Full Version: Election 2008
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289, 290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299, 300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319, 320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339, 340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349, 350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359, 360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369, 370, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379, 380, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389, 390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 400, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409, 410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419, 420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, 429, 430, 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439, 440, 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449, 450, 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 457, 458, 459, 460, 461, 462, 463, 464, 465, 466, 467, 468, 469, 470, 471, 472, 473, 474, 475, 476, 477, 478, 479, 480, 481, 482, 483, 484, 485, 486, 487, 488, 489, 490, 491, 492, 493, 494, 495, 496, 497, 498, 499, 500, 501, 502, 503, 504, 505, 506, 507, 508, 509, 510, 511, 512, 513, 514, 515, 516, 517, 518, 519, 520, 521, 522, 523, 524, 525, 526, 527, 528, 529, 530, 531, 532, 533, 534, 535, 536, 537, 538, 539, 540, 541, 542, 543, 544, 545, 546, 547, 548, 549, 550, 551, 552, 553, 554, 555, 556, 557, 558, 559, 560, 561, 562, 563, 564, 565, 566, 567, 568, 569, 570, 571, 572, 573, 574, 575, 576, 577, 578, 579, 580, 581, 582, 583, 584, 585, 586, 587, 588, 589, 590, 591, 592, 593, 594, 595, 596, 597, 598, 599, 600, 601, 602, 603, 604, 605, 606, 607, 608, 609, 610, 611, 612, 613, 614, 615, 616, 617, 618, 619, 620, 621, 622, 623, 624, 625, 626, 627, 628, 629, 630, 631, 632, 633, 634, 635, 636, 637, 638, 639, 640, 641, 642, 643, 644, 645, 646, 647, 648, 649, 650, 651, 652, 653, 654, 655, 656, 657, 658, 659, 660, 661, 662, 663, 664, 665, 666, 667, 668, 669, 670, 671, 672, 673, 674, 675, 676, 677, 678, 679, 680, 681, 682, 683, 684, 685, 686, 687, 688, 689, 690, 691, 692, 693, 694, 695, 696, 697, 698, 699, 700, 701, 702, 703, 704, 705, 706, 707, 708, 709, 710, 711, 712, 713, 714, 715, 716, 717, 718, 719, 720, 721, 722, 723, 724, 725, 726, 727, 728, 729, 730, 731, 732, 733, 734, 735, 736, 737, 738, 739, 740, 741, 742, 743, 744, 745, 746, 747, 748, 749, 750, 751, 752, 753, 754, 755, 756, 757, 758, 759, 760, 761, 762, 763, 764, 765, 766, 767, 768, 769, 770, 771, 772, 773, 774, 775, 776, 777, 778, 779, 780, 781, 782, 783, 784, 785, 786, 787, 788, 789, 790, 791, 792, 793, 794, 795, 796, 797, 798, 799, 800, 801, 802, 803, 804, 805, 806, 807, 808, 809, 810, 811, 812, 813, 814, 815, 816, 817, 818, 819, 820, 821, 822, 823, 824, 825, 826, 827, 828, 829, 830, 831, 832, 833, 834, 835, 836, 837, 838, 839, 840, 841, 842, 843, 844, 845, 846, 847, 848, 849, 850, 851, 852, 853, 854, 855, 856, 857, 858, 859, 860, 861, 862, 863, 864, 865, 866, 867, 868, 869, 870, 871, 872, 873
Enjoy, FriendJudy.
QUOTE(Friend Judy @ Jun 4 2007, 08:37 PM) [snapback]306366[/snapback]
Yep. Everyone but me and Bill is appalled that Bill's gonna set up camp for me, then leave me there alone with the ranger checking in on me daily. Handicapped camping!
Got cell-phone?
Regardless, I do get that, ma'am. Hear that bigtime.
Good on Bill for getting it as well.
No time is so important as time with oneself.
The person w/whom we have to really be at peace with.
KILL THIS BOOK: NYT REVIEW TRASHES HILLARY BIO -- WRITTEN BY LEGENDARY NYT REPORTERS!
Mon Jun 04 2007 19:22:47 ET
Editors of the NEW YORK TIMES are set to publish a highly-critical review of a book written by famed NEW YORK TIMES reporters, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.
In 'HER WAY', Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta Jr. have written what will become mandatory reading for Clinton's opponents.
"The book is almost uniformly negative and overly focused on what they consider the Clintons' scandalous past and the darker aspects of Hillary Clinton's personality... The evidence of such a pact -- interviews that have already been challenged in the press -- is less than convincing," writes Robert Dallek in a review set for the paper.
"Carl Bernstein, the veteran journalist of Woodward-and-Bernstein Watergate fame, presents a more balanced and convincing picture of Clinton in his competing biography."
Dallek slams: "Gerth and Van Natta seem to detect no angels in Clinton's nature whatsoever, much less better ones, and the result is a one-sided figure who never quite springs to life or feels truly authentic."
[Gerth worked at the NYT for over 25 years.]
THE NYT IS A BIG JOKE!
Mon Jun 04 2007 19:22:47 ET
Editors of the NEW YORK TIMES are set to publish a highly-critical review of a book written by famed NEW YORK TIMES reporters, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.
In 'HER WAY', Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta Jr. have written what will become mandatory reading for Clinton's opponents.
"The book is almost uniformly negative and overly focused on what they consider the Clintons' scandalous past and the darker aspects of Hillary Clinton's personality... The evidence of such a pact -- interviews that have already been challenged in the press -- is less than convincing," writes Robert Dallek in a review set for the paper.
"Carl Bernstein, the veteran journalist of Woodward-and-Bernstein Watergate fame, presents a more balanced and convincing picture of Clinton in his competing biography."
Dallek slams: "Gerth and Van Natta seem to detect no angels in Clinton's nature whatsoever, much less better ones, and the result is a one-sided figure who never quite springs to life or feels truly authentic."
[Gerth worked at the NYT for over 25 years.]
THE NYT IS A BIG JOKE!
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/25/weekinre...l&position=
THE PUBLIC EDITOR
Is The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper?
By DANIEL OKRENT
Published: July 25, 2004
OF course it is.
The fattest file on my hard drive is jammed with letters from the disappointed, the dismayed and the irate who find in this newspaper a liberal bias that infects not just political coverage but a range of issues from abortion to zoology to the appointment of an admitted Democrat to be its watchdog. (That would be me.) By contrast, readers who attack The Times from the left - and there are plenty - generally confine their complaints to the paper's coverage of electoral politics and foreign policy.
I'll get to the politics-and-policy issues this fall (I want to watch the campaign coverage before I conclude anything), but for now my concern is the flammable stuff that ignites the right. These are the social issues: gay rights, gun control, abortion and environmental regulation, among others. And if you think The Times plays it down the middle on any of them, you've been reading the paper with your eyes closed.
But if you're examining the paper's coverage of these subjects from a perspective that is neither urban nor Northeastern nor culturally seen-it-all; if you are among the groups The Times treats as strange objects to be examined on a laboratory slide (devout Catholics, gun owners, Orthodox Jews, Texans); if your value system wouldn't wear well on a composite New York Times journalist, then a walk through this paper can make you feel you're traveling in a strange and forbidding world.
Start with the editorial page, so thoroughly saturated in liberal theology that when it occasionally strays from that point of view the shocked yelps from the left overwhelm even the ceaseless rumble of disapproval from the right.
Across the gutter, the Op-Ed page editors do an evenhanded job of representing a range of views in the essays from outsiders they publish - but you need an awfully heavy counterweight to balance a page that also bears the work of seven opinionated columnists, only two of whom could be classified as conservative (and, even then, of the conservative subspecies that supports legalization of gay unions and, in the case of William Safire, opposes some central provisions of the Patriot Act).
But opinion pages are opinion pages, and "balanced opinion page" is an oxymoron. So let's move elsewhere. In the Sunday magazine, the culture-wars applause-o-meter chronically points left. On the Arts & Leisure front page every week, columnist Frank Rich slices up President Bush, Mel Gibson, John Ashcroft and other paladins of the right in prose as uncompromising as Paul Krugman's or Maureen Dowd's. The culture pages often feature forms of art, dance or theater that may pass for normal (or at least tolerable) in New York but might be pretty shocking in other places.
Same goes for fashion coverage, particularly in the Sunday magazine, where I've encountered models who look like they're preparing to murder (or be murdered), and others arrayed in a mode you could call dominatrix chic. If you're like Jim Chapman, one of my correspondents who has given up on The Times, you're lost in space. Wrote Chapman, "Whatever happened to poetry that required rhyme and meter, to songs that required lyrics and tunes, to clothing ads that stressed the costume rather than the barely clothed females and slovenly dressed, slack-jawed, unshaven men?"
In the Sunday Styles section, there are gay wedding announcements, of course, but also downtown sex clubs and T-shirts bearing the slogan, "I'm afraid of Americans." The findings of racial-equity reformer Richard Lapchick have been appearing in the sports pages for decades ("Since when is diversity a sport?" one e-mail complainant grumbled). The front page of the Metro section has featured a long piece best described by its subhead, "Cross-Dressers Gladly Pay to Get in Touch with Their Feminine Side." And a creationist will find no comfort in Science Times.
Not that creationists should expect to find comfort in Science Times. Newspapers have the right to decide what's important and what's not. But their editors must also expect that some readers will think: "This does not represent me or my interests. In fact, it represents my enemy." So is it any wonder that the offended or befuddled reader might consider everything else in the paper - including, say, campaign coverage - suspicious as well?
Times publisher Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr. doesn't think this walk through The Times is a tour of liberalism. He prefers to call the paper's viewpoint "urban." He says that the tumultuous, polyglot metropolitan environment The Times occupies means "We're less easily shocked," and that the paper reflects "a value system that recognizes the power of flexibility."
He's right; living in New York makes a lot of people think that way, and a lot of people who think that way find their way to New York (me, for one). The Times has chosen to be an unashamed product of the city whose name it bears, a condition magnified by the been-there-done-that irony afflicting too many journalists. Articles containing the word "postmodern" have appeared in The Times an average of four times a week this year - true fact! - and if that doesn't reflect a Manhattan sensibility, I'm Noam Chomsky.
But it's one thing to make the paper's pages a congenial home for editorial polemicists, conceptual artists, the fashion-forward or other like-minded souls (European papers, aligned with specific political parties, have been doing it for centuries), and quite another to tell only the side of the story your co-religionists wish to hear. I don't think it's intentional when The Times does this. But negligence doesn't have to be intentional.
The gay marriage issue provides a perfect example. Set aside the editorial page, the columnists or the lengthy article in the magazine ("Toward a More Perfect Union," by David J. Garrow, May 9) that compared the lawyers who won the Massachusetts same-sex marriage lawsuit to Thurgood Marshall and Martin Luther King. That's all fine, especially for those of us who believe that homosexual couples should have precisely the same civil rights as heterosexuals.
But for those who also believe the news pages cannot retain their credibility unless all aspects of an issue are subject to robust examination, it's disappointing to see The Times present the social and cultural aspects of same-sex marriage in a tone that approaches cheerleading. So far this year, front-page headlines have told me that "For Children of Gays, Marriage Brings Joy," (March 19, 2004); that the family of "Two Fathers, With One Happy to Stay at Home," (Jan. 12, 2004) is a new archetype; and that "Gay Couples Seek Unions in God's Eyes," (Jan. 30, 2004). I've learned where gay couples go to celebrate their marriages; I've met gay couples picking out bridal dresses; I've been introduced to couples who have been together for decades and have now sanctified their vows in Canada, couples who have successfully integrated the world of competitive ballroom dancing, couples whose lives are the platonic model of suburban stability.
Every one of these articles was perfectly legitimate. Cumulatively, though, they would make a very effective ad campaign for the gay marriage cause. You wouldn't even need the articles: run the headlines over the invariably sunny pictures of invariably happy people that ran with most of these pieces, and you'd have the makings of a life insurance commercial.
This implicit advocacy is underscored by what hasn't appeared. Apart from one excursion into the legal ramifications of custody battles ("Split Gay Couples Face Custody Hurdles," by Adam Liptak and Pam Belluck, March 24), potentially nettlesome effects of gay marriage have been virtually absent from The Times since the issue exploded last winter.
The San Francisco Chronicle runs an uninflected article about Congressional testimony from a Stanford scholar making the case that gay marriage in the Netherlands has had a deleterious effect on heterosexual marriage. The Boston Globe explores the potential impact of same-sex marriage on tax revenues, and the paucity of reliable research on child-rearing in gay families. But in The Times, I have learned next to nothing about these issues, nor about partner abuse in the gay community, about any social difficulties that might be encountered by children of gay couples or about divorce rates (or causes, or consequences) among the 7,000 couples legally joined in Vermont since civil union was established there four years ago.
On a topic that has produced one of the defining debates of our time, Times editors have failed to provide the three-dimensional perspective balanced journalism requires. This has not occurred because of management fiat, but because getting outside one's own value system takes a great deal of self-questioning. Six years ago, the ownership of this sophisticated New York institution decided to make it a truly national paper. Today, only 50 percent of The Times's readership resides in metropolitan New York, but the paper's heart, mind and habits remain embedded here. You can take the paper out of the city, but without an effort to take the city and all its attendant provocations, experiments and attitudes out of the paper, readers with a different worldview will find The Times an alien beast.
Taking the New York out of The New York Times would be a really bad idea. But a determination by the editors to be mindful of the weight of its hometown's presence would not.
THE PUBLIC EDITOR
Is The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper?
By DANIEL OKRENT
Published: July 25, 2004
OF course it is.
The fattest file on my hard drive is jammed with letters from the disappointed, the dismayed and the irate who find in this newspaper a liberal bias that infects not just political coverage but a range of issues from abortion to zoology to the appointment of an admitted Democrat to be its watchdog. (That would be me.) By contrast, readers who attack The Times from the left - and there are plenty - generally confine their complaints to the paper's coverage of electoral politics and foreign policy.
I'll get to the politics-and-policy issues this fall (I want to watch the campaign coverage before I conclude anything), but for now my concern is the flammable stuff that ignites the right. These are the social issues: gay rights, gun control, abortion and environmental regulation, among others. And if you think The Times plays it down the middle on any of them, you've been reading the paper with your eyes closed.
But if you're examining the paper's coverage of these subjects from a perspective that is neither urban nor Northeastern nor culturally seen-it-all; if you are among the groups The Times treats as strange objects to be examined on a laboratory slide (devout Catholics, gun owners, Orthodox Jews, Texans); if your value system wouldn't wear well on a composite New York Times journalist, then a walk through this paper can make you feel you're traveling in a strange and forbidding world.
Start with the editorial page, so thoroughly saturated in liberal theology that when it occasionally strays from that point of view the shocked yelps from the left overwhelm even the ceaseless rumble of disapproval from the right.
Across the gutter, the Op-Ed page editors do an evenhanded job of representing a range of views in the essays from outsiders they publish - but you need an awfully heavy counterweight to balance a page that also bears the work of seven opinionated columnists, only two of whom could be classified as conservative (and, even then, of the conservative subspecies that supports legalization of gay unions and, in the case of William Safire, opposes some central provisions of the Patriot Act).
But opinion pages are opinion pages, and "balanced opinion page" is an oxymoron. So let's move elsewhere. In the Sunday magazine, the culture-wars applause-o-meter chronically points left. On the Arts & Leisure front page every week, columnist Frank Rich slices up President Bush, Mel Gibson, John Ashcroft and other paladins of the right in prose as uncompromising as Paul Krugman's or Maureen Dowd's. The culture pages often feature forms of art, dance or theater that may pass for normal (or at least tolerable) in New York but might be pretty shocking in other places.
Same goes for fashion coverage, particularly in the Sunday magazine, where I've encountered models who look like they're preparing to murder (or be murdered), and others arrayed in a mode you could call dominatrix chic. If you're like Jim Chapman, one of my correspondents who has given up on The Times, you're lost in space. Wrote Chapman, "Whatever happened to poetry that required rhyme and meter, to songs that required lyrics and tunes, to clothing ads that stressed the costume rather than the barely clothed females and slovenly dressed, slack-jawed, unshaven men?"
In the Sunday Styles section, there are gay wedding announcements, of course, but also downtown sex clubs and T-shirts bearing the slogan, "I'm afraid of Americans." The findings of racial-equity reformer Richard Lapchick have been appearing in the sports pages for decades ("Since when is diversity a sport?" one e-mail complainant grumbled). The front page of the Metro section has featured a long piece best described by its subhead, "Cross-Dressers Gladly Pay to Get in Touch with Their Feminine Side." And a creationist will find no comfort in Science Times.
Not that creationists should expect to find comfort in Science Times. Newspapers have the right to decide what's important and what's not. But their editors must also expect that some readers will think: "This does not represent me or my interests. In fact, it represents my enemy." So is it any wonder that the offended or befuddled reader might consider everything else in the paper - including, say, campaign coverage - suspicious as well?
Times publisher Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr. doesn't think this walk through The Times is a tour of liberalism. He prefers to call the paper's viewpoint "urban." He says that the tumultuous, polyglot metropolitan environment The Times occupies means "We're less easily shocked," and that the paper reflects "a value system that recognizes the power of flexibility."
He's right; living in New York makes a lot of people think that way, and a lot of people who think that way find their way to New York (me, for one). The Times has chosen to be an unashamed product of the city whose name it bears, a condition magnified by the been-there-done-that irony afflicting too many journalists. Articles containing the word "postmodern" have appeared in The Times an average of four times a week this year - true fact! - and if that doesn't reflect a Manhattan sensibility, I'm Noam Chomsky.
But it's one thing to make the paper's pages a congenial home for editorial polemicists, conceptual artists, the fashion-forward or other like-minded souls (European papers, aligned with specific political parties, have been doing it for centuries), and quite another to tell only the side of the story your co-religionists wish to hear. I don't think it's intentional when The Times does this. But negligence doesn't have to be intentional.
The gay marriage issue provides a perfect example. Set aside the editorial page, the columnists or the lengthy article in the magazine ("Toward a More Perfect Union," by David J. Garrow, May 9) that compared the lawyers who won the Massachusetts same-sex marriage lawsuit to Thurgood Marshall and Martin Luther King. That's all fine, especially for those of us who believe that homosexual couples should have precisely the same civil rights as heterosexuals.
But for those who also believe the news pages cannot retain their credibility unless all aspects of an issue are subject to robust examination, it's disappointing to see The Times present the social and cultural aspects of same-sex marriage in a tone that approaches cheerleading. So far this year, front-page headlines have told me that "For Children of Gays, Marriage Brings Joy," (March 19, 2004); that the family of "Two Fathers, With One Happy to Stay at Home," (Jan. 12, 2004) is a new archetype; and that "Gay Couples Seek Unions in God's Eyes," (Jan. 30, 2004). I've learned where gay couples go to celebrate their marriages; I've met gay couples picking out bridal dresses; I've been introduced to couples who have been together for decades and have now sanctified their vows in Canada, couples who have successfully integrated the world of competitive ballroom dancing, couples whose lives are the platonic model of suburban stability.
Every one of these articles was perfectly legitimate. Cumulatively, though, they would make a very effective ad campaign for the gay marriage cause. You wouldn't even need the articles: run the headlines over the invariably sunny pictures of invariably happy people that ran with most of these pieces, and you'd have the makings of a life insurance commercial.
This implicit advocacy is underscored by what hasn't appeared. Apart from one excursion into the legal ramifications of custody battles ("Split Gay Couples Face Custody Hurdles," by Adam Liptak and Pam Belluck, March 24), potentially nettlesome effects of gay marriage have been virtually absent from The Times since the issue exploded last winter.
The San Francisco Chronicle runs an uninflected article about Congressional testimony from a Stanford scholar making the case that gay marriage in the Netherlands has had a deleterious effect on heterosexual marriage. The Boston Globe explores the potential impact of same-sex marriage on tax revenues, and the paucity of reliable research on child-rearing in gay families. But in The Times, I have learned next to nothing about these issues, nor about partner abuse in the gay community, about any social difficulties that might be encountered by children of gay couples or about divorce rates (or causes, or consequences) among the 7,000 couples legally joined in Vermont since civil union was established there four years ago.
On a topic that has produced one of the defining debates of our time, Times editors have failed to provide the three-dimensional perspective balanced journalism requires. This has not occurred because of management fiat, but because getting outside one's own value system takes a great deal of self-questioning. Six years ago, the ownership of this sophisticated New York institution decided to make it a truly national paper. Today, only 50 percent of The Times's readership resides in metropolitan New York, but the paper's heart, mind and habits remain embedded here. You can take the paper out of the city, but without an effort to take the city and all its attendant provocations, experiments and attitudes out of the paper, readers with a different worldview will find The Times an alien beast.
Taking the New York out of The New York Times would be a really bad idea. But a determination by the editors to be mindful of the weight of its hometown's presence would not.
A lot of folks want Al to run.
QUOTE
Op-Ed Columnist
TimesSelect
The Passion of Al Gore
By BOB HERBERT
Published: June 5, 2007
Al Gore is earnestly talking about the long-term implications of the energy and climate crises, and how the Arctic ice cap is receding much faster than computer models had predicted, and how difficult and delicate a task it will be to try and set things straight in Iraq.
You look at him and you can’t help thinking how bizarre it is that this particular political figure, perhaps the most qualified person in the country to be president, is sitting in a wing chair in a hotel room in Manhattan rather than in the White House.
He’s pushing his book “The Assault on Reason.” I find myself speculating on what might have been if the man who got the most votes in 2000 had actually become president. It’s like imagining an alternate universe.
The war in Iraq would never have occurred. Support and respect for the U.S. around the globe would not have plummeted to levels that are both embarrassing and dangerous. The surpluses of the Clinton years would not have been squandered like casino chips in the hands of a compulsive gambler on a monumental losing streak.
Mr. Gore takes a blowtorch to the Bush administration in his book. He argues that the free and open democratic processes that have made the United States such a special place have been undermined by the administration’s cynicism and excessive secrecy, and by its shameless and relentless exploitation of the public’s fear of terror.
The Bush crowd, he said, has jettisoned logic, reason and reflective thought in favor of wishful thinking in the service of an extreme political ideology. It has turned its back on reality, with tragic results.
So where does that leave Mr. Gore? If the republic is in such deep trouble and the former vice president knows what to do about it, why doesn’t he have an obligation to run for president? I asked him if he didn’t owe that to his fellow citizens.
If the country needs you, how can you not answer the call?
He seemed taken aback. “Well, I respect the logic behind that question,” he said. “I also am under no illusion that there is any position that even approaches that of president in terms of an inherent ability to affect the course of events.”
But while leaving the door to a possible run carefully ajar, he candidly mentioned a couple of personal reasons why he is disinclined to seek the presidency again.
“You know,” he said, “I don’t really think I’m that good at politics, to tell you the truth.” He smiled. “Some people find out important things about themselves early in life. Others take a long time.”
He burst into a loud laugh as he added, “I think I’m breaking through my denial.”
I noted that he had at least been good enough to attract more votes than George W. Bush.
“Well, there was that,” he said, laughing again. “But what politics has become requires a level of tolerance for triviality and artifice and nonsense that I find I have in short supply.”
Mr. Gore is passionate about the issues he is focused on — global warming, the decline of rational discourse in American public life, the damage done to the nation over the past several years. And he has contempt for the notion that such important and complex matters can be seriously addressed in sound-bite sentences or 30-second television ads, which is how presidential campaigns are conducted.
He pressed this point when he talked about Iraq.
“One of the hallmarks of a strategic catastrophe,” he said, “is that it creates a cul-de-sac from which there are no good avenues of easy departure. Taking charge of the war policy and extricating our troops as quickly as possible without making a horrible situation even worse is a little like grabbing a steering wheel in the middle of a skid.”
There is no quick and easy formula, he said. A new leader implementing a new policy on Iraq would have to get a feel for the overall situation. The objective, however, should be clear: “To get our troops out of there as soon as possible while simultaneously observing the moral duty that all of us share — including those of us who opposed this war in the first instance — to remove our troops in a way that doesn’t do further avoidable damage to the people who live there.”
I asked if he meant that all U.S. troops should ultimately be removed from Iraq.
“Yes,” he said.
Then he was off to talk more about his book
TimesSelect
The Passion of Al Gore
By BOB HERBERT
Published: June 5, 2007
Al Gore is earnestly talking about the long-term implications of the energy and climate crises, and how the Arctic ice cap is receding much faster than computer models had predicted, and how difficult and delicate a task it will be to try and set things straight in Iraq.
You look at him and you can’t help thinking how bizarre it is that this particular political figure, perhaps the most qualified person in the country to be president, is sitting in a wing chair in a hotel room in Manhattan rather than in the White House.
He’s pushing his book “The Assault on Reason.” I find myself speculating on what might have been if the man who got the most votes in 2000 had actually become president. It’s like imagining an alternate universe.
The war in Iraq would never have occurred. Support and respect for the U.S. around the globe would not have plummeted to levels that are both embarrassing and dangerous. The surpluses of the Clinton years would not have been squandered like casino chips in the hands of a compulsive gambler on a monumental losing streak.
Mr. Gore takes a blowtorch to the Bush administration in his book. He argues that the free and open democratic processes that have made the United States such a special place have been undermined by the administration’s cynicism and excessive secrecy, and by its shameless and relentless exploitation of the public’s fear of terror.
The Bush crowd, he said, has jettisoned logic, reason and reflective thought in favor of wishful thinking in the service of an extreme political ideology. It has turned its back on reality, with tragic results.
So where does that leave Mr. Gore? If the republic is in such deep trouble and the former vice president knows what to do about it, why doesn’t he have an obligation to run for president? I asked him if he didn’t owe that to his fellow citizens.
If the country needs you, how can you not answer the call?
He seemed taken aback. “Well, I respect the logic behind that question,” he said. “I also am under no illusion that there is any position that even approaches that of president in terms of an inherent ability to affect the course of events.”
But while leaving the door to a possible run carefully ajar, he candidly mentioned a couple of personal reasons why he is disinclined to seek the presidency again.
“You know,” he said, “I don’t really think I’m that good at politics, to tell you the truth.” He smiled. “Some people find out important things about themselves early in life. Others take a long time.”
He burst into a loud laugh as he added, “I think I’m breaking through my denial.”
I noted that he had at least been good enough to attract more votes than George W. Bush.
“Well, there was that,” he said, laughing again. “But what politics has become requires a level of tolerance for triviality and artifice and nonsense that I find I have in short supply.”
Mr. Gore is passionate about the issues he is focused on — global warming, the decline of rational discourse in American public life, the damage done to the nation over the past several years. And he has contempt for the notion that such important and complex matters can be seriously addressed in sound-bite sentences or 30-second television ads, which is how presidential campaigns are conducted.
He pressed this point when he talked about Iraq.
“One of the hallmarks of a strategic catastrophe,” he said, “is that it creates a cul-de-sac from which there are no good avenues of easy departure. Taking charge of the war policy and extricating our troops as quickly as possible without making a horrible situation even worse is a little like grabbing a steering wheel in the middle of a skid.”
There is no quick and easy formula, he said. A new leader implementing a new policy on Iraq would have to get a feel for the overall situation. The objective, however, should be clear: “To get our troops out of there as soon as possible while simultaneously observing the moral duty that all of us share — including those of us who opposed this war in the first instance — to remove our troops in a way that doesn’t do further avoidable damage to the people who live there.”
I asked if he meant that all U.S. troops should ultimately be removed from Iraq.
“Yes,” he said.
Then he was off to talk more about his book
I think Al is right. He's not very good at politics.
QUOTE(Bee @ Jun 5 2007, 07:18 AM) [snapback]306427[/snapback]
A lot of folks want Al to run.
He might just as well. He couldn't be any worst than the bunch that are currently running. One more lunatic just adds to the amusement.
With this bunch, the Democrats would be better served going down to Disney World and randomly pick a Cartoon character to be their presidential candidate for 2008. That's just how bad this 'flock of turkeys' are.
The only one I could probably sleep well at night with would be Richardson and he has a snowball's chance in hell of being nominated.
Hey GT!
Been busy?
Been busy?
QUOTE(Bee @ Jun 5 2007, 08:04 AM) [snapback]306434[/snapback]
Hey GT!
Been busy?
Hi Beezer!
Yah....to busy, have to jump in once in awhile to let you guys know I am still alive!
I'm glad you do. 
I don't think there are any decent candidates in the Republican Party either. Might be the year to vote third party. If anyone comes up that's decent.
I don't think there are any decent candidates in the Republican Party either. Might be the year to vote third party. If anyone comes up that's decent.
Key Bush backers rally to Fred Thompson
By: Mike Allen
Jun 4, 2007 02:22 PM EST
Fred Thompson with supporters
Fred Thompson has signed on high-profile supporters.
George P. Bush, a nephew of President Bush, has contributed to the prospective presidential campaign of Fred Thompson and signed an e-mail asking friends and associates to do the same, The Politico has learned.
"In a field of candidates without a clear favorite among our fellow Republicans, my sincere hope is that you consider joining us in this effort to encourage Fred to run," the e-mail says.
The involvement of a Bush family member highlights a stream of former Bush-Cheney aides and supporters who are signing on with Thompson, in some cases quietly. Thompson, the "Law & Order" actor and former Tennessee senator, filed papers Friday that allowed him to begin raising money. Aides say he remains on track to formally announce his candidacy the week of the Fourth of July, although they say no date is set in stone.
Mary Matalin, the former counselor to Vice President Cheney, says she will be advising Thompson. A campaign source says she will be an unpaid adviser. Matalin is friends with Thompson and his wife, Jeri, and her involvement began informally, the source says.
Advisers say the head of economic policy for Thompson's fledgling team will be Lawrence B. Lindsey, who was President Bush's first economic policy adviser and an architect of his tax cuts. Lindsey was chief economic adviser to Bush's first presidential campaign and is a former member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Lindsey will also have a hand in the campaign's broader policy formulation, sources say.
(more) http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0607/4309.html
Bush Lite?
By: Mike Allen
Jun 4, 2007 02:22 PM EST
Fred Thompson with supporters
Fred Thompson has signed on high-profile supporters.
George P. Bush, a nephew of President Bush, has contributed to the prospective presidential campaign of Fred Thompson and signed an e-mail asking friends and associates to do the same, The Politico has learned.
"In a field of candidates without a clear favorite among our fellow Republicans, my sincere hope is that you consider joining us in this effort to encourage Fred to run," the e-mail says.
The involvement of a Bush family member highlights a stream of former Bush-Cheney aides and supporters who are signing on with Thompson, in some cases quietly. Thompson, the "Law & Order" actor and former Tennessee senator, filed papers Friday that allowed him to begin raising money. Aides say he remains on track to formally announce his candidacy the week of the Fourth of July, although they say no date is set in stone.
Mary Matalin, the former counselor to Vice President Cheney, says she will be advising Thompson. A campaign source says she will be an unpaid adviser. Matalin is friends with Thompson and his wife, Jeri, and her involvement began informally, the source says.
Advisers say the head of economic policy for Thompson's fledgling team will be Lawrence B. Lindsey, who was President Bush's first economic policy adviser and an architect of his tax cuts. Lindsey was chief economic adviser to Bush's first presidential campaign and is a former member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Lindsey will also have a hand in the campaign's broader policy formulation, sources say.
(more) http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0607/4309.html
Bush Lite?
SpaceCowboy, et al,
I find myself asking, who is the real Fred Thompson?
(COMMENT)
But to be honest, I find myself liking him, and I don't know exactly why. Maybe it's because I see him as more honest than the other candidates.
I am not sure that I agree with his position on Iraq, yet - he seems to be a straight foward personality that I could follow, even if I don't entirely agree with his position.
I can't really explain it to myself, except I have greater trust and confidence in him (for some reason) than I do any other candidate.
Most Respectfully,
I find myself asking, who is the real Fred Thompson?
QUOTE(SpaceCowboy @ Jun 5 2007, 10:05 AM) [snapback]306456[/snapback]
Key Bush backers rally to Fred Thompson
Bush Lite?
(COMMENT)
But to be honest, I find myself liking him, and I don't know exactly why. Maybe it's because I see him as more honest than the other candidates.
I am not sure that I agree with his position on Iraq, yet - he seems to be a straight foward personality that I could follow, even if I don't entirely agree with his position.
I can't really explain it to myself, except I have greater trust and confidence in him (for some reason) than I do any other candidate.
Most Respectfully,
I kinda like ol' Fred myself. I'm not sure if it's just the Law & Order exposure, or what.
QUOTE(SpaceCowboy @ Jun 5 2007, 10:05 AM) [snapback]306456[/snapback]
Bush Lite?
Thompson is articulate.
Maybe Reagan lite?
QUOTE(gtessex @ Jun 5 2007, 09:58 AM) [snapback]306459[/snapback]
Thompson is articulate.
But is he clean?
Maybe Reagan lite?
Actor and father figure.
QUOTE(Bee @ Jun 5 2007, 04:18 AM) [snapback]306427[/snapback]
A lot of folks want Al to run.
A little jogging couldn't hurt. He was beginning to look too much like Michael Moore.
QUOTE(RoccoR @ Jun 5 2007, 07:27 AM) [snapback]306457[/snapback]
SpaceCowboy, et al,
I find myself asking, who is the real Fred Thompson?
(COMMENT)
But to be honest, I find myself liking him, and I don't know exactly why. Maybe it's because I see him as more honest than the other candidates.
I am not sure that I agree with his position on Iraq, yet - he seems to be a straight foward personality that I could follow, even if I don't entirely agree with his position.
I can't really explain it to myself, except I have greater trust and confidence in him (for some reason) than I do any other candidate.
Most Respectfully,
I find myself asking, who is the real Fred Thompson?
(COMMENT)
But to be honest, I find myself liking him, and I don't know exactly why. Maybe it's because I see him as more honest than the other candidates.
I am not sure that I agree with his position on Iraq, yet - he seems to be a straight foward personality that I could follow, even if I don't entirely agree with his position.
I can't really explain it to myself, except I have greater trust and confidence in him (for some reason) than I do any other candidate.
Most Respectfully,
Have you seen him in any role-playing? That might be part of it.
QUOTE(SpaceCowboy @ Jun 5 2007, 07:53 AM) [snapback]306458[/snapback]
I kinda like ol' Fred myself. I'm not sure if it's just the Law & Order exposure, or what.
Just why I asked Rocco what I did. (would have asked you but Rocco came first)
Sometimes a role-player may have a good quality that shines through. Begs the question, does the quality show through in the acting, or is the quality JUST acting?
It may be different for different people. I can't say. But it is an interesting Chicken VS Egg question.
QUOTE(Bee @ Jun 4 2007, 07:16 PM) [snapback]306386[/snapback]
Enjoy, FriendJudy.
I keep seeing her in a Jeremiah Johnson flashback. Big stick rigored to her hand and dead grizzly below. Note attached that she's kin to the bear that bit Jim Bridger's ass and whoever finds her can have the stick that killed the griz.....
QUOTE(SpaceCowboy @ Jun 5 2007, 07:03 AM) [snapback]306431[/snapback]
I think Al is right. He's not very good at politics.
Just what a politician would say.
He's still got years to ponder running. At least 3.
He'd be better to find some other track-record other than having been VP. Which is of course what he's doing.
Put more distance between him and the Buddhist Temple thang. In 3 years it'll be Buddhist Temple what?
Patience is a smart thing.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
QUOTE(RoccoR @ Jun 5 2007, 09:27 AM) [snapback]306457[/snapback]
SpaceCowboy, et al,
I find myself asking, who is the real Fred Thompson?
[indent][/indent]
(COMMENT)
But to be honest, I find myself liking him, and I don't know exactly why. Maybe it's because I see him as more honest than the other candidates.
I am not sure that I agree with his position on Iraq, yet - he seems to be a straight foward personality that I could follow, even if I don't entirely agree with his position.
I can't really explain it to myself, except I have greater trust and confidence in him (for some reason) than I do any other candidate.
Most Respectfully,
He speaks in complete sentences - I like that.
Seems quite smart.
I'd guess he also has a high Q-rating. He comes off like someone you know. Somebody who you sometimes disagree with but still er, like. High Q methinks.
QUOTE(Arturo_Vandelay @ Jun 5 2007, 11:18 AM) [snapback]306462[/snapback]
A little jogging couldn't hurt. He was beginning to look too much like Michael Moore.
Have you seen him in any role-playing? That might be part of it.
Just why I asked Rocco what I did. (would have asked you but Rocco came first)
Sometimes a role-player may have a good quality that shines through. Begs the question, does the quality show through in the acting, or is the quality JUST acting?
It may be different for different people. I can't say. But it is an interesting Chicken VS Egg question.
I was kinda hoping hunin would address this.
QUOTE(SpaceCowboy @ Jun 5 2007, 09:53 AM) [snapback]306458[/snapback]
I kinda like ol' Fred myself. I'm not sure if it's just the Law & Order exposure, or what.
You bet.
Has played a prez in the movies a couple times as I recall. Mostly always the irrascible-but-fair authority figure.
Then there's his bombshell question during Watergate - 'got tapes?'
He's only been married once. Heh, only he and Mitt can make that claim.
QUOTE(Bee @ Jun 5 2007, 06:12 PM) [snapback]306502[/snapback]
I was kinda hoping hunin would address this.
Just catching up. Had to make sure he's only been married once - actor and all.
It's the acting for sure. Good acting can make the phone book sound good.
That said, add a good script, you strike oil.
Oops, may bad. Thompson has been married twice.
I'm not sure I care about twice. Everyone is entitled to ONE mistake.
Yeah, I went to school with some actors, they could make you believe they felt anything, and then the mask would come off, eventually. Usually in good humor.
This, however, is serious stuff.
We've had enough actors, methinks. I want to see the directors.
Yeah, I went to school with some actors, they could make you believe they felt anything, and then the mask would come off, eventually. Usually in good humor.
This, however, is serious stuff.
We've had enough actors, methinks. I want to see the directors.
Many actors also go into directing.
Good actors don't wear a mask. The mask wears them.
Thompson's good actor, Bonzo's master wasn't.
But a high Q is a terrific asset. It's what Obama has, and Hillary not so much. I think Q is a lot about appearing effortless in how you appear. Being what, the real thing maybe?
Thompson's Q crushes every other Repub prez candidate.
I don't care about twice neither. It's that pesky conservative Repug base.
2nd wife definitely has a lot of miles left on her:
Good actors don't wear a mask. The mask wears them.
Thompson's good actor, Bonzo's master wasn't.
But a high Q is a terrific asset. It's what Obama has, and Hillary not so much. I think Q is a lot about appearing effortless in how you appear. Being what, the real thing maybe?
Thompson's Q crushes every other Repub prez candidate.
I don't care about twice neither. It's that pesky conservative Repug base.
2nd wife definitely has a lot of miles left on her:
QUOTE(hunin @ Jun 5 2007, 04:33 PM) [snapback]306505[/snapback]
Oops, may bad. Thompson has been married twice.
Hardly outlandish in today's society, though it does question his decision making if he made the same mistake twice. Some of us learn faster than others.
QUOTE(hunin @ Jun 5 2007, 04:47 PM) [snapback]306508[/snapback]
2nd wife definitely has a lot of miles left on her:
Probably a lot more miles than he has. He hardly robbed the cradle, but she almost robbed the grave.
Hubba.
Heh, could be giving her away.
QUOTE(beasty @ Jun 5 2007, 04:57 PM) [snapback]306510[/snapback]
Hardly outlandish in today's society, though it does question his decision making if he made the same mistake twice. Some of us learn faster than others.
" Friends don't let friends get married"
A. Bundy
Politicians need a wife though. I don't know why, but I keep hearing about it.
QUOTE(hunin @ Jun 5 2007, 04:58 PM) [snapback]306511[/snapback]
Hubba.
Hubba bubba.
QUOTE(hunin @ Jun 5 2007, 04:58 PM) [snapback]306511[/snapback]
Hubba.
Heh, could be giving her away.
Married the actor and politician and immediately got fat.
Yeah, better one here that I couldn't get to post as an image:
http://www.redkingpix.com/cgi-bin/ImageFol...amp;bool=phrase
She has great er, eyes.
Dude has some serious Q.
Even with a serious askew tie.
http://www.redkingpix.com/cgi-bin/ImageFol...amp;bool=phrase
She has great er, eyes.
Dude has some serious Q.
Even with a serious askew tie.
Doesn't do her face any favors. Likely as close to a star as she'd be marrying. He looks like the cat that swallowed the canary. Especially in the church picture.
At least he isn't getting caught with even younger hookers.
At least he isn't getting caught with even younger hookers.
Time will tell.
He's no Mitt.
He's no Mitt.
His face looks like a mitt.
One the Babe used perhaps.
One the Babe used perhaps.
Yes, yes it does. But he's got Q.
All the better the trophy wife.
~~~~~~~~~~
Comcast has screwed up my CNN - how's the debate play-action?
All the better the trophy wife.
~~~~~~~~~~
Comcast has screwed up my CNN - how's the debate play-action?
QUOTE(hunin @ Jun 5 2007, 05:22 PM) [snapback]306520[/snapback]
Yes, yes it does. But he's got Q.
All the better the trophy wife.
~~~~~~~~~~
Comcast has screwed up my CNN - how's the debate play-action?
All the better the trophy wife.
~~~~~~~~~~
Comcast has screwed up my CNN - how's the debate play-action?
UA women are playing in the softball world series, so I'll have to catch the replay. Had car trouble and had to take the bus home so I'm working on a shower, drink and snack in between innings.
I hope not in that order.
ESPN 2.
Tennesee's pitcher looks like Gomer Pyle, but taller. Not many women can look me in the eye standing up. Looks pretty athletic, I wonder what the sex would be like.
(in the dark for starters)
All at once, a la Kramer's salad on Seinfeld. (for those Seinfeld fans out there)
Tennesee's pitcher looks like Gomer Pyle, but taller. Not many women can look me in the eye standing up. Looks pretty athletic, I wonder what the sex would be like.
(in the dark for starters)
QUOTE(hunin @ Jun 5 2007, 05:32 PM) [snapback]306524[/snapback]
I hope not in that order.
All at once, a la Kramer's salad on Seinfeld. (for those Seinfeld fans out there)
Well, cheers then.
That pic sums up the dirty old man getting just about as lucky as any old man this side of Hef ever does.
QUOTE(RoccoR @ Jun 5 2007, 09:27 AM) [snapback]306457[/snapback]
SpaceCowboy, et al,
I find myself asking, who is the real Fred Thompson?
[indent][/indent]
(COMMENT)
But to be honest, I find myself liking him, and I don't know exactly why. Maybe it's because I see him as more honest than the other candidates.
I am not sure that I agree with his position on Iraq, yet - he seems to be a straight foward personality that I could follow, even if I don't entirely agree with his position.
I can't really explain it to myself, except I have greater trust and confidence in him (for some reason) than I do any other candidate.
Most Respectfully,
I would never vote for this douchebag. He's not Bush lite, he's Cheney lite.
I can see it now.............
Liberals for Thompson in '08!
Liberals for Thompson in '08!
QUOTE(patheticJT @ Jun 5 2007, 05:58 PM) [snapback]306534[/snapback]
I can see it now.............
Liberals for Thompson in '08!
Liberals for Thompson in '08!
Nothing can hold them back unless Superman needs to change in their headquarts.
QUOTE(Arturo_Vandelay @ Jun 5 2007, 07:45 PM) [snapback]306529[/snapback]
That pic sums up the dirty old man getting just about as lucky as any old man this side of Hef ever does.
It could be just luv. Never know.
Yeah, the conservative base may have some hesitations. As yet unexpressed.
But he does have great Q. Or something.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
QUOTE(patheticJT @ Jun 5 2007, 07:58 PM) [snapback]306534[/snapback]
I can see it now.............
Liberals for Thompson in '08!
A year from now you'll be singing a different tune.
QUOTE(hunin @ Jun 5 2007, 06:34 PM) [snapback]306540[/snapback]
It could be just luv. Never know.
Yeah, the conservative base may have some hesitations. As yet unexpressed.
But he does have great Q. Or something.
Yeah, I've seen him in movies and remembered him. Good character actor. Down homey. Can't underestimate that Q thingee. The unknown that make people react positively to someone sans any real reason to be positive.
What Carville said:
" The good news for Democrats is they will have to talk themselves out of winning the next election, the good news for Republicans is: The Democrats are perfectly capable of doing just that. "
True words.
I would never vote for this douchebag. He's not Bush lite, he's Cheney lite.
I agree, but likability is important.
When the time comes to burn Rove in Effigy the Republicans should do it because he talked them into hating McCain and believeing to this day that McCain is a liberal.
" The good news for Democrats is they will have to talk themselves out of winning the next election, the good news for Republicans is: The Democrats are perfectly capable of doing just that. "
True words.
QUOTE(Davis 2.0 @ Jun 5 2007, 07:58 PM) [snapback]306533[/snapback]
I would never vote for this douchebag. He's not Bush lite, he's Cheney lite.
I agree, but likability is important.
When the time comes to burn Rove in Effigy the Republicans should do it because he talked them into hating McCain and believeing to this day that McCain is a liberal.
Carville is a pretty astute fella. Had the good taste to marry the republican homecoming queen. Without the cueball head and halloween face he probably could be dating Hef's castoffs.
QUOTE(Arturo_Vandelay @ Jun 5 2007, 08:45 PM) [snapback]306543[/snapback]
Yeah, I've seen him in movies and remembered him. Good character actor. Down homey. Can't underestimate that Q thingee. The unknown that make people react positively to someone sans any real reason to be positive.
Yeah, Q is curious. Maybe goes to subconscious facial recognition. Or something.
Marketers have paid more attention to it than academics
~~~~
QUOTE
President Bush drew startling criticism Tuesday night from Republican White House hopefuls unhappy with his handling of the Iraq war, his diplomatic style and his approach to immigration.
"I would certainly not send him to the United Nations" to represent the United States, former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson said midway through a spirited campaign debate.
Arizona Sen. John McCain criticized the administration for its handling of the Iraq War, and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said, "I think we were underprepared and underplanned for what came after we knocked down Saddam Hussein."
Rep. Duncan Hunter of California said the current administration "has the slows" when it comes to building a security fence along the border with Mexico.
Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado recalled that White House aide Karl Rove had once told him "never darken the door of the White House." The congressman said he'd tell George Bush the same thing...
MANCHESTER, N.H. (AP) - Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Sam Brownback of Kansas both admitted Tuesday night they voted to authorize the U.S. military invasion of Iraq without reading the formal National Intelligence Estimate in advance.
The confession drew a jab from former Gov. Jim Gilmore of Virginia in the opening moments of a presidential campaign debate. Members of Congress "ought to read at least that kind of material," he said.
Rep. Duncan Hunter of California said he had, the only member of Congress on the debate stage to make the claim.
The war dominated the opening moments of the debate, two nights after Democratic presidential hopefuls stood on the same stage at St. Anselm College in the nation's first primary state.
Both McCain and Brownback said they had received numerous briefings on the situation in Iraq before they cast their votes in 2002.
McCain said the invasion was the correct decision, arguing that international sanctions designed to prevent Saddam Hussein from developing weapons of mass destruction were breaking down.
He said the Iraqi dictator had used the weapons against his own people and "if he had gotten them again he'd have used them again."
Brownback also said he had received briefings on the issue. He went on to say he would propose legislation in the Senate on Wednesday to divide Iraq into three regions, controlled by the Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds.....
The debate drew 10 Republican presidential contenders in all - but not former Sen. Fred Thompson of Tennessee, an actor apparently poised to join the race in a month's time.
"My name is Thompson. I'm the candidate, not the actor," said former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson in a jab at the man who wasn't there.
Controversial immigration legislation dominated the run-up to the debate.
"Do I think it's perfect? No. I would remind you the Democrats are in majority in both houses now and we have to deal with them to resolve this issue," McCain said in a campaign stop during the day.
McCain stands alone among GOP hopefuls in backing the bipartisan bill.....
"I would certainly not send him to the United Nations" to represent the United States, former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson said midway through a spirited campaign debate.
Arizona Sen. John McCain criticized the administration for its handling of the Iraq War, and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said, "I think we were underprepared and underplanned for what came after we knocked down Saddam Hussein."
Rep. Duncan Hunter of California said the current administration "has the slows" when it comes to building a security fence along the border with Mexico.
Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado recalled that White House aide Karl Rove had once told him "never darken the door of the White House." The congressman said he'd tell George Bush the same thing...
MANCHESTER, N.H. (AP) - Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Sam Brownback of Kansas both admitted Tuesday night they voted to authorize the U.S. military invasion of Iraq without reading the formal National Intelligence Estimate in advance.
The confession drew a jab from former Gov. Jim Gilmore of Virginia in the opening moments of a presidential campaign debate. Members of Congress "ought to read at least that kind of material," he said.
Rep. Duncan Hunter of California said he had, the only member of Congress on the debate stage to make the claim.
The war dominated the opening moments of the debate, two nights after Democratic presidential hopefuls stood on the same stage at St. Anselm College in the nation's first primary state.
Both McCain and Brownback said they had received numerous briefings on the situation in Iraq before they cast their votes in 2002.
McCain said the invasion was the correct decision, arguing that international sanctions designed to prevent Saddam Hussein from developing weapons of mass destruction were breaking down.
He said the Iraqi dictator had used the weapons against his own people and "if he had gotten them again he'd have used them again."
Brownback also said he had received briefings on the issue. He went on to say he would propose legislation in the Senate on Wednesday to divide Iraq into three regions, controlled by the Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds.....
The debate drew 10 Republican presidential contenders in all - but not former Sen. Fred Thompson of Tennessee, an actor apparently poised to join the race in a month's time.
"My name is Thompson. I'm the candidate, not the actor," said former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson in a jab at the man who wasn't there.
Controversial immigration legislation dominated the run-up to the debate.
"Do I think it's perfect? No. I would remind you the Democrats are in majority in both houses now and we have to deal with them to resolve this issue," McCain said in a campaign stop during the day.
McCain stands alone among GOP hopefuls in backing the bipartisan bill.....
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/06/05/ap3791909.html
I read a good article a ways back about faces and universal signs of beauty. One was a symmetrical face. In fact it was a major one. I think they used Denzel Washington as the male example. Little graph lines over his face to show how both haves were mirror images.
Bummed me out as my nose has been mashed in a couple directions simultaneously. Thank goodness I'm old and it really doesn't matter anymore.
Bummed me out as my nose has been mashed in a couple directions simultaneously. Thank goodness I'm old and it really doesn't matter anymore.
QUOTE
....To calculate someone or something’s Q Score, Marketing Evaluations surveys a panel of US consumer households about their awareness and opinion of that person or thing. The Q Score is influenced by both people’s familiarity with the subject and their favorability toward it....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_Score
Machine beats nerds.
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/TECH/computin...star.power.idg/
IBM touts Deep Blue's star power
From...
August 28, 2000
Web posted at: 11:39 a.m. EDT (1539 GMT)
by Ed Scannell
(IDG) -- It may not spur the public relations departments at rivals Sun Microsystems and Oracle into overdrive, but in a survey conducted by Marketing Evaluations/TvQ, IBM's Deep Blue supercomputer has achieved a higher "celebrity" status than both Scott McNealy and Larry Ellison.
According to the survey results, Armonk, N.Y.-based IBM's RS/6000 supercomputer -- perhaps best known for its chess victory in defeating Grandmaster Garry Kasparov three years ago -- has achieved a Q-Score that makes it a celebrity equal with Batman, Austin Powers, rapper LL Cool J, Howard Stern, and Carmen Electra.
What might take some gleam off the glamour of the computer's newfound popular status is that Teletubbies and Count Chocula are also in that same category.
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/TECH/computin...star.power.idg/
IBM touts Deep Blue's star power
From...
August 28, 2000
Web posted at: 11:39 a.m. EDT (1539 GMT)
by Ed Scannell
(IDG) -- It may not spur the public relations departments at rivals Sun Microsystems and Oracle into overdrive, but in a survey conducted by Marketing Evaluations/TvQ, IBM's Deep Blue supercomputer has achieved a higher "celebrity" status than both Scott McNealy and Larry Ellison.
According to the survey results, Armonk, N.Y.-based IBM's RS/6000 supercomputer -- perhaps best known for its chess victory in defeating Grandmaster Garry Kasparov three years ago -- has achieved a Q-Score that makes it a celebrity equal with Batman, Austin Powers, rapper LL Cool J, Howard Stern, and Carmen Electra.
What might take some gleam off the glamour of the computer's newfound popular status is that Teletubbies and Count Chocula are also in that same category.
QUOTE
One among many reasons why NYC Mayor Mike Bloomberg has no future in the national Republican party.
On Monday Bloomberg weighed in on the JFK bomb plot -- the one where a few Trinidadian ne'er-do-wells who didn't understand how the jet fuel pipelines worked thought they'd blow up the whole city.
-- Josh Marshall
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/014482.php
On Monday Bloomberg weighed in on the JFK bomb plot -- the one where a few Trinidadian ne'er-do-wells who didn't understand how the jet fuel pipelines worked thought they'd blow up the whole city.
QUOTE
"There are lots of threats to you in the world. There's the threat of a heart attack for genetic reasons. You can't sit there and worry about everything. Get a life. You have a much greater danger of being hit by lightning than being struck by a terrorist."
-- Josh Marshall
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/014482.php
Sounds like a Democrat, doesn't he?
That's pretty much the NYTimes take on the (ohmyGod) "plot."
QUOTE
Here's the basic thinking on the J.F.K. story: In the years since 9/11, there have been quite a few interrupted terrorist plots. It now seems possible to exercise some judgment about their gravity. Not all plots are the same. In this case, law enforcement officials said that J.F.K. was never in immediate danger. The plotters had yet to lay out plans. They had no financing. Nor did they have any explosives. It is with all that in mind, that the editors in charge this weekend did not put this story on the front page.
In truth, the decision was widely debated even within this newsroom. At the front page meeting this morning, we took an informal poll and a few editors thought the story should have been more prominently played. Some argued it should have been fronted, regardless of the lameness of the plot, simply because it was what everyone was talking about.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/04/business...theeditors.html
Dang that NYTimes. Why can't they be sheep like the REST of the media? Maybe Rupert Murdoch will buy them and everything will be O.K.
QUOTE
What Carville said:
" The good news for Democrats is they will have to talk themselves out of winning the next election, the good news for Republicans is: The Democrats are perfectly capable of doing just that. "
True words.
" The good news for Democrats is they will have to talk themselves out of winning the next election, the good news for Republicans is: The Democrats are perfectly capable of doing just that. "
True words.
Cueball and his wife both wrote letters supporting Libby. I have never liked Carville. He's a loudmoth jerkoff and I'm glad I don't ever see the scum on tv anymore.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.