Thinking Right

By jbmlaw

January 15, 2008 8:10 AM | Link to this

Good morning all. I believe both Hillary and Osama/Obama are both potential winners. I also believe Rudy, Mitt, John, and Fred are potential winners. Of the leading candidates, only Mr. Huckabee and Mr. Edwards cannot win in November, for differing reasons. I say that even though I believe Mitt will lose the beauty contest in Michigan today (Democrats, with no stake in their race, will turn out for John.)

Mitt’s analysis, quoted by Jim in the essay, is a proper foundation for any analysis. National popular vote numbers, while entertaining, do not elect presidents; at this point in a campaign, no republican has ever led in my lifetime, other than Nixon in 1972, so it would be a poor predictor anyway. I think Ohio is a lost cause for Republicans, due to a generation of RINO regency, and I think Virginia and Colorado are in danger for similar reasons. All of the conservative-led republican states are safe. On the other side, I believe Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania may fall Republican this year, thus approximately a wash. I think Missouri will stay Republican for the presidential election, now that they have had a good look at congressional democrat leadership.

The interesting question is “what potential surprises are offered by the various candidates?” Mitt is correct, that he would carry Michigan against either Hillary or Obama, today’s likely primary loss notwithstanding. Rudy would carry New York, and possibly Connecticut and New Jersey, against either Hillary or Obama. John would be competitive everywhere in New England except Massachusetts, and he would be the strongest Republican in the Virginia battleground. Fred could surprise people by carrying California and Washington state, and I think he would win comfortably in the northern Midwest battlegrounds, although not as big as Mitt, and not including Michigan.

On the democrat side, I think Obama would be the stronger democrat in Virginia, Missouri, and Ohio, and he would mess with my Wisconsin and Minnesota arguments. Hillary, so far as I can tell, offers the democrats no hope for any state not carried by John Kerry except for Virginia and Ohio, and I think she puts Colorado, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Iowa in the republican column. She will do well in the porn belt - traditional democrat areas - and that is about it.

One note on Jim’s parade of evils: even the democrats will have to restore the Bush tax cuts. A redistributive tax cut – the sort favored by leftists - would not produce investment capital, which is the core deficiency in the US economy today. The prospect of elimination of the Bush tax cuts is what frightens away potential capital, and that lack of investment capital is the single element most likely to produce a recession in 2009. (And before our friend jm makes the argument, yes the Fed’s failure to defend the dollar with higher interest rates is also an element in the flight of capital.)

By ron

January 15, 2008 8:18 AM | Link to this

Good Morning Jim,Your headline today is correct.Mr.Romney has a problem.

By Redneck Convert

January 15, 2008 8:31 AM | Link to this

Well, no good Southrener will vote for a Mormon, so just forget Romney. We want a godly Republican, not some weirdo. One that will put a stop to abortion and gay marriage and unions and all that stuff and bring the True Religion to the U.S. of A. I don’t like McCain on account of he voted against My President’s tax cuts and he wants amnesty for the illegals. But if it takes McCain to keep the White House for us, I’ll swallow my hate and close my eyes and vote for him.

The most important thing is to keep the librul Democrats eyes off of the economy and the war and no jobs and all the stuff they don’t like about today. We won’t mention My President and some other stuff during the election time. While we keep saying Clinton done it and make them hate this Hillary woman real good. That way they will line up and vote Republican. After they vote for us they should take off their pants. We got something for them then and we’ll give it to them good. This Captain guy knows what I’m talking about. Its a good thing Democrats are so stupid they’ll fall for the old trick again.

Have a good day everybody.

By DebbieDoRight

January 15, 2008 8:32 AM | Link to this

OMG!! It’s finally happened!!! Wooten has finally, officially, gone senile!!!

That is sufficient time to undo everything on the domestic front that George W. Bush accomplished, including tax cuts and the past year’s efforts to contain discretionary spending, including the huge expansion of the Children’s Health Insurance Program, a steppingstone to HillaryCare.

Oh woe is Wooten…. Poor, Poor Wooten!! I told him over and over that Viagara and Abilify just don’t mix!! But did he listen to me?……….NO!! And NOW look what’s happened!! He’s hallucinating about so-called “accomplishments” of Dumbya!! When the man can eat pretzels without knocking himself out, THEN we’ll see an accomplishment!

By WFC

January 15, 2008 8:41 AM | Link to this

NO Republican can win because of W’s endless war. It really is that simple.

By OneForTheRoad

January 15, 2008 8:42 AM | Link to this

There’s no need to fearrrrrr

The UnderDog is hereeeee.

Paul and Bloomberg or was that Bloomberg and Paul.

Senior independent strategist Ross Perot announced someday that the Libertarians will rise from the salted pork barrels and do more than simply throw the election to the true candidate of their choice.

By Abomi Nation

January 15, 2008 8:42 AM | Link to this

That is sufficient time to undo everything on the domestic front that George W. Bush accomplished, including tax cuts and the past year’s efforts to contain discretionary spending, including the huge expansion of the Children’s Health Insurance Program, a steppingstone to HillaryCare.

LMAO

By TW

January 15, 2008 8:57 AM | Link to this

Not a snowball’s chance. The republican party, due to poor maintenance, is fractured - Girliani Greed on one side, Holistic Huckabee on the other. The experiment of bringing the two together has failed, thanks in part to ‘w’, but mostly to those who stayed on their knees instead of speaking up. At any rate, Romney is of the ‘w’ tweener mode. Not a chance.

By Curious Observer

January 15, 2008 9:00 AM | Link to this

One note on Jim’s parade of evils: even the democrats will have to restore the Bush tax cuts.

I am delighted to be disagreeing with jbmlaw, thus proving that yesterday’s agreement was a fluke.

The Bush tax cuts for the wealthy will be DOA on December 31, 2010. The Democrats will keep certain provisions, including elimination of the marriage penalty, the 10% bracket for lower income taxpayers, and the enhanced child tax credit. However, they will eliminate the cuts on dividends and capital gains, while restoring the pre-cut levels of the estate tax.

They may reconfigure the tax brackets to bring some fairness to the tax code. They will then use the rest to bring about a balanced budget and to fund a federal health care plan.

The bottom line is that the very comfortable will pay more in federal taxes, while those in the lower brackets will pay even less.

The Republicans will use the tired old argument about job growth in a frantic effort to renew the existing tax cuts. Well, tell the 20,000 Citi employees about to get the axe about job growth. Tell the parents of new college graduates who can’t find jobs about job growth. Tell workers whose wage levels haven’t kept up with inflation and who have even lost purchasing power about job growth.

Keep dreaming, jbmlaw. With a Democrat in the White House, we will at last see Congress make real accomplishments in restoring equity to the social and economic scene.

The Republicans can run, but they can’t hide. They can try to ignore the disaster that is the Bush administration, but too many voters have painful memories of it. Keep whistling as you walk through that cemetery, Republicans.

By sandy

January 15, 2008 9:00 AM | Link to this

It really doesn’t matter which Rep. gets the nomination. The real question is going to be which Dem. is electable. With so many voters being as polarized about the HildaBeast as they are, I doubt that she can win. Obama will have an issue with substance. Mitt, Fred, Rudy, or the Big Mac could beat the Dems. Huckabee, my personal pick, will probably have the polarizing issue that the HildaBeast has. His religious background would push away as many voters as it draws (and maybe even more). Huck could win the nomination, but I fear that he would lose to the Dems. Mitt has the lead in delegates, is looking good in Mi., and if he holds up, should do well enough in SC to make a strong run to Super Tuesday. As of now, he’s in the cat-bird seat.

By Camus

January 15, 2008 9:16 AM | Link to this

The poll Wooten cites is interesting in one particular aspect…it shows that Edwards alone among Democrats outpolls McCain. Aside from a statistical tie with Rudy 911, Edwards outpolls all Republican candidates. And Edwards’ favorable/unfavorable differential (+7)is only slightly lower than Obama (+8), whereas Hillary’s fav/unfav (-8) is quite awful.

Worth noting is that the fav/unfav differential for Giuliani (-17) and Romeny (-13_ skews even worse than Clinton’s numbers. McCain, however, tops the field at +21.

By Deborah

January 15, 2008 9:22 AM | Link to this

A Clinton/Richardson or Obama/Richardson ticket would solve a lot of the questions people would have about experience and foreign policy. Richardson is the Dem with the most experience of any of the candidates including the Repubs.

By Diogenes

January 15, 2008 9:34 AM | Link to this

Good morning,

Jim,

You made a couple of good points. You state that “… one of these two Democrats could occupy the White House for the next four to eight years. That is sufficient time to undo everything on the domestic front that George W. Bush accomplished… .” I’m pleased that you think it would only take eight years to fix the mess Bush has created. My crystal ball has been far less optimistic.

You also state “‘One other thing, of course, is that I do re-combine the Reagan coalition in terms of social and economic and foreign policy conservatives, but I am also able through my record to speak to, if you will, progressive Republicans and independents… .’” I agree that such a conservative platform probably makes Romney unelectable. In fact, Romney’s program sounds so much like a continuation of Bush’s that maybe we can anticipate 16 years of Democratic presidents, presidents who are concerned about the American people and their freedoms and well-being.

By zeke

January 15, 2008 9:45 AM | Link to this

The perfect election would be between Fred, Rudy and Mitt! However, that cannot happen with the current system! Either of these candidates are far superior to any democrat running on their socialist, populist, fear mongering get even with the successful campaigns! Fred has all the intangibles of conservatism, constitutionalism and down right honesty in word and deed! Rudy is tested in NYC with all the problems there when he took office and then September 11, 2001. I get so p** off when people refer to it as 911 or 9-11, which trivializes the tragedy. When you refer to December 7, you have to say no more! We should refer to it as September 11, period! Mitt is the consumate hard nosed businessman who has and can use common business sense and hard decisions to get this countrey on sound financial free enterprise footing and turn away from the rampant socialism brought on us by 60 plus years of liberal democrats STARTING WITH THAT GREAT SOCIALIST, FDR! Anyone who even considers voting for Obama, Clinton, Edwards or any other socialist, populist, liberals is not an AMERICAN!! We do not need to move any closer to the ideas, policies and agendas of Cuba, USSR, China or for that matter socialist Europe! We need to move away from those ideas in order to preserve the USA, the GREATEST NATION IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD!!!! The liberals are constantly ranting about the amount of money spent on defense, and, complaining about the lack of money for the poor and social entitlements! Well, defense spending is about $500 billion and entitlements are well over a trillion. These should be reversed, especially since all these entitlements are not a constitutional duty of the government!! We need to get the feds and state governments back to constitutionally mandated duties and away from all other programs instituted by those who would destroy this country! THINK DEMOCRATS, SOCIALISTS, VARIOUS CIVIL RIGHTS ANARCHISTS, THE ACLU, SIERRA CLUB, WORLD WILDLIFE FUNDS AND THE UN!!!!! THESE GROUPS NEED TO BE LAWFULLY DISBANDED! THERE SHOULD BE A SET OF QUALIFICATIONS REQUIRED IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO CAST A VOTE! THOSE WHO ARE ON WELFARE, SOCIAL SECURITY AND OTHER ENTITLEMENTS SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO VOTE TO INCREASE TAXES ON OTHERS TO FUND THEIR ENTITLEMENTS! THOSE WHO OWN NO PROPERTY SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO VOTE ON RAISING PROPERTY TAXES, ETC.! VOTE REPUBLICAN ONLY!!!

By Janine

January 15, 2008 9:45 AM | Link to this

The only winnable Democratic ticket [listing those currently in the race] is Edwards/Obama.

Sadly to some, happily to others …regardless of what people tell pollsters or the depth of the mess GWBush is leaving.: No woman will be elected president in America in 2008. No black man will be elected president in America in 2008,

By hogleg

January 15, 2008 9:48 AM | Link to this

THE DUMMYCRATS WILL NOT WIN IN 08.

By anonymous

January 15, 2008 9:51 AM | Link to this

jblmaw, i’m disapponited. “osama/obama”? is that the best you can come up with? you have no shame.

By Dennis

January 15, 2008 9:54 AM | Link to this

Mr. Wooten writes the following; “An inexperienced junior senator who speaks in greeting-card phrases who foolishly promises to meet without precondition with the likes of Ahmadinejad suggests naiveté in an arena where naiveté can be harmful to national security.”

At his worst, the “junior senator” could intenionally use a pack of lies to lead this country into an unnecessary war where, as of this day, almost 4,000 American soldiers have lost their lives, or perhaps he could manipulate the Justice Department into signing off on “waterboarding” as an acceptable means of questioning prisoners. The “junior senator” should be careful to appoint someone to head that department who will protect him each time he violates the Constitution.

And if that weren’t enough, he could cause a pack of laws to be passed in Congress that are intended to keep control of this nations “bewildered herd” with a title such as “The Patriot Acts”. The “junior senator” would of course need the covert cooperation of the telecome industry to surreptiously hear and record the conversations of disgruntled Americans who may want to march on the streets in protest to his insistance of [“trust us” to take away your liberties in order that we can better protect you].

The “junior senator” must remember, too, that tax breaks to the already wealthy and to corporations are expected of him, never mind the needs of millions of Americans who need health care (and the pharmaceutical corporations will appreciate the passing of a drug benefit program that effectively raises their profits and is of less value than the one they were receiving from their retirement programs - it can be called “Part D” of the Medicare Program.

The “junior senator” should not worry about the environment, except to protect the oil.

The “junior senator” must remember to appoint members to the Supreme Court whose (without admitting it during their confirmation processes) minds are already made up that the Constitution does not provide the American people with the freedoms they have been told they have.

The “junior senator” will of course be supported in these efforts by newspaper columnist who, “Thinking Right” will spearhead the manner in which the mainstream media is to help persuade the American people that all is well and that every lie that has been exposed againist the administration of the “junior senator” is nothing more than politics.

No doubt. The “junior senator” could be a double of George W. Bush - if he is willing to stoop that low.

You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

By Dusty

January 15, 2008 9:55 AM | Link to this

WHETHER FORECAST

I don’t know. I don’t know.

It’s like the weather. I don’t know.

Maybe rain. Maybe snow.

Who’s to say “I’m sure I know”.

I guess we’ll just have to wait

And see what happens in two thousand eight.

By Profit

January 15, 2008 9:56 AM | Link to this

I will vote for Romney any day over hillarity the clown clinton. Consider this: I have a lot of concerns about the Clintons and their paid political hoe’s like svreader. I believe the Clintons are hiding their anti-man policy until after the election. Hillary hates men, she hires only women and q u ee r s, and treats men as subservient scum. Hillary has surrounded herself with d y kes, and promises them power over men if she is elected president. MEN: DO NOT VOTE FOR THIS NASTY LYING WOMAN AND HER D Y KE S.

By GayGreyGeek

January 15, 2008 9:57 AM | Link to this

anonymous @ 9:51 - The amount of true substance in jmblaw’s posts is in inverse proportion to their length. The “Osama/Obama” namecalling is just desperation on the part of that typical PaleoCon (ain’t nothin’ “Neo” about ‘em any more!).

By Anonymous

January 15, 2008 9:58 AM | Link to this

quote: “one of these two Democrats could occupy the White House for the next four to eight years. That is sufficient time to undo everything on the domestic front that George W. Bush accomplished.”

Oh, I certainly HOPE so, Wooten! If America could recover from the damage Bush has done in such a short time, that would be a remarkable turnaround indeed.

By zeke

January 15, 2008 9:59 AM | Link to this

Janine:

There could be a black or a woman or a black woman elected if one was qualified, not one espousing all kinds of socialism, government mandates, in short the policies of the old soviet union of from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs socialism which kills any success socially or economically! Obama, Clinton and Edwards are class warfare, populists, socialist and possibly even communists, which we do not need! If you listen to Edwards speeches, you should be scared that someone with those views even has a chance of winning! If Colin Powell or Condi Rice would run, even though neither is a true conservative, they would stand an excellent chance of being elected, because, THEY ARE QUALIFIED! To vote for a woman just because she is a woman, or, a black just because they are black, is absolutely STUPID! Think, southerners voting for Jimmy Carter just because he is a good old Georgia boy! What a fiasco that was, and, STILL IS!!

By Jeff

January 15, 2008 10:01 AM | Link to this

Mr. Wooten:

I thought you were for LIMITED government????

Hillary, Obama, Edwards are all CLEARLY for expanded government. They are Democrats, and as such it is well known that a victory for them means an every increasing size of government and government intrusion into our lives.

McCain: Same problem. He still thinks MORE government is the answer.

Romney: Heck, the guy is BRAGGING about INCREASING the size of government! That’s something I personally would put further in the back of my closet than Ted Kennedy’s driving record!

Guiliani: NYC. Government intrusion into EVERYTHING - except the things that actually mattered and that government was supposed to do.

Thompson: Ever more government.

Paul: Return government to its Constitutional foundation. Get it OUT of our lives, where it has no business.

The choice for true conservatives is clear. There is only ONE Presidential Candidate that is truly for LIMITED government.

His name is Dr. Ron Paul, and he truly is the ONLY ‘Hope for America’.

By Truthifier

January 15, 2008 10:04 AM | Link to this

“one of these two Democrats could occupy the White House for the next four to eight years. That is sufficient time to undo everything on the domestic front that George W. Bush accomplished.”

I guess the American people just don’t appreciate everything Bush has accomplished for them? The new ABC poll shows him with his LOWEST approval rating yet.

http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=4133095

http://abcnews.go.com/images/PollingUnit/1057a2BushFinalYear.pdf

By RW (the bidet)

January 15, 2008 10:06 AM | Link to this

Wooten was hilarious today. I actually was lolrotfsmkwmcomn, (laugh out loud, roll on the floor slapping my knee with milk coming out my nose).

Wooten criticized Obama’s uncommitted “foreign policy blunders” and he mocked how Obama forms the language to define the parameters under which foreign policy could be set.

Read Wooten’s narrative. Replace the name Obama with the name George and you get an amazingly accurate epitaph for W’s 8 years. Wooten was mining humor by using the old Where’s Waldo method of revisionist history. It’s like saying that the only thing wrong with Lincoln’s successor was that he had a hole in his head.

Romney claims he’s likely to be either number two or number one in all the states. I had no idea things were that desperate in Michigan. Ford pinto. Chevy Vega. Cadillac actually made a car that was nothing but a chevy cavalier with sound proofing, and a fancy clock that didn’t work. I know cause I sold them. One lady still makes revenge-phonecalls at 2am.

The question about the GOP’s chances in 08 is this: are americans stupid enough to forgive the power and the money that gave us 75 years of Model T’s, unjustified wars, the most corrupt fatbellies since Grant, and a cruel, cruel monster posing as our vice president?

Or do we really take back our country for ourselves and by ourselves?

Lincoln talked about “the people”. The people. The GOP is not “the people” anymore. There is no sterotypical person in the USA. Especially in the under-30’s demographic. They’re every color, every ethnicity, and every religion. Look at the average schoolbus load in the USA. You cant find a majority, or a minority.

Obama represents the face of America now as well as any data-based computer sketch of the average person. We vote for what we think we look like. Obama wins.

With Obama is going to come big change. Stopping Big Oil requires Big Change.

By Anonymous

January 15, 2008 10:10 AM | Link to this

Zeke sounds downright panicky. Things must be looking up for America!

By Jeff

January 15, 2008 10:12 AM | Link to this

RW:

Big Oil is NOT the problem.

Big Government IS.

By Profit

January 15, 2008 10:19 AM | Link to this

The clintons have betrayed their African American supporters many times. Money that should have been used to uplift the Black community was diverted by the Clintons to Israel to repay the zionist supports of zipper boy. Hillary hates and dispises men, especially black men, because of their sexual accomplishments. IMHO, Hillary intends to punish all men for Bill’s indescretions - She will fill her administration with angry white women of the lesbian persuasion who will work to take money and power from men and give it to women. NO MAN WITH EVEN HALF A BRAIN SHOULD EVER VOTE FOR HILLARY.

By Janine

January 15, 2008 10:21 AM | Link to this

ZEKE..re: “there could be a black or a woman or a black woman elected if one was qualified”….. I think you are deluding yourself about the mindset of many Americans in 2008!!!!It just isn’t going to happen.

By chuck

January 15, 2008 10:32 AM | Link to this

Curious that the “observer” missed this:

On January 4, 2008, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released new jobs figures – 18,000 jobs created in December. Since August 2003, more than 8.3 million jobs have been created, with more than 1.3 million jobs created throughout 2007. Our economy has now added jobs for 52 straight months – the longest period of uninterrupted job growth on record. The unemployment rate remains low at 5 percent.

What I find really amusing is that democrats/liberals parrot what they hear from their little librul buddies but they rarely have any kind of basis in fact. The operative method for determining relative economic strength is how things “feel” to them. Hey, there’s a Republican President so the economy must be BAD.

By Sam

January 15, 2008 10:39 AM | Link to this

See, Zeke….the mindset I mentioned is evident in rantings like some of those above…i.e.”She will fill her administration with angry white women of the lesbian persuasion…Hillary hates and dispises men, especially black men, because of their sexual accomplishments,…Hillary has surrounded herself with d**…she hires only women and queers.We want a godly Republican, not some weirdo..

Not exactly a thoughtful analysis of any candidate.

By Profit

January 15, 2008 10:46 AM | Link to this

WRONG SAM - IF YOU ARE A MAN, HILLARY IS A DIRECT THREAT TO YOUR WALLET AND POWER. WE MUST ALL PLEDGE OUR SELVES, OUR FORTUNES, AND OUR SACRED HONOR TO HER DEFEAT. DESTROY THE HAG AND HER DY KE S AT THE BALLOT BOX!!!

By chuck

January 15, 2008 10:48 AM | Link to this

Real GDP grew at a strong 4.9 percent annual rate in the third quarter of 2007. The economy has now experienced six years of uninterrupted growth, averaging 2.8 percent a year since 2001.

Real after-tax per capita personal income has risen by 11.7 percent – an average of more than $3,550 per person – since President Bush took office.

The Federal budget deficit is down to 1.2 percent of GDP (in FY07), well below the 40-year average. Economic growth contributed to the highest tax revenues on record and a $250 billion drop in the deficit over the last three years.

U.S. exports in October 2007 were 13.7 percent higher than exports in October 2006.

By jbmlaw

January 15, 2008 10:49 AM | Link to this

Dear Anonymous @ 9:51 & GGG @ 9:57, I acknowledge that I am shameless, but you have to admit that most of my post is flattering for Osama/Obama, since I deem him the candidate most likely to win for the democrats. (And you know who I am really mocking there, and it is not the junior senator from Illinois.) Otherwise I respect your arguments enough that I would be interested in reading your respective handicaps of the horserace. Where will Obama be the stronger Democrat? What is Hillary’s calculus for winning? I just don’t see 270 in her future, but I can see it for Obama.

Dear Janine @ 10:21, hypothetical, how would you handicap the horserace if any republican added Condi as VP, and if in the same election Hillary chose Richardson as her VP?

By anonymous

January 15, 2008 10:53 AM | Link to this

No, jbmlaw I don’t knwo who you are really mocking. Perhaps I’m not bright enough to get your humor or perhaps you’re just not as witty as you think you are.

By Profit

January 15, 2008 11:02 AM | Link to this

Mrs. Clinton is White Supremacist, and, of course, votes of White Supremacists belong to her solidly. I know it by my own experience here in Illinois, where the organization of White Supremacists in Peoria has been always exhibiting the solid support for her and all her actions. The members of this organization had been widely active, while Clintons had been in White House. I do not think, therefore, that any White person with conscience and anti- racist approach should ever vote for Mrs. Clinton.

By Janine

January 15, 2008 11:03 AM | Link to this

jbmlaw@10:49 re: your question about handicap…I honestly can see no circumstance under which any woman will be elected president in 2008, [unless, of course, the choice is between 2 women].

By GT81

January 15, 2008 11:08 AM | Link to this

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad does not control Iran’s nuclear program. The religious leaders do.

By RW (the bidet)

January 15, 2008 11:21 AM | Link to this

Jeff: very astute! Big oil and big government are congruent. Big oil buys all of our elected officials through lobbied favors. Cheney is the face of big oil through his attached-at-the-hip status with the Saudis.

Cheney is a puppet of the Saudis. This is not an american government in Washington DC. It is repatriated, dual-citizenship, mercenary puppets. If you looked hard enough, you’d see the honorary title of Caliph in Cheney’s man-sized safe. Cheney pledges no allegience to the United States. Hell, when they recite the pledge of allegience in session, cheney’s got one hand behind his back with his fingers crossed, the other hand is inside his vest lapel, him being a modern napolean and all; what with his ingenious iraqi invasion strategy in 2003. Did you know that fathead left the borders open when they went in? Did you know that? CHeney forgot about the borders when we went into baghdad. How about the air corridor over Turkey? Cheney forgot that too. He’s an idiot, and he was solely responsible for planning the overall strategic approach to the invasion of iraq. He was sequestered incommunicato in a bunker somewhere, after 911, for “security”, remember? He had nothing to do but stay out of sight so he must have conned BUsh into letting him play napolean. Bush in a sense, split his presidency in two by allowing Cheney to become defacto commander in chief. That totally explains why Rumsfeld refused to attack OBL in Afghanistan. Rumsfeld was Cheney’s dummy. (and still is)

Grow up, Jeff. We’ve been had. We lost our country 8 years ago to a foreign alligned corporate frontman named Cheney. It’s always been Cheney. Iraq is Cheney’s baby.

Fact. Believe it. Live it.

By Jeff

January 15, 2008 11:34 AM | Link to this

RW:

They are actually two separate entities. Do they each influence the other? No doubt. But either can be destroyed without affecting the other at all, and therefore they are two separate entities.

I say take down Big Government first. It poses more of a threat. Take out Big Government and let the marketplace make decisions, and eventually Big Oil finds that it is not so attractive to consumers and so lowers its prices.

By Profit

January 15, 2008 11:38 AM | Link to this

All men must oppose Hillary - She hates men - She luvs GAY women and will put them in power over men - Hillary will tax men to benefit women - Men must oppose Hillary at all costs. The military hates Hillary, and there will be mass retirements of officers and senior enlisted men the day she is elected.

By Jack

January 15, 2008 11:39 AM | Link to this

If we drill in Alaska and off of our coasts we could tell OPEC where to shove their $100.00 per barrel oil. The Saudies have there wallets out for all of the “no nads” politicians. The republicans and the democrats are equally at fault for our dependency of foriegn oil. We should flogg all of them.

By Sting

January 15, 2008 11:46 AM | Link to this

Jeff, Okay, I see I’m going to have to go to the satellite map! Big Oil EQUALS Big Government.

BO=BG they are one and the same.

Cheney works for the Saudis. His flag is a dollar bill. His man sized safe is stuffed with saudi dollars. He makes decisions based on “What would Abdullah do?”. WWAD?

Thus, BO + BG = big wad of Cheney dough

By Tim

January 15, 2008 11:48 AM | Link to this

Chuck @10:30

Adding jobs is one thing, but when those jobs are low paying service jobs as opposed to higher paying manufacturing and white collar jobs that have substance, that 8.3 mil does not carry much water. Why don’t you try looking past posted numbers and try seeing what is really happening in OUR economy. Don’t be afraid to open your eyes, It’s ugly but we will all be better for it.

By Jeff

January 15, 2008 11:54 AM | Link to this

Jack:

I’ve already decided that with Dr. Ron Paul as the SOLE exception, it will be QUITE a while before I vote for ANYONE with a D or R beside their name, and the same goes double for anyone with an I beside their name signifying ‘incumbent’.

By ron

January 15, 2008 12:02 PM | Link to this

The old saw,Jack,is to never shoot the home covey.It applies to oil too.

By chuck

January 15, 2008 12:07 PM | Link to this

Tim, Tim, Tim. That is just not true. If you actually look at the numbers, the telling statistic is in REAL INCOME GROWTH. The number of people in poverty has DECREASED SIGNIFICANTLY. Millions of people moved from the “poor” to the middle class. Additionally, more people moved from the middle class to upper income levels than almost any other time in our history. In addition, the INCOME of people in ALL classes INCREASED except for one group…the RICH. That’s right Tim, the only group whose income went down is the top 1% of wage earners. So much for that idea of the “rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer”.

By Profit

January 15, 2008 12:13 PM | Link to this

RW (the bidet) - You are right, Fat boy Cheney is indeed a puppet of the Saudi’s, but he is also owned and operated by the Right Wing Israeli party and takes his marching orders from wolfie, pearlie, feithie, and liar libbie. It seems our fat political science graduate is owned by everyone except for the American public that he is supposed to serve.

By Buffy

January 15, 2008 12:13 PM | Link to this

Chuck is of course referring to the 90’s back when the cost of transportation getting to and from work and the constant increase in health care premiums and deductibles did not negate one’s yearly pay increase — for those whose salaried jobs remained in the United States, that is.

By GayGreyGeek

January 15, 2008 12:15 PM | Link to this

chuck @ 12:07 - Yay to REAL INCOME GROWTH. It’s a shame that REAL COST GROWTH has completley outstripped that “income growth”, leaving most Americans further in the hole now than they were 7 years ago.

By chuck

January 15, 2008 12:17 PM | Link to this

Ron, I think in this case that we should go ahead and begin drilling in those areas as suggested by Jack. We don’t have to deplete them, just begin drilling. That would have an immediate impact on oil prices world-wide. OPEC would have to lower prices to protect their market share. Additionally, the price of oil is driven not by supply and demand but rather by the PERCEPTION of supply and demand. Drilling in those areas would give the perception of an increase in supply (which, BTW is not necessary. There is already plenty of oil) and prices would adjust downward.

By Eleanora

January 15, 2008 12:20 PM | Link to this

Voting for Romney is like voting for a guy who keeps misplacing his identity. How can any mature adult completely change their mind on all major issues within the spate of a few years? Will the real Mitt Romney please stand up? You can’t vote him into office on a platform—he might change his mind AGAIN.

By Profit

January 15, 2008 12:26 PM | Link to this

Oh Jack, you are so ignorant with regard to oil - I make money off fools like you, a lot of money. All the oil in Alaska would only postpone the day of oil reckoning by a year or so, and we would have stolen the oil from our own children, who just might need that oil to power their tractors and farm combines. The currently brewing Great Depression will mark the end of the American lifestyle that the fool Cheney said is non negotiable. Our oil use will drop, but the rest of the world’s oil use will continue to grow. If our economy manages some sort of recovery, there will not be any surplus oil supply for us to buy, especially not with our greatly devalued dollar. You see, globalization was our greatest mistake in a long line of mistakes. The only thing unique about america was the fact that our industrial plant survived wwii completely intact while the rest of the world had to start from zero. In the 70’s Europe caught up, in the 80’s Japan caught up, we had a break in the 90’s, but now both India and China have caught up. The world no longer needs us, but we really need the rest of the world to support our American lifestyle. Well, the rest of the world ain’t gonna do it, they don’t need us…..

By Jack

January 15, 2008 12:28 PM | Link to this

We could always annex Mexico into the US. We get the oil, they get to stay home.

By Redneck Convert

January 15, 2008 12:34 PM | Link to this

Well, I see old Sonny has come out against a NRA bill that would let people pack heat in their truck at work. The libruls must of got to him. I’m just downright ashamed of him. First he lied to us about the Flag and now he wants to limit our 2nd Amendment right.

I long for the day when we can all walk down the street with six-guns on our hips looking real mean and not taking no guff from nobody. You wouldn’t see nobody giving people any dirty looks then. We could settle arguments like a Man and not like some pantywaist librul. Its just another insult to us rednecks. We need the Rev. Huckabee in the White House to give us rednecks back our pride.

I hear the Democrats are ganging up in Michigan to vote for that Mormon Romney. They want to stick us with him. They know even this Osama guy could beat him in a election. There ain’t nothing a librul won’t stoop to.

I have a message for Profit. We have a kind of KKK chapter up here in north Forsyth County. Drop me a line if you would like to join. You can reach me at Simpsons Trailer Park, Cumming GA. A guy that hates women and Those People and Jews as much as you would fit right in.

By Profit

January 15, 2008 12:37 PM | Link to this

Wrong again Jack - Very soon Mexico will be a net importer of oil. Their fields are in steep decline, yet their subsidized domestic consumption is growing. Ok Jack, you are a little slow, so I’m gonna help you out some here - Buy the Brazilian State oil company, PetroBras - PBR is the symbol. In ten years they will be the largest remaining oil producer in this hemisphere. I paid less than 80 for my shares, but you can buy it for around 111 if you act soon.

By Tim

January 15, 2008 12:46 PM | Link to this

Chuck, So you are telling us that the rich got poorer? You really are are funny guy! Try looking at the real value of these “increases” that you speak of. All of the basic cost grew faster than wage increases. Energy cost continue to grow uncontrolled. I work in the health care industry ( drug distribution) and I see growth in our industry that CEO’s Dream about. The economic devide in this country is growing and until we atleast admit that its there, the economic time bomb continues to go tic tic tic…..

By jbmlaw

January 15, 2008 1:08 PM | Link to this

Dear Anonymous @ 10:53, apologies, I do not mean to embarrass you, I thought you knew: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APx2YJ-_jos

Dear GGG @ 12:15 and Tim @ 12:46, you commit the usual leftist “collectivization” error. Chuck has it right, by parsing the deciles. Only the richest are worse off, mostly due to efficiency gains throughout industry, mostly benefiting the less wealthy. http://www.townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2007/12/05/income_mobility
(There is an underscore between “income” and “mobility.”)

By Jack

January 15, 2008 1:08 PM | Link to this

Hey Profit. You are so like a diaper.

By chuck

January 15, 2008 1:15 PM | Link to this

You are just wrong Tim. Repeating a lie may make people THINK that it’s true, but it doesn’t make it true.

The median income ADJUSTED FOR INFLATION HAS RISEN SINCE 1990.

By getalife

January 15, 2008 1:25 PM | Link to this

We are at a start of a recession and the market will correct at 10,000.

Obama and Clinton have proposed economic stimulus plans but what will w and the gop do?

Nothing, they govern for the corps and elites who are billionaires. The gop bails them out when they get in trouble by printing more money. This makes gold rise. Yahoo!

Now China declined on bailing out Citicorp which is a surprise but tells me, it will get worse. When the banks can’t get China to buy into their banks, it must be a bad investment. Print more money, yea.

By getalife

January 15, 2008 1:40 PM | Link to this

Also, w begged the Saudis to increase production of oil to lower prices but the Saudis said no.

They have us by the balls and are squeezing hard.

Ouch.

By Deborah

January 15, 2008 1:51 PM | Link to this

Chuck - I just read about the 18K new jobs number. Are you aware that the confidence interval around that number is +/- 100K, which means that the actual number of new jobs created is somewhere between -89K and +118K. These estimates are fraught with error because the data is very hard to collect/measure accurately.

BYW, I am a statistician, so I understand how this data is collected and analyzed.

Also, someone else correctly stated that most of the new jobs being created are low paying w/ no benefits while the jobs being lost are just the opposite. That’s not going to help the economy in the long run.

By Mrs. RepubLady

January 15, 2008 1:52 PM | Link to this

For you doubters, here’s a picture of Bush playing hardball with the Saudi Crown Prince. While walking hand in hand through the bluebonnets, he’s also demanding to know the whereabouts of Osama, because he was only kidding when he said he just didn’t think about him that much anymore. Don’t worry. The Saudis will cave ANY MINUTE and our prices at the pump will be down by the end of the week. Don’t mess with uh… uh… you know uhhh.. Texas! That’s right.

By Peter

January 15, 2008 2:01 PM | Link to this

What a bunch of crap that has been written by Jim today………

Looks like he is cheering on 4 more years of WAR…….

The BUSH economy is totally floundering, and it seems that issue has become a bigger issue than the WAR now in the eyes of the voters.

Well it seems the Republicans have REALLY messed things up, not only is Bush trying to incite WWIII with Iran, but his economy is falling apart, and now that question looms again……

How with a bad economy are we going to PAY for the current WAR ?

And again the WRONGS here will probably have NO answer as we continue to borrow more paper from the Chinese……or are the Chinese going to stop lending the money…then what ?

Then of course as you older Wrongs retire, you will be leaving your big legacy mess to your kids and Grandkids to pay for the arrogance.

GREAT JOB !

By chuck

January 15, 2008 2:04 PM | Link to this

Again, those statements are just not true (It may be true for December…Christmas jobs, DUH). If you look at the total picture, you will see 52 CONSECUTIVE MONTHS of job growth. At the same time the STATISTICS show that the number of people in poverty has shrunk and more people moved from the middle class to the upper class than almost any other time in history…ADJUSTED FOR INFLATION. This is proof that your statements are false. You cannot call them lower paying jobs if income in REAL DOLLARS increased.

By MELO

January 15, 2008 2:05 PM | Link to this

That is sufficient time to undo everything on the domestic front that George W. Bush accomplishe I dont mind if the democrats undo the recession and this subprime and liquidity crunch, they undo torture and undo the bad credibility of America all over the world,they undo unilateralism and the budget and trade deficit,they undo the borrowings from China and Russia and they undo mixed messages in the Middle east,cozing up to the dictators and corrupt bukka wearing sheikhs in Saudi Arabia while condemning Iran.If the democrats can undo policing the world and ignoring human massacres and genocide in darfur and undo the neglect of global warming and environmental degradation,undo neglect of containers and ships coming into our ports and corruption in washington(no bid contracts by cheney and cronies) WE WIL BE JUST FINE WITH THEM, GO DEMOCRATS. I GOT CLINTON NOLSTAGIA ALREADY.

By Vandstra

January 15, 2008 2:07 PM | Link to this

How, after the Iraq war, can Republicans ever talk about fiscal conservancy?

By Profit

January 15, 2008 2:08 PM | Link to this

Gee, ya try to help the least amoung us, and they call you names. Well, no more free advice for Jack, you are on your own there, little fella. Ah should have tolk the chump to buy PZE rather than PBR, oh well.

By thefish

January 15, 2008 2:22 PM | Link to this

I need to get hold of what Wooten is smoking. How he can talk of fiscal responsibility after 6 years of an unfettered Republican spending spree is a wild hallucination!! An absolute insane revision of history. Typical. Sad. Pathetic. Lay off that stuff Wooten; it’s bad for your karma

By thefish

January 15, 2008 2:24 PM | Link to this

I need to get hold of what Wooten is smoking. How he can talk of fiscal responsibility after 6 years of an unfettered Republican spending spree is a wild hallucination!! An absolute insane revision of history. Typical. Sad. Pathetic. Lay off that stuff Wooten; it’s bad for your karma

By thefish

January 15, 2008 2:24 PM | Link to this

I need to get hold of what Wooten is smoking. How he can talk of fiscal responsibility after 6 years of an unfettered Republican spending spree is a wild hallucination!! An absolute insane revision of history. Typical. Sad. Pathetic. Lay off that stuff Wooten; it’s bad for your karma

By Source Please?

January 15, 2008 2:24 PM | Link to this

Just saying over and over that the economy is better does not make it true. Nor does quoting opinion websites that are the internet equivalent of right-wing talk radio. While it is hard to find news sources even bordering on objective anymore, at least try to back up your claims.

If I cannot spend six hundred times what I earn every year, year after year, and still stay solvent, then how can the US Government do so without eventual catastrophic consequences? Does the fact that our government both borrows billions from foreign nations and devalues our currency by printing more and more not indicate that something is amiss? If not, then why?

By thefish

January 15, 2008 2:26 PM | Link to this

I need to get hold of what Wooten is smoking. How he can talk of fiscal responsibility after 6 years of an unfettered Republican spending spree is a wild hallucination!! An absolute insane revision of history. Typical. Sad. Pathetic. Lay off that stuff Wooten; it’s bad for your karma

By getalife

January 15, 2008 2:29 PM | Link to this

They were not called the rubber stamp do nothing Congress for nothing.

Of course, the gop will stay this course.

Only fools like chuck will believe in their economic numbers but the reality tells otherwise.

Wake up chuck. Join us in the real world.

Geez.

By Profit

January 15, 2008 2:31 PM | Link to this

Jack Daniels is GOOD, I am sipping some right now!!!

By Peter

January 15, 2008 2:36 PM | Link to this

Hey Chuck…….if you could steer me in the direction to get the FACTS you mentioned I would be greatly appreciated…..

“By chuck

January 15, 2008 2:04 PM | Link to this

Again, those statements are just not true (It may be true for December…Christmas jobs, DUH). If you look at the total picture, you will see 52 CONSECUTIVE MONTHS of job growth. At the same time the STATISTICS show that the number of people in poverty has shrunk and more people moved from the middle class to the upper class than almost any other time in history…ADJUSTED FOR INFLATION. This is proof that your statements are false. You cannot call them lower paying jobs if income in REAL DOLLARS increased.”

Every thing I have read so far is……. the Poor are getting poorer, and the Rich are getting Richer….. that was according to the facts sent out by the IRS.

BUT I would be happy to read something to the contrary……

Thank you,

Peter

By GaVoter

January 15, 2008 2:39 PM | Link to this

Why do politicians change their “story” based on the location and audience. I think the answer to that question about sums up a lot of the “talk” here.

An “ex-auto” worker in Detroit has a justifiably different perspective on the economy than someone working for Nissan in Tennessee. Ditto for someone trying to sell a house in California or Florida versus someone renting one.

There are some things though that are more “constant” regardless of location or socio-economic status (except for those select few in the multi-million and up club). We are all essentially being affected by the never-ending war on terror, the ever higher price of oil, and the credit crisis that seems to be the gift that keeps on giving to name a few. All together, they make for one interesting campaign in the making.

If I were a Democrat or Republican strategist, I might be looking for ways to make sure the competition won this round. Timing could very well mean everything.

By kd lang and Ellen Degeneres

January 15, 2008 2:47 PM | Link to this

Clinton in 2008 Lesbians for Clinton. We need t get her in office so that we can begin an Amazaonian-esque masterhood in the United States.

By Profit

January 15, 2008 2:51 PM | Link to this

Yo kd lang and Ellen Degeneres - Didn’t the d y ke amazons cut off their left boob? If the Hag wins, a lot of you no doubt will want that operation performed - I can help, I just happen to own a large over sized paper cutter that is IDEAL for the job at hand. Chop goes the paper cutter…another amazonian is born

By kd

January 15, 2008 2:56 PM | Link to this

dude, already there. why are you so harsh man? take a step back and realize what Clinton in 08 can mean for America. Being Canadian myself it doesn’t matter much to me, but honestly I can tell you that if you elect Clinton the world will respect you and stop laughing at you because of the idiot you have in office today. CLINTON 2008

By Dusty

January 15, 2008 2:56 PM | Link to this

Dear Libs,

There are medications for depression and I would say that 90% of you need them.

Have you ever seen so much moaning, groaning, dire predictions, poll reading, blame placement, sorry insinuations, character assassinations, false accusations,name calling and obvious lies by libs. Just read what these lefties post here.

There is not even support for the military as shown in the Navy’s encounter with Iran. Libs don’t like our allies either.

Why don’t you complainers say that you do not see one good thing in the USA and the only cure is to vote for a socialistic Democrat? At least we would know you are being honest in that single statement of liberal despair.

There are treatments for depression and poor vision. You libs need them.

By Jed Merrill

January 15, 2008 3:08 PM | Link to this

Mitt ftw!

Mitt is our best all around pick by far. Giuliani will be strong in New York, but weaker in the South. Huckabee, as big as his Iowa win seemed, couldn’t get half of the Evangelical vote in the state, even as a preacher. (Mitt got 19% of it, which was the second best, and will likely improve.)

McCain… I just can’t support him. He comes across as too liberal, and I don’t feel good about electing someone with such a mixed track record when Mitt is on the table. (Success, success, success.) Immigration will dog him. Not to belittle a Veteran, but as a Veteran myself, I feel John McCain has gotten everywhere he has in life as a victim. He didn’t fight for more than a day without getting captured and put in a POW camp for the rest of his military career. Then he frames himself as under attack by Romney in New Hampshire, when in fact honest comparison ads seems like a better fit. Now, of course, he is airing his own attack ads. I just don’t respect that.

Mitt has actually done something with his life and everything he has touched. I have confidence in him as an economic, domestic leader and liked what he did with the Olympics on the international and military leadership front. (I served under him as part of the multi-state National Guard security force, prior to going to Iraq.)

Mitt is the only person running that I would actually enjoy having as my boss. He is focused on serving his country, and doesn’t even want a salary. He is wealthy enough, by his own hard work, to not be beholden to special interests. That is independence no other candidate has. Mitt isn’t running so he can get a book deal when he is done in the office, and it’s not ego either, the kind that will keep us dragging in the mud for centuries like Bush (who I supported and still support, though I wish was more flexible and less interested in oil), McCain or Rudy “I can’t stop talking about 9/11 because it defines me” Giuliani. (As soon as he is in office, he is going to look for another 9/11 to define his Presidency and maintain his image.) We need a smart President, who can outsmart our foreign and domestic problems, and Mitt is nothing if not brilliant Mr. Fix-it.

America needs fixing after sixteen years of steady fall into disrepair under two below par administrations from two different parties.

Pick the candidate who is industry itself—Mitt Romney—not the candidates who only know or care about war.

By @@

January 15, 2008 3:15 PM | Link to this

Well confidence and a positive attitude never hurt anyone Jim—it’s why I like Rudy.

I haven’t quite figured out where to fit Mitt. I’ll stash him away for a rainy day.

We’re just along for the ride—cruisin’ with the top down.

By Tim

January 15, 2008 3:15 PM | Link to this

Dusty,

I am sorry, I thought that one of the greatest things about our country was or right to openly express concerns about things that are going on in our country. Maybe everyone should just blindly ” drink the Koolaid” like some on the right have. We have rael issues that need to be addressed, and falling in lock step with this or any other administration is not a smart or just thing to do.

By @@

January 15, 2008 3:21 PM | Link to this

He is wealthy enough, by his own hard work, to not be beholden to special interests. That is independence no other candidate has.

I have definitely taken ^^^ that as a plus for Mitt. It’s a big dang PLUS too.

By Jackie

January 15, 2008 3:40 PM | Link to this

I hope that Romney wins the nomination on the Repub side. The landslide will be even greater than it stands to be currently. The Dems will send someone forward and whomever it happens to be, they Repubs will get THUMPTED IN NOVEMBER. Not even John McCain can save them this time.

By Dusty

January 15, 2008 3:41 PM | Link to this

Tim @3:15

You are right, Tim, if you tell the truth.

You think the Constitution meant tell any lie, hallucination and threat to our citizens that you desire?? Our founders never guessed at the degradation that goes on now.

Go read Luckovich’s blog and get a double dose of liberal “truth”. You’d think the US is another pre war-Iraq. The lib comments here are only slightly better.

Drink your own “koolaid” which is more like offering anti-freeze to America.

By Peter

January 15, 2008 3:47 PM | Link to this

Dear Dusty……. you are as funny as Jim Whooten today…..

Why don’t you stop complaining about the liberals, and get yourself a big time reality check.

You can’t answer important questions about the war or the economy and you make absolutely zero sense……but hiding one’s head in the sand does not make for good debate!

I saw a good program on Jim Jones last night…..you certainly line up with Bush, the way his followers lined up with him.

You said this Dusty….

“There are treatments for depression and poor vision. You libs need them.”

That is as silly a statement ever posted……now what can you say that actually holds water?

Why when someone questions the VERY POOR policy’s of the Bush administration, do you get so defensive?

By Lewin

January 15, 2008 3:47 PM | Link to this

RW @ 10:06,

Your argument that Jim’s criticism of Barak Obama’s dangerous foreign policy applies equally to W’s policies and then some, is a spurious comparison. Yes, both of them are American men engaged in national politics including the use of English rhetoric, but there the similarity ends, unless of course one mentions the conspicuous similarity that both men are given also to wearing neckties in public.

Jim’s making the obvious point that Mr. Obama, the favorite of John Kerry, has continued Kerry’s deadly dangerous make-nice foreign policy, the Rodney Doctrine: sweet-talk ‘em disarmingly with a tinkle in your eye, and they’ll promptly disarm. If you think this cutie-pie approach to foreign affairs is hilariously identical to the Bush Doctrine, then you’ve dropped a screw somewhere out on the Perimeter.

You seem to think that Mr. Obama cannot be making this foreign policy blunder because, never having held the Office of Chief Executive, he could not have had a foreing policy. What Mr. Wooten rightly calls Mr. Obama’s mistaken policy is the crux of the approach to international relations propounded by the Senator as candidate for our highest office. It is his foreign policy. And it is Fisher-Price stuff, in a nuclear age.

Ain’t that a real knee-slapper?

By Dusty

January 15, 2008 3:51 PM | Link to this

@@ @3:21

I thought all the candidates were rich. Can’t think of any that might live in my middle class neighborhood.

By the way, Mitt’s father was governor of Michigan. I imagine he was also rich. Nothing against Mitt but I don’t picture him as ever being on the lower levels of richness.

By Jack

January 15, 2008 4:01 PM | Link to this

Haven’t drank PBR in years. Memories! Remember PBR Bock? Had the sludge in the bottom of the can. Jack Daniels is ok. I like crown.

By Bob

January 15, 2008 4:04 PM | Link to this

I’ll vote for any Republican in November. Immigration (sending illegals back home) IS the most important issue this year. Then the economy, we have become too dependent on other countries for products but that didn’t start with President Bush.

By Dusty

January 15, 2008 4:10 PM | Link to this

OK Peter, off you go@ 3:47 Thanks for comparing me to Wooten as humorous. I like being compared to Wooten. He may cringe but I like it.

You libs don’t discuss President Bush’s policies. You make accusations.

Bush is not a candidate again. He is busy visiting other countries encouraging mideast peace (Palestine & Israel) and the Saudi’s efforts against terrorists.

In the meantime, libs at home are making ugly remarks to undermine his diplomacy. For what reason? Because they cannot stem their hate for a Republican President whom they have vilified from the start.

If you are tired of what I write, then quit maligning and insulting the President of the USA. Be honest. Then I will be able to recognize you as an American who loves this country, not one who works against it.

By @@

January 15, 2008 4:13 PM | Link to this

Dusty:

It’s Mitt’s lack of need to answer to special interest groups—investors in his win so to speak. He’ll be owing noone but the voters.

You’re middle class? ME TOO! but you and I are rich in ways that liberals can only dream of…

IT’S THE ATTITUDE and we’ve got it.

Never despair!

By chuck

January 15, 2008 4:14 PM | Link to this

Peter and Source Please:

I thought this was a blog. I didn’t know I had to use APA citations, but here is the info you requested. Enjoy eating CROW.

http://www.treasury.gov/press/releases/reports/incomemobilitystudyfinal.pdf

By chuck

January 15, 2008 4:19 PM | Link to this

For what reason Dusty? Because they hate America. They feel guilty because we are successful and the rest of the world is just SUCKY. This make the self-loathing losers.

For those too lazy to read the treasury Department Report, here are the key findings.

There was considerable income mobility of individuals in the U.S. economy during the 1996 through 2005 period with roughly half of taxpayers who began in the bottom quintile moving up to a higher income group within 10 years. About 55 percent of taxpayers moved to a different income quintile within 10 years. Among those with the very highest incomes in 1996 – the top 1/100 of 1 percent – only 25 percent remained in this group in 2005. Moreover, the median real income of these taxpayers declined over this period. The degree of mobility among income groups is unchanged from the prior decade (1987 through 1996). Economic growth resulted in rising incomes for most taxpayers over the period from 1996 to 2005. Median incomes of all taxpayers increased by 24 percent after adjusting for inflation. The real incomes of two-thirds of all taxpayers increased over this period. In addition, the median incomes of those initially in the lower income groups increased more than the median incomes of those initially in the higher income groups.

DEAL WITH IT!!!

By Nine Eleven

January 15, 2008 4:32 PM | Link to this

I couldn’t read more after “Zeke” got his overhauls in a twist because we don’t genuflect and say: September 11, 2001. What an old phart!

By Peter

January 15, 2008 4:52 PM | Link to this

Hey Chuck I read what was written…… must have been the same guys that said there was zero Global warming, and the same group that altered the scientists reports as well!

By Profit

January 15, 2008 4:55 PM | Link to this

PBR was my first taste of alcohol. I was a freshman in high school, and I was dressing for the first varsity football game of the year later on that night. Walking home from school, I spied an open beer truck delivering to one of the mom and pop grocery stores. No one was around, so I grab a case of PBR and ran up a hill to the next street, then a couple hundred yards along a parallel street to the one where the beer truck was parked, then up another hill perpendicular to the beer truck street. Ah got a way clean, no one ever said a word about the great beer case heist. I drank one can when I got home, rested a bit, then walked back to the high school to dress for the football game. Great fun, my first night game under the lights, with pbr after. I only had bock beer a few times, it was hard to find. I think they only canned it when they cleaned the brewing tanks out periodically. What fun

By Camus

January 15, 2008 5:15 PM | Link to this

Nobody seemed interested in the post I kited earlier about the Rasmussen poll Wooten cites, and the higher electability numbers of Edwards vis a vis the other Dems. Does Wooten despair that nobody will address the daily topic? Is this just a place where the crazies come to yell at each other?

I will persevere. We could cover the well trod ground regarding the deep distrust evangelicals hold concerning Romney’s fringe religion. Or, we could note that GOP Catholics seem to be polling heavily against Rev Huckleberry. (His remarks about changing the Constitution to adhere more closely to Biblical law does not seem to have sparked much concern, either, though it paints his image as a TaliBaptist a bit more clearly.) Or we could revisit (yawn) the apparent fact that the more people see of Rusy, the more they realize how deeply creepy the guy is.

But why worry about the topic at hand. Instead of all that, let’s just note that the Father of Modern Conservatism, William F Buckley, has called for governmental regulation of the mortgage loan business as the only way to halt the crisis.

Strong conservative principles… until they become inconvenient? How does Wooten feel about this heresy?

By jbmlaw

January 15, 2008 5:17 PM | Link to this

Dear Peter @ 4:55, “must have been the same guys that said there was zero Global warming, and the same group that altered the scientists reports as well!” Good point on a hot day. You morons who cling to the religious belief that mankind’s sins condemn us to an apocalypse called “global warming” really ought to get a clue. Sure, I know, tides will rise 50 feet and hurricanes will brew weekly. Morons.

By jbmlaw

January 15, 2008 5:20 PM | Link to this

Dear Peter @ 4:52, yes, we know, it is too important to be challenged by contra-evidence and we must do something even if we are wrong, just to ensure we destroy our economies.

By OneForTheRoad

January 15, 2008 5:20 PM | Link to this

Profit,

You have upset the natural order of the free world by openly disclosing past transgressions. Therefore, in order to prevent irreparable damage to the space-time continuum, you must now carry an inflation-adjusted case of beer back to the heir apparent of the original case of beer. Please, make the world right again before it is too late.

By Heywood Jablome

January 15, 2008 5:21 PM | Link to this

Alrigghhht!

Just a few more days until Dow 12,000 becomes a reality.

Heckuva job, Bushie. Forward, into the past!!!!

Yo, all you dumb$hit kokksuckers who bruise your knees and gobble Bush chowder…

—Heywood Jablome, too

By Peter

January 15, 2008 5:23 PM | Link to this

Dear jbmlaw…… I like your choice of words…..the only thing brewing is your inability to communicate.

The reality is the scientist’s reports were altered……

By Profit

January 15, 2008 5:35 PM | Link to this

Fear not OneForTheRoad, I attempted to duplicate my beer feat a year later with a pepsi truck - Ah got caught and severely punished by the powers what be, including my old man and his belt! The space time continum is safe, my carma tail is still red and sore, and my drink today is jack daniels, paid for with my profits from the oil trade, amoung other sources. Better stock up on booze though, corn is over five bucks a bushel now, and rising, along with wheat that approaches ten bucks a bushel, and soybeans near 13 bucks. Gawd damn, what is a man to drink, fermented left boob of amazon?

By Glenn

January 15, 2008 5:35 PM | Link to this

chuck & Dusty,

How come they take the America-can-do-no-right attitude?

Well, Ann Elk has a theory, and this theory, the Theory of Ann Elk, is known as the Ann Elk Theory, which according to Ann Elk is as follows: they’re cowards. They’re running scared. They blame W for making them scared. This is the Age of Terror, and ours is a War on Terror, and it all would have ended happily ever after if only Mr. Bush hadn’t named The Thing and made Democrats fear for their lives.

It’s his fault. He caused the fear. He scared them, and they scare easily. He should have left well enough alone, and not initiated the War on Terror by naming the Thing. He’s the real terrorist, that terrible terrible man in that Big White House.

But they know how to get him, that big baddie. They were raised on the Sayings of the Letterman and know how to fight fear with sneer, IED’s and child-bombs with snidery!

You cannot — you simply are not allowed — to discuss any issue of public important, such as the election of the next holder of the most powerful office in history, until you turn on their pink nightlight and dispel the monster under their bed, The Big Bad Bush.

Because all would end happily if only that hobgoblin hadn’t gone and scared us all awake. It’s all his fault. He invented Osama bin Laden in a test tube in Crawford just to scare us. And the cremains settling upon the streets of Lower Manhattan? All his fault. His and Cheney’s. Cheney’s and Haliburton’s. And Rumsfeld’s and Cheney’s. Because the real monster is Cheney. No. Yes, that’s right, Cheney. Life was all hunky dory and cost-affordable and healthcare accessible and filately splendid thank you under Clinton and his desk.

And then Cheney had to come along with his trained monkey W. And scare us all half to death. They might even succeed in reinstituting the DRAFT so they can take us out of our warm beds and get us all killed to satisfy their nocturnal Lovecraftian petrolust!

Don’t you realize that were we made to wear uniforms we’d have to do what THEY say, and we might even get KILLED!

That’s scary stuff, chuck and Dusty! Scary bad stuff. Scary scary scary stuff.

Aren’t you guys scared?

By Source please?

January 15, 2008 5:42 PM | Link to this

Interesting how the government data cited by the Bush enabler begins with Clinton’s second term, when the national budget deficit started going away and the surplus was achieved. Yes many of us were doing well in the late 90’s before the stocks and our 401Ks tanked and the massive migration of jobs to India occurred. What, this decade’s success can’t stand on its own? Guess not.

By Deborah

January 15, 2008 5:45 PM | Link to this

And the Dow dropped 280 points today due to poor economic forecast for 2008

By deegee

January 15, 2008 5:47 PM | Link to this

An attempt to have a dialog with someone that makes statements like the one below is like attempting to communicate with a mentally handicapped child. I understand that it takes special training, and that there are people that can do it. God bless them.

“By the way, Mitt’s father was governor of Michigan. I imagine he was also rich. Nothing against Mitt but I don’t picture him as ever being on the lower levels of richness.”

By Glenn

January 15, 2008 5:50 PM | Link to this

Well that’s a wet blanket if I’ve ever sucked on one. O damn! My dollar isn’t worth as much as it used to be. My President went and trumped up a war and spent my money so fast his treasurers and their usurers had to deflate my money to pay for it. I never said that this was an acceptible price to pay for his lie of a war. He never had my permission to fill my wallet full of air just to go after the wrong people who are not trying to kill me and every child in my family and under my care and tutelage. He never asked me!

By Glenn

January 15, 2008 5:56 PM | Link to this

What my inner getapacifier is twying to say in his own bwa-bwa way is, STFU you effing Democrat cowards, and pay the price of doing business as free-born sovereign citizens in the greatest flawed society ever known. And honor the people who watch your yellow backs every morning noon and night at the risk of their limbs and lives.

Grow up!

By Camus

January 15, 2008 5:58 PM | Link to this

Glenn,

I misjudged you. First you offer your adoration to the hapless Dusty, then you turn fact upside down and accuse the mythical monolithic left of being the scare merchants in this recent spasm of Orwell-come-true.

Seriously, fella, the Bush Administration (and lesser practitioners like your boy Rudy 911iani) has been overt in their use of nasty dark terrorists to increase their personal power and (in the case of Rudy and his laughable security consultancy) to reap personal fortune. These bozos have yelled “Boo” so many times (killer hair gels, anyone; how about high profile arrests of “terror cells” that have never resulted in a conviction?) that their terror alerts are openly laughed at by everyone except the piddlepants of the Right.

Contrary to your spin, it is the brave stalwarts of the Right that are in love with their bump-in-the-night fears. The wingnutosphere, led by the likes of Malkin, Althouse, Capt. Ed and Prof Instacracker, love nothing more than to feel that thrill of fear whenever a possible terrorist attack is underway. And their sense of disappointment (as when the Va Tech turned out to be a garden variety nut) is always palpable.

No Glenn, it is the Right that loves them some fear, that constantly belittles the left for not taking the threat seriously enough, for not embracing the most over-reactive proposals for keeping us safe. For the Right, 9-11 was the Greatest Thing That Ever Happened, our generation’s chance to be like the WW2 Fathers of our sepia memory.

What a bunch of sickos.

By deegee

January 15, 2008 6:00 PM | Link to this

Here a nice little snippet from the article linked below, for those of us that can’t understand why we feel a bit pinched in the pocketbook amid all this wonderful economic news.

“While the United States saw a decrease in average income of 10% — the biggest decline of all 30 member states — the income of the British middle class rose by 32%. Similarly, France’s, Germany’s and Japan’s average income increased by 28%, 20% and 17%, respectively.

A small consolation for U.S. middle class workers would be that the incomes of its nearby Canadian brethren also declined by 5%.”

http://www.theglobalist.com/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=6369

By Glenn

January 15, 2008 6:01 PM | Link to this

Camus, all right. From you, all right.

All I really want you to know from me right now is that if Huckabee prevails in the next 10 days I will go over to working myself sick against him. You’ll know what I mean, I trust.

By OneForTheRoad

January 15, 2008 6:05 PM | Link to this

I must say I can sleep better at night with less fermented fruit-flavored grape intake, profit, knowing that all unearned income is safely guarded from rips in the space-time continuum. I however shall continue to safely profit from the harvest of the corn and thus leave the black gold profit to those who dare to venture into such treacherous waters.

By getalife

January 15, 2008 6:08 PM | Link to this

My goodmess, this election will go all the way to the convention.

We will be sick of it and waiting for it to be over like the w disater.

Bush: “I’m Sure People View Me As A War Monger”

Well, some still make excuses for this idiot.

Party over country.

By Camus

January 15, 2008 6:10 PM | Link to this

Glenn,

Can we safely assume Malkin and Althouse to be the Mrs Premise and Mrs Conclusion of the wingnutosphere?

Does this make Instaputz Bounder of Adventure?

Blast that penguin on the telly…

By chuck

January 15, 2008 6:30 PM | Link to this

Glenn, your 5:38 was hilarious if wasn’t so close to truth. I think that my theory is pretty close to accurate. I didn’t have time to develop it fully, though. I have students occasionally who fit this profile. These are students who according to test scores are really bright, but they fail classes. It’s almost like they are ashamed of their own abilities and are afraid to use them. Then when they fail they blame EVERYTHING on someone or something else rather than focusing on the real problem…their fear of success or their shame caused by having more ability than they “deserve”. I just don’t get it.

By Craig

January 16, 2008 8:09 AM | Link to this

Camus your 5:58 was brilliant.

And Glenn, congratulations are in order, for your candidate’s great victory yesterday over Dennis Kucinich.

By Henry

January 16, 2008 5:36 PM | Link to this

Mitt Romney lost both New Hampshire and Iowa for one reason. Religious intolerance. Michigan saw through the religious bigotry to pick a real conservative. With both the Thompson and Guiliani campaigns falling apart, Romney is the only real conservative left. As for the mormon haters that wouldn’t vote for Mitt, they are everything that is wrong with this country. Leave the religious intolerance where it has always been, with the democrats.

By Jenlydessess

January 26, 2008 1:11 PM | Link to this

ciao ragazzi.. meglio Erik o Andrea? che facciamo?!

[url=http://www.neochat.info/]chat[/url]

By Reannastelia

January 29, 2008 3:50 AM | Link to this

qualkuno mi dice x favore un sit x chattare??? grazei