but i'm back.... and there's a shitload to talk about. where to begin?
the grand ole party hates black people
or they at least have written them off as being worthy of inclusion. only 6 out of the ten GOP contenders for president bothered to show up at the tavis smiley forum on minority issues the other week. the top four contenders were those absent: giuliani, romney, thompson and mccain. they all claim scheduling conflicts.but as buchanan pointed out... african american voters only make up ten percent of the electorate. only about 10% of that 10% vote republican. so why show up?
it's just insulting all around............. and embarrassing all around to the GOP. shit, even bush spoke out about it. and we know he doesn't care about black people. just ask kanye west.
what's most surprising in this....despite pat's reasoning..... bush won ohio in 2004 in large part because of the 16% african american vote he carried. that 16% won him the election.
who is running these campaigns? at least attempt to be competitive.
"well, he's not standing here"
perhaps the best moment during last wednesday's democratic debate in new hampshire came when that ole rascal tim russert surprised hillary with a quote from her hubby bill about a possible exception to using torture. she answered per her convictions. when russert revealed the speaker of the quote, hillary's response:
"well, he's not standing here right now."
"so there's a disagreement?" russert pressed.
"well...." hillary demured. "i'll talk to him later."
it was a beautiful moment and the one most discussed from the debate. my only concern for hillary: she needs to start being more direct in her answers. people are starting to really take notice and you can only dance around topics so long. i know she's afraid of pigeon-holing herself before the general election.... but people are tired of non-answers. we get enough of that from republicans.
giving props where props are due
i know john "hope is on the way" edwards has become my favorite punching bag as of late... but he did have a brilliant moment on wednesday. when discussing hillary's vote to list the iranian military as a terrorist entity (why the FUCK did you do that, hill?), johnny boy talked about the danger of conceding any territory to bush that might lead to more possible conflicts in the future.
quoting edwards:
we learned a very different lesson from that. ... what I learned in my vote on iraq was you cannot give this president the authority and you can't even give him the first step in that authority because he cannot be trusted.
amen, and bravo.
january 1, 2013
not one of the three front runners in the democratic field would promise to have all combat troops out of iraq by january 1, 2013 (the start of their second term). kiddies, i'm afraid we're in it for the long haul.
third quarter dollars
for the first time, senator clinton has out raised superstar barack obama. with estimated third quarter earnings being reported this week, obama raised $19 million in primary cash. a very impressive number.hillary raised $22 million.
for the first time ever, hillary's individual number of new donors also topped obama's.
up, up and away........
on the GOP side, well, it's pretty pathetic really:
flip flop romney raised $10 million. "i spent more time at ground zero" giuliani raised $9 million. and fizzlin' out fred thompson raised only $8 million in his first quarter of official fundraising. mccain only raised $5 million.
perhaps the biggest surprise? texan congressman and all around anarchist ron paul raised $3 million. that is more than other, considered more serious candidates: biden, dodd and huckabee.
great obama quote
again...in the spirit of giving props where props are due:
some now seek to rewrite history. they argue that they weren't really voting for war, they were voting for inspectors. or they were voting for diplomacy... you need to ask those who voted for the war how can you give the president a blank check and then act surprised when he cashes it?"
it's a great quote... but why is he so hesitant to name clinton by name? or even edwards? he's real tough on the campaign trail... but then sits on the back burner during debates. it's possible obama's campaign of hope has limited what he can do in terms of attacking other democratic candidates and really distinguishing himself from the rest of the field.
i know the attacks have hurt edwards.... and you have to be careful with them. but at some point - he needs to be more forceful if he wants to take this thing.
the forgotten war
the media is reporting that overall violent attacks in iraq were down in the month of september. violent attacks are up 20% in afghanistan. the highest since the war began.
just thought you should know....
$190 billion
the bush administration has asked congress for another $190 billion for the iraq war.
wow.
a new abc/washington post poll asked if congress should approve this latest request? 27% said yes. an overwhelming 67% of americans think they should not.
the poll also asks the all important job approval ratings.
while bush's approval rating stands at 33% (equal to its lowest point in this poll), congress continues to bottom out with an approval rating of only 29%.
what's behind this number? 55% of respondents feel the democrats in congress have not gone far enough in opposing the war.
i've heard a lot of talk about democrats wanting leaders in washington. they may or may not understand that the dems do not have enough votes to end the war.... but at least lead the discussion. bob herbert of the ny times said it was time for the democrats to stand up. he describes the dems as a "timid party."
make some noise, nancy and harry! hold votes. make the GOP accountable. do something. anything. just show us you're trying and you understand our frustration.
don't just make calls to clear channel. which brings us to....
comedian rush limbaugh
to steal a title from keith olbermann. ole blow hard limbaugh is in a heap of trouble after he called iraqi war vets who have returned to speak out against the war "phony soldiers."and before anyone wants to defend rush... if there's nothing wrong with what he said - why did he edit out the phrase before it was rebroadcast on armed forces radio? as general wesley clark said: "he knew he made a mistake."
don't attack the soldiers, rush.... your party doesn't like it. nobody likes it. have we learned nothing from "nappy, headed hos"?
what really amazes me is watching the pundits dance around the question of "phony soldiers" vs. "general patraeus or general betray us."
that uber-dunce heidi harris made the comment that she's upset harry reid would take time on the floor of the senate to condemn limbaugh's comments. that she pays for that time....
well..... what about john cornyn and moveon.org? he introduced a goddamn senate resolution to condemn the patraeus ad.
of course....ask a democrat if what limbaugh said is wrong in attacking a soldier... was the moveon ad wrong in attacking an acting general. dems dance pretty well, too.
in the spirit of nonpartisanship. which i think is bullshit - but there ya go.
as ted rall once wrote.... we don't vote in candidates to be bipartisan. we vote in people because they hold our views and we want them to fight for them.
iowa
newsweek has some interesting poll numbers out. we'll take them one party at a time.
2008 iowa causus - republicans
all republican voters break down as follows: romney 25%, thompson 16%, giuliani 15%, mccain 7% (my, how the mighty have fallen) and huckabee 6%.
of likely caucus voters: romney 24%, thompson 16%, giuliani 13%, mccain 9% and huckabee tops mccain at 12%.
dan balz of the washington post describes any type of support for a republican candidate in iowa as "soft." he also agrees with me that there's an interesting potential for huckabee in iowa. a lot of people reference the high howard dean numbers before he bombed out in iowa and want to make that argument for the dems. but why not the republicans? could huckabee be the spoiler? he performs very well in debates. he's a true christian conservative and thompson has not skyrocketed as people had hoped. he also scored very high in the straw poll.
however....having said all this. i'm about ready to put my GOP prediction in print. i think it will be romney for president. but i'm not ready to quite stand by that statement 100%. not quite yet.
pat buchanan thinks somebody will have to take down romney and only rudy will have the cash to do it. thompson's only shot it in south carolina. if he doesn't win there - he's out.
2008 iowa causus - democrats
the breakdown for all democratic voters have clinton leading at 31% with obama at 25%, edwards at 21% and richardson bringing up the rear at 6%.
funny side story: my dad decided not to watch the debate last wednesday... not the majority of it, anyway. when i told him that richardson continued to make his grand, verbal mistakes and referred to barack obama as the "n" word.... i thought he had ignored me. but no.... he believed me. just goes to show what a verbal fuckup richardson can be. even a richardson supporter thought he was dumb enough to use the "n" word. ugh....
likely caucus voters is much more interesting. clinton drops to 24%. obama wins at 28%. edward remains steady at about 22% and richardson rises to 10%.
it's really interesting that obama leads with likely voters. as i've said several times before: iowa is the basket edwards has placed all his eggs. if he doesn't win iowa - he's out. but could obama win?
balz made an interesting point that bill clinton never had to run in iowa in 1992. harkin was running for president so everyone skipped the iowa caucus. so the clintons never really developed a network in iowa the way they did in new hampshire. and, according to balz, there's not a great affection for hillary in iowa the way there is in n.h.
david gregory of nbc news says "this should really show people that this is still a race and not hillary clinton running away with it."
yes....she is WAAAAAAAAY ahead in all national polls. (by the way - she's polling way ahead of the entire race in arkansas - dems and republicans alike. even against arkansas governor huckabee.) but you have to win those early states.
which brings us to.....
meet the press quote of the week
yes, yes...... i have been neglectful of my meet the press. two sundays ago - too busy in chicago. the sunday before that... prepping for my vacation.
but i return with a surprising choice. i never thought i'd see the day i would quote this gentleman, but i already have once or twice in this entry... so why not give him the grand honor?
i can't stand the man's politics.... but there's no arguing his political savvy.
this week's quote comes from former GOP candidate for president and current msnbc pundit, pat buchanan. allow me to preface this with his belief...and i tend to agree.... that obama has to win iowa or it's over. apparently, he agrees with michelle on this one. i would argue that edwards is in the same boat. says pat:
if hillary wins [iowa], she rolls right through new hampshire and the game is over. hillary is in the finals. these two are fighting to get into the semifinals, or get into the finals. and i don't think edwards, if he wins, can go the distance. i do think obama can go the distance but he can't get beat in iowa.
what's happened to my texans?
i know they're riddled with injuries.... ahman green is out. andre johnson is out.... but we looked like shit on sunday against atlanta. we lost to an 0-3 team! this week... we face miami. an 0-4 team.
please don't let the texans give miami their first W.
i hope our injured players are back.... and our defense can regain their mojo. the once hopeful playoff dreams are quickly fading from my friends (and from me). show us you got what it takes......
besides.....my dad's team is 4-0. i can't take his cowboys winning much longer. he gloats.
my boyfriend
by the way.... jake is hurt in carolina so david carr started for him on sunday. three sacks. lost the game.
come to mamele. i'll make it all better......
e.
No comments:
Post a Comment