You cannot be serious.

Hagel has been delivering speeches-vehement, passionate ANTI-WAR speeches for the past few years. Speeches that are on You-tube, speeches that were on Cspan, speeches that have been in the news, speeches that were at Congressional hearings...

Sorry, but I can't see a leopard trying to paint stripes on himself now. It would be redundant.

Vesti la giubba, e la faccia infarina.... Si, eccomi. I was just putting on my rubber nose, if fact, when you inquired. Better I should go look for that bottle of champagne I've been saving instead. It is New Year's Eve, after all.

It appears LWM....

...has enough feet to rival a centipede.

I just have two feet. The circus people here think that any anony who criticizes them is me. That's just paranoid. Like that Philip K. Dick passage Karrsic posted.

Ahh, sh**

JFC! Is the circus back in town already?

You thought it left?

I'm a bit late coming back to this:

Anonymous posted:

A detailed analysis of the voting demographics revealed that Perot's support drew heavily from across the political spectrum, with 20% of his votes coming from self-described liberals, 27% from self-described conservatives, and 53% coming from self-described moderates.

This matches fairly closely to what I was putting across: you can't really blame/credit Clinton's 1992 victory on Perot; this is a common lie perpetrated by the GOP and it disappoints me to see left-leaners repeat it. I would agree with the data cited above, including that Perot's voters probably skewed somewhat rightward; however I remember very well from that period that the remarkable thing about Perot's candidacy was that it drew roughly equally from across the board.

To say that Bush lost because of Perot, you'd have to assume that Perot effectively split the GOP vote, and you really can't say that at all with any credibility, given the numbers above.

For a sitting incumbent to only pull 34%, that's a pretty strong indictment of his lack of popularity. I have no problem asserting that Bill Clinton would have won in 1992, with or without Perot, in a mini-landslide.

Yes, I'm serious. This isn't about Hagel. It's about Bloomberg. Besides, I have yet to see it defined and written in blood that Bloomberg really would use or choose Hagel for a running mate.

The guy is pretending to be putting forth a bipartisan candidacy after all. Which is bullshit from the outset. So why wouldn't his speaking of Hagel as a consideration for a running mate be bullshit from the outset also? That's how I read it. I'm "serious".

gads.

Enough.

adios.

December 31, 2007

BY ROBERT NOVAK Sun-Times Columnist

The assassination of Benazir Bhutto followed urgent pleas to the State Department for the last two months by her representatives for better security protection. The U.S. reaction was that she was worried over nothing, expressing assurance that Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf would not let anything happen to her.

That attitude led Bhutto's agent to inform a high-ranking State Department official that her camp no longer viewed the backstage U.S. effort to broker power sharing between Musharraf and former Prime Minister Bhutto as a good-faith effort toward democracy. It was, according to the written complaint, an attempt to preserve the politically endangered Musharraf as President Bush's man in Islamabad.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/novak/719606,CST-EDT-NOVAK31.article

WT... I bet it's a red nose, you closet commie. Still, it could trap the bubbles from the champagne, when you're snickering about those wars you're always mongering.

It'll be noon in just a few minutes; I'd better get the shaker ready.

It'll be noon in just a few minutes; I'd better get the shaker ready.

A California girl? Too right! (Oregon or Washington would be okay too.)

It's Poppy Bush's favorite town.... Home of Powells Books. I'm a proud lifer.

Great -- so now Michael Bloomberg wants to do for the 2008 presidential election what Ralph Nader did in 2000 -- binge on a vanity-fueled rocketship ride to ruin our democracy.

Perhaps Peggy Noonan and Pat Buchanan can write speeches for him.

Happy New Year! It should prove to be an interesting one. (And C-Hag, you are very, very, lucky. It's a wonderful burg.)

When Unity08 first came out, I was intrigued, signed up and even published a letter to the editor in my local newspaper. I was being my usual idealistic self. I thought that this was an actual attempt at true bipartisanship and thought very similarly to some of the things pointed out by CMcC.

However, over the past few months, it has become increasingly clear that the "bipartisanship" now under discussion is nothing more than issuing a free pass for all of the crimes of the Bush Administration. Glenn points that out very clearly in the update, using both his own language and that of the other writers he links to. As CMcC points out, a true bipartisanship would welcome those previously under the influence of Republican law-breaking. However, I see a major precondition that should be met before that happens.

Nothing less than the credibility of our nation is at stake here. Simply deciding to "forgive and forget", while embellishing this newly discovered "bipartisanship" tells the world that there are no consequences when our leadership decides to act in contravention to our own and international laws. Only after Bush, Cheney, Addington, Gonzales, Rumsfeld, Libby and a host of others are rotting in jail can we consider trying a real bipartisanship. The kind of bipartisanship we need, in fact, would require the few remaining people of principle within the Republican party to lead the charge for impeachment and imprisonment. That is the only way we will know that they intend to return to the world of the law and to truthful interactions with one another.

Aside to WT: Whod'a thunk that even with all that time you spent on the front lines of Vietnam protest that you really were a warmonger?

@CMcC

Your words are wisdom.

If that's the approach Bloomberg is taking to try to sneak in as a 3rd party "anti-war" candidate by having Hagel on--It's extremely stupid and risky.

I've never heard Bloomberg voice his opinion on the war-letting Hagel speak up instead.That's not the part that concerns me though. He's still a business owner and pro-corporate. I find it suspicious also, that as Huck gains-HRC popularity goes down too, Guiliani losing ground-another Wallstreeter gets thrown into the mix.

I think it is extrmremly arrogant and egotistical to do-maybe inside NY he may think he's a someone-but outside of it--most Americans don't know or care about him.Being a Mayor does not equate to leadership/experience.Being a business owner/media especially-is a big drawback too...

It's his money to spend-but I think he's late to the dance and has no name recognition in America-nor values.