Protesters pelt Rove’s car after D.C. speech

[Quinn]

WASHINGTON - White House adviser Karl Rove was confronted by more than a dozen protesters who blocked his car and threw things as he tried to leave a speaking engagement at American University, officials said.

Rove was attending a guests-only discussion of electoral politics Tuesday night sponsored by the American University College Republicans.

“It was their last meeting of the year, and Mr. Rove spent about an hour with the students,” said Maralee Csellar, a university spokeswoman.

When Rove tried to leave a campus building, he was confronted by more than a dozen protesters who surrounded his car to prevent it from leaving, Csellar said.

“They were throwing unknown objects at the vehicle,” said Secret Service spokeswoman Kimberly Bruce. She said members of the Secret Service asked the protesters to move. When they continued to block the vehicle's exit, campus police were contacted.

Campus police lifted some of the demonstrators from the asphalt and carried them out of the vehicle's path so Rove could leave the campus. There were no arrests or injuries, police said.

A telephone call seeking comment from the White House was not immediately returned.

Associated Press

[White_Male_Canada]

Your leftwing pals at Huffington loved the thug kooks: 8)

"Next thing you know we be dragging people out of their house at night. We are supposed to be the enlightened ones, not the savages. Let's not bring ourselves to that level.

By: schallvain

Respectfully disagree. Desperate times call for desperate measures. I think it's high time that some people, namely this piece of human filth known as Karl Rove, and the richest one percent of this nation who have stolen 90 percent of the nation's wealth, be dragged screaming from their mansions and limo's and publicly lynched. By: revoltnow on April 04, 2007 at 10:11am "

[chefmike]

WASHINGTON - White House adviser Karl Rove was confronted by more than a dozen protesters who blocked his car and threw things as he tried to leave a speaking engagement at American University, officials said.

Rove was attending a guests-only discussion of electoral politics Tuesday night sponsored by the American University College Republicans.

“It was their last meeting of the year, and Mr. Rove spent about an hour with the students,” said Maralee Csellar, a university spokeswoman.

When Rove tried to leave a campus building, he was confronted by more than a dozen protesters who surrounded his car to prevent it from leaving, Csellar said.

“They were throwing unknown objects at the vehicle,” said Secret Service spokeswoman Kimberly Bruce. She said members of the Secret Service asked the protesters to move. When they continued to block the vehicle's exit, campus police were contacted.

Campus police lifted some of the demonstrators from the asphalt and carried them out of the vehicle's path so Rove could leave the campus. There were no arrests or injuries, police said.

A telephone call seeking comment from the White House was not immediately returned.

Associated Press

I just think that it's a fucking shame that the students didn't serve Rove the molotov cocktails that the occasion called for!

Bad Manners!

[Quinn]

Chef, it all boils down to poll numbers. When you have an administration whose poll numbers are down there with Nixon's and Carter's record setting lows, you're bound to have problems. I bet you before the next presidential election is over, this administration will see lower numbers than either.

Think about it. Record budget and trade deficits, the first investment deficit since 1929, handing most of Iraq to the Iranians, signing a terrible deal with North Korea, leaving us with a dramatically eroded deterrence capacity, shattered alliances, and a drastically reduced international standing. It's amazing that some people are dumb enough not to see what's going on. Still, at least the president hasn’t gone out of his way to give illegal immigrants amnesty and encourage further illegal immigration. Oh, wait, that’s right he has. Oh, well.

-Quinn

[chefmike]

And yet the right still continues to whine about the liberal media....

I also notice that our resident bushevik buffoons haven't said anything about the Dem's massive fund raising...

And how 'bout that Obama?

Voting for the lesser of two evils is a reality here in the US of A...

I'll take Obama over Hillary anyday...and apparently, so do the many donors who contributed less than $100 each to his campaign funding....

It's just a damn shame that Obama couldn't get that big MORMON money like Romney...LMFAO...

:roll:

[Quinn]

I have to say, I'm stunned Obama has been able to raise that kind of money. When it comes to raising money, the Clinton machine is a monster. I didn't think it would be even close.

Between the two I would vote for him any day. I can't stand her -- though I have to admit that she has done a great job as a New York senator.

-Quinn

[ps911fan]

Obama is really engaging and has plenty of good ideaa....when people do see him in person, I think thats when he connects and thats why he has over 83000 donors.....none of his money comes from special interests...thats a big difference...

I endorsed Obama in my area and will work for him unti.......what ever happens...

Logic (my logic at least), says Hillary has a good chance of getting the nomination but she didn't earn my support. Obama did after speaking to him while he helped us with the Deval Patrick campaign. So, I want to ride this wonderful campaign until its end, but if it ends before he wins the nominationa, like many Dems, i will support the nominee.

I think Hillary will pick Richardson for her VP due to the experience they have in the WH and he can work to the hispanic and western US votes.

If Obama wins, I hope he will pick Richardson or Biden (god help me) for VP. both men would be great assests. Hillary and Biden would not work because Biden and Hillary would clash, but Obama would know how to work with him.

Most dems are going to support whoever wins.....the funny part is that in a way it doesnt matter who wins the nomination....what matters is that we cannot allow a GOPee candidate to retake the WH.

MORE IMPORTANT, is gaining a supermajority in the Senate. We need 61+ seats, which is very reachable, in 2008 to be able to put down a filabuster and be able to set cloture on the floor. That is the goal to really being able to move things forward. I have written the DNC and several state parties about the 61 goal becoming a national goal for the Democratic Party.

We will pick up more house seats easily as well if we work hard. 250 would give Pelosi room to let her conservative Dems "run astray" and still win most of the legislative battles.......

all of this is available just as it was in 2004 when everyone has become so tired of the lies, arrogance, BS, and hubris of this stupid guy in the presidents office. All the "big tent" will coalesce again.

People think it will be hard for Hillary to win if she gets the nomination, but
Iowa, Nevada, and Colorado, and maybe a non-blackwell Ohio is all she needs. If she can keep the Kerry states, it becomes very easy. But people in all the states need to work like we are 75% down from now until the election.

A Dem in the WH is critical, but a SenateSuperMajority is ultra critical.

:claps 8)




I have to say, I'm stunned Obama has been able to raise that kind of money. When it comes to raising money, the Clinton machine is a monster. I didn't think it would be even close.

Between the two I would vote for him any day. I can't stand her -- though I have to admit that she has done a great job as a New York senator.

-Quinn

[guyone]

A Dem in the WH is critical, but a SenateSuperMajority is ultra critical.


It'll never happen.

[Quinn]

Great post, ps911fan – with a well thought out analysis. That Obama is attempting, at this point, to run his campaign without special interest support is laudable and wins him major points with me. Whether he can maintain that stance over the long-term, while remaining viable, is another matter. I would like to seem to get the Democratic nomination.

Unfortunately, in the end, I think Hillary will more than likely take the nomination. Why? Even if Obama beats the odds and manages to keep up with her financially, I don’t think he’s the fighter she is. When it comes to playing dirty, the Clinton machine is every bit as effective and ruthless as the GOP’s infamous dirty tricks brigade.

I respectfully disagree with your assessment of Hillary’s chances to win if she does take the nomination. Not only does she lack her husband’s considerable charisma, but she consistently gets some of the highest negative polling numbers among this nation’s leading political figures and has a problem connecting with the uncommitted moderates/independents that each party needs to attract to win the presidency. I think her winning the nomination will result in a Republican maverick, like McCain or Giuliani, becoming the next president.

Honestly, though I have my preferences, I’ll be happy with anyone that isn’t the current, stunningly incompetent president or one of his NeoCon confederates.

-Quinn

[White_Male_Canada]

Alec Baldwin agrees with this subject and CM. Violently attack those who oppose your ideology.

[svenson]

Alec Baldwin agrees with this subject and CM. Violently attack those who oppose your ideology.

why do you post this when your actions are different. ive lurked here long enough to sea you attack many when they disagree with you youre a smart guy. but you have a problem accepting whats real when its not what you want. most posters treat you like Jamie Michele and that’s not right though you make it happen to you. i feel bad for you

why be so angri

[trish]

the race for the presidency has begun unprecedentedly early. why? because EVERYBODY, even republicans, are ready for the bush administration to END. it can't be over soon enough. Americans are looking ahead. and there are sooo many good democrats. but my money is behind Obama. not only is the man smart, rational, practical and wise...i think an Obama presidency would tell the world that Americans are ready to reach out...that WE weren't behind the bush insanities.

i have to agree with Quinn about Hillary's chances of winning the presidency. unfortunately she has a good chance at getting the nomination...but the repugs have used her to polarize the electorate in the past and that polarization is difficult to undo. once someone has invested the effort to hate someone, it hard to turn it around.

[White_Male_Canada]

Alec Baldwin agrees with this subject and CM. Violently attack those who oppose your ideology.

why do you post this when your actions are different. ive lurked here long enough to sea you attack many when they disagree with you youre a smart guy. but you have a problem accepting whats real when its not what you want. most posters treat you like Jamie Michele and that’s not right though you make it happen to you. i feel bad for you

why be so angri

What`s so difficult to comprehend? The subject is not Obama or Hillary fund raising dollars but violence:


When Rove tried to leave a campus building, he was confronted by more than a dozen protesters who surrounded his car to prevent it from leaving, Csellar said.

“They were throwing unknown objects at the vehicle,” said Secret Service spokeswoman Kimberly Bruce. She said members of the Secret Service asked the protesters to move. When they continued to block the vehicle's exit, campus police were contacted.

Campus police lifted some of the demonstrators from the asphalt and carried them out of the vehicle's path so Rove could leave the campus. There were no arrests or injuries, police said.

A telephone call seeking comment from the White House was not immediately returned.

Associated Press

Now, the local leftist CM chimes in and goes one step further and advocates fire-bombing vehicles with people in it:


Chefmike:
I just think that it's a fucking shame that the students didn't serve Rove the molotov cocktails that the occasion called for!

Then I use the words of another kook leftist, Alec Baldwin, who also believes in using violence against political opponents and you then try claim I have threatenend to kill those who I`ve debated !?

What this subject has erringly done is expose just how radical the left is, advocating violence against those who oppose their radical ideology.

Very humorous. 8)

[chefmike]

Rove's command should be terminated...

Terminated?

With extreme prejudice.... 8)

[svenson]

Then I use the words of another kook leftist, Alec Baldwin, who also believes in using violence against political opponents and you then try claim I have threatenend to kill those who I`ve debated !?

please sho where I claim you threaten to kill those you debated you are intentionaly trying to avoid my point.

you say the left attacks those who dont agree with them when you attack more than others on the hungangels. its dishonest like i say before you are a smart guy. if you honstly argued you maybe do well and convince people to sea things differently. by not doing that you make youself laughed at like jamie michele. its a waist of your brain and time.

why be so angry you can be better.

[qeuqheeg222]

rove used "unsound methods" chefmike...the horror..the horror...

[ps911fan]

Quinn, i ask this question of many sincerely....what did Hillary do to you personally to make you dislike her? Besides the excellent dirty work the MSM and the RW'ers have done to poison her and her reputation, I'd like to know the invidiual's opinion..not Hannity's or Rush or whoever.

You speak about the Clinton attack machine. You do realize that Mitt Romney and Giluani's political methodology books were leaked and lost(Rudy) and Mitt (lost on a plane) and both candidates have a well defined strategyof Dragging Senator Clinton through the mud (Rudy) and Mitt Romney (define Hillary as "french"). And yet the only thing you mention is a Clinton team that has not castigated one of the GOP candidates to this day. The media falsely trumped up the alleged attacks between Clinton and Obama. Dems don't really do the nasty stuff. Tom Delay was also seen on Hardball dedicating himself (dedicating himself...remember that) to tearing down Senator Clinton at any cost.

So if you dislike Hillary, let it be on your own merits and what you really know...not what the media and spin monkeys and nasty pundits have to say. Obama wanted my vote and got it by speaking with me, talking with me, sharing his issues and working hard for my candidate. Hillary did not.

Those who have a problem with Senator Clinton ususally can't handle the idea of a woman president, hate that she is a strong woman who can disagree with them and go toe to toe (but its ok if the woman agrees with them and is say oh Margaret Thatcher who was a pretty hard woman but she was conservative). Thats more of the right's BS in action again.

If you want to debate Senator Clinton, lets go to her platform and review the issues. I do not see the war like she does but I like her other policies and can have no issue defending them.

Obama and I agrre on war/social but not his religious views. I am very much like Barry Goldwater who really did not want religion in his party and I certainly do not want religion runing government and my party. Religious freedom is fine but it has no place in our government, PERIOD.

I cannot vote McCain due this knowlege of the war, and his terrible decision to fall in with GWB and support this boon doggle
McCain was tortured but caved in on the US allowing torture and suspendig habeas corpus
McCain has flipped on the religous right. McCain is no maverick if you look at his voting record, he is independent on environmental issues but falls in lockstep on all other issues. NO vote for mccain here.

Rudy G has NO experience and no reason to be president of the US.
Besides his social baggage which has no issue with me (nor the Clintons)
Rudy G was mayor of NYC and frankly did 0 during 9/11 that would make him an expert on National Security - his position on this is media created and GOP pundit backed. Rudy, for example, put his emergency command in WTC. (Super Stupid). He has very shady business dealings with Bernard Keric which may be in the courts shortly as Keric is going to trial in less than a month. He does business with Hugo Chavez directly through his law firm. He has marketed 9-11 as his vehicle for where he is now financially and politically. The man does not deserve my respect or vote.

Mitt Rommney was my governor and he has flipped on every single issue he claimed he was for in the past 10 years. He also lied and was proven to have lied about Big Dig Tunnel Inspections that ended up with a death.
Romney did nothing in 4 years of governing MA except go to war with the legislators. He has allowed Illegal immigrans to work for him at his home.
Romney does not earn anyones vote. He is truly all flash and nothng else of substance...and you see his hunting lie.....at least Kerry did shoot the damn geese he had.

So, tell me issues, not spin on Senator Clinton. She has more experience in government than Dubya did. In Obama's case look what "experience" did to this country under Cheney and Dubya.....the us is worst than ever.

Remember the GOP complete control of all branches of government but now hold exec and courts. Do you feel after 12 years of legislative rule by the GOP, 6 years of GOP executive, and 20 years of GOP rule in the courts has made America better or worse? Do you feel job, home security? After Katrina, do you feel safe in a disaster. Has the US prepared locally for attack. Has the GOp destroyed or properly used our military? Isnt the reagan legacy leading american into the utopia claimed? NO, in all these cases, the GOp has lead America into the crapper.....

Those are the deficits the GOP has now......think issuues seriously before you let the media and other people cloud your mind with ridiculous accusations and lies about Senator Clinton or other Dem candidates.

Rememnber that Fox and others have already lied about Obama and Clinton.






Great post, ps911fan – with a well thought out analysis. That Obama is attempting, at this point, to run his campaign without special interest support is laudable and wins him major points with me. Whether he can maintain that stance over the long-term, while remaining viable, is another matter. I would like to seem to get the Democratic nomination.

Unfortunately, in the end, I think Hillary will more than likely take the nomination. Why? Even if Obama beats the odds and manages to keep up with her financially, I don’t think he’s the fighter she is. When it comes to playing dirty, the Clinton machine is every bit as effective and ruthless as the GOP’s infamous dirty tricks brigade.

I respectfully disagree with your assessment of Hillary’s chances to win if she does take the nomination. Not only does she lack her husband’s considerable charisma, but she consistently gets some of the highest negative polling numbers among this nation’s leading political figures and has a problem connecting with the uncommitted moderates/independents that each party needs to attract to win the presidency. I think her winning the nomination will result in a Republican maverick, like McCain or Giuliani, becoming the next president.

Honestly, though I have my preferences, I’ll be happy with anyone that isn’t the current, stunningly incompetent president or one of his NeoCon confederates.

-Quinn

[Quinn]

Ps911fan, once again, thanks for you response. I’ll try and address each of your points, but am a bit pressed for time today. We may want to readdress some of this later.

To begin with, let me clarify my position regarding the “Clinton attack machine.” In my earlier post I mentioned the GOP’s infamous “dirty tricks brigade.” Given your obvious political acumen, I’m sure you’re familiar with its history and undeniable effectiveness. IMO, this is a reflection of the fact that, traditionally, the GOP has been more unified (also, less diverse) and more organized than the Democratic Party as a whole. From my perspective, the Clinton political machine represents a step forward for the Democrats because of how organized and effective that faction of the party is (fundraising, attack machine, etc.) at matching the GOP. Unfortunately, that also means being as ruthless (Master’s of Disaster, Truth Squad, etc.) as elements of the GOP.

That’s one part of the equation. The other is Hillary herself and the conduct to which she has been given, both as First Lady and as a senator. The consistently high negatives Hillary has are linked to her being widely perceived as cold, calculating, ruthless, and nasty. The creation of that image, while certainly being encouraged and taken advantage of by the Right, owes its inception in her own actions. In short, the Right can seize upon the issue because she provides plenty of ammunition for them to use. In short, I really doubt she can become president and think the Democrats would be best served by supporting a more electable candidate.

A point of disagreement that I have with your post is the following statement: “Those who have a problem with Senator Clinton usually can't handle the idea of a woman president, hate that she is a strong woman who can disagree with them and go toe to toe.” With all due respect, I think this is nonsense. Are there chauvinists out there who won’t vote for a female politician as president? Sure, but that small, backward segment of the population can’t even begin to account for the consistently high negatives Hillary has. Furthermore, while groups like NOW support her, many individual feminists do not, particularly at the college campus level. Why? Well, first off, she owes her being senator to her husband being president, not any previous merit or experience of her own. Second, many feminists feel she sold her dignity, self-respect, and independence for access to that type of power. I agree with part of that position.

So far as your analysis of the leading Republican candidates is concerned, I agree with some of it and disagree with some other parts:

1) Romney: I agree completely and have plenty more negative assessments I would add if I had the time. I wouldn’t vote for him under any circumstances.

2) McCain: I partially agree. His recent overtures to the far Right worry me. His age is also something of a concern. I am also at odds with his support of the war. So far as his maverick status is concerned, he has differed from the Republican Party establishment on a number of substantive points: environmental issues, which you already noted; gay rights; stricter limits on political campaign funding; and he’s been very critical of the party’s ruinous fiscal policies. Still, though I like McCain’s stance on many issues and respect his history of being independent – by Republican standards – I won’t be voting for him.

3) Giuliani: Here, we disagree on most everything (though not Keric or Chavez). I’ve lived/worked in NYC for many years now and have seen the positive results of his policies first hand. Whether you want examine his crime fighting record (CompStat was both brilliant and revolutionary), the Times Square redevelopment project and other urban redevelopment initiatives, his fiscal policies, or his performance on/after Sept. 11th, he has my support. So far as your criticism of his handling of Sept 11th is concerned, New York City residents, including many of his political opponents, don’t share your view (Check the polling of NYC residents after Sept. 11th). I would strongly consider voting for him.

Bottom line for my support: no Hillary, no Romney, no McCain, possibly Giuliani, possibly Obama.

-Quinn

[Quinn]

Though all troll references and associated materials certainly apply, the funniest, to date, is the one supplied by Chef:

[chefmike]

rove used "unsound methods" chefmike...the horror..the horror...

LMAO 8)

[specialk]

Ps911fan, once again, thanks for you response. I’ll try and address each of your points, but am a bit pressed for time today. We may want to readdress some of this later.

To begin with, let me clarify my position regarding the “Clinton attack machine.” In my earlier post I mentioned the GOP’s infamous “dirty tricks brigade.” Given your obvious political acumen, I’m sure you’re familiar with its history and undeniable effectiveness. IMO, this is a reflection of the fact that, traditionally, the GOP has been more unified (also, less diverse) and more organized than the Democratic Party as a whole. From my perspective, the Clinton political machine represents a step forward for the Democrats because of how organized and effective that faction of the party is (fundraising, attack machine, etc.) at matching the GOP. Unfortunately, that also means being as ruthless (Master’s of Disaster, Truth Squad, etc.) as elements of the GOP.

That’s one part of the equation. The other is Hillary herself and the conduct to which she has been given, both as First Lady and as a senator. The consistently high negatives Hillary has are linked to her being widely perceived as cold, calculating, ruthless, and nasty. The creation of that image, while certainly being encouraged and taken advantage of by the Right, owes its inception in her own actions. In short, the Right can seize upon the issue because she provides plenty of ammunition for them to use. In short, I really doubt she can become president and think the Democrats would be best served by supporting a more electable candidate.

A point of disagreement that I have with your post is the following statement: “Those who have a problem with Senator Clinton usually can't handle the idea of a woman president, hate that she is a strong woman who can disagree with them and go toe to toe.” With all due respect, I think this is nonsense. Are there chauvinists out there who won’t vote for a female politician as president? Sure, but that small, backward segment of the population can’t even begin to account for the consistently high negatives Hillary has. Furthermore, while groups like NOW support her, many individual feminists do not, particularly at the college campus level. Why? Well, first off, she owes her being senator to her husband being president, not any previous merit or experience of her own. Second, many feminists feel she sold her dignity, self-respect, and independence for access to that type of power. I agree with part of that position.

So far as your analysis of the leading Republican candidates is concerned, I agree with some of it and disagree with some other parts:

1) Romney: I agree completely and have plenty more negative assessments I would add if I had the time. I wouldn’t vote for him under any circumstances.

2) McCain: I partially agree. His recent overtures to the far Right worry me. His age is also something of a concern. I am also at odds with his support of the war. So far as his maverick status is concerned, he has differed from the Republican Party establishment on a number of substantive points: environmental issues, which you already noted; gay rights; stricter limits on political campaign funding; and he’s been very critical of the party’s ruinous fiscal policies. Still, though I like McCain’s stance on many issues and respect his history of being independent – by Republican standards – I won’t be voting for him.

3) Giuliani: Here, we disagree on most everything (though not Keric or Chavez). I’ve lived/worked in NYC for many years now and have seen the positive results of his policies first hand. Whether you want examine his crime fighting record (CompStat was both brilliant and revolutionary), the Times Square redevelopment project and other urban redevelopment initiatives, his fiscal policies, or his performance on/after Sept. 11th, he has my support. So far as your criticism of his handling of Sept 11th is concerned, New York City residents, including many of his political opponents, don’t share your view (Check the polling of NYC residents after Sept. 11th). I would strongly consider voting for him.

Bottom line for my support: no Hillary, no Romney, no McCain, possibly Giuliani, possibly Obama.

-Quinn


I'd like to jump in here and offer my :2cent if you guys don't mind.

The best hope for the Dems appears to either be a woman or a black man(at least half black). Odd set of circumstances for both non "traditional" candidates to be going head to head for the Dems., nomination.

Having said all that, the best thing going for those 2 candidates: McCain, Guliani, and Romney.

McCain disapoints me no end. I've never seen a Senator back down so often as him. Whether it was Bush questioning his Vietnam "hero" status in 2000, or putting arguments on the table questioning Bush's leadership only to kiss his ass 24 hrs. later. I have no use for him in any capacity.

Romney has credibility and "flipper" issues (who doesn't in the Repug Party)....going no where fast.

Now Guliani, who I thought walked on water as a prosecutor, is the one I dislike the most!!! His ego was handed to him, rightly so, in the final 2 yrs. of his Gestapo regime as mayor of NY. His rule was "my way or the highway", just ask the Teachers, the Police, and the Firefighters, all of who went without contracts at one time or another. Ask Amadou Dialo (killed going for his wallet) or the guy who took the broomstick up the ass by the cops and defended by Rudy. Bottom line....vehemently anti union, and full of his own shit.

It gets better. We're all away of his marital pecidillos, would make a good screenplay for a sit-com. His flip flops on the issues, to say anything to get elected, are laughable to say the least.

But, the most dispicable item I can think of would be his speach given at the 2004 Repug Convention. Here's Rudy, the newly made millionaire, as a secuirty consultant, thanks to 9/11 and a Bush payback. There he was singing the praises of Bush...the guy who gave him a no bid contract in Iraq to establish the new Bahgdad Police Dept. Now mind you, Rudy is a sub contractor, making millions on the tragedy of 9/11.....making a speech (like he was still a public servant) at the convention. I can't think another similar situation in my lifetime where this has happened. It was, and is a disgrace...a new low in politics....Fuck Rudy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Quinn]

So, K, I take it you'll be voting for Rudy then :lol: See, to me, this is actually a good thing. Unlike the far Right on this forum, we aren't robots who simply parrot one another, no matter how idiotic or uninformed the assertion.

Anyway, to the original issue, my support of Giuliani, in part, stems from the belief that his at times authoritarian style may be the only thing that will be able to fix this nation after Bush's disaster of a presidency is over. I firmly believe that if we get a run of the mill president, Republican or Democrat, who can't push through the perpetual gridlock, we are truly fucked -- particularly when you look at our underlying economic fundamentals.

Curiosity, K, who on the Democratic side are you for (Hillary, Obama, Biden, etc.) and why? Personally, I find Obama inspiring and like a number of his policies. He appeals to the idealist in me. I am, however, waiting for some clarification on a few policy points. Anyway, in the end, for me, it comes down to Giuliani or Obama -- each for very different reasons.

-Quinn

[ps911fan]

The post about Rudy really captures more of what I wanted to say as well...but Quinn...lets do a real issue thing here on Rudy......

I ask with all seriousness, elaborate exactly what did Rudy G do on 9/11 that was worthy of the reputation trumped up for him on security.

I want you to really address it as straight as you can....but before you do let me put a few things down and ask for clarification:

You DID NOT address the positioning of the Command Center in the World Trade Center.....this is still considered a massive blunder.

NYC does not have a military force, and Rudy did not have to respond to the attacks.

Rudy, I believe behaved as a responsible mayor would, but his actions at the mike are not worthy of being a "security expert".

Rudy did not manage the Ground Zero cleanup project

Rudy, as mayor, was respnsible for the communications equipment snafus that were glaring in causing the deaths of police and firefighters.

Rudy as mayor, was at a mike regularly giving death totals and reporting to the press. This was most of what the did outside of having vehicles inspected as they returned to NYC.

Going further beyond that, Guiliani wage an overly aggressive war against the homeless (not against homelessnes, but the people themselves). Homeless were routinely subject to city-wide roundups using police-state tactics. Giuliani's beliefs and methods in addressing homelessness are not the beliefs of a liberal.

What's worse, Giuliani is much like Bush in his refusal to follow any law but his own. Giuliani's administration was found to have violated New Yorker's 1st Amendment freedoms 17 times as of March 2000

http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=FA081EF635590C7B8EDDAA0894D8404482

Giuliani cannot be confused as a liberal or moderate. He's a hardliner on many issues important to governance. Were it not for September 11th, he would have gone down as a mediocre, tyrannical mayor at best.

Giuliani did NOT take a liberal stance on all hot-button social issues. In particular, he blew several gaskets over the "Virgin Mary/Elephant Dung" painting, threatening to withhold city funding from the Bklyn Museum. It was both thuggish AND reactionary-conservative.


This chart also breaks down his "record" regarding 9/11

GIULIANI'S 9/11 FAILURES

A. PRIOR TO 9/11

1. IGNORING THE FBI - When the WTC was attacked in 1993 and we had a President who actually captured and killed EVERY person responsible for those attacks, the FBI released a series of recommendations to NYC to follow in the mid 1990s. But Giuliani, by that point replacing a competent Bill Bratton with an incompetent Howard Safir (and later third grade detective and door holder Bernie Kerik) put his ego (Giuliani is an incompetent leader and only feels secure around people even more incompetent) ahead of security and snubbed his nose at the FBI. Had these recommendations been implemented, more American lives in NYC would have been saved on 9/11.

2. FIREFIGHTER EQUIPMENT - Part of those recommendations were to give the firefighters radio equipment to communicate from ground to air. Those on the ground knew that the WTC would collapse 15-20 minutes down the road. IF the firefighters had the proper radio equipment, they would have been told to get out. Instead, they climbed to their death.

3. The COMMAND CENTER IN THE SKY - Only an idiot builds a command center 23 stories in the sky next to a major target of terrorists AFTER being told by the FBI NOT TO. Had there been an operational command center on 9/11, more lives would have been saved.

4. COORDINATION OF DEPARTMENTS - Again Giuliani the incompetent ignored the FBI recommendations to coordinate police with fire and EMT. Instead, we had a bunch of people running around not knowing what to do. This indecisiveness and confusion cost lives on 9/11.

B. GIULIANI ON 9/11

1. INTRODUCTION - Of the 3 categories, Giuliani will get his highest marks here by default. What Giuliani does best is speak to the camera and he did that well. But giving press conferences as opposed to taking meaningful actions are two different things. And keep in mind that with Bush reading My Pet Goat, ANYBODY would have looked good compared to Bush.

2. RUNNING AROUND, DOING NOTHING - From 8:46 am to 10:00 am was the time for Giuliani to be a leader. And Giuliani failed. He spent the time wandering the streets of lower Manhattan aimlessly not knowing what to do. He was lost and clueless. (The press conferences came later.)

3. SCREWING THE FIREFIGHTERS - Giuliani and his brass had the opportunity to save lives but didn't. Instead they got word that the WTC might collapse. Instead of captains taking 2 extra minutes to help their sailors, Giuliani decided to jump ship without the thought of trying to send word to the firefighter to get out of the buildings.

C. AFTER 9/11

1. EPA CORRUPTION - Giuliani and the Bush administration concealed environmental hazards and air conditions at 9/11 basically sending rescue workers to their deaths down the road. This is shameful.

2. LAWSUITS - Instead of helping the victims of 9/11 recover, Giuliani and Bush have been preventing these plaintiffs from getting what they are entitled to. Hero my ass.

3. PROFITTING OFF 9/11 - It's been well documented how Giuliani has exploited this tragedy for personal profit. The thing is Giuliani didn't do anything.

4. STEALING 9/11 VICTIM FUND MONEY - This is the one that should destroy Giuliani. To have the chutzpah to take money meant for the widows of 9/11 and redirecting it to his cronies is unforgivable.

5. TRIED SUSPENDING DEMOCRACY - If the terrorists hate us for our freedom, they sure must love Giuliani for Rudy tried to extend his term as mayor for 3 extra months.

6. IGNORING BIN LADEN, PRAISING BUSH During the 2004 convention, Giuliani said "Thank God George W Bush is our president." (I'd love for Democrats to make a commercial out of that in 2008 if Giuliani did get the nomination.) But what pissed New Yorkers off most is how Giuliani didn't give a flying __ about capturing Bin Laden and instead being a cheerleader for unrelated policies. New Yorkers want Bin Laden dead and Giuliani gave us a big middle finger.

Ok, now i await a reasoned dialogue that Rudy G was the great person you imagine he is......I disagre and I think the issues alone disqualify him.

He has no idea about foreign policy nor has shown an interest in it. And again, he was the mayor of NYC, not a position that requires the ability to handle national issues.

look forward to your comments.



So, K, I take it you'll be voting for Rudy then :lol: See, to me, this is actually a good thing. Unlike the far Right on this forum, we aren't robots who simply parrot one another, no matter how idiotic or uninformed the assertion.

Anyway, to the original issue, my support of Giuliani, in part, stems from the belief that his at times authoritarian style may be the only thing that will be able to fix this nation after Bush's disaster of a presidency is over. I firmly believe that if we get a run of the mill president, Republican or Democrat, who can't push through the perpetual gridlock, we are truly fucked -- particularly when you look at our underlying economic fundamentals.

Curiosity, K, who on the Democratic side are you for (Hillary, Obama, Biden, etc.) and why? Personally, I find Obama inspiring and like a number of his policies. He appeals to the idealist in me. I am, however, waiting for some clarification on a few policy points. Anyway, in the end, for me, it comes down to Giuliani or Obama -- each for very different reasons.

-Quinn

[specialk]

The post about Rudy really captures more of what I wanted to say as well...but Quinn...lets do a real issue thing here on Rudy......

I ask with all seriousness, elaborate exactly what did Rudy G do on 9/11 that was worthy of the reputation trumped up for him on security.

I want you to really address it as straight as you can....but before you do let me put a few things down and ask for clarification:

You DID NOT address the positioning of the Command Center in the World Trade Center.....this is still considered a massive blunder.

NYC does not have a military force, and Rudy did not have to respond to the attacks.

Rudy, I believe behaved as a responsible mayor would, but his actions at the mike are not worthy of being a "security expert".

Rudy did not manage the Ground Zero cleanup project

Rudy, as mayor, was respnsible for the communications equipment snafus that were glaring in causing the deaths of police and firefighters.

Rudy as mayor, was at a mike regularly giving death totals and reporting to the press. This was most of what the did outside of having vehicles inspected as they returned to NYC.

Going further beyond that, Guiliani wage an overly aggressive war against the homeless (not against homelessnes, but the people themselves). Homeless were routinely subject to city-wide roundups using police-state tactics. Giuliani's beliefs and methods in addressing homelessness are not the beliefs of a liberal.

What's worse, Giuliani is much like Bush in his refusal to follow any law but his own. Giuliani's administration was found to have violated New Yorker's 1st Amendment freedoms 17 times as of March 2000

http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=FA081EF635590C7B8EDDAA0894D8404482

Giuliani cannot be confused as a liberal or moderate. He's a hardliner on many issues important to governance. Were it not for September 11th, he would have gone down as a mediocre, tyrannical mayor at best.

Giuliani did NOT take a liberal stance on all hot-button social issues. In particular, he blew several gaskets over the "Virgin Mary/Elephant Dung" painting, threatening to withhold city funding from the Bklyn Museum. It was both thuggish AND reactionary-conservative.


This chart also breaks down his "record" regarding 9/11

GIULIANI'S 9/11 FAILURES

A. PRIOR TO 9/11

1. IGNORING THE FBI - When the WTC was attacked in 1993 and we had a President who actually captured and killed EVERY person responsible for those attacks, the FBI released a series of recommendations to NYC to follow in the mid 1990s. But Giuliani, by that point replacing a competent Bill Bratton with an incompetent Howard Safir (and later third grade detective and door holder Bernie Kerik) put his ego (Giuliani is an incompetent leader and only feels secure around people even more incompetent) ahead of security and snubbed his nose at the FBI. Had these recommendations been implemented, more American lives in NYC would have been saved on 9/11.

2. FIREFIGHTER EQUIPMENT - Part of those recommendations were to give the firefighters radio equipment to communicate from ground to air. Those on the ground knew that the WTC would collapse 15-20 minutes down the road. IF the firefighters had the proper radio equipment, they would have been told to get out. Instead, they climbed to their death.

3. The COMMAND CENTER IN THE SKY - Only an idiot builds a command center 23 stories in the sky next to a major target of terrorists AFTER being told by the FBI NOT TO. Had there been an operational command center on 9/11, more lives would have been saved.

4. COORDINATION OF DEPARTMENTS - Again Giuliani the incompetent ignored the FBI recommendations to coordinate police with fire and EMT. Instead, we had a bunch of people running around not knowing what to do. This indecisiveness and confusion cost lives on 9/11.

B. GIULIANI ON 9/11

1. INTRODUCTION - Of the 3 categories, Giuliani will get his highest marks here by default. What Giuliani does best is speak to the camera and he did that well. But giving press conferences as opposed to taking meaningful actions are two different things. And keep in mind that with Bush reading My Pet Goat, ANYBODY would have looked good compared to Bush.

2. RUNNING AROUND, DOING NOTHING - From 8:46 am to 10:00 am was the time for Giuliani to be a leader. And Giuliani failed. He spent the time wandering the streets of lower Manhattan aimlessly not knowing what to do. He was lost and clueless. (The press conferences came later.)

3. SCREWING THE FIREFIGHTERS - Giuliani and his brass had the opportunity to save lives but didn't. Instead they got word that the WTC might collapse. Instead of captains taking 2 extra minutes to help their sailors, Giuliani decided to jump ship without the thought of trying to send word to the firefighter to get out of the buildings.

C. AFTER 9/11

1. EPA CORRUPTION - Giuliani and the Bush administration concealed environmental hazards and air conditions at 9/11 basically sending rescue workers to their deaths down the road. This is shameful.

2. LAWSUITS - Instead of helping the victims of 9/11 recover, Giuliani and Bush have been preventing these plaintiffs from getting what they are entitled to. Hero my ass.

3. PROFITTING OFF 9/11 - It's been well documented how Giuliani has exploited this tragedy for personal profit. The thing is Giuliani didn't do anything.

4. STEALING 9/11 VICTIM FUND MONEY - This is the one that should destroy Giuliani. To have the chutzpah to take money meant for the widows of 9/11 and redirecting it to his cronies is unforgivable.

5. TRIED SUSPENDING DEMOCRACY - If the terrorists hate us for our freedom, they sure must love Giuliani for Rudy tried to extend his term as mayor for 3 extra months.

6. IGNORING BIN LADEN, PRAISING BUSH During the 2004 convention, Giuliani said "Thank God George W Bush is our president." (I'd love for Democrats to make a commercial out of that in 2008 if Giuliani did get the nomination.) But what pissed New Yorkers off most is how Giuliani didn't give a flying __ about capturing Bin Laden and instead being a cheerleader for unrelated policies. New Yorkers want Bin Laden dead and Giuliani gave us a big middle finger.

Ok, now i await a reasoned dialogue that Rudy G was the great person you imagine he is......I disagre and I think the issues alone disqualify him.

He has no idea about foreign policy nor has shown an interest in it. And again, he was the mayor of NYC, not a position that requires the ability to handle national issues.

look forward to your comments.



So, K, I take it you'll be voting for Rudy then :lol: See, to me, this is actually a good thing. Unlike the far Right on this forum, we aren't robots who simply parrot one another, no matter how idiotic or uninformed the assertion.

Anyway, to the original issue, my support of Giuliani, in part, stems from the belief that his at times authoritarian style may be the only thing that will be able to fix this nation after Bush's disaster of a presidency is over. I firmly believe that if we get a run of the mill president, Republican or Democrat, who can't push through the perpetual gridlock, we are truly fucked -- particularly when you look at our underlying economic fundamentals.

Curiosity, K, who on the Democratic side are you for (Hillary, Obama, Biden, etc.) and why? Personally, I find Obama inspiring and like a number of his policies. He appeals to the idealist in me. I am, however, waiting for some clarification on a few policy points. Anyway, in the end, for me, it comes down to Giuliani or Obama -- each for very different reasons.

-Quinn


I see nothing here I don't agrree with, good job ps991fan


To Quinn:

We already have a n authoritarian in the Oval Office.....he's a dissaster, why would we need another one just like him?...Do you really think Rudy is more honest? has the best interest if the working class people?..I say no, he's more of the same, and always a danger when jerks of his ilk have a congressional majority to work with. I fear that type of power.

As far as the Dems?...for me Ill vote for whomever gets the nod, as long as it's not Kerry. My only hesitation for Obama is his lack of experience. Gov. Richardson would make a great Pres. I like Chris Dodd, not because he's from Ct. either. He's smart, experienced and speaks well when given a forum. Alas, the early start and big money up front will ruin the chances for other candidates.....and this is by design.

[guyone]

As far as the Dems?...for me Ill vote for whomever gets the nod


What a good little bolshevik.

[specialk]

As far as the Dems?...for me Ill vote for whomever gets the nod


What a good little bolshevik.

:twisted:

[Quinn]

ps911fan, let’s begin by addressing a few of the more obvious issues first – issues are trust are more your own thoughts and assertions than the second half of your post:

1.

Giuliani cannot be confused as a liberal or moderate. He's a hardliner on many issues important to governance.


Giuliani did NOT take a liberal stance on all hot-button social issues. In particular, he blew several gaskets over the "Virgin Mary/Elephant Dung" painting, threatening to withhold city funding from the Bklyn Museum. It was both thuggish AND reactionary-conservative.
Given that no one – anywhere – has EVER claimed Giuliani took a liberal stance on “all hot-button issues,” I’m not really sure what your point is. I am, however, curious as to what criteria you are applying when you state that “Giuliani cannot be confused as a liberal or moderate.” The Republican Party’s establishment certainly doesn’t regard him as a conservative. Rather, he has had numerous problems with the party’s leadership because of his moderate positions on a number of hot-button issues. Furthermore, his traditional base of support comes from the moderate wing of the party and from independents, not the far Right – whose wide-scale support at the national level is a recent phenomenon. Still, let’s look at just some of his moderate polices:

1) Though he does not support gay marriage, during his term as mayor, he was a strong advocate of gay rights and did much to advance the standing of said community. To use but one example, when the Democratic city council didn’t want to recognize domestic partnerships for city workers, it was Giuliani who pushed the issue. This is hardly a conservative stance, but rather reflects the moderate position taken by the majority of Americans.
2) He is pro-choice – hardly a conservative position.
3) He supports a combination of increased border security and worker permits with earned citizenship. Again, conservative elements of the Republican Party are critical of this position and the so-called amnesty it offers. Moreover, during his term as the mayor of NYC, he was known as an advocate of immigrant rights who took on the federal government in court over INS requirements that illegal aliens be reported.
4) He supports embryonic stem cell research. Conservative Republicans do not.

I can go on listing policies on hot-button issues that are not conservative, but don’t wish to belabor the point – or waste page space. Though some of his positions are most certainly conservative, the totality of his policies are definitely not those of a conservative Republican, not by a long shot. Numerous polls can be cited to support the prevalence of this perception among both Republicans and non-Republicans, but let’s look at what Gallup recently had to say regarding Republican support:

An analysis of Republicans' primary nomination preferences in recent Gallup Polls show that while conservative Republicans are less likely to support Rudy Giuliani than liberal or moderate Republicans, the former New York City mayor is the clear leader among both groups. John McCain, who is in second among both groups, also fares slightly better among moderates than conservatives. Though well behind the two leaders, Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney are much more likely to be supported by conservatives than moderates and liberals.

2.

Were it not for September 11th, he would have gone down as a mediocre, tyrannical mayor at best.
Name one mayor between Laguardia and Giuliani who was remotely as effective. Dinkens? Koch? Beame? Lindsay? It’s not even close. Most of the preceeding mayors were inept clowns who helped put NYC in such dire straits that it was widely regarded as ungovernable by the early 90s. Still, let’s look at just a few of the Giuliani administration’s more notable successes:

1) Turning a 2.5 billion budget deficit into a multi-billion dollar surplus.
2) Aggressively seeking the return of the many businesses that had fled NYC in previous decades. Its success in this matter was key to restoring the city’s tax base and also helped lay the foundation for NYC’s unparalleled urban renewal.
3) Attracting businesses to the city allowed for a record 450,000 new private sector jobs to be created in seven years (unemployment went down 45.2% overall) – a truly impressive accomplishment.
4) Record setting crime reduction was a major component of the Giuliani administration’s success. CompStat was largely responsible for this success (a 75% reduction in subway felonies, a 67.9% reduction in murders, a 69.3% reduction in vehicle thefts, etc.) and has even been credited for the majority of crime reduction by Giuliani opponents like the NY Times. I can go on, but the fact that he was nominated for the Nobel Prize in 2005 for his work to reduce crime in NYC says it all.
5) The Giuliani administration’s urban renewal efforts combined with the return of businesses brought the tourists back to NYC in record numbers.
6) The burden in city taxes on a family of four earning $75K was reduced 19.3% during his administration; for a family of four earning $50K, it was reduced 23.7%; for a family for four earning $25K, it was reduced 33.9%.

I can go on and on, but it really isn’t necessary. The simple fact is the Giuliani administration’s record far surpasses that of any previous mayoral administration up until LaGuardia’s. You can compare it to that of any other big-city mayoral administration in the US during the same time period. Once again, no matter which city you pick, you’ll find it’s not even close.

3.

He has no idea about foreign policy nor has shown an interest in it. And again, he was the mayor of NYC, not a position that requires the ability to handle national issues.
I’m not sure what you’re basing this assertion on, but NYC mayors have a long history of conducting their own foreign policy on behalf of America’s most international city. Whether you’re talking about Dinkins using his position as mayor to fight against Apartheid or Giuliani speaking before the UN, New York City mayors get more foreign policy experience than the governors of all but the largest coastal states (California, etc.). That leaves him at least as qualified on foreign policy as numerous Republicans and Democrats who have run for the presidency. To use but one example, Bill Clinton was governor of Arkansas.

4.
Now, to the Sept. 11th portion of your post. To be honest with you, I’m disappointed and more than a bit underwhelmed. Lazily cutting a bunch of crap from a fringe blog without understanding it, checking its accuracy, or being able to support it is just stupid:

http://blog.christopherblair.net/?cat=66

Weren’t you the one who posted this:


Besides the excellent dirty work the MSM and the RW'ers have done to poison her and her reputation, I'd like to know the invidiual's opinion..not Hannity's or Rush or whoever.

Given that I’ve long opposed those two idiots, I didn’t have any issue with this post. I am, however, amazed that you would then post some sourceless piece of detritus that actually manages to make the aforementioned idiots look like paradigms of veracity and accuracy by comparison. Seriously, “Stealing 911 victim fund money” – and that’s one of the more benign outright lies contained in that post. It’s like this was written by some 15-year-old kid who never read a thing about Sept. 11th, but just spouted nonsense off of the tops of his head.

The unfortunate thing is this takes away from any discussion of the few distorted yet substantive issues actually touched upon. Then again, that is the purpose behind shit like this, isn’t it? I’ve long attacked the far Right on this forum for proceeding in such an intellectually vapid manner. It’s regrettable that you’ve chosen to adopt a similar approach. At this point, I don’t see any reason to proceed further.

-Quinn

[ps911fan]

Let me deal with your response in two ways......one i like that you try to offer facts to support someone you obviously support way more than you claim here. I don't have a problem if you decide to vote for Rudy G, but the problem that I guess I do have is the idea that as hard as you tried to counter me on Rudy G, you willingly without question accept as fact the current line you speak on Hillary Clinton. I find that something that troubles me.

I also find it troubling that you absolutely skip and refuse to deal with his 9/11 failures. Its ok if you can't deal or choose not to deal with those issues but they are there and you cannot pretend they exist. This is what the nation unfortunately has seen regarding Rudy G. You will not answer how doing his job turns him into a "security expert". You need gain credibility on this issue quickly to support the rest of a sagging narrartive.
It will not be me you will have to deal with on this in the upcoming months, the American people will look behind the image and come up empty. You fail to deal with the idea that Rudy did market himself on the backs of the dead to increase his wealth, politcal prestige, and alleged "security knowledge"...but the narrative falls woefully short when you ask the tough questions. You fail to acknowledge that the media is complicit especially Time who lacked the editorial courage to put the real newsmaker on their cover, Osama Bin Ladin, because of loss of profit concerns over editorial integrity. The media, without proof, irrationally offer nothing but platitudes on Rudy's security "credentials". Again, this will not stand up on scrutiny.




The firemen and others also strongly resist "America's Mayor" and his running on 9/11.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070330/ap_on_el_pr/giuliani911


I will not give shrift to your post about the mayor's foreign policy....its a good try, but swing and a miss for relevance.....sorry, but I know you want that to be so, but the reason I don't try to take that on is that I don't know a reasonable person who would buy such an assertion on your part.

The Mayor of NYC is a pretigious position but it does not hold any policy responsibility. He does speak for the city but this is no different than any other mayor. Its just that NYC is our most populous and most active city that gives you that illusion.


I see you can only tout his mayoral success and while I disagree with the assertion that this makes him a qualified presidental candidate it seems to be pretty impressive on paper. Over the next few months, the serious background vetting is coming. I do not believe his "successes" will hold up under greater scruitny. You COULD challenge me that the Clintons cannot hold up on scruitny. But you would be in errror on many issues as the right has tried (and succeded in some ways) to paint the Senator as the "inevitable candidate" and as some "ppwer hungry monster". McCains quest for power is ignored and Romney is also given said pass despite constantly seen to do anything to get elected and his flip flops.

His handling of the Diallo and the shootings of African American's on his watch (the wallet as gun issue) also deserves more scrutiny as to his authoritarian management style.


Here is additional info on the Keric/Rudy connection ......this will get mega scrutiny

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/30/AR2007033002425.html?hpid=topnews

Rudy has intimate knowledge of Keric, one would think as the two have worked hand in hand for many years, yet he still put this criminal up to be the Homeland Security chief. That is very BAD and STUPID judgement. It could also be cronyism.

The Michigan Dems also provide links to rudy's own flip flops....here is a link......this also demonstrates his public deficit of leadership skills....not quite Mitt Romney but certainly in the same neighborhood...

http://www.michigandems.com//031607prs.html

A little ditty from Alternet sourcing some of the reasons Rudy G isnt so squeaky clean as his 9/11 image

http://www.alternet.org/election04/19673/

Listen to the responders who were put in horrible conditions...where was the leadershiip......?

http://www.archive.org/download/wewerealsokilledver2/wewerealsokilled911nyc2006lan.wmv


This is just a mere sampling of the questions being asked and will be asked of "america's mayor".

I simply hold up to you that you are welcome as you already know to support Rudy G, but you are going to get blown away by the revelations.


And we haven't even gotten to his lemming support for Bush policies and his strong support of Iraq despite it not being a result of the events he claims to his credit. That must be questioned as well.


He is not worthy of election. But you seem to want to go that way. Have fun with that one....but the debate im sure will continue until he is run out of the campagn, I also ask that you stay sincere about it and quit making it seem that there is a "choice" going on in your head. Your postings and actions defy that assertion as clearly as can be.

Regarding the chart. I did not claim it as my own but I did not source it from the link you posted. If that is the original source, then I say glad you found it. I found my post of the same chart in a dailykos posting. I do like sourced information as much as you do, but this chart is in agreement with many of my concerns is the only reason I used it but I will counter that some assertions need more backing.......but don't try to denigrate me when you are in the process of or have already sipped deeply of the anti-Hillary Clinton koolaid. I know it has not taken complete effect because we can have a measured debate here.....but you are buying it and I resent that but will not make it my issue here.

[chefmike]

I think that John Edwards could pull an upset during the primaries like Clinton did...if not, he's certainly in the top tier for VP nod.

Anything can happen during the primaries...and personally, I would vote for John Edwards with no hesitation, if he were the nominee.

[chefmike]

As far as the Dems?...for me Ill vote for whomever gets the nod


What a good little bolshevik.

And what a good little bushevik. :P

[guyone]

Damn straight there partner...

[trish]

Damn straight there partner...

and a good little coward, just like your master.

[guyone]

Not half the coward you are! At least I can think for myself. I don't rely on getting all my opinions from bolshevik party central.

[trish]

Not half the coward you are!

that's right...you're 10 times the fuckin' coward i am...and i'm quite a coward. but then i'm not telling everyone we gotta referee a civil war in Iraq either.


I don't rely on getting all my opinions from bolshevik party central.

we know you don't honey. we can always find you sitting in front of the fox megaphone, your cute little puppy ears cocked, getting your head filled with the daily whitehouse talking points. it's carl rove who refined brainwashing to the fine art it is today.

[qeuqheeg222]

trish dont fergit imus in the mernin and rush!!bill orally and the fair and balanced crew....

[guyone]

Horse puckey!