Monday, June 11, 2007

Chairman’s Picnic-the General, the Senator and ……

…………. cast of thousands, well a couple of hundred anyway, were in attendance at tonight’s Chairman’s Picnic held at RPI HQ on East Ninth in Des Moines.

The political headliners were candidates Sam Brownback and John Cox. Hugh Cort and Dan Gilbertson, who are also running for President, were also in attendance. Dr. Cort was handing out literature about his candidacy.

Sam Brownback looks much younger and much more animated in person. Sen. Brownback spoke after Lt. Gen. Tom McInerney. A smart politician knows how to read an audience and Sam kept his remarks both short and up beat, perfect for a warm evening. He also knew that now was the time to publicly reaffirm his commitment to the Straw Poll and an intensive Iowa grass roots campaign. Sam got two very loud ovations, the tonic that salves the wounds all of us politicians, large and small. If he doesn’t win I’d sure like to see the next Republican President nominate Sam Brownback for the Supreme Court, he certainly makes among the most logical legal arguments for his positions. We could certainly use that kind of clarity in the Federal common law, that’s for sure.

John Cox echoed his familiar themes of a Reaganesque strength abroad and prosperity through less government at home. John represents a strong outside presence, his major problem is the increasing celebritization of the process leaves little room for the Wendell Willkie’s of the new millennium. Iowa provides him with a good forum. The electorate would benefit from Cox’s inclusion in the debates. He has good ideas and could drive a more penetrating dialogue were he participating in the debates.

Gen. McInerney was brilliant. I would love to see Gen. Mac debate some of Petainists who call the sky green as the seek peace at any price, including defeat, genocide and economic catastrophe. The General’s discussion of the Iranian threat, and yes my liberal readers, there is a very frightening threat coming from Iran. The historical similarities between the appeasement of Islamofascism, particularly its Iranian iteration, and the appeasement of European and Japanese fascism are glaring and the General made the results clear. The Iranians are even more explicit that Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo ever were; the Iranians say they are going to exterminate Israel and incite WW3.

While liberals who are without responsibility can pretend there is no threat, or whatever threat is the product of American folly or malevolence, people like the General are really responsible for safe guarding America, in all of our decadence and nihilism. Gen. McInerney advocates a
very sound strategy for confrontation and defeat of Iran before that most dangerous of regimes grows even stronger.

All in all, we had a good event. The presentation was far more erudite than the usual political red meat so the crowd got a bargain for its ticket price tonight. Good job DK and the whole RPI staff.


desmoinesdem said...

Duh, Mr. Sporer, Iran always posed a greater threat to the US, with its much more advanced chemical weapons and nuclear programs, far beyond anything Saddam ever possessed.

It's your hero who got us bogged down in Iraq, a country that did not have WMDs, and overstretched our armed forces to the point that we don't have a lot of credible options against Iran.

Or do you subscribe to the fantasy that we can unleash a few bombing raids and the Iranian people will rise up against their dictators?

this is why Mcrudy aren't doing the straw poll. mcrudy didn't make the cut in iowa. we did our job said...

WASHINGTON — Republicans antsy for a conservative standard-bearer in the presidential race have begun to rally behind Fred Thompson, propelling the former Tennessee senator to within hailing distance of the lead for the party's nomination, a new Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg Poll has found.

Rudolph W. Giuliani holds first place in the survey, with 27% of the Republicans and independents who said they plan to vote in the party's 2008 primaries.

But Thompson, runs just behind, with 21%. Indications are he will join the race within the next month.

Sen. John McCain of Arizona and Gov. Mitt Romney, fall well short of the leaders and are in a battle for third place.

McCain was backed by 12% of those polled,

Romney by 10%. The rest of the crowded field is mired in single digits.

Anonymous said...

dem - what is your argument? you are correct that iran has always posed a greater threat. we don't disagree. the thing i find interesting is that you even recognize that iran is a threat. most of you guys think we are making it up. so, what would you do?

when is it legitimate to go to war? Does George Clooney need to recommend it first?

Why is a military option in Darfur ok, but the suffering in Iraq was just too bad for them? Is it because your hero, George Clooney didn't say it was ok?

Your comment reflects your bias that the United States is weak and can't beat anyone at war or ever do the right thing just because it's the right thing to do.

How did you come to be a self-hating american? All of you hopeless and helpless people are democrats. Why do you feel so helpless and weak? Bad childhood? Low self-esteem? Lack of confidence in yourself? No courage? Lack of faith in a higher power? Do you suffer from envy or jelously at what others have? Do you feel guilt at what you have that others don't?

What is the psychology going on here with Dem's. They sure are anegative depressive lot.

RF said...

I would recommend for all of us, scared-shitless-peeing-in-my-pants-at-the-sight-of-a-muslim R’s as well as the world-has-come-to-an-end-and-it’s-all-W’s-fault-and-we’ll-never-stop-talking-about-it D’s, Fareed Zakaria’s excellent - but a little long - article “Beyond Bush”:

We are all, D’s and R’s alike, a depressive lot these days. That’s why I’m even more eager to stick with my guy for ’08. At least he’s offering some hope. We desperately need it.

more evidence it wasn't the straw poll that was ineffective. note the emphasis on spending less. said...

McCain advisers speak ruefully of "the dead-man-walking" trope and the thirst by reporters and pundits to administer "the journalistic last rites."

So McCain's most urgent and immediate battle is not in Manchester, N.H., or Des Moines, Iowa, but inside the Beltway.

He has to make sure perceptions -- which at this point in a campaign can be at least as important as reality, because of the effect they have on donors, staff and supporters -- don't pull him under in a brutally competitive field.

Their plan for survival:

-- Raise more. New leaders of the fundraising team added after the disappointing first quarter have instituted day-to-day accountability metrics and are rewarding and measuring top fundraisers with programs like President Bush's Rangers and Pioneers that have names like "McCain 200," for those who have pledged to raise $200,000.

-- Spend less. The staff has shrunk from a peak of about 165 to a few more than 100, split evenly between the headquarters in Arlington, Va., and the early-voting states of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. "The campaign was too big early on," one adviser said. "It was designed in a way that was geared toward a general election, not a primary."

McCain turned his back on the IA GOP yet again said...

What? No Dr. Mark Klein in attendance?

Oh wait. I've got it now. He must be putting his master plan together to team up with Glen R. Stine of Perry Chief fame. It all makes sense now. Nevermind.

Still, at this rate I bet they both have more un-paid support than McCain.

Michael said...

John Cox? Are you kidding us? Cox had raised a whopping $13,000 as of the last filing period. He is a nobody, going nowhere.

Next to him, Brownback is a frontrunner.

I don't care what Cox has to say, any more than I care what the guy who prepared the food for this event would have to say on Iraq, national security or health care if we gave him a microphone and a platform. The guy is an egomaniac. Just ask his legions of FORMER staffers in Iowa or the average voters who have been repulsed by his egotism.

He doesn't deserve to be in ANY debates until he gets over .9 percent in a poll.

rudy can only win in NYC, Chicago and California said...

Tuesday, June 12, 2007

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani has to share his spot atop the field of Republican Presidential hopefuls this week.

The newest face in the race, former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson, is now tied with Giuliani.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds each man earning support from 24% of likely Republican Primary voters.

A week ago, Giuliani had a six percentage point lead over Thompson, 23% to 17%.

democrats don't vote for character, they vote for categories. said...

Clinton Owes Lead in Poll To Support From Women

By Anne E. Kornblut and Matthew Mosk
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, June 12, 2007; A01

The consistent lead that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York has maintained over Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois and others in the race for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination is due largely to one factor: her support from women.

In the most recent Washington Post-ABC News poll, Clinton led Obama by a 2 to 1 margin among female voters. Her 15-point lead in the poll is entirely attributable to that margin. Clinton drew support from 51 percent of the women surveyed, compared with 24 percent who said they supported Obama and 11 percent who said they backed former senator John Edwards of North Carolina.

Clinton is drawing especially strong support from lower-income, lesser-educated women -- voters her campaign strategists describe as "women with needs."

Obama, by contrast, is faring better among highly educated women, who his campaign says are interested in elevating the political discourse.

In 2004, women made up a majority of the Democratic primary electorate, including between 54 and 59 percent in the early-voting states of New Hampshire, Iowa and South Carolina.

"Women are a significant proportionate share of the Democratic primary electorate in most of these states, and women are disproportionately in favor of Hillary Clinton," said Mark Mellman, a veteran Democratic pollster who is not affiliated with any presidential campaign.

could someone from the mccain staff hit him over the head with sowell's article until he "gets it?" said...


...The net result has been empty promises about controlling the border, paired with various schemes to legalize the illegal immigrants, and washed down with fraudulent statements that insult our intelligence.

The first of these frauds is the argument that the economy "needs" illegal immigrants to fill "jobs that Americans won't take." Both parts of this argument ignore the most obvious three-letter word that is left out: Pay.

Virtually any job is a job that Americans will not take, if the pay is low enough. Nor is there any reason for pay to rise if illegal immigrants are available at low pay.

Then there is the "family reunification" fraud which claims that we cannot in good conscience keep out the families of illegal immigrants who are living in the United States but must let those families reunite.

With all the nations on the face of the earth, why is the United States of America the only country in which someone can be united with his family? Illegal immigrants can reunite with their families back where they came from.

The grand fraud of all is the claim that we must have "comprehensive" immigration reform -- that is, simultaneously deal with border control and the legal status of illegal immigrants already here.

There is no logical reason why these two issues must be dealt with together, though there are political reasons why elected officials want to do so. Passing border laws described as "tough" gives Congress political cover when they legalize the illegals.

wow! educated women dislike hrc. no wonder they want to censor fox news and rush. said...

Clinton drew support from 61 percent of women who had at most a high school degree, compared with 18 percent for Obama.

By contrast, female college graduates were more evenly split: 38 percent said they preferred Clinton, and 34 percent backed Obama. (Twelve percent said they supported Edwards.)

A large gap also appeared on the question of which candidate seemed the most honest and trustworthy: Clinton was considered most honest by 42 percent of women who had only a high school education, compared with 16 percent for Obama.

But only 19 percent of college-educated women said Clinton is the most honest; 50 percent chose Obama.

this just in a moment ago said...

Wow! Lynne Cheney just announced she's joining Fred Thompson's team.

clinton loses to each of our top 3, obama beats each of our top 3 said...

However, in matchups with possible Republican candidates for the November 2008 presidential vote, Obama showed sharply better than Clinton.

Clinton was 10 percentage points down to Giuliani's 49 percent, and was also topped by McCain, 45-41 percent, and Romney, 43-41 percent.

In similar matchups, Obama tops Giuliani by five percent -- within the poll's margin of error; 12 points over McCain, and 16 points over Romney.

George is at 34%, Congress is at 27%. said...

WASHINGTON — Fueled by disappointment at the pace of change since Democrats assumed the majority on Capitol Hill, public approval of Congress has fallen to its lowest level in more than a decade, according to a new Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll.

Just 27% of Americans now approve of the way Congress is doing its job, the poll found, down from 36% in January, when Democrats assumed control of the House and the Senate.

And 63% of Americans say that the new Democratic Congress is governing in a "business as usual" manner, rather than working to bring the fundamental change that party leaders promised after November's midterm election.

nancy 36%, newt 46% when speaker - current view. nancy sucks said...

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco), the first woman to hold that position, has also failed to impress many Americans. Only 36% approve of the way she is handling the job, the poll found.

In contrast, 46% of Americans in the current poll said they approved of the way Speaker Newt Gingrich of Georgia handled the job after he led the GOP into the majority in 1994.

how the worm has turned. liberal democrats hate democrats too. said...

33% of liberal Democrats, who constitute the party's base, approve of the job Congress is doing; 58% disapprove, the poll found.

That's a dramatic change from January, when a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll found that 43% of liberal Democrats approved of the job Congress was doing and 36% disapproved.

Anonymous said...

Latham for Senate? - From the Washington Post

Rep. Tom Latham's (R-Iowa) decision to relocate from rural northern Iowa to Ames last week raised eyebrows among those of us watching the 2008 Senate playing field closely.

Latham insisted the move had nothing to do with a possible challenge to Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) but he refused to rule out such a run.

Latham said the move was designed to make his trips back and forth to Washington easier (he flies in and out of Des Moines) and to bring him and his wife closer to their grandchildren.

The Iowa Democratic Party disagreed -- or at least wanted to take a shot at Latham for free.

"We find it disheartenening that Tom Latham is abandoning his rural roots for his own convenience," said Iowa state Democratic party communications director Carrie Giddins in a release.

Latham is seen by national Republicans as their strongest potential candidate against Harkin.

National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman John Ensign (Nev.) said that Latham "looks like a senator" and would have "broad-based statewide appeal."

Why would Latham leave a safe House seat to run for Senate?

First, he finds himself in the House minority for the first time since coming to Congress in 1994. While Republicans are in the minority in the Senate as well, an individual Senator -- even in the minority -- has far more influence than a single House member in the minority.

Second, he has watched as two of his three closest friends in Congress --Saxby Chambliss (Ga.) and Richard Burr (N.C.) -- have moved from the House to the Senate in the past few cycles. Latham's other bosom buddy is House Minority Leader John Boehner (Ohio).

Even so, most neutral observers don't expect Latham to run. He has done little in the way of fundraising -- $215,000 on hand at the end of March -- and his chief of staff recently took a job on the west coast. Latham did not return a call seeking comment on his interest in a Senate race.

And, Harkin is no easy nut to crack. While he has never won re-election with more than 55 percent of the vote, he has also put down a number of highly touted Republicans in that time including former Reps. Jim Ross Lightfoot, Tom Tauke and Greg Ganske. (If Latham did decide to run, it would mark the fourth consecutive election that Harkin has faced a sitting House member.) Harkin is bracing for another battle in 2008, closing March with $1.9 million on hand.

Anonymous said...

Make no mistake about it: The Giuliani and McCain campaign announcements that they will not contest the Iowa straw poll are signs of vulnerability.

what if other states did caucuses too? eyeball to eyeball is good for america said...

Make no mistake about it: The Giuliani and McCain campaign announcements that they will not contest the Iowa straw poll are signs of vulnerability.

It shows that each has huge problems within the party base and that the political and financial momentum that Romney -- whom most Republicans have hardly heard of -- illustrated that there was not a reasonable chance of victory.

While it is true that the withdrawal of Giuliani and McCain will diminish the value of an Iowa straw poll victory for Romney, it does not alter the reason why Romney surged into a front-running position there: Superior money,
political positioning and effective exploitation of the differences between all Republicans and those who actually vote in caucuses and primaries have pushed him ahead.

the national journal thinks the iowa straw poll is important too. john is just plain wrong. said...

This has left the two legacy front-runners scrambling for better positioning elsewhere.

It seems that in almost every election cycle, at least one campaign thinks it can skip either Iowa or New Hampshire and that another candidate or candidates won't get unstoppable momentum from wins in one or both.

This generally doesn't happen. It could work this time, but don't bet on it.

it's not her category. it's because she's a hard core left wing liberal said...

Leslie Moonves, CBS chief executive, on Tuesday suggested that sexist attitudes were partly to blame for the faltering performance of Katie Couric, the news anchor he recruited to the network with a $15m annual pay package.

“I’m sort of surprised by the vitriol against her. The number of people who don’t want news from a woman was startling,” Mr Moonves said of the audience’s reaction to Ms Couric, who this month brought ratings for the CBS Evening News to a 20-year low.

when it rains, it pours. said...

SAN FRANCISCO (KCBS) -- Arizona Senator John McCain dismissed poll numbers that put him behind Giuliani and Thompson in the bid for the Republican presidential nomination.

McCain hosted a small fundraising breakfast at San Francisco Campton Place this morning. The Republican has spent the last several days shaking hands from Sonoma and Vacaville to Atherton and San Francisco. Various polls show him running second and third.

He is chasing Republican former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani who was speaking to $1,000-a-head crowd in Central Valley on Sunday. Former Tennessee Senator-turned-actor Fred Thompson, who has yet to declare, spent time querying scholars at Stanford's Hoover Institution on Monday.

His push for immigration reform and environmental regulation should resonate with California voters, McCain told KCBS reporter Holly Quan.

“If I am the nominee of the party, I will put California in play and compete for it, including the Bay Area. I have addressed many issues and have taken positions that I think people in the Bay Area agree with, especially climate change,” he said, speaking after a small breakfast in Union Square.

they raised unrealistic expectations - code for - lied! said...

Reid said however that Democrats, saddled with a thin majority in Congress, had raised unrealistic expectations about their ability to end the war, among supporters who powered their takeover of Congress last year.

RF said...

Anyone who thought that a 51-49 majority in Senate (51st vote being Lieberman) would enable D's to do whatever they want is an idiot and knows nothing about how our political institutions work.

Anonymous said...

There is an element about this post that will guarantee an incredible loss of Republican seats in Congress in 2008.

Something happened behind the scenes that is not being discussed...

It is a bad day for America when bloggers can be bought so easily.

I know that I buy bloggers.

deeply unpopular w is measurably more popular than congress said...

We all know President Bush has had lousy approval numbers for two years. We know also that the disastrous approval ratings for Congress in 2006 were the best indicator that some major changes were going to take place last Election Day.

Less well-known is that throughout 2005 and 2006, generic approval ratings for Democrats were lower than Bush's.

Congress and the Democrats both saw an uptick after the November election, with the Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll registering a congressional approval rating of 36 percent six months ago.

Ah, for the good old days.

That poll now gives Congress an approval rating of 27 percent - 6 points lower than President Bush's poll average at Real Clear Politics.

So, when you hear about Bush being "deeply unpopular," remember that he's measurably more popular than Congress.

w 34%, damascus nancy 36%, congress 27%, dingy hairy 19%!!!!!!! said...

Congressional leaders are not faring well.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi scores a 36 percent rating - which, as Noam Levey of The Los Angeles Times notes, is nine points lower than Newt Gingrich's approval rating in 1995 (45%), at exactly the same point during his speakership.

Even more alarming for Democrats, the very accurate Rasmussen poll features a 19 percent approval rating - yes, one-nine - for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid

RF said...

Well, who's really preventing Congress from moving forward? - In many cases, W and R minority in Congress. If D's have any brains and skill, they should be able to frame '08 in this manner. I doubt the memories of R control of White House and both chambers of Congress is removed from people's memory by November '08. But, I know R's are much better sloganeers, so I would not count on D's being able to explain this to the average voter.

RF said...

Talking of framing, I hope R's will stick with this beauty from Giuliani:

"A lot of what the Democrats are doing is like looking in the rearview mirror. They want to take the country back to where it was in the 1990s," he said.

This is just my gut feeling, but I don't think this decade's politics compares very well with the 90's in the mind of an average swing voter.

gee, blair sounds like he's talking about american mainstream liberal media. said...

Patrick Wintour, political editor
Wednesday June 13, 2007

The Guardian

British newspapers will and should be subject to some form of new external regulation, the outgoing prime minister, Tony Blair, said yesterday in a broadside that attacked the media for behaving like feral beasts and eschewing balance or proportion.

In a sweeping critique of the industry, Mr Blair claimed newspapers, locked into an increasingly bitter sales war in a 24-hour news environment, indulged in "impact journalism" in which truth and balance had become secondary to the desire for stories to boost sales and be taken up by other media outlets.

He admitted that his own attempts to bypass traditional media through websites and press conferences had been "to no avail".

Hhe said the fierce competition for stories had led to the media now hunting in a pack. "In these modes it is like a feral beast, just tearing people and reputations to bits, but no one dares miss out."

He added that distinctions between comment and news had become so blurred that it was rare to find newspapers reporting precisely what a politician was saying.

It was incredibly frustrating, he said, adding that politicians had to act immediately to rebut false charges before they became fact.

Mr Blair said he was describing "something few people in public life will say, but most know is absolutely true: a vast aspect of our jobs today - outside of the really major decisions, as big as anything else - is coping with the media, its sheer scale, weight and constant hyperactivity. At points, it literally overwhelms."

The damage that can be done "saps the country's confidence and self-belief", he said. "It undermines its assessment of itself, its institutions and above all, it reduces our capacity to take the right decisions, in the right spirit for our future."

The consequence was a fall in morale in the public services, a loss of trust between politicians and media and even a climate of fear in which those in public life dare not attack the media's sensationalist culture for fear for the media's counterblast.

In a world of 24-hour news and huge diversity of outlets, he said, it is impact that gives a competitive edge. "Of course the accuracy of a story counts. But it is secondary to impact. It is this necessary devotion to impact that is unravelling standards, driving them down, making the diversity of the media not the strength it should be but an impulsion towards sensation above all else."

"News is rarely news unless it generates heat as much as or more than light.

Second, attacking motive is far more potent than attacking judgement. It is not enough for someone to make an error. It has to be venal. Conspiratorial."

He also questioned whether papers needed some system of accountability that went beyond sales.

He said: "The reality is that the viewers or readers have no objective yardstick to measure what they are being told. In every other walk of life in our society that exercises power, there are external forms of accountability, not least through the media itself.

this truly is the do nothing good congress said...

rf - you complain about an obstructionist minority? What?

Isn't that what the democrats playbook has been all about since W was elected? Now, you are in the majority. The 100 days was a disaster. The corruption has been pretty rampant and ignored by Pelosi (Rep. Washington, Rep Murtha, earmarks).

You guys always complain about how the republicans are picking on you. They admit their weakness by whining.

maybe now hollywood will care about iran and radical muslims said...

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- Iran's parliament on Wednesday voted in favor of a bill that could lead to death penalty for persons convicted of working in the production of pornographic movies.

With a 148-5 vote in favor and four abstentions, lawmakers present at the Wednesday session of the 290-seat parliament approved that "producers of pornographic works and main elements in their production are considered corruptors of the world and could be sentenced to punishment as corruptors of the world."

The term, "corruptor of the world" is taken from the Quran, the Muslims' holy book, and ranks among the highest on the scale of an individual's criminal offenses. Under Iran's Islamic Penal Code, it carries a death penalty.

The "main elements" refered to in the draft include producers, directors, cameramen and actors involved in making a pornographic video.

Fred might win the straw poll after all said...

A nationwide straw poll of 91,981 grassroots conservatives conducted May 7-25 by gave Fred Thompson a nearly two-to-one lead over the closest challenger.

When asked whom they would vote for if the Republican primary were held today, 26 percent preferred Fred Thompson, followed by Mitt Romney (16 percent), Newt Gingrich (14 percent), Rudy Giuliani (13 percent), John McCain (8 percent) and Tom Tancredo (7 percent).

huck - you get ticket #3 if you speak. your name is on the ballot no matter what. why not? said...

Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee said today he plans to participate in the Ames straw poll, but could change his mind if he decides the contest would be a waste of time and money.

The former Arkansas governor, campaigning in Iowa today, said decisions last week by former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Arizona Sen. John McCain to skip the previously high-profile event changed the contest's dynamic.

"We do recognize that with McCain and Giuliani kind of blowing it up and walking away from it, it may change it," Huckabee told The Des Moines Register after a campaign appearance in Ames. "I don't want to spend all the time and money that we would have to spend and then have someone say, 'Yeah, but it doesn't mean anything because the big guys didn't participate'. So that's what we're having to evaluate, whether it still has the juice."

Hilton: the über Hello Kitty fan, with a 20-50 Mil market cap and her own prisoner’s dilemma said...

The Huffington Post
June 9, 2007
Ego v. Hilton: What a shameful day in jurisprudence.
Charles Karel Bouley

…the media has descended, and the Los Angeles County Courthouse now has extra staff to deal with the deluge.
This means thousands of taxpayers dollars are being spent on this, that these sheriffs aren't doing other duties and that a system that is already strapped for cash is spending money it doesn't have. And for what? Because the judge is angry at Sheriff Lee Baca for giving celebrities special treatment? Well, then take it up with Baca and don't take it out on Hilton. At this point, one can't help but feel sorry for her.

What's worse is the misallocation of my money. First of all, the cell that she occupies would be better served, given jail overcrowding, with a REAL criminal in it. The streets are no safer with Hilton in jail versus her home. Second, stop all this "if this were you or I" crap. First of all, it isn't. Being rich does have benefits. Secondly, if it were you or I, we probably wouldn't have gotten such a stiff sentence for such an infraction. These are misdemeanors as far as I can tell…

So tens of thousands of dollars spent, prosecutors time taken up, court time taken and for what? To punish an heiress. How shameful...

Paris Hilton should be home, with electronic monitoring, footing the bill (no pun intended) for her misdemeanor…

The super rich Hilton and LA County elected officials work out their own Axelrod moment, one media item at a time. But a least some basic level Securities & Exchange Commission policing allows for insight on the balance between information and stock liquidity among firms.

RF said...

No, not complaining about obstructionist minority. Just stating the obvious about how our government works, especially when divided. I'm mainly po'd with the whiny D's who complain about D's in Congress not being able to accomplish more.

Anonymous said...

Regarding the vitriol against Katie Couric and Moonve's comments, why would Republican politicians not capitalize on the huge anti-feminist sentiment, especially among American Republican males?

Republican politicans are acting like they think that criticizing feminism is the new third rail of politics, like senior citizen benefits once were and still are.

But there is no chance for the Republican Party unless they take a direct stand against the feminism of the likes of Couric, not her left wing views in general.

Brownback is a major feminist lawmaker. Tancredo and Paul are the only real anti-fems in the bunch of candidates...although Julie Annie wins points for some of the scraps he has had with feminists.

Anonymous said...

So the Democrats are criticizing Latham for "abandoning his rural roots for convenience".

Better that than abandoning your state for the Bahamas.