« Buchanan's Boy Indicts Republicans | Main | Huckabee says evolution is not an issue »

May 06, 2007


Your link (keeps growing) is broken.

fixed, thanks Seamus!

here's a story about well-bred scions of R blood thinking about deserting the party.

Generational Tensions
The sons and daughters of some iconic Republicans (Ike! T.R.!) are contemplating crossing the aisle.


I just read that Generational Tensions article, and though I try not to go into pres primary stuff here, I think it makes an argument for Democrats choosing Obama.

If there is a huge moderate disaffection with the GOP, Hillary is the last person on earth to be able to capitalize on it. All of Obama's annoying "new kind of politics" rhetoric, and his history of working constructively with the reasonable opposition, however, mean that he should be able to appeal to these people who presumably care for neither old right nor old left. More to the point, the rhetoric is designed to appeal to these people, and the real question is how many of them there really are. Do you go for a base election (Hillary) or a realignment election (Obama)? I actually think we'd be very likely to win a base election with Hillary, but I'm inclined to go for the realignment anyway.

Of course, if you're gonna go around promising a "new kind of (left) politics", your base is gonna sit on their hands until they see exactly what you're selling. I'm rooting for Obama, but I'm not gonna donate until I see what his politics really are. Writ large, that kind of base skepticism is an issue, and it may not be possible to appeal to Christie Todd Whitman and the Dem base all at the same time.

Anyway, sorry for bringing the primaries over here.

lowered expectations

I found this gem in the comments for broder's latest laugher:

In this piece he took on an uncomfortable topic for conservatives in general and Republicans in particular. He communicated the insiders view, which is what he is supposed to do. He didnt misspell any of the words, the sentences all have subject and predicates, as far as I am concerned, go ahead and cut the man his check.

it don't make any sense, but it's grammatically correct, and he spelled all the words right, pay the man

we should think about hooking Ed Murrow to an electric generator soon. He ought to doing about 5000 rpms or so right now

Texas Dem: it may not be possible to appeal to Christie Todd Whitman and the Dem base all at the same time.

With any kind of luck, it won't be necessary to appeal to CTW, because she'll be in jail where she belongs.

Sometimes the news scares me. Comey stated he didn't know how to put this genie back in the bottle. Let's say 2008 brings a Democratic President, Senate AND House. Are there enough Rovian minions in place to wreak enough havoc to ruin it all?

Remember, they have given us the tools to purge them.

Legal tools? Ethical tools? If not, will we be like them?

texasdem, I'm not sure there's such a bright red line as you're assuming between a base election and a realigning one. The two biggest realignment elections of the 20th century were in 1932 and 1980, and they involved the (eventually) most base-beloved candidates we've ever seen. You can argue Roosevelt kept himself enough of a cipher that his ideological bent wasn't clear before the election, but you certainly can't make that claim about Reagan, about whom many members of his own party fretted throughout 1980 as extremist (John Anderson, people forget, was initially the creation of unhappy moderate Republicans).

In the long run, realignments happen because an old coalition has broken down (something that had already begun by 1992, and is clear as day by now) and because an incumbent administration is botching things beyond belief. Those two element unmistakably apply today, and I see realignment happening regardless of who the Dem candidate. Those people quoted in Dem's article will end up voting for "change", which unavoidably means the Democratic candidate.

Now, if you want to say that Hillary Clinton is, for various reasons, not the optimal candidate to carry the standard, I won't entirely disagree. But I think John Edwards is the candidate best equipped to not only score major victory on Election Day, but also have a successful adminstration. He manages to appeal to both the base, in policy terms, and the broad middle, culturally.

And I'll add that whoever (whomever?) is the candidate left standing for the general, the Dems--all of us--will support that person.
(1) There's too much at stake and everyone smarter than a slug knows it.
(2) We on the left and on the Toobz will hold the candidate's feet to the fire and ensure some reality awareness.
(3) The DC establishment will provide equal weight to the practical aspects of running an election and appealing to the base.
It'll be messy and won't entirely work for any of us, and if we are smart, flexible, and resourceful, it'll be a landslide for the Democrats.


the USAs is nothing but a blown up story. It doesn't even have the heft of Wilson-Plame-Rove where a crime was alleged to have happened, though never charged anyway, and only Libby was charged for incidental memory lapses.

The USAs case is being whipped up to try to get Rove on the docket, not even for a crime.

I can see the unfolding already.

Mr Rove did you know about this? Well yes, probably.
Mr Rove did you put names on a list. Well yes I offered a few suggestions.
Mr Rove why did you put names on the list. It seemed like a good thing to do.
Mr Rove? Well, I have to work too you know. It is not all Blackberring the RNC in my office.
Mr Rove where are the emails? I don't know. Fitz has some. The others are out there somewhere according to what I have read from Mr Leathy.
Where Mr Rove. You got me, Mr Waxman. But if I find them, I will put them back.
Mr Rove did you delete some emails. Yes of course. you know how the boxes get all cluttered. You can't find anything important. You know demon plans to crush the Democrats.
Mr Rove you shouldn't have deleted them. Why can't I throw away my own mail? Hey man, my mail.

Or course Karl Rove would be smoother than that. But anyway I had some fun with it.

Well, DemfromCT - I've long said no good deed goes unpunished. And there you have it.

Moving on - Here's a little tidbit that's been on my mind for a few weeeks. I was watching Real Time a few weeks ago and one of the panelist was a lovely woman named Amy Holmes. She seemed reasonable moderate as it took me a moment to realize she was the token Republican. She was pretty clear to point out that she though Hillary had done well in that first Democratic debate. I didn't think much of it at the time, but then just a few days later I again heard this woman (who I'd never heard of before) on NPR and again she made a point to, not TOO forcefully, push Hillary as the top Democratic contender or strongest democratic contender. So who is Amy Holmes? From wikipedia:

Amy Holmes (Born 1973) is a Republican strategist who often makes appearances on CNN and FOX News Channel. She was formerly a speechwriter for Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist. Holmes graduated from Princeton University with a BA in economics in 1994.

Just think about this for a moment, here whe have the perfect person for the Republicans to trot out to tout Hillary in a year where her big challenger happens to be a black man. Make no mistake her sudden high visibility was no mistake, she was hand selected as the perfect person for the republicans to use to push the candidate THEY want to run against in '08. As for me, I could give a shit who a republican anylist thinks did well in a democratic debate. However, it's crystal clear to me that the GOP wants to run against Hillary, and I think they are damn right in their preferance.

In closing I've got to say Amy did her job very well, she's smooth. Keep your eyes peeled, the GOP won't be too obvious about it, but they will push Hillary where they can.

I don't give a damn who the Republicans think they can run against. Not one of them is competitive with any Democrat.

I can't believe ANY Democrat is still saying we have to worry what the Republicans will think or how the Republicans will vote. Actually, I don't believe it is being said by Democrats.

By November 2008, there won't be enough Republicans left to elect anyone to anything. Numerically, they weren't a majority before, either, unless you believe GW Bush won the popular vote in 2004. But now?

Nothing matters right now but what WE do. And it's going to be damn hard to be worse than the Republicans who are scaring the crap out of the known universe.

WFIW, over at FDL there was a posting on Monica Goodling having the same lawyer as the DC Madam and his assistant was also part of the DC Madam's group. The obvious question is then wondered: was Goodling moonlighting? There were apparently some surprising women in the group; women that would never be suspected of doing such moonlighting.

Mr. Hatch, and to call it human is purely speculative: has shown indignation about some very bizarre things over the years. Often in response to it becoming public, but usually after he has denied any knowledge.
Now the poor old fool appears to have been lied to before and after he has gone out on a limb to lie for someone else. I can understand how this would piss off a tic like "cover" (syn; hatch)

But then "toilet seat" (syn: hatch) represents mormons. mormons worship organized crime, where ethics about business trump all other activity. mormons feel as though "newjesus" was an insane man from NY.

just like so many of us, he has been bought and paid for long ago by his contributors. it will be fun to watch him squirm as his involvement becomes known about things "justice" that he has facilitated for a criminal enterprise.

the only thing that I can't forgive the people of Utah for is buying the New Orleans Jazz and keeping the same name in Utah. that which created jazz could not exist in Utah, and it is not a fitting burial for a concept that helped free the world learn to love an alternate form of music.

hey ooorrin! have anything you want to make public before we find out via email?

Jodi, you're consistent, I'll give you that.
I'll go out on a limb here and assume that in your younger years you were a proponent of the 'I promise, I'll only put it in a little ways...'
same concept.


two things.

1. I get so tired of all this time and energy spent on triviality, that I sometimes waste my own time carping about it.

2. On your comment. I think you have your sexes mixed up. Or maybe not? It is a scary thought.

well, jodi, here's the view from Clark County, WA.

In our view: Looking Worse

I might suggest that you haven't really grasped the issues here of politicizing DoJ.

Hi Jodi, take a walk through the Toobz over to Kos (I know it's demeaning to be seen over there, but sometimes you can pick up a nugget of knowledge by slumming) anyway, go here and read about the crime of politicizing the DOJ right here in my neighborhood. In my view, this is just the tip of the 'berg---there's so much more.

Here's a piece written by Tom Wales' brother in law about John McKay. Pretty moving stuff. John McKay's priorities were spot on.
DoJ not so much.


Jodi, per above, the point was that either you were the screweee or the screwooorr, regardless, the point was that somebody was going to get screwed.

yo, mainsailset:

tokyo jodi is flailing

all of her little delusional beliefs are falling apart

consider this article:

Washington - Congressional investigators are beginning to focus on accusations that a top civil rights official at the Justice Department illegally hired lawyers based on their political affiliations, especially for sensitive voting rights jobs.

Two former department lawyers told McClatchy Newspapers that Bradley Schlozman, a senior civil rights official, told them in early 2005, after spotting mention of their Republican affiliations on their job applications, to delete those references and resubmit their resumes. Both attorneys were hired.

One of them, Ty Clevenger, said: "He wanted to make it look like it was apolitical."

this isn't just speculation anymore

there's actual physical evidence and testimony tthat proves the truth of the accusation

look for tokyo jodi to strike out randomly and foolishly for the next few months

freepers hate to be caught in their crimes, and tokyo jodi and company are ROPED

and they KNOW IT

the wheels are coming off the bush criminal conspiricy, and tokyo jodi blames YOU

ouch, here's another witness

from the comments at Muckraker, via newsweek

"Justice confirmed it's investigating whether Goodling improperly assessed the political loyalties of applicants for career assistant U.S. attorney posts. Two government officials...told NEWSWEEK the inquiry began after Jeff Taylor, the interim U.S. attorney in D.C., complained that Goodling tried to block the hiring of a prosecutor in his office for being a "liberal Democratic type."

some repuglican better go check the dam, cuz it looks like it broke

Yep, major shitstorm coming. It'll be interesting to see if they can keep Gonzo out of the main flow of it. They'll let Meyers take a float down the river before Gonzo. If Gonzo goes, Rove won't last long.

I really, really doubt Monica Crybaby Goodlick will implicate Rove. They didn't put up a hard enough fight.

Should be a very interesting couple of weeks.

how do you keep gonzo out of this ???

they got the fucking email that appointed lawyer goodling to do the vetting, and gonzo's name is on it

the only way gonzo escapes is by providing some heads on a platter

and there's only two heads that gonzo can use

I once said this scandal was a centepied

I was wrong

it's one of those atomic octapus things from the 1960s sci fi movies

real "Ed Wood" fare

"Eddie is the only person I know who doesn't judge people"

and ed says:

"If I did I wouldn't have any friends"

kinda sounds like the DOJ right now


Is someone saying there is a crime?


When, where, what, who, how, why?

Oh yes, the statue or code please?

My point was that Gonzo and Rove are tied at the hip if they like it or not. Gonzo is the only thing that stands in the way of an AG that will be forced to do the job. Then Rove is cooked. My gut tells me they are both cooked as it is, but the delegation e-mail ain't going to do it alone. Bush hasn't fired him yet. Not sure what it will take for Bush to fire Gonzo. In fact, I don't think photos of Gonzo backdooring the twins would get it done. I think he's going to have to be impeached. And he ain't going to be impeached because Rove's got deep shit enough Repuglican Senator's to keep it from happening.

It's a daisy chain. Gonzo protects Rove. Rove keeps the photos of the Senators with the dead hookers. The Senators keep Gonzo from being impeached.

Speaking to Free on that last post, of course.

Rover took over and gave Georgy a BONE!


深圳物流深圳物流公司深圳货运公司,深圳搬迁 深圳搬迁公司 深圳搬家公司 深圳市清洁服务公司

http://www.batteryfast.com/acer/travelmate-2300.htm acer travelmate 2300 battery,

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad