[Ninong]

Saint John McCain, "maverick" Republican, has just named this guy to be his campaign manager. I'm sure we will be seeing a lot more TV ads like this one that was so effective against that uppity Harold Ford, Jr. McCain's new campaign manager was also a paid consultant to Wal-Mart but after that racially-charged "bimbo" ad attacking Harold Ford, Jr., Wal-Mart gave him a pink slip. McCain gave him a promotion.

McCain's new campaign manager was the superior of James Tobin, the New England political director for the Republican National Committee, who was convicted in late 2005 for his role in a scheme to jam phone lines in New Hampshire in November 2002 to block Democratic get-out-the-vote efforts. No word on whether he is experienced at designing clever push-poll questions like the ones that were used by the Bush team against McCain in the South Carolina Republican primary back in 2000. If you can't beat 'em, hire 'em!

P.S. -- More proof that he sold his violin and he's never getting it back.


__________________________________________________ ___________________________
Remember this from October 19, 2006: It's do-or-die time for Republicans trying to keep control of Congress, U.S. Sen. John McCain indicated Wednesday in Des Moines.

Asked what his response would be to the possibility of Republicans' losing control, McCain joked: "I think I would just commit suicide."

The Republican senator from Arizona quickly added: "I don't want to face that eventuality because I don't think it's going to happen. ... I think we will do OK. It's going to be tough, but I think we'll do OK."

[Ninong]

Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS), who is holier than even Holy Joe himself, is at it again, blocking another one of President Bush's judicial nominees because she attended a sinful gathering of homosexuals. Brownback, who is actively raising money for a run for the 2008 GOP presidential nomination, has placed a hold on Bush's nomination of Michigan Court of Appeals Judge Janet Neff to the federal bench because she once attended a lesbian commitment ceremony.

"Neff has said she attended the ceremony as a friend of one of the two women, a longtime neighbor. She insisted in an Oct. 12 letter to Brownback that the ceremony had no legal effect and would not affect her ability to act fairly as a federal judge."

Brownback said Friday he would lift his hold on her nomination "if she agrees to step aside from any case dealing with same-sex unions." Just like a Republican, he expects something in return for his vote. Someone should explain to Sen. Brokeback that the judiciary is a separate and co-equal branch of government. He has the right to vote against her confirmation but he does not have the right to tell her how to perform her duties on the bench.

Why would Pat Robertson, a fundamentalist Baptist, announce his support for Sam Brownback, a Catholic, for the GOP presidential nomination? Glad you asked.

Brownback is to the right of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. He may very well be to the right of Louis XIV. He doesn't want to reform government, he wants to abolish it. Brownback was elected to Congress back in 1994 in the Republican sweep led by Newt Gingrich. At first he refused to sign Gingrich's Contract With America because he thought it didn't go far enough. One of his first acts in Congress was to propose the abolition of the departments of education, energy and commerce. His proposals failed but he got the attention of the far right.

Two years later he ran to the right of Bob Dole's chosen successor and was elected to the Senate. Bill Frist placed him on the Judiciary Committee. Frist was worried that Arlen Spector, the committee's chairman, would cause problems for Bush's nominees and he figured Brownback would pressure Spector to toe the GOP line. Instead, Brownback has turned confirmation hearings into a three-ring circus, inviting a parade of far right-wing "experts" to testify on the evils of "murder of fetal citizens," "bestiality," which is clearly a major issue confronting our country, and the "homosexual agenda." Need I remind you that these "experts" are called to testify at the confirmation hearings of judges nominated by a Republican president.

If you thought Bush was a little looney when he said that he didn't consult his biological father, but rather a "higher father," for advice before deciding to invade Iraq, you ain't seen nothin' yet! Brownback once told an evangelical audience that he has only one constituent, while pointing above his head. The audience roared their approval. Brownback was a Methodist when he was elected to the House in 1994. When he ran for the Senate two years later, he was an evangelical. Now he's an extreme, right-wing Roman Catholic, having been converted by Opus Dei. He was baptized in an Opus Dei chapel on K Street, where he attends the noon Mass daily whenever possible. Opus Dei was founded by a priest who thought Generalissimo Francisco Franco was the ideal head of state.

[Ninong]

Gov. Mitt Romney, who has absolutely no chance of winning the GOP nomination in 2008, is trying to run to the right of Saint John McCain. Even Rudy Giuliani, whose chances are slim to none, has a better shot than this guy.

For starters, he was elected governor of the most liberal blue state in the nation, Massachusetts! It that isn't a wake-up call for the wing-nuts on the fringe of the Republican Party, then I can't imagine what is.

Oh, wait! Maybe I can imagine! How about Romney promising in 1994, when he was running for the Senate against ultra-liberal Sen. Teddy Kennedy, that he would do a better job than Kennedy in the area of civil rights for gays? He said Kennedy wasn't doing nearly enough and he would do more!

Sample quotes from a 1994 letter Romney wrote to the Log Cabin Republicans:

"I am not unaware of my opponent's considerable record in the area of civil rights. For some voters, it might be enough to simply match my opponent's record in this area, but I believe we can and must do better. If we are to achieve the goals we share, we must make equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern. My opponent cannot do this, I can and will."

Referring to the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" military policy created by former President Bill Clinton, Romney described it as "the first in a number of steps that will ultimately lead to gays and lesbians being able to serve openly and honestly in our nation's military."

No doubt he will now claim that his thinking on gay rights, like his thinking on abortion rights, has "evolved and deepened" over the years. He used to be pro-choice, but that was when he was running for office in Massachusetts.

You have to be very flexible indeed to run to the left of Teddy Kennedy in one race and to the right of John McCain in another.

[Ninong]

Sen. John McCain continues to call for sending an additional 20,000-30,000 American troops to Iraq. He knows that won't be enough to make a difference and he knows that we can't even sustain a small increase like that for very long, but he continues to call for it so that he can say "I told you so" when the Republicans start trying to figure out who's responsible for losing Iraq 18 months from now. It's all politics with McCain.

McCain, a genuine Vietnam war hero, is nonetheless a former Navy pilot whose father and grandfather were high ranking Navy admirals. I choose to believe Gen. Eric Shinseki's original recommendation that it would require "several hundred thousand" troops to occupy Iraq. Secretary of State Colin Powell, a former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, warned President Bush that Donald Rumsfeld's plan for the invasion and occupation of Iraq was totally inadequate but Bush chose to believe Rumsfeld, a former Navy pilot (1954-1957) with no combat experience whatsoever, over an Army general.

The military has said that a small, short-term increase is possible, but not much more. U.S. Central Command Commander Gen. John Abizaid told McCain at a Senate hearing Nov. 15: "We can put in 20,000 more Americans tomorrow and achieve a temporary effect. But when you look at the overall American force pool that's available out there, the ability to sustain that commitment is simply not something that we have right now with the size of the Army and the Marine Corps."

The CENTCOM commander is admitting that we can't even sustain an additional 20,000 troops for more than a short, temporary assignment.

Perhaps the most complete analysis of the grave situation facing U.S. ground forces was prepared by the Democratic staff on the House Appropriations Committee in September, which found that the "vast majority" of 23 active-duty Army combat units not currently in Iraq at that time were at "the lowest readiness levels." It added that roughly half of all Army units everywhere, including reserve units, "received the lowest readiness rating any fully formed unit can receive." It also said: "Army military readiness rates have declined to levels not seen since the end of the Vietnam war."

That sentiment is now becoming increasingly bipartisan. In a speech at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University on Thursday night, Nebraska Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel, a veteran of Vietnam like McCain, warned against sending more troops to Iraq.

"Our ongoing deployment in Iraq is debilitating our military force structure," Hagel warned. "We are decimating the most powerful fighting force the world has ever known, and we are only beginning to understand the astounding cost and time it will take to rebuild our force structure."

[SPasse]

Ninong,

"Brownback is to the right of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. He may very well be to the right of Louis XIV. He doesn't want to reform government, he wants to abolish it. Brownback was elected to Congress back in 1994 in the Republican sweep led by Newt Gingrich. At first he refused to sign Gingrich's Contract with America because he thought it didn't go far enough. One of his first acts in Congress was to propose the abolition of the departments of education, energy and commerce. His proposals failed but he got the attention of the far right."

Well although I am not a Brownback apologist, he does bring up an interesting point.

I believe that any number of government departments/programs could/should be eliminated. I believe that rather than doing any sort or measurable good, they have just become permanent, bureaucratic government employment programs and notoriously inefficient ones at that.

Companies are constantly forced to eliminate departments and programs that are "dead weight" to stay in business; it is too bad that we can not come up with some sort of equivalent oversight organization that would do the same to/for our government.

If the "tax and spend species of liberals" were intellectually honest about this, they would be all in favor of it because more money would be left over for programs that actually help solve problems.

Regards,

Scott

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by SPasse

If the "tax and spend species of liberals"...

You probably meant to say "spend and spend Republicans," right? Those two whacky liberal Democrats, Bill Clinton and Al Gore, reduced the size of the federal government and ran up obscene budget surpluses three years in a row!

George W. Bush has greatly expanded the federal government and he has no idea what the deficit is except that the last budget he looked at contained numbers and it was up-to-date as of February 30th.

And we can't blame the Bush deficits on the Democrats like the Republicans try to blame Reagan's deficits on the Democrats, because the Republicans controlled everything this time around except for a brief period when the Senate flipped to Democratic control following the defection of Jim Jeffords.

__________________________________________________ _________________________

"This morning my administration released the budget numbers for fiscal 2006. These budget numbers are not just estimates; these are the actual results for the fiscal year that ended February the 30th."— George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Oct. 11, 2006.

"It's clearly a budget, it's got a lot of numbers in it."-- George W. Bush, May 5, 2000

"We're spending money on clean coal technology. Do you realize we've got 250 million years of coal?"— George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., June 8, 2005

"Do you have blacks, too?"—George W. Bush, To Brazilian President Fernando Cardoso, Washington, D.C., Nov. 8, 2001

P.S. -- His ignorance is absolutely stunning!

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by SPasse

If the "tax and spend species of liberals" were intellectually honest about this, they would be all in favor of it because more money would be left over for programs that actually help solve problems.

Speaking of being "intellectually honest" about overspending, what do you think about these comments?

Some Republicans heaped scorn on Frist, faulting him for fostering runaway federal spending.

Late Friday night, House Appropriations Chairman Jerry Lewis, R-Calif., said icily in a speech on the House floor that Congress' failure to pass nine of 11 appropriations bills "should be placed squarely at the feet of the departing [Senate] majority leader." The House passed its version of the bills, but the Senate did not.

Congress passed a stopgap spending bill that continues federal funding at current levels until mid-February.

Frist managed to stick some pork for the folks back home into the final bills passed, however.

An angry Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., a fiscal conservative and Budget Committee chairman, said: "This is being done by the Republican leadership to the Republican membership."

"You just have to ask yourself how we, as a party, got to this point, where we have a leadership which is going to ram down the throats of our party the biggest budgetbuster in the history of the Congress under Republican leadership," Gregg said.

__________________________________________________ ________________

"The goals of this country is to enhance prosperity and peace."—George W. Bush, Speaking at the White House Conference on Global Literacy, New York, Sept. 18, 2006

"Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?"—George W. Bush, Florence, S.C., Jan. 11, 2000

"You teach a child to read, and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test.''—George W. Bush, Townsend, Tenn., Feb. 21, 2001

P.S. -- So much for Harvard and Yale...

[SPasse]

Ninong,

No I meant "Tax and Spend Liberals"

Not to be confused with the Tax and Spend Neocon camp.

Neo-CONNED!

I find their ilk no more acceptable (perhaps less) than the Tax and Spend Liberals. At least some of the Tax and Spend Liberals believe that they are doing some good.

Maybe we can at least do away with no bid contracts and sanctioned torture.

I guess I am looking for some elected officials that would try a long forgotten concept, balance the budget by actually spending less. And a good place to start is a review of what we actually get for the money we currently spend.

Regards,

Scott

[Ninong]

Sounds to me like the perfect candidate for the likes of Daddy Dobson, Tony Perkins, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and the rest of "the base." Who knew they were suddenly so open-minded?



P.S. -- That will give them something to think about besides the pregnancy of the Virgin Mary (Cheney).

[Ninong]

Mitt Romney in a published interview from August 1994 when asked about conservatives like Pat Robertson and Jesse Helms in the Republican Party:

“Any party ends up being a large tent and I don’t want to toss people out of the party, but I do not favor people using the party as a platform for the views of different special interest groups.

“I remember in my earliest political experience my father fighting to keep the John Birch Society from playing too strong a role in the Republican Party. He walked out of the Republican National Convention in 1964, when Barry Goldwater said, ‘Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.’ Because he saw that as a tacit approval of the effort the John Birch Society was making to influence the Republican Party. I think that extremists who would force their views on the party and try to shape the party are making a mistake.

“I welcome people of all views in the party, but I don’t want them to try to change our party from being a large tent, inclusive party, to being one that is exclusive.”

On why the gay community should support Romney over Kennedy, given Kennedy’s record of supporting both civil rights and the gay community:

“Well, I think you’re partially right in characterizing Ted Kennedy as supportive of the gay community, and I respect the work and efforts he’s made on behalf of the gay community and for civil rights more generally, and I would continue that fight.

“There’s something to be said for having a Republican who supports civil rights in this broader context, including sexual orientation. When Ted Kennedy speaks on gay rights, he’s seen as an extremist. When Mitt Romney speaks on gay rights he’s seen as a centrist and a moderate. It’s a little like if Eugene McCarthy was arguing in favor of recognizing China, people would have called him a nut. But when Richard Nixon does it, it becomes reasonable. When Ted says it, it’s extreme; when I say it, it’s mainstream.

“I think the gay community needs more support from the Republican Party and I would be a voice in the Republican Party to foster anti-discrimination efforts.

“The other thing I should say is that the gay community and the members of it that are friends of mine that I’ve talked to don’t vote solely on the basis of gay rights issues. They’re also very concerned about a $4 trillion national debt, a failing school system, a welfare system that’s out of whack and a criminal justice system that isn’t working. I believe that while I would further the efforts Ted Kennedy has led, I would also lead the country in new and far more positive ways in taxing and spending, welfare reform, criminal justice and education. That’s why I believe many gay and lesbian individuals will support my candidacy and do support my candidacy.

“I have several friends in the gay community who are supporters, who are working in my campaign. I think they believe I would be a better senator.”

P.S. -- I can see why the fundies are so fond of Romney. They have so much in common.

Romney's campaign seems to hope that conservatives will buy into a theory of evolution about their candidate's views. He no longer claims to be a stronger proponent of gay rights than Teddy Kennedy.

On the other hand, maybe he's just a typical politician who will say whatever he thinks is necessary to get elected. Was he lying then or is he lying now? Something for the fundies to think about.

[Ninong]

Clinton, Giuliani Top New Presidential Poll

December 14, 2006 10:00 a.m. EST

Washington, D.C. (AHN) - A new poll shows New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani leading other possible candidates for their parties' 2008 presidential nominations.

The poll, commissioned by the Washington Post and ABC News offers an early glimpse at a race in which none of the leading contenders has formally announced a candidacy. Clinton, who leads the Democratic field and Giuliani, who is out front among Republicans, both enjoy the benefit of strong name recognition, a key factor in early polling.

Clinton, who leads the Democrats with 39 percent, remains the party powerhouse, despite the meteoric and media-savvy emergence of Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, who came in second with 17 percent. Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, the 2004 vice-presidential candidate, came in third with 12 percent. Former vice president Al Gore took 10 percent and Sen. John F. Kerry of Massachusetts, the Democrat's 2004 presidential nominee, got 7 percent.

On the GOP side, none of the potential candidates has the dominance Clinton holds in her party.

Among Republicans, Giuliani is favored at 34 percent but Arizona Sen. John McCain took a comparatively strong 26 percent. He was followed by former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich with 12 percent, and outgoing Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney who came in fourth with 5 percent.

The poll also found that Clinton's sway among Democrats may not carry outside the party. When respondents were asked to rate potential candidates from both parties, Giuliani was favored with 67 percent to Clinton's 56 percent.

The poll has a margin of error of three percentage points and was conducted by telephone among a random sample of 1,005 adults from Dec. 7-11.


I really don't think that Giuliani can win a Republican primary fight. No matter how popular he may be with the American public at large, or even among rank and file Republicans, there is just no way that he would be acceptable to the people who are running the show in the Republican Party right now.

Look at all the recanting Mitt Romney is doing right now just to overcome his prior pro-gay rights positions. Giuliani is much more pro-gay rights than Romney and more pro-choice than Romney, even when Romney was pro-choice. Romney has recanted his previous pro-choice positions in favor of something that would be more acceptable to the fundies who think they should have some say in the choice of the next Republican presidential nominee.

And I haven't even mentioned the fact that Giuliani is pro-gun control! I used to think that Giuliani might be handicapped by having three wives but looking at the latest poll results, that doesn't seem to be unusual for today's top choices of the official "Family Values" party. The top three Republican candidates have had eight wives between them. And all of them cheated on their wives with their future wives. Giuliani went so far as to be videotaped taking his mistress to Mass at St. Patrick's cathedral while he was still married. And Newtie's escapades are beyond the pale. None of the other candidates can hold a candle to him in this department.

The top three Democratic candidates are all still married to their first spouse. Why should we trust any of these Democratic candidates to defend family values when they have such limited experience?

[Ninong]

Ed Helms of the Daily Show interviews Brian Camenker, the gentleman most responsible for the recent attacks on Mitt Romney from the right.



P.S. -- Poor Mitt Romney! The progressives are attacking him for flip-flopping and the right-wing extremists are attacking him for even considering his previous pro-choice and pro-gay rights positions in the first place. It's hard to retract what you said several years ago when you were so emphatic at the time.

Republican voters should always keep in mind that Mitt Romney solemnly promised that he would be a more effective liberal than Teddy Kennedy!

[Ninong]

The Senate Judiciary Committee has already approved Bush nominee Janet Neff but now Sen. Sam "Opus Dei" Brownback wants to convene a new inquisition. Evidently he has more questions that he forgot to ask the last time around or perhaps more pseudo-experts that he would like to call to testify. This guy is a joke!

I doubt that he would have gotten Arlen Specter to give in to his demands and I'm positive he won't get Patrick Leahy to consider this nonsense. I'm sure Sen. Leahy will use more diplomatic language in telling him what to do than the Vice President of the United States is accustomed to using on the floor of the Senate.

"If we don't testify on her views on same-sex marriage legally, then the only way I can see fit to do this is to have her recuse herself from a class of cases," Brownback said. "Then others stepped in and said, 'You can't do that.' Well, that's the only option I had at that late hour."

The guy's just pandering to the fundies. He has no chance of blocking her confirmation and he knows it. He put a hold on her nomination and in return the Democrats put a hold on ALL nominations! And that was when they were in the minority. I can't wait for Leahy to take over the Judiciary Committee and tell this lunatic where to go.

P.S. -- Brownback has about as much chance of being elected President of the United States as Gary Bauer or Pat Robertson. I hope he hangs in there for a few months just for laughs.

[Ninong]

Since Giuliani is the current frontrunner in the GOP 2008 presidential sweepstakes, I guess it's time we took him seriously.

Rudy's bio is up on his website now. Scroll at the way down and you will see that Rudy married his present wife, the former Judith S. Nathan, in 2003. No mention of his 21-yr-old son, Andrew, or his 17-yr-old daughter, Caroline, from his second marriage. No word about his first marriage either. Rudy was married to Regina Peruggi for 14 years before he obtained an annullment from the Catholic Church on the grounds that they had just discovered that they were second cousins.

As far as I know, there is no proscription against marrying your second cousin. However, the Catholic Church declared that the marriage was null and void. It never existed. It was a childless marriage so there is no way to know if the children would have been mutants as Rudy feared. No word on the amount of the stipend Rudy offered the Church.

And I was unable to find any mention of Rudy's longtime mistress, Cristyne Lategano, who was also his press secretary from 1993-1999. Rudy was married to Donna Hanover from April 1984 to July 2002; however, she stayed out of the spotlight since it was well known that Rudy was carrying on with his press secretary. After Lategano left City Hall, Rudy took up with a divorced nurse, Judith S. Hanover. She has a daughter from her first marriage.

On May 10, 2000 Giuliani announced at a press conference that he was seeking a separation from his wife, Donna Hanover without first informing her of his decision. Giuliani went on to praise Judith Nathan as a "very, very fine woman," and said about his marriage with Donna Hanover, that "over the course of some period of time in many ways, we've grown to live independent and separate lives." The mayor's assertion was contradicted three hours later by his former wife, who said, "I had hoped that we could keep this marriage together. For several years, it was difficult to participate in Rudy's public life because of his relationship with one staff member." Ms. Hanover was referring to Cristyne Lategano, the mayor's former communications director.

Rudy was unable to run for a third term as mayor in 2001 and it was widely expected that he would run against Hillary Clinton for the Senate but he pulled out due to prostate cancer. That and the fact that his marriage infidelities were all over the papers at the time. You see Rudy filed for divorce against Donna Hanover charging "cruel and inhuman treatment." In her response, Hanover blamed the mayor's "open and notorious adultery." She got $1 million a year in alimony and Rudy's request for joint custody of their son was denied by the judge. In fact, the judge ordered that the two teenage children were not allowed to stay overnight with their father if his "companion," Ms. Hanover, was staying over that night. It was a messy divorce.

Not one for subtlety, Giuliani and Nathan marched side-by-side in the St. Patrick's Day parade, where the city's mayor traditionally walks with his wife. He was also filmed attending Mass at St. Patrick's Cathedral with Nathan while still married to Hanover.

In May 2003, Giuliani returned to Gracie Mansion, the official residence of New York's mayor, for a lavish ceremony to marry his former paramour, Judith Nathan. The city's new mayor, Michael Bloomberg, officiated. No word on whether Giuliani's children attended.

Vote for Rudy Giuliani if you believe in traditional Republican "Family Values."

P.S. -- Republican voters should also not lose sight of the fact that Giuliani, as of right now anyway, is still pro-choice, favors same-sex civil unions, gun control and embryonic stem-cell research. No word yet on whether Giuliani intends to do a Mitt Romney and flip-flop on the pro-choice and pro-gay rights issues.

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by Ninong

Saint John McCain, "maverick" Republican, has just named this guy to be his campaign manager. I'm sure we will be seeing a lot more TV ads like this one that was so effective against that uppity Harold Ford, Jr. McCain's new campaign manager was also a paid consultant to Wal-Mart but after that racially-charged "bimbo" ad attacking Harold Ford, Jr., Wal-Mart gave him a pink slip. McCain gave him a promotion.

McCain's new campaign manager was the superior of James Tobin, the New England political director for the Republican National Committee, who was convicted in late 2005 for his role in a scheme to jam phone lines in New Hampshire in November 2002 to block Democratic get-out-the-vote efforts. No word on whether he is experienced at designing clever push-poll questions like the ones that were used by the Bush team against McCain in the South Carolina Republican primary back in 2000. If you can't beat 'em, hire 'em!

P.S. -- More proof that he sold his violin and he's never getting it back.

If you thought McCain's new campaign manager was a scumbag, you ain't seen nuttin' yet! His new communications director did a heckuva job posting to liberal blogs posing as a disgruntled Democrat who was now voting for Republican Tom Kean, Jr. in New Jersey.

Jill Hazelbaker, battle tested in New Jersey this year as Tom Kean Jr.'s Communications Director, is headed to John McCain's presidential campaign. She will serve as Communications Director for McCain's campaign in New Hampshire.

From the NY Times: The Internet postings came from people calling themselves “cleanupnj,” “usedtobeblue” and “AmadeusNJ.” They said they were concerned Democrats, “lifelong liberals,” and they were troubled by the United States senator from New Jersey, Robert Menendez.

But the liberal Democratic hosts of BlueJersey.com, the Web log where such comments were posted, smelled something fishy about the postings, and said they traced them to a computer inside the campaign headquarters of Mr. Menendez's Republican opponent, Thomas H. Kean Jr.






This post under one of her several aliases was a real gem:

Also, you guys are upset about the attacks on Menendez, but isn't it a little bit hypocritical to then attack his press secretary. Not to mention, Kean is winnng so she must be doing something right. Just my thoughts.

She continued to flame back and forth with the Dems even after she was outed as a shill. Here's hoping she is just as successful with McCain's campaign as she was with Kean's.

[zhenya]

Here's hoping she is just as successful with McCain's campaign as she was with Kean's.

That chick is a serious sleazeball.

[Ninong]

Poor Mitt Romney! It must be difficult trying to pass yourself off as more conservative than John McCain when you have such a "moderate" past. Besides the October 6, 1994 letter he wrote to the Log Cabin Republicans promising them that he would do more than liberal Democrat Teddy Kennedy to promote gay-rights legislation, the Boston newspapers are now digging up the transcript from his debate with Teddy Kennedy back on October 25, 1994 when he made the following claims:

"I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have, since the time when my mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years, we should sustain and support it. I sustain and support that law and the right of a woman to make that choice. And my personal beliefs, like the personal beliefs of other people, should not be brought into a political campaign."

[Romney has always stated that he is personally opposed to abortion but that he would support abortion rights for women and that he supports Roe v. Wade. That was before he decided that he would undergo an extreme makeover and emerge as the conservative candidate for the GOP 2008 presidential nomination. He used to favor stem-cell research but now he's against it.]

As recently as February 2005, Romney began to hedge his position on abortion rights by telling a reporter, "I'm telling you exactly what I will do as governor of Massachusetts." Now that he's running for President of the United States, he has unveiled his new platform. The new national platform is nothing like the old Massachusetts state platform. Romney is nothing if not adaptable.

In the 1994 campaign, Romney also proudly labeled himself a moderate. "I'm not a partisan politician," he said in an interview with The Post that fall. "My hope is that, after this election, it will be the moderates of both parties who will control the Senate, not the Jesse Helmses."

[He used to be a moderate but now he's a conservative. He used to claim that he was to the left of Teddy Kennedy but now he's to the right of John McCain.]

In his 1994 debate with Kennedy, Romney also refused to endorse the "Contract With America," which House Republicans had proudly presented as their campaign manifesto, and he balked when Kennedy tried to link him to the Reagan administration.

And, as the Washington Post recently pointed out, Romney voted for liberal Democrat Paul Tsongas in the 1992 presidential primary.

[He used to be an independent, non-partisan moderate but now he's a partisan, right-wing conservative. Why is that so hard for some people to understand? Different situations require different platforms.]

If only his father had named him George W. Romney, Jr., then we could nickname him "Boy George" in recognition of his Karma Chameleon act.

[Ninong]

I have neglected this thread for far too long. It's time we updated the chances of everyone's favorite presidential candidates.

I was glancing through a Harris poll that was just released and it offers insight into the stunning disconnect between the positions favored by certain GOP presidential hopefuls and the American public.

For example: "Seven in 10 (69%) would support enacting legislation which would speed up the removal of troops from Iraq. There are large partisan differences here as well, 90 percent of Democrats and 70 percent of Independents support the enacting of this legislation, but only 44 percent of Republicans feel the same way."

From now on, we must remember to refer to Bush's "surge" idea as the "McCain Doctrine." I'm sure Sen. McCain will want to take full credit for any increase in troop levels in Iraq regardless of whether it works out or not. McCain could still win Republican votes on this point but I suspect his chances in a general election might be hampered when you consider that overall, 69% of Americans support legislation that would speed up the removal of troops. I guess we should refer to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi as "surge suppressors" from now on.

"Two-thirds of U.S. adults (68%) would support legislation requiring companies to provide seven paid sick days a year and two-thirds (65%) would support expanding federal funding for embryonic stem cell research."

Wow! Two-thirds of U.S. adults want the country to adopt "San Francisco values!" Telling the big corporations how to treat their employees is most definitely not a Republican value -- free enterprise and all that good stuff. Next thing you know the public will be demanding an increase in the minimum wage. That figure of 65% supporting expansion of federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research is certainly not good news for Sen. Sam "Brokeback" Brownback. Even in his home state of Kansas, I think it's 53% in favor.

Oh, here we go: "One of the Democrats’ main agenda items, raising the minimum wage from $5.15 an hour to $7.25 an hour, gets support from just over three-quarters (78%) of U.S. adults. Perhaps not surprisingly, there is a partisan difference – Democrats overwhelmingly support this idea (92%), Independents’ support drops a little to 79 percent and just six in 10 (61%) Republicans support raising the minimum wage." That's most definitely a "San Francisco value." Wow! San Francisco values are taking over the Capitol. I'll have to backtrack and find all the votes against raising the federal minimum wage cast by our Republican friends who are running for any national office.

"About eight in 10 U.S. adults support cutting interest rates for student loans (83%) and enacting new regulations to reduce the power and influence of lobbyists in Washington gets almost the same level of support (81%)." Aren't those two more issues Speaker Nancy "San Francisco values" Pelosi has on her agenda? Cutting student loan rates sounds like a commie plot to me and curbing the influence of lobbyists is downright unamerican. I can't believe the American public is falling for all these "San Francisco values." Bill O'Reilly will be horrified.

Rudy Giuliani is probably the GOP candidate who would be the least impacted by the results of those polls but he has other troubles. Somebody stole his secret battle plan that lays out all of his potential weaknesses, like his association with pal Bernie Kerik and his bitter ex-wife, Donna Hanover. Newt Gingrich is a joke but he's actually running, so I guess we should keep track of what's up with him, too. I hope he stays in as long as possible. Newtie has a few bitter ex-wives who would make wonderful copy for the blogosphere. As I mentioned previously, the top three GOP presidential candidates have had a total of 8 wives between them. I can't imagine a better issue to bring up as often as possible to the religious right. Not only that, but every single one of those three leading GOP candidates cheated on every single wife with the future wife! You would think they could see this coming?

And Mitt Romney? This guy is really versatile. He should have no problems adjusting his positions to match the recent polls. After all, those were his positions when he was running for the Senate from Massachusetts. He'll probably wait until after he gets the Republican nomination before flip-flopping back again for the general election. I wonder what Virgil "Jurassic" Goode will think about Romney taking the oath of office on the Book of Mormon? I sent Virgil an email alerting him to the news that Bush intends to nominate a Muslim as our ambassador to the U.N. Still waiting for a reply.