Who turns 66 today!

And many more, to the gob-smacking consternation of moonbats everywhere.

And to celebrate, head over to the Ace archives to read the thread "Cool Facts About Dick Cheney" (it's a long one)!

Have a great one, ya big lug!

Posted by: Gary at 12:01 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 53 words, total size 1 kb.

Some perspective from Geraghty the Indispensible on "the Big Three" GOP Presidential candidates. Not really as bloody awful as some depressed Conservatives might think.

And for the record, Captain Ed asks "What's the rush?" I second that. I can't see jumping on any particular bandwagon this early in the process.

UPDATE:
Last minute thought. The fear and loathing of a Shrillary Presidency could be the single most significant factor in driving Republican turnout in 2008 for a candidate that the base isn't really that jacked-up about.

Posted by: Gary at 09:25 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 94 words, total size 1 kb.

Effective January 31st.

Um, not to be a dick or anything, but did anyone out there - until just now - realize that she was still there?

Seriously.

Posted by: Gary at 03:02 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 42 words, total size 1 kb.

Yes, it's 21 months before Republicans pick their next Presidential nominee in the Twin Cities. But in this current era of politics, campaigns for the next election start, almost literally, the day after the last one. And as of now, the three declared candidates (officially and unofficially) are Sen. John McCain, NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani and MA Gov. Mitt Romney. And considering the early steps that they're taking, they are getting a jump at hiring the best campaign staff and attracting the early funding.

John Hinderaker at Powerline gives his assessment:

McCain has a conservative voting record, but is widely mistrusted by the Republican base because of his support for restrictions on citizen political activity, his occasional squishiness on issues like tax cuts, and his general willingness to sell out the party when it suits his purposes.

Giuliani is widely admired for his solid stance on the war on terror, his history as a crimefighter, and his leadership qualities and administrative talents. But Giuliani is a social liberal. Not a moderate, a liberal. I can live with that, as long as I'm convinced he will be solid on judges. But can the Republican base? I don't know.

Romney is an impressive guy in many ways, but a relative newcomer to the national scene. His positions on the social issues appear to have "evolved" since he ran for Governor of Massachusetts. And his Mormon faith may turn out to be an issue; I don't know.

There are other credible Conservatives out there who can (and will) run but I don't think they'll get very far because the Big Three (as I will refer to McCain, Giuliani and Romney going forward) are already dominating the pursuit of available resources in terms of support, money and campaign infrastructure. The issue of the GWOT will still be of as much importance (perhaps more so) in selecting a Commander-In-Chief in 2008 as it was in 2004. And my guess is that this is what will ultimately unite Republican voters behind a nominee, once the fighting is over.

None of the Big Three are taking anything for granted. And Captain Ed notes that McCain is even poaching support among Republican Governors - Romney's territory.

On the Dems' side there is Hillary and everyone else (mostly candidates who ran before and lost). The x-factor, I suppose, is IL Sen. Barack Obama. NRO's Rich Lowry sees him as a safety net for Democrats who are growing weary of Her Shrillness and all the baggage she brings to the table. But in terms of pure political power, Hillary isn't going to go away and already has everything she needs to claim the mantle in 2008 - everything that is, except the delegates. But she can muscle them to her side during the primaries. As of now, it's her party until she says otherwise. She hasn't spent the last six years padding a resume of Senatorial prestige just to be pushed aside by some untested punk from Illinois.

[Sidebar: This reminds me of the infamous quote from Dr. Evil in the first "Austin Powers" movie: "I didn't spend six years in Evil Medical School to be called 'mister', thank you very much". End Sidebar]

As for the General Election, the winner will depend on the unaffiliateds, the independents, the "moderates". And this is where Hillary has a big disadvantage. These voters are getting sick and tired of having a President that a huge bulk of the population hates. Yes, I mean "hates", as in rage-inducing wrath. During the Nineties you had the Clinton-haters and over the last six years it's been the Bush-haters. So, all things being equal, they will crave the candidate who is the least partisan (or most bi-partisan), the least polarizing and who at least appears to be the most reasonable.

Not convinced? Just approach a friend, relative or acquaintance who is by and large not very politically-charged and start ripping into the most high-profile leaders of either party and watch the "Oh, jeez" eye-rolling. They've had enough of it. In that sense, I think any of the Big Three has a good chance in the General Election. The task for Conservatives is to vote for the one they find most acceptable but line up behind the eventual winner even if he isn't their first choice. The key is electing a Commander-In-Chief who will prosecute the GWOT decisively and aggressively. If we don't have that in January 2009, how much does all the rest really matter?

Posted by: Gary at 09:45 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 813 words, total size 5 kb.

By one vote, Trent Lott is the new GOP Minority Whip.

Look, as far as I'm concerned, Lott's punishment of stepping down as Majority Leader because of a casual (and badly worded) remark he made honoring a 100-year old man was waaaay out of proportion to the offense and something he heartily apologized for (probably about fifteen times more than was necessary). Especially galling were the attacks aimed at Lott from the party of Grand Kleagle Robert Byrd (KKK-WV).

But Trent Lott is the kind of pork enthusiast who is probably the last choice the Republicans should have made for Whip. Most unwise, IMO.

Dems will have a good yuck over this one. And there's no reason they shouldn't. Maybe it'll take their minds off their own problems. And I have nothing else to add, anyway.

UPDATE:
Paul Mirengoff at Powerline finds a pony.

Posted by: Gary at 01:43 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 147 words, total size 1 kb.

Yeah, there's a lot of debate and finger pointing over why the GOP lost last week. Much of that is irrelevant now. The party needs to focus on the future, not the past. It has to start over. Twelve years is quite a run, even more impressive when you consider that the same party held the White House for six of those twelve years. But the run is over. They need to work on starting a new one.

Andrew Cline, in The American Spectator, looks at how the Republican majority evolved (or devolved) during that time:

Hastert presided over a Republican-controlled House that each year became more cynical, more spend-happy, and more obsessed with maintaining power. This is no knock on Republican ideology or principles. The idea of a "Republican culture of corruption" rooted in GOP ideology is nonsense. Democrats displayed the marks of corruption quite prominently prior to 1994. The root of the problem, as always, is the corrupting influence of power.

Somewhere along the road from revolution to "permanent majority," Republican leaders abandoned the core theme that brought Republicans to power: disgust with Washington insider culture.

Ideology aside, the bulk of voters in the middle - who demand solutions rather than an agenda - got so fed up with Congress that they were willing to take on the risk of allowing Democrats to co-manage our national security. This is a big risk and one that I didn't think they'd be willing to take. I was wrong on that one. And no more than a week later, those voters have already been given reasons to wonder if they hadn't made a huge mistake.

The next two years will determine that. And if by the next go-around voters feel that the country is less safe and less secure, many will feel a strong sense of buyer's remorse. Strong enough perhaps to make them wary of keeping the Democrats in control.

But this in and of itself doesn't mean that Republicans would become the automatic beneficiaries. They can't count on this, nor should they. The GOP needs to return to the idea of fixing problems, some of which they helped create. They need to re-prioritize what issues they will champion. They need to remember that Conservative principles and ideas don't just sell themselves. Like the Contract With America of 1994, voters want and need to see tangible and practical applications of these principles that will benefit them individually rather than move our society and culture in a particular direction.

Last Tuesday, we had a reactionary election because we reached a point where the status quo was no longer acceptable. If Republicans wait long enough, they could find themselves back in control the same way. But we don't have a lot of time here. We're at war with a global Islamofascist ideology that wants Western culture in general and the United States in particular converted or dead.

The Republican party must work hard to heal its wounds and restore confidence with the majority of voters. It's time return to being proactive rather than reactive.

Posted by: Gary at 10:15 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 626 words, total size 4 kb.

Some optimism from folks who have a lot of specific information that we don't.

Courtesy of Jim Geraghty's "Jedi Council".

I am seeing so many different polls that are contradicting each other in so many crucial races I've stopped looking at them. I think back to 2004 and 2002. My gut says the GOP holds onto both chambers. We'll see.

Posted by: Gary at 02:19 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 70 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Be mindful of the present, my master, because it is the measure of the future. These are dark times and turning away your force from them can cause us many unpleasant encountering with the future. Remember what master Yoda used to say: “Always changing the future is.”

Posted by: Flowers England at November 01, 2006 06:04 AM (vcUSw)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Meaning, for Republicans, it's time to close ranks and rally the troops. No more of this bitching and whining about immigration, pork spending, the Foley mess or any other secondary issue.

The President called a meeting of the lesser Conservative radio talk show hosts ("lesser" because Rush Limbaugh is in a class by himself). Among them were Sean Hannity, Neal Boortz, Laura Ingraham, Michael Gallagher and Michael Medved. Conservatives have legitimate complaints about this Congress as well as the President himself, but their focus needs to be on three issues: Terrorism, Taxes and Judicial Appointments. And these folks need to spend the next 21 days taking to the airwaves, hammering home those very themes. Because when all is said and done, these are the three that matter the most.

Criticism is fine. And it's even necessary much of the time. But an important component of keeping the Congress in GOP hands is unity. Lose that and you'll really see a disaster in the making for this country. And all those other issues will fall by the wayside. I respect the opinions of these pundits, but it's time to see the forest for the trees.

Ms. Ingraham likened herself to a sports fan who nonetheless has occasional criticism of the coach. But, she said pointedly on her show: “I am not an advocate for the G.O.P. I’m an advocate for conservative ideas.”

"Alright, gang. This is your coach speaking here. And your coach is telling you to take the ball and run it up the gut!

Losing is for LOSERS!

Posted by: Gary at 10:45 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 324 words, total size 2 kb.

1 I'm thinking more, "Ya know what I like baseball? It's a team sport...." You know what follows...

Posted by: Steve the LLamabutcher at October 17, 2006 11:07 AM (6c8Dx)

2 "Baseball...it's one of my...enTUsiasms. Entusiasms." I think I see a Louisville Slugger back near the fireplace.

Posted by: Gary at October 17, 2006 11:18 AM (PLHs9)

3 Nothing on immigration and that's #1 in peoples' minds.

Posted by: Sandy P at October 17, 2006 02:40 PM (P7TI9)

4 And the Democrats will do exacty what differently on illegal immigration? Besides encouraging it more, I mean?

Posted by: Gary at October 17, 2006 02:48 PM (QoxB+)

5 Freaking Mu.nu hates me. The entire mu.nu domain throws me trackback errors no matter what I do. Anyhoo...I kind of took issue with you, Gary. Hope you don't take it the wrong way, it's juts a political difference of opinion!

Posted by: JimK at October 17, 2006 04:09 PM (mcWsB)

6 Extremely well said and I wholeheartedly agree!!

Posted by: Little Miss Chatterbox at October 17, 2006 11:58 PM (ZfLHN)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

There's been a lot of discussion lately about how the Republican's Get-Out-The-Vote (GOTV) operation was so effective in 2002 and 2004.

How does 2006 look? Read Jim Geraghty's preview.

UPDATE:
...more from Jim.

Posted by: Gary at 04:48 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 41 words, total size 1 kb.

Speaker Hastert has publicly declared that no one in the GOP leadership saw or had knowledge of the Foley IMs. The emails from way back when are one thing. They weren't sexual in nature at all and the parents of the page didn't want them made public. Hastert is either telling the truth or he's one hell of a gambler.

Now if someone on the other side had these IMs and held onto them until five weeks before an election, they had better leave the country or there'll be hell to pay if they're found out.

Lorie Byrd at Wizbang has the money quote here:

If it is learned that a Democrat has been holding those IMs for any period of time for political purposes, the backlash could be as nasty as those disgusting messages.

UPDATE:
Thanks to Scrapiron for the tip below. The link is here.

Posted by: Gary at 04:40 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 168 words, total size 1 kb.

Republican officials are saying that there will be an announcement later today that the party has chosen the host city for it's 2008 Presidential Nominating Convention: Minneapolis-St. Paul.

It seems the rationale centers on the amount of local coverage that would saturate the states of Minnesota, Iowa and Wisconsin. Frankly, it makes sense. Of all the "Blue States" that the GOP have a chance of flipping, Minnesota and Wisconsin are probably the most logical (Iowa went for Bush in 2004, barely).

In 2004, John Kerry won Wisconsin by 11,384 votes (50% to 49%) and Minnesota by 98,319 votes (51% to 48%). All three states used to be reliable Democrat carries but the margins have gotten thinner in the last couple of election cycles. Minnesota was the only state won by Mondale in 1984 (it was his home state).

As far as party affiliation goes, the 2004 exit polls showed the following break-down:
IA: 36% Republican, 34% Democrat, 30% Independent
MN: 35% Republican, 38% Democrat, 27% Independent
WI: 38% Republican, 35% Democrat, 27% Independent

Had Bush carried Minnesota and Wisconsin in 2004, the Electoral College result would have been Bush: 306 v. Kerry: 232. That's a 40 vote swing - not insignificant.

It makes no sense to have the convention in a "Red State". Although its debatable how much influence the site has on the election itself, in a part of the country where the margin is so razor thin it can only help.

Any city in the Northeast or on the West Coast would not have made sense (though in 2004, a rebuilding NY City got a major economic shot in the arm by hosting the Republicans).

So if the "Red States" are getting redder and the "Blue States" are getting bluer, it makes sense to focus on the "Purple" ones. My initial impression here is that this was a good move. I can't help but wonder if this is part of a broader long-term strategy of the RNC.

UPDATE:
Captain Ed (a MN native) is pleased. And he also has the scoop on how the Dems lost out:

At the end, though, [Minneapolis Democrat Mayor R.T.] Rybak tried his best to get the Democrats to pull the trigger first. After hearing that the GOP had decided to go with the Twin Cities, Rybak called his party chair and warned him that the Democrats had to act fast if they wanted to get the nod. Dean couldn't get the DNC to make the decision, and the Republicans held the field. This doesn't necessarily mean that the Democrats couldn't also meet here, but it's unlikely, and that means they have given the GOP a golden opportunity to sweep the Upper Midwest in 2008.

Posted by: Gary at 03:30 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 457 words, total size 3 kb.

My first vote for President in 1988 (at the tender young age of 21, sigh) was for Michael Dukakis. What a dumb-ass.

Rhymes With Right comments on a story about a new aircraft carrier named for George H.W.B.

BTW, if you're interested in learning more about what a great guy he really is, I strongly recommend the autobiographical book of his life through his letters, "All The Best". You will be pleasantly surprised.

h/t: Maggie's Farm

Posted by: Gary at 11:30 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 86 words, total size 1 kb.

I've signed on to the Victory wing of the Republican party. I'm sick of Democrats putting politics over national security and certain members of the GOP base threatening revolt if their hot-button issues aren't addressed to their satisfaction. The most important issue we face is the threat of Islamofascism and Terrorism. If Republicans don't continue to win, then this effort will be doomed. So, victory in the GWOT requires victory for the GOP...now and in the future!

Posted by: Gary at 12:15 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 89 words, total size 1 kb.

This weekend, Senator John McCain attempted to give a commencement address at the New School in New York. He met with some resistance, to say the least.

"Rude college kids and left-wing professors are hardly a new story. But the ugliness of the New School crowd toward Mr. McCain reveals the peculiar rage that now animates so many on the political left. Dozens of faculty and students turned their back on the Senator, others booed and heckled, and a senior invited to speak threw out her prepared remarks and mocked their invited guest as he sat nearby. Some 1,200 had signed petitions asking that Mr. McCain be disinvited."

"We have our disagreements, we Americans. We contend regularly and enthusiastically over many questions: over the size and purposes of our government; over the social responsibilities we accept in accord with the dictates of our conscience and our faithfulness to the God we pray to; over our role in the world and how to defend our security interests and values in places where they are threatened. These are important questions; worth arguing about. We should contend over them with one another. It is more than appropriate, it is necessary that even in times of crisis, especially in times of crisis, we fight among ourselves for the things we believe in. It is not just our right, but our civic and moral obligation."

Note to Sen. McCain:

i-ro-ny n., pl. -nies.: An expression or utterance marked by such a deliberate contrast between apparent and intended meaning.

Posted by: Gary at 09:38 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 353 words, total size 2 kb.

By now everyone has heard that Rep. Tom DeLay is no longer seeking re-election.

So it looks like the Democrats can scratch TX-22 off their list of target races this year. As Tom Bevan at RCP Blog points out:

"President Bush won the 22nd district in Texas with 64% of the vote in 2004, and with DeLay gone the Democratic nominee, former Congressman Nick Lampson, is unlikely to overcome that structural GOP advantage."

Thanks, Tom. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.

Posted by: Gary at 11:45 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 129 words, total size 1 kb.

1 The "hammer" is just one of many hopelessly corrupt republicans. Cant wait until Novemeber when we can srart reclaiming our country from the Bush taliban regime.

Posted by: Dan Quail at April 04, 2006 04:04 PM (Rpc8P)

2 ha, ha - the republicans voted 42 to 8 against the creation of an independant house of public integrity so as to reform congressional ethics, whereas the dems voted 22 to 20 in favor. i once thought that dems were only twice as moral as republicans in light of the abramoff scandal but it now seems that were 3.7 times more moral than your corrupt party.

Posted by: kyle Foley at April 04, 2006 05:01 PM (8Ag0m)

3 Kyle, I understand that you're a hopeless loser screaming for attention. But could you please refrain from double posting the same inane comment on two different posts? You're wasting my bandwidth. You commented the exact thing three posts down. Or better yet, put your comment on the relevant post to begin with.

Posted by: Gary at April 04, 2006 05:11 PM (AI6v2)

4 in other words, you concede that your party is corrupt.

Posted by: kyle Foley at April 04, 2006 08:05 PM (8Ag0m)

5 No, the only thing that I concede is that you are a major-league dork. I don't know whether or not you're familiar with my comment policy. I encourage you to read it. Your "contributions" are borderline annoying but not worth my trouble to delete. Don't push it.

Posted by: Gary at April 04, 2006 09:49 PM (AI6v2)

6 as i recall insulting someone does not prove that a party is not corrupt. face it, you know you're party is morally bankrupt. you're afraid to admit the truth. as for global warming, 85% of americans believe in global warming - you are way out of the mainstream, even evangelicals are joing the fray. what is wrong with sacrificing personal wealth so that our kids can lead a better life? you're selfish, greedy, profligate, lazy.

Posted by: kyle Foley at April 04, 2006 10:32 PM (8Ag0m)

7 also, there must be a time when you admit that global warming is in fact reality. how many years have to go by with the temp increasing at the same rate before you repent? 5? 10? 20?

Posted by: kyle Foley at April 05, 2006 01:37 AM (8Ag0m)

8 actually let's go with how many inches or feet does the ocean have to rise before you repent? 6 inches, one foot, two feet? face it, if you were king of the world you would act after it was too late.

Posted by: kyle Foley at April 05, 2006 04:55 AM (8Ag0m)

9 If I were King of the World, I'd make you my court jester. How much of a total loser does someone have to be to stay up all night and rant about global warning. Where you tossing and turning between 1:37AM and 4:55AM thinking of that last retort? Dude, do yourself a favor and seek professional help (or find someone better if you already are). Ciao.

Posted by: Gary at April 05, 2006 05:53 AM (AI6v2)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

That's the question that JP at Americans For Freedom looks at. He weighes the Arizona Senator's pros and cons and looks at the competition for 2008.

Interesting analysis that I mostly agree with. However, I think either Mitt Romney or George Allen can win if they wage strong and prudent campaigns. McCain isn't my first choice as the GOP nominee two years from now, but I would vote for him if he were.

Critics of Romney and Allen cite their lack of name recognition as a major weakness but that can change pretty quickly if either were to beat McCain or end up a close second in the NH primary. It's a long ways away.

Posted by: Gary at 08:41 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 121 words, total size 1 kb.

Tom Bowler at Libertarian Leanings points us to a story about the group Republican Majority for Choice (RMC) which is placing ads against PA Sen. Rick Santorum in his bid for re-election. The senior Senator from PA, Arlen Specter (who owes his own re-election and current Chairmanship of the Sentate Judiciary Committee to Santorum support in 2004) sits on RMC's advisory board and he's having none of it.

In a letter (reproduced in full at Libertarian Leanings) objecting to these ads, Specter threatens to resign from the advisory board unless the group repudiates them. Specter himself is vociferously pro-choice but he hits the nail on the head with this point:

"I strongly oppose these advertisements. The Big Tent is big enough to include both Rick Santorum and Arlen Specter. The RMC ought not to be in the business of electing Democrats to the United States Senate."

Here, here.

Posted by: Gary at 08:50 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 153 words, total size 1 kb.

In what is obviously a trial balloon being floated by some Senior GOP operatives, there is speculation in Insight Magazine - the companion to the Washington Times - that the VP will be "persuaded to step down" after the mid-term elections because he is viewed in some circles as a liability to the President.

OK, a liability to what? Bush's reelection? Obviously not.

Here's all you need to know about this story:

The sources reported a growing rift between the president and vice president as well as their staffs. They cited Mr. Cheney's failure to immediately tell the president of the accidental shooting of the vice president's hunting colleague earlier this month. The White House didn't learn of the incident until 18 hours later.

Mr. Cheney's next crisis could take place by the end of the year, the sources said. They said the White House was expecting Mr. Cheney to defend himself against charges from his former chief of staff, Lewis Libby, that the vice president ordered him to relay classified information. Such a charge could lead to a congressional investigation and even impeachment proceedings.

"Nothing will happen until after the congressional elections," a GOP source said. "After that, there will be significant changes in the administration and Cheney will probably be part of that."

What you're seeing here is a minor turf war between staffers who think they have more influence than they really do. And the people driving this are those hot shots who would hope to be on the staff of whomever would be Cheney's replacement - giving them an inside track to the Oval Office in 2008.

If anyone is not going to be around anymore after the 2006 elections, it'll probably be that "GOP source" quoted above. Because what he or she did - off-the-record rumor-mongering - is exactly the kind of thing that would get you kicked out of this White House. This little parlor-game speculation will persist for the next year or so, it's come up before. But as Cheney has said he "serves at the pleasure of the President", not some little piss-ant staffer who dislikes him.

Rest assured, Cheney will be Vice-President until Innauguration Day 2009 - much to the consternation of those who see him as the "Anti-Christ".

Posted by: Gary at 04:55 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 463 words, total size 3 kb.

1 This is a shrewd move by the Republicans and bad news for Democrats. Whoever is chosen to replace Cheney will be much better situated to defeat the next Democratic Presidential candidate than any conceivable Republican otherwise would have been. I am surprised the pundits are fixating on this angle.

Posted by: Luke Lea at February 27, 2006 08:40 PM (p5iRa)

2 New poll numbers today - Bush sets record low. There is no GOP frontrunner for 2008. If the 2006 elections go sour watch for Cheney to take early retirement. Bush won't want to a lame duck for his last two years. What else can he do to look like he is doing something?

Posted by: save_the_rustbelt at February 27, 2006 09:42 PM (kdsAK)

3 Actually there is a front runner thus far - John McCain. He handily beats any Democrat - including Hillary - in every head to head match-up poll. But that's beside the point. Bush knew when he chose Cheney that Cheney wasn't going to run. In fact, nobody from his administration will likely run. Rice has said no as well. He is giving the GOP a gift: The chance for a healthy competition among a new batch of Republicans - none of whom can be painted with any negatives from this administration. The field is pretty full, too. My personal choice would be Sen. George Allen of VA. What do the Democrats have? Hillary, past losers (Gore, Kerry, Dean), left-wing Senators like Russ Feingold and former Gov. Mark Warner who won't get any support from the moonbat base. And HRC isn't about to let her one chance slip by. She'll destroy the competition and get destroyed in the general election. And Bush will be back on his ranch. And Cheney will be home in Wyoming. And they'll both be laughing about the whole thing.

Posted by: Gary at February 27, 2006 10:24 PM (IGv1j)

4 Fascist swine Cheney is history. So is Karl Rove. By the way. Tomorrow is my birthday, and I already got a present I've been waiting for since...forEVAH. And that is Bush's numbers. Finally down to 34 percent. I say, about time. (No, I'm not going to tell you how old I am. But I will share with you that every single one of my childhood tormentors/abusers is now either DEAD or in an insititution for the criminally insane, or prison.) Bottom line: He who laughs last, laughs best. The days of the Republican fascist swine are numbered. I can feel the earth moving beneath my feet. John Palcewski http://www.palcewski.com/

Posted by: John Palcewski at February 28, 2006 02:40 AM (7AXdx)

5 John, you forgot you meds again. You should probably double the dose next time to make up for it.

Posted by: Gary at February 28, 2006 07:05 AM (IGv1j)

6 I agree with you Gary. The chances of Cheney retiring are very slim.

Posted by: the Ugly American at February 28, 2006 11:12 AM (TEE0r)

7 The powers of the undead are loosed on the earth. There's no stopping the bionic man. If Cheney didn't exist and somebody wrote a book or screenplay depicting a vice-president who pulls all the strings, lives underground in an undisclosed location, travels with an ambulance and a team of medics, finds recreation in driving to a "hunting" location and blowing away hundreds of cage-raised quail, shoots somebody in the face then blames the victim, etc. etc., it would be considered too farfetched. The truth is really stranger than fiction.

Posted by: Randy at February 28, 2006 11:52 AM (XruVB)

8 This is a shrewd move by the Republicans and bad news for Democrats. Whoever is chosen to replace Cheney will be much better situated to defeat the next Democratic Presidential candidate than any conceivable Republican otherwise would have been. - What have you been smoking? No one in their right mind would want to bring themselves closer to Dubya if they have a remote chance in 2008. -RP

Posted by: Richard Perle at February 28, 2006 05:21 PM (BxYE5)

9 'But as Cheney has said he "serves at the pleasure of the President", not some little piss-ant staffer who dislikes him.' I'd like to see the source for this quote. If he really said that he serves at the pleasure of the President, it shows a profound ignorance of the nature of his office. Does he really not understand that he was elected to it?

Posted by: turningfool at March 01, 2006 01:04 PM (x/2qm)

10 Actually, Cheney has said this many times - every time they speculate that he'll retire. Here is one instance in particular: http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1002/102102nj1.htm Scroll to the end: "In August [2002], Cheney said publicly that he's quite ready to run again with Bush - provided Bush wants him to. This was widely seen as an effort to quell worries about his health. But earlier in the summer, in a quiet moment in his office, Cheney was asked the same question. "Like everybody else," he said, "I serve at the pleasure of the president." If you do a google search on that quote you'll find it's been said by many administration officials including Colin Powell and Andy Card. I think he understands full well that he was elected to the office of VP. But nobody voted for the bottom of that ticket. Bush is the boss and he runs that administration. Cheney stays or goes on Bush's say-so. Spiro Agnew resigned the Vice-Presidency in 1973. You don't think that wasn't Nixon's call?

Posted by: Gary at March 01, 2006 01:49 PM (PLHs9)

11 Anyone who thinks Dubya's gonna dump Dick doesn't understand what is going on in the White House and Congress. This isn't partisan power politics anymore. Dubya got past 2004 so politically, he is in "What? Me worry?" mode. Dub and Dick are out to change the "soul" of the US Government. Those two feel they have a free hand to fundamentally change the role of the presidency into a much more powerful and autonomous entity. And they are garroting the two party system and any opposition to do it. The next two years may very well result in a significant Constitutional crisis. To some this will be the taking back of government from the "L" folks. To others, what is left of the democracy bequethed by the Founding Parents is in significant jeopardy of becoming a nationalist fascist state. Scary times when the guys on top don't give a damn about what people think about what they are doing and don't have to worry about retribution from the ballot box. :shock:

Posted by: zippy at March 01, 2006 02:03 PM (OxI/Y)

12 The only way Cheney will step down is if he is indicted by Fitzpatrick. Other than that, Bush is nominally in charge - but Cheney is basically running the country in it's day-to-day details. Bush wouldn't even speak to the 9/11 comission without him. Cheney's possibly the most powerful veep in history, and there's no way he'd give that up.

Posted by: jim at March 01, 2006 05:55 PM (hqYD2)

13 Gary, I was pointing to the distinction between an elected official like Cheney, who the President does not have a legal power to fire, and appointed officials such as Powell and Card, who he does have the legal power to fire. The phrase "I serve at the pleasure of the President," popularized on the West Wing, has been previously applied only to those who the President can hire and fire at will. Of course the reality of it may be that the Pres can successfully press a VP to resign, but if the VP were to refuse, the Pres does not have the power to fire him. There have been past presidents who would have liked to get rid of their VP's, but were unable to do so. The phrase is badly and misleadingly used by Mr. Cheney, in a way that is contrary to law. Perhaps it's more of a semantic point than one about current power relations. My own prediction: Cheney resigns soon after the November elections, claiming health reasons. Dubya appoints Jeb. The Bushies don't want McCain; they do want to continue their dynasty.

Posted by: turningfool at March 01, 2006 09:33 PM (x/2qm)

14 turnignfool: Just confirms what a psychologist speculated a month or so ago about Dubya's personality. For lack of a better concept descriptor, he has the ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in political matters because of his singular focus. I don't think the Conservatives would accept a Bush III. What's the old 'ism-Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, Shame on me. Certainly, the Democrats would not take that passively. And given the the manner through which a tenuous Bush victory in 04 after a non-victory in 2000 was achieved, I don't think Jeb could garner the support of that fragile coalition, or maybe fortuitious crossing of stars, the Dubya had. Besides that Fitzerald is after his folks in Ohio. I don't think there are that many votes in Ohio to steal......

Posted by: zippy at March 02, 2006 10:09 AM (akHM/)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Democrats seem to be all excited about yesterday's election of Rep. John Boehner (pronouned BAY-ner, btw) as the new House Majority Leader. They're painting this as a bad thing for the GOP, which makes no sense. Rich Galen in his Mullings column sums up why they're wrong much better than I could.

John Boehner's personality is the polar opposite of DeLay's. Where DeLay is pugnacious, Boehner is conciliatory. Where DeLay is aggressive, Boehner is understanding. Where DeLay is easy to dislike, Boehner is very easy to Â… like.

Once again the old saying, "Be careful what you wish for; you may get it" has come to pass. The Democrats in the House wanted to get rid of Tom DeLay. They did.

They got, in his place, John Boehner, a talented leader who will be very difficult to make into the pro-lobbyist, anti-reform monster the House Democrats are looking for.

Republicans will retain the House in the elections of 2006.

The prospect of victory just got bleaker yesterday for Democrats.

Oh, and apparently unemployment dropped to 4.7% last month - the lowest in four years. Heh.

Posted by: Gary at 09:15 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 268 words, total size 2 kb.

Congratulations to Rep. John Boehner on his election as the new GOP Majority Leader.

I was hoping for John Shadegg, but in the long run it looks like it was Shadegg's candidacy that at least kept Blunt from getting the vote count he needed to win on the first ballot. The result forced a run-off and Shadegg bowed out, leaving Boehner the winner 122-109. Had Blunt be chosen it would have been a disaster and more of the same. At least this is a step in the right direction.

Boehner is committed to reform, has no taint of Abramoff and - to his credit - has not introduced one single spending earmark during his entire service in the Congress. Hugh Hewitt posts highlights of his Jan. 16th interview with Boehner.

Now if I can just restrain myself from referring to him as "boner"...

Posted by: Gary at 04:40 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 147 words, total size 1 kb.