Politico Has Article On Edwards Which Mentions Confederate Flag

An article about John Edwards and his stance on immigration compares his stance to Spitzer's license plan to a stance on the confederate flag.  I think the Politico is trying to make JRE look like he is racist.  CBS has this article on their web page too, which has the reference to the confederate flag.  Why would a person compare JREs stance on immigaration to the confedrate flag unless they were pointedly trying to make a racist remark.  That the Politico would put this in the article shows a bias against John Edwards.  Is the Politico trying to accuse John Edwards of racism.  I have seen them talk about his ads when he did not have enough african americans in the ad, and not talk about other candidates who had no african americans in their ads.  

I have no problem on the story on JRE about his stance on immigration, but I do have a problem with the Politico trying to infer that John Edwards is a racist.  I would like all John Edwards supporters to email or call the Politico and tell them to quit their attacks on John Edwards and accusing him of being racist.  

There's more...

John Warner - To Reveal Future Tomorrow

Basically, if we take the context of how he's doing it; where he's making the announcement, fundraising, age; it looks like a retirement announcement to me.  It's been widely expected, but now we've been given a timetable for an answer.  A day's wait.  

I have personally thought he had been avoiding announcing his future plans so he can paint himself in a way so his apprentice/heir, whatever you want to call him, Davis, looks like the next "John Warner" for Virginia.  

Sen. John Warner (R-Va.) will announce tomorrow at the University of Virginia whether or not he intends to seek a sixth term, according to two top Virginia sources. Warner is planning a 2 p.m. news conference on the grounds of the Charlottesville, Va., school, where he took his law degree over 50 years ago. The Virginian will give his speech near the statue of Thomas Jefferson on the steps of the school's famous Rotunda, adding a fitting Warner flourish to the event.

Timeline for announcing plans, full article here: http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0 807/Warner_to_announce_tomorrow_whether_ he_will_seek_reelection.html

There's more...

GOP Root For Hillary

The GOP are rooting for Hillary Clinton to win the Democratic Primary.  The GOP are not very motivated right now, but they still have hope left since it looks like the Democrats will be nominating Hillary Clinton to run for president in 08.  

The GOP thinks that Hillary will be a motivating force for the GOP to come out and vote.  They are taking a page from Karl Rove and are doing what they can to help it alone.

"Conversations with Republicans gathered here for the biennial Midwest Republican Leadership Conference reflect a party unenthused or just plain uncertain about their potential White House nominee. But GOP faithful also seem quite confident and even upbeat about the prospect that the senator from New York is, as Rove put it, the "prohibitive favorite to win the nomination."

"That likelihood, they say, is good news for any hopes of keeping the White House and getting other Republicans on the ballot elected."

"Asked if Clinton being the nominee would improve his party's chances both nationally and in Indiana, Howard County (Ind.) GOP Chair Craig Dunn got excited. "Absolutely, absolutely!" he exclaimed animatedly, grinning widely. "We've never elected a president of the United States who started off with 45 percent unfavorable ratings!"

"Todd Rokita, Indiana's secretary of state and a Romney backer, emphasized, given his is role as the state's election officer, that the election next year would be fair and accurate. But as somebody with further statewide ambitions, Rokita couldn't entirely hide his delight at the prospect of a Clinton nomination. Hoosiers "have had enough of the Clintons and they don't want a return to that," he said."

"But to Clinton's camp, the lavishing of GOP attention on the former first lady is seen as nothing short of flattery.

"Noting Clinton's uptick in both national and state polls, spokesman Mo Elleithee said the GOP is "attacking her and making her center of attention because they see these trends"

If Hillary is nominated it looks more and more like it is going to the 1990s all over again.  The Clintons v Repugs.  The democrats are always stuck in the past playing over the same old feuds.  

To me it is like the Ground Hog Day Movie with Bill Murrey.  Living the same day or years in the case over and over until we get it right.  I was hoping the democrats would leave the past and go into the future, but it looks like it ain't going to happen.

There's more...

Guys With Hair Do Win Elections

Expert unveils election forcasts based on hair lines.

It is true of what I have been saying.  The candidate with the best hair will win the presidency.  There have only been two presidents elected that was bald.  After reading this story it confirmed my ideas.  I believe that the cadidate that will win the 2008 presidency will be tall with lots of hair.  I don't think McCain, Guiliani, or Thompson has a prayer.  On the democratic side Obama is bald and Hillary is too short.  Edwards is tall and has the hair, but so does Richardson, Dodd, and I think Biden.  I think Kucinich is too short, and Gravel does have the hair, but his age is against him.

I know, everyone is going to say what crap this is.  I thought it would be fun to talk about this, since it is one of the things that sounds like a joke, but could be something to ponder on.

Anyway, if you would like to read something amusing, the web site to the article is below.

http://investors.com/breakingnews.asp?jo urnalid=56001021

There's more...

Is the Politico F@ckin' Serious??!

A right wing writer based in Virginia filed this story for the Politico today: "Left could push pro-Israel voters to GOP." The story is not labeled as an editorial. Although it's also posted in the IDEAS section of the website which includes other editorials and pieces of analysis, this article is posted on the front page and the byline merely reads "by Jennifer Rubin."

The point is that Rubin's story is being presented as an objective news story, filed at 6:23 AM by one of the Politico's staff writers. It's clearly not and includes a number of inflammatory and frankly ridiculous assertions regarding where the mainstream of the Democratic Party stands on Israel.

Some of the highlights:

-- A small but significant group of overwhelmingly Democratic members of Congress have consistently voted against efforts to support Israel in its continual struggle against terrorists and now an Islamist Hamas government in Gaza. These votes demonstrate that anti-Israel views are a minority in Congress -- but a minority composed primarily of the most left-leaning members of the Democratic Caucus.

-- In 2003, presidential candidate and former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean declared in a speech that "it's not our place to take sides" between Israel and the Palestinians, an apparent repudiation of our decades-long special relationship and security obligations with Israel. Dean, now chairman of the Democratic National Committee, was widely criticized for these comments and subsequently argued he did not intend to alter the U.S.-Israel relationship.

-- Meanwhile, the Republican Party has never been more pro-Israel, in part because of the influence of Christian evangelicals who are devoted to Israel and support its battle against terrorists

Here's the BEST part... give me a break...

-- Dan Gerstein, a Democratic consultant and Politico columnist, candidly acknowledged that religious faith, generally higher on the right, accounts for the growing support within the Republican Party, while the "faith vacuum" on the left leaves some on the other side of the aisle less enamored of Israel.

First off, if the Politico wants to be taken seriously as a publication that presents fair and mainstream political views... then they really shouldn't be running this nonsense at all. If they feel like this is a legitimate perspective then at least clearly identify the piece as an editorial.

Here's the article in it's entirety. Enjoy and be outraged.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/070 7/4986.html   

There's more...


Advertise Blogads