Anyone know when Bush is gonna "officially" announce his re-election bid?

Re-election? Say what?! He needs to be "elected" first. I would ask when is he gonna call the Supreme Ct into special session to declare him president for life

See Dean tonight on C-SPAN, 7:00PM Eastern.

Having never heard him speak, I am looking forward to it. Many can write a good speech, but not deliver it effectively.
This gives us a chance to use our own eyes and ears for evaluation.

Maybe there should be a discussion thread afterward.

Is this server on Pacific Time? I just posted the above at 11:47 AM Central Time.

He was on last night at 7, try c-span.org for streaming, Dean is on first (god bless alphabetical order). Also, for all y'all in the NYC area, you should come to the March 5th Dean Meetup at Essex Restaurant at 120 Essex Street, Lower East Side, NYC at 7:00PM. Gov. Dean will be there! We're expecting to rock NYC press with 300+ people from the tri-state, leading to mainstream press stories about the strength of Dean's grassroots ('netroots?). Email me at baddriving@hotmail.com if you need more information...

Sorry, I was repeating the announcement in the e-mail I had just received from DeanForAmerica. Seeing as how I last checked my e-mail at 5:00PM Central, yesterday, that means they sent the announcement only one hour before the broadcast. Damn! I really wanted to see that. I'll try the streaming video, but would have preferred to videotape it.

Have signed up for two Dean Meetups so far, but both cancelled. It looks like not much entusiasm here in the MidWest.

Idea-
Someone needs to make the following map

1- start with the famous county by county red/blue map
2- determine what the national average rate of particpation in the service is- 1 in 100, 1 in 500- whatever it is
3- determine, by county, the level of participation vs. the national average.
Counties below get colored yellow. Counties above are colored Khaki
4- now line the maps up side by side and also do blow upds of the urban areas

You will find that the red ounties are underserving the military while the blue are overserving (vs. the national average).

It is easy to be a super-patriot when someone else's neighborhood faces the danger and you get a tax cut.

(For the record- I support the war- this its a necessary albeit sad clean up of our mistakes in the cold war- and Iraq is a big stinking mess for our efforts in the 80s-
but I am appalled by the uneven sacrifice involved- some getting service and others getting tax break!)

I miss my Netscape spell checker.

They have to have 5 "confirmed" for the Meetup. Yea, it's on upper left coast time here.

Okay, okay, I'll watch Dean. There was a good report on him in last week's Newsweek.

I'll watch him and try to think of how he'll appeal to moderate Democrats and independents. That's the key.

Despite Mydd's feature of Dean on this board, I have serious doubts about Dean's electability. He's still a marginal, purist candidate, while Senator Kerry is more experienced, stately, and mainstream...but it's only February.

Not getting five people out of the whole Chicago Suburban region is sad. There were only three confirmed in South Suburban (including me) and more than five signed up. Less than five signed up in heavily right-wing North Suburban area (Phil Crane district). South Suburban is Henry Hyde district (stop cringing!) but he has had 40+% opposition in the last two elections. You would think that a meetup could be made. I would have been happy to talk to two other people.

Dougie,

Where do you get residence of origen data for servicemen? I don't see it on the census form. Is it available from military recruiters?

Bush is only indulging Blair by going along with another resolution push. It is a fruitless path because no matter what the outcome, it will never be enough to satisfy the lunatic left. Why waste time and energy even trying?

The left has absolutely no credibility. We had no UN resolution before Clinton started the bombing in Bosnia. Where was the outrage then? The lunatic fringe will always selectively go after the only conservatives. They are not credible, so they should be ignored.

Unilateral means alone. Just because the lunatic fringe repeats it over and over again does not make it true. We are not alone. But we need only our own best interests in mind when we do act. We do not need the likes of France and Cameroon to give us the OK. The largest abuser of human rights (China) should not be able to stymie the staunchest supporter of human rights in the world (that would be us).

Blair will soon realize that the UN will never act in a cognitive and deliberate way. The UN is full of countries that have always opposed any type of action, not just military action. The UN should be disregarded as a bureaucratic boondoggle.

I have an idea we will start a new more relevant organization. Just like the past obsolete Organization of States, the UN will fade into oblivion.

ChicagoBurbs,

If you don't mind coming into the city for a Dean Meet-up, we'd love to have you here! The last time I checked, there were 35 RSVPs, so it will definitely make.

I think it's a damned shame that the pro-choice crowd in southeastern PA has veto power over such candidates as Klink. He was left for dead in 2000, and came within three points of beating that reactionary Santorum. So the pro-choice crowd cuts their nose off to spite their face. I think, if given the proper support, Klink or Casey could beat either Spector or Toomey.

"I'll watch him and try to think of how he'll appeal to moderate Democrats and independents. That's the key."

FoS, you are right. The funny thing is he is not an ideologue at all - he's pragmatic above all else. He's been portrayed as liberal because of Iraq, even though he isn't strictly anti-war. At least that has gotten him some attention and being portrayed as liberal isn't such a bad thing in the primaries. He's a fiscal tightwad and makes kids his priority, which should play well in the suburbs. He believes alot of things should be left to the states, not federally dictated, and he has a libertarian streak. New Hampshire will be the test for Dean, since independents can vote in the primary. If he wins, it will be because of the independents, and then we will know he is for real.

One of my best friends voted for Bush2 and is so disgusted with the current state of the economy and the spectre of war, he's now a Dean supporter.

I would venture to guess there are a lot more out there in the nation.

Dean-Clark 2004
Economic Security/Homeland Security

Did I hear correctly that Gov Dean is going to be on one of the Sunday talk shows this upcoming weekend?

The "pro-choice crowd"? You mean 95% of the Democratic Party? If I were voting there and my choices were pro-choice Specter and anti-choice Klink, think I might have to vote Republican for the first time in my life.

Its true for no money at all and no support for National Democrats Klink still almost beat Santorum. The only reason he is in the Senate because he got in the GOP Sweep of 94. If he is not defeated the next time around he will be in the Senate forever. Abortion is an issue Dems need to back of off of bit. Their message should be we will always support abortion in cases or rape, incest, ect. and in most other cases, but we believe there are too many of them and we want to reduce abortions by one-fourth in 4 years. This can be reduced by a combination of proper education, contraseptives ( morning after pill) and some conversation about the virtues of abistence. This would put big pressure on the GOP,because the Dem's would have a clear plan to reduce abortions and could win some of these so called Economic/ Labor Dems turned off by the abortion culture. It also sticks to the GOP by supporting a combo of abistence education, condoms, and such. Most people are in the middle on abortion they support, but see problems with it from a moral standpoint. I think pro-choice in you face abortion on demand culture needs to back off.

JobyTodd,

Dean will be on Face The Nation this Sunday. He will also be on CNBC's Capitol Report on March 4.

Wouldn't my previous post by great position to take by a Democratic Candiate for Pres, especially in places like Ohio, Missouri, West Virginia, Arkansas, etc.

For those of you interested in Dean Meet-ups, don't despair. The Howard Dean meet-ups have grown by 81% in the last week alone! I signed up for the Dean Meet-up in Philadelphia last month and only three of the seven people confirmed--so it was cancelled. Next week there are 44 people from Philly signed up and most of them have already confirmed.

Dean Meet-ups are up to almost 3200 people nationwide now. The next closest democratic candidate is John Kerry at 514 people.

It's almost comical how the press hasn't caught on to how Dean is electrifying the grassroots. They're so obsessed with insider stuff (like who's hired whom as campaign manager, etc...) and are totally missing the Dean phenomenon sweeping the democrats since his speech last weekend.

By the way, I'm totally psyched because I get to hear Howard Dean in person this weekend at a Philadelphia fundraiser.

No offense Tim, but your abortion position is basically the position of the Democrats. It hasn't helped anything that pro-choice people seem somewhat unrelenting, but the truth is it is the right who are unrelenting. You mention using combinations of contraceptives, morning after pill, and education to help reduce abortions. What the heck do you think we have been trying to do these past ten years? That is exactly what we have been trying to do only to be blocked and forced into a corner by the Republican Congress and Christian Coalition. Plus they want people to look only to abstinence as a solution to pregnancy and I think most Americans feel this is naive and preachy.

The only thing that the Democratic Party supports that is not in step with most Americans is the so-called "partial-birth abortion". Partial-birth arbortions are supposed to mean third trimester abortions. Unfortuantely, the name is misleading to make people believe that the fetus is being born when the fetus is to be aborted. That is absolutely NOT true, but most Americans don't know that and that is why they have moral quandries when it comes to abortions. That is not to mention that abortions that are in the third trimester make up less than two percent of abortions. Not only that but 99 percent of third trimester abortions happen only when the mother's life is in danger. This is a situation in which most Americans feel an abortion should be legal. So that tiny one percent is questionable. Meaning that it is a judgement call by the doctor. Since abortions are a private matter and should remain so, the details aren't completely known. If someone actually drafted a bill that clearly stated what a "partial birth abortion" is and thus clarifying what is being banned (which is why the Democrats have rightly been opposed to those proposed bans) then we could make some headway on compromise.

I don't mean to get techincal Tim but abortion is a polarizing issue. Most Americans are in the middle, but in the minds of the Christian Right you are either for or against. They want to sound like they are being reasonable, but when we Dems come to talk about compromise, they block everything. This keeps bringing their people going to the polls and making the Dems sound sex crazed and hungry for blood.

I am definitly with Tim on this. Dems need to moderate their tone on abortion. That is an issue which alot of Americans are just plain uncomfortable with. Dems need to isolate the GOP on the extreme on the debate and take the middle ground. The issue can help Dems nationally and can be taken off the table in states where abortion hurts Dem (i.e. mostly the South).

Christ, our tone is moderate, and it always has been. Remember "safe, legal, and rare"? The Democratic position on abortion rights is sensible and moderate. Tim and crimsontide don't know what they're talking about.

And in case y'all are wondering, Tim's a right-winger. Check out his posts on the "War Thread" below.

Note two Tims post on the board. I'm the Tim who is the big supporter of gun control and the one who was critical of Zell Miller. The abortion post was mine, I am oppossed to the war. In the words of McGovern, its a case of mistaekne identity.

Kevin, your position that you would vote for Spector over Klink is one of the main reasons why the Democratic party is in the state it's in.

On that poll out of Illinois, it's just more proof that Fitzgerald is a dead man. The GOP has at least a 50-50 chance of holding all their other seats, but that seat is as good as gone. The article also gave voice to another reason Fitzgerald is doomed...he'll likely get a primary challenge. Either the right wingers will try to knock him off on charges of being a RINO or the state GOP will try to put a more attractive candidate in his place.

Either way, whether it's Hines or another running, the Dems have that seat and their California-like takeover of Illinois will be complete.

Come again? Paleo, if you are so determined to involve the government in women's reproductive systems, then go right ahead. I choose not to put the state in the business of forcing women to have babies.

I am from Illinois, and I am loving this. Come 2004, good riddance to bad rubbish. Adios, pete.

Oh, yes, about that comment, Ilinois is now the democratic fortress of the midwest.

Glad you're all gloating about Fitzgerald's likely fate in IL. By way of balance --

FL - Likely open Dem seat (Graham running for President); FL leans GOP.

GA - Open Dem seat (Miller retiring); Dems in disarray after 2002 statewide drubbing.

NC - Possible open Dem seat (Edwards running for President); even if he bows out of presidential campaign early, he's weakened. GOP disarray might provide counter-balance, leaving this a tossup.

SC - Possible open Dem seat (Hollings considering retirement); Dems have no real talent to succeed him in a strong GOP state.

The Dems will surely be playing defense in the Senate in 2004. Based on the available data, you've got to give the GOP a 70-80% chance of holding the body and/or increasing its majority.

Sorry, but Hollings has all but said he's running again. So mark that seat down as safe. And Edwards apparently doesn't have much to worry about in keeping his seat, for polls show him crushing Burr by 20%. And if Graham fails to win the nomination and comes back to the Senate race, he wins again easily.

The only one of those four seats the Dems really have to worry about is Georgia (which is going to be a free-for-all). Besides the sure loss in Illinois, the GOP also has to worry about Alaska (Knowles has to favored over Murkowski's offspring), Kentucky (Bunning vulnerable), and Pennsylvania (threat of Specter getting knocked off in primary), not to mention the prospect of potential GOP retirements in Missouri (Bond seems likely to quit), Oklahoma (suspiscion that Nickles may quit is growing), and Ohio (Voinovich may decide to hang it up).

Further predictions from AZGOP--the sun will rise in the west tomorrow, and somewhere, it will rain.

Everybody knows the GOP is likely to hold the Senate. Forgive us for still being pleased at the prospect of depriving Peter Fitzgerald of a job.

KevinA: Thanks for your candor. I never claimed that my brief analysis was original or even earth-shattering. However, all this "Fitzgerald is gone" mania left me thinking that some Dems saw that as the one seat they need to restore "parity" to the Senate.

I'm a realist at the end of the day.

P.S. Toomey doesn't have a chance against Specter in the primary (I'm originally from PA), and Hollings -- at 80+ -- is vulnerable in a strong GOP state even if he doesn't hang it up on his own accord.

Taking back the Senate would require a great deal of luck. We'd have to knock off not only just Fitzgerald, but probably at least two more of the other possible GOP targets. Lisa Murkowski in AK might be beatable if Knowles runs, and we might have shots at Bond in MO (talk he might retire) and Bunning in KY. But at the same time we would have to be lucky with the tough Southern seats we'll be defending. The best scenario would probably be a Dem presidential candidate that takes down Dubya and has some kind of coattails. Overall, not impossible, but less than 50/50, at least unless the landscape changes.

For KevinA

Along with the very likely fact that the GOP will hold onto the Senate in 2004, and that it will rain somewhere tomorrow, THE SUN WILL RISE IN THE EAST!!!!! See what the teachers unions have done to you. You are a perfect illustration of why we need school vouchers!

PS - The earth is round.

I am a super liberal independent from Illinois, and I was thrilled when the Dems took control of government last November. Still, I cannot say that I dislike Senator Fitzgerald. He is moderate on the environment (my number one issue) and is not beholden to the Republican Party due to his own wealth, and therefore lack of necessity for national funds. Still, the thing that I like about him the most is his nomination of U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald (no relation) in Chicago. Pat Fitzgerald is party blind, and damn, he sure is shaking up the political system here. Before you know it, Governor Ryan, Speaker Madigan, House Minority Leader Lee Daniels, and Dick Mell will all be hauled off to federal prison. In the Land of Lincoln, the Dems and Republicans all deserve whats coming to them. Thank you Senator Fitzgerald.

Mike the troll,

KevinA grew up in a state

1. One of the most consevative in the US

2. Has right to work laws and is very anti-union

3. Has been called the "Crown Jewel of the Republican Party"

Guess what the answer is?

South Carolina

Your argument looks pretty stupid now, doesn't it?

ga6thdem,

who or what was your post in response to?

What is the opinion of "Instapundit" from the readers of this blog?

Your comments to Kevin A regarding his education.

Andrew Sullivan found this quote:

"What if [Saddam] fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction? ... Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal." - president Bill Clinton, 1998.

If the Dems in GA don't so something Isakson is going to walk away with that Senate seat. Funny thing is I am not thrilled with that. I wish Kingston would run. Both parties better do something or Isakson is just going to waltz into the Senate

How is Edwards going to win the Dem nomination with quotes like this coming from his camp?

. Edwards pollster Harrison Hickman touted his candidate's support of Bush's efforts on homeland security and the war with Iraq to The Charlotte Observer, adding, "[O]ther than tax breaks for the richest one percent, I don't know that there's any major issue" where Burr is more supportive of Bush than Edwards. Quotes like that could serve quite nicely in negative ads against Edwards by his Democratic primary opponents.

Lieberman has a great line that he's using:

Lieberman, the party’s vice presidential candidate in 2000, said: “I know how to beat George Bush. Al Gore and I did in 2000.”

Yep, the sun does rise in the east. Ga6th is right, it's that education that I got in the super-GOP, Confederate flagwaving state of South Carolina. Or perhaps I was confused by that scene at the end of "Superman" where Chris Reeve makes the world spin in the other direction.

It would be strange to have a pro-choice Southern Rpeublican in the Senate. Based on the beating he gave Christine Geoffrey in 1999, it seems likely that Isakson will not be deterred by a right-wing primary challenge.

Casey could definitley win in PA for Senate. Problem is that he wants to be Governor. Democrats need to get it together in PA. Not only is PA going to be a battleground state in 2004, there are a few House seats that could go either way, and Santorum is beatable in 06.

Hollings probably is vulnerable, but the people of South Carolina seem to be big on seniority which would likely help him.

Georgia remains to be seen, how popular is the Perdue administration?

You can't compare Isakson's primary challenge with his run for the Senate. In 1996 Isakson ran for the Senate. He was challenged from the right by Guy Milner and Isakson lost in the primary. The Ga 6th congressional district is not that representative of the state as a whole. Isakson's problem is going to be with the social conservatives in south and central GA. AC has a point. Jack Kingston probably would motivate the social conservatives more than Isakson would.

And, boy, would it be wild to have a Lincoln Chafee style Republican representing the state of GA in the Senate!

As far as Perdue's popularity-last poll I saw had it under 50%. That has been a while back so I don't know if it has increased or decreased.

I like my new name from ga6thdem. But, I must say that it appears that ga6thdem is not too intelligent either:

Mike the troll,

KevinA grew up in a state

1. One of the most consevative in the US

2. Has right to work laws and is very anti-union

3. Has been called the "Crown Jewel of the Republican Party"

Guess what the answer is?

South Carolina

Your argument looks pretty stupid now, doesn't it?

This post makes no reference to the fact that I said that his education illustrates why we need vouchers nor does it make any reference to the subject of education at all. Only after some clarification from ga6thdem can we finally understand that he is attempting to say that the Republican Party is to blame for KevinA's poor education.

PS - Doesn't it just annoy the heck out of all you liberals that GWB is President? I can't wait to hear liberals after GWB wins the 2004 election. You will all be going nuts, right? Oh, I'm gettin' a chubby just thinking about it!!!!

As posted over at the DailyKos:

'Ari Fleischer in today's New York Times: "Iraqi actions are propaganda, wrapped in a lie, inside a falsehood." '

And HE DIDN'T EVEN CREDIT CHURCHILL!!!!!!!! The Note will be outraged! Outraged!!!!!

Ya know what annoys the heck out of me, Mike the Troll? That GWBush is destroying the federal budget. That he is leading this nation into a disastrous foreign policy blunder while ignoring an unstable regime that's about to start cranking out nukes like Chevys off an assembly line. That he underfunds homeland security, then blames his own party for it. That he admits global warming is happening, but refuses to do something about it. That he seems intent on destroying the Bill of Rights, while treating the 2nd Amendment as some sort of sacred cow.

I'm also annoyed that Republicans like you still insist on ignoring these issues and supporting their guy like this is some kind of sporting event. And I'm really annoyed at immature idiots who use phrases like "I'm getting a chubby."

Mike the Troll,

You get a chubby thinking about Bush?

And you STILL blast Dean for Civil Unions?

Don't Ask. Don't Tell.

Anyway, the Turkish parliament approves US troops.

264-yes
251-no

Now CNN says it failed and their is going to be another vote Tuesday. They need 4 more votes.

"They need 4 more votes." No, they need $4 Billion more from Bush.

"Sorry, but Hollings has all but said he's running again. So mark that seat down as safe. And Edwards apparently doesn't have much to worry about in keeping his seat, for polls show him crushing Burr by 20%. And if Graham fails to win the nomination and comes back to the Senate race, he wins again easily.

The only one of those four seats the Dems really have to worry about is Georgia (which is going to be a free-for-all). Besides the sure loss in Illinois, the GOP also has to worry about Alaska (Knowles has to favored over Murkowski's offspring), Kentucky (Bunning vulnerable), and Pennsylvania (threat of Specter getting knocked off in primary), not to mention the prospect of potential GOP retirements in Missouri (Bond seems likely to quit), Oklahoma (suspiscion that Nickles may quit is growing), and Ohio (Voinovich may decide to hang it up)."

Gfyfe, I'm afraid your argument is too one-dimensional. Hollings is NOT safe for re-election. It's one of the most partisanly GOP states in the South, one of the comparatively few that prefers Republicans in both state and federal politics. In 2002, senatorial-looking Alex Sanders (whom MYDD raved forever about) was slain by 10 percentage points by an ultra-conservative, Clinton-impeachment-manager congressman in an open race. In 1998, Senator Hollings was re-elected by a mere 7 points in a seat he was first elected to in 1966 (he used to enjoy walk-in-the-park landslides). And 1998 was a year when black turnout was up, and a Dem was winning an unexpectedly wide margin of victory in the governor's mansion. Retire or not, Hollings (well into his 80s) is very vulnerable in 2004.

Senator Fitzgerald is highly vulnerable, but by no means lost "for sure" any more than Georgia open seat is lost "for sure" to the GOP. Alaska is one of the most lopsidedly GOP states in the nation, especially in federal politics, so there's no way that Tony Knowles is "favored" over an incumbent Republican with a well-known surname from Alaskan politics. Kentucky has been merciless to Dems in recent federal races. McConnell was re-elected 64%-36% last year, and the Dems consistently fail to break the GOP's 5-1 lock on the state's congressional delegation.

Specter will very likely be re-nominated. Both Oklahoma and Ohio are GOP-leaning states, making it very difficult for the Dems to win, even if there is a potential retirement. Missouri's Kit Bond is a possibility, but Talent's win over Carnahan proves the state's GOP is by no means lifeless.

As far as NC is concerned, it should be noted that Edwards is under 50% in the poll you quoted. I see him as very similar to Georgia's Max Cleland, having made the potentially fatal mistake of opposing things like the partial birth abortion ban and protection for the Boy Scouts. A Chambliss-like Republican can skin a Democrat on things like this in the South.

What about all the "potentially" vulnerable Dems? If you mention the unlikely vulnerable GOP'ers like Specter, Nickles, Murkowski and Bunning, then you surely must see the potential vulnerability of Democrats like Boxer, Murray, Lincoln, etc. Quite a few southern Dem seats are up for election in '04 and, considering the 10-2 victory the GOP won in the region last year, I see problems for the Dems.

As Gallup showed recently, the statewide breakdown is about 29-21 in favor of GOP majority or plurality. The natural equilbrium in the Senate, as much as Dems don't want to acknowledge it, is heading toward a solid GOP majority.

Chicago Burbs,
You assumed that I blasted Dean for supporting civil unions. However, I have not posted any comments on this site regarding that issue. But I will post my first comment. I think civil unions are fine. There shouldn't be any restriction if a gay or lesbian couple want to be married. The problem for some liberals is that they assume all Republicans hate everybody that isn't a straight, white male. Obviously, that isn't true.

Let me ask each of you a question - If somebody asked you if you are gay, what would your answer be?

“I know how to beat George Bush. Al Gore and I did in 2000.”

Politico,
that quote would make a lot more sense if Lieberman were sitting in the white house right now. I'm not particularly keen on a repeat performance from him. There's an old saying in sports that applies here: you not only have to be able to beat your opponent, you have to be able to beat the referee too.

"If somebody asked if you were gay, what would your answer be?"

No.

But then I would have to ask, "who really cares?"

Just passing by, out of the three Dems you mentioned (Boxer, Murray, Lincoln), only Murray will be close to vulnerable. That's just because of her GOP-twisted comments on Osama Bin Laden - - and in a state like Washington, it will take a very moderate Republican to beat Murray. Perhaps the only one who has a shot would be Jennifer Dunn (whom Bush has encouraged to run against Murray).

Boxer will be reelected in a walk. It's California in a presidential election year - - not even Condi Rice could beat Boxer for the Senate! Lincoln isn't unbeatable, but she's a pretty good moderate, which will play well in Arkansas. I think Mike Huckabee is the only one who might be formidable against Lincoln.

I don't think Huckaboo will challenge Lincoln but a challenge may come from former adulterer Senator Tim's little brother Asa...

I would hope that Arkansas is tired of the Hutchinson family.

"Just passing by, out of the three Dems you mentioned (Boxer, Murray, Lincoln), only Murray will be close to vulnerable."

I agree they're all uphill fights, but don't think Boxer is unbeatable (any more than Murkowski is). Boxer faced a stiff challenge from the lacklustre right-winger Matt Fong in 1998, and isn't particularly likeable (unlike Feinstein). Any southern Democrat is potentially vulnerable. The GOP was down in AR this time around, but they could do better in '04. It'll be tough, but not impossible.

Mike the Troll,

I seem to recall you blasting Dean on the Civil Union issue. You say you did not.
OK, maybe it was AZGOP or another Republican infesting this site.

I am not gay. The thought of homosexual acts is revolting to me. But then, I've heard many Republicans say the thought of Monica going down on Bill is revolting and I don't (favorite sex act of every GI in the sixties). Everyone to his own bag.

I apologize to any gay reader out there. It was wrong to use homosexuality as an epithet.

But I don't apologize to you, why don't you start your own web site for yourself and your fellow Bush lovers? I hear enough mindless crap about Der Fuhrer on the TV news.

RE: Fitzgerald

Chicago Dems hate him for opposing O'Hare.
Repub regulars hate him for opposing the most corrupt Governor in Illinois history (and we've had plenty!). But Independents like him for the same reason. And he has a solid following in the suburbs for his stand against O'Hare expansion, including a Senate filibuster. He lost, but people will remember that he fought for them against Chicago, against the corporations, even against his own party.
I've talked to old people who think he's the Second Coming of Christ. Sort of like what Mike the Troll thinks about Bush.
The battleground will be downstate. Hynes is from Chicago. They don't like that downstate. His running for the Senate immediately after being elected Comptroller of a state with severe financial problems won't help either.

There a lot of old, almost Sicilian-like, feuds in this state. Fitzgerald is vulnerable because his party's leaders hate him. But I wouldn't count him out.

Chicago Burbs,
By conventional standards, you are homophobic. Why should one persons' sexual proclivities revolt you? They are none of your business. And if somebody makes a claim that you are gay, what is the point? It is nobody's business. I find it disgusting that certain people in Hollywood appear to present themselves as being open-minded, but if there is ever any question about their heterosexuality, they have to have a press release to deny it. It is their own business. If I were famous and somebody was curious about my sexuality, I would answer that it is none of their business. You apparently are disgusted by homosexuals and do not want to have any association with them. That would make you a homophobe.

And as for your refusal to apologize to me, that just illustrates your own immaturity. You don't like to admit when you are wrong, huh? I have never posted anything about Dean's stance on civil unions prior to you accusing me of being against civil unions. But, as I said after that, it is none of my business what people do in their bedrooms. And if they want to get married, they should be allowed to.

As for starting my own blog, I may start one in the future. And liberals will be welcome to post messages there. I read this site and post message because I like to discuss politics. It appears that you only want to hear the opinions of those who agree with you. Why is that liberals want to have a "dialogue" with dictators like Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong Il, but not with fellow American conservatives? I think you have plenty of explaining to do, ChicagoBurbs.

As for the war on terrorism, it seems that we are able to walk and chew gum at the same time. After we get all the information that the Khalid Shaikh Mohammed can give, he should executed immediately.

PS - How many of you think that the arrest happened long ago but was just announced now by the corrupt Fuhrer Bush in order to get some good publicity?

If Fong couldn't beat Boxer in '98 (a mid-term election year, when the party not in control of the White House - - the GOP in the case of '98 - - is expected to have an advantage)...then how does the GOP expect to beat Boxer in a PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION year (2004) when California's natural trajectory will favor the Democrats and their presidential nominee, and when anti-war fever will be high? Boxer wins handily.

Lincoln, I agree, will be slightly more vulnerable than Boxer, but not nearly as vulnerable as Murray (and I still contend that it's Murray's race to lose). True, Asa Hutchinson might challenge Lincoln, but Lincoln appeals heavily to independents and moderates. She's also an excellent speaker, and has the soccer mom vote wrapped up. Arkansas Democrats aren't going to let this seat go GOP, so you can look for many of their more liberal activists to come out strongly for Blanche Lincoln (even though she's not their ideal preference, ideologically). In summary, Lincoln will have to make a MAJOR blunder in order to lose her Senate seat. Actually, I think Janet Huckabee might have a better chance against Lincoln than Asa Hutchinson would.

Mike The Troll,

My tastes are my tastes. Just because you expressed sexual excitement over Bush, doesn't mean that my tastes are wrong.

It is you conservatives, not I, who stick your noses into other peoples' bedrooms and uteruses.

I have nothing against homosexuals. I have known several on the job and a fine working relationship with them. On the whole, I found their interests in politics and economics very compatable with mine. They are not disgusting. What they do with each other is disgusting. One of these men told me that he felt sex with women was disgusting. My God (or is He a Republican, too?), do I have to want sex with a person before I enjoy conversing with them?

I admitted that I MAY have confused you with another of you clones. I gave you the benefit of the doubt, but I will not apologize unless I have an opportunity to read everything you have ever posted.

I have no desire to converse with dictators, including Bush. I wish to converse with fellow Democrats on the best way to oust the usurper. It is you Republicans who are hysterical about listening to anything other than the one true gospel of Saint George.

"I think..." You do?

I think that at this point I shall start referring to you as "ChicagoBurbs the Homophobe". Most bigots start their defense with something similar to the "I have known several and ..." line that you used. I'm just glad that you could come out of the closet to your liberal friends about your bigotry.

And to call Bush a dictator is ridiculous. You may dislike him and his policies, but he can be voted out of office just like he was voted in (and he was voted in; quit your crying already about 2000). The Congress can oppose what he does. The Supreme Court can oppose what he does. Capisce? Or are you to f'n dumb to understand that? We do not live under a dictator. The Iraqi people do. The North Korean people do. WE DON'T. Make arguments that are based in fact, you f'n dumbass.

It is with great regret that I used profanity, but ChicagoBurbs the Homophobe has clearly illustrated that he/she cannot think. And all of you other liberals that call Bush a dictator or liken him to Hitler is ridiculous. Are there any consequences to your speaking out against him? NO!!!!!!!!!!!!! SO QUIT YOUR F'N CRYIN' ABOUT CENSORSHIP AND DICTATORSHIP, BECAUSE YOU ALL MAKE YOURSELF LOOK LIKE JACKASSES!!!!!!

Mike the Troll,
Most men, when asked privately, will admit that the thought of gay sex doesn't bother them all that much. They've just been socially conditioned to react negatively to it. Ironically, those who claim to be the most disgusted "demonstrate significant sexual arousal to male homosexual erotic stimuli".

I wonder which category you fall into.

Here's one article on the subject, if you'd like to learn more. Sorry the link is so long.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/assault/roots/freud.html

Sorry,
I meant to address that last one to ChicagoBurbs. It's early.

So-Mike the troll thinks I am not too bright. Well, little does he know, I went to a private school!

Guiness,

"Homophobe" literally means "fears homosexuals". I do not fear homosexuals. The common connotation is "hates homosexuals". I do not hate homosexuals.

My point was about taste. Nixon is reputed to have enjoyed ketchup on cottage cheese.
I think that is disgusting. I have no secret desire to eat ketchup on cottage cheese. I do not fear or hate sanyone who eats ketchup on cottage cheese.

Also notice that my gay co-worker did not hate or fear me, although he was disgusted at MY sexual preferences. I say co-worker rather than friend solely because we did not meet other than at work. We did correspond for some years after we both left that employer. I hardly think that he would have kept up a correspondence with a homophobe.

I realized that I would be open to a charge of saying, "Some of my best friends ...". But really, how else do you prove a negative, but by counterexample.
If you say that I must like homosexuals acts in order not to be a homophobe, then you are streching the definition.

I did read your link. It does not apply to me. I have not discriminated against anyone. I have no desire to hurt anyone except those involved in the 911 attacks.

I have apologized for calling the troll gay as an insult. It was, as you point out, an old conditioned reaction from my youth. Most of those old ethnic and sexual orientation. I feel that that apology should be accepted, just as I accept the apologies of those who unthinkingly offend my ethnicity.

Mike The Troll deliberately provoked a response. It was an error on my part to allow him to divert attention and waste space on this blog.

You, on the other hand, made a reasonable challenge. It contrasts greatly with the childish (and very Bush like) display of temper by Mike The Troll above.

Childish!!! You are the one calling Bush a dictator. You can dislike him, you can hate him, you can want to get rid of him, but no US President can ever be called a dictator so long as we have our Constitution!!!! They are voted in and out of office. They do not usurp power in a violent coup.

By making your childish arguments, you marginalize your viewpoint. If Bush is comparable to Hitler, who is Hussein comparable to? Surely he is worse than Bush in your eyes, correct? Bush hasn't gassed or torturred innocent people (shut up with the executions in Texas. Texas executions were carried out by the state of Texas, including its court and legislature). If Bush is equal to Hitler, and we went to war to stop Hitler, and obviously Hussein is worse than Bush, then we should have an even bigger war to get rid of Hussein, correct?

Mullah George W. Hitler is a dictator.

Speaking as a homosexual male, I don't find heterosexual sex to be "disgusting." I simply could never engage in sex with someone of the opposite sex.

I agree with the author.