DD Wiz wrote on Mar 1, 2008 8:47 PM: The published letter from Murel Fisk bemoans the high gas prices and blames liberals. Oh well, that's just Fisk being Fisk. He talks about "basic economics" but confirms yet again that he has no grasp of the subject. He praises George Bush, but conveniently seems to forget that both Bush and his vice-president (puppeteer?) Cheney were oilmen before taking over the White House.
Hmmm, let's see -- oilmen in the White House (and don't forget ExxonMobil star Condi Rice at State).
Record High Prices. Record Oil Company profits for the profiteering cronies of Bush, Cheney and Condi. Yeah! It must be the Democrats' fault for trying to reduce demand by seeking clean, renewable alternative energy sources! That's right, it's as easy as 2 + 2 = ...Republican fuzzy math!

DD Wiz wrote on Mar 1, 2008 8:48 PM: The published letter from Eve Cole says she is "still waiting to hear the substance of these changes Sen. Obama so eloquently talks about and how they will be achieved!"
She needs to start watching C-SPAN instead of game shows and sitcoms, where there are speeches almost every day from both Obama and Clinton, which highlight each of their respective strengths.
Additionally, both Obama and Clinton have excellent websites detailing their positions on all major issues, including their strategies for how to implement their visions.
The strength that Obama brings is an ability to forge consensus, bring people together and find common ground. The strength that Clinton brings is a tenacious personal strength and in-depth knowledge of policy details.
Either of them would be an excellent president.
Democrats have the resources with to make an informed decision as to which they prefer, but only if they actually look at the information that is available!

DD Wiz wrote on Mar 1, 2008 8:49 PM: The published letter from Carolyn Morrow is right on target. The Sunrise Powerlink would be environmentally devastating, and isn't even the optimal route as shown in the EIR Morrow cites! This is all about profits and control for BIG ENERGY and their stockholders.
It is time to end energy monopolies.
The Sunrise Powerlink is estimated to cost 1.3 BILLION dollars for a BOONDOGGLE that will string 150 miles of transmission lines through sensitive habitat, and every time the wind blows one down, there will be more wildfires.
If you just take that $1.3 BILLION dollars, you could completely cover the costs of solarizing 40,000 rooftop systems at today's net costs. Or if you merely covered ten or fifteen thousand dollars of additional credits for those who are borderline and just need that extra incentive push, you could cover 80,000 or 100,000 homes. That would generate far more LOCALLY-PRODUCED energy, without fire-causing long-distance transmission lines, than anything Powerlink could do.
The only downside is for Sempra and its stockholders, who are TERRIFIED of people becoming energy independent, and losing control of the long-distance transmission on which they are profiteering off the backs of real people.

sdraoul wrote on Mar 1, 2008 9:32 PM:Martin Giavelli's letter asks me to explain a very simple fact--it is not a crime to enter the USA illegally. It is an administrative violation of immigration law. It is also not illegal to be in the United States after violating the crossing the border law. Thus, Mr. Giavelli, as being in the USA is not by itself illegal and crossing the border without speaking to a US officer is an administrative violation, that act is not a crime.

The modern illegal alien, as we know him Mr. Giavelli, was invented by Italians entering the USA after 1924 when Congress decided there were to many Italians in the USA..

Now those guys were criminals.

White Rabbit wrote on Mar 1, 2008 10:00 PM:�The strength that Obama brings is an ability to forge consensus, bring people together and find common ground,� writes DD. With whom? The Republicans? On what issues? Iraq? Taxes? Abortion? Immigration? Torture? Civil liberties?
The Republicans left standing after the next election are going to be the hardest of the hard-core right wing. Obama has the most liberal voting record in the Senate so I�m sure they�ll get along just great. But I suppose they�ll all be so inspired by a President Obama that they�ll compromise their principles and succumb to his every desire.
After the Bush (in)experience of the past seven years I am appalled that it appears my party is going to nominate a political neophyte for President. I really can�t believe people are falling for his sideshow barker routine. If Democrats in Texas and Ohio don�t wake up soon, real soon, or the Super Delegates (after all, they were put in place to stop �movement� candidates) don�t right this ship they�ll all go down with it.

White Rabbit wrote on Mar 1, 2008 10:26 PM:To Shirley McMahan and any others out there who like to label abortion as murder. When are you going to call for the woman having an abortion to be charged with murder? Or at least contracting a murder for hire? Both are capital crimes. If you favor charging someone with murder who kills or hires someone to kill an actual, living, human being but you don�t call for these charges and penalties for someone who kills or hires someone to kill an unborn fetus aren�t you lowering the status of the unborn below that of the alive and breathing? Your argument is dead in the womb, so to speak.

White Rabbit wrote on Mar 1, 2008 10:58 PM:The anti-Mexican xenophobes like to say, �What part of illegal don�t you understand?� I have to ask them the same question. They call them illegal, they call them criminals, but what do they want to do with them? Just round �em up and send them back. That�s all. No penalty whatsoever. And this from the tough on crime crowd.
If it�s so illegal and they�re such criminals then they should be arrested, tried and locked up. I would imagine for a long time for such a heinous crime. Let�s see, how many prisons would we have to build to house the 12 million? Wouldn�t it be easier to hire some former East German border guards with orders to keep people out? With their experience and training the problem would be solved overnight.

Floyd The Scientist wrote on Mar 2, 2008 12:20 AM:What is this fascination with the Flat Earth Society by Escondido residents? Is it a cultural thing, or what?

Chuck wrote on Mar 2, 2008 1:06 AM:>>It occurred to me to ponder what drives a person to leave a permanent record of his existence on a urinal. Any answers out there?�>>> because the public schools teachers union have left them unprepared to leave a permanent existence at a job

SOLON ... wrote on Mar 2, 2008 1:26 AM:� Our leaders have been sowing the sees of FEAR for seven years, and the crop wields the type of cynicism and hopelessness we see expressed by letter writer Eva Cole. How much more hopeless must it seem for the Iraqis, where the Bush War has left over one million of their people dead, over four million driven from their homes, and many millions without enough food, clothing, health care, energy and sanitation. Has the desperate hopelessness we have rained down upon Iraq blown back on our own land? A deeper cynicism we see in the blog of White Rabbit (Mar 1, 2008 10:00 PM), who disparages the HOPE which Barack Obama brings to our own land. There are many people in our land who do not give credence to that which they cannot put in their bank account or belly, but qualities like HOPE and unity are more real and sustaining to the human condition than physical things. White Rabbit derogates the 47 year old Obama as a neophyte, but overlooks that the greatest man who ever lived, was crucified at age 33, that the musician possibly most beloved, Mozart, died at age 35.
Teddy Roosevelt took office at age 42; John F. Kennedy at 43; and Bill Clinton at 46. These thee youngest were some of our greatest presidents. Wisdom and leadership count for far more than age and experience. Few leaders in government had the experience of Dick Cheney, yet he is perhaps our most divisive and destructive leader. Obama has shown already his extraordinary leadership in uniting and inspiring the nation, and engaging our young people. Have we not been hearing for seven years �United we stand. Divided we fall.� White Rabbit mistakes the unity rally around Obama as rock star hysteria. How deluded. Obama offers reconciliation, unity and HOPE. Our nation has been tragically divided for over a decade.

Remember this: �only when a nation shares a collective hope can real change occur.�

SOLON ... wrote on Mar 2, 2008 1:30 AM:� (Spelling corrections) .. Our leaders have been sowing the seeds of FEAR for seven years, and the crop yields the type of cynicism and hopelessness we see expressed by letter writer Eva Cole.

Alice to White Rabbit wrote on Mar 2, 2008 4:36 AM:If the USA wasn't such a Wonderland for the illegals, they would lose that Cheshire grin and go back home. When you hang a sign saying FREE you can be guaranteed to draw a crowd. You live in a drugged stupor if you don't get it. Cancel the tea party.-

Chuck wrote on Mar 2, 2008 6:52 AM:>>>Wouldn�t it be easier to hire some former East German border guards with orders to keep people out?>>> If you knew any history, their job was to keep people in

Nick wrote on Mar 2, 2008 7:39 AM:Typical, "White Rabbit" has to resort to name calling becuase he has no other actual "logical" or "intelligent" argument supporting ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION. First he calls everone who want our Immigration Laws enforced "anti-Mexican xenophobes" and then tries to play some stupid shell word game with "Illegal" and then goes on to compare Border Enforcement with East German Nazi's.
See how lame the Illegal loving, Open Borders crowd are. They actually don't have a legal of logical leg to stand on and so they resort back to the 4th grade....Thanks for the laugh "Rabbit", now go scurry back to your rabbit hole.

DD Wiz wrote on Mar 2, 2008 8:06 AM: The post from "White Rabbit" (10:00pm) asks about the statement in my 8:48pm post that "The strength that Obama brings is an ability to forge consensus, bring people together and find common ground" -- in a tone that suggests this is problematic or na�ve, repeating the tag line from a conservative magazine that mischaracterized Obama as having "the most liberal voting record in the Senate" which was computed using their own definitions of "liberal." In fact, the only place where there was any substantial break from Hillary was on "reform" issues such as requiring open identification of who places any earmark and other ethics reforms which I would submit are not ideological but rather administrative for "clean government," though Republican partisan opposition (distinguished from true conservative) resistance to clean government has become epidemic in recent decades.
It seems the real problem is that "White Rabbit" does not understand the meaning of the word "consensus." As in science, it only means agreement -- in politics it is agreement about opinions on public policy; in science it is agreement on conclusions about facts. "White Rabbit" seems to be like the hard-core leftists who think that the only way to campaign or govern is that you will not settle for ANYTHING you want until you get EVERYTHING you want. This is why Greens, for example, are ideologically pure, and have lofty ideological values that I mostly agree with, and stand for clean air, clean water, solar power, equal rights for everyone, sunshine, hearts, flowers, love and peace, etc., but have never actually managed to get a single piece of legislation passed to do one thing thatactually helps anyone.
Politics is not about getting everything all at once, but getting as much as you can, when you can. Sometimes that includes inspiring others who disagree to your side, and other times it means compromising to get as much as you can for now and coming back another day to get the rest of it (or more of the rest). Sometimes it means finding ways to accommodate the core values of both sides, that may not actually be in conflict, while compromising on details. Yesterday (3/1 - 3:38pm) "theWolf" INCORRECTLY ridiculed me when he misstated the nature of the relationship between Obama and a lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute after my many (valid) criticisms of the Big Oil lobby. Obama is willing to listen to all voices, and find solutions that allow as many of those voices as possible to both have a say and to try to get whatever aspects of what they want as possible.
Sometimes getting consensus does mean compromise, to get something rather than nothing. Other times, consensus means having an engaging, inspiring style that moves people who didn't agree with you to be able to agree with you, kind of the liberal flip side of Ronald Reagan who moved the American middle to the right in a way it had never been before. Obama has shown skill at doing both, and knowing when to do which. In contrast, Hillary's style in the past has been to attract the middle by triangulating toward centrist positions, but often once she has settled on positions, going after them in a very firm, determined, but often inflexible manner that has been known to alienate people. For example, her signature issue was healthcare and, when she had the chance to actually pass it, triangulated toward a very centrist industry-centric proposal that was complex and wonkish, but she was inflexible in building CONSENSUS to actually pass it because, once the details were decided on, she demonstrated little flexibility or willingness to accommodate others' concerns. As the Obama campaign notes, the bottom line is that, while she showed tremendous depth of knowledge on the subject of health care, along with great strength and determination, the end result was that no health care plan got passed. Hillary insists that she has learned much from that huge failure, and her record of collegiality and bipartisanship in the Senate thus far bears that out. But that highlights the differences in their strengths that I was talking about.
Obama does hold liberal positions, but does not scare moderates and even some principled conservatives, because he inspires and moves them to his view abut, at least, will not sacrifice the chance to get something just because he couldn't get everything. Hillary does have personal strength and great inside experience.
Either would be an excellent candidate; my dream ticket is for them to both run together.

Ron wrote on Mar 2, 2008 8:24 AM:Does it ever occur to you, as it certainly does to me, that what you have with people like Carolyn Morrow, and other repentant fossil fuel users is almost a call to "Thall Shall Not..?" In pure myopic fashion, they insist that the rest of us get on board the solar panel train. You know, a solar panel investment can be quite expensive, and out of reach for some. And further we know, that some probably wouldn't have made the leap had Big Daddy Government not give them some money to do it, even though they could have afforded it on their own. So, what's this really about? I can't help but notice, that in each and every "statement" made, is an attack on the company, either against profits they make, how they make them.
If they are Anti-Capitalist, then I would expect that in their own lives, they never make a profit. If they are Anti-Fossil Fuel, then I would expect them to not use fossil fuel. That would be consistant, that would be speaking with integrity. As for the Sunrise Power Link, many who can not afford solar panels, even with a Government welfare check, need this power to cool their homes, heat their water, and read by. I would suggest to those who insist the rest of us live by their rules, first live by their own rules, and second, understand that many might like to be able to have solar panels, but can't for financial reasons. They must remain on the grid, and they don't need any more cost increases cause Sempra can't get a few lines put in to keep the costs down. Afterall, you are concerned about the poor, right?

Chuck wrote on Mar 2, 2008 8:27 AM:>>Our leaders have been sowing the seeds of FEAR for seven years,>>> Yes, feared to sink, has done so. The sinking island scare is over, yet they keep serving the Kool-Aid-

Ron wrote on Mar 2, 2008 8:38 AM:I didn't know John Fitzgerald Kennedy, and John Fitzgerald Kennedy wasn't a friend of mine, but Barack Hussein Obama, is no John Fitzgerald "Jack" Kennedy, either. And I think we all know why.

White Rabbit wrote on Mar 2, 2008 8:44 AM:Just where, Nick, do you get the idea that I support illegal immigration? I just object to labeling them criminals. I don�t fault them for wanting to come here. The fault lies with us allowing them to come. That�s why the East German border guards (who were Communists, not Nazis, and yes, Chuck, I know what their job was) because our own Border Patrol can�t or won�t do its job. It�s folly to suggest that we can identify, arrest and deport 12 million people just to put them back on the other side of the revolving door. There was an article the other day about Arizona�s new employer sanction law for hiring �illegals� that took effect January 1st. It has already dramatically reduced the influx and many are starting to return to Mexico. Remove the incentive of job prospects and the �invasion� will end. That�s what I support.

New York Times liberal? wrote on Mar 2, 2008 9:07 AM:So many here like to use the NY Times as their poster child for the liberal media. Have they ever looked at the Times? I'm sitting here with my copy of the Sunday edition. I open the magazine section to find page after page of ads for condos. Hmm, let's see: a building where 2-bedrooms will cost (starting at) $1.6 million. Another that offers its own private park, rooftop pool, game room. Further on, the ads begin for exclusive summer camps that specialize in making your kid competitive for the Ivy league school (as well as slim). Yes, this is all aimed at a liberal readership all right, you know, the people who don't work, who life off government handouts, who resent the wealthy. Yep, you guys are on it. LOL

DD Wiz wrote on Mar 2, 2008 9:10 AM: The post from "Ron" (8:38am) mimics the devastating rejoinder that then Texas Senator and Democratic VP candidate Lloyd Bentsen gave when Republican VP candidate and lightweight Dan Quayle ignored advice from his handlers and compared his short experience to that of JFK.
The rejoinder worked astoundingly well because anyone could look at Dan Quayle and see that, yes, he is no John Kennedy.
In contrast, Obama has never compared himself to Kennedy. Others, however, have.
And who are those others? How about his daughter, Caroline Kennedy, who has never before endorsed in a primary election? How about his sole surviving brother, Ted Kennedy, who in addition to knowing JFK somewhat better than "Ron" also diffuses the "experience" issue?
Newflash for "Ron": these two people, along with Ethel Kennedy, widow of Robert Kennedy, who has also endorsed Obama, did in fact know JFK rather well and have been in the forefront of those who make just the comparison that you attempt to debunk, even admitting that you have no basis for doing so. (In fairness, it must also be noted that three of Bobby Kennedy's kids who are most politically active, have endorsed and are actively campaigning for Hillary Clinton.)
The reason the Kennedy comparison DOES work for Obama and not for Quayle is because, first, it is not the candidate himself who is raising it and, second, the people who are raising it are the ones who did know JFK the best and, third, people who have met Obama do have a gut reaction similar to that of JFK and, again, this includes those who knew him best and who have been past staunch supporters of JFK.
As for the "experience" question, I do agree that "judgment" is more critical than experience, though Hillary's extensive first-hand experience as the first First Lady to ever have her office in the West Wing and be actively engaged in administration, does give some practical benefits.
On the experience issue alone, compare the 15th and 16th presidents of the U.S.
The 15th president had been a Pennsylvania state legislator for 6 years, a U.S. Congressman for ten years, a U.S. Senator for ten years, minister to both Russia and Great Britain and then Secretary of State, one of the most extensive "resumes" for a presidential candidate. His name was James Buchanan and he ranks near the bottom of most historians' lists for worst president in history.
The 16th president's sole experience was 8 years in the Illinois state legislature and ONE TWO-YEAR TERM as a CONGRESSMAN. That's it. His name was Abraham Lincoln.
I am not saying that Obama is another Lincoln, only that experience is not the sole criterion for evaluating candidates.

White Rabbit wrote on Mar 2, 2008 9:21 AM:I guess I missed my dose of Obama�s Magical Elixir this morning, DD. One drink and all partisan rancor will just disappear. Maybe I just realize who will be lining up on the other side in these grand debates to come. Do you think that a President Obama will get a Ron or a Chuck to join a �consensus� on anything? We can only marginalize them with 50% plus one. And we�ll have to fight for the plus one. The politics of hope. As in I hope Obama doesn�t sink the party in November.

What Gen. Petraeus said wrote on Mar 2, 2008 9:24 AM:Iin a letter to his troops, Gen. Petraeus said the following about things like waterboarding, QUOTE: Some may argue that we would be more effective if we sanctioned torture or other expedient methods to obtain information from the enemy. They would be wrong. Beyond the basic fact that such actions are illegal, history shows that they are frequently neither useful nor necessary. ENDQUOTE This view, reported by the NY Times, agrees with that of Lt. Gen. Michael Maples, head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, who told Congress that waterboarding violated the Geneva Conventions. The Times also notes that 43 retired generals supported the anti-torture amendment. Against all these stand esteban, Chuck, George Bush, and all the other real patriots. These folks must see Petraeus, Maples, and the generals as panty-waisted liberals who favor terrorist victory. It's interesting sometimes to see just how extreme the views of these people, from esteban to Cheney, are; how out of the mainstream of even the military they claim to support.

Chuck wrote on Mar 2, 2008 9:29 AM:>>What is this fascination with the Flat Earth Society by Escondido residents? >> I'd suggest you ask the public school teachers, as geography has been replaced in the classroom with SB777 issues and Planned Parenhood visits

SOLON ... wrote on Mar 2, 2008 9:30 AM:�. To Ron: I did not know John Fitzgerald Kennedy either. When I was in the Army I got the opportunity to sing �Happy Birthday� to him late one night in Manhattan. It took me decades, however, to understand what it was that made him great in the mind of the people. Please, tell us Ron, (8:38 AM) what you see about Obama that makes him no Kennedy in your mind. We would like to peer into your mind and understand what governs your psyche.

DD Wiz wrote on Mar 2, 2008 9:40 AM: The post from "White Rabbit" (9:21am) computes the political math incorrectly.
Neither Barack nor Hillary will be able to convert those like "Ron" and "Chuck" or some of the other hard-core, right-wing extremists (which makes their pontification about Democratic choices all the more incongruous).
That is not how the strategic math adds up. Either Barack or Hillary will come to office with probably at least 54 Senate seats, maybe as many as 58, but probably not a filibuster-busting majority of 60. In order to pass their programs, they will have to work with the House and Senate, and their proposals will be modified. They will need to peel off one or two Republicans on issues of controversy. They will not be going after those farthest to the right, but rather those who are most moderate and, out of the 402-46 remaining Republicans, there will be a few.
Either Barack or Hillary will have to use their powers of persuasion, inspiration and/or ability to move the public to their viewpoint (thus putting pressure on Republicans needing moderate support), and/or use their personal strength of character.
I am confident that both Barack and Hillary, in their different ways, will be able to do this.
What I object to is the supporters of one needlessly denigrating the other.

SOLON ... wrote on Mar 2, 2008 9:47 AM: � The pharmaceutical name of Obama�s Magical Elixir is HOPE. It is not for everyone, and those, who feel as does White Rabbit (9:21 AM), are not compelled to drink -- and should not drink HOPE when filled with the antidote of cynicism. HOPE will not work for them. HOPE is for those who want to rebuild our American Dream. HOPE is for those who want a government of the people, by the people and for the people. The question is not whether Obama will sink the ship of state in November, but whether HOPE will be able to raise her from the ocean floor. Obama himself is not the HOPE. Obama awakens HOPE which lies dormant in the heart of America, awaiting this time of rebirth.

Reardon wrote on Mar 2, 2008 9:54 AM:It is not yet 10 a.m. on a Sunday morning, and DD's word count is 1,949 words! He is the Fidel Castro of internet blogging, but becoming a caricature of himself.

THE Anti-liberal wrote on Mar 2, 2008 9:56 AM:New York Times liberal? wrote on Mar 2, 2008 9:07 AM: Great observation, pal. Let us know when you get to the articles written by NYTimes staff writers and the Editorial section. WOW!

sdraoul wrote on Mar 2, 2008 10:04 AM:DD is on a roll. Obama walks on water! Democrats and two Republicans are swooning over majestic words and speeches and CHARISMA, oh my. But, of course, the Democrats have been here or there before.

Obama, who has fewer qualifications for President than Mayor Jerry Sanders, is an exact "Xerox" copy of William Jennings Bryan who led the Democrats to defeat three times. Soaring speeches, the �Cross of Gold� and a Midwest approach to an American future. People actually fainted at his speeches.

Obama (William Jennings Bryan) is less qualified than Dan Quayle was to be President. Ask Murphy Brown. Or ask a guy named Rezko who schooled Obama in real estate buys and is currently in jail for fraud yet raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for Obama..

THE Anti-liberal to White Rabbit wrote on Mar 2, 2008 10:04 AM:After your completely obtuse remark of; The anti-Mexican xenophobes like to say, �What part of illegal don�t you understand?�, you certainly deserve the rebuke from Nick. Let me ask you one question; what �credible source have you ever heard make the suggestion that we should �Just round �em up and send them back�

White Rabbit wrote on Mar 2, 2008 10:05 AM:I said political neophyte, SOLON. Age doesn�t enter into the equation. And you identify the problem I have with Obama supporters when you compare him to Jesus Christ. Not as the Son of God, of course, but as some sort of savior who offers reconciliation, unity and hope. And you call me deluded. I could well be wrong but I�m just not willing to take a chance on a leap of faith. The Republicans at least had the good sense to choose a nominee who knew the ropes. But by all means, let�s nominate for President another uniter, not a divider, who quickly came to realize things often don�t work out that way when the other side is not in the mood. And I suspect the Republicans in Congress will be in no mood to compromise come January.

Chuck wrote on Mar 2, 2008 10:06 AM:>> HOPE is for those who want to rebuild our American Dream. >>>Hussein doesnt offer that. He's offering to hand you the Ameican dream by taking it away for others who earned it. There is nothing in any Hussein message that incentivizes people to become better. He only incentivizes them to put their hand out, take what they want, and then return to the porn on their computer.

SOLON ... wrote on Mar 2, 2008 10:07 AM:� Just wave the MAGIC WAND � We make he laws, we break the laws, we change the laws, laws break themselves by falling into disuse, having to practical function. There are good laws and there are bad laws. It is against the law to spy on American citizens without a court warrant. That is the law. This is a fact. The telecoms broke the law and they knew it. They all have sophisticated teams of lawyers. At least two telecoms said NO to the CIA, because they knew the law and obeyed it. So what does Bush propose? To give them amnesty before citizens have even had their day in court against the lawbreakers. In response to sdraoul (9:32 PM): We can give amnesty to the telecom criminals, and we can give amnesty to the undocumented immigrants. I do not favor either. This is a lot like judges waving their magic wand and saying to the victims �I hereby pronounce you un-Raped!� (I cannot use the correct word in the saying because of editor censorship. )
But if we give amnesty to corporate law breakers, perhaps we should give amnesty to undocumented law breakers. Or do we break laws for the benefit of corporations only?

Interesting, isn't it? wrote on Mar 2, 2008 10:07 AM:DD's post about coalition building made me realize that after 8 years of government-stopping witch-hunts in the Clinton years, and 8 years of Bush/Rove/Cheney, all three candidates are known well as being relatively skilled at working with people across the aisle. McCain has teamed up with even such as Ted Kennedy when the issue was important. Hillary is known on the hill as one of the most effective Senators at working with those on the right. And Obama puts this at the center of his platform. In one sense, we have voted already: most Americans are sick to death of partisan, ideological politics and want an improvement in this area. Sure, we have the old school people who want to call Hillary or Obama communists or terrorist-lovers, but the vast majority of us see these holdouts for hatred as what they are: pathetic exaggerators who only want power, or who see the world in infantile black and white ways. We're all SO tired of that stuff that all the remaining candidates are a rebuttal to that entire way of thinking. Good riddance.

WORD COUNT wrote on Mar 2, 2008 10:11 AM:-
How amazing that Reardon at 9:54 has so much time to spend computing the word count of DDWhiz but does not actually talk about any issues.
Reardon's fixation on the Whiz goes way beyond even Chuck's with SB777 and that's saying a lot!

to the Anti-liberal wrote on Mar 2, 2008 10:13 AM:You mean the columns by David Brooks or William Kristol? The point was that one look at the Times refutes the notion that they are playing to a liberal readership. If the folks who live in those condos and send their kids to those camps find the Times their #1 news source, I'm rather convinced the Times is not a liberal rag. I just don't see the owners of those buildings overlooking Central Park shelling out the dough to advertise in a paper that's leftist. Makes no sense to me. But you can believe the right wing propaganda if you wish, that's up to you. LOL

Chuck wrote on Mar 2, 2008 10:14 AM:He (Fisk) talks about "basic economics. Basic economics in oil is supply and demand. Sure demand is up, chiefly because of India and China, and OPEC won't increase the supply. (ie huge price increases) Bush therefor should make massive quantities of oil from the ANWR and Gulf available to the markets to break up the cartel, but liberals stop evey measure Bush has proposed to add to world supplies, and then pat themselves on the back as we send all of theis countries wealth overseas, causing massive layoffs and a recession here. Congrats liberals, how many jobs have you cost this country?? 3 million or 4?

the standard last resort of the right wrote on Mar 2, 2008 10:17 AM:Reardon comes through with the standard last resort of the right. When claim after claim on the right is shown to be erroneous or falisfied, when those like DD come forth with accurate, clear information that refutes the right time after time, when name calling fails, there's the ace card: you guys are trying to make us look dumb (Ron uses this often as well), you are show offs with your knowledge and brains. Hey, that's effective! Let's see: which should be more worthy of honest criticism? DD's wordy explanations or Chuck's brief dishonest insult-slings? Reardon votes: DD.

Question: wrote on Mar 2, 2008 10:19 AM:How many swooning women passed out in the presence of Obama yesterday??, only to be rescued by the EMT teams that were 20 yards away. (And talk about Hillary planting questions in the audience). Sometimes I dont know if his stump speeches are political, or whether they are cheap copies of the Benny Hinn hour?

3tzst wrote on Mar 2, 2008 10:20 AM:White Rabbit wrote on Mar 1, 2008 10:00 PM I suggest that bring them all together refers to the Democratic Party, Independents and Centrists. It is doubtful that Obama would have difficulty in working with the House or the Senate since the majority will be Democratic afer the November election.

Oh, raoul wrote on Mar 2, 2008 10:21 AM:You're right...it's a good thing no one who's contributed to Republicans are in jail. LOL Raoul, did you vote for Bush? Tell me about his qualifications compared to Gore or Kerry. LOL again. It's hysterical to see so many of the conservatives who repeated the mantra to vote out all incumbents to be complaining now about the lack of experience of the Democrats. Seriously, do you guys have any principles at all besides the "ends justify the means"? ANY?

0412 wrote on Mar 2, 2008 10:23 AM:Chuck wrote on Mar 2, 2008 8:27 AM Kool Aid. Good stuff with many colors and tastes. What was your favoirite, Chuck?
There was cherry, lemon-lime,grape and orange. LOL

DD Wiz wrote on Mar 2, 2008 10:26 AM: The post from "sdraoul" (m) invites clarification. He claims that Obama is a "Xerox" copy of William Jennings Bryan.
Bryan served two terms in Congress, none in the Senate or state legislature and had been Secretary of State. They have many differences in policy positions.
They were both gifted orators and both from the Democratic Party.
Perhaps "sdraoul" could itemize more specifically why the similarities outweigh the differences.
Further, perhaps he could be much more specific as to how any wrongdoing by Rezko involved Obama in any way, or is he going to start dumpster diving into the cesspool of character assassination straight out of the Republican slime machine, before our party has even selected its standard bearer.
To "sdraoul": do you want to compare which candidate had a more DIRECT involvement in wrongdoing, Obama with supporter Rezko or McCain with Keating and the Lincoln Savings and Loan debacle? Not to mention being "in bed with" (figuratively speaking only, of course) with lobbyists while campaigning as "Mr. Clean"?

Chuck wrote on Mar 2, 2008 10:27 AM:The real oil cartel is liberals. They sit there in glee for blocking US drilling efforts, as our petro-dollars enrich Russia, Arabia, Venezuela, Nigeria, Mexico and Indonesia etc, and then wonder why we have deficits and a recession. And then they rail on Bush's proposal to pay for the Iraq war with Iraqi oil. The liberals will do whatever they can to destroy the US economy and prevent Bush from fighting the war on terror, for the sole purpose of getting the White House back

Reardon wrote on Mar 2, 2008 10:29 AM:To Word count: Shhhh...don't tell anyone but I use Microsoft Word's "word count" and it takes only a few seconds. 1,994 words is four newspaper columns for a regular newspaper columnist (I am one) -- so, for a weekly newspaper columnist, today's early morning output is a month (sometimes two months) of regular newspaper columns. Newspapers generally limit their columnists to one column a week, or one every two weeks so that the columnist does not get "overexposed," and they limit their columnists to 500 or 600 words to force the columnist into being succinct.

2k3xh wrote on Mar 2, 2008 10:29 AM:White Rabbit wrote on Mar 1, 2008 10:58 PM
LOL The former Eastern German border guards are all old men now. If the illegals are using false documents that would be a felonious crime. They could be arrested, tried, and incarcerated if found guilty. Crossing the border is not a felony. They would be deported. Imprisonment would be out of the question as the lock ups are already over populated. 1 out of every 100 Americans is in jail.

Chuck wrote on Mar 2, 2008 10:31 AM: >>What was your favoirite, Chuck?>> I prefer the Crystal Light Pommegranite and their Grapefruit, to Goreleone's pink lemonade kool-aid

25xn8 wrote on Mar 2, 2008 10:34 AM:sdraoul wrote on Mar 2, 2008 10:04 AM The only qualifications required to be President of the United States is to be a native born and to be 35 years of age. Look at the roster of the Presidents. You will find many that were unqualified using any other measure other than the one provided by the Constitution.

0412 wrote on Mar 2, 2008 10:40 AM:Chuck wrote on Mar 2, 2008 10:14 AM: Not true. Me and my five liberals hashed it out. We discovered that Bush has been President for nearly 8 years with a Republican Congress for at least 6 of those years. If the President, his administration and the REPUBLICANS wanted to ok drilling for oil anywhere in US territory including Chuck's back yard. they could have done so. So, Chuckie, why were you not flapping your gums about their failure to do when they held the majority?

0412 wrote on Mar 2, 2008 10:46 AM:Chuck wrote on Mar 2, 2008 10:14 AM: About the war on terror? When is Bush going to serous about Afghanistan? You know the geographical location of Al Queda, the Taliban and that free and at large terrorist leader, OSB. The NATO commander recently publicly stated that it would take 400,000 troops to win in Afghanistan.
The Taliban and the Poppy are back in force. The Karsi government does not rule outside of Kabul. That government is already corrupt and robbing their citizens. But, oh well. It will just be another foreign adventure requiring American blood and treasure if John McCain is elected.

DD Wiz wrote on Mar 2, 2008 10:47 AM: The post from "sdraoul" (10:04am) begins his role as Republican hatchet-man, trumping up and misrepresenting the relationship between Obama and Rezko, in which Obama had no link whatsoever to any wrongdoing.
In my reply at 10:26am I suggested that I can dig up a lot more "dirt" on McCain's DIRECT involvement with the Keating/Lincoln scandal and lobbyist connections if that is the way "sdraoul" wants to play, and I can, but after a moment of reflection, I have reconsidered and will do a "flip flop" since I am not a candidate :-)
Anyone who wants to research these scandals is free to do so. I am not going to let a slime-throwing character assassin like "sdraoul" set the tone of the debate. McCain and Obama have both indicated a desire to raise the tone of the campaign, and I think we owe them that courtesy. I honor McCain's service to this country, and would rather discuss ISSUES. I do understand that this is a level that "sdraoul" is not prepared to engage, and I also understand very well exactly why this is so.

Chuck wrote on Mar 2, 2008 10:47 AM:>>You will find many that were unqualified using any other measure >> Kennedy, Carter and Clinton come to mind. But, the American public knows 100x less about Obama at this point in time that we did about Clinton. Right now, he's just a touchy feely gum-flapper, with no political accomplishments, and many ties to radical Islamists, and who proposes communism. (no wondeer the liberals love the guy)

0412 wrote on Mar 2, 2008 10:52 AM:Chuck wrote on Mar 2, 2008 10:27 AM Me and my five liberals would agree that payment for the Iraqi war should be with Iraqi oil. While we are it, let us go one step farther. Let us have the Iraqis make SS solvent as a punitive reward for our dead, and maimed.

0412 wrote on Mar 2, 2008 10:59 AM:Chuck wrote on Mar 2, 2008 10:47 AM If that is all you conservatives can come up with, then, Obama is assured of the Presidency. So, if you are correct get ready to sing the International instead of the Star Spangled Banner and to have the President sworn in on the Koran instead of the Bible? LOL. You contradict yourself about Obama. You can not be a Muslim and a Communist at the same time.

Two for Chuck wrote on Mar 2, 2008 11:00 AM:The nonsense about Obama being empty is just this month's sloganeering. As DD said earlier, Obama's websites are chock-full of information about his beliefs, plans, etc. Funny that Chuck's list is 3 Democrats. What? Nothing about the qualifications of W, the man for whom he voted? Twice? Nothing of consequence? Well, for starters, Obama voted against the Iraq invasion. Had others "accomplished" the same courage (you might recall that this was politically a "dumb" thing to do at the time), where would we be in Afghanistan/Pakistan now? I know that S