Thinking Right

By TW

January 24, 2008 8:44 AM | Link to this

The compassion John McCain has shown to the immigrants makes him the one Republican this lib might vote for.

By jbmlaw

January 24, 2008 8:52 AM | Link to this

Good morning all. Now that my guy Fred has abandoned the race, I share Jim’s ambivalence about the three remaining contenders. Chairman Ann today outlines the case against the straight-talk express. Dan Henninger this morning discusses the plastic problem haunting Mitt. Steve Forbes tries to pump some life into Rudy’s campaign, on the issue of taxes. Any of the three Republicans still standing will get my vote against either of the leftists. As with Jim, if it is McCain v Hillary, I’ll hold my nose and vote McCain – it is the inconsistent angel vs the inconsistent devil there. Either Rudy or Mitt would be more palatable for me. I suppose on Super Tuesday I’ll still vote for Fred, to send a message (albeit one nobody will hear or care about.) That is the equivalent of voting “uncommitted” and that suits my temperament.

By Mid-South Philosopher

January 24, 2008 9:01 AM | Link to this

Good morning, Jim,

No doubt about it…John McCain is an American hero.

That being said…so was Benedict Arnold…to begin with!

No! I am not comparing John McCain to Benedict Arnold, but I do have some problems with him.

He opposed the Bush tax cuts.

He was one of the “Three Stooges” who supported the Kennedy-McCain-BUSH Amnesty Plan for illegal aliens, which, fortunately, was defeated.

Most troubling, he was one of the principal authors of the McCain-Feingold Act, which limits free speech. That, more than anything, troubles me.

On his debit side, he did speak out against the idiot Rumsfeld’s foolish strategy to mishandle the occupation of Iraq after the combat phase of the war had ended.

He has the correct attitude about national defense.

I am not certain whether or not he is a corporatist, but he is a fan of elite government.

It will be interesting to watch him in the next few days.

By Glenn

January 24, 2008 9:22 AM | Link to this

TW,

That’s interesting. I can’t abide the man, but Huckabee makes the same noises, and does seemly sincerely empathetic—-almost as much so as a pastor offering sanctuary.

With McCain it’s an Arizona thing, as he always has separated himself from the Phoenix bigots (who always have been real harda$$es, and belongs more to the fair-minded Republicans in that city and in Mesa, Flag, Tucson (all university towns). In that way he’d be even more at home in Texas or New Mexico, both of which have had Mexican-American governors, both of which are steeped in Mexican culture, and both of which are home to distinguished and powerful old families of Mexican descent.

So all of that is to say that when McCain addresses the question of Mexican immigration from a starting point of respect, he’s in the line of a fairly old Southwestern Anglo tradition. His respectfulness therefore is probably quite sincere.

Huckabee’s?

By Kevin

January 24, 2008 9:29 AM | Link to this

There’s only one surefire way 4 McCain to win: Blame Hillary for setting fire to that aircraft carrier after she accidently-on-purpose fired a sidewinder missile into 50 other jets which were all refueling on the same carrier deck that McCain was on at the time by some weird coincidence. It was the sixties. It was ‘Nam. It was Hillary. Who else coulda. Who else woulda.

McCain is lovable, but slow witted and a bit of a dullard. He has a great sense of funny, and I’d love to have a beer with him, hug him, kiss his wife, have dinner with him, see a flick or two with him, kiss his wife…..

By TW

January 24, 2008 9:34 AM | Link to this

Good morning Glenn. Great words from you, as usual. I don’t really know what to say about this Huckabilly other than he smells like a rat. Besides that, he ain’t got a snowballs chance, so whatever.
Glenn - who’s more desperate for the win - Edwards in SC or Giuliani in Fla? Seems to me like they need to each win that repective state, or they ought to think about sitting down…have a cup of joe with Biden and Fred Thompson.

By Glenn

January 24, 2008 9:35 AM | Link to this

Camus,

I bowed out yesterday when things nosedived as usual into the Bermuda Triangle of ad hominem assault, and so I missed your forthright demand that I put up or shut up about Mr. Gore’s inventiveness. GaVoter and I put up at the end of yesterday’s string.

[Rudy………08?]

By Curious Observer

January 24, 2008 9:41 AM | Link to this

Unless McCain leans so far to the right that he does a handstand, he has no chance among the true believers in the closed primaries ahead. In fact, without the independents he would not be in his current position.

Look for Romney to be the nominee. He has the money and Huckabee doesn’t. Huckabee will take the South and its religious bigots, but Romney will buy the primaries in most of the remaining states. MidSouth’s grievances against McCain more or less reflect the opinion of the conservative wing of the party. The endorsement of Kemp doesn’t help McCain, but Phil Gramm and Tom Coburn might make him a little more palatable.

I can hear the grumbling of rednecks like Dusty now: “What, I’ve got to choose between one of Those People and a Mormon?”

By @@

January 24, 2008 9:42 AM | Link to this

You’re thinking WRONG today Jim. You were WRONG with your predictions in the SC caucus and well….

don’t be a Getalife. Lean in close….let me smack some sense into that thick skull of yours. QUIT PAYING ATTENTION TO THE POLLS!

I don’t care what the “Saint PetersHerd Heralds”—Rudy will be fine.

Rudy (08)

Rudy/Romney

Rudy/Michael Steele

Wicked is great!

By ron

January 24, 2008 10:02 AM | Link to this

Rudy and lazy Fred never wanted to be candidates,they just wanted to play.Get a few free meals and a little excitement and go home.McCain and Romney are seeking the Presidency,as are Hillary and Obama.Those four are the real candidates.Sorry,I still don’t see a president there.

By Rod Farva

January 24, 2008 10:03 AM | Link to this

I won’t have as much time to entertain you as I did yesterday. Sorry. Wishing you a happier tomorrow.

– Rod Farva

By MELO

January 24, 2008 10:04 AM | Link to this

jbmlaw and Jim, u are giving up the race before u even engage Hilary or Barack..i have never seen such spineless pple.For u jbmlaw to call a future President devil is preposterous and unrepublican.This woman will be ur comander in chief next January, like it or hate it.Im inviting u and Hannity to the inauguration.

By chuck

January 24, 2008 10:06 AM | Link to this

Wow, I’m not sure what I’m going to do now with Fred gone. I was looking at Huckabee before Thompson got into the race, but then Chuck Norris opened his yap and Huckabee didn’t shut down his idiotic rant about having these demon corporations pay all of the taxes. When you add that to the fact that he authorized spending state tax money to send illegal aliens to college while the poor CITIZENS of his state couldn’t get the same funding…well, let’s just say that effectively ended that romance for me.

I couldn’t vote for Giuliani under ANY circumstances. I will never vote for a candidate who is in favor of abortion and gay rights. I have voted in pretty much every election since 1976 when I turned 18. I think I missed 1 local referendum election a few years ago. As much as I would hate it, I would not cast a vote in the 2008 election if the choice was between any democrat candidate and Rudy. I would sit it out. It would break my heart to do that, but I would do it. At least in that instance 4 years of Hilary should be enough to allow the nation to once and for all bury the democrat party nationally and never consider it again.

As for Mitt, I still see him as the republican version of John Kerry. A privileged little rich boy who would say or do anything to be elected. I just don’t think that he cares deeply about the issues that are important to me and to this country. I’m sure he loves America, I just think he loves the idea of being President more.

That brings us to McCain. Here is my dilemma. I don’t oppose him because he voted against the Bush tax cuts. While I disagree, at least he had a rationale for that vote…runaway spending. He was right about that, but the tax cut actually INCREASED revenue to the feds. The tax cut was good for America, but he was right about the fact that Congress needed to get spending under control. I think that is the main reason the Republicans lost Congress in ‘06. The other thing that seriously bothers me is his stance on illegal immigration. I want a president who will proactively enforce our laws. I want illegals deported as they are found. I want ICE to actively seek out illegals. I want to stop spending $3 million a day to keep illegals in our jails. I want emergency rooms to remain open for Americans. I want laws that make it a felony to hire illegals and the same thing for those who rent to illegals.

In his favor, McCain has consistently been pro-life. He has never waivered in that regard. Also, you can’t argue his faithfulness to this country through his heroic service. I admire that tremendously. 6 months ago I never thought that I would say this, but I may have to vote for McCain.

OH, and Jeff…FORGET about “Dr. Ron Paul”. He is a nutjob.

By Dennis

January 24, 2008 10:08 AM | Link to this

Mr. Wooten writes, “I can’t bear four years of a President who uses the bully pulpit to demonize some sector of corporate America he wakes up despising.”

Doesn’t that pale in comparison to the illegal telecom spying (and prior to 9/11, too) on Americans, the political manipulation of the Department of Justice, the outting of a CIA agent, the commuting of the sentence of Scooter Libby, the vacilating claim of Dick Cheney that his office is not a part of the executive branch, the huge tax breaks for corporations and the wealthy that were supposed to prevent the current recession, the torture of prisoners (and the “little guys” who’ve been imprisoned for that), the holding of American citizens without charges and the refusal to allow them to talk with their lawyers (not to mention they could not speak to their lawyers in private).

Should we just write off the deaths of 4,000 American soldiers who have died for the lie of fighting terrorism in Iraq, when in fact they have died for corporate oil (Bush)profits?

Isn’t this, “I can’t bear four years of a President who uses the bully pulpit to demonize some sector of corporate America he wakes up despising.” a statement of hypocracy at it’s best?!

I don’t think I need go on with an endless list.

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

By Super Secret Identity

January 24, 2008 10:12 AM | Link to this

Lighten up Chuck! The Democratic party, nor the Republican party for that matter, is going anywhwere. No need to be such a drama queen.

By Camus

January 24, 2008 10:22 AM | Link to this

Glenn,

Answered your comments of today re: yesterday. Suffice to say that I think you/chuck/gavoter are all wet on the Gore legends. But I understand that denial is the comfort food of fools, and aquiesce that you three are Gore-ging at the buffet on this one.

As for today…I hope Edwards stays in. He has the money to stay on the scene and he can certainly pick up enough delegates to have an impact if the nomination comes down to the convention. More than that, though, his presence prevents Hil and Obie from tacking to the right. Good enough for me, and I’d be happy to see him as veep (though I prefer him for the number one slot, proving I guess that I am still in thrall to my racist/sexist nature).

As to Rudy…he has begun to downplay the importance of Florida. Rudy was asked by Fox News if he needed to win in the Sunshine State. “I don’t think any candidate ever puts himself in a corner and says, must win, have to win, must win,” Rudy said.

It truly is a brilliant strategy…Rudy never needs to win, so therefore, he never really loses, even when he comes in fifth. As such, he is the only winner, because the other losers (who may have actually, you know, won something) lost when they needed to win.

So, Rudy can take the GOP nomination without ever winning a primary, and then, when he loses the general, he can declare himself president according to his new rules of campaigning. He could probably even get five Supremes to back him up.

It really is blinding kung fu.

By GaVoter

January 24, 2008 10:24 AM | Link to this

I like bringing up Ron Paul. He’s my modern-day Ross Perot or that other guy that saved us all from the Pinto. Never underestimate the power of

“There’s no need to Fear! UNderDog is HEre!

Ron Paul

Anyway, that’s my way of agreeing with SuperSecretIdentity.

By Another taxpayer

January 24, 2008 10:27 AM | Link to this

My sister said she was voting for Chuck Norris. She wants someone in office that knows how to kick some butt and isn’t afraid to do it. All right! So, maybe he is too old to do it.

By Camus

January 24, 2008 10:40 AM | Link to this

A headline today:

Obama Radio Ad: Hillary Will Say Anything To Get Elected

Well slap my mama and call me Dusty. No sh!t, really?

Please. Everyone take a deep breath. Of course she will. So will Obama, Rudy, Mitt, St John the “Straight Talker”, Rev Huckleberry… all of them will say anything it takes to get elected. Both Bushes did it, so did Reagan and Bill. This “analysis” is as unremakable as saying the sun will rise tomorrow.

Anyone who uses this as an excuse to dismiss a candidate should lose their right to vote due to excessive banality. Stop. It makes you look stupid.

By Dems R Stooopid

January 24, 2008 10:43 AM | Link to this

A privileged little rich boy who would say or do anything to be elected.

GWB: “I’m a uniter, not a divider.” ad nauseum; “If affirmative action means what I just described, what I’m for, then I’m for it.” October 18, 2000; “One of the great things about books is sometimes there are some fantastic pictures.” Jan. 3, 2000; “This is still a dangerous world. It’s a world of madmen and uncertainty and potential mential losses.” Jan. 14, 2000; “I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family.” Jan. 27, 2000

By TW

January 24, 2008 10:53 AM | Link to this

Six Flags shutting down their water rides in an election year has to be a devastating blow to the Republican base. God help the GOP when the cable in the trailer gets cut off.

By getalife

January 24, 2008 10:55 AM | Link to this

If Satan ran for the gop, jim and the gop would vote for him for the Supreme Court nominees.

They should put abortion and the other non issues the gop care about on the ballot, let the people vote and be done with it.

Then the gop might vote for the best candidate for our country.

By Redneck Convert

January 24, 2008 11:25 AM | Link to this

Well, I ain’t sorry to see this Rudy guy going down. He’s just a Yankee librul that tries to sound like a godly conservative. Course, I ain’t suprized to see @@ in favor of him. She use to be a Democrat, and you never lose being a Democrat once you start. Its sort of like getting AIDS. You can act like you ain’t got AIDS all you want but you still got AIDS.

Us good Southren Christians will vote for the Rev. Huckabee. When he gets to the White House we will be slapping the 10 Commandments on every wall and having the kids praying to Jesus in school. We can use our pickups to haul all the illegals to the border and we will put a end to this godless abortion. If women get in the Fambly Way they got no right to get rid of it. We will perteck the unborn. Course, they ain’t our concern after they are born. We don’t want taxes to pay for doctoring and all that stuff. After they are born their parents become lazy no-good sponges in our way of thinking and we don’t pay taxes to support Sin.

And no way will we vote for a Mormon. This Romney may as well hang it up right now. I bet he won’t get 10% in the South. Maybe he’ll win Utah to go with Nevada but that’s about it. I would vote for this Hillary woman before I would vote for a Mormon. Course, I draw the line at voting for one of Those People.

Well, I got beer to haul all day, so I’ll just check in later today. Have a good day everybody.

By Copyleft

January 24, 2008 11:27 AM | Link to this

Well, if Wooten dislikes Edwards that much, he must be making an important message that the Repugnants want squashed at all costs.

Time to look into Edwards’ platform more closely… anyone Wooten tries that hard to dismiss can only be good for real Americans.

By Bubba Li Cious

January 24, 2008 11:28 AM | Link to this

Did some one say theys gonna cut out RAW. Thems fightn words. I used to have to drive my still-on-wheels all the way to Atlanta to see wrastlin, cept of course when we would get into it in the front yard, before they come out with Dish Network. Dont mess with my Dish Network. Dont mess with RAW. They dont run cable out here is this neck of the woods. Aint no one gonna leave all that good copper layin around and goin to waste. We even wrastle over that sometimes.

By ron

January 24, 2008 11:37 AM | Link to this

$300 TO $1200 on the tax stimulus.I’m putting mine in the mattress for the hard times coming.Coming,nothing,they’re here.I now buy a little gas and what I eat and that’s it.Wonder how the next money swindle will start?Shortage of corn probably.Double the grocery prices.

By One

January 24, 2008 11:38 AM | Link to this

Maybe Guiliani can steal Florida like Dubya did in 2000!!!

By Shar

January 24, 2008 11:49 AM | Link to this

A Guiliani win in Florida, although unlikely, might invite a rethinking of our current primiary system, which lavishes attention (and, accordingly, Federal largesse) on two tiny, atypical states while treating their larger brethren like drive-through ATMs. However far off such an eventuality seems, it is even less likely that a Florida win will boost Mr. Guiliani’s candidacy enough to garner a significant number of delegates on Super Duper Tuesday, as he has allowed his national visibility to drop to nearly zero.

Mr. Wooten’s sly angling for the kind of impassioned response that Dennis gave at 10:08 brings up a critical task for the next President, that of working across the aisle. With the majority of Americans telling polltakers that the country is heading in the wrong direction, it is fair to say that many, many of us have had to “bear” growing fury, frustration, anguish and shame as the Bush Administration has followed the abhorrent Rovian political playbook while simultaneously slamming the door on any opinions (or interests) other than their own. For those who have been shut out, mislead and dismissed from the political process, anger and distrust have given rise to a destructive knee-jerk antagonism to anything the other side might propose, no matter how worthy. With ongoing wars, a monumental deficit and a teetering economy, the next president absolutely must be able to restore comity and respect and find common ground to move the country back from the brink.

On the GOP side, I think that Senator McCain’s experience in compromise and leadership would be most effective in this area. For the Democrats, the choice is not as clear cut. Senator Clinton’s continuing demonization of Republicans seems to me to dig the partisan Maginot Line ever further, with about as much practical value. I’d pick either Senators Obama or Edwards on this measure.

By deegee

January 24, 2008 11:52 AM | Link to this

Wouldn’t it be a p** if people decided to just go ahead and pay down their credit card balances with the tax rebate rather than go out and spend it on some cheap Chinese crap?

By getalife

January 24, 2008 11:53 AM | Link to this

ron,

I am spending mine on my prescribed opiates and weed.

It helps reading jim’s drivel and the damage the gop have caused to our country.

Then, there is the drinking game for the State of the Union. Do a shot of Jager every time w lies and see if you can get past the first 5 minutes.

By Glenn

January 24, 2008 11:59 AM | Link to this

In ancient Norse they had this suffix, “-bane”, meaning the antithesis or nemesis of a thing. So a dog was a dog, and also a cat-bane; a cat a cat, and a mouse-bane, etc. Synonyms, you see.

Well go up to the first New Yorker you bump into, and after waiting for the person to cuss you out, ask that inevitably liberal person what she thought of Giuliani’s mayoralty, and you’ll discover that Giuliani, Redneck’s daily dose of reverse psych notwithstanding, is a liberal-bane.

Maybe Guiliani [sic] can steal Florida like Joe Kennedy stole New Hampshire and Cook County, Illinois! Then maybe the Democratic nominee can bow out gracefully, for the good of the country, like Nixon did in 1960!

Ah, but I’m living in the past again. No, wait. It was someone else who brought up the past, so as to second-guess the Electoral College, the U.S. Supreme Court, and the major print and broadcast media outlets and their innumerable recounts. Yeah. That’s right.

By Glenn

January 24, 2008 12:06 PM | Link to this

Camus,

It’s one thing to say that the press parodied or characterized or even exaggerated Mr. Gore’s confabulations—-of course the media did all those things—-but it’s another thing to say that his bizarre behavior is the stuff of “myth” or legend.

The NYT of December 14, 1997 will tell you of author Erich Segal’s dismay at Mr. Gore’s claims regarding Segal’s Love Story, and of Mr. Gore’s explanation that it was all “a misunderstanding”. Now I realize that the NYT not infrequently traffics in legend, but are you saying that this was one such instance?

By One

January 24, 2008 12:07 PM | Link to this

OR, maybe Guiliani can shrivel up and push up daisies like we would love to see Dubya do after his sham of a term is over!!!!!

By chuck

January 24, 2008 12:14 PM | Link to this

ONE…If you still believe that garbage you should be ONE LESS.

Super Secret Kimmie…what a load of crap. I was listening to “The Architect” (no, not George Costanza) yesterday on Hannity and he says it really doesn’t matter who the democrat party candidate is, the Republican will win. Straight from the lips of Karl Rove to your ears. So, now you know.

By @@

January 24, 2008 12:25 PM | Link to this

*By Redneck Convert January 24, 2008 11:25 AM

you never lose being a Democrat once you start. Its sort of like getting AIDS. You can act like you ain’t got AIDS all you want but you still got AIDS.

That’s ^^^ actually rather funny Redneck. While I came to the realization that government AIDS was fatal to an individual’s health and financial well-being, you seem to be stuck in the hollers.

Everybody knows there’s a cocktail for AIDS patients but alas….you drive a beer truck.

Ignorance is bliss my friend—drink up. YOUR problems will still be there tomorrow cause your dem.

I’ve moved on and up to the ridge where a vast horizon with endless possibilities can be viewed. I’ll send you a postcard.

By Super Secret Identity

January 24, 2008 12:29 PM | Link to this

Who is The Architect?

By Camus

January 24, 2008 12:32 PM | Link to this

The NY Times article of Dec 14, 1997, written by Melinda Henneberger, includes the following as the 3rd and 4th paragraphs:

*Those reports were half-true, Mr. Segal said: The character of the preppy Harvard hockey player Oliver Barrett 4th was modeled on both Mr. Gore and his college roommate, the actor Tommy Lee Jones. *

But it was Mr. Jones who inspired the half of the character that was a sensitive stud, a macho athlete with the heart of a poet, Mr. Segal said. The author attributed to Mr. Gore only the character’s controlling father and feeling that his family was pressuring him to follow in Dad’s footsteps.

Gore said he was an inspiration for the character; Segal confirmed it. But despite this clear verifiability that Gore was relating the simple fact that he was an inspiration for a crappy novel, the press corps used it as part of their trivialization of the 2000 campaign to “prove” that Gore was not trustworthy.

Also from this article that you mistakenly believe supports your position:

*In their phone conversation a few days ago, Mr. Gore reminded Mr. Segal that while Mr. Segal was on his book tour for ”Love Story,” a reporter for The Nashville Tennessean who knew that Mr. Gore and the author were friends had asked if there was not a little bit of Al Gore in Oliver Barrett. Mr. Segal said yes, there was, but the reporter ”just exaggerated,” Mr. Segal said. ”He made it to be the local-hero angle.” *

A reporter “exaggerated”! It must not be possible that the campaign press corps that went ON RECORD as not liking the “the famously wooden Vice President” (also from that article) might have exaggerated this event as well in an effort to shore up their chosen story line of Gore= Lying Bore, but Bush is the kind of guy you’d like to have a beer with.

Try again, Glenn. Perhaps the earth tone suits this time?

By chuck

January 24, 2008 12:49 PM | Link to this

SupSec…Karl Rove?!?!

By getalife

January 24, 2008 12:49 PM | Link to this

Looks like Congress will approve round 2 of welfare to stimulate the failed economy.

I though ya’ll were against welfare.

The good news is Iraqi welfare ends in a year.

By getalife

January 24, 2008 12:59 PM | Link to this

“Reid Challenges GOP to Filibuster Anti-Immunity Provision”

OMG, did President Clinton show em how to use a spine when he attacked corporate media?

By OneForTheRoad

January 24, 2008 1:11 PM | Link to this

I’m in favor of a good life for everyone. Mind you, I did not use phrases that included world peace or can’t we all just get along. That’s the equivalent of pulling out the wading boots. We all know that we cannot all just get along and that world peace cannot be achieved with today’s technology. If we had the technology to transform every creature into a cow, then we may be able to achieve world peace — at least until one of them wised up and started talking about things like the grass is greener on the other side or eat mor chikin[Is that trademarked?]

By getalife

January 24, 2008 1:15 PM | Link to this

“McCain is Bush on steroids.” — Pat Buchanan

Ouch.

By ray

January 24, 2008 1:22 PM | Link to this

MCCAIN/SATAN ‘08 FINISH THE DRILL!

By Kevin

January 24, 2008 1:28 PM | Link to this

One for the road, There’s only one person I dont get along with: YOU!

SHar, @11:49. That’s a fine bit o’thinkin’, and a fair piece of double spoken prattle, but Hillary is our nextest president.

We’re going to have a co-dependent co-presidency. It fits. All the baby boomers were co-dependent nincompoops so why not a prez for them too?

Remember, the baby boomers invented sex, drugs and rock and roll. Hell, I started the naked conga line at the original woodstock. But there was an unwritten agreement that at some point in our lives, we’d all stop passing the bong and sober up. I assumed that age would be thirty, then forty five, then 59. So I’ve still got a couple years. Are you supposed to clean the water in a bong after a while, or just let it go? Does anybody remember Captain Bringdown, who ruined more pot parties than a narc ever did by complaining that he never got off on the hash brownies? I hated that guy.

By OneForTheRoad

January 24, 2008 1:29 PM | Link to this

Getalife,

Ouch is right. Does that mean that McCain will invade Iran if elected or will he go straight for world domination?

By Apocalypse

January 24, 2008 1:32 PM | Link to this

From The Associated Press:

“Fact Check: Obama’s ‘Present’ Votes”

Barack Obama’s rivals in the Democratic presidential race contend he sometimes voted ”present” on tough issues rather than take a firm stand.

…THE FACTS: Obama acknowledges that over nearly eight years in the Illinois Senate, he voted ”present” 129 times. That was out of roughly 4,000 votes he cast…

Illinois legislators often vote ”present” and for a wide variety of reasons. Sometimes blocs of lawmakers do it as a protest in some dispute over rules and procedures. Obama was often joined in his ”present” votes by 10 or 20 other senators.

In other cases, lawmakers do it to signal objections to the details of a measure that they support in principle. They also use ”present” votes as strategic moves to defeat legislation… Clinton highlights several of Obama’s ”present” votes that she considers questionable.

Several involve abortion — a ban on certain late-pregnancy abortions, a requirement that a minor’s parents be notified and restrictions on a type of abortion where the fetus sometimes survives for short periods.

”A woman’s right to choose … demands a leader who will stand up and protect it,” said one Clinton campaign mailer.

But the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council says Obama’s ”present” votes were actually part of a careful strategy to prevent those restrictions from passing.

President Pam Sutherland said the group feared several senators were going to vote ”yes” on the legislation because of attacks from Republicans over their past opposition. Sutherland says she approached Obama and convinced him to vote ”present” so that the wavering senators would do the same. For their purposes, a ”present” was as good as an outright ”no” because it kept the bills from reaching the majority needed to pass.

By Shar

January 24, 2008 1:52 PM | Link to this

Kevin @ 1:28, Senator Clinton is unelectable in a general election. Her negatives are sky high and entrenched and the Republicans would like nothing better than to make her run on her record: inexplicable profits at the Rose Law Firm, firing the Travel Office, the health care debacle, the “trailer trash” and “bake cookies” comments, to say nothing of her carpetbagging in New York, her waffling on the Iraq vote, etc. etc. etc. The only Republican candidate she’d beat would be the Right Ridiculous Huckabee; any of the other three will cruise past and leave her impotently railing by the side of the road.

By Super Secret Identity

January 24, 2008 1:53 PM | Link to this

Sorry Chuck I got distracted and missed the Rove revelation. I guess I was hung up on Costanza? I wouldn’t worry much about Rove. If he were so all-knowing he would still be at the White House.

By ray

January 24, 2008 1:58 PM | Link to this

$600 = three cartons smokes + 15 cases beer + fill-up truck 3 times = 1 month…then what?

By ray

January 24, 2008 1:58 PM | Link to this

$600 = three cartons smokes + 15 cases beer + fill-up truck 3 times = 1 month…then what?

By Make it stop

January 24, 2008 1:59 PM | Link to this

“It could take me a few days to warm up to McCain, but with visions of most of the Democratic alternatives, I could get there.”

This creates for me disturbing visions of Wooten having, well, fantasies about the Republican field.

Ycch!

By ray

January 24, 2008 2:09 PM | Link to this

wait a minute! wait just a cotton pickin’ minute! we’re spendin’ 2b a week in iraq…at a population of 27 million that’s nearly four grand a piece!!! and i’m only gettin’ a measly six hundred bucks of my own freakin’ money back?!!! who’s in charge?!!!

By getalife

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

Come on, at least it is American welfare instead of Iraqi welfare.

Well, they did borrow $649 billion for defense.

Let them eat cake while w’s friends eat lobster.

You get what you vote for.

By Truthifier

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

Shar, if you’re referring to Whitewater when you bring up the matter of profits at the Rose Law Firm, then you know that those charges were fully investigated, at the taxpayers expense, and it was determined that there was insufficient evidence Mrs. Clinton had engaged in any criminal practices.

As far as her carpet bagging in New York, I’d say that that is an issue for New Yorkers. They have elected her twice so it doesn’t appear to be a problem.

The trailer trash comment is certainly unfortunate, but I’m not srue that it disqualifies someone from the presidency.

By Dusty

January 24, 2008 2:29 PM | Link to this

Relax, folks. You may join me in a great write-in candidate for the Presidency. He is ROBERT M. GATES.

Of course you know him. He’s Sec. of Defense and a brilliant man. He was former President of Texas A & M University, Served 27 years in the CIA. His degrees include a PhD in Russia & Soviet History. He has received many honors, written a book about Presidents, served on many boards and associations, even Boy Scouts. He has a wife and two grown children. He is 63 years old.

When you hear Robert Gates speak, you know that he knows what he is talking about, tells it like it is and is not about to be pushed around.

GATES FOR PRESIDENT

By getalife

January 24, 2008 2:45 PM | Link to this

Get this, the House is not in session because the gop are in a weekend retreat.

Amazing.

By Jackie

January 24, 2008 2:49 PM | Link to this

Dubya just gave a press conference to announce his support of a stimulus package of $140 billion dollars to help stave off a Recession. The only way the Repubs in the House would agree to the deal is a $70 Billion dollar TAX CUT for business with no unemployment benefits extension and no food stamps for poor people. This trickle-down, voodoo economic theory has been thoroughly disparaged by those who brought this economic model to government, David Stockman of the Reagan administration, yet those congressional fascists continue to resist doing anything to help middle-class and poor folks in this country. Just thought it was intresting to see this event pointing out this country is on the cusp of a major economic meltdown and there are folks that still believe the prognosis for economic collapse is “just a guess because there are no people waiting in bread lines.”

By OneForTheRoad

January 24, 2008 2:55 PM | Link to this

Dusty,

Gates sounds OK. But, the REALLLLLY important question:

Does he have enough money to pay his staff and pay for the national ads?

By GaVoter

January 24, 2008 2:58 PM | Link to this

There is nothing wrong with tax cuts. You just need reduced spending to go along with the cuts. Its like all this talk about a national sales tax. That’s fair — just eliminate all national spending first.

By Dusty

January 24, 2008 2:59 PM | Link to this

getalife@2:45

Retreat? You must be talking about Democrats. They’re the ones always retreating.

Anyway, I thought Nancy Pelosi had taken another trip to Syria at government expense. One of THOSE retreats. I guess not although she’s not seen much these days.

By Dusty

January 24, 2008 3:08 PM | Link to this

OneFor The Road @2:55

We can all help by sending Gates our rebates!!!!

But he wouldn’t take it ‘cause he wouldn’t want “bribe” money or whatever. He is not the type to get rich in one year from stock transactions or Chinese businessmen either.

Nope! He wouldn’t like that one bit. He’s from Kansas.

By getalife

January 24, 2008 3:13 PM | Link to this

No stupid.

Your party is in retreat in all airport mens rooms.

Lots of little boys, prostitutes and cocaine.

Family values and all that crap.

By Charles

January 24, 2008 3:14 PM | Link to this

I guess you all thought that I was finished. lol Oh no, I’m here, I’m still fighting…

I never thought Hillary Clinton and I would agree on anything. We both agree on this point, “it took a president” — Lyndon Johnson — to implement civil rights legislation Martin Luther King Jr. had advocated.

Why has this comment caused a stir among the so-called civil rights leaders and some of their minions? The Negro leaders would have you believe that Martin Luther King Jr. was the driving force that changed society. The reality is that he was not. He basically pleaded and begged those with power to change the condition of Negroes for the good of Caucasians. That’s exactly what the powers that be did. The Negroes were conditioned to depend upon other people to provide for their basic needs. Our basic needs were provided for at the expense of our dignity, honor, and freedom. As a consequence, we have chaos in the streets of America today.

The masses of white people are much more socially refined than they were fifty years ago. But the unity among Caucasians has been dismantled. This is good for the powers that be. They now have no real opposition. Consequently, the powers that be “own” America. But there is danger ahead; white people have begun to wake up!

The white and black masses should understand that the civil rights movement, the era of Martin Luther King Jr., was merely a fairy tale too. He was the only civil rights worker who had sense enough to understand this undeniable truth and the courage to expose it. So, he had to be assassinated, eliminated in order to proceed.

I’m sorry Jim. Let’s put an end to this fairy tale. The only presidential Candidate that I can warm up to is Ron Paul. The New World Order, powers that be, has minimal control of him.

By OneForTheRoad

January 24, 2008 3:15 PM | Link to this

Dusty,

Talkin’ about campaign contributions, exactly who is getting those $3 per tax-filer.

Regarding Gates for President — I was leaning more toward Bill Gates. At least there would be no question about his ability to finance his race. Besides, I like some of his thoughts regarding capitalism for the poor.

By getalife

January 24, 2008 3:17 PM | Link to this

If you think w and the gop can stop a recession, you are dumber than dusty.

They caused the recession.

Geez.

By Dusty

January 24, 2008 3:48 PM | Link to this

getalife @3:13

Golly, gee, getalife, I gather that Democrats are free of ANY sexual improprieties. Pres. Clinton DOES come to mind. Did not think that you would remind us of those “family values”.

By Disgusted

January 24, 2008 3:51 PM | Link to this

He’s Sec. of Defense and a brilliant man. He was former President of Texas A & M University.

I once worked for an Aggie, and I’ve known several other Aggies. That university specializes in turning out rigid, unimaginative people. I suppose it’s the faux military uniforms they wear and the cheerleader mentality of the women. Such stunts as calling a business meeting in the middle of a party attended by spouses were routine for my boss.

Find another qualification for your candidate, Dusty. Thus far, I’m unimpressed.

By Curious Observer

January 24, 2008 4:00 PM | Link to this

I’m deeply resentful that the Republican paleocons have chosen my home county for their retreat. I suppose the area can use the $400 per night room revenue and the associated $100 meals, but couldn’t they have chosen Texas as the location of their planning for how to screw the little guys? I seem to remember that one Texan is particularly good at it.

By Dusty

January 24, 2008 4:00 PM | Link to this

One for the Road @3:15

Oh, I like Bill Gates too and who is any richer? The nice part is that he did it with his own wits and efforts, the true American way. But I think he serves best right where he is, distributing much of his wealth to help others.

The knowledge and experience in academics and government puts Robert Gates in first place. I think he would be great….if only!!!

I’d better get busy. See ya later… (Oh, just excuse getalife. He doesn’t know any better. shhh)

By chuck

January 24, 2008 4:09 PM | Link to this

Sorry Dusty. If I’ve got to jump on the wagon to DRAFT a candidate, I would rather have John Kasich. Next to Newt Gingrich, he’s the smartest conservative in the country…and he doesn’t have Newt’s baggage.

By Glenn

January 24, 2008 4:11 PM | Link to this

No, no Camus. You actually lied about that one! The NYT article quotes the author Segal as saying that the character (a) was composite, (b) was not based on Mr. Gore, (c) was instead based on Mr. Jones, with only the inspiration for the Jones “character’s controlling father” deriving from Segal’s observations of Jones’s roommate Mr. Gore. It also reports—-how did you miss this one, Camus?—-that Mr. Segal said that the love interest for the Jones character was “in no way based on [the future] Mrs. Gore”, nor was “the wild romance in the novel…inspired by the [Gore] couple.”

The NYT also reported, in response to the Time magazine account of Gore’s fanciful claims, that “Mr. Gore told Mr. Segal that the whole thing was a misunderstanding.” Indeed, the Times explained: “It has been a difficult year for Mr. Gore.”

Why on Earth do you suppose the story would have arisen, if not for Gore’s nonsense about how he and Tipper were the inspiration for the book and film? Do say. Go ahead. Try again.

Explain how these stories arose in the most important news outlets as a result of GOP mythologizing. Do.

By chuck

January 24, 2008 4:12 PM | Link to this

Sorry Dusty. If I’ve got to jump on the wagon to DRAFT a candidate, I would rather have John Kasich. Next to Newt Gingrich, he’s the smartest conservative in the country…and he doesn’t have Newt’s baggage.

By Dusty

January 24, 2008 4:18 PM | Link to this

Awww Disgusted @3:51

Come on. You want a “party boy” to be President? I kinda like the straight forward brainy type myself. Dwight Eisenhower didn’t do too bad. And I don’t think we need another “Camelot” or any more Lincoln-Bed & Breakfast types in the WhiteHouse.

GATES FOR PRESIDENT

Now I’m really gone this time. Bye…

By Glenn

January 24, 2008 4:22 PM | Link to this

getalife @ 10:55,

It may interest you to know that orthodox Christian theology has it that concentrations of political power, such as the GOP and the Democratic Party, are indeed in Satan’s control.

Mark Twain had a lot of fun with this theodical predicate. Too much fun, in fact: most of his riffing on this theme was too outrageous for Edwardian tastes and was left unpublished.

By Dusty

January 24, 2008 4:26 PM | Link to this

Almost gone ….. Chuck @ 4:18

Sorry…NO TV commentators. Absolutely…

GATES FOR PRESIDENT

By Dusty Trails

January 24, 2008 4:36 PM | Link to this

Stepford Dusty strikes again.

By Miss Prissy Britches

January 24, 2008 4:39 PM | Link to this

Ok, here’s the deal:

Everyone likes to get laid, whether they are a Republican or a Democrat.

No one cares if Al Gore thinks he is the inspiration for Love Story. If he wants to think that let him. It has absolutely no impact on any of your lives.

By Glenn

January 24, 2008 4:59 PM | Link to this

Miss Breech:

Actually, it does have an impact, in that a small industry has sprouted to provide fig leaves for Mr. Gore’s naked looniness, and that industry succeeds in punking smart and savvy people. That’s important to me, if not to you.

It’s also important that Mr. Kerry (such a long face to lose!) is succeeding in getting e.g. the Kosbots to buy into his effort to turn the proper noun “Swiftboat” into a pejorative verb. Should he and his minions succeed, then it will be a dirty word for e.g. the AJC to engage in expose, and most especially in the hard journalistic work of exposing public fraud. Such as Mr. Gore and Mr. Kerry.

It took the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth to do it the last time. Who’s going to do the actual Swiftboating this time, in the interest of the country?

By Kevin

January 24, 2008 5:09 PM | Link to this

Who’s going to do the tamponing of Glenn?

Is there anything worse than a thesaurus abuser? None of the words he chooses means what he thinks they mean.

By Camus

January 24, 2008 5:32 PM | Link to this

Glenn,

What I had ascribed to density I must now credit to sheer dishonesty.

I quoted the article directly. It refutes your original claim. Your tortured re-framing of Gore’s original comments to prove that he made an elaborate claim (just as in your failed attempts to hang the Internet issue round his neck) demonstrates that you are not acting in good faith. In short, sir, I am calling you a liar.

You seem to also have an interest in re-writing the history of the SBVT. Again, sir, I am calling you a liar. Not mistaken or misinformed, but a bald faced liar. Its intention was clear from the start, and while its methods were beneath contempt, they were indeed effective.

The wingnut noise machine has engaged in this kind of absolute untruth for years. The method is clear…repeat and embellish a distortion, the more outlandishly the better. Make it impossible to answer the original charge by moving on to the next embellishment as quickly as possible. Dismiss proof of the first distortion’s untruth as “old news” (as in, “of course Whitewater turned up nothing…that’s old news”) while continuing to create new ‘news’ with better and more far-fetched distortions. Meanwhile, evidence of wrongdoing by the media favorites (and who wouldn’t want to have a beer with good old George) as “old news” (e.g., evidence of Bush gaming the TANG system or his part in siphoning taxpayer welfare when he “owned” the Texas baseball team) and not worth spending time on.

The GOP understood quite well that our modern news media is considered useful by its owners as nothing more than a placeholder to fill time between advertisements. They were happy to provide the content in a form that was easy to package. Gin up a controversy and provide a ready stream of “pundits” to express deep outrage and offense. The deep pockets of guys like Scaife and Perry (to name just a few) just make it that much easier.

The MSM makes no secret of its reliance on Drudge and his ilk to provide story ideas. They thrive on the scandal du jour. As TV news became more addicted to shouting head experts the mission was only made easier, as anyone with a sober voice was quickly drowned out by hysterical liars like Coulter, Malkin, and sideline provocateurs like yourself. And even the “liberals” on these shows (think of ineffectual voices like Colmes) know to play the game within established guidelines. You can deny it, but you’d be lying again.

I do not expect you to admit your outright lies. I take the time to write this only in the hope that others will begin to recognize the ways the established media and their enablers have degraded our public discourse and will learn to defend themselves.

By Glenn

January 24, 2008 6:17 PM | Link to this

Actually, Camus, it is you who are the liar. I also quoted the article directly, to refute your dishonest paraphrasing and selective quoting of it.

You said outright that on the two questions of the Internet and Love Story, Gore had been the victim of vindictive mythopoesis. Bull. I have more than proved that it was he who brought mockery in those matters upon himself. You have not, because you cannot, show otherwise, so you resort to lying, to character assault, to changing the subject, and to accusing others of lying.

You have been punked by the cheap spin of those who have run stories for years saying that it was all made up—-just as you said yesterday when you had the gall to shame me publicly—-when it is readily ascertainable that it is not made up. There is much more to the Internet story than I have referenced here, but what I have shown in honest reporting is enough to bring Mr. Gore’s actual sanity into question, as indeed many well meaning people have done.

Face it, Camus. The man confabulates. He is not immune from our pointing out that he confabulates, no matter how badly you may wish to believe that we have an agenda in pointing to the truth. His confabulation extends well beyond a politician’s customary resume-padding, and when he finally humiliates even himself and his family in public and requires the gentlest urgent care, then you will see how sycophantic and wishful and downright effing Orwellian it was of his partisans to have covered for his lunacy.

In the meantime, it would appear that both of us are liars. So, from one liar to another, take my advice, please: look after the man. He’s our former Vice President and a former U.S. Senator and Representative of considerable distinction, and he is not well.

By Camus

January 25, 2008 8:24 AM | Link to this

Sigh.

Glenn, I agree that all politicians embellish the resumes in the course of the campaigns. Big deal, no problem. Gore did, Bush did, they all do it. Unremarkable. What is remarkable is the extent to which Gore’s alleged penchant for lying became a huge issue in the 2000 campaign, while Bush’s bullsh!t was dismissed as the offhand remarks of a likable guy. What is remarkable is the extent to which the press injected themselves into the comapaign based on personal likes and dislikes.

First point…The original Gore remark on Love Story came during a 2-hour interview with NY Times and Time magazine. Later on, the Time correspondent, had this to say: “It had truly, truly been an offhanded comment by Gore. And it suddenly turns into this big thing that probably continues to dog him for the rest of the campaign.” In short, it was a nothing remark, but the press corp intentionally distorted its importance…all in the service of the accepted storyline of the campaing. Bush is a good guy. Gore is a lying bore.

Second…Unlike your two posts which reference the Times of 12/14/97, I pulled unedited entire paragraphs to support my argument. You chose to pull snips of disconnected sentences. Then you pulled the wingnut trick of accusing me of committing your own transgression, in this case quoting out of context. This is how the game against Gore was played. You carry on a less than proud tradition.

I do not care to portray Gore as a saint or as that rare (extinct?) breed of politician who never exaggerates his/her own accomplishments and virtues. But it is less-than-serious for someone of your intelligence to carry these distortions as a gospel truth, and worse, to use them to somehow analyze “our former Vice President and a former U.S. Senator and Representative of considerable distinction” as somehow being “not well.” It is even worse that the fate of the presidential election turns upon such trivia.