entirely possible that she isn't telling the whole story. She has been known to do that.
Or Dale Dye in Platoon.
"Zips in the wire. Zips in the wire."
March 14, 2000.
I see you left your sense of humor at the 19th Hole.
I get tired of hearing people say that a gun just "went off." Guns don't just "go off." Even in single-action mode, a typical revolver requires two pounds of trigger pressure to fire it. The kid obviously fired the gun. Whether he believed it was loaded or not is another matter. In the end, he is below the age at which children are deemed to have the capacity for intent. The parents should be held accountable.
Ronski, speaking as a gun owner, I have never been convinced that guns in the house effectively deter crime. Statistics in fact show that a gun is many times more likely to injure or kill a member of the household than it is to be used against an intruder. This is a statistical fact (not an anecdote) which sensible gun owners like myself would like to see addressed.
It is my considered opinion that gun ownership should be treated the same as owning a car (at the least). One should not be entitled to legally possess a gun until he or she has passed examinations demonstrating basic competency in safely handling, loading, firing, maintaining, and storing the weapon. There should be strict criminal and civil liability for negligently storing a weapon which ends up in the hands of a minor and that minor causes injury or death to himself or another. An owner should also be required to pass a written test demonstrating a reasonable understanding of the law on self-defense in their jurisdiction.
Legally, must someone be held accountable?
We don't want all of politics and perhaps the Mote itself deleted.
Thanks.
You know, I'm grooming you.
As Molly says "look it up"
Should be rather easy to do. Did Bush veto the bill or didn't he?
Did Bush oppose the Patient's Bill of Rights or didn't he? Did he threaten a veto and then allow the bill to pass without his signature or didn't he?
Those are assertions of fact not opinion.
My money's on Molly not the Moron but why don't you "look it up" before you go on about Al Gore.
Yes, Molly has been known to err....just have newspapers here in the state where GW is our Govenor. Give us some credit for having heard things while living in his state...observing things, even.
Perhaps should read "Look at those windmills, Sancho
and signed "Don Quixote"
Must someone be held accountable? I don't know exactly what you mean. Certainly, there could be strong grounds for a negligence suit against the parents if they kept a loaded handgun in a place where they knew or should have known that their child would have access to it.
Here, in Florida, there is a statute which holds an adult criminally liable for negligently storing a firearm if a child gets ahold of it. I believe, however, that the State could do a lot more. Requiring licenses for possession are not unreasonable.
No.
Lady
Agreed. But there certainly could be a reasonable factual situation wherein the parents are largely blameless.
????
I have no idea what you're talking about anymore, and care less. Fuss away.
I think that a strict liability standard would force parents to more carefully evaluate the situations in their homes. If they have a child who is unusually curious, and who has a knack for getting into things, they should take that into account. A "reasonable steps" standard might allow parents to be excused for ignoring their child's conduct.
That is a bit simplistic, isn't it? More appropriate questions would be:
Why did Bush veto did the original bill?
What language in the bill did he object to?
Did he object to a "Patients Bill of Rights" in general or to only specific provisions of the bill as it was passed?
It is possible that he supported a PBR and the PBR would have had his full support if some of the provisions were changed. Unfortunately we rarely get that level of information from the media.
Granted, it isn't "they" who are actually shooting the gun, but instead they "only" permitted a situation where it was possible for their kid to do so.
Agreed but what's the fuss????
This Moron wants to portray himself as a Compassionate Conservative, Reformer With Results, restorer of morality to the White House, and inevitable Presidential winner.
C'mon now....he puts that shit in a TV ad for Chrissakes!!!
What an idiot!
The fuss is that we can barely disagree about GWs practicew of fudging the truth without JJ diving in and hollering "Gore is worse! Gore is worse!" Does that make GW better ? Both lie. Both are bad. Agreed.
But JJ seems to think it's a proven fact that Gore is a liar and that it only may be true about GW; we just can't take Mollys word for it, need to check further....but GORE, well, he definitely IS.
The assertion that he "passed the Patient's Bill of Rights" is patently false. Worse from my point of view is that the Moron put the lie up front in a political commercial which begins "Do NOT question my integrity">
News Flash - Prepare to be GORED!
Methinks you are parsing a la Clinton now. Perhaps you've discovered what the meaning of "is" is????
The assertion that he "passed the Patient's Bill of Rights" is patently false. Worse from my point of view is that the Moron put the lie up front in a political commercial which begins "Do NOT question my integrity">
News Flash - Prepare to be GORED!
Methinks you are parsing a la Clinton now. Perhaps you've discovered what the meaning of "is" is????
Bush, with every passing day, does something to make me wish more and more that we were in September awaiting the first debate.
Gore's gonna wipe the floor with this fool.
I have to run, but I'll respond later.
ARRRG
VOTE FOR BOY GEORGE!!!!
Yeah, and Clinton was giving us the most ethical administration in history. Grow up! You wouldn't support Jesus Christ if he ran as a Republican and all your blathering is crap. But don't for one minute think I don't enjoy you. Always have, always will. You used to be funnier, but I guess you have abandoned that. Keeping up with Ace is pretty tough.
Stupidity in a President, that's beyond the pale.
There are statutes making a car owner liable for a driver's accidents if the owner knew the driver wasn't qualified to drive or was drunk, etc. It seems to me that should be extended to other things, including guns, and a requirement to use more care than usual to keep them out of the hands of kids.
It is scary that more and more kids think they can and should use a gun to settle things when they are "mad." Do we blame this attitudie on movies and tv or their parents? It seems to me that parents should decide what movies and tv programs their kids should watch, and not try and blame their kids' behaviors on the evil movie empire.
JJ --
"It is possible that he supported a PBR and the PBR would have had his full support if some of the provisions were changed. Unfortunately we rarely get that level of information from the media."
Well, don't blame the media on this one. Governor Bush is taking credit in his ads for the PBR that was actually enacted in Texas, not some hypothetical PBR that he might have supported.
If he's taking credit for a bill he actually opposed, that became law despite his efforts rather than because of them -- well, that's rather Clintonesque, don't you think?
I've not voting today..not going to tell them if I'm a Dem or Rep. or Independant..nope..besides, nothing's really decided today. It will be decided in the caucuses in about a week.
loooong way
JanJon...
No doubt. In fact, a fellow demo political junkie was telling me how fearsome the Moron was a year ago. To my riposte that he was too stupid to win, his answer "Remember how 'they' elected Raygun"
Well Ronnie was stupid to be sure but Ronnie was smart enough to know he was. Plus he had run twice for Governor and for President before he got the nod.
The notion that "they", the handlers could keep GWB under wraps until the Inaugural has always struck me as extreme GOP fancy.
Whomever coined "There You Go Again" is the person who won the election against Carter for him.
The double standard of the media and liberals is almost funny. gore goes to a Black church, gets an endorsement from the minister during the Sunday service and who is bothered by that. But let a conservative mention that religion is important in his life and all the liberals cry, crucify him.
And, 109109's writing style (oh am I being generous today) has got to be considered inimitable.
"Viva........mi penis!"
Yeah, i agree with you. If the goddamn churches would just mind their business and stay out of politics, we wouldn't have had all that crap that went on in the '60 and 70's. Of course, you were just a child and don't remember how those ministers got on their soap box and screwed up a damn good war and fussed up all those darkies down in the south. Of course, some of those trouble makers were jewish rabbis and I guess they get a pass. It was those lousy Christians that we got to get a hold on.
Dumb.
He did!! He did!!
You are a very interesting person. Would you have any comment on the point of my ravings? Now if you are an honest person, and of that I have no doubt, you must admit there is a kernal of a point in that post. Or perhaps you are even younger that jexster, who I think is nearing 50, and have no idea what I am talking about. The most interesting thing about liberals ranting about keeping religion and politics separate is their seeming total lack of history. Who do you think were the most powerful voice in ending slavery?
"He's just like Clinton and Gore."
The ad was dumb. Let's see if he learns from it or continues to make similar claims as Gore has.
"He's just like Clinton and Gore."
The ad was dumb. Let's see if he learns from it or continues to make similar claims as Gore has.
They weren't Democrats.
Why take the time to try to parse crap like that.
By the way, I do not think that what you called the crap of the 50s and 60s was. I don't think you have to have been around or participated in history to appreciate its import years later. This would be a far different and far worse society had a lot of very brave people - black and white, jewish and catholic and protestant and and and - not risked (or given) their lives in support of a cause back then.
I am so glad you don't get emotional about politics.
Would it please you more if I called them jigaboes and kikes? You don't parse what I say because you seem incapable of understanding irony. Of course, you are not the first Motie who finds my posts cryptic.
To give you credit, I do assume that you do what you do with deliberation. Of course, if it is irony that you are intending, you ain't on target, guy.
If, however, it is just stuff that spews out....
At any rate, use of shock words to get attention or certain forms of reactions is considered sophomoric in most circles.
Al D makes an excellent point...and it wasn't all that subtle, so it's hard to believe anyone, of any age group, could have missed it.
The point he may have missed, though, is that there's something more to claiming the "Christian" mantle than just making the piety claim and then moving full-time into political engineering.
There's a recognizable difference between the courage shown by some religious leaders in the 60s in the civil rights movement and in the anti-war movement and the shameful performances of these charlatans of the Rigid Right.
It's hard for me to accept that Al D doesn't see the difference. I rather think he does, and he's just going for a nice rhetorical flourish.
intellectual or moral purist."
Yea but I love cojones - bull nuts fried, pork balls even better! Yum!
Let's have that *great* *big* *Darth Vader* *smile*.
That appears to be another factual error by Weisberg. The PTL was Jim Bakker's ministry. Pat Robertson runs the 700 Club.
I'm almost positive PTL is defunct.
Gary Bauer isn't an "agent of intolerance". He's a minor candidate expressing minority positions, and well within the system at that. There's a qualitative difference between Bauer (and the other dwarf candidates) and the would-be king makers that McCain's striking out against.
I liked it better when ol' Pat Robertson was trying to drum up votes in his own name...and failing miserably.
Incidentally, forget about the Christian Right for a moment. Anyone else just shaking their head as to how the REST of the registered GOP still comes down favoring W over McCain? It can't be his stands on issues (really, he and W are peas in a pod), its gotta be that the GOP just doesn't like unpredictability.
What's up ? Salon TT is a ghost town today.
- snicker -
The GOP doesn't appreciate the selfish divisive tactics that McCain has adopted. Virtually the entire religious flap, for instance, was manufactured by his campaign. Oh, and don't bother to bore with with the 'all Republicans are like McPustule' rhetoric.
I like the guy .
Oh, we are not to bother but you can spout that crap all you want? Nice...
Well, duh. And here I and a lot of people thought it was McCain reacting to all of the crap spewed out by the Christian Right in South Carolina. You remember, all that stuff about his being soft on abortion, those two illegitimate kids, that adopted kid, the...etc.
Nothing divisive about that, I suppose. After all, it was all in support of the annointed one. (McCain was supposed to be dead (politically) by now, right?) Sort of like extremism in the pursuit of liberty updated, eh?
Poor to non-existent. Democrats and Independents apparently prefer to mess with the Republican primaries than to support the respectable Democrat choice.
connie --
"Democrats and Independents apparently prefer to mess with the Republican primaries ..."
Yeah, what's up with that, anyhow?
So what if the rules say they can vote in some of our primaries? As one Republican to another, I say: who needs 'em?
Even more fuel waits in the wings - lest we forget that Buchanan is likely to show up on the radar screen sometime before the fall.
Can you say "President Gore?"
VIVA PRESIDENT GORE!!!!
Trialiar -
I think the Washington State Republican Party has it about right. One third of their delegates are selected in open primary voting, and two thirds in a caucus. Responsive, yet not prone to being hijacked.
Andy: Howdy. Have you met "concerned"?
I don't vouch for this. I just paste it:
....
Early exit polls show a double-digit Bush lead in Virginia, according to sources in the Bush and McCain campaigns. Bush is leading the Arizona maverick 54%-42% according to the initial numbers. Bush had been expected to win the state, but it had tightened in recent days, raising the possibility of a McCain upset in the Old Dominion that would send W. into a free fall. Another round of exit polls is expected sometime after 3 p.m., but at the moment Bushies are optimistic. Stay tuned. Since half of Washington's GOP primary votes were mailed in, there may not be an exit poll. I'll get back to you soon... --politex, 4:00 ET
janjon --
Me an' connie are really tight, d'juno?
Cal --
Best we could hope for today was a split between VA and WA.
Losing in VA will likely be attributed to the senator's ballsy speech yesterday, when in fact, of course, he was going to lose there anyway. This way, we get more publicity of the "speaks his mind regardless of the political fallout" sort, which will be helpful elsewhere.
Authorities identified the weapon as a .32-caliber handgun that had been reported stolen in December. It was not known how the gun wound up in the home of the suspect, but he smuggled it into school Tuesday morning by stuffing it into his pants, they said.
About 10 a.m, as 17 of the class's 22 students had left the classroom in a single-file line, the suspect pulled out the gun, aimed it at one student, then whirled and fired one shot at the girl, investigators said.
Officials said the boy then ran to a nearby lavatory, where he hid the gun in a trash can. School officials held the child until police arrived. The boy denied he had fired the gun.
It's not only not an accident, there seems little question that the kid intended to kill and didn't plan on getting caught.
Do I suppose to know " concerned " ?
What's Bradley odds ?
I like the guy .
Me too. His chances?
Popcorn fart in a whirlwind. Snowball in hell. Slim and none.
[Gore] told elementary school students in Cudahy that Tuesday's fatal shooting of a Michigan first-grader by a classmate showed the importance of gun controls, especially child-safety trigger locks.
The man is predictable. Apparently there is no tragedy he won't exploit for personal gain.
Top that !
Appreciate it!
BRB !
Gore believes he is God.
JJ is predictable. Apparently there is no act of a Democrat who will be president that he will not spin as being motivated by personal gain.
From Inside Bush Watch -
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3750/bush.htm
Exit polls show a double-digit Bush lead in Virginia, according to sources
in the Bush and McCain campaigns. Early exit polls had Bush leading
54-42%. But the latest numbers, as of 4:45 p.m. EST, have Bush widening
his lead to 16 points (since liberal Northern Virginians tend to vote in
the morning, it makes sense that Bush's margin would grow as it gets later
in the day). Bush had been expected to win the state, but the race had
tightened in recent days, raising the possibility of a McCain upset in the
Old Dominion. Now the Bushies are celebrating in Virginia, and all eyes
are turning to Washington State. The McCain camp has claimed an early lead
of 8% in the state, but hard numbers may not be available until much later
tonight. 6:18 ET
I'll bet the frothing aimed at Clinton will look downright sane in comparison.
Boy, was I confused! Here I was thinking that Child Molester Flynt was operating the Jeff Clowntoon Presidential Library!
Absensia,
Okay, I'm obviously missing something. If the gun had been stolen and was a "street gun," what good would child safety locks do?
That's right, but I don't know when that fact came out. I just heard it a few minutes ago and didn't read it in early reports. Gore may not be aware of that.
I wasn't talking so much about Gore, as about safety locks in general.
I am for much stricter gun control. If the gun safety locks are anything like the drug safety caps, the only people who can get them off are kids.
Why couldn't Gore just express his condolences to the victim's family and promise a complete investigation rather than using the incident to promote his political views?
Ah yes. The Bush approach to leadership: When an incident underscores a tough issue confronting Americans, run as fast and far from it while mumbling sweet meaningless nothings in its direction.
Dragging a black man to death? He'll "consider" signing a hate-crimes law if it crosses his desk -- but meanwhile, his staff and minions in the Texas Lege work overtime to make sure it never reaches his desk.
Confederate flag flying over a state capitol? That's just a "local" problem.
Kids killing each other with guns at school? Wring hands and toss in a few bromides about the right to bear arms.
Tell me, JJ -- can you distinguish between leadership and opportunism? Or doesn't it occur to you that Bush's laissez-faire approach to things is in itself a kind of opportunism?
'No Controlling Legal Authority' Bore's whole career was made to order to go negative against. I suggest that GWB's campaign use various combinations of each of the words and phrases 'campaign finance' 'criminal (investigation)' and 'Vice President Gore' together in sentences at least half a dozen times in each opportuntiy it has to refer to Scumbag Jr.
Mere hours after the fact when the reports are just hitting the news? Capitalizing on the shock value and emotions inherent in the situation? It is exploitation pure and simple.
No Exit
By: Jack Shafer
Posted Tuesday, Feb. 29, 2000, at 3:27 p.m. PT
It's midafternoon and I've got the exit poll numbers from today's Virginia primary. I'd love to publish them, just as I have for the last three presidential primaries. But I can't. The lawyers from the Voter News Service--the ABC News, CBS News, NBC News, Fox News, CNN, and the Associated Press media consortium that produces the exit polls--have threatened to sue Slate if we continue to do so.
I suppose Microsoft has enough legal action on its plate...
BTW, for anyone who doesn't like negative campaigns, I suggest finding a cave until after the November election. This one is going to be a blood bath.
You got that right, big guy. Already I've been hearing a steady drumbeat declaring Gore a delusional liar, a crass opportunist, and probably a campaign-finance criminal. From guys like you. Not to mention official GOP talking heads on every screen in our newsroom.
Meanwhile, have you heard anything personal about Bush or McCain coming from the Gore camp? I haven't -- all I've heard from them is policy differences. The personal stuff is coming from Bush and McCain themselves, directed at each other.
Yep, those Republicans are just saints on this "politics of personal destruction" stuff.
I didn't read that in his remarks. Not that he doesn't have the potential to do that at times; I know he does. But I agree with Spuds. Gore stands in significant contrast to that spineless wonder GWB. For that matter, so does McCain, which is why I like him and wouldn't mind seeing him as president, though I don't agree with his positions on a lot of issues.
Apparently you can't. You're not really going to suggest that Gore's exploitation of this tragedy is leadership, are you? Do you understand that leaders accomplish their goals without resorting to such sleazy tactics? Apparently you don't.
McCain also has agreed to debate via satellite.
It ain't negative if it is the truth.
Meanwhile, have you heard anything personal about Bush or McCain coming from the Gore camp? I haven't
Then you just haven't been paying attention.
Bore hasn't gone personal against Bush or McCain just yet (although he has repeatedly smeared fellow Democrat Bill Bradley in an unredeemable manner) for one obvious reason (I'll let you guess), but that in no way exonerates him, of course.
Pinocchio Bore has so far taken the shotgun approach to the Republican Party in general with his vicious and divisive race and religios baiting. A bit like McCain, only considerably less conscionable.
Of course, real Lefties will not criticise *any* such wrongdoing by the Demorat Party anointed, indeed, it is to be expected that most will be uncritical boosters of Tobacco Bore, no matter how bigoted, dishonest or inexcusable Scumbag Jr.'s behavior. Indeed, the worse Bore behaves, the shriller and more viciously abusive his partisan supporters will become, without any reasonable limit.
Man. Even with the bad news, there's good news. Let's just nail it into Bush's coffin.
Neither has concerned, evidently.
Please JJ, we're all ears.
Uh oh, looks like McCain's appeal to Independents and Democrats is slippping.
There may be mucho method to McCain's apparent madness ie a snister plot to divide and eventually conquer the GOP from the thrall of the Falwell claque.
I see him doing better in the Northeast because of his broadside on Robertson & Falwell even though it didn't pay off in Kunservative Niner Kuntry.
Also, I wonder how accurate the measure of "religious right" is? Seems many would avoid labeling themselves as such. Something akin to "Do you classify yourself as tolerant or racist?"
Probably Bush's total RR contribution was larger than 16% of his vote, impressive though that was.
Cal --
And so the spin I predicted has already come to pass.
Exactly. In fact, I'll bet a lot of RRs will start saying, "No!" in an effort to help Bush. So they'll have to change the question: "Do you consider yourself an evangelical or fundamentalist Christian?"
TS,
Well, let's see how the numbers play out.
Concerned,
Um. Huh?
Unlike some others here, I don't believe that being a manipulative asshole equates to 'having balls'.
Tuesday , Feb. 29, 2000 | Updated 7:30 PM EST
Virginia Republican Primary
27 percent of precincts reporting Republicans Votes %
George W. Bush 77,744 55
John McCain 58,397 41
Alan Keyes 4,510 3
Gary Bauer 856 1
Steve Forbes 808 1
Gary Bauer and Steve Forbes dropped out of the race but still appear on the state ballot.
And here I thought that we could bond with the Republicans over our support for "their" guy.
Alas.
Well, I suppose Niner and Ace are nominally Republicans. But they're so.....reasonable...about it.
I find it risible that GWB is being disparaged in this forum for not using every possible device as a political bludgeon against his primary opponent.
Who said this? In fact, I would argue that Bush has done *exactly* that against McCain -- accused him of pandering to the gay vote, accused him of not being a real Republican, accused him of "abandoning veterans" after he returned from Vietnam -- on and on and on. Bush has been simply unscrupulous, sounding the attack against McCain wherever he goes, and tailoring the attack to fit the audience.
Secondarily, I don't think Gore's declaration about guns today had a single thing to do with Bill Bradley. It was obviously intended to underscore his own position.
Unlike some others here, I don't believe that being a manipulative asshole equates to 'having balls'.
Neither do I. Bush obviously has no balls. But there's little question that he's a manipulative asshole.
However, I should qualify my previous post by mentioning that, presuming GWB receives the Republican nomination, that he's going to be in a firefight with Scumbag Jr. from the opening bell, and that I believe, at least, that Bush should, to put it mildly, pull no punches or hold anything that relates to career sacred whatsoever in defining Bore right up front, as well as being sure his campaign strategizes, 'triangulates', and have and use 'rapid response' capabilities in the general campaign.
Cal --
Their guy stopped being their guy the minute he became our guy, too.
Kind of funny to watch, actually.
connie --
"I believe, at least, that Bush should, to put it mildly, pull no punches or hold anything that relates to career sacred ..."
Given the nature of the campaign against Senator McCain, I'd say there was little risk of that.
Most of your accusations against GWB are not well founded. Since when is it a mortal sin to accuse one's opponent of pandering? GWB himself never accused McCain of 'abandoning veterans'; in any case, that's a widely held viewpoint among Vietnam Vets, whether you like it or not. I recall GWB accusing McCain primarily of being a 'reformer without results' and similar and am surprised how thin your skin is wrt a candidate you would say much worse of yourself at a slightly different time, at the behest of the whackjobs that run Salon,for instance.
Gol-lee, Bush attacks McCain. Isn't that terrible? Apparently, it's just okey-dokey with you that McCain regularly is much more extreme in his attacks than Bush, what with his divisive lies wrt religion, to give only one example.
...................Bush...McCain
VA: Relig. Right....83......10
VA: Non-RR..........48......49
MI: Relig. Right....66......25
MI: Non-RR..........36......60
SC: Relig. Right....68......24
SC: Non-RR..........46......52
Hey, Trialiar -
I'd vote for McCain as Republican candidate, if he's nominated. Hell, I'd probably even contribute to his campaign against Scumbag Jr. Of course, I'll also continue my helpful criticism if needed.
connie --
"If needed?"
That work better for you, Trialiar?
What? Dan Burton's little love child is in the race now? 
I voted today as a Republican. Have never done so before. Cast my measly ballot for GW. Will vote GOP come November too, regardless of candidate. I just want to see those people get a chance to run the country their way. No more passing bills knowing a Democrat Pres. will veto. And prior to this having a President say he would like to do something but the Demo's running Congress wont cooperate. I figure in 4 years the GOP will either have abandoned most of it's platform or be a very minor party. But I sure don't want to see anymore of the expensive, useless compromises that have passed for government the last 30 years.
I have already squandered my youth and have no fortune, so have nothing really to lose. Anything not forbidden is already mandatory.
Tuesday , Feb. 29, 2000 | Updated 8:40 PM EST
Virginia Republican Primary
88 percent of precincts reporting
George W. Bush 292,325 54
John McCain 231,076 43
Alan Keyes 16,223 3
Gary Bauer 1,146 0
Steve Forbes 705 0
Gary Bauer and Steve Forbes dropped out of the race but still appear on the state ballot.
....maybe it'll be a single-digit loss.
Tuesday , Feb. 29, 2000 | Updated 9:50 PM EST
Virginia Republican Primary
99 percent of precincts reporting
Republicans Votes %
George W. Bush 349,781 53
John McCain 290,326 44
Alan Keyes 20,252 3
Gary Bauer 1,236 0
Steve Forbes 890 0
Gary Bauer and Steve Forbes dropped out of the race but still appear on the state ballot.
''If what Senator McCain said yesterday is accurate, it's been accurate for years and years and years,'' Clinton said Tuesday. ''I think he was frustrated that they didn't support him and so he's going to make sure they pay a price for it.''
.....
Clinton wouldn't go too far in sizing up the implications of McCain's remarks. ''Whether it's good politics or not is up to the Republicans,'' he said.
President Clinton then collapsed to the floor, rolled onto his back and began laughing uproariously while kicking his legs in the air.
Hope he was able to stop laughing without medication.
Good thing that it was *North* Dakota, or McCollapse would probably still be saying that Bush can only win in the South.
President Clinton then collapsed to the floor, rolled onto his back and began laughing uproariously while kicking his legs in the air.
...a sure sign of stage III syphilis.
McCain howler, after being stomped in ND:
"``It seems as if he (Bush) has a Southern strategy here,'' McCain said, ``doing well in Southern states."
Cal:
Stage III takes decades to develop. Hell - he mighta got it from Tipper!
"Exit polling indicated that voters roundly rejected the two-pronged attack McCain had tried in the campaign's final hours, first criticizing Gov. James S. Gilmore III and U.S. Sen. John W.
Warner, two of the state's most popular Republican leaders, and their political "machine," then denouncing evangelist Pat Robertson and other conservative Christians for not practicing inclusive
politics."
Ha! Good one.
What an embarrassing end to McVenom's Republican career.
Talk about true colors! It looks like it's gonna be slash-n-burn from now on, till he finally has the good sense to back out.
If I was him, I'd be out in CA right now, kissing jexster's ass.
Get used to it folks. Gore has run into the Blue Fairy somewhere on the campaign trail, he's become " a real boy" and not the wooden guy who's had to play backup to Clinton. He looks almost lifelike in recent video. Meanwhile, McCain is making headway with Reagan democrats- read lower middle class and working class Catholics in the rust belt. They love McCains pugnaciousness and are turned off by GWB and the smirking frat boy attitude. Face it, the guy's brother converted to Catholicism, and he doesn't have anything to say to the folks at Bob Jones U. who've declared the Catholic Church a "satanic cult?" Bush is going to attack Gore on fundraising? He'll look even worse than he does against McCain.
The Wingtip wing of the party has too much money invested in BushBaby to back off now, and the RR doesn't trust McCain, he's not their kind of zealot. They'll fight over the controls, and power dive the GOP through the election.
Just wake up, Jonesy? That must've been some dream...
Anyone else notice that CNN appears to be off the 'net?
More significantly, the number of independents rose by 77,145 in the month before the Feb. 7 registration deadline, while the number of registered Republicans rose by 21,578 and Democrats declined by 91,516.
With 99 percent of precincts reporting their results, the governor of Texas was beating Arizona Sen. McCain 53-44 percent. Exit polls showed Bush gained the backing of 83 percent of self-declared religious conservatives.
The showing in Virginia wasn't as bad as it started out. McCain crept back within 10 percent.
Still, it does make me wonder how McCain would have done if he hadn't made the speech yesterday. If the Virginia RR had gone in the same proportion for Bush as they did in South Carolina, McCain would have made it close.
But I think that's it for John McCain. It's too bad that the neanderthals of the party don't recognize a good thing when they see it. Their reasoning for why McCain is bad is twofold: one, he will cut off their lifeline for influencing the government by cutting off the money they can contribute and, two, he is liked by some liberals and so therefore is a Stealth Clinton candidate. Number one is a reasonable if overwrought fear. Number two is just ridiculous.
In any event, this primary has exposed a nasty fissure in the party. The Republicans have to wonder if they should reach out for the moderates and win--or assuage the Christians and lose.
CNN calls Washington for Gore, Bush in the party primaries. No call on the open primary.
They (Bush and co.) will reach out for moderates in the general and still lose.
Doesn't matter if they reach out for the moderates. Doesn't matter if they lose (and I agree, they probably will). The fissure is there. Moderates will feel robbed--and they'll know who to blame. Not only the RR, but the Republican leadership who backed the same candidate.
I doubt it. For a fissure to exist in the Republican party, Rpublicans have to be at each other's throat. We aren't. To the extent there is a fissure -- if we can call it that -- it existed already. Do William Weld and Christine Todd Whitman ring any bells?
Democrats and Independents don't count.
It probably has sunk the campaign.
Sez who? The fissure exists, period. Moderates overwhelmingly want McCain, conservatives overwhelmingly want Bush.
Democrats and Independents don't count.
Don't be silly. How many Dems and Indies you think might continue to vote for Republicans if the RR didn't seem to dominate them so thoroughly?
You seem awfully cavalier about the possibility of becoming a majority party of centrists.
I think the idea exists strictly in your imagination.
I just hope that McCain isn't entertaining the idea.
Duh. There's a startling pronouncement.
I was referring to the possibility of a successful McCain effort. Without that, it's business as usual and TS and I will be backing a winner. You three will be with the goofy Texan geek who only won by wooing Pat Robertson.
Oddly enough, it appears that with 51% of the ballots counted, McCain actually has more votes than either Bush or Gore.
Because the voters who elected to cast nonpartisan ballots don't count, however, that does him no good.
Lord, George, the hits they keep on comin'.
Duh. There's a startling pronouncement.
I have learned through experience never to assume the obvious with you.
I was referring to the possibility of a successful McCain effort. Without that, it's business as usual and TS and I will be backing a winner. You three will be with the goofy Texan geek who only won by wooing Pat Robertson.
Alas, I fear you're right. And the only consolation is that the three of us will be able to laugh our ass off at you two during the next four years.
PM --
Counting those electoral college votes already?
With every speech, McCain looks more and more like an independent candidate.
He has gone over the line with this one.
Given that your determination to back a loser--and one who is supported by people who will continue to assure your losses for a while to come--I can only assume you all have your heads stuck firmly up your asses.
So don't laugh too loud, or you'll get a mouthful of shit.
There's no need. I wanted McCain because I thought McCain was the conservative with the best chance to win the general election, but I thought that even McCain would have a difficult time with Gore, who is not as weak as most here think.
Bush has no chance. And I never said otherwise. It's even possible that Gore will make it a landslide garnering a majority of votes in a three-way with Buchanan, Bush and himself.
PM --
Then I've misunderstood your previous post.
What, exactly, will you, Ace, and Niner find so amusing about a Gore landslide?
Given that your determination to back a loser--and one who is supported by people who will continue to assure your losses for a while to come--I can only assume you all have your heads stuck firmly up your asses.
What are you talking about? The RR was on board for 1980, 1984, 1992 and 1994. Are those the losses you're talking about? Your dream of being the Mote expert political analyst, who bases her predictions on the tossings of her son's toenail clippings, is a little premature I should think. The RR has been on board for two losses -- 1992 and 1996. This will be the third. If the Republicans do lose, it will be proof only that it is difficult to run against a successful moderate opponent, not that there is something fundamentally unwinnable about having the RR in your political corner.
What, exactly, will you, Ace, and Niner find so amusing about a Gore landslide?
I can't speak authoritatively for Ace and Niner (perhaps they do want a McCain independent candidacy), but my guess is they will support Bush in the fall if he is the Republican nominee.
It won't be the landslide so much as our lack of culpability for Gore's actions in office that will put us back in good humor.
PM --
"It won't be the landslide so much as our lack of culpability for Gore's actions in office that will put us back in good humor."
Okaaaaa-ay.
I get it now. In fact, I'm laughing already.
Cal --
Did you note, BTW, how artfully I dodged that millenial?
That seems absurdly silly for a number of reasons--not the least being that I'm a lousy political analyst. But I'm pretty good at predicting people, for some reason. I called Clinton's popularity in the polls in January of 98, which was no mean feat.
The RR has been on board for two losses -- 1992 and 1996. This will be the third.
Yes, and in 1994 the RR finally got the power it wanted--and that was, arguably, the end of their era. It contributed to Republican losses in 1996, 98, and will probably hurt them in 2000 as well. McCain's success indicates a strong desire for reasonable Republican politicians who aren't bound by the RR.
So any success the religious right had prior to 94 is pretty irrelevant. When the Republican party has a big success with them, you let me know.
I get it now. In fact, I'm laughing already.
Well, enjoy it. You have no more than a year of good humor left before you have to start explaining yourself.
If Pincher hadn't been around to snag it, I was going to force you to take it.
No one has to explain themselves for voting for Gore instead of Bush.
That's the sad part.
But I'm pretty good at predicting people, for some reason. I called Clinton's popularity in the polls in January of 98, which was no mean feat.
Well, even a blind hog will find an acorn once in a while.
Yes, and in 1994 the RR finally got the power it wanted--and that was, arguably, the end of their era. It contributed to Republican losses in 1996, 98, and will probably hurt them in 2000 as well. McCain's success indicates a strong desire for reasonable Republican politicians who aren't bound by the RR.
So any success the religious right had prior to 94 is pretty irrelevant. When the Republican party has a big success with them, you let me know.
So, in other words, you're basing a prediction for the need of a national political realignment based on five years of losses? Anything before 1994 is ancient history? The fact that the Republicans control Congress (for at least a few more months) is irrelevant? They are a failure because one very successful politican has won two terms as President during the longest economic expansion in history, and his vice is likely to get the nod to assume his mantle because of it.
The RR represents 17% of the electorate and a major force in the South. You just don't shuffle them off to the corner and not play with them. It's stupid. What I was hoping for was the RR would understand the need to moderate themselves by at least tacitly accepting a candidate like McCain so they could make some small incremental gains in areas they wanted (I know, it seems silly now). But thinking that you can alienate that portion of the electorate and somehow grab some intangible middle ground is a pipe dream.
No one has to explain themselves for voting for Gore instead of Bush.
Why? Because pandering to the RR is unacceptable but pandering to anyone else is just playing the political game the way it should be played?
Where did I say you did? They have as much right to work for change as anyone else does. There is a clear difference between supporting their causes (which McCain does) and opening one's legs wide.
So, in other words, you're basing a prediction for the need of a national political realignment based on five years of losses?
In the first place, I am not predicting the need for realignment. In fact, that's a pretty idiotic sentence. "I predict the need for realignment". I can predict a realignment or not, but the "need" for one?
In the second, you're making all those leaps again. Try not to; all this typing gets old. I am not saying that the RR is a loser because they've lost the last five years. Read this next sentence again, and see if you can figure out another interpretation:
Yes, and in 1994 the RR finally got the power it wanted--and that was, arguably, the end of their era.
And, in fact, I'm not saying the RR is a loser. What I am saying is that the time when a Republican could count on the general electorate ignoring his or her catering to the RR may in fact have gone forever.
No. But close. Like it or not, you can't be seen to be pandering to extremists these days. The Dems barely get away with it with black racists--and the only reason they do at all is because enough of the populace feels guilty about past racism. As it is, McCain's association of Robertson and Farrakhan may just start to make that whole thing less popular too.
In the first place, I am not predicting the need for realignment. In fact, that's a pretty idiotic sentence. "I predict the need for realignment". I can predict a realignment or not, but the "need" for one?
Well, it's late. But the meaning is clear enough, and despite its awkwardness, it is still yards better than at least one-third of your sentences.
In the second, you're making all those leaps again. Try not to; all this typing gets old.
Hahaha! This coming from the ubiquitous CalGal? If only it were true.
I am not saying that the RR is a loser because they've lost the last five years. Read this next sentence again, and see if you can figure out another interpretation: "Yes, and in 1994 the RR finally got the power it wanted--and that was, arguably, the end of their era."
Don't bother going any further on my account. The moon must be in that phase again; you're getting weird. Have a nice evening.
In the first place, I am not predicting the need for realignment. In fact, that's a pretty idiotic sentence. "I predict the need for realignment". I can predict a realignment or not, but the "need" for one?
Well, it's late. But the meaning is clear enough, and despite its awkwardness, it is still yards better than at least one-third of your sentences.
In the second, you're making all those leaps again. Try not to; all this typing gets old.
Hahaha! This coming from the ubiquitous CalGal? If only it were true.
I am not saying that the RR is a loser because they've lost the last five years. Read this next sentence again, and see if you can figure out another interpretation: "Yes, and in 1994 the RR finally got the power it wanted--and that was, arguably, the end of their era."
Obviously they have other ideas. And why don't you try to clearly say what you mean. Why does it represent the end of their era? What electoral logic is at work that makes 1994 a year that shows they must accept a backseat in future campaigns? Why does your dislike of them dictate the outcome of the election instead of more mundane concerns like the success of the economy and people generally liking the track America is on right now? Explain clearly what road the RR and the Republicans need to go down, CalGal, so we have no more misunderstandings of your strategic thinking. For example, no more opposition to AA.
Don't bother going any further on my account. The moon must be in that phase again; you're getting weird. Have a nice evening.
No, the lunar cycle is not to be blamed. It's your charm that does it. Occassionally it compels me to act in the same manner towards you as 80% of the other Moties. But it always passes. Have a good evening.
I frankly wasn't expecting McCain to flip out quite this quickly. I listened to a Real Audio clip a little while ago of a McCain call into the Michael Reagan show where McCain was clearly obsessed with Warren Rudman and Pat Robertson. McCain put off Michael Reagan to the extent that Reagan subsequently declared that he had changed his mind about supporting him. McCain definitely has an anger problem.
We all understood your premise, connie.
I'm glad that you did, TL.
Gore
McCain
Murphy, what the hell were you thinking?
I suspect, however, that the last gasp is still some time away. First, McCain seems the type that won't stop until the convention. Nor should he. Who in hell can really predict what things will look like in July? Plus, he really can point to a lot of evidence that he will make the much stronger candidate instead of W in the fall. Sooo, what if a little W scandal comes to light, say in June?
And, I think that there will be at least one more significant piece of evidence that McCain can point to as he meanders forward. I suspect he will win NY. The Christian Right isn't really much of a factor here. The Republican Catholic vote is, however, and they seem to be quite pissed at W right now.
And why in hell shouldn't W pay the consequences for the visit to BJU.
I've now seen the famous W smirk on tv, incidentally. Not a pretty sight. Offputting, actually. If he does that when he is just making a statement, I can hardly wait to see his reactions when Gore starts in during the debates.
What this analysis ignores is that by denouncing them and failing to win, he is making it harder for anyone else to challenge the religious right next time.
As I said somewhere up above, a try for the fences. Why not. He's going to lose if he doesn't succeed in really shaking things up. And, shaking things up doesn't lose him any meaningful numbers of votes that already weren't going to go to W anyway.
Then, of course, there's Richard Quinn who McCain refers to as a "man of great integrity." Wee problem, though; Quinn tends to believe that slavery wasn't a bad thing.
Sure. McCain swung from his heels, but it was misguided and ill-advised. Why? Because you don't try and change the direction of a political party in the midst of a campaign.
McCain's strategy should have been to hammer Bush Jr. on BJU and his 'adult'-respose message which ghost-themes Bush Jr as an empty suit. Also hammer away on McCain's electability over Gore as contrasted to Bush Jr's.
Being ever the optomist, I would like to think that the fact that there was such a hubbub is a sign of growing awareness and maturity in this country that the religious claptrap that is really just bigotry and racism clothed in the cross is indeed just claptrap and is intolerable.
Many of my close RL friends belong to the more moderate elements of this group, and the last few days have made my support of McCain raise eyebrows.
Sure all this may help him in the general, but the earlier results indicated he needed more Republican support to win the closed primaries.
Tomorrow's debate (which I heard is back on) might be interesting. I wonder what Keyes will do. He's already let it be known that he might leave the Republican Party if it nominated McCain, so the debate may be two on one.
Winata, who wanted a private meeting with Clinton, sent Trie $200,000 in travelers checks, some of it ending up as donations to the Democratic Party. When Clinton friend Richard Mays told Trie that a $100,000 contribution to a fund-raiser would get him two seats at the president's table and another entire table for several guests, ''Woo either wire transferred or brought the money to the U.S.,'' said an FBI interview summary of Trie released by Burton's committee a month ago.
''It occurred to Trie that people at the DNC might start to wonder where he was getting his money. Knowing it was not his money, Trie felt uncomfortable,'' the FBI summary said. ''He started giving friends cash in return for their checks to the DNC.''
Alternately defiant and contrite, Trie in his prepared remarks said that ''at no time ... did I want or attempt to obtain anything improper for the interests of others. He and his business associates ''just wanted to go to events with important people and to get the opportunity to have our pictures taken with the president of the United States.''
Trie outlined his involvement in White House coffees with Clinton that resulted in millions of dollars flowing to the Democratic Party.
The White House has always maintained the events weren't fund-raisers, but Trie said, ''It was ... well known that it cost $50,000 to attend a coffee.''
Trie said he paid $50,000 to get businessman Winston Wang into a coffee, with Trie asserting he was reimbursed later by three wire transfers from associates of Wang.
However, McCain's strategy has been to try and appeal to GOP moderates and Indies. But he knows he has to win over the GOP leadership which is largely beholden to the RR. By attacking Robertson, McCain has essentially hung the GOP's dirty laundry out for everyone to see.
I certainly don't think McCain is anti-Christian, or I wouldn't be supporting him. (And I don't think Bush is anti-Catholic, either.) But perception counts for a lot.
If Robertson can spin Rudman into a "viciously anti-Christian bigot" based on what little Rudman said, just think of the fodder McCain has given the RR leaders.
Also, I've noticed that the RR leadership seldom mentions Rudman by name. They just say McCain has a "viciously anti-Christian bigot" managing his campaign. They must realize that a lot of Republicans think too highly of Rudman to buy such crap.
It wasn't the followers I was referring to. But when the Indies and Pinchers say, "Gasp! He's gone too far!" it's worth pointing it out. Nonetheless, media perception has made it thus, so thus it is.
I see the opposite effect.
Plus, racism/bigotry/weirdo hyperbole aren't anything new to the repertoire of the RR and GOP. How did McCain's actions change anything?
God, the sales of tylenol at stores around the GOP national headquarters must have gone through the roof in recent days. Couldn't happen to a more deserving group.
I certainly wasn't trying to indicate that the RR will now see the light and stop being bigots and racists in many ways. In that regard, they are like the proverbial zebras. Self-rightous ones with the force of the Gospels behind them justifying all!!!
Again, it's not the followers--its the Indys and Pinchers, etc., that surprise me.
The media is actually pretty faithful in saying "McCain attacks leaders", but the impression is still there.
I'm not really complaining--perception is all, and he knew the risk.
Nope. I think the RR marginalizes themselves. Whenever a Robertson threatens some town with flaming death from above or Falwell accuses Clinton of murdering more people than Hitler---they call attention to their own ignorance and bigotry quite nicely.
In fact, I always look forward to seeing a Robertson/Falwell/RR story in the papers because they always end up embarrassing themselves.
It is to the lasting shame of the GOP that they pander to these folks.
"Despite the Washington press clique's fascination with the idea, "Clinton fatigue" is a myth. As historian Sean Wilentz notes in The New Republic, Bill Clinton's second-term job approval ratings surpass any president's since Roosevelt. If the rascal could run again, he'd likely win."
Further provocations, including truth telling about John McCain, from
Gene Lyons, coauthor of The Hunting of the President: the ten-year campaign to destroy Bill and Hillary Clinton, a superbly-written and scrupulously-documented account destined to become the All the President's Men of its era.
"...destined to become the All the President's Men of its era."
This, of course, is wishful thinking. The book, written with Joe Conason, shreds the bigfoot media and is unlikely to get major ink or airtime.
"On issue after issue of concern to traditional-values voters -- the sanctity of life, California's Proposition 22 defending marriage against homosexual redefinition, a pro-family tax code, judges who respect the Constitution, a strong national defense -- Senatory McCain has stood firm."
Seems to me that the dems and independent voters who are pushing for McCain thinking him to be a GOP moderate might want to revisit that.
Early tee time today?
Yet another reason a TT is needed.
How did you guess?
Boiling it down as best I can, what I am saying is that henceforth the media/public awareness of their tactics will be constant and full. The cognoscenti and many others for that matter may have been aware of it all before now, but nowhere to the extent to which they will be forced to operate under public scrutiny in the future.
At least I hope so.
Strange from your perspective I suppose, but true.
None of the Dems/indies think he's a moderate.
I get all my news from T.V., as you might guess. When I learn to read, I will subscribe to the N.Y. Times. Do you think they deliver that way out here to Kauai?
Yeah, but it's probably old news by the time it gets there. :-)
We're not in disagreement. I just think the media is more than happy to cover any RR story because they know the RR will do/say something ridiculous.
I take back my surmise that the tylenol sales around GOP headquarters have gone up. Its gotta be prozac at this point. Couldn't happen to a more deserving crew.
There is one thing you are failing to consider. There is a very large group of religious moderates who have a much different view of Robertson and Falwell. These moderates know them through the works they do in the Christian community and around the world. They may not agree with everything Robertson and Falwell say, but they would view attacks against these men as attacks against religion and against themselves. This would be a very risky road for Democrats to go down. It is easy for you to get worked up over a few of the things they say, but most people view them with a far different perspective. Demonizing the RR will only bring them out in greater numbers and it will sway a lot of religious moderates.
CNN reports a mass shooting in Wilkinsburg, PA: five known wounded, no fatalities reported yet.
JJ --
As a fellow Republican, it pains me to say this: but the Democrats won't have to demonize the conservative Christians. Every time Pat Robertson starts chatting in his folksy way about how the Heavenly Father will, in his love for us all, visit death and destruction on America who happen to live close to people he doesn't like, the job is done.
janjon --
You have me confused with someone else.
Yeah, Judith mentioned that in Current Events.
21080: "Americans."
Sorry. 
Beginning of the end.
This Boy Can Be Very Funny While Also Hitting a Few Real Life Zingers
Another point: On the issues, McCain won the support of those who considered World Affairs, CFR, or SS most important. Bush won Abortion, Moral Values, and Taxes.
Yep, those three issues worked real well for Dole last time.
Very misleading stats which are largely 'spin.' I'm sure McCain did very well among fans of Gaelic hurling but that doesn't translate into a huge bloc of votes.
After all, Warner was just about the only senator who treats McCain with any kind of respect.
Gilmore. He's a RR-clone.
You thought wrong. As usual.
McCain's speeches prior to the VA primaries referred to the 'Warner Machine' in pejorative terms and suggested Warner was a pawn of special interests.
The end was inevitable, but it has been a fun few weeks. 
Nice, either way.
Charlie Trie's testimony for the first time in Congress is rather intriging. Trie sold two dual-use biological fermenters to PRC which could be used for biological weapons .
and the web of Charie Trie and John Huang is further established.
The hearing is still going on .
Congressman to Trie : " you are not cooperative. " , " Don't try to be cute." , " if you continue, it's going to be a few long days . "
And Trie was granted immunity. ... 
Oooooh, its gonna be a long time until November. 
Hopefully this link works better
AP-Bush-Mansion Guests,690
Eight Bush fund-raisers spent a night at governor’s mansion
By JONATHAN D. SALANT
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) — Eight of the 31 overnight guests at the Texas governor’s mansion last year helped Gov. George W. Bush raise a record $70 million for his Republican presidential bid, documents show.
The campaign of GOP rival John McCain said the practice sounded “eerily similar” to President Clinton’s use of the Lincoln Bedroom to house big givers to the Democratic Party.
Bush campaign officials said the guests were a cousin, a governor, a former college roommate, and other longtime friends. That they also helped raise money for the Bush campaign had nothing to do with their invitations to spend the night in Austin, Texas, the officials said.
“The governor and Mrs. Bush always enjoy having family and longtime friends visit them at their home,” campaign spokesman Scott McClellan said. Many of the eight visitors also had stayed at the mansion before 1999, when Bush began his presidential bid, he said.
But McCain campaign officials said Bush’s explanations were similar to those used by Clinton in defending the use of the White House.
“This is just one more example of an advantage we as Republicans would lose if Governor Bush were to become our nominee,” McCain campaign manager Rick Davis said.
“George W. Bush would be unable to raise the issue of selling the Lincoln Bedroom” and cite other fund-raising scandals involving the Clinton-Gore administration if he were the nominee against Vice President Al Gore, Davis said.
“This belies the notion that he is a reformer who has done anything to change access to government by big-monied special interests,” said Craig McDonald, director of Texans for Public Justice, which often has been critical of Bush.
The donors, who included Bush’s chief fund-raiser and seven “pioneers” who raised at least $100,000 each, were among the 31 overnight visitors that Bush entertained at mansion since Jan. 1, 1999, according to records released at the request of The Associated Press.
Don Evans, a close friend of the Texas governor and the national finance chairman of his presidential campaign, stayed at the mansion seven times last year.
Seven other guests were members of Bush’s “pioneers,” a designation meaning they raised at least $100,000 each:
—Don Jordan, chairman of Reliant Energy.
—Brad Freeman of the investment firm Freeman, Spogli & Co.
—Texas Public Safety Commissioner Jim Francis.
—Indianapolis Mayor Steve Goldsmith.
—Michigan Gov. John Engler.
—Craig Stapleton, a cousin and executive with Marsh & McLellan, an insurance and investment firm.
—Roland Betts of the development firm Chelsea Piers Management. Betts was Bush’s college roommate at Yale University.
Beyond fund-raisers, the Texas governor’s overnight guests included an assortment of family friends, advisers and relatives.
Three of his father’s former colleagues — ex-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney, former Secretary of State George Shultz and former Education Secretary Bill Bennett — spent a night. All three have offered advice to Bush’s presidential bid.
In addition, Bush’s mother-in-law, Jenna Welch, was a frequent visitor, the records show.
“It’s the same phenomenon of rewarding donors by exclusivity and proximity to the governor and potential next president,” said Lewis, whose watchdog group first disclosed the Lincoln Bedroom visits in 1996. “It just shows you that the rich and powerful have privileges that no one else has in this supposed democracy.”
Except for a few close family friends, Gore has not had any overnight guests at his official residence at the Naval Observatory in Washington, a spokeswoman said Tuesday.
By PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Charlie Trie, the ex-Little Rock restaurant owner turned illegal fund-raiser, told disbelieving congressional Republicans Wednesday he thought he was only making ''a U-turn'' when he moved hundreds of thousands of dollars from overseas businessmen to the Democratic Party.
He funneled the money through friends and associates because ''I didn't want $100,000 contributions'' with ''my name'' on them, testified Trie.
Telling his story for the first time in public, Trie delighted Democrats on the House Government Reform Committee by saying he told no one at the White House or the Democratic National Committee that he was reimbursing donors with cash and travelers' checks from overseas.
''I pleaded guilty'' to a felony ''because my counsel advised me to; I didn't know the campaign finance law,'' said Trie, who spoke in broken English and occasionally asked his interrogators to slow down their questions.
''No,'' Trie answered emphatically when the committee's ranking Democrat, Rep. Henry Waxman of California, inquired whether Trie knew what he was doing was illegal.
''If I could say, it's a U-turn,'' Trie said later.
Then why did Trie reimburse the donors instead of making the donations himself? asked committee chairman Dan Burton, R-Ind.
Because ''I bounced one check in 1995 for $50,000'' to the party and ''I was very uncomfortable'' giving any more checks in his own name, answered Trie. He said later that he often didn't have money in his account at the time of various fund-raising events and so he got others to contribute, reimbursing them later when he was flush with funds.
Trie moved what Republican committee staffers say was over $700,000 to the Democratic Party ....
Sure, this is just like Clinton allowing a drug dealer and an arms dealer buy their way into the White House. You guys are getting desperate.
But you can hardly fault him for allowing his mother-in-law to stay the night; it's a rare man who can defy his mother-in-law!
--John McCain, "Hardball" at USC
Spudboy cites:
"Bush campaign officials said the guests were a cousin, a governor, a former college roommate, and other longtime friends."
This looks like a moronic attempt to equate Bush's activities to the WH Rapist's $100,000 WH overnight stays of foreign nationals and drug lords who illegally contributed to the Clowntoon/Bore '96 campaign.
There's no comparison whatsover. Licking doorknobs is more of an 'explosive' issue than this GWB Governor's Mansion crapola.
"Over the last few days, Mr. McCain has:
* Apologized for comments to the media that Christian conservatives, including the Revs. Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, are "forces of evil" after Christian conservatives in Virginia turned out in droves to vote against him.
* Remained silent over reports by a former campaign adviser —who quit as Mr. McCain continued to hammer Mr. Bush's visit to Bob Jones University — that he lied about his involvement in attempts to make his own campaign speech at the school.
* Interceded in an internal campaign staff squabble that led to reports his communications director had been fired for publicly criticizing his boss's initial decision to bypass an important California debate today.
* Suffered a stinging rebuke by Gary Bauer, his most prominent supporter among conservative leaders, for his diatribes against Mr. Robertson and Mr. Falwell.
* Engaged in a fierce on-air argument with radio talk-show host Michael Reagan in which the former president's son hung up on the angry candidate, who refused to talk about anything but Mr. Robertson and bigotry.
* Admitted orchestrating a series of telephone calls to voters that implied Texas Gov. George W. Bush is an "anti-Catholic bigot." Mr. McCain had steadfastly denied being behind the calls.
* Demeaned voters in Virginia and Washington state after being trounced in both states, saying, "Most people in Super Tuesday states are not going to be affected by what happened in Virginia or
Washington, to tell you the truth."
California state Sen. Chuck Pooschigian said Mr. McCain's campaign is "drowning in its own vitriol."
"The bitterness and uncontrolled angers being demonstrated by him and his campaign here in California suggests to me that something is going very wrong," Mr. Pooschigian said.
He said Mr. McCain in an appearance Wednesday embarrassed his own supporters by appearing to praise Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt and the Clinton administration's water policies in the
state. "That didn't sit well with farmers here. How could a campaign that has not gone to pieces not know that?" he said."
This is both a lie by Scumbag Jr. and, furthermore, once again displays the race-baiting hypocrisy of the former Tennessee Senator. Bore has supported taxpayer-supported monuments to the Confederate leader of the Ku Klux Klan, Nathan Bedford Forrest.
Today, the Nathan Bedford Forrest State Park boasts camping and boating and nature walks along with a monument to an individual who traded slaves, was linked to an atrocity [during the Civil War] and led the KKK. Forrest Park in Memphis features his grave plus a heroic monument. And a brand new, gold-colored statue of a mounted Forrest towers 27 feet above Interstate 65 on Nashville's outskirts."
Pinocchio Bore continues to refuse to denounce these parks and monuments despite protests by the NAACP.
Well, if the Moonie Times sez it, it must be so. Especially considering Poppy shilled for 'em a few years back -- gee, I wonder which candidate the MT will endorse? It's a fuckin' head-scratcher, that's for sure.
Another Moonie note: apparently the Unification Church, along with the Mormons, are bankrolling much of the Prop. 22 campaign here in CA. You know, the one insisting that fags are a threat to the illustrious institution of marriage. This from a cult that specializes in mass weddings, and a sect that grudgingly surrendered its polygamous ways (except in certain parts of Utah, where they still marry their sisters and cousins). I mean, the only thing missing here is an endorsement from the Mickey Rooney Fan Club.
Up to our necks in irony, as always. Gee, I think I'd vote "Hell, no!", were it an option. But I'll settle for a simple "No" next week.
As for President, I'm torn between Bradley, or writing in Donald Duck. Don't laugh -- I may yet opt for the duck.
FWIW, while I find McCain the man very personable and charismatic and entertaining, and indeed a man of some tangible honor, upon considering his actual positions (what a concept!), I wouldn't vote for McCain the politician. So it's not that I'm flacking for the guy, I just find the Moonie Times' motives for trashing the man questionable, to say the least.
I don't vote party, so I'm not being a partisan hack when I say that I cannot think of one single reason to vote for Bush. At least with McCain, there's some hint of character, and balls. Bush strikes me as having neither. Even Gore has more, though he is undeniably a tool.
But at least Gore's old man never took a cool mil to shill for some creepy-ass right-wing cult.
"During a recent campaign swing in New York, Vice President Al Gore spoke at a Hasidic synagogue. As would be the case with any service conducted by this ultra-Orthodox Jewish group, the males filed into the seats, while their wives, daughters, and sisters took their places outside the assembly. Women did not take part in the service and were not even in the same room as the men.
No journalist afterward questioned Gore’s commitment to women’s rights, and Gore’s political opponents attacked neither the vice president nor the synagogue where the service was held. This hands-off stance by the press was as it should have been, as individuals should be free to practice voluntary religious beliefs without government interference.
Unfortunately, George Bush, Jr., has not been a recipient of this same beneficence by the media. The recent attacks on Bush for having spoken to an assembly at Bob Jones University in South Carolina have not only damaged the Bush campaign, they also point to a more ominous trend in church/state relations. The politicians, in their frenzied zeal to win, and the media, ever in search of a controversy, have let an evil genie out of the bottle."
Hey, Erica -
I think you're focusing way too much on the fact that it was the WT that published the article, rather than the significance of what is discussed therein.
But, whatever.
Well, I poke fun at the Moonies any chance I get, and I split my sides laughing at the notion that a cult can be counted on to provide unbiased journalism. Not to mention the fact, once again, that Bush pére took a million bucks from them a few years back, to help publicize a paper in Argentina. Forget the cult aspect, there's a small hint as to whom they might back, no?
One of the time-honored perks of owning a newspaper is being able to call shots. Read a Murdoch publication lately?
Oh, so that's what he meant ...
From today's New York Times:
***
When Mr. Letterman asked exactly what Mr. Bush meant by his often repeated phrase, "I'm a uniter not a divider," the governor said, "That means when it comes time to sew up your chest cavity, we use stitches as opposed to opening it up." The audience booed; Mr. Letterman looked baffled; the camera turned to his producer, Rob Burnett, who shrugged as if to say, "I don't know what it means either."
***
Do you believe that they would direct their reporters to deliberately lie in order to promote a cause? Apparently Cartman does. He doesn't distinguish between the paper and the cult. That is a pretty bizarre view from what I can tell.
Why am I reminded of a deer in headlights. Which of course reminds us of Danny Quayle.
W is perilously close to becoming Quaylized.
Conservatives=Good; Liberals=Liars, eh?
The Washington Times is controlled by the Unification Church.
"Moon, himself, gave direct instructions to the
editors, of who in fact, called the shots. Ultimately, Moon calls all the shots. The Washington Times has become a Moonie newspaper,"
--James Whalen, former editor
What's his name, cazart?
Licking doorknobs is more of an 'explosive' issue than this GWB Governor's Mansion crapola.
Um, you did know that the whole Dan Savage tale was a joke, didn't you? Of course, it's the kind of joke -- satirical -- that betrays the humorlessness of your psychotic obsession. Savage is on the record saying that he didn't lick any doorknobs or hand Bauer any pens. He just likes yanking those conservative chains.
Bore has supported taxpayer-supported monuments to the Confederate leader of the Ku Klux Klan, Nathan Bedford Forrest.
Well, you oughta know your history a little better. Forrest was also one of the great generals of the Civil War and deserves honor and recognition on that count, just as we pay to Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis. His role in the Klan was also mostly honorable; he organized it originally as a response to the widespread lawlessness that occurred in the wake of Appomatox. But when it morphed into a violent vigilante organization he attempted to disband it, and did so officially in 1869, but it remained a defacto presence for the next century, officially revived in 1916.
There's no problem, in most people's minds, with honoring genuine war heroes from the Confederate side. That's what those Forrest (and Lee, and Davis) monuments do. So in fact you are revealing precisely the same unfair blindness toward genuine Southern heritage that Carolinians currently accuse flag critics of indulging. Or perhaps you want to accuse *all* people who support Confederate War memorials of harboring racist intent? In that case, be prepared for a lengthy defense of Trent Lott.
Not that I expect you to comprehend the difference. Nuance and detail are hardly your strong suits.
Rosie --
Paul Greenberg works for the Washington Times? Since when?
You're making progress on your understanding of media. Good to see that you now comprehend that the owner of the medium doesn’t have to be hands-on to set a paper's direction. He hires editors to do that for him.
Now that you've made it that far, are you now ready to acknowledge that the vast majority of media in this country -- not just the news networks, but all those local media as well -- are in fact owned by conservatives? And that *they* set the tone for what's published and broadcast? That the biases of the saps who work for them are inconsequential when stacked up against the way news operations work -- which is, from the top down? Ever hear of reporter-editor conflicts? Who do you suppose usually wins those?
Good. Now perhaps we can finally dispose of this "liberal media" crap.
Testimony in the three-week trial revolved around an April 29, 1996,
fund-raiser that Gore attended at the Buddhist temple. Prosecutors said
Hsia helped arrange $65,000 in illegal reimbursements to donors, using
temple funds.
When controversy erupted after the event about illegal reimbursements to
some of the contributors, the vice president said he hadn't known he was
attending a fund-raiser, that he thought it was community outreach.
After documents turned up referring to the event in advance as a
fund-raiser, Gore modified his characterization, saying he had thought it
was a finance-related event.
Do you think you would take such a sanguine view on the Moonie Times were it owned, say, by the Church of Satan?
At the very least, there is a previous alignment between Poppy and the Unification Church, in that he advertised for them at one time, and apparently shares much of their socially conservative views. So it seems a given that they would endorse GWB, and thus attack McCain. I don't necessarily think they're lying about McCain, but they are spinning. That's what they do.
Yes, any organ of journalism owned by a mass-marriage cult like the Moonies is suspect wrt journalistic integrity, OK? Even if the reporters aren't members of said cult. They know who they work for, and I'm sure the good Rev keeps the editors on a tight leash.
Cazart Message # 21154:
Did we take my sniping a few weeks ago a bit too seriously? I don't really want to get you into a sundress.
Nuance and detail are hardly your strong suits.
Please look up ad hominum as you suggested I do.
How come when I make a spelling mistake, it makes me an idiot, but when the noted liberal uses the objective form of a pronoun in the nominative case, no mention is made. Does that not grate on you road scholers?
Perhaps a new political thread could be started where ideas are discussed and not really interesting things such as the Moonies, or whether Bush has balls.
Mendacious Moron: I fake it.
Letterman: Is that how you figure to run the country?
And apparently you didn't, or it would be spelled correctly.
BTW, Al, you'll note that I've never given you (or anyone else here) a bad time WRT spelling. I've found that even bad spellers can argue well.
Sorry, Al, but I find it tremendously interesting that a cult gets so involved in actual politics. As I said, one of the major backers of the Yes on 22 campaign, which protects marriage from folks like Cellar Door and Ronski (but not, unfortunately, from Larry King or Liz Taylor), is the Moonie cult. Perhaps you see the irony in that -- a "church" which is best known for performing mass arranged ceremonies taking a stand on the sanctity of marriage. I mean. What is the Korean word for "chutzpah", I wonder?
As for Bush's balls, if he has 'em, he's renting 'em. He's somebody's boy, he does what he's told.
really want to get you into a sundress.
Yeah, you do. You dearly crave a real man, sweetie.
But not very well. Whatta disappointment Mr. SingSong has gotta be to the "boys". To say nothing about Poppy.
The "liberal media" canard is the only acceptable conspiracy theory. As such, it approaches urban legend status at times. Just like alligators in the sewers, or the escaped lunatic with a hook for a hand, in the back seat of your car. It's something conservatives tell their kids at night to scare the shit out of them.
Not only that, but Moon has become more explicit and up-front about his hatred for the American way of life and its government (might have something to do with that tax conviction). Last year he declared the American democratic system ineluctably corrupt and indicated he'd be redoubling his efforts to bring the nation under "godly" rule.
You're right. As Kristol says, it's a myth concocted by conservatives to explain away their own failures.
Watch: When Gore is elected this year, they'll blame it on the "liberal media" again.
Who said you were a real man, sweet cheeks? All this time, I thought you were a chick.
I'm as First Amendment as the next guy, probably more, but it's to our shame that whackjobs like Moon and Robertson have as much sway as they do over so many people (hell, over anyone).
In a rational world, Pat Robertson would be asking you if you want fries with that, and Moon would be insisting that he needs to see your laundry ticket before you get your clothes back.
I cannot for the life of me see what good can come of having such loons so firmly ensconced in our political process.
Funny not one of them complained when the media drooled over the Moron last year nor when the media played into their slimy Get Clinton scams.
I think the line is getting rather tired.
I cannot for the life of me see what good can come of having such loons so firmly ensconced in our political process.
Well, it makes the rest of us feel sane and normal. Sort of a daily reminder -- "Hey, you're not so whacked! Look at ol' Sun Myung!"
I thought that was what Jerry Springer's show was for.
Of course, you are right as rain, which I hear is abundant in your area. But why look up a word when you know the meaning. And like old stamper, whom you miss so much, used to say, "How can you look up a word you don't know how to spell.
And please have the good sense not to comment on the "whom".
Unfortunately, the Times has no arts section to speak of, the Post has laid claim to Sports reporting and columnists, and there is zippo international coverage. Most striking, the roster of contributing columnists to the Post far outclasses the bozos in the Times.
I agree with this 100%. I'm not a huge fan of the Post, either, mind you, but any time I've looked at the Times, I keep thinking over and over again, "It's a fucking cult paper!". It's impossible to take it seriously, unless you take Readers' Digest seriously.
And I'd say the same thing were it owned by the Scientologists, or whatever. It's a couple short steps above the Weekly World News.
Clinton Takes Part in Selma Walk
...a uniter...not a divider
I've lived in a town where similar inanity has been used by many a 3-handicapper to deny facts printed in the Post, all because Ben Bradlee could get John Kennedy laid.
I'd like to party on and agree, but I don't. It is a great read, and like it or not, it often scoops the Post. In fact, I think it regularly wins more journalistic awards than the Post, but I attribute that to it being hungrier.
Let's see, I can believe my eyes or you. Gee, guess which one wins.
"LOS ANGELES (AP) - Protesting ads suggesting he opposes breast
cancer research, John McCain (news - web sites) said the negative
tenor of the Republican presidential race could hurt the party. He
called on rival George W. Bush (news - web sites) to ``get out of the
gutter.''
Aaaah the Moron and his gutter. Wallow in shit tonight!
Washington Post: 4 (Public Service, Explanatory, Criticism, On-Spot Photography)
Washington Times: 0
Actually, the Times does a better job on Sports than the Post overall (excluding NFL coverage).
Let's see, I can believe my eyes or you. Gee, guess which one wins.
Funny, it's the same for me.
The difference: I have a front-row seat.
Well, if you're entertained by it, great. Incidentally, this page has an interesting, detailed article on Poppy shilling for Moon, as well as Moon's connections with various South American dictators. Fascinating stuff.
Here's just an excerpt (all emphases mine):
Bush's endorsement of The Washington Times' editorial independence also was not truthful. Almost since it opened in 1982, a string of senior editors and correspondents have resigned, citing the manipulation of the news by Moon and his subordinates. The first editor, James Whelan, resigned in 1984, confessing that he had "blood on his hands" for helping the church achieve greater legitimacy.
But Bush's boosterism was just what Moon needed in South America. "The
day after," the Unification News observed, "the press did a 180-degree about-turn [sic] once they realized that the event had the support of a U.S. president." With Bush's help, Moon had gained another beachhead for his worldwide business-religious-political-media empire.
After the event, [Argentine President Carlos] Menem told reporters from La Nacion that Bush had claimed privately to be only a mercenary who did not really know Moon. "Bush told me he came and charged money to do it," Menem said. [Nov. 26, 1996]. But Bush was not telling Menem the whole story. By last fall, Bush and Moon had been working in political tandem for at least a decade and a half. The ex-president also had been moonlighting as a front man for Moon for more than a year.
In September 1995, Bush and his wife, Barbara, gave six speeches in Asia for the Women's Federation for World Peace, a group led by Moon's wife, Hak Ja Han Moon. In one speech on Sept. 14 to 50,000 Moon supporters in Tokyo, Bush insisted that "what really counts is faith, family and friends." Mrs. Moon followed the ex-president to the
podium and announced that "it has to be Reverend Moon to save the United States, which is in decline because of the destruction of the family and moral decay." [Washington Post, Sept. 15, 1995]
In summer 1996, Bush was lending his prestige to Moon again. Bush
addressed the Moon-connected Family Federation for World Peace in Washington, an event that gained notoriety when comedian Bill Cosby tried to back out of his contract after learning of Moon's connection. Bush had no such qualms. [WP, July 30, 1996]
Throughout these public appearances, Bush's office has refused to
divulge how much Moon-affiliated organizations have paid the ex-president. But estimates of Bush's fee for the Buenos Aires
appearance alone ran between $100,000 and $500,000. Sources close to the Unification Church have put the total Bush-Moon package in the millions, with one source telling The Consortium that Bush stood to make as much as $10 million.
Bush also may have other Argentine business deals in the works with
Moon. On Nov. 16, 1996, La Nacion quoted businessmen as saying that Bush and Moon were keeping an eye on plans to privatize the hydroelectric complex of Yacyreta, a joint $12 billion Paraguayan-Argentine project to dam the Parana River.
Foreign Influence
Still, the Bush-Moon alliance is not strictly about money -- and it did not start in Bush's post-presidency. It dates back at least to the start of the Reagan-Bush era --when Moon was a VIP guest at the first Reagan-Bush inauguration -- and it could extend into the next century as the ex-president works to shore up conservative support for his eldest son, Texas Gov. George W. Bush, who is expected to run for the White House in 2000.
Sources close to Bush say the ex-president has worked hard to pull
well-to-do conservatives and their money behind his son's candidacy. Without doubt, Moon is one of the deepest pockets in right-wing circles, having financed important conservative activists from both the Religious Right, such as the Rev. Jerry Falwell, and Inside-the-Beltway right-wing professionals.
A silent testimony to Moon's clout is the fact that his vast spending of billions of dollars in secretive Asian money to influence U.S. politics -- spanning nearly a quarter century -- has gone virtually unmentioned amid the current controversy over Asian donations to U.S. politicians.
With unintended irony, Moon's Washington Times repeatedly has featured
stories about secret Asian money going to Democrats. "More than a million dollars of this foreign money is believed to have been contributed to the Democrats, putting the election up for auction," charged Times' editor Wesley Pruden in a typical column. [Oct. 18, 1996]
The blind spot on Moon is especially curious since there have been U.S. government allegations dating back to the 1970s that Moon's organization fronted for the South Korean CIA and funnelled money to Washington for right-wing industrialists. For the past 15 years, The Washington Times has been the most obvious conduit for this
foreign money.
Dude, it is a well-written, hungry, conservative rag, even if it scares you.
Jex
Boy, do I disagree on Sports. The Times Sports section does not have one entertaining columnist (Dan Daley is passable) and much of it is AP wire stuff.
As for awards, you win on Pulitzers. The Times did win 16 awards in the Maryland-Delaware-D.C. Press Association contest for 1999. The Post got 15.
I mean, don't you find this fucker even a little creepy?
BTW, some of you more religious Christians and Catholics (and Jews, possibly?) may find one of the Unification Church's "inner doctrines" (i.e.; beliefs they don't tell you until you're a full-fledged member) rather interesting: apparently Moon teaches that Mary (yes, the Virgin) actually conceived Jesus by sleeping with Zachariah, father of John the Baptist.
So maybe Moon's doing a little Jackie Collins turn on the Bible, inserting adultery and fornication where he may find it.
As they say on those NBC PSA's -- "the more you know".
I suppose the line about not seeing the forest for the trees would be lost on you.
There is no impartial journalism. All reporting presents a point of view. The Post and the Times each have a point of view and the fact that they differ doesn't make one right
The Post and the Times each have a point of view and the fact that they differ doesn't make one right.
Gee, that sounds suspiciously like moral relativism.
One paper -- the Post -- is arguably liberal-leaning, though it has a history of supporting any number of conservative agenda items over the years. Its reporters, after all, published some of the early Whitewater and Paula Jones stories. And its publisher's POV, near as I can tell, sees American democracy as essentially a vital part of our way of life and worth preserving. Its editor is more renowned for being tough on reporters than for promoting any political agenda. In other words, I'd say it's well within the mainstream, and while its views can be questioned, you'd have to look hard to find support for a specific agenda.
The other paper, the Times, has a history of exclusively conservative activism. Its publisher has a history of decrying democracy and arguing for replacing the American system with a theocracy. Its editor, Wes Pruden, is a renowned neo-Confederate who has been to known to argue for modern secession of Southern states. It is, simply, well outside the mainstream, and it isn’t hard to find whose agenda its stories fit: the Unification Church's.
But gee, in your world, they're all just the same.
What about for left, radical left, religious left, left wing fellow travelers (a term coined by Stalin) We have so much to fear from the right that we can ignore any threat from the left. They are from the government and here to help us. Now to be fair to spud, he does in his book make a case for the toilers of the earth being a little upset with this far left government of ours. But I like to pull his chain with a little hyperbole and some irony, but he prefers savagery.
About the time they blow up a federal building and kill 169 people, including a day care full of kids, I promise, I'll rip into them real proper. If their criminal activity reaches the levels we've seen from the right in the past five years, you can bet you'll hear from me about it.
Or did you note that I've been talking about yesterday's Pennsylvania shootings as a hate crime?
I am myself a liberal, but objectively, I see liberal bias much more frequently in the press than conservative bias (although both, certainly, are evident, often enough).
And when I do see conservative bias, it's particularly exasperating and gives me an acute feeling of powerlessness. I can only imagine how it must be for the conservative readers, who must confront this kind of frustration even more frequently.
One observation, though. Newspapers in small cities around the country are, in general, far more conservative than the national press. To the extent that their combined readership must be factored in, there is a lot of unmeasured influence there that counters to some degree the impact of the "liberal media."
Wouldn't you classify most murders as hate crimes? I would, but the laws we have would seem to me sufficient to handle that murderer.
Perhaps this is the wrong place to comment on your book, but it seems to me that many of the folks you write about were more misguided than dangerous. At times your tar brush gets a bit wild and even Mormons come in for a bit of your mud. Now, don't get me wrong, I belong to no church, so far be it for me to defend any of them. But the ones I've met seemed like good enough people.
Half my family is Mormon.
We can talk about this over dinner, I bet. Let's not sidetrack the thread. 
There are all kinds of biases operative in journalism. They all depend on (a) the journalist and (b) the organization for which he/she works. They take all shapes, not merely conservative or liberal; pro- and anti-environmental, -business, -education reform, whatever. You'll find biases pro and con on the question of open source in computing, fercryinoutloud.
I object when someone argues that any of these biases are "pervasive." Baloney. They run the gamut.
how is the Maria Hsia show today ?
Republican
primary
March 2 March 1
George Bush 42.1 38.4
John McCain 43.4 44.1
yuk...yuk...yuk!
The Charlie Trie Show? At the end of the last episode, Dan Burton was ready to burst one of those big blood vessels in his head after realizing he wasn't going to be squeezing anything incriminating out of Trie.
Maria Hsia? Convicted today, of course. And still no sign that the criminality extended beyond her.
Just wondering: Any chance Republicans will ever get back around to discussing issues this year? Oh, that's right -- they don't have any they can win on. So I guess we'll just have another year of fruitless scandal-mongering.
That, of course, spells P-R-E-S-I-D-E-N-T G-O-R-E.
"I am myself a liberal, but objectively, I see liberal bias much more frequently in the press than conservative bias ."
What do you think of Fox Network News?
President Al Gore - Fighting for Us!!!
Or did you note that I've been talking about yesterday's Pennsylvania shootings as a hate crime?
How does this prove that you criticize the "radical left?" This guy probably didn't have much of a political ideology.
Substantively, I think that this represents a counter-productive understanding of hate crimes legislation. Hate crimes are not invidious because a victim was irrationally selected due to a non-existent characteristic (the only justification I can come up with for "neutral" HCL); they are evil because they perpetuate subordination.
AlD:
What "radical left?" You mean Fulani and Sharpton?
It's obvious now that McCain will soon join Dollar Bill among those candidates who make an extended cannonball splash and then sink form sight without a trace (anyone remember Gary Hart?). The Arizona Senator made a mistake with his attack on Robertson and Falwell and then compounded that mistake the next day by attacking the two as an "evil influence" on the Republican Party.
At first I thought the attack was ballsy. But that was the Marine in me talking. Now, I just think it was stupid. McCain had a real opportunity to win this election if he could have put his energy and momentum he had after Michigan into winning back some conservatives more interested in winning the election than in maintaining dubious money ties to Washington. He could have tried to sell the idea he would ensure that Democratic interest groups would also lose their undue influence on the process. He also should have hammered home how Gore's and Clinton's electioneering tactics would be highlighted again and again if he, John McCain, was the nominee. He might have made a trip to a conservative church and talked about his social conservatism and his beliefs.
In the end, it still probably wouldn't have been enough, but he could have made Bush sweat right up until the last delegate. Now, I predict that McCain will not win another state primary that is either outside of New England or not open to every voter.
"It's obvious now that McCain will soon join Dollar Bill among those candidates who make an extended cannonball splash and then sink form sight without a trace (anyone remember Gary Hart?)."
should be...
"It's obvious now that McCain will now join those candidates who make an extended cannonball splash and then sink form sight without a trace (anyone remember Gary Hart?)."
Bradley made no such splash.
No, I mean jexster, janjon, spud, etc. But Sharpton is a radical white and Jewish hater.
Why the "another" in that last sentence? Arizona?
There is no impartial journalism. All reporting presents a point of view.
I agree, and in retrospect, "impartial" was not the word I should have used. My bad. "Responsible" would have been better.
The Post and the Times each have a point of view and the fact that they differ doesn't make one right.
Fair enough. Here's the problem, though -- if you check out this page, which is just one link from a page which has many interesting things about Moon, you'll read some fascinating stuff.
Fact: Moon has repeatedly and publicly condemned American society as "Satanic", and "evil". He condemns some of our most sacred notions, like privacy and individualism, basic tenets of this nation, really.
Fact: Moon's stated ultimate goal is "to take over the world, where all religions will be abolished except Unificationism, all languages will be abolished except Korean, all governments will be abolished except his one-world theocracy", according to former church leader and cult expert Steve Hassan.
Fact: Moon has aligned himself with South American dictators in the past, and used this influence to obtain land, and businesses. He's a goddamned scam artist, couched in saint's clothing.
Moon gets a lot of slack from conservatives, who would be going apeshit over him if he didn't couch everything in those Gingrichian buzzwords that make them cream their jeans. I'm hardly kidding when I say that one could start an organization devoted to something completely horrible, like child molesting or animal torture, call it something with the word "family" in the name, and a certain percentage of Stepford Conservabots will instantly sing its praises, without even bothering to check it out. Such is the power of rhetoric and propaganda. Everything Moon does purports to be about "family" and "love". He preaches to the "family values" choir, so they naturally give him a pass.
Moon seems little different from Jim Jones, or any other cult nutjob who gets money from shady sources and uses it to buy political influence. That Moon also owns and operates a powerful media outlet in this nation's capital is a bit disconcerting. That he has access to some of this nation's most powerful men is even more disconcerting. The guy's a fuckin' loon, OK?
You can kid yourself and say that Moon's bias cancels out the Post, but I don't recall Ben Bradlee ever saying that only he could save our evil society by making us worship him and speak Korean. And make no mistake, Moon and his minions are hands-on owners.
The Charlie Trie Show? At the end of the last episode, Dan Burton was ready to burst one of those big blood vessels in his head after realizing he wasn't going to be squeezing anything incriminating out of Trie.
This is so typical of your constant bias I must comment. I watched the hearings and if you think Charlie was being helpful in his answere, I would not trust your judgement on any subject, not even fly fishing. Isn't the point of getting immunity an agreement to be helpful in answers. Burton showed far less upset than Shay, who just might be one Republican you don't think is right out of hell.,p>
You liberals want campaign finance reform, but please don't look into laws that Clinton, Gore, or the DNC might have broken. You guys really are a hoot.
I tried to see Sharpton talk this afternoon in front of the DoJ. I had to leave before he started, though. If you think that Spud, Jexster and Janjon are the "radical left," then your perception of the middle must be Ronald Reagan.
I say let's look at campaign finance abuses by both sides. Ed Rollins, Reagan's campaign manager in 1984, says in his autobiography that the Reagan campaign took donations from foreigners also (the Marcoses, if I recall correctly).
Everybody does do it, so let's get 'em all, and let God (or Rev. Moon) sort 'em out.
Well, yes, Reagan was a middle of the road Conservative, but I liked him anyway
Well, maybe you should give a shit about what Moon does and says. Many editors who have left the Times over the years have made it clear that they did so because of who really calls the shots. That Moon knows which buttons to push to get conservatives on his side (or at least to ignore the fact that he's crazy as a shit-house rat), and that he is a thorough political donor/schmoozer, enables him to transcend the garden-variety LaRouche nutjob.
Sure, the Post has a slight bias. No media outlet can be truly and perfectly unbiased. I submit that their primary bias depends on who writes the checks. Follow the money. In the case of the Post you will indeed find a cadre of political sycophants, eager for their imminent brush with greatness.
In the case of the Times, you'll find an insane Korean and his creepy family, sucking up to dictators, ranting about how "evil" and "Satanic" Americans really are, and paying ex-presidents to shill for them. He's just smart enough to keep his more stringent comments about us out of the press, and of course the American press is far too lazy to cover it in the first place.
At any rate, Moon's words and deeds, as well as those of Pruden, mentioned above by Spudboy, are certainly enough for me to completely write off the Times as a responsible, reliable source of information. Clearly, Moon is pushing his own agenda, in the appropriate subtext, and it's too bad he has such a visible, almost legitimate soapbox for it.
Once again, in a rational world, crackpots like Robertson and Moon would be so marginalized, you'd never even hear of them. Instead, each has a bully pulpit, herds of followers, and tons of money with which to pursue their insane visions. Too bad they can actually affect the rest of us.
Why can't Clinton just use McCain's "hey the game sucks - but its stupid not to play" it excuse?
Bush's argument seems to be "hey the game sucks - for them."
Start by assuming that Bush wins the South, McCain wins the East, and they split the Northwest.
Then there is California, where Republicans are expected to come out for McCain 2:1. But suppose McCain wins the beauty contest?
What would McCain forces in California say? They ain't sayin', and I don't consult with them. But Republicans are speculating that if California voters demonstrate that McCain would win and Bush would lose that biggest state -- then the Republican convention would have to take a hard look at any California "delegation of losers."
What heresy! And yet, and yet -- as we saw in the 1952 convention (to cries of "Thou Shalt Not Steal!"), the party that wants to clean up the mess in Washington cannot ignore the will of the majority to win.
If huge numbers of voters in the nation's largest state say that McCain would hotly compete for the state in November and Bush would write it off, as his father did in 1992, then practical pols here and elsewhere would suddenly rethink all previous conceptions.
The credentials of any delegation of guaranteed losers, rejected by the state's swing independents, would be subject to challenge. Delegates in convention assembled would look November defeat in the face and try to figure out a way to let March winners be winners.
But if Bush has the huge Republicans-only California delegation in his pocket, won't he have a majority if the decision gets to the convention floor? No; delegates cannot vote on their own challenged credentials.
...
It may embarrass the McCain people and infuriate my Bush friends to raise this open-convention possibility now, but what are seers for, if not to foresee? It could be a crazy notion, but this is one crazy year.
Why the "another" in that last sentence? Arizona?
Arizona was before the speech. The point of the my post was to emphasize McCain's lousy political strategy by making that speech. Of course, if the Arizona primary was still in the future, McCain would still win it.
Wiz - Message # 21211:
Man - your stuff's getting better all the time!
(If only he would decide to be a force for good, instead of evil...)
Yeah, I realize that McCain won Arizona before the speech. That's the point - he never won a closed primary other than Arizona - so how could he win "another?" While it is possible that he could have spun like a ballerina and managed a few victories, he probably just decided that he would never win a closed primary; it was a risk, but it still might pay off for him; I am actually astonished at how negatively the move has been perceived lately, since Virginia is really the only state that it has had any effect, positive or negative.
I liked the speech, for what its worth.
Cal --
What is it that goeth before the fall?
Oh, yeah, summer.
Never mind.
Hey, it could happen! But it's not going to be played up a lot in California--the Dems don't want it because he's harder to beat, and the Republicans don't want it because of pride and orthodoxy.
But if it got known among regular ol' Californians, they'd vote for McCain in droves--if only to disturb the shit.
Actually, the fact that Senators don't like him is kind of a plus in my book.
I don't think McCain was using Catholics except by proxy. The bigger issue is whether he made a misstep by using religion in general.
There are still quite a few absentee ballots to count, and only 1/3rd of Rep. delegates are awarded from this vote. The other 2/3rds will be decided in caucuses on March 7th.
Erica -
You're a naive little miss, aren't you? Do you believe that *any* large newspaper provides 'unbiased' news coverage? If you do, I think the WH has an opening for an intern that you ought to check out.
Luke Skywalker said:
"The nice thing about our campaign is people get to disagree. Sometimes they even shout at each other. I don't think there has been fisticuffs. We have a freewheeling, very participatory campaign."
But the McCainiacs will have to toughen up some if they want to take on 'Fighting' Pinocchio Bore and his Brownshirts. So far, they've mostly been KOing themselves with their roundhouse assaults on GWB.
Pudboy -
Who cares what an admitted liar like Savage says? He's a typical Salon contributor, so that goes withe the territory. My point is that your GWB Governor's mansion swipe was worthless.
That's right, Puddo. Just keep pretending that Pinocchio Bore didn't know that he was soliciting money at what he didn't know was a fundraiser at what he didn't know was the Hsi Lai Buddhist Temple.
Idiot.
That last post from the fellow who was whining last night that I insulted him.
You're a spunky old bitch, aren't you? Feel free to keep reading further along the narrative, and you might get to where I acknowledged your point (besides the one on your head) already.
Tell you what, Chief. You can be Bush's intern. I ain't anyone's intern, dumbass. Bring a coaster to set on your back, so Shrub has a place to set his beer while you're, uh, "interning".
Now go get me a beer, douchebag.
Quality with a capital "k", friends 'n neighbors.
When I works, I work hard, when I play, I plays hard, and when I think, I fall asleep.
Yeah, I realize that McCain won Arizona before the speech. That's the point - he never won a closed primary other than Arizona - so how could he win "another?" While it is possible that he could have spun like a ballerina and managed a few victories, he probably just decided that he would never win a closed primary; it was a risk, but it still might pay off for him; I am actually astonished at how negatively the move has been perceived lately, since Virginia is really the only state that it has had any effect, positive or negative.
Regarding the use of "another": I gotcha.
Spinning is a part of every politician's job. The key is to make it seem a natural extension of who you are and what you stand for. If McCain decided he could never win a closed primary, he shouldn't have run. But I dispute that is what happened. He was pissed off at the attacks he had absorbed in South Carolina, and rightly so. But rather than controlling his anger and channeling it into something productive, he decided to get even. There is a certain thrill in getting even, but it is bad politics to do it so publicly with a group he needs to at least tacitly support him..
continued... I liked the speech, for what its worth.
I liked it too. But for all the wrong reasons. I didn't like the part where he called Bush a Robertson Republican. I also thought the next day's comment, when he claimed that Robertson and Falwell were an evil influence on the Republican party, was a major tactical mistake. Every talking head that I saw thought it was a major mistake. In their commentaries, they focused on the word "evil" and McCain had to backtrack with some silly garbage about Star Wars.
McCain is a politician. He is not a preacher. He is not a columnist or a talking head on television. He is not in the campaign to score debating points or to make a large portion of the Republican electorate repudiate their leaders so they can join his crusade. He should be focused on more practical matters such as winning the election by building an achievable coalition. I thought he was on his way to doing just that. But the speech has now unified the RR from being opposed to McCain to being vehemently against him. With such vehement opposition, McCain will lose.
Will you now join me in support of George W. Bush? I really would have supported McCain had he been the winner, despite my prior blathering. I will not leave the party. I'm using alkl my charm on CalGal and I think I'm making progress. but I need to be a better speller.
Frankly, McCain knew the RR was a lost cause early on, and in the unlikely event that he wins the primary, it was generally expected that they would either sit on their hands or vote for someone else.
But hey, the NY Times has column space to fill. Besides, I'm sure Robertson and others told the rank and file to mobilize and spread these stories.
I've always said that I would support McCain or Bush, whoever was the Republican nominee. But I greatly prefer McCain, and so should you. He is a conservative who can win. (BTW, I'm greatly disappointed in his election tactics during the last week, but I still support him.)
As a good Republican, I never said anything about Bush as intemperate as your remarks about McCain (not even close), and how you couldn't support him if he was the nominee. Your reasoning seems to be that if TrialShark and CalGal are for McCain, he must be bad. I suppose if TrailShark and CalGal told you not to jump off the Golden Gate Bridge, you would do it just to spite them.
It's Republicans like you who give the rest of us a bad name.
The article is not horseshit. THe RR was against McCain, but still nearly one-third of their numbers voted for McCain in Michigan and South Carolina. That number was down to just over ten percent in Virginia.
Al --
Don't jump off the Golden Gate Bridge.
PM --
(We'll see ...)
And don't believe everything they tell you about the Bay Bridge, either. Lousy place for a suicide, believe me.
Brother Republican, please lighten up. Most of what I write is tongue in cheek. I thought only Trial and CalGal weren't hip to that. I remember when I was a small child, I asked my dad if I could camp up in the hills 'cause all the kids were going. he said, "If all the kids were jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge, would you.",p>
i said, "Sure."
He tried to organize a block party.
THe RR was against McCain, but still nearly one-third of their numbers voted for McCain in Michigan and South Carolina. That number was down to just over ten percent in Virginia.
So what? He won by a closer margin in Virginia than in South Carolina.
Then he might have won if he hadn't made that attack and kept the proportion of RR votes in his column at one-third.
No, but I see no reason for you to think that they didn't vote for him because of that speech. He knew he was losing Virginia before he made the speech--it's one of the reasons he made it, from all I've read. I think it's just as likely that the RR was out in droves for Bush long before this point, when they realized that their vote really mattered to getting him the primary.
Incidentally, the exit polls show that McCain had 24% of the RR vote in South Carolina, and 14% in Virginia. So it's not that big a drop.
Molly Ivins confesses error....Whatta Gal!
In my column of Feb. 28, I did not make clear that Texas Gov. George W.
Bush did not fail to sign nor did he threaten to veto several parts of the
package of bills in the 1997 Legislature collectively known as the
Patients' Bill of Rights.
Bush failed to sign only the bill in the package that allows patients to
sue their HMOs after an independent review of their claims.
Because similar packages of patients' rights are being debated in Congress
and other states as single bills called the Patients' Bill of Rights,
Bush's opposition to that sole program was inadvertently misimplied to have
been to the entire package of bills. It is the entire package of bills that
has given Texas its claim to leadership in this area.
Also, the bill of rights item that Bush did veto in 1995 was sponsored by
state Sen. Jim Turner, not Sen. David Sibley. And at last published report,
three lawsuits have been filed under the bill that Bush refused to sign,
rather than two.
Erica -
Isn't it past your bedtime, little girl? Looks like mommy forgot your Ritalin again. Now, go to beddy-bye & leave us grown ups alone, you Moon-atic.
I'm with you about McCain's religious demagoguery. His 'us vs. them' attitude wrt religion is a relic of the 30 Years War, or maybe Northern Ireland. There should be no place for that kind of thing in American Politics. No, but I see no reason for you to think that they didn't vote for him because of that speech. He knew he was losing Virginia before he made the speech--it's one of the reasons he made it, from all I've read. I think it's just as likely that the RR was out in droves for Bush long before this point, when they realized that their vote really mattered to getting him the primary.
How about the noticable drop in the proportion of votes given McCain by the RR? How about the article by the New York Times? How about all the talking heads -- liberal and conservative alike -- who think the tactic was a boner? How about the condemnations he has received because of the speech from people (William Bennett, Gary Bauer) who were previously sympathetic or even supportive to him? Furthermore, McCain, himself, felt the need to publicly apologize about his commment on the RR leaders using the word "evil."
All of this is evidence that the speech had a negative effect, that it effected voters in Virginia, and that McCain understands he went too far in his characterization of the RR leaders. You, on the other hand, have no evidence to support you that the speech had either no effect or a positive effect except to make the weak claim that we just can't be sure.
Incidentally, the exit polls show that McCain had 24% of the RR vote in South Carolina, and 14% in Virginia. So it's not that big a drop.
I thought it was 13% in South Carolina and over 30% in all the other states, including Michigan, Arizona, and New Hampshire. In any case, keep in mind that Bush made an all-out attack in South Carolina, using all of his money and lack of campaign scruples, to smear McCain with those particular voters and McCain still managed 24%.
should be...
Furthermore, McCain himself felt the need to apologize about his characterization of Falwell's and Robertson's influence as "evil".
If McCain wins the nomination, will you support him?
Maybe it's time for you to take your lithium and get your talking points from your Moonie cult rag.
You wanna dance with me, Twinkletoes, you better pack a lunch. "Erica" -- good one, fruit loop.
No, not all talking heads think it was a mistake. I've said I thought the Times article was horseshit, so why you thought I'd changed my mind in 20 posts is more than I can figure.
Speaking of things I can't figure, your energy level is out of kilter. I mean, what are we arguing about? Jesus, get a grip.
I said I thought the article was horseshit--namely, it argues that McCain misstepped in attacking specific leaders of the RR because it pissed off the RR. I think he did far more for his candidacy in being willing to do this than he ever could have by backing off. It's not like his chances were that good either way.
As for your argument that attacking him alienated the RR--frankly, any of them that took his speech as an attack against them instead of an attack against Robertson were so easily manipulated that they'd have been turned one way or the other.
None of your "proof" is "evidence" that his speech had a negative effect on his campaign. He might have lost either way, and there's no question that the miniscule percentage of self-identified RRs that might have otherwise voted for him won't make any difference.
Balance that against the fact that he's the first Republican to take on the leaders of the RR instead of kowtowing them? Hey, McCain knows the value of dying well.
Cal:
If you could've heard McCain's ads - the ones he foisted on Christian radio stations during his Michigan campaign - I think you'd be singing a different song wrt his willingness to take on the RR.
PincherMartin -
Yes, I will. However, I now believe that is very much less likely than I would have thought before the New Hampshire Primary, for instance. Perhaps McCain felt he had to adopt the strategy he did, but all he has apparently accomplished is to stiffen the opposition of many Republicans to his candidacy while giving the Democrats free ammunition to use in the general campaign. McCain's auxiliary assaults on Republican Senators and Governers such as Engler and Warner, besides certain figures in the RR for what appear to be essentially personal reasons are largely gratuitous and have sparked a backlash against his candidacy, IMO.
Little of the above correlates strongly with whatever basic presidential qualities McCain might possess, but he certainly doesn't seem to be trying to make friends and influence people positively in his own party. I wish McCain would at least expend a bit more of his venom going after *Democrats*, for chrissakes.
Unlikely. I'm a big believer in doing what it takes to win. It's who you choose to take on that determines my interest.
Erica -
Yep. That Lefty mean streak of yours is a mile wide. Why don't you go shoot a few 'Moonies' if you hate them so much?
Moron.
WASHINGTON (AP) - A mysterious group called Republicans for Clean Air is weighing into the GOP presidential race in three battleground states, airing nearly $2 million in TV ads that go after John McCain (news - web sites) on the environment and tout George W. Bush (news - web sites)'s record.
McCain's camp complained about the stealth ads and the group behind them, which has not run ads before and is unfamiliar to people in both politics and environmental work.
``It's a classic example of ... large sums of soft money being used to manipulate the political process,'' said Rick Davis, McCain's campaign manager. ``I believe this to be a sham group.''
Well...yea. He'll take 'em on where he can get away with it. That tends to get old real quickly, though. And I don't think it counts, unless he throws down the gauntlet and damn the torpedoes for the long haul.
It was a weinie move.
Uh...that was to 21290.
No, not all talking heads think it was a mistake. I've said I thought the Times article was horseshit, so why you thought I'd changed my mind in 20 posts is more than I can figure.
I didn't say you changed your mind, you dithering idiot. I said it was evidence for my viewpoint. The fact that you think it is horseshit is irrelevant. Who cares what you think?
Speaking of things I can't figure, your energy level is out of kilter. I mean, what are we arguing about? Jesus, get a grip.
You're the one who suggested the speech was not a tactical mistake by McCain. I was arguing the contrary position. Is that clear enough?
And someone who is consistently exercised to comment on every issue in the Mote shouldn't bring up someone's else's "energy level." I consistently ignore you until you comment on my posts. Consistently. You'll find if you don't comment on my posts, then I won't comment on yours.
I said I thought the article was horseshit--namely, it argues that McCain misstepped in attacking specific leaders of the RR because it pissed off the RR. I think he did far more for his candidacy in being willing to do this than he ever could have by backing off. It's not like his chances were that good either way.
As for your argument that attacking him alienated the RR--frankly, any of them that took his speech as an attack against them instead of an attack against Robertson were so easily manipulated that they'd have been turned one way or the other.
At first, I thought so too. But then I realized that the members of the RR are ridiculed and attacked so often for their viewpoints that, even if they don't belong to Falwell's church or Robertson's CC, they still are very suspicious of any attack on their brethern.
Yes, well you continue to argue from your favorite position -- that of ignorance. Because we can't know how McCain would have fared if he hadn't made the speech, we simply can't say what the effect was? Should you choose to debate me in the future, I'll be sure to use this argument with you everytime I see you argue about anything in the future.
Balance that against the fact that he's the first Republican to take on the leaders of the RR instead of kowtowing them? Hey, McCain knows the value of dying well.
This ain't war; it's politics. You place too much emphasis on taking someone on who is suppose to be a member of a conservative coalition -- even if their role in his coalition was to be less important and relied on than before.
jexster -
So, your reasoning is that it's truly admirable for any Liberal Group to launch a campaign attacking GWB's environmental record but somehow GWB is personally to be condemned if a Republican group compares it favorably to McCain's?
Why do I sense a lack of consistency here?
concerned:
jex is being entirely consistent.
He never makes sense.
Whatever, dude. Go play with someone you can be polite to.
jexster -
So, your reasoning is that it's truly admirable for any Liberal Group to launch a campaign attacking GWB's environmental record but somehow GWB is personally to be condemned if a Republican group compares it favorably to McCain's?
Why do I sense a lack of consistency here?
No that's not my reasoning at all. My points are 2:
1. Bush is sponsoring slam ads doing his muck work in the shadows.
2. Bush has absolutely no business touting his environmental record running against anyone. Its a joke. Worse, to pretend he has an environmental record worthy of the name is another Bush lie - just like the whopper he is now running claiming credit for the Texas Patient's Bill of Rights when in fact he vetoed it; threatened to veto it, and then didn't sign it.
So Bush is a slimeball, a coward and a liar no matter who he is running against.
Gore's gonna waste the asshole.
jex:
Wrong. Bush vetoed one - only one - provision of the patients' BOR.
That Lefty mean streak of yours is a mile wide.
Fuckin' A. Especially with doofuses like yourself. Or is that "doofi"?
Why don't you go shoot a few 'Moonies' if you hate them so much?
Because I don't hate them enough to shoot them. I just hate them enough to not want their goddamned cult to have an effect on my life. I find it unfortunate that they are in a position, through ownership of a large paper in the nation's capital, to disseminate un- and half-truths. It's low-grade agitprop, pure and simple. Even a third-grader like you ought to be able to figure that out.
For further specifics on what kind of shit the Unification Church spouts, and why they're so willing to pimp an empty suit like Bush by trashing McCain, see my Message # 21195, et seq. But know this, Tommy -- you're getting your talking points from a whackjob who denounces this country and society as "evil" and "Satanic". He thinks that only he can save you, if you'll just subjugate yourself to him and learn to speak Korean.
Sorry, but I don't like the idea of a freak like that having such great access to people whom we may elect as our leaders. If you do, great -- enjoy your arranged marriage in a football stadium. Me, I like fringe dwellers like Moon to stay on the fucking fringe, where they belong. There's no way a guy with such a loony agenda can possibly be counted on to provide serious, responsible journalism.
Some rights he'd give - rights without realistic enforcement.
That's batting a thousand on *convictions*, folks. Now, what kinds of idiots does the Democrat Party take their supporters for, that they would dare to ask anybody to accept that 'No Controlling Legal Authority' Bore is as pure as the driven snow here?
If Justice existed instead of the travesty of the Federal Department which shames that name, then Pinocchio Bore would be under criminal investigation by, not the 'investigators' which report to the craven Clowntoon stooge Janet Reno, but an impartial Independent Prosecutor.
As it is, Pinocchio Bore should drop out of the Democrat Primaries forthwith and cede the Democrat candidacy to Bill Bradley, who is at least fit to stand election for the highest elected office in the United States.
Instead, it's virtually certain that the criminal Pinocchio Bore will continue to campaign and he and the enabling Democrat party will once again show how ethically and morally vacant they are, once again letting a woman take the fall in the established Demorat tradition of the WH Rapist.
Pinocchio Bore has truly earned the sobriquet "Scumbag Junior" as he has once again showed us *why* he is a true heir to the WH Rapist's criminal legacy.
Erica -
I realize that religious tolerance is a bit beyond your capability, a tendency exacerbated by the anti-religious lockstep fealty that the Fascist Socialists demand.
But that isn't a justification, and you have done nothing other than cite your religious intolerance and suspicion to justify your fusillade against the WT as messenger.
But feel free to fling sand and spray your feces over whichever religion your prefer. I'm an agnostic, you moron.
News Flash for Jonesy - the IC investigation that Kenneth Starr headed up continues to this day.
Reno was required by law to defer to the counsel of her hand picked investigator Charles LaBella and of FBI director Louis Freeh who were both adamant that an IC be appointed to get to the bottom of the 1996 DNC/Clowntoon/Bore Campaign Finance criminality, but she didn't, which is why she is Stooge Reno.
I realize that religious tolerance is a bit beyond your capability, a tendency exacerbated by the anti-religious lockstep fealty that the Fascist Socialists demand.
Uh, yeah. Because I pick on whackjob cult leaders, and their propaganda organs, I'm religiously intolerant. Actually, I don't care what people do with their spare time, as long as they don't try to force their holy agenda on the rest of us. Then you're goddamned right, I'm intolerant. Funny how the "candidates of the "Fascist Socialists" you rant over constantly bring up their faith, too, contrary to your "lockstep" theory.
....you have done nothing other than cite your religious intolerance and suspicion to justify your fusillade against the WT as messenger.
No, I have specifically elucidated Moon's agenda, his active control over the editorial slant of his newspaper, his associations with world leaders, his attempts to buy and procure political influence to further his own goals, etc. Go back and read the post and link I cited, and grab a clue, dipshit. Were you not so busy foaming and frothing over "Clowntoon" and "Bore", you might see what I'm talking about.
Incidentally, I'm inclined to agree with you on the conviction of Hsia, and the questioning of Trie. I find the entire CF scandal of the DNC, and Gore's "dog ate my homework" defense, to be pathetic. But politics is like drugs -- until the money is taken out of it, crimes will be committed. By all sides. The media won't cover it because they don't want finance reform. They'd lose all their ad money, plus they'd have less of a soap opera to herd the sheep through during the two-year campaign season.
Now which "Christian" identity movement and militia do you belong to?
29 February 1990
To: Gov. George W. Bush, Jebby, Poppy, and Babs
From: Slogan Office—Department of Themes
Cc: Alliteration Committee
Re: Revised slogan launch schedule
Our slogan rollout continues, albeit on a slightly altered schedule.
"Reformer With Results" is working as we predicted. Yes, we had to introduce it six months early, but we should let reporters know that it was in our plans all along. When asked to comment, the governor can then admit his mistake. Humanizes him.
Here is the rest of the planned slogan launches:
1) Now through Super Tuesday: "Liberal With His Love." We're moving this into heavy rotation in Northern California to recapture soccer moms and closeted gays disgruntled with the governor's perceived shift to the right. Love theme keeps Christian right on board, according to our latest polling.
2) "The Reasonable Reactionary"—As soon as the Robertson/Falwell fuss passes, we'll do heavy buys of ads with this tag line on cable channels in East Texas, Bakersfield, and selected precincts of Orange County. (More good news: Randall Terry has agreed to do a spot for us as part of this buy.)
3) "A Muscular Moderate"—We're working this hard in south Florida, also in key swing districts from Venice Beach to San Diego. Theme will be reinforced with free media next week when we have scheduled the governor to appear at a volleyball tournament in Daytona Beach. Plan is for him to take off his shirt during the game. We expect the networks to go with the footage. This will cut into the tanned and buff bloc, which is trending toward Gore. Added benefit: We may be able to lure McCain into taking off his shirt.
At the same time, we plan to spam Web sites devoted to veterans, golfers, weightlifters, and PalmPilot users. Message is that McCain has backed out of a previous agreement to compete against Bush in the annual VFW ProAm at La Costa Country Club. This will subtly reinforce muscularity theme without alienating females. (Spammers will cost $4,000 per day but have plausible deniability.)
4) Post-Super Tuesday (March 7-30) "Leadership That Leads." This theme consolidates the governor's strength (wisdom), cuts his negatives, and consolidates our lead.
5) In Texas we reinforce this LTL message by having staff emphasize to the press corps that McCain is from Arizona and reminding them of another candidate from Arizona: Barry Goldwater. Surrogates follow up with informal anti-McCain slogan: "In Your Guts, You Know He's Nuts." This wins over wavering LBJ Democrats.
(Note: Alliteration Committee had agreed to the use of this slogan, noting that it refers to the opposition, not the governor.)
This will confound and enrage McCain. We get valuable footage of him frowning and also neutralize the emerging anti-smirk sentiment which is trending against us 2-1.
7) Maneuver should give us crucial momentum going into the all-important Custer County beauty contest straw poll in Utah, where the grass-roots Republican electorate should be amenable to the governor's political message that he's a spiritually motivated "Progressive Pragmatist."
Extensive focus group work shows that this bold but sensible theme works well with online marrieds with children over 40. Should carry us through May.
8) June-July: "A President With Pride." This will subtly reinforce our anti-Clinton message while distracting press attention from the governor's scheduled three weeks of policy briefings on the yacht at Kennebunkport. Ideally, we would use this time to schedule Judge Starr's valuable endorsement.
10) Sept. 1-15: "An Insurgent With Integrity." This will blunt McCain's third-party bid while confirming our core message that we really want to do things differently in Washington. Leaks to Bob Novak and the Washington Times give us powerful inside-the-Beltway buzz
11) Sept. 15-30: "A Suburbanite With Soul." We especially like this bold play for the Democratic base. Polling shows that this theme should dramatically expand our share of the urban African-American vote (from 4 percent to 6 percent) while appealing to hipper swing voters in the edge cities.
12) Oct. 1-30: "A Centrist With a Center." This returns to our twin strengths: a candidacy that has a real message and a candidate who has real morals.
13) Oct. 31-Election Day. In a surprise move that upsets the plans of the other candidates, we finish with a slogan that is testing extraordinarily well, conveying both a Bold Leader of the Free World message and a Guy Next Door quality: "A Golfer With Guts."
We are pretty sure this killer closer will demonstrate that Al Gore and John McCain are both amoral elitists who are out of touch with what real Americans are really like.
14) Inauguration Day: Outline vision of "Compassionate Conservatism."
The man is the best public speaker I've heard in a generation.
If Bush is planning on using his record as Governor of Texas to run on, the Democrats will do to him what his father did to Dukakis.
spud, if you're around, please e-mail me at trialshark@hotmail.com
If spud's not around, where do you want him to e-mail you?
"In Your Guts, You Know He's Nuts."
Very good, jexster.
Dan --
Good point.
Pinch --
Check out this column at MSNBC.
Oddly enough, the "voter guides" were distributed shortly before Senator McCain's speech in Virginia, and must have been in the works for even longer.
Methinks the Mendacious Moron doth protest too much!
I wish I could claim credit for Message # 21314 et seq but that is from Slate.
Its a hoot!
Hopefully you will rejoin the Forces of Light with the same enthusiasm after next Tuesday.
Its gonna be fun watching Gore wipe the smirk off that little gutter snipe's face.
President Al Gore 2000!!!!
Clinton continues to lag behind Rudy among white women and among Jewish voters, important bellweather constituencies.
The Diallo verdict does not appear to have hurt Giuliani with the voters.
I am beginning to see how all those foes of Clinton felt...the ones who kept asking, "How could you in all good conscience support scum like that?" I'm amazed at how many people are still supporting this little weasel.
It is this characteristic of him, plus his relative inexperience and his somewhat inept pandering to the religious right, which will combine to doom his try for the White House in November. The GOP is on its way to making a very bad choice.
From the MSNBC piece linked above.
McCain blasted back with his own assault on the “evil influence” of “agent of intolerance” Robertson, calling for his virtual excommunication from the party of Lincoln. And Wednesday, McCain apologized for his remarks, a measure of the power Robertson wields in the GOP.
According to MSNBC, McCain didn't apologize because he was wrong and made a mistake. He apologized because Robertson forced him to. I suppose this is a pleasent little fantasy for liberals, but it can hardly pass for objective journalism.
Cartman, please explain how this piece is any different from the WT piece you posted.
jex --
Well, I certainly won't be backing Pat Robertson's favored son, if that's what you're driving at. I thought I made that clear some time ago.
It's not only his darting eyes but he has this unfortunate head bobbing thing he does that looks just like a little creature sticking his head out of a hole and jerking up and down while testing the air for dangerous scents.
I've seen chipmunks do that.
wrong and made a mistake. He apologized because Robertson forced
him to. I suppose this is a pleasent little fantasy for liberals, but it can
hardly pass for objective journalism.
'Splain this, please.
Do I understand correctly? McCain develops a speech, one that he and his staff have probably worked on for a couple of days, in which he calls Robertson and crew "evil." He delivers the speech, it backfires, and McCain is forced to beat a retreat.
But it's just a 'mistake?'
I don't think so.
Have you ever noticed what those two clowns have said about gay people over the years? Even Cardinal O'Connor dropped the political gay bashing after a few years in New York and focused his energies on pastoral and admnistrative duties, much to the relief of most New Yorkers. It's one reason why there is much genuine sympathy for him in the city, now that he is ailing so.
But Falwell and Robertson? Plain old opportunistic bigots. Unless they don't really believe the crap, in which case they're just opportunists (something I've suspected more of Fallwell than Robertson, who I think is just plain looney).
Poll: Bush Headed for Super Tuesday Triumphs:
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Texas Gov. George W. Bush is headed for a "Super Tuesday" triumph over Arizona Sen. John McCain by carrying most of the states holding Republican ballots, according to a Reuters/MSNBC poll of eight states released Friday.
Initial Zogby Super Tuesday Tracking Poll...same info as above, with charts
From AP:
***
"I don't regret going to many places," said Bush. "What I regret is the politics of smearing somebody's reputation."
***
A regret which manifested itself, apparently, only after his success with those politics in South Carolina. 
Texas Bush Donor Behind GOP Ads
WASHINGTON (AP) --The mysterious group airing ads in the presidential race promoting Texas Gov. George W. Bush's environmental record is headed by Sam Wyly, a Texas entrepreneur who has donated thousands of dollars to Bush's political campaigns.
Wyly's newly formed group, Republicans for Clean Air, is airing some $2 million in TV ads that go after John McCain on the environment and tout Bush's record. It would be an illegal donation if the Bush campaign were involved with planning the ads, but the Bush camp says it has nothing to do with them.
.............................
Choke. Gasp. Sputter.
Really, the nerve of them. Everyone knows only Democrats are allowed to run ads like that.
It is nice, at least, that the primaries are interesting. It certainly beats Dukakis in that helmet.
Right now, DC doesn't have home rule. There's a control board that's overseen by Congress, I think. It's a very hot topic with DC residents. Niner probably knows a whole lot more about it than I do.
Has that Muel gotten the " mad cow desease " ?
JJB,
Perhaps. But the thought of Texas GOP fatcats funding ads concerning the environment to run in other parts of the country is enough to give this gentle soul the vapors.
"It's those trees! Houston has become "a world-class Shit City, the most polluted in the United State....Trying to put the best possible spin on a grim situation, Governor George W. Bush and his mouthpieces...have announced "historic" and "aggressive" measures to reverse the trend that has catapulted Houston past smog-bound Los Angeles....Estimates of emissions from vehicles and "biogenic" sources (trees, for example) have been too high; those for industry have been too low." Some have estimated that the tools used to estimate industrial pollution, developed in 1926, are up to 1,000 % inaccurate. "The state of Texas, always cozy with Big Oil, won't be demanding accurate data anytime soon....Exxon-Mobil executive Jeffrey Siegell, who sits on a federal panel that addresses environmental management issues in the petrochemical industry,... [wrote] 'Any improvements in the prediction of [storage tank emissions] would still need to result in the same actual emissions.' [sic]... The likelihood that industry will voluntarily hack its emissions by 90 percent, for example, is slim. Bush is too dependent on campaign contributions from industry (he has already raised millions from Texas polluters) to start pissing them off with pricey demands....[A Sierra Club representative] sees no evidence of change, which may solidify Houston's position as Shit City well into the next century. 'That's their strategy,' he says. 'They're gonna get Bush in the White House, and they're gonna try and gut the Clean Air Act.'" --Bob Burtman...
...in Bushwatch
By LAURENCE ARNOLD, Associated Press Writer
PROVIDENCE, R.I. (AP) -- The nation needs a president with a more consistent foreign policy that goes beyond being ''the world's volunteer fire department,'' Democrat Bill Bradley said Friday, turning to a broad issue just before the primary season's biggest day.
What is needed, Bradley said, is a policy ''that moves us beyond ... ad-hoc firefighting'' as crises flare around the globe. His comments were in remarks prepared for delivery to students at Brown University.
He spelled out his thoughts in a long-promised foreign policy speech just before the ''Super Tuesday'' primaries that many analysts say could all but sweep him out of the race for the Democratic nomination.
''For the past decade we have sometimes been the world's volunteer fire department, a role that we have executed with considerable success,'' Bradley said in his prepared remarks. ''But we have been inconsistent about when we would act and when we would stand aside.''
He criticized the Clinton administration for putting its trust in ''old leaders who did not deliver on promises'' in Russia, and for sending ''inconsistent signals'' on China's human rights record and its treatment of Taiwan.
Bradley briefly shifted campaign gears two weeks ago and began taking a more confrontational approach to Gore. But he has returned in recent days to speeches that largely ignore Gore and offer Bradley's promises to ''think big'' on such issues as child poverty and health care.
Asked Friday whether he was pursuing a graceful way to exit the race, Bradley said: ''I'm in this to win.''
from the NYTimes:
ON THE SCREEN Mr. McCain's face is superimposed against a backdrop of smokestacks belching dark clouds.
THE SCRIPT "Last year, John McCain voted against solar and renewable energy. That means more use of coal-burning plants that pollute our air. New York Republicans care about clear air. So does Governor Bush. He led one of the first states in America to clamp down on old coal-burning electric power plants. Bush clean air laws will reduce air pollution more than a quarter million tons a year. That's like taking five million cars off the road. Governor Bush: Leading so each day dawns brighter."
ACCURACY There are flaws in every claim. The clampdown on coal-burning plants that the advertisement cites was, in fact, a voluntary program in Texas for which relatively few companies signed up, and with which even fewer complied, and exempted many of the dirtiest plants, environmentalists and Texas newspapers say. Environmental groups, which say the pollution reduction claim is overstated, give Governor Bush poor marks on clean air issues. Mr. McCain did vote against solar and renewable energy spending programs; he has also voted for them. The vote mentioned in the advertisement was one of many that he has cast against spending bills to object to the way they were approved, rather than their content.
SCORECARD This advertisement is intended to appeal to New York's moderate, pro-conservation Republican voters, as the Bush campaign tries to portray Mr. McCain as being too far to the right, a switch from previous primaries, when Mr. Bush called the senator too liberal for the party. But with the outcry from environmentalists who say the advertisement is inaccurate, it is unclear how effective it will be.
"I don't regret going to many places," said Bush. "What I regret is the politics of smearing somebody's reputation."
Apparently, the regret is short-lived.
Last week, while campaigning in Washington state, Bush came out in full-fledged opposition to tearing down four hydroelectric dams on the Lower Snake River as part of an effort to restore endangered salmon stocks on the Columbia River. He also attacked John McCain for saying he'd consider tearing them down.
The dams, in case you're interested, provide only a small percentage of the total power in the Northwest. Their flood-control utility is almost nonexistent. They do, however, help provide water for farms -- 11 of them, to be exact, all of them corporate farms, who could easily compensate for the lost reservoir by lowering their pumps about 15 feet. These farmers and their allies (almost solely from the GOP-rich eastern half of the state) are the primary opponents to tearing down the dams, and their campaign to prevent the action.
In the meantime, tearing down the dams is favored not just by environmentalists, but by sport fishermen along the Columbia and by the professional fishing fleets on the coast who have seen their stocks radically decline in the last 10 years (from 500,000 to 50,000).
More important, perhaps, are the Indian tribes, whose treaties ensure the continuation of salmon stocks in the Columbia. They are on the verge of bringing down the hammer on the feds, who are dragging their feet because of mostly GOP opposition -- this despite an NMFS finding, resulting from an Endangered Species Act-required study, that either the dams had to come down or farmers upstream would have to sacrifice their own water to enhance streamflows. You can read more about it here.
Bush an environmentalist? It is to laugh.
As you know, I have an interest in the salmon run on the Columbia and have strong feelings about the damage dams have done to those runs. However, there are 19 dams on the Columbia river drainage system. Could you tell me which four dams are being discussed? And, can you link to information that the removal of these 4 dams would accomplish what all who are interested want? Could you also link to articles on the defense of those dams?
When I went through the Dallas Dam, I was impressed with how much good it does. Also, can you cite for your claim that Bush favors keeping the four dams mentioned?
Does Clinton's "moral" support help or hurt McCain?
It's the four on the Lower Snake: Lower Granite, Little Goose, Lower Monumental and Ice Harbor.
For your reading pleasure:
An Oregonian piece on the pros and cons
Fact sheet: Scientific Reports on Columbia Basin Salmon and Dams
On the fears of some of your cohorts in the coastal fishing biz: Breaching fever reaches coast
Bush calls dam breaching a 'big mistake'
Group: Texas Low In Cancer Screens
WASHINGTON (AP) -- While George W. Bush criticizes John McCain for not supporting breast cancer programs, Bush's own state ranks low on breast-cancer screening. And it has the nation's highest percentage of women without health insurance, a private group says.
Four in ten women over 50 in Texas have not had a mammogram in the past two years, according to a report by an Austin, Texas-based coalition of women's' health groups.
And Texas is last among states ranked for the number of uninsured women, with nearly 22 percent of women having no health coverage, according to a study by the Institute for Women's Policy Research.
Bill Clinton has personally examined thousands of breasts, with no health insurance required. Let's see if the Republicans can beat that.
Thousands?
Why haven't there been hearings on this in Congress?
Dave --
Not at two per, it couldn't.
Spud --
I think Danny has had sufficient experience with the real thing.
What he lacked, apparently, was a "scumbag."
Or maybe I just wasn't really paying attention because I wanted to say that Clinton had only fondled hundreds of women. It's the knee jerk liberal in me.
Bob Jones Univ. Drops Race Date Ban
Are you serious? Do you honestly think that Robertson has no juice whatsoever in the GOP? Are you sure you read that entire article which you linked a passage from?
Let's see -- he uses the Christian Coalition mailing lists, mails out "voter guides" telling his flock how to vote (and saying that McCain is as liberal as Bradley or Gore, when in fact he's at least as conservative as Bush). He has a popular evangelical TV show, which is nominally non-profit, yet used as a bully pulpit to promote both Robertson's political picks and his personal opinions, again to the eagerly awaiting flock.
Most major GOP candidates pay some sort of obeisance to the Christian Coaliton, come election time. They can't seem to avoid the guy. So one of two things is possible, as far as I can see:
Take your pick.
And before anyone trots out hoary bromides attempting to equate Sharpton and Robertson, let's be honest --Sharpton doesn't have nearly the actual influence that Robertson has. Sharpton hasn't had his own TV show for 30-odd years to spout his nonsense, and he manages to marginalize himself every time he sets his fat processed ass in front of a camera and opens his mouth. Black people know this too. Robertson, OTOH, keeps chuggin' along, no matter how stupid he gets. Hurricanes for faggots? No sweat, the sheep don't even blink.
According to MSNBC, McCain didn't apologize because he was wrong and made a mistake. He apologized because Robertson forced him to. I suppose this is a pleasant little fantasy for liberals, but it can hardly pass for objective journalism.
Well, maybe McCain wasn't wrong; maybe he didn't make a mistake. Maybe McCain had a point -- people like Robertson are primarily interested in foisting their superstition on the rest of us as the law of the land. And maybe McCain really did apologize because he correctly realizes that he can't count on Democrats and indies to defect and keep him afloat, so at some point he has to embrace the RR if he wants to get anywhere. Besides, when push comes to shove, McCain is more part of the RR than not.
Anyway, it seems that the article clearly delineated just how Robertson exercises his political power. It's way different from that fire-breathing tripe of the Pruden editorial I linked, which falsely referred to the Michigan Dems/indies which McCain had "rented". That whole Pruden piece was written in that cheesy code of Gingrich buzzwords. PMSNBC may have an axe to grind with Robertson, but they did it in an above-board way, relying on things called "facts".
Incidentally, I think it's too bad that McCain blinked on Robertson, et al. He should have swung for the fences, and emphasized that he meant what he said. He wussed out. It's high time the GOP told those guys to piss up a rope. You want to get fence-sitters like me to consider the GOP, tell the Flanderses to form their own God party. Otherwise, let 'em drag you down for yet another election cycle.
Odd that the putative party of individualism and privacy balks at giving even a modicum of latitude to personal morality. I like some of the fiscal philosophy; maybe when the conclusion is finally reached that women and gays are actually people too, I'll rethink my position.
Latest Zogby Polls, released today
CALIFORNIA:
GOP: 162 delegates, winner-take-all, closed primary*
Dem: 434 delegates, proportional, closed primary*
*Any voter may participate in either primary, but only votes from party members will count toward delegates.
CONNECTICUT:
GOP: 25 delegates, winner-take-all, closed primary
Dem: 67 delegates, proportional, closed primary
GOP: 54 delegates, winner-take-all by district, open primary
Dem: 92 delegates, proportional, open primary
HAWAII (Dem caucuses only):
Dem: 33 delegates, proportional, closed primary
IDAHO (Dem caucuses only):
Dem: Dem: 12 delegates, proportional, open primary
MAINE:
GOP: 14 delegates, winner-take-all if candidate wins majority of statewide vote (otherwise, proportional), GOP and unenrolled voters only
Dem: 32 delegates, proportional, Dem and unenrolled voters only
MARYLAND:
GOP: 31 delegates, winner-take-all by district, GOP and unaffiliated only
Dem: 92 delegates, proportional, closed primary
MASSACHUSETTS:
GOP: 37 delegates, winner-take-all, GOP and unenrolled voters only
Dem: 118 delegates, proportional, Dem and unenrolled voters only
MINNESOTA (GOP caucuses only):
GOP Dem: 34 delegates, delegate selection only, open primary
GOP: 35 delegates, winner-take-all, open primary
Dem: 92 delegates, proportional, open primary
NEW YORK:
GOP: 101 delegates, direct election of delegates, closed primary
Dem: 294 delegates, proportional, closed primary
NORTH DAKOTA (Dem caucuses only):
GOP Dem: 22 delegates, proportional, open
OHIO:
GOP: 69 delegates, winner-take-all by district, open primary
Dem: 170 delegates, proportional, open primary
RHODE ISLAND:
GOP: 14 delegates, winner-take-all, GOP and unaffiliated voters only
Dem: 32 delegates, proportional, Dem and unaffiliated voters only
VERMONT:
GOP: 12 delegates, winner-take-all, open primary
Dem: 22 delegates, proportional, open primary
WASHINGTON (caucuses):
GOP: 37 delegates, proportional, open*
Dem: 94 delegates, proportional, open
*12 of Washington's 37 delegates have already been apportioned following the Feb. 29 primary.
Just another Lundgren???
The more we know him, the more we dislike him. Just that simple
This was what I was talking about last month when I was urging everyone to read that Conason article in Harpers Magazine. These guys were all mentioned and it was obvious they were cronies who owed and received favors from GW all the time.
I suppose it's no worse than the Democrats but even so, I hate that sanctimonious crap GW pulls by claiming "morality" higher than Moses.
I might surprise you and others on the Mote, but I agree with your assessment of Robinson except for your claim of influence on the Republican party. Of course, he does influence his people to vote for Republicans who are pro life, but as far as policy goes, he has little or no effect. He is, however, very valuable to the left as a whipping boy. I seldom see arguments against conservatives on the Mote, just demonization: Bush smirks, he has darting eyes like a chipmunk, and on and on.
How much influence Sharpton has on his crowd, I have no idea. But he is never a whipping boy of the left or right, although I would like him to be. Lefties, such as spudboy, even bring up David Duke, as if he had anything to do with anything.
From jexter's link:
***
Brulte, who supports Bush, said he does not believe the Texas governor is seriously damaged. "Look, primaries are never comfortable. But that doesn't mean they are not healthy," he said. The state senator argued that Bush will actually be a better candidate in November because his campaign and his message have been "battle-tested."
As for any lingering memories among swing voters of the Bush sidestep to the right, Brulte said that "two weeks in an election cycle is an eternity, and we're months and months away from [the] general election."
***
It's possible that no one ever went broke overestimating the stupidity of the American voter, but it's not a good sign when your campaign strategy depends on it.
The Robertson fiasco, calling him "evil", at best an arguable proposition, then saying he was just "funnin" I think reveals McCain's achilles heel.
Do lefties really believe that evil exists? I did not know that.
As I understand it, "people will forget" is Niner's take on it, too. I don't wish to imply that Niner thinks that Bush will win--but he thinks that Bush's approach will not be affected by what happened in the primary.
I find it confusing, but then people are stupid.
Cal --
What this argument seems to overlook is that not all of the people will forget. This is particularly so if they are reminded. The Bush camp has both pissed off a lot of folks who might otherwise vote Republican and provided the Gore camp with some useful ammunition.
Above all, however, they've shown their hand; although by his own estimation the governor's success has been built in large part on being underestimated, I would be surprised if he catches the Democrats napping.