I turned off the sig lines on my browser. It was wearing out my scrolie mousie.

First, fark off and die with the multiple useless quotation marks, you farking worthless C. U. N. T..

Secondly, the fact (?) that Romney goes to church a lot doesn't mean that he has strong religious beliefs. His actions, what he does, what he says, how he behaves are generally thought to be better indications of the strength and quality and content of one's belief compared to how often one participates in a ritual.

In short, and to cut through the crap, those surveyed who identified Romney, among others, as a candidate with strong religious beliefs are farking morons.

Better?




You can turn it back on.

It wasn't you in particular.

Religion not clear-cut issue in White House race

Lots of good stuff in there though. I saved a few already.




My tribute to Harvey Birdman is over...




Did you post them all together somewhere?

I could...but that would be REALLY excessive. It's about 93 pages.

I got space.....though it might be better as a separate topic. No biggie, I just love lists like that.

I suspect that will change.






http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gRR53lb...OR2achdY94dcEwA

The Democrats' Foreign Funny Money
By Michelle Malkin
Wednesday, September 5, 2007


Here's a peculiar thing about the holier-than-thou Campaign Finance Reform crowd. Whenever the stench of dirty money starts wafting from Democrat Party coffers, the clean election lobbyists are nowhere to be found. They'll raise hell and hackles over American corporate donors. But when it's shady foreign operators infusing cash into our electoral system, you'll only hear one sound: the deafening swell of crickets chirping.

Hillary and Bill Clinton have declared themselves "shocked" at revelations about one of the Democrat Party's mysterious, deep-pocketed bagmen, Hong Kong native Norman Hsu. Hsu, a prodigious Democrat donor, was arrested last week after having evaded the law for 15 years over grand theft swindling charges. Hsu pleaded no context to those charges and was supposed to serve jail time. Instead, he managed to remain a fugitive while raking in hundreds of thousands of dollars for Democrat candidates and officeholders -- and posing openly for photographs with the likes of Hillary Clinton.

According to investigative blogger Flip Pidot (suitablyflip.com), who delved into public records and crunched the numbers, Clinton took the lion's share of political cash ($174,000) from Hsu and his network of suspected donor-bundlers whose campaign checks dwarfed their income. New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo and New York Governor (and former Attorney General) Eliot Spitzer accepted the largest sums of direct cash from Hsu.

Reports Pidot: "Among state parties, campaign committees, and advocacy groups, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee topped the list, with $122,000, though three state Democratic parties or committees (Tennessee, New York, and New Jersey) took more from Hsu directly. Of the 32 organizations that took money from Hsu and his associates, 10 were state Democratic parties and several others were Democratic campaign committees. The 84 individuals who received money from Hsu and his associates included 17 Gubernatorial candidates, 17 Congressional candidates, 27 Senatorial candidates, and a variety of statewide and local candidates. All were Democrats, with the exception of Tom Gallagher, Florida's former CFO and an unsuccessful primary challenger to Charlie Crist in the 2006 Governor race. Including candidate-specific PACs, these individuals have taken just over $1 million from Hsu's group since the 2004 cycle. . . . Another 22 organizations received support from Hsu's network since 2004, primarily Democratic campaign committees and state Democratic parties."

Former President Clinton, who left the White House up to his eyeballs in campaign finance scandals, retreated to Southern folksy talk when asked about the Hsu scandal over the weekend.

"You could have knocked me over with a straw, especially when I heard the L.A. people had been allegedly looking for him for 15 years when he was in plain view," he told Newsday. With a straw? How about a cluebat?

Funny money? In the party of Clean Campaigns? No!

The truth smarts like a snapped thong. Thwack. The straw donor scheme has clear shades of the Clintons' Chinagate scheme: Dubious givers. Con artist rainmakers. And disingenuous pleas of ignorance and shock.

While the campaign finance reform crowd ducks under the table, there is one vociferous group making noise. Like clockwork, Asian-American groups were first out of the gate protesting public scrutiny of the foreign donors and whining about profiling. Deja vu all over again. "It would be wholly inappropriate to link this in any way to the '96 campaign cycle investigations, just because both involve Asian-Americans," Lawrence Barcella, a lawyer for Hsu, who is a top donor to Hillary Clinton and other Democrats, told Politico.com.

No. It's because both involve the craven Clintons, a trademark incuriosity about the backgrounds of big donors and a network of generous contributors of notably meager means.

Executive director of the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund in New York, Margaret Fung, a prominent voice who decried every last newspaper story about convicted campaign finance felon John Huang during the 1990s, recycled her old talking points again: "It links Norman Hsu and the Paw family to other Asian-American donors in previous campaigns, solely because of their race. It insinuates that Asian-Americans are more prone to making improper donations and have been doing this for years. What is this obsession with Asian-American donors?"

What is this knee-jerk obsession with crying racism and wallowing in collective ethnic grievances? It's not just about "Asian-American" donors. It's about felon and fugitive donors of a rainbow of races and backgrounds. It's about the Clintons' -- and the Dems' -- systemic corner-cutting, campaign corruption and double standards. There is a Chinese saying: "When you drink water, always think about the source."

Peering into the poisoned well isn't "racism." It's the duty of a responsible republic.

I'll try that. Thanks.


Don't change on my account. I forgot about the feature. It works.

They can afford to run to China.

who do you think pays for our war?

on credit of course....

The "interest" might be more than "we" can afford.

And They're Really Off...



by Fred Barnes

09/17/2007, Volume 013, Issue 01

You didn't see it on TV. Because when Mitt Romney was talking during last week's Republican presidential debate on Fox News, the camera was on him, not John McCain. But McCain was sending a message. He looked at Romney with disdain and rolled his eyes at nearly everything Romney said. The message from McCain was that he's a contender after all for the Republican nomination and ready to take on his opponents vigorously, Romney in particular.

McCain's rise from his political deathbed (as a presidential candidate) was one of two events that reshaped the Republican race as it entered the serious phase, the real campaign, post-Labor Day. The other was Fred Thompson's impressive leap into the contest after having sleepwalked through the I'm-thinking-about-it phase of his candidacy with a series of desultory speeches over the summer. As a full-blown candidate, Thompson was suddenly animated, energized, and appealing.

So here's where the campaign stands with actual voting in Iowa, New Hampshire, and a lot of other places roughly three months away. Based on their chances of winning the nomination, I rank the candidates in this order: (1) Rudy Giuliani, (2) Romney, (3) Thompson, and (4) McCain. The top three are closely bunched, with McCain trailing.

Let's start with Rudy. He is far and away the best campaigner in the field. His performance in the Fox debate in New Hampshire wasn't his best, but he was still pretty good. He skillfully deflected a tough question that suggested his family values are not as strong as Romney's. Giuliani is twice-divorced and has an uneasy relationship with his two children.

"I think someone's private life, someone's family life, is something that you all look into to determine how are they going to conduct themselves in public office," he responded. "And in my case, you have 30 years, 35 years of experience to figure out how I would." After listing a few of his achievements, Giuliani added: "Any issues in my private life do not affect my public performance."

Giuliani's most important feat has been to defuse the issue of his social liberalism. I'm not sure exactly how he's done it, but he's left the impression that while he's pro-choice, pro-gun control, and pro-gay rights, conservatives need not worry. These are just opinions, not principles he would act on as president. At least that's what he's implied.

Giuliani gets credit for having, as mayor, transformed New York City, a Democratic stronghold. Romney gets far less from having been a Republican governor of a Democratic state, Massachusetts. But he has looks, money, a strong organization, and a set of conservative proposals that are well thought out. He's formidable.

There's something in Romney's political persona that has kept him from gaining national support, but where it really matters--Iowa and New Hampshire, the first states to vote next January--he has double-digit leads over his rivals. His opponents argue this is just because he's run TV ads in those states. That's true--and the ads have obviously worked.

If Romney wins those two states, he'll be difficult to stop. The significant thing is that he'll have enough money to run expensive media campaigns in the subsequent primaries. So Romney shouldn't be underestimated.

Major Garrett of Fox News distinguishes between the two Fred Thompsons. Garrett covered Thompson's first campaign, for the Senate from Tennessee in 1994. There was the "dull and lawyerly Fred" and the "folksy and persuasive Fred." We saw a lot of the dull Fred earlier this year. The folksy and forceful Fred emerged last week after he formally announced his candidacy.

Thompson lost nothing by delaying his announcement and skipping debates. As he told Jay Leno on the night of the New Hampshire debate, "I don't think people are going to say, you know, 'That guy would make a very good president, but he just didn't get in soon enough.'" By the way, three million people watched the debate. Six million saw Thompson on Leno.

The task Thompson faces is not just to convince Republicans he's a "consistent conservative"--that is, unlike Romney who's not consistent and Giuliani who's not conservative. That's easy. Thompson has to make the case to conservatives that, like Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, he wouldn't knuckle under as president to pressure from the Washington establishment and a hostile media. That's harder. Yet it's the rationale for a Thompson presidency.

McCain doesn't require a rationale. Given his experience and his national security credentials, he is the rationale. His support for the war in Iraq and the surge are the essential elements of his appeal. McCain's best moment in the debate was when he zinged Romney for saying the surge is "apparently" working.

"Governor," McCain said, "the surge is working. The surge is working, sir."

"That's just what I said," Romney replied.

"It is working," McCain said. "No, not 'apparently.' It's working."

McCain has a problem. If he had set out in the last few years purposely to alienate every Republican in the land, he couldn't have done a better job than he actually has without trying. To put it mildly, he has a lot of Republican animosity to overcome. For McCain to win the nomination, a multitude of Republicans will have to change their mind about him. It's possible, but hardly likely.

Why doesn't Mike Huckabee belong among the top candidates? He's likable and funny, but he has the fatal flaw of being the press's favorite. Remember Bruce Babbitt? John Anderson? They suffered this fate. Reporters operate under the illusion that because they covered the Iowa straw poll, it and Huckabee's second-place finish mattered. Wrong.

I haven't a clue as to who will win the nomination. But whoever does had better get over the notion that Hillary Clinton, in the likelihood she's the Democratic nominee, will unite Republicans and propel them to victory. She'll help, but it will take much more to rally despondent and divided Republicans. Much, much more.

Fred Barnes is executive editor of THE WEEKLY STANDARD.

Will Bush's Tragedy Trap His Successor in Iraq?



Huh, what an interesting perspective. It seems clear to me that Republicans are going to lose the presidency, and perhaps the legislative branches as well, because of Bush and Iraq. But given the Iraq quagmire, I wonder if part of the Republican political strategy is to keep it a mess in order to limit the damage to Republican politicians to a single election cycle. This seems very much in keeping with a "Rovian" political strategy.

YouTube Video: BILL MAHER: *COL. WILKERSON* FORMER GEN POWELL AIDE

Huh, apparently Col. Wilkerson has the same impression. There may be a Rovian Republican political strategy to keep Iraq a mess for self-serving political reasons. "If you can't fix it, make sure it's broken for the next administration."

He has a ruff row to hoe.

The Democrats are petrified of the debacle they've help create in Iraq. All that politicking for the last six years is starting to scare the poopy out of them.

They've helped create the mess they've created and now they're scrambling to spin damage control.

The Democrats are terrified of the repercussions of what will happen when The Shills and Baby Jesus take over in 2009 and they haven't been able to force Bushie to get out of Iraq.

After all, The Shills authorized Bushie to do whatever he wanted to in Iraq.

This is going to be a lot of fun.

Well, no. For instance Congress was not told of the evidence that the current administration had that we knew Iraq didn't have WMD, that Israel knew this was the case, etc., etc. Plus, the stated intent of Democrats, like Kerry for instance, was that the authority was being given as a last ditch effort should diplomacy fail, and we now know that diplomacy was never seriously considered by the current administration. Certainly the war authorization was not intended to allow Bush to "do whatever he wanted to in Iraq," though that is certainly how he implemented it.



Given consistent Bush's failures, particularly Iraq, the next election is likely to be "a lot of fun" for Democrats at least. The question is "will Democrats allow the current administration to trap them in their failed policy," IMHO. How that plays out is yet to be determined.






Are you from the south, Hunin? The first time I heard that phrase was from a friend from W. Virginia.

Just southern MN, ma'am.

May be a farmer thang.

Did spend some time in MS as well. Didn't learn it there tho.

Perhaps. Just curious.

The fact of the matter is when The Shills and Baby Jesus take over, they'll be expected to "fix" all of "Bushie's mistakes".

Seeing as both of these people have been part of the problem they'll be expected to find a solution.

As you know, voters' memories are only as long as an election cycle.

There's no way, they'll be able to force Bushie to pull out of Iraq so they'll inherit a problem they've had a huge part in creating.

This will be a lot of fun when The Shills and Baby Jesus are running the world, Pugs Pelosi is running her world and Harry Reid is running his world.

The first thing these two better do is pass some tax increases for the poor.

Indeed. There are, of course, no good solutions to these mistakes. Um, I may have misinterpreted you. Who are the "Shills" and "Baby Jesus?" From context, I presumed that "the shills" were members of Congress. I have no idea about "Baby Jesus."



That seems very improbable. A more equitable sharing of the tax burden that doesn't favor the rich, and gives relief to the middle and lower classes is probably likely though.

I'm afraid the conventional wisdom and the facts aren't alway in alignment. The middle class is the biggest group of voters, but the rich and poor may well get a worse deal for their tax dollar. I can't remember an election when every pol from both parties wasn't pandering to the "middle class".

Ya got that right!

I don't think his bout w/cancer is a deal breaker. He's in remission.

He has enuf other obstacles.






http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/c...icle2413304.ece

Thompson still has more earned experience than Hillary. Maybe the "news" people ought to keep that in mind.

And a better looking spouse.





http://www.kansascity.com/news/nation/story/265762.html

Fred should stick to Hollywood. He'd play the part of president, but I don't know if he can do the job. I know Hillary can't, she'd be stuck with Bill and the Clinton machine doing all her thinking for her. Much worse than Rove and Cheney for Bush.

Playing the part well would be a serious improvement.





http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/5119771.html

"The Shills" is Hillary Rodham Clinton. Shillary. The Shills. The Democrats nomination for president in 2008.

"Baby Jesus" is Barack Hussein Obama. Many folk view Baby Jesus as the new Messiah. Baby Jesus is The Shill's running mate.

- - - - -

Let's put Jesus back in the White House. Elect Baby Jesus Obama in 2008.

Democrats to Meet for Spanish Debate
By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer

2 hours ago

CORAL GABLES, Fla. - Democratic presidential candidates were meeting Sunday night for the first debate broadcast entirely in Spanish, the clearest sign yet of the growing influence of Hispanic voters.

The debate at the University of Miami will be broadcast by Univision, the nation's fifth-most watched network.

Anchors Jorge Ramos and Maria Elena Salinas will pose questions in Spanish and the candidates will wear earpieces to hear simultaneous translations into English. Similarly, their English answers will be translated into Spanish for the live, 90-minute broadcast.

English-speaking viewers can watch using the closed caption service on their televisions.

Two participants _ New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson and Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd _ have objected to the format because they speak Spanish and want to address the viewing audience directly. Debate rules say all answers must be in English to level the contest, but it was unclear whether Richardson or Dodd would comply.

Other participants include Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois, former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich and former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel.

Delaware Sen. Joe Biden, recently returned from a trip to Iraq, is skipping the debate to prepare for Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings he will chair Tuesday with Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, and Ryan Crocker, U.S. ambassador to Iraq.

Candidates in both parties are reaching out to Hispanic voters with an intensity that speaks to the importance of the nation's largest and fastest-growing minority group in the campaign.

In 2004, President Bush won about 40 percent of the Hispanic vote nationally, the most ever for a GOP presidential candidate. His Democratic rival, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, won 53 percent, down from the 62 percent former Vice President Al Gore garnered in 2000.

Univision invited the Republican candidates for a similar forum, but only Arizona Sen. John McCain has accepted.

Hispanics have a new voice in the Democratic primary process with Nevada holding an early contest. Florida also has moved up its primary to Jan. 29, violating party rules. Democratic candidates have pledged not to campaign in Florida unless the date is changed by the end of the month.

Richardson has a Mexican mother and has made overt appeals to Hispanic voters, including announcing his candidacy in English and Spanish. He has said he doesn't think many Hispanics realize he is one of them.

Dodd, who served in the Peace Corps in the Dominican Republic, spoke in Spanish and English on Saturday in Coral Gables as he criticized U.S. policy toward Cuba.

Obama and Edwards are among candidates devoting portions of their Web sites to Spanish speakers.

Viva La Raza!

What comical names do you use to refer to the republican candidates?

I've only one nickname for republicans.

Lil' Wad for Mitt Romney.

I'm thinking of coming up with a nickname for Ronnie Paul. RP reminds me an awful lot like Dennie Kucinich.

I've thought of incorporating some ideas from inyerface and davis but they're basically all the same; farking doodyhole republicans.

Any ideas or suggestions?

I liked this part:



http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/09/edwa...rism_speech.php

Fred: Jerri's Wad.

Ya think they're actually Leno's kids?

Given the noses, think Jay is Fred's?

Okay, I'll bite. Why that name?



I just call everyone by their given names. That way I don't get confused if I forget my secret decoder ring.

That would never do for the king of sarcasm.

Most definitely.




It's not that important.

ROFLMAO!!!

Awwww, poor wittle human waste.

He gets a taste of what he's dished out for over a year, and his skirt flies up over his wittle head revealing the pink lacey panties he's wearing got all bunched up and twisted.

Coward.

I knew you were, but this is the lamest I've ever seen, you yellow boorish lout.

If this goes out "live" I can see a big issue here. "Lost in Translation" is not just a movie by Bill Murray. As many have noted in other venues - what is actually said in one language may not be what is reported in another. This format is really open to a good deal of abuse.

Besides, does not UNIVISION have a vested interest in keeping Hispanics, their audience, in only using and understanding Spanish and not English? For if Hispanics fully assimilated into US culture - they lose the audience base. And the Democrats might then lose a major corportae donor.

I see no little conflict of interest potential here.

It's obvious everyone knows where their bread is buttered.

I'm really offended at this language thing. There have been foreign born people integrated into our communities for - probably - ever. Many women married WWII GI's and came to the US, learned the language, the culture, and became a part of our neighborhoods. We were never asked to learn their language, nor be bi-lingual to apply for local jobs. Now, when English-speaking groups complain (and they are - and I wasn't even part of it) they are told to "attend the local community college - Spanish is taught there."

Several of our local women are German and French by birth. They are a joy to know and although speak with an accent, converse fluently in English. If I went to their country I would expect to learn their language. One of my Granddaughters took several years of French and one several years of German. I don't know why they chose those two particular languages. Although they are not in the local job market, if they were, to be told they must speak Spanish I think is totally outrageous. - In our own country????????

There are two nationalities that have either been 'guided' or for whatever reason, landed here, but when I'm in the stores I might as well be in another country. I have never considered myself prejudiced - and believe all people should be treated with respect. But this situation is getting on my last nerve.

Si Señor