Zed!

I zed, you zed, we all zed for Reddhead.

Support THESE Troops!

Piping Persia for Peace.

Oil giants are poised to move into Basra

Good Morning everyone!

Good Morning Christy!

I like the video.

Morning all…

Rich oil men who own war companies making war in oil countries!

Any questions?

Morning all — coffee finally finished brewing. Who wants a cuppa?

Ouch!

Good morning all.

Gov. Tim Pawlenty is a name I have seen tossed around as a potential GOP running mate… ….any one else?

PW’s been all over that one.

Good morning all
Kind of a tepid lineup of talkers this morning.

So what are the chances that Charlie Black will be asked an uncomfortable question?

MTP: . . . Michelle Norris, Chuck Todd.

At first I read that as “Chuck Norris.” Need more coffee . . .

Hi ho. “My” governor, Timmy P, has been doing the political dance with St. John for at least two years. TP had thrown his hat in the ring to run for U.S. Senate against Paul Wellstone, but BushCo intervened (Rove, actually, as I recall) and persuaded him to defer to Norm Colemeleon. It was widely believed then, as now, that TP was promised something juicy down the pike.

But for the inconvenient downfall of the I-35W bridge, TP would be using Minnesota as his second residence while he politics for McCain. I’ll be mighty surprised if he’s not named St. John’s younger, better-looking, slicker, smoother, but equally reprehensible running pal.

TP is the consummate conservative. He’s top dog at the Governor’s org. And in 2006, he was one of few Republicans who eked out a victory, owing to a lousy selection by Dems of an opponent who committed political suicide, bequeathing the election to TP.

Chuck Norris does have his own syndicated column.

Upcoming Chuck Norris column is already making news

To read the column in which Norris announced his endorsement of Huckabee and three other sample columns, visit our Chuck Norris page. Check back often starting January 14th for more from the man who, according to http://www.chucknorrisfacts.com, “has two speeds. Walk and kill.”

This morning on Washington Journal, Steve Sculley was speaking with the Governor Sarah Palin from Alaska, suggesting she might be a potential VP on the Republican ticket

Well I was pretty sure I had heard it from a reputable source!

:)

Sorry Elliott, I woke up on the right side of the Constitution today.

Can I get me some PEACE?

It would make sense, with our two potential candidates that they would find a running mate who is… …how do I say… …phallicly challenged?

I’ll pass on reading Mr Walk and Kill. I’ll even run and hide from it, thanks.

that’s all we are saying isn’t it, couldn’t we just give Peace a chance?

Same here. I’d like to say that I was surprised to see that he got a column, however with the sad the sad state of the traditional media I wasn’t.

This Day in History…February 24

1868 – Andrew Johnson, 17th president of the United States, became the first president to have impeachment proceedings brought against him by the House of Representatives.

1903 – The lease for Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, was signed.

1920 – Adolf Hitler outlined the basic points of the Nazi party at the Hofbrauhaus in Munich.

1980 – The U.S. hockey team defeated Finland to win the gold medal at the Lake Placid Olympics.

“Do you believe in miracles?” ~ Al Michaels

I don’t think we’ve got the right team on the ice tho

Preparing to drink their milkshake in three, two, one.

-G

“I can’t wait until it’s Obama vs. McCain.
It’s gonna be Youtube vs. Feeding Tube!”
- Bill Maher

g’morn everyone!

I didn’t hear the democrats response to the president’s “we’re all gonna die if the democrats don’t pass the law that will protect me and my conies” address

was our response any good?

What would the reason given be for a critter meeting a lobbyist as opposed to John Q Citizen his/her constituent? It seems as if lobbyists get enormous access to critters? Aside from the “obvious” that they may bear campaign contributions (or is that illegal???) why are the getting so much face time with critters?

On the face it seems unethical that critters give so much face time to lobbyists. What am I missing?

It is toooo early in the morning for talking heads(rolls back over and yawns and … .)

oh, the soldiers in Afghanistan confirm obama’s anecdote;

U.S. soldier in Afghanistan: ‘We scrounge for everything.’ In last week’s Democratic debate, Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) said he was told by an Army captain that his platoon’s resources in Afghanistan were shortchanged because of the Iraq war. Seeking to turn Obama’s remarks into a political attack, Sen. John Warner (R-VA) immediately questioned the authenticity of the statement. But ABC News contacted the Army captain, who backed up Obama’s story. And now the New York Times reports that soldiers in Afghanistan are still strapped for resources:

And they felt eclipsed by Iraq. As Sgt. Erick Gallardo put it: “We don’t get supplies, assets. We scrounge for everything and live a lot more rugged. But we know the war is here. We got unfinished business.”

gleaned from think progress

Morning Christy, morning pups -

Ralph Nader.

Oy!

So, according to Nader, we progressives should just be overjoyed with the announcement of his once and again Presidential run that he just announced on MTP. What do y’all think?

What sangemon said. I’ll vote for Gravel before I’d vote for him.

So, according to Nader, we progressives should just be overjoyed with the announcement of his once and again Presidential run that he just announced on MTP. What do y’all think?

I think the repukelicans are funding his candidacy

NOoooooo

I think Ralph Nader is a Republican tool. Pass it on.

No I don’t think the cons are behind Nader. He’s just a narcissist.

The media will do it’s best top drive his candidacy though. You can be sure of that.

from what I’ve heard from him, I would vote for him if he ran as a democrat, I would vote for him as a third party if it had a chance to win

however, it is unbelievable he would even think to run in this cycle, irresponsible and unthinkable he might derail the democratic candidate yet again, but now more then before he knows how important it is to get a democrat in office

to drive

Wheres the editor?

Not having the show on (kids have the TV), is he running under his own party, or seeking the Green nomination?

“Here’s the Sunday talking head line-up…”

What, no John McCain? I’m shocked, shocked, I tell you!

What, no John McCain? I’m shocked, shocked, I tell you!

tee hee

Nope, he’s sending one of his lobbyist pals out to speak for him. *g*

I believe Sangemon is absolutely correct, I think the SOB is just a narcissist with an ego so big he couldn’t resist playing spoiler again. He doesn’t believe he had any responsibility in the last election he lost. He says he’s getting in because of all the things that are not being debated, like one of my favorite things, a single payer healthcare system. He wants more discussion of how to defend the country without breaking the economy. He wants more discussion about the Palestinians vs Israeli problem (he objects to the fact that 300 Palestinians are killed for each Israeli. Supposedly, he would be happier then if it were the other way around. I haven’t heard any Palestinians saying they are willing to live and let the Israelis live. Their vow to continue to kill Israelis until there is no more Israel is still operative, I think.) And on, and on, and on. He knows he can’t win, but he says thinks third parties should be more acceptable, so he’s running and doesn’t see himself as a spoiler at all. OTOH, he says if the Democrats can’t landslide the Rethugs this time, they ought to just roll up their tents and not come back until they’ve changed into a completely different entity. (Kind of agree with him there!)

Nope, he’s sending one of his lobbyist pals out to speak for him. *g*

So that said lobbyist can claim that St John of McVain is pure of heart and without sin and in no way influenced by lobbyists and their money?

but now more then before [Nader] knows how important it is to get a democrat in office

I’m not so sure about that. But a Nader candidacy could have the positive effect of keeping the Democratic candidate from going too centrist and talking too much about Reagan and “post-partisanship”.

Nader Announces Run for President

WASHINGTON (AP) — Ralph Nader is launching a third-party campaign for president.

The consumer advocate made the announcement Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” He says most Americans are disenchanted with the Democratic and Republican parties, and that none of the presidential contenders are addressing ways to stem corporate crime and Pentagon waste and promote labor rights…

That sure is Nader’s rationale for getting into it. But Obama begs to differ. See here. Haven’t seen a comment from Clinton’s camp yet on it. Anyone spot one yet?

The Fox News All Stars are Sunday morning quarterbacking Hillary’s campaign. She should do this, she should do that, their concern is palpable…

I tuned in a few minutes late, so if they’ve talked about McCain, they didn’t spend much time on it.

I’m not so sure about that. But a Nader candidacy could have the positive effect of keeping the Democratic candidate from going too centrist and talking too much about Reagan and “post-partisanship”.

that was the point he made on thom hartman and it’s valid, as long as he drops out when the time comes, I don’t want to see him saying; if it’s a blue state that will vote for the democrat then vote for me, but if it’s a red state vote for teh democtrat

there are no “blue states” this election, there are going to be machines flipping votes and we can take no chances

With regard to Nader, the landscape is quite different then 2000. We have the 50 state strategy, turnout is extremely high, the lesson from 2000 will come into play, and there is the toobz and the netroots.

I think he’s irrelevant.

oh, bush, howz that “democracy is on the march” crap working out for ya?

Liberal democracy weaker than in 2000. A new poll in the March issue of the Atlantic finds that 73 percent of foreign policy experts believe “liberal democracy” is weaker than it was in 2000. One expert noted that “flawed U.S. policies” have given “democracy promotion a bad name.” Another remarked, “No country wants to look like Iraq.”

not too good?

It seems to me that a Nader candidacy is a red herring.

Does he have any kind of support for this? I doubt it. The only support he will get will be from the media, and Obama should be pointing that out, and loudly.

Well, once again David Brooks misses the point and Doris Kearns Goodwin provides it: Obama is going to take his case to the people and the people will force their crony-laden congresspeople to change the status quo. Thank you, Doris!

So Nader is running again…Oye…If I only had one billionth of that losers ego!

Fox News All Stars excuse McCain now

Nader may be running because he’s a narcissist, but he’s being funded by the ‘Pubs. It worked so well in in 2000, after all.

I’m with you, even if it’s spelled with a small “g”.

I believe Israeli policy in Gaza is reprehensible! The current policy is an extremely contentious issue in Israel, so your statement wouldn’t even be overwhelmingly popular there. I’m saddened to see that you espouse the concept of mass punishment, we all know who popularized those particular tactics. It is contravention to International Law or is that to be dismissed in this case, as well, since Nader probably supports that concept also?

“OTOH, he says if the Democrats can’t landslide the Rethugs this time, they ought to just roll up their tents and not come back until they’ve changed into a completely different entity. (Kind of agree with him there!)”

As do I.

At the risk of being beaten about the head and shoulders here (metaphorically , of course!) I’m one of the very small minority here that doesn’t blame the loss of the last elections on Nader.

First off, if Gore wins his home state of Tenn., we’re not even having this discussion.

Secondly, as a resident of Ohio, I’ll go to my reeward (Granny Clampett’s term) knowing the vote was stolen here, and the Dems. were too gutless to do the right thing and investigate. Don’t get me started on Florida in 2000.

I’ll close by saying we need more choices to vote for, not less. And, if you take a sobering look at which candidate has actually done the most for the quality of our lives, and taken on very unpopular but necessary positions against big business, it’s Nader. No, I don’t think he’s the best candidate, and Obama’s got my vote, but forcing the discussion towards single payer health care could have it’s benefits.

Thanks for the link, Christy. I liked the way Obama gave Nader a gentle slap there, but it sounds like he’s digging in to hold the center. I’m trying to keep an open mind at this point, but if Obama goes too far to the center in the general election (assuming he wins the nomination) I won’t vote for him. I also won’t vote for Nader– I may have to leave that box blank.

It seems to me that a Nader candidacy is a red herring.

Does he have any kind of support for this? I doubt it. The only support he will get will be from the media, and Obama should be pointing that out, and loudly.

What about
Nader/Paul
or Paul/Nader

on an Indy ticket?

I heard Nader on Thom Hartmann’s show about 2 weeks ago. He made the case that to say that he shouldn’t run is the same as to say that he shouldn’t speak. I can’t say that I disagree with him. He’s just living in the wrong country. We don’t have a direct democracy here and there is no proportional representation. Third parties always function as spoilers in our system and he knows that. He just chooses to ignore it.

Blimp/Corvair ‘08!!!

It’s positioning for the general, I think — he’s been pulling a lot of independent support from McCain in open primary states, and he likely wants to continue that. Obama and Clinton both have been doing this sort of thing back and forth, depending on the state and the topic. I try to rely more on the policy position reads and legislative proposals rather than public spin statements for guidance on where they are falling — because whole public persuasion is not the same as ultimate agenda, eh?

Maybe the thing to do is not leave that box blank. People pay attention to numbers. If Obama has a HUGE landslide, it may lead to his getting some good stuff done.

Nader: Unelectable at any Age

At the risk of being beaten about the head and shoulders here (metaphorically , of course!) I’m one of the very small minority here that doesn’t blame the loss of the last elections on Nader.

I’m with you on this. I don’t blame Nader either.

I think anyone who wants to run for President has the right to do so. If we start limiting who the candidates will be then I think a large part of out democracy goes out the window. It means that the Democrats will have to step up their game so people will have reason to vote for them.

From WaPo:

“My sense is that Mr. Nader is somebody who, if you don’t listen and adopt all of his policies, thinks you’re not substantive,” Obama said with a smile. “He seems to have a pretty high opinion of his own work.”

By this time, anyone who will vote for Nader would find some reason not to vote for the Democratic candidate anyway. So, maybe it won’t matter, like it did in 2000.

(I really don’t get the “if Al Gore had carried his own state” argument. If he had carried almost any state he didn’t he would have one in the electoral college. What has has “his own state” got to do with it. Tennessee has a lot of neanderthal voters. So what.)

I think if this were Nader’s first run — or even his second — that would be a legitimate argument. But the nation has thoroughly told him they don’t want him twice now, and frankly I wish he’d concentrate on advocacy and stop running for President.

Yeah, I agree about the “didn’t carry his own state” argument. I think it’s much more relevant to point out the “if he wouldn’t have lost all three debates to the stupidest person on the planet” argument.

By this time, anyone who will vote for Nader would find some reason not to vote for the Democratic candidate anyway. So, maybe it won’t matter, like it did in 2000.

I want to see Nader give a speech surrounded by a crowd of supporters before I take this seriously. I can’t see that he any popular support for this from anyone but his own ego, the media, and perhaps some financial support from some ‘pug surrogate.

I believe Israeli policy in Gaza is reprehensible! The current policy is an extremely contentious issue in Israel, so your statement wouldn’t even be overwhelmingly popular there. I’m saddened to see that you espouse the concept of mass punishment, we all know who popularized those particular tactics. It is contravention to International Law or is that to be dismissed in this case, as well, since Nader probably supports that concept also?

I also believe the current policy is reprehensible, but I think sometimes people forget what went on before and how hard it was for the Israelis to create a homeland and why they became so militant to begin with. I don’t like to see the concept of mass punishment as just, but I believe that the Palestinians also have to develop some flexibility. Many of the Muslim religion still insist that they will destroy Israel, one Israeli at a time, and drive Israel “into the sea!” Many are too young to remember and all they’ve seen in their lifetime is the Palestinian refugee camps. The Jews have a saying since WWII. Never again. This is survival for them, although some have gone to extremes. Hopefully, someday, solutions will be found. I guess all we can do is pray for it and hope that the parties find some accommodations.

“I really don’t get the “if Al Gore had carried his own state” argument.”

My point is that if you have represented this state in congress both in the House and Senate (as did your father), it is reasonable to assume you would carry it when you run for POTUS.

All the other states he lost in didn’t have this dubious distinction.

I understand the common wisdom that someone ought to be able to carry their own state, but Ralph Nader’s use of it to rationalize his argument that he didn’t give us Bush is irrevelvant. He’s just saying, it’s not my fault that he lost, because he couldn’t carry his own state. Never mind he carried the popular vote and almost any additional state would have saved the nation from Bush.

I know Nader is smarter than to actually think his argument is relevant, so his use of it leads me to lose respect for his integrity and believe that his coninual Don Quijote think is actually ego.

“Yeah, I agree about the “didn’t carry his own state” argument. I think it’s much more relevant to point out the “if he wouldn’t have lost all three debates to the stupidest person on the planet” argument.“

To say he “lost” those debates to Bush is to follow the MSM conventional wisdom. He no more lost all those debates than I did.

What he lost was the “who would you rather have a beer with?” issue.

As Sen. Clinton rightfully points out, we see where that got us.

Third parties always function as spoilers in our system and he knows that. He just chooses to ignore it.

Would that it weren’t so, but it is. I hope he can bring about more discussion of regarding a single payer healthcare system, and some other things. However, my biggest worry is that his candidacy will strip back enough votes from Dems to make it possible for the Repugs to once again steal the election. I believe it’s much harder to steal a landslide election than a close one. If he gets out prior to election day, maybe his candidacy won’t be such a bad thing.

There are enough morons out there to gather a crowd for him or Ron Paul.

“I understand the common wisdom that someone ought to be able to carry their own state“

That is my point. The fact that Nader uses it is coincidental.

If you have the history of the Gore family in Tenn., and Al Gore runs for POTUS, he should win that state. If he wins that state, he is president. End of story.

Well, one of us is not understanding the other. As you say; end of story.

End of story? Sure.

If Ralph Nader endorses Al Gore in 2000, we don’t have Bush. Argue with that.

If Ralph Nader doesn’t tell his mindless minions that there’s not a whit of difference between “Gush and Bore” than we don’t get the worst President in history. Argue with that.

Oh, and by the by, STTP, your argument that a candidate who wants to be President should win his home state? It was silly when Nader said it in 2000 and it’s still silly.

Bush was “elected” in 2000 and we have Ralph Nader to thank for that. If Ralphie boy make the choice to best serve the country rather than his own ego, history is different. End of story.

I agree he’s a better advocate then presidential candidate, and I don’t support him as a candidate. I do support his choice to run.

I look this like term limits, I’m against them also. I’m not really big on limiting people’s participation in the political process as a candidate or voter.

Let me be clear; my use of “end of story” was not directed at you.

I don’t come here looking for fights. I was trying to convey Gore’s election would be complete. We certainly can agree to disagree on the value of Tenn. in the 2000 election.

Sweet jeebus…

Ralph Nader is free to run. Ralph Nader is free to see himself as the messiah. Support his choice to run? Hell no. The Republican party, as any sentient being should be able to see, has done everything in its power to run this country into the ground. The choice between the two parties is, hard as this may be to believe, even more clear-cut than four or even eight years ago. Ralph Nader doesn’t see that? He’s delusional.

He’s free to run. I’m just as free to point out his insane logic for doing so.

STTP, I hear you. I don’t come looking for fights, either, and my tone is, I can see at this hour of the morning, pretty aggressive.

(deep breath)

Time for breakfast.

“Oh, and by the by, STTP, your argument that a candidate who wants to be President should win his home state? It was silly when Nader said it in 2000 and it’s still silly.“

Please clarify why it is silly? Let me try to make my point once again.
I did not take this “talking point” from Ralph Nader. I used my own brain to criticize Gore’s results in Tennessee. To paraphrase Sen. Moynihan “We are entitled to our own opinions, not our own facts”

What I state is fact, so how does become “silly”?

Had not read your post @89 before I posted @90.

Enjoy your beakfast!

Could someone please throw a [metaphorical] brick at Cokie Roberts?

Just now she was bleating on [whatever show she was on; I didn’t look] that this is all “so unfair” to Hillary, because “like so many women, Hillary has worked hard for a long time, and then here comes this young, er, young guy who pushes her out of the way.”

She also said, “I was talking to Billie Jean King the other day and she said, ‘I feel like everything I’ve worked for my entire life [presumably women’s rights] has been lost.’ “

News flash: being President isn’t a let’s take turns game [although I admit I laughed when, long ago, my then-4 year old daughter said, “so mom, next time will it be Dukakis’s turn?”]

We feminists who’ve labored right along with Hillary for lo these 30 or 40 years are making our choice NOT based on her gender, but based on her positions [as we see them]. Isn’t that the same type of “content of her character” standard that we’ve always wanted?

If I could see Hillary espousing positions I agree with, admitting her mistake on the Iraq war vote, distancing herself from the Clinton era policies that weakened the Democratic party, not having the kind of negatives that will draw wingers out of their caves to vote against Dems up and down the ticket — then I might vote for her. But I won’t do so just because it’s “her turn.”

It’s time for IRV (just in case it hasn’t been mentioned) yet.

http://www.fairvote.org/?page=1895
Pretty elementary but …………..

Well, that at least would make a third party candidacy meaningful in this country.

“If I could see Hillary espousing positions I agree with, admitting her mistake on the Iraq war vote, distancing herself from the Clinton era policies that weakened the Democratic party, not having the kind of negatives that will draw wingers out of their caves to vote against Dems up and down the ticket — then I might vote for her. But I won’t do so just because it’s “her turn.”

Could not agree with you more. And what nonsense from Billy Jean King. She should focus her disappointment on Sen. Clinton’s poor campaign and reluctance to apologize for her disastrous Iraq war vote.

by that argument, if bill didn’t get a blowjob, then gore would easily have won the election by a landslide because he wouldn’t have run his campaign distancing himself from clinton… there were a lot of factors why gore lost-the main one being he rolled over and didn’t fight the vote count bullshit hard enough… gore the progressive superstar today was not the gore the presidential nominee- that was an evolution that he made (or one that we was more willing to show) AFTER he lost. if gore was then what he is today, he would easily have won, more the pity. BUT he was not, and he was not an acceptable candidate at the time.

i think it’s unfortunate that nader is running in this cycle. i won’t vote for him this time- i’ll cross my fingers with obama or hold my nose with hillary… there is a definite benefit that he will have some gravity pulling clinton or obama to the left during the election.. hopefully he can bring up issues that YES, have been undebated, although this problem has definitely not been as apparent this cycle, with the attention to the debates etc. If the “media keep his candidacy alive” (ironic since he, like edwards, had a media blackout when he ran before), then so what?

he definitely will not poll even a fraction of what he did before. but it is offensive that everyone seems to jump at this character when he has always been a true believer and lived his life that way. i don’t think his run will have an impact. he has every right to run, and i grant anyone has the right to criticize him for doing it. i say save your venom for mccain, or focus on getting accountability for bush…

If I can’t vote for Ron Paul for President, I’ll vote for Ralph Nader.

We need something besides the same old, lame old two party representatives! This country is failing fast and without someone to seriously address the economy and foreign policy, we’re sunk.

We want the TRUTH from our president not platitudes and placation.
We want to engage our government for the things we want funded and supported, not be told what to think and spoon-fed pabulum.
We want the corporatocracy OUT of government.
We want the collusion ended.

I’m not so sure about that. But a Nader candidacy could have the positive effect of keeping the Democratic candidate from going too centrist and talking too much about Reagan and “post-partisanship”.

Did that work before? Or did it go the other way?

And if it worked did the “liberalized” Democrat win?