I have a headache.

Hello Newshole, now you have two threads with zero comments? Please, post our comments or don't bother putting up another thread, this is horrible.

Hey Countdown -- This rocks -- I especially enjoyed your final analysis --

“So whether you be Democrat or Republican, the fate of your candidate could rest in California.
Or somewhere else.
Or not at all.
As we said, it could all change in an instant. Which is a good part of what keeps it all so interesting!”

You’re starting to sound a little bit like me, Countdown.  Or do I sound a little bit like you?  Do you have a copy of the advanced liberal manual?  No, you’re a true conservative.  Or are those the same?  So confusing, really.  That’s why it’s so interesting.

Goodnight gracie.

For all you Obama supporters I have a question.  What has he accomplished in his political career to think that he should even be considered for the Presidency?  I have a feeling that is a hard question for anyone to answer.  

And IF you wish in one hand and spit in the other, which fills up quicker?

Old Auntie is frustrated already with this super tuesday business. Night before last I had multiple "polling" calls between midnight and 1 am and yesterday before I from the time I got up until I finally fell asleep there were 13.  
Now this is rediculous. nearly 20 calls in less than 24hrs.  All asking questions about what I thought of the candidates and one punk (his voice was breaking) asking me to spell Obama and Clintons full names.  I finally told one idiot that if I got one more call from them I'm voting for Keith Olbermann!<G>  If I'd really been snotty about it I'd have asked for his name and said I was voting for him.

We can't keep electing people who are against big government to run the government -- they only try harder to make it fail, and then say "See, big government doesn't work!".  

We have to elect someone who wants the job AND who wants to do it right AND who understands that Religion has no place in government and Government has no place in the Church/Mosque/Temple.  

They are separate for a reason and we should keep them separate -- otherwise we might not agree with the one religion that will win.

There are 375 days until the end of this regime on 1/20/2009
There are 360 days until the end of this Congress on 1/5/2009
There are 298 days until election day -- 11/4/2008

There are still more primaries to come.   Evaluate ALL the candidates and think wisely before you vote.
And we are counting down.

I think we ought to have some discussion on how endorsements are going to affect the remainder of the democratic primary season.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/11/us/politics/11obama.html?ref=politics

For example, Senator John Kerry just endorsed Senator Obama.  Does this help or hurt Senator Obama?  Does it help or hurt Senator Clinton and Senator Edwards?

Will Kerry’s association with Obama hurt Edwards by being viewed as a brush-off?  Or, will Edwards view it as an opportunity to separate himself from Kerry.  I heard they didn’t get along much anyway after Kerry refused to contest Ohio in 2004.

Same issue with Clinton.  I doubt that she and Kerry are going to get along any better after this, for sure.

Does the Kerry endorsement of Obama make him seem more viable as a candidate, or does it actually hurt Obama more than it helps?  Apparently, right-wing talk show pundits are already all over it, calling them “liberal soulmates.”  Beyond the obvious pejorative “liberal” tag, does this have a subliminal racist connotation, as well?  Will the endorsement cause the “swift-boat” element to train itself on Obama, whose foreign policy experience and understanding of the military may be open to legitimate question?  Could this hurt him in open primary states?  This impact could be significant.

If the swift-boat element does train on Obama, whom does it help more?  Can Clinton defend her own record on Iraq better?  How about Edwards?  Will his 10-month troop withdrawal plan now come under tougher scrutiny?  

Just a few questions.  Food for thought, really, as we head toward super duper Tuesday.

Gee, all this mapping is interesting and makes for some good conversation but it sure can be as confusing as what tie looks best on Keith. I think I'll ignore it (the mapping scenarios and the tie controversy) and just watch this race as it all plays out. Suffice it to say that in both primary elections the winner needs the deciding delegate counts, and frankly, I really dont care what color ties Keith wears.    

Post Republican Debate (Senator Thompson Hears a Who Edition)

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/11/us/politics/11repubs.html?ref=politics

Wow.  From what I’ve seen and heard, Senator Thompson finally woke up from his “I’m not that interested in running for president” trance and brought his hard-edged legal skills to bear on Governor Hugabee last night, trying to paint Baby Bear as a LIBERAL.

(Of course, in his appearance on MSNBC this morning, Governor Hugabee denied this.  Good.  I don’t want to start associating liberals with the opposite of Metamucil.  I don’t know exactly where that would fit in my advanced liberal manual, anyway.)

But my favorite Thompsonism from the debate is labeling Governor Hugabee a LIBERAL because, among other things, he wanted to sign a law restricting smoking.  This was cause for Senator Thompson to say, “That’s not the model of the Reagan coalition, that’s the model of the Democratic Party.”  

So.  I guess Senator Thompson meant that being against smoking is anti-American or something.  Guilty as charged, Senator.  Like being against asbestos in insulation and lead in food products and toys.  No wonder you weren’t talking before.  The more you talk, the deeper you go.  Me likey.

You'd have to think that Hillary (post N.H.) would take Massachusetts, and Obama (post S.C.) would take Georgia.  Which means it comes down to an ad war in California.

You'd also have to think that predicting anything would not be the strong suit of anybody right about now. ;)  Hell, Massachusetts could vote for Jon Papelbon right now, and it wouldn't surprise me.  (No foreign policy experience, but the man can *dance*.)  

Allochthon -- Awesome video on the previous thread.  My generous thanks.  

mad in Madtown -- I’m sorry, I missed that. The pink tie was because Countdown DIDN’T make Chris Mathews the worst person in the world.  Of course.  Thanks for clarifying.  But the pink tie itself still … worked, didn’t you think?  

Endorsements are like...uh, hairdo's, everybody has one, or a wig. Some are worth more than others. To put this in perspective, let me just break it down for you. Oprah's is worth a hundred Dr. Phil's. Kerry's is worth ten Dan Quayle's. Liberace's, were he still alive, would be worth three Barney Frank's. Madeline Albright's is worth two Condoleeza Rice's and a Henry Kissinger. Martha Stewart's is worth a Unibomber's and twelve Gitmo Detainee's. Rush Limbaugh's is worth any six Major League Baseball Steroid Abuser's. Britter's is worth two Lindsy Lohan's and one Paris Hilton's, at least for now. And finally, the women on the View's endorsements, are worth the same as the Staff of the Bunny Ranch. Now you know exactly, how much importance to place on 'endorsements'.

Lots of news at Huffington Post, including a story about Keith..

http://www.huffingtonpost.com

For all you Obama supporters I have a question.  What has he accomplished in his political career to think that he should even be considered for the Presidency?  I have a feeling that is a hard question for anyone to answer.  
Mark, AZ (Sent Friday, January 11, 2008 12:02 AM)

For the record, Mark, I'm not a hard-core Obama supporter, although by demographic I lean that way.  But here is some info for you on some of his accomplishments and goals while in the U. S. Senate.  If you can give me a few minutes, I'll dig up his legislative record from the Illinois Senate. I'll try to get primary source information, as opposed to going to the candidate's websites

http://obama.senate.gov/

All of the Democratic candidates are well qualified, thoughtful, articulate (and boy, isn't that a nice change?) and dynamic.  Any one of them would make a fine Chief Executive.  As Carol has repeatedly suggested, examine all of them carefully and chose wisely.  

On a serious note though, Super Tuesday will be important in who will be the top runner. Hillary Clinton is in my neighborhood today speaking to a group of electrical workers. She needs the unions in So. CA and the Hispanic vote.

Anna Molly (: (Sent Friday, January 11, 2008 10:22 AM)

Anna, there you go again misinterpreting conservative thought.  Liberals can be against smoking all they want, what bothers us is when you try to dictate behavior – conservatives like our freedoms.

Why is it that liberals find it necessary to restrict freedoms of others - especially when you are wrong on just about everything?

Mark, AZ (12:02 AM Post):

This is not an endorsement of Obama but let me try and answer your question if I can.

First, if I may, let me state that perhaps your question should be "what opportunities has Obama had to show what he can acccomplish versus other candidates? I responded in this manner as based on your question it is apparent you already feel that Obama has accomplished very little. On the other hand Mark, when one considers the claim by other candidates that they have much more experience then Obama one must then assume that they are also stating they have had many more opportunities by way of this experience to accomplish something positive or to have made positive differernces. So in addition to the question what opportunities has Obama had to show what he can accomplish we might want to preface that question with another question, what have been the positive accomplishments of the other candidates who claim themselves to have had many more opportunities to make a difference?

Now let's look at where we are today. In my opinion although still living in the greatest country in the world our country has many problems. They can be identified by the deep divisions in this country, the continued grip that special interests have on this country, the continued involvement in an unwinnable police action in Iraq, the lack of a proper health care plan for people of this country, the lack of proper campaign finance reform, an outmoded and failing educational system, an outdated and unfair tax system, a negative reputation with many other countries througout the world, etc, etc.

Now of the current candidates running for office who by way of their claim to the experience fame and who have had more opportunities then Obama to correct or make improvements on these issues, who should we be questioning as to what they have accomplished?  Should it be Obama although other candidates insist he has not had the experience and therefore has not had the opportunities to make improvements, or should it be those candidates who claim they have the most experience and therefore have also had greater number of oppoprtunities to make a difference?  Might some of these people not be McCain (a long time senator), Hillary, who claims she has more experience and involvement in one finger then what Obama has had in his entire career? In fact, name one candidate running for political office who has had less opportunity to accompolish something and to make a  difference. I don't think you can find one. But you can certainly find several who have laid claim to having the most experience. Unfortunately for these people, in my mind, this also leads me to believe that if we take them at their word about their expeirence, especially anyone who claims they have had influence and/or particpation in the whitehouse, they have had more oportunity to accompolish then Obama but have accomplished very little.  

All this leads me to my question. Do we seek someone who has had little opportunity to accomplsh improvements and therefore has accomplshed very little, or do we seek someone who has had many opportunities to accomplish improvements (based on the own claims of experience) and who have also accomplished very little. If a candidate wants to claim they have the most experience and therfore the most opportunities to make a difference then my question would be what have these candidate's accomplished? As I see it, those problems I mentioned above have not disappeared. And those who have been around longer with more experience and therefore more opportunities to have made a difference (as they claim) should be the people we hold accountable for not accomplishing much of anything. Not Obama.  

Mark, AZ (Sent Friday, January 11, 2008 12:02 AM)

Hi Mark, AZ -- nice to see you again.  I see your candidate Fred Thompson did very well for himself during the debate last night.  Very presidential, I understand.  Regarding Senator Obama, I don’t consider myself an expert.  I see C A has already started, but I’ll also give it a try because it’s time we start looking closely at the candidates.  

To suggest, as you do, that Senator Obama has no relevant experience is overly simplistic.  For starters, you always have to respect anyone who can get themselves elected to the US Senate. Like Senators Thompson or McCain, for example. You know was educated at Columbia and Harvard.  But in his case, unlike George Bush, some of what he learned appears to have stuck.  He was a successful civil rights lawyer and community activist, and I believe he also taught constitutional law at the U of Chicago Law School.  So, he knows the Constitution, something that George Bush once called “just a piece of paper.”  Indeed.  

Mark, AZ (Sent Friday, January 11, 2008 12:02 AM) (continued)

Obama served several years in the Illinois senate (1997-2004).  As I understand it, he wrote ethics and health care legislation, and also worked on a host of other things, like tax credits for low-income workers, welfare reform, and some criminal issues involving the rights of victims during interrogation, racial profiling during traffic stops, and death penalty reform.  When he later ran for US Senate, he was endorsed by police associations. As I recall it, President Reagan had no legislative experience, nor did George Bush (43).

Obama ran for the US Senate in 2004.  His likely opponent, Jack Ryan, had to drop out in yet another of those messy republican sex scandals.  After that, the repubs brought in Alan Keyes as a pretty cynical strategy to split the black vote.  It didn’t work.  Obama’s keynote speech at the 2004 democratic convention was amazing.  Did you see it?  Like Bill Clinton’s speech in 1988.  So, we know he’s got great communication skills, something George Bush has never been accused of.

Mark, AZ (Sent Friday, January 11, 2008 12:02 AM) (continued)

During his first two years in Congress, Obama sponsored 150+ bills and resolutions.  (Probably about the same number that Bush vetoed in that period.)  He’s been active on immigration, which ought to interest a guy from a border state.  He sponsored the Secure Fence Act.  He made several foreign trips as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee relating to prevention of terrorism by controlling the supply of weapons of all kinds -- conventional, biological, and mass destruction.  He’s been active in Middle East and Africa issues as well, divesting his personal ownership of Sudan-related stock as a gesture of his commitment on these issues.  

In the new Congress, he’s been working with our senator (Feingold) on ethics and lobbying reform.  I understand he has also been active in veterans’ health care issues, government cost reduction, energy independence (with Senator McCain), and health care issues, including SCHIP.  Heaven also knows we need ethics reform, energy independence, and secure health care.

Mark, AZ (Sent Friday, January 11, 2008 12:02 AM) (continued)

Obama was always opposed to the war.  In 2002, he led an anti-war rally in Chicago.  In 2006, he started calling for phased re-deployment of the troops.  He supports aggressive diplomacy and tough sanctions to prevent nuclear weapons proliferation.  Obama has been criticized for voting for war authorization funding, but like me, I’m sure you would not be opposed to voting for giving the troops everything they need to get the job done.

Obama has participated in many activities intended to get democrats to reach out to evangelicals and other persons of faith.  He’s written two best-selling books, which is the same number as Countdown, but two more than I have.  

On the whole, I think you could put Obama’s record up against any of the other candidates remaining in the race without too much apology.  Even now, at the end of Bush’s term, I would not be afraid to compare Obama’s record to Bush’s record.  Not even close.  Thanks for asking, Mark.  This was fun.  Junior journalism, for sure.  Now back to work.

Now you know exactly, how much importance to place on 'endorsements'.
Steve Turner Cedar Falls Iowa (Sent Friday, January 11, 2008 11:14 AM)

LOL!! My sides are aching from laughing so hard; I feel the same --I'm just NO IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM, in the same league as you!!

You my dear friend are brilliant!!

KUDOS, PACE E AMORE!!

I see Rep. Kucinich has called for a recount in New Hampshire.  It appears that the issue of the Dieboldt (did I spell that right?) voting machines HAS been heard and is being acted on accordingly.  I believe this recount is a good idea.

I do not believe Rep. Kucinich is taking this action at the behest of Sen. Obama or to attempt to harm Sen. Clinton, as some people are doubtless saying. I think he is making this step to ensure that the voting process is uncorruptable.  If we cannot trust the election process, if we question every outcome, if we have no faith and trust in our "elected" officials, how do we differ from the regimes of Pinochet, Putin and a host of other nations with "free elections"? When everyone knows it was anything but.

Let's find out NOW if the voting machines can be or were tampered with. Let's not have a replay of "The Chad Dance" (Hanging, Floating, Swinging) of the 2000 election or the 2004 allegations of discrimination, missing or miscounted absentee ballots and provisional ballots.  

So let's have a recount.  I doubt it will change anything - for what it's worth, I believe Sen. Clinton won New Hampshire fair 'n square in a close vote.  But I salute Rep. Kucinich for making this courageous stand.

This may be the most important election in our lifetimes.  We owe it to ourselves, our progeny and our nation to ensure that when the President-Elect raises their hand for the Oath of Office that the pathway to the presidency was pure.

Chris F., Just o'er the border in Williconsinois (Sent Friday, January 11, 2008 1:33 PM)

I agree Chris!! Also, ANYTHING Dennis Kucinich suggests I would back; the man is wonderful and truly beyond reproach!! Thanks for this information; I had not heard the news!!

While I don't think it will change NH one bit; I believe the outcome is correct; both Obama's and Edwards' numbers were right in line with the polls; the polls DID NOT as Pat from Boston explained yesterday, take into account the 40% of undecided voters; they went Clinton’s way; the youth did NOT turn out the way the pollsters predicted, which hurt Obama; therefore, I believe the results are accurate.

However, I also believe if there are irregularities, now is the time to realize them and FIX them!!

PEACE!!

If California is going to be so important, why no coverage of the Voter's Initiative Act, which last I heard, was still being pushed? These dirty tricks need to be exposed before the election, not contested afterward, when it does little good.

Anna Molly (: (Sent Friday, January 11, 2008 1:26 PM)
Anna Molly (: (Sent Friday, January 11, 2008 1:27 PM)
Anna Molly (: (Sent Friday, January 11, 2008 1:28 PM)
Anna Molly (: (Sent Friday, January 11, 2008 1:29 PM)

Nice job.  It was wonderful to see all that together.  Thank you for your "junior journalism" attempt.  It's nice to see that we are all getting down to evaluating ALL the candidates.  Now we all have to think wisely before we vote.  

Anna Molly (: (Sent Friday, January 11, 2008 10:22 AM) Anna, there you go again misinterpreting conservative thought.  Liberals can be against smoking all they want, what bothers us is when you try to dictate behavior – conservatives like our freedoms. Why is it that liberals find it necessary to restrict freedoms of others - especially when you are wrong on just about everything?  scott henderson nv (Sent Friday, January 11, 2008 11:46 AM)

Sigh. Just when I thought we were getting somewhere. That’s right out of the advanced liberal manual (chapter 3).  Someone tries to give you a thoughtful and reasoned response, if slightly ditzy, and even admits to agreeing with you, and you just tell them they’re wrong (trick #4, for anyone who’s keeping track, because I’m not.)

All right.  Straight up, no tricks (until the end).  (FYI - That’s called “foreshadowing,” scott.)  As a genuine liberal, I hope you don’t smoke, having witnessed firsthand what it can do.  I wouldn’t wish that on anyone, not even you.  However, as a “left libertarian” on your own scale, I also recognize it’s not my right to regulate behavior, except to the extent it impacts negatively on others.  Like murder laws.  Smoking drives up health care costs, not only for you (if you really smoke), but for all of us.  Second hand smoke exposure imperils family members or co-workers.  The scientific evidence on this is now pretty clear.  Not to mention, of course, that many people just find second hand smoke noxious.

Liberals are wrong about everything.  Okay, since you said it, I’ll buy it.  You’re always right (authoritarian, if I recall correctly).  I’m the one who’s left (or if you’re on your yacht, that’s port).  Come to think of it, though, wouldn’t an authoritarian rightie like you actually FAVOR regulating people’s behavior -- as long as it’s not your own, of course -- like abortion, gay marriage, and stuff like that?  How do you reconcile the two, scott?  I’m anxious to hear.

To whoever posted the "Sports Night" link.  Thank you.

I used to watch that show every week, even though I only follow one team.  The writing was superb.  TV Guide referred to it as the "best show that no one was watching".  I even remember that episode.  I only found out recently that those two were based on Dan and Keith (which one was which?).  

CA, you have just raised the ultimate question for voters in this year's election. Very well put.
_____________________________________________________

Bill/Rochester: Good luck with the Giants.

CA/AL and Sue/Wisconsin: (where ever you may be!!): Good luck to the Packers.

Independent/Texas: (where ever you may be!!) Good luck with the Cowboys.

Brenda Dalton (where ever you may be!!) Good luck with Jacksonville.

Pat/Boston: Good luck with the Patriots.

Endorsements:

I have to respectfully disagree with some bloggers who state endorcements mean very little. Although this may be true for those who blog here and who tend to do their own thinking it is not necessarily true for many Americans who let others do their thinking for them. I believe endorcements can be very important, especially in a race that is very tight. As to whether an endorsement hurts or helps a candidate that is another matter altogether, but to think they have little bearing on a race I cannot agree. Union endorsements are important as union members tend to be very committed to voting for the candidate who their union endorses. Inndividual endorsements can be important too. It seems that some believe that Carey's endorsement of Obama will mean very little but I am not so sure. I wonder what these same folks would think if Gore were to endorse one of the candidates. Would they then also say that such an endorsement means very little. I also wonder what they would say if Bill Clinton endorsed Obama rather then Hillary. Now don't tell me that would not make a difference. Now please don't reply asnd say that would never happen. I was using it as an example because there is no doubt that some of Hillary's votes are for Bill and not Hillary. In that case Obama has a disadvantage in a way. He is running against two people rather than one. And it is the name Bill Clinton that garners the stronger of the base support. Anyone wish to make a bet. If Gore does endorse one of the candidates (and he may not at all), but if he does, I'll bet it will be Obama.      

Map this Obama for change,map this Hillary for whatever,map this 100 years,map this Peace in the Middle East...Map this all you candidates that have caved in time and time again on stopping the war but hop all over the country talking about what ya gonna do stop the war with no mission but killing by crooks who lay wreaths while saying they would have bombed while making Peace.Yes Map This and When your Done We Will be No Different then the rest of them because most of us sat around and let them do it.They could wait to get out on the campaign trail last defense budget.Yes map this with all your nifty little excuses.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4oEVaTJFJCc&feature=related
Map on map on map on the Angels of Death and It's Leader.The unknown mission of Lord Valdemort Dubya and his 100 year buddies. Well he got his taste for blood in Texas by pulling the switch,no mercy there and once they've killed you know what they say.He must like it.
Of course if they are American Troops he has no time for them or taking care of their pay,or their families,or their Veterans or their Agents,that's for you Joe and Valerie.The Party of the Compassionate Right?How many times did he use that word a few years ago.
Senators and Congressmen get your behinds back to Washington,DC and do your jobs of addressing Americas
problems NOW.That is what we pay you for not some pipe
dream we can hear the local neighborhood bar by Crazy
Guggenheim's view of the world.Your stealing from us by not earning your money to do your jobs and meanwhile folks are dying and n one is watching apparently Map On Maps your all full of Crapp.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4oEVaTJFJCc&feature=related  

Carol, Long Valley NJ (Sent Friday, January 11, 2008 9:54 AM)

Just how big should our Government get?

Big enough to Fine someone who Smokes at Home?

How about before increasing the size of Government, making Government get the Basics right. Secured Borders, Punish Criminals, Keeping Roads and Highways Repaired, Paying off the National Debt.

To become fiscally sound, our Government would have to...

A) Increase Federal Income Taxes 74%
Or
B) Increase Payroll Taxes 103%
Or
C) Cut Federal Spending 115%
Or
D) Cut Social Security and Medicare 47%.
Comptroller General David Walker - Head of the G.A.O.

And that's if we Start in '08, worse if we put it off even longer.
So there is No Money for Big Government, Nor Government Ran Universal Healthcare.

conservatives like our freedoms.

Why is it that liberals find it necessary to restrict freedoms of others - especially when you are wrong on just about everything?

scott henderson nv (Sent Friday, January 11, 2008 11:46 AM)

Freedoms?  bushco gave us the freedom to fear, and if we were not fearful enough, they gave us the Fear Meter to tell us just how fearful we should be.

bushco gave us the freedom to spend ourselves into oblivion-- you do recall Bozo bush after 9/11 telling everyone to continue to spend--- go ahead, max out your credit card, and BTW, bushco knew there are some cheap mortgages out there.  KennyBoy gave bozo some pointers on ignoring signs of stress in the ecomony.

bushco gave us the freedom to ignore the Constitution, after all, it's just a GD piece of paper. Oh, yes.  The Geneva convention, too, with it's quaintness.  

There is so much wrong that it'd be simpler to list the good points----------     Let's see--------
1)                       ... hmmmm Nothing comes to mind.     Oh, yeah       the $38 Billion in corporate bonuses        Did you get any of that, scottnv?

In response to annoying polling calls may I suggest:
1- Why, you writing a book?
2- Why, are they hiring?
3- It's been forty-five minutes! Where's my pizza?
4- Can't talk now! SWAT just took in my door!
5- Can't talk now! I've got L. Ron Hubbard on the other line!
6- Who wants to know?
7- Can't talk now! My line's tapped!
8- I feel awful! I got some bad X.
9- Can't talk now! The damn cat's eating the parrot!
10- Can't talk now! My bran muffin just kicked in!
These, followed by a swift return of the receiver to the base ends the call and let's the caller have an acceptible excuse to give the line boss for your non-response.
Feel free to use any of these or ad lib.

Carol, Long Valley -- Thanks, Carol.  I work full time and don’t usually have the time to study this in depth, but I thought it might be worth a peek.  I was pretty surprised, actually, given the tendency to view Senator Obama as the most inexperienced candidate, just how much experience he has, and how varied it has been, especially the foreign policy experience.  I’m going to take some time over the next couple of weeks to do a little more digging.  Maybe I’ll find out I like Rudy Slippers after all.  All right, maybe not.  LOL

David Molinero (Sent Friday, January 11, 2008 2:44 PM)

Hello David, long time no joust.  Hope you and yours had a pleasant holiday season.  

How big should our government get?  How about big enough to protect regular Americans like ourselves from the corporatocracy that currently runs our country?  

By the way, you were projecting, I never mentioned health care.

I would add one more set of government functions to your list.  I would like to undo all the corporate giveaways in the last 7 years and reestablish the teeth in the EPA, OSHA, MSHA, FCC, DOJ, Dept of Energy etc.  All these agencies were broken by Bush/Cheney and that was what I was ranting about.  

As to solutions, why does it have to be an "or" solution, why not a combination?

How about we try doing something from Columns A, B, C and D.  How about we try some 'pay as you go', instead of 'borrow until the debt is so vast that we'll never climb out of the hole'?  

And lastly, how about if we recognize that others may be different, but not necessarily wrong.  I see the EPA as necessary to protect our environment, the corporatocracy sees it as an obstacle to greater profits.  We're both right, but I'm taking the long view that humans cannot keep polluting the air and water forever.  

I wish you well.  

The Stock Market just went ugly in a fast direction, our soon-to-be-(not soon enough for me!)-former president is legacy shopping in the one region he's done more to de-stabilize than anyone else in recent memory, a beautiful young Marine, allegedly the rape victim of a fellow Marine is found dead in a shallow grave, there are allegations of wide-spread voter fraud in a key primary election . . .

And what odds will anybody give me that this will be the #1 Story Tonight:

"OJ Simpson Back in Jail - Violates Parole"

Please, no. Please?

I am disgusted with the obsession of Countdown and the rest of the media with campaign "news".  I used to watch Countdown to see what was going on in the Administration, the War and Congress.  Now, the show spends more time "Keeping Tabs" on "celebraties" than it does on all 3 of those things put together.  Can we hear more about what's going on in government now, and less about who is going to be president a year from now?

On a lighter note,I will vote Republican when it snows in Baghdad...what?... it is?... really?... today?...My prior comment is no longer operative.

Steve Henderson NV:
Conservative thought is an oxymoron.

gator,stuart,fl (Sent Friday, January 11, 2008 2:55 PM)

I like your list, but you can add some more

~ "no thank you" [click]
~ "I have to put you on hold" then put the phone down and walk away.  Hang it back up later when it starts to beep.  
~ "Let me get your name/address so I know where I can send the bill, I charge $250 an hour for my time. " [they go click everytime]

This is fun, any one else have some good excuses?  

Anna Molly (: (Sent Friday, January 11, 2008 2:09 PM)

Wrong again!  I wonder how you make it to work and such, turning left when you should turn right and all…

I am neither authoritarian nor a social conservative.   If you recall that test I was quite a bit to the right on the horizontal scale, but at zero on the vertical authoritarian, libertarian line.  I think government should stay out of my private life, but ensure a robust capitalist environment.

Liberals on the other hand want to regulate my behavior on everything from smoking, hamburgers, the SUV I drive, my carbon footprint, etc..  You tend to lean socialist, which takes economic power from the people and puts it in the hands of a few elites in government.  By wanting to take economic power away from the people you inhibit our freedoms and force us to rely more heavily on Government.  I personally don’t want to rely on the government for my economic success, doing so ensures failure.  I guess liberals happy to give up their freedoms so to be comfy it the arms their Mommy government…

B. A. Buddusky (Sent Friday, January 11, 2008 2:27 PM)

Amen!! You see, I was supporting Senator Dodd for a while because he DID get back to DC to fight Bush and telephone companies who illegally spied on us; SADLY, he was also given the BOOT by BOTH the MSM and the American people who chose as you stated the other night, "The Pretty People."!!

By the way, I would pick George Clooney as president; Brad Pitt as VP and Angelina Jolie as Secretary of State!! Yep, you summed it up alright; I've stated that for a year; now, my choices were reduced to TWO!!

I am certainly disgusted B A!! I chose the one who I feel has a voting record and has not run from voting; Obama did it for years in Illinois as a state Senator with all of his "PRESENT" votes and has pulled NO SHOWS in the US Senate --I wonder WHY he doesn't want a vote on record??

PEACE B A !! OUSTANDING POST!!

Anna Molly Friday, January 11, 2008 3:17 PM..Anna, for someone who works full time I am always amazed at someone like you and many others here who also work full time that post wonderful, informative comments. I work full/part time as I own my business and just can't seem to become as informed as I'd like to be. I think it takes someone who is politically saavy and has a knack for writing. I admire all of you who can do that. Keep up the great work. I always learn from your posts and get many chuckles too.

Frederick Sweeney, Brooklyn (Sent Friday, January 11, 2008 3:29 PM)

LOL!!

Pam Bignardi, San Pedro, California (Sent Friday, January 11, 2008 3:39 PM)

I wonder WHY he [Obama] doesn't want a vote on record?

The very short answer is because he's choosing his battles.  Not everyone is passionate about every issue.  

Another simplistic answer is that every vote cast can be used against you in a future election.  

There is a good discussion of his 'Present' votes here
http://www.civildiscourse.com/index.php?showtopic=1066

I know that you've chosen to support Hillary and I respect your decision, but Obama is not as bad as you've concluded and I believe that he would make a fine President as well.  

If there's a Steve in Henderson NV, I apologize. I was trying to respond to Scott while talking to a Steve.
Someone had mentioned Bush not having a legacy because of the collapse of the talks in the Middle East. He will have a legacy. It just won't be a legacy which will treat him very well.

Carol, Long Valley NJ (Sent Friday, January 11, 2008 3:59 PM)

I don't think he's "bad" Carol; I also think he would make a good president; I just don't believe he is my best choice.

My best choices are gone; I will support Obama if he is my Party's nominee; I have said that several times here now.

Thanks for the link; I've read much of it, but I'll check back to see if anything has changed.

I hope that clarifies my position on Obama; I will vote for him if he represents my Party!!

Thanks!!

Pat, Boston (2:20 PM):

Well thanks, glad you think so. Sorry about the length of the post I made. But I wanted to get the point across in my post to Mark, AZ that if any candidate is running against another based on a claim of experience (versus the other lacks the experience) then they have placed themselves under a finer microscope regarding their record and contributions then the person they say has not had the experience or opportunity to have made a difference. If I were Obama (not an endorsement from me as of yet mind you) I would say yes, Hillary has much more experience and involvmnent in this country's business then me on a national and international level. So let's take a close look at where we are at today and see just what Hillary's experience and involvement has done for this country. Then I might say after such a review that it appears based on those problems I mentioned earlier we have not progressed much at all under her experience and involvement so here is what I am proposing to resolve these issues. Take a look at them and let me know if you like them or approve of them. Now you can go chose to go with the status quo or you can join me to tell those with the experience and who have had the opportunities to make a difference, you have had your chance, take a seat. Rather then allow candidates such as Hillary to take advantage of their claim to experience and of being an insider for a much longer period of time, I would use the very same against them. And i would hammer it home every day.  

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):