<p>As I said, evangelism and ultra conservative religion is gaining ground…</p>
<p><a href=“http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4091956.stm[/url]”>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4091956.stm</a></p>
<p>Bill O’Reilly and his (ahem) interesting sexual tastes…great for a conservative family man.</p>
<p>Oh, lay off Bill. Just because he likes to…and…with…(as well as…while…and…) shouldn’t be held against him. ;)</p>
<p>Right, Mini. With O’Reilly, it’s not the sex per se, it’s that he’s hypocritical and abusive.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.nationalreview.com/interrogatory/klein200506200754.asp[/url]”>http://www.nationalreview.com/interrogatory/klein200506200754.asp</a></p>
<p>Interesting article- interview with author- </p>
<p>lots of hearsay, lots of third hand, lots of “interpretation” and very little substantian</p>
<p>Washington Post</p>
<p>One of Klein’s major contentions is that Hillary Clinton knew about Monica Lewinsky’s relationship with her husband more than two years before their relationship became public, but Klein doesn’t have the goods. Instead, he relies on one anonymous Democratic National </p>
<p>Committee staffer, who herself doesn’t seem to have firsthand or even secondhand information.</p>
<p>An on-the-record anecdote about the young Hillary bloodying the nose of a boy in her fifth-grade class for giving away one of her baby rabbits becomes, to Klein’s thinking, evidence of a “controlling, combative” personality that rules Clinton’s personal and political behavior to this day."</p>
<p>Interesting that a guy who would be married THREE times would judge anybody elses marriage. I thought marriage was the ideal. I guess practice makes perfect</p>
<p>I like how Klein claims to have “no political agenda” and then says that people need to read his book because, “the time has come for her opponents to size her up and devise a strategy to stop her.”</p>
<p>There are plenty of Democrats who think Hillary will be a disaster as a candidate, and thus needs to be taken down to clear the field. Susan Estrich comes immediately to mind, but there are plenty of others. In the mean time, I think Dick Morris has it about right in this piece just published in The Hill.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/Comment/DickMorris/061505.html[/url]”>http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/Comment/DickMorris/061505.html</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Now, there’s pundit with a distinguished track record. If I had been the campaign manager for Mike Dukakis, I’m not sure I would show my face in public.</p>
<p>The fact that anyone cares what Susan Estrich thinks about political strategy is beyond me.</p>
<p>Dick Morris, on the other hand? I pay attention to his political handicapping. Despite his well-documented abrasiveness, the man has his finger on the pulse of the American electorate. Despite his frequent clashes with Hillary on a personal level, I doubt very much that he is discounting her as a formidable candidate. He surely recognizes that Hillary has spent the last four years executing a page from his political playbook.</p>
<p>Hillaary will be pummeled so badly in a national campaign that she will think she signed up as a woman boxer. The only victory she has won was one over a last minute substitute in a liberal northeastern state. Things that she has been involved with in the past have been given very light attention, as it seemed a little unfair to pick on the candidates wife, (even if she is an expert commodities trader who made a hundred grand in a week or so). </p>
<p>The Morris column is probably about right on, but the biggest impediment to electing Hillary is going to be the nations unwillingness to give WJC a third chance at living in the White House. </p>
<p>If we still don’t have a solution in Iraq buy the time the election rolls into view, I expect John Kerry will run again. And I see Joe Biden lining up. </p>
<p>Frankly, the best candidate the democrats could hope for would be Colin Powell switching parties. He would be formidable on either side, if he decided he wanted to run.</p>
<p>No body gets me excited. But many really scare me.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Now, there’s a winning ticket. Not.</p>
<p>All they need is a couple of re-tread loser strategists like Susan Estridge and Bob Shrum the Dems could go down in flames again.</p>
<p>Have the convention in San Francisco with gay marriage as the cornerstone of the platform. Publicly court Mike Dukakis for the Secretary of Defense slot.</p>
<p>Isn’t Dukakis already practicing for the DOD slot?</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.truckerphoto.com/Kerry-Dukakis.jpg[/url]”>http://www.truckerphoto.com/Kerry-Dukakis.jpg</a></p>
![http://www.truckerphoto.com/Kerry-Dukakis.jpg[/url]](http://www.truckerphoto.com/Kerry-Dukakis.jpg%5B/url%5D){kind=link}
<p>“Dick Morris, on the other hand? I pay attention to his political handicapping. Despite his well-documented abrasiveness, the man has his finger on the pulse of the American electorate.”</p>
<p>I also believe that Morris knows a bit about Hillary: </p>
<p>“She is an ultra-liberal who moves to the center as a charade to win election. Rated as the 11th most liberal senator by National Journal one notch to the left of Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) she has a liberal quotient, according to Americans for Democratic Action, of 95 percent, contrasted with 85 percent for the party as a whole and 60 percent for a real moderate such as former Sen. John Edwards.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sounds like a winning strategy. I’m glad that somebody in the Democratic Party finally figured it out.</p>
<p>Come to think of it, it’s a lot like that “compassionate conservative” nonsense that ol’ “W” peddled all the way to the White House.</p>
<p>Sounds like Dick Morris is angling for job with Hair Boy, the ambulance-chasing personal injury attorney representing the trial lawyers lobby.</p>
<p>Its amazing how many people forget that almost the same number of people voted for a democrat as a republican…and yet, half the country is ignored. And labeled.</p>
<p>I AM A LIBERAL!!! WOO HOO WOO HOO…I believe in the Bill of Rights, I believe in the constitution and I believe that we as humans should help each other, as in WWJD. I believe in individuals, I believe in freedom, I have voted since I was 18, never missed an election. Its interesting that you are called a liberal if you want the govenment to help people, and its looked on as a bad thing, while, if you want that same government to give that same money to a church, to help those same people,well, then, that is different.</p>
<p>Egads.</p>
<p>Okay, I broke my pledge, need to go do my jumping jacks, but I feel better.</p>
<p>I guess that makes me a bad person</p>
<p>Now that the election’s over, the one (unasked) question that I was stunned (not really) about, was whether John Edwards received a payment in his son’s auto accident death. I found one dated quote from a law partner that said (IIRC) that he didn’t sue. But it didn’t say that no $ changed hands or that no settlement was sought. All of the other accounts were conspicuously silent about that issue. Edward’s public stance is that he won’t discuss it(the event), but his book does say that he believes there was a crosswind on the interstate that was responsible. </p>
<p>Its my opinion that it is highly likely that he did (receive a payment from someone…Chrysler, the state, ???). [I thought this was fairly relevant in judging whether or not he could be labeled an ambulance chaser. If he could answer no to the question, it seemed to me his stature would rise somewhat…he certainly took on some serious negligence cases.]</p>
<p>I read the part of his book that talked about it, I googled everything I could find, and that’s my read on it. IF he runs as the major candidate, this issue will come up. If he received nothing, it’s helpful to his candidacy. I expect he will be absolutely silent because he has received something, is under a silence agreement, and knows it would severely damage his candidacy.</p>
<p>The dems will need a different southerner…and thats not the only reason.</p>
<p>The dems need a governor. Oh heck, the dems need a bench and a miracle to outplay the religious right.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No you don’t. Do you beleive in the second amendment or, like most liberals, beleive the constitution says whatever you want it to? Also like most liberals, do you interpret the equal protection clause as a guarantee to gay marriage, but not a guarantee for real equal protection (as in, say, affirmative action)?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why? As a liberal, you don’t beleive in democracy! You need activist judges to hand you all of your victories (using the “constution means whatever we say it means” discussed above). The will of the people can be squelched, right so as to prevent popular tyranny, right? That’s why we have constitutions, and thank god they can mean whatever you need them too!
…or do you honestly beleive there is a guarantee to gay marriage in a 18th century constitution personally penned by John Adams? Without activist courts the left would be losing even worse. With democracy (or even a real constitutional republic) there would be no gay marriage, no abortion, no affirmative action, etc, etc. </p>
<p>So I take it you beleive in democracy - as long as it agrees with the infallable truth of liberalism, right?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You honestly can’t see the difference between giving charitable donations and having the government forcibly compel you to pay for other people’s issues and redistribute wealth?</p>
<p>"Do you beleive in the second amendment or, like most liberals, beleive the constitution says whatever you want it to? "</p>
<p>I believe the 2nd Amendment says what the Supreme Court says it says in Miller, and reaffirmed more than 15 times since. No conservative group, and certainly never the National Rifle Association, has been willing to bring suit for the Supreme Court to overturn Miller in more than 20 years, for fear that, as usual, they would lose again. </p>
<p>I’m not a liberal. The Second Amendment DOESN’T say what I’d like it to. So what else is new?</p>