Who among the Democrats is celebrating prematurely? Got any names, perhaps? No, because there aren't any. Yet he gets up there and says it is so, and now it will be repeated among the Republican throng as though it is the truth. He says it's the truth because it is to the Republicans advantage for it to be true. But it's not. I am so sick of his BS...

we did an exhaustive search for 'Lieberman stay the coarse' and nothing came up."

Why can't you use video of something that happened on the House floor? Is it too much like the truth?

Is textbook Republican/authoritarian behavior. They do it reflexively without even thinking. Anyone who feels pain that they don't feel must be a charlatan. Anyone advocating a cause that they don't believe in must have an "agenda" and must therefore selling snake oil. I've seen this all my life. Blame the poor for being poor. Blame the refugees for living in a dangerous/untenable environment. It goes on and on and on....

We aren't arguing with Rush's claims, nor the points you brought up because they are irrelevant red herrings. The issue isn't whether the research is legal or not. Nor is it whether you are for it as long as it's privately funded. The relevant point is this:

Which candidate is FOR federally funded embryonic stem cell research, and which one isn't?

Is a perfect example of how Republicans--especially those who still support Bush--don't really have an understanding of how democracy works. They have no problem making a mockery of the constitution as long as it gets them what they want.

I saw a hilarious post yesterday from a guy comparing Bush to a compulsive gambler.

"Who cares if you've lost your house and your car? If you walk away from that craps table now, then the crooked casino owner has already won! If you really care about your family's future, you'll stay until you win everything back and then some."

I live in Austin, Texas, and I sincerely wish I could tell you just how wrong you are about Harris' chances of being elected in Texas. But unfortunately, you are correct. I'd love to be offended, but I can't. Everytime I think about trying to criticize the voters from some other state for who they've elected, I think about who Texans have elected and realize that I'd better keep my mouth shut. (Well, about that subject, anyway...)

Kerry's comment isn't anywhere near as contemptible or stupid as "Bring 'em on." How soon the neocons forget....

I'd like to hear your defense of "Bring 'em on."

After reading all about this in War Room and other places yesterday, I finally got the chance to actually see the tape of Kerry's comments last night. Anyone who doesn't or didn't realize that he was poking fun at Bush has got to be an idiot. If you make a joke TOO obvious, it isn't funny anymore. Demanding an apology from Kerry is ludicrous. I think people people who didn't get the joke should be apologizing to Kerry for being so thick.

for meeting with whoever he meets with and for shooting whoever

he happens to shoot. It shouldn't be any business of ours, right?

Once the Saddam verdict comes in tomorrow, this will be forgotten. Which is a shame.

I should have seen that the release of this story will actually be on Monday. Sorry for that oversight. But I still think it will be overshadowed by the Saddam story.

how there could be such sharp shifts in such a short time span. Nothing particularly dramatic has happened in the last few weeks news-wise. So what's making folks change their minds back and forth in such a short time frame on such important issues in which people tend not to change their minds so much? Who are these people still on the fence, waffling back and forth? I don't get it. I can understand the person who is fed up with Bush and refuses to vote Republican until he's gone. I can also understand the authoritarian Republican who just supports Bush no matter what (well, to SOME degree I understand it) But the people I cannot fathom for the life of me are those who after the last six years are STILL more or less undecided?

"Conversely, if by 8 p.m. Eastern, the Republicans have held their losses to, say, three seats, then the Democrats will once again be reeling from the hidden power of the GOP's turnout operation. "

Isn't it about time we started refering to the Republican "turnout operation" with the proverbial quote marks?

Wow! Imagine that? Or as we say in Texas, "who'd a thunk it?"

That after the Republicans lose, they are going to float a post hoc argument that the loser (i.e., "them") can't be the party who cheated. The point to consider in Ohio is this: How on god's green earth can/could the Democrats have cheated with Ken Blackwell as the Sec. of State?

The news reports from a few weeks ago that the Republicans chose not to craft a plan in the event that the Democrats won the House and or Senate. Looks like they'll have to start planning now, right? It will be interesting to see if their lack of planning works as well as their lack of planning has worked in Iraq.

is that it wasn't so bad that Rumsfeld totally screwed up in Iraq and is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. No, that's not why he had to go. Why he REALLY had to go was because he cost the Republicans the 2006 mid-term elections. Some priorities in this administration, huh?

"President Bush nominates former CIA chief Robert Gates as defense secretary to replace Donald Rumsfeld."--CNN

[Another reporter asked the president about a book-reading contest he's having with Karl Rove. "I'm losing," he said. "Obviously, I was working harder on the campaign than he was."]

Temper, temper!