Coulter's comments are even more disgusting when you realize that she isn't even a true conservative believer. She has fully embraced politics as a blood sport, purposedly makes imflammatory comments for the purpose of getting publicity, and is in her line of work strictly for the money.
These aren't off the cuff comments. They are carefully considered and thrown out for the purpose of getting attention.
None of the Rep organizers or candidates have any right to act surprised that she said what she said: of course she said something controversial. That's what they were paying her to do. You don't write Coulter a check so she can come to your event and provide a thoughtful analysis on issues. You hire her because she's the one person shameless enough to get on a stage and say something racist or homophobic.
I really don't understand what on earth is wrong with saying "All options on the table", particularly dealing with a country like Iran.
Whoever the president is will have to negotiate difficult issues with Iran, a country that supports terrorist organizations and appears to want a nuclear bomb. It would be silly for a president to hamstring himself in negotiations for no reason. Although I cannot imagine any situation in which a war with iran would be jusified, we have to understand the realities of diplomacy with a country ruled by religious fanatics. Why would you hamstring your negotiating position beforehand for no reason.
One of the reason you at least theoretically leave options on the table is that it allows us to trade a US security guaranty as a bargaining chip in an omnibus peace deal with Iran.
Saying all options are on the table is a world away from starting a war. Surely, we aren't so naive as to think otherwise.
The Iraq debacle has energized our whole movement, but I don't think it's wise to broadly generalize the experience to our entire approach to all foreign policy.
Why require Congress to sit in session for 280 days? What an awful idea. Too many people have the idea that unless Congress is passing laws, they aren't doing anything. Sometimes it's good to NOT pass laws. Get our big priorities done, oversee the government, and then go home. Our legislature passes too many laws as it is.
Just because the Reps would have seated their candidate regardless of the vote and just because they were the most arrogant government in history, doesn't mean we should be.
I agree with the original voter: if a proper recound is necessary, do it, then seat the person who won. Let's please not turn into a liberal version of the Reps. We should not only have better ideas for America, but we should govern more responsibly. If we do, we will be in power for years and win many more elections the good old fashioned way.
There's a lot of regular folks who are against gay marriage, but the guys who are really crazy against it - the reason is because they are all repressed gays who hate themselves. So the next time you some evangelical or some crazy guy who has started some gay bashing advocacy group, don't be made at them, pity them, because chances are they are gay as a two dollar bill and don't know how to come to terms with it.
It could just be that he's a normal person. The fact is there has to be something wrong with you to want to spend two years of your life as a full time candidate. That's why so many of politicians of both parties are such egomaniacal weirdos. No normal person would want to do it.
I don't think this is a bad thing the Reps are doing. The NCAA is a billion dollar industry that exploits young football and basketball players by essentially acting as a trust.
Now, you can definitely make the argument that this is another example of the Reps focusing on issues that aren't that important as opposed to the ones that people care about, but this isn't necessarily bad policy.
Also, most hardcore football fans "hate" the NCAA. It is an arrogant, inefficient organization. Football fans are not going to be upset about the Reps taking on the NCAA.
I think N. Korea was going to end up with nukes no matter who the president in the US was. When we cut deals with Kim, he cheated on them. This is a problem for us, but it is a bigger problem for China. They screwed up bad, and I think they're just starting to realize what a big problem they now have. The Chinese badly miscalculated this.
I like this. Not sure why it took Pelosi this long to come up with it, but its a nice way of setting forth what Dems will do if they get some power. They are all good progressive ideas, but ones that have appeal across the spectrum. Even if we can't get all those bills passed, let's cue them up and make Dubya veto them.
I don't like it. The fact that Shays went to Iraq 14 times is not a negative for him. It shows that he cared enough to take the trouble of visiting Iraq on his own. Think of it this way, is the statement "Chris Shays went to Iraq 14 times" something Chris Shays wants people to know or doesn't want people to know? I'm guessing he's happy for people to know it.
In fact, you can almost envision the response to this ad: "Dianne Farrell criticizes Chris Shays' position on Iraq, even though she has never been there and has no idea what is going on there. Chris Shays' has been to Iraq 14 times to make sure that our soldiers sacrifices are not vain."
I'm not defending Shays. He's been Bush's lapdog on Iraq. But Farrell's ad emphasizes Shays' positive actions and proactivity. It's a bad ad, imo.
We need to win at least one house of Congress NOW - THIS YEAR. No more moral victories. 2008 will be a completely different ball of wax. Bush won't be nearly the issue he is this election and, frankly, Bush is a huge gift for us right now.
If we can't win either houses of congress this time, and I see one post telling us what a great step forward this was, I am going to scream. We have to get it done, this time. I'm sick of moral victories. This is a midterm election with all branches of govt belonging to the Reps who are scandal-ridden, divided, deeply unpopular and sunk by a disastrous war. If we can't win something this time, we need to go back to the drawing board.
I noticed that a poster bove commented correctly that NJ always polls Dems lower than they actually get. Unfortunately, TN is the opposite, and the Reps tend to do better in the election than they poll. Ford needs to make sure his GOTV operation in Memphis is top of the line because he will have to win big there to pull out the election.
To answer the previous poster's question, Coker is not running from Bush. Coker's problem is actually that he is a fairly moderate republican, so in the primary his main rivals were on the right, and his big challenge is making sure the far right Reps show up to vote. Coker will not be able to run for the middle in this race because he's going to need to shore up his base.
A couple of things to note about TN. First, TN is one of the few states that still has a sizable number of boll weevil style Conservative Democrats. Most of those went Rep in the 80's or 90's, but TN still has a sizable number of them. They will vote for suitable Dems in statewide elections, but are pretty automatic Rep votes in presidential elections. As such, Ford wouldn't be wise to make this a referendum on Bush. Many TN are frustrated with Bush right now and his approval ratings are as low as they've ever been in TN, but there's little viceral Bush hatred. Most TN like Bush on a personal level even if they disagree with his policies. A sizable majority of TN, including many Dems, are very wary of anything that smells "liberal". (Just to give an idea, I have talked to literally dozens of TN Dems who say they will never vote for Hilliary for prez, not because she is too centrist, but because she is "too liberal" or "I just don't like her".) "Family values" issues are a big deal there. Even if they aren't happy with Bush, an anti-Bush cmapign would smell liberal to them.
Second, there have only been two Dems in TN who have been successful since the post Gore/Sasser era: Ned Ray WcWherter and Phil Bredesen. Ned Ray was an old style populist conservative Dem, while Bredesen is more of a DLC/Blair style "good government" Dem. Both of them were/are more conservative than many Rep candidates in Northeastern states. If you're Ford, and your looking for a gameplan for success, you've pretty much have to start with Bredesen's playbook and work from there because there simply isn't much else to work from.
Running as an out-an-out progressive in TN is suicide, particularly for Ford, who comes from an absolutely infamous family of corrupt politicians. Ford is not corrupt, but the family name is a huge problem for him. Everyone in TN knows that name, and there are no good associations. He has to run as a very dependable, competent candidate who is very mainstream. Ford's family would be considered by Tennesseans as "liberal", and anything that smells "liberal" will bring that association (I don't think too many Tennesseans are familiar with "progressive" as opposed to simply "liberal".
He's run a good campaign so far, but I just have a hard time believing a Memphis Democrat can win a state-wide race in TN right now. Most Tennesseans east of Nashville see Memphis as a totally different world, and probably have only been to Memphis to see Graceland. There isn't much trust there. If Coker is smart, he will attend as many UT home football games as possible to highlight the fact that Ford is from the one city in TN where the people root against the Vols (college football is a religion in TN).
I think the reason that there are no bad week narratives is because, by Bush standards, this wasn't that bad of a week. Pissing off Congress and soaring gas prices? Been there, done that. We all know that Dubya is capable of much much worse. Bush has lowered the bar so much that unless he gets 100 soliders killed or committs an impeachable offense, it's not that bad of a week for him.