Jones vs. Boehner poll

I'm voting for Jones, I encourage you too as well.

(CNN) – One of America's largest labor unions is teaming up with a prominent liberal interest group to target congressional Republicans' economic polices, calling the GOP the "party of no" in a new national ad buy coming only days before President Obama's first 100 days comes to a close.

In the new television commercial called "Timeline," the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) and Americans United portray target Republicans over opposition to Obama's stimulus package, the expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, and legislation seeking to allow women to sue for equal pay for equal work.

"There have always been those who said NO to progress. But in times of crisis, Americans have never taken NO for an answer," an announcer says in the 30 second spot.

The groups say the ad, described as a "mid five-figure buy," will begin airing Friday nationally for five days on MSBC and on all the cable news stations in the Washington, DC area.

The TV spot comes the same day the Democratic National Committee is launching a Web ad that declares, "After 100 days, the Republican approach is 'just say no.'"

This new DNC web video is the latest in a series that portray Republicans in Congress as a party devoid of new ideas.

Republicans disagree, and state that in saying no to President Obama and the Democrats in Congress, they are trying to save American taxpayers money and are attempting to rein in what they consider out of control government spending.

So what do Americans think?

Fifty-eight percent of those questioned in a recent CNN/Opinion Research Coporation national poll said that President Obama had a clear plan for solving the country's economic problems. That was more than double the 24 percent who felt Republicans had a clear prescription for fixing the country's economic mess. Three out of four polled said the GOP didn't have a clear plan.

The same survey also suggests that 62 percent felt President Obama is doing enough to cooperate with the other party, while only 37 percent thought Republicans were doing enough to reach out to the other side.

I had watched Glenn Beck on CNN: Headline News about six months ago when my grandmother was sick with cancer and I was on watch with her. I always took the night shift (11pm-7am roughly) because I tend to keep unconventional hours. This was primarily because the TV had basic cable and Beck did decent interviews with interesting guests. So, I ask myself when the hubbub about Beck comes up recently, what's so controversial about him? Then I logged onto YouTube. Thanks to Internet users that have video capture cards, a fetish for chubby men that are emotionally unstable and far too much free time on their hands I was able to browse dozens (perhaps over a hundred) separate Glenn Beck clips while choosing my favorites to present to you. They are truly stunning, but not in a political oratory way and definitely not in a Carrie Underwood way. In fact, see for yourself.

Glenn Beck #1

The graphics are lovely... they appear to have been made by an ambitious high school audio/visual club member. The "Comrade" with the backwards "R". Better yet, he babbles about SCHIP and questions a dependent being aged 30. Not to cast aspursions, but he does attempt to give parenting advice. Well, it's not much advice: it's basically to kick your offspring out of the house as soon as possible and tell their lazy ass to get a job. Considering he was a raging alcoholic by his own admission for much of his first two kids' childhoods I don't think he should get points for actively raising them. A drunk isn't much of a parent.

Glenn Beck #2

Could someone politely explain to me what Glenn Beck is trying to say or do in the first part of this clip? Is he trying to incite a race war? Is he trying to piss white people off by saying Mexicans want California back? Couldn't he have bothered to look up that Franz Ferdinand was assassinated in the Balkans? He starts off at Mexico turning into a narco state and ends up in East BFE. Then there's a more serious "WTF?" moment when he starts weeping on air. I understood this when he was incorrectly communicating his feelings. I thought that he was crying for the abducted girl and her family and that he broke his promise to her father. Then he makes some unintelligible point about not being able to follow the story because he now works for a network that will follow a story through (I'm sorry, but didn't he just neutralize what he said there?) and then he reveals that he was getting all misty and snotty because he loves his country and he hopes other people do too. How did we get from a poor kidnap victim to American patriotism?

Glenn Beck #3

I've put this in here not for the commentary but because of the clip montage. I thought that the crying was a one-off affair... then I found this video. Did somebody switch this man's depression medicine out for estrogen tablets? This was the point that I decided Freud would have diagnosed Glenn Beck as suffering from hysteria, despite him not having a uterus or ovaries. Glenn would definitely go along with doing some coke with Freud... it might even out his mood. I doubt Freud would want to have sex with him though. Trying to copulate with a crying Glenn Beck has too many shades of Ned Beatty and his "purdy mouth." I also noticed one other facet of his personality: he's like a Mormon Jimmy Swaggert shooting up patriotism. He stands in front of a giant flag and cries and confesses his love of his country. I just can't decide if Beck only acts like Jimmy Swaggert or is putting on a "wrap me in the flag, phone my mother and feed me apple pie" show. Perhaps the readers can assist in sorting this out.

Glenn Beck #4

Glenn does this Barney Frank impression flamboyantly gay... like totally over-the-top charge-the-machinegun-nest gay. Dare I say another tearful revelation ala Ted Haggard is coming for Sweeps Week? Then you would have a gay, Mormon, ultra-patriotic man that is prone to start crying at the drop of a hat... I think that might be a first.

Glenn Beck #5

This one is adorable because it is Glenn Beck and Ron Paul dishing about conspiracies in world government. Ron Paul lays out how Bretton Woods and the dollar standard were attempts to consolidate the world under one currency shortly thereafter to one government. Glenn also comes out strongly against canine-feline interspecies relations, which elated me because it is a level of bestiality among animals that has never been considered but clearly should be... we'll call it bestiality squared? Glenn begs and pleads and hopes that he is nuts and absolutely crazy... the good news is that it appears he is so his wishes have been fulfilled.

Glenn Beck #6

Is this man afraid of everything? He says here that France is a scary place. How scary can a place that cut a sucker's deal with the Wehrmacht, representing evil incarnate, for it to govern 2/3's of the country, the puppet government to have the southern 1/3 and it shipped out a bunch of defenseless Jews that had harmed no one to be stuffed into ovens? It is a distinct possibility that the only person or entity that is scared sh*tless more frequently than France is Glenn himself. So I suppose that solves that: Glenn is scared of France because it is one spot above him on the "Badass List." Can anyone think of a person or group that would rank below Beck? Just curious. Also, Glenn seems to contradict himself since he says in another video here that the United States causes Mexico's problems with its incessant demand for nose candy and shipping weapons over the border but in this segment he slams Hillary Clinton for saying exactly the same thing. The lights are on, but nobody's home up there. But it gets better because Glenn is decrying Washington making businessmen out to be the bad guys as his good friend John Rich sings a country song excoriating bankers and CEOs for taking the money, jetting out of town and lamenting Detroit being shut down. Catchy tune. Am I the only person that is utterly sick to death of hearing country music singers at Republican events and on conservative shows? The Dixie Chicks get death threats telling them to shut up and sing but these asshats like Hank Williams Jr. can tour freely around the country ruining perfectly good songs by inserting lines like "The left-wing librul mediahhh has always been a re-al close-knit family, but most of the American people don't buhleeve 'em anyway ya see... blah blah blah... it's a McCain-Palin tradition!"? I was raised listening to Hank Williams Jr. and I have some advice for him: stick to singing about getting blotto drunk, having parties that last for days and getting some sweet lovin' because politics is not for you, Hank. I say this in the nicest, most polite possible way: I want to hear about you going hunting for cougars without a gun in a bar and how they're sleek and tan and then I want to hear a song about screwing early in the morning and late at night. You've besmirched my wonderful memories of listening to your songs with connections to the most inept presidential campaign in a decade. I hope I recover to go to your concert at Riverbend again this summer, I'd hate to break a tradition because I still think you're an asshat.

So I throw it open to my readers: render your decision on Glenn Beck.

The public's dander is up about the $165 million worth of taxpayer bailout money that AIG utilized to distribute bonuses to the employees in the AIG department that was responsible for betting on the assets that would later trigger the company's collapse and create cause for the government to step in and try to stabilize the fast-moving financial catastrophe. The situation has spawned a "Bonus Army" of its own, however this Bonus Army does not consist of WWI veterans camping in Washington D.C. and demanding the checks that the government promised them in return for their combat service. Today's Bonus Army consists of American taxpayers that are angry and have made the trek to upscale residential Connecticut to protest the AIG bonuses at the residences of AIG executives. Imagine how angry they are going to get when, in all likelihood, the rumor that $215 million (rather than $165 million as originally reported) was used for bonuses is confirmed. However, that's a different topic for a different article.

The response of the Congressional Democratic leadership, headed by Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D - California) and Sen. Harry Reid (D- Nevada), to the media's publication of the $165M in AIG bonuses and the resulting public anger was to try to get out in front of the problem with a fundamentally flawed and unconstitutional piece of legislation called H.R. 1586 and S. 651 in the House of Representatives and the Senate respectively. The legislation essentially hooks a 90% tax to those bonuses to cut them down to the size that the sponsors of the bill think they should be. There are a number of problems with this approach:

1) This is a bill of attainder. Bills of attainder are unconstitutional (and, thus, against the law) and they are so for good reason. A bill of attainder is "an act of the legislature by which one or more persons are declared to be attained, and their property confiscated." Source They were set forth to be illegal in the Constitution because they were a method by which state legislatures and the Congress could (and did during the Revolutionary War) seize all or part of a specific person or group's property or declare them guilty of a crime and imprison them without due process of law. The reason that they would want to circumvent due process is obvious: it is likely that a court would not uphold the confiscation of property by the legislature or the guilty verdict that resulted in said confiscation and/or imprisonment. Although the law is written broadly enough to escape a strict legal reading out of the original context, when you put the law in the context of public outcry over the AIG bonuses it becomes clear that Congress is targeting AIG employees with a massive tax because the public is angry. Furthermore, it is fruit from the poison tree because at the root level this money was loaned to AIG from the government. If the government wants to impose a 90% tax on all bonuses in every financial company that makes it more palatable from a Constitution standpoint, however.

2) This is an ex post facto law and, accordingly, unconstitutional. An ex post facto law is a law that is passed after an event has happened that pertains to a punishment or tax on the original event that activates retroactively and confiscates property or imprisons someone. The problem with an ex post facto law is that the person being punished did not know and had no way of knowing what they were doing originally (which was legal at the time) would be proscribed by the government at a later date. Therefore, the government has no right to retroactively punish someone for an act that was made illegal after the person had committed the act. H.R. 1586 and S. 651 are clearly ex post facto laws since there was no law at the time (December 2008) which prohibited companies from using government bailout loans as bonuses for their employees nor was there an exorbitant excise tax levied on salaries or bonuses paid out of bailout funds through financial institutions.

3) This is a clear and disturbing violation of contract law. AIG entered into a contract in December 2008 to pay its employees these bonuses and neither Congress nor President Bush voiced opposition to the use of government funds for these bonuses prior to or at the time that the contracts were signed. The government can only dissolve a contract when there is a compelling legal reason to do so, such as the contract paying salary in return for illegal services rendered like human trafficking. Giving a bonus to employees does not even begin to approach being illegal, even if it is being paid for with government bailout funds. The only way that this contract should be unbound is if the government put rules in place about how the company could not use its infusion of financial support to pay bonuses to employees and no such clause was ever brought forward until a few days ago.

Those three points are just the legal hurdles that this bill failed to clear. From those problems stem the further fallout of the economic ripple effect if this bill were to pass Congress, be signed into law and be upheld by the Supreme Court despite the sticking points mentioned above. The first problem would be the widespread effects of #3's perversion of contract law and the government's vastly lower bar that it must clear to obtain the right to declare a contract null and void between two parties. Who will trust upon entering into a legally binding contract that the government will enforce that contract if the protestations of the public are enough to goad Congress into nullifying a contract between a large employer (with an experienced legal staff) and its employee? I certainly would not. If the government can nullify a perfectly legal contract because it is unpopular with the public then contract law and the courts are moot in this country because the precedent will be set that Congress (and by extension all 50 state legislatures) can arbitrarily dissolve contracts at their whim or at the public's whim if the legislators are afraid of being voted out of office in the next election. Furthermore, the Bush administration and the Obama administration have both worked exceedingly hard to avoid a stigma in the public's minds about financial institutions that the government has bailed out. They have worked to avoid this because a financial institution without a shred of credibility with the public is simply forestalling inevitable bankruptcy by taking the government's money as they will not garner enough business from the public to remain solvent. Working from that economic fact the question then becomes "Who wants to work at a financial institution that the public does not trust (which will drive it bankrupt)?" and "Who wants to work for a bailed out financial institution when the government can interfere with its payment to its employees, unlike financial institutions that have given the money back or never taken it in the first place?" The answer to both of those questions is fast and dirty: nobody. This excise tax will not only be a detriment to the economic recovery, but it will undercut everything that the Obama administration has done to restore consumer confidence in the financial sector and economy as a whole.

The most foolish aspect of this excise tax by far, however, is the political gamesmanship that has led to it. It turns out that embattled Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner was the government official that made the decision to keep the loophole for bonuses in the legislation authorizing the bailout money. It was reported as early as January, to my knowledge, that AIG would be disbursing bonuses and that Treasury was who authorized it. Smelling blood, Republicans picked up on public anger about the AIG bonuses, put 2 and 2 together and came up with 4: their next political strategy. Help the public to get angrier about the AIG bonuses (as if the public had not gotten angry enough over the economy), the public would realize that Geithner was the government official responsible for allowing them and the pressure on Obama to sack Geithner after less than two months on the job would grow to a level too great to ignore and force a political loss on Obama by forcing his hand to accept Geithner's resignation. Instead of accepting the situation playing out that way (which it undoubtedly would without some kind of proactive stance on the issue by Democrats) the Democrats in Congress led by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid took action: they slapped a 90% excise tax on the bonuses which effectively reclaimed the money for the taxpayers. Republicans in the House, painted into a corner and faced with a decision between a very popular excise tax and a very unpopular "Nay" vote, had 85 of its members jump ship and vote "Yea" on H.R. 1586. Overall the vote was Yea with 243 Democrats and 85 Republicans (328) and Nay with 6 Democrats and 87 Republicans (93). The bill passed with a veto proof majority as a result in the House. The bill then proceeded to the Senate as S. 651 and was debated but not yet voted upon. Senator Jon Kyl (R - Arizona) called for members of the Senate to slow the legislation down, ostensibly to prevent a rash decision, according to Senator Kyl. However, the way that it has been played since the start of the imbroglio, Kyl is probably calling to slow down the legislation so that Republicans in the Senate (most likely Kyl himself along with others) can rail against the legislation. After they rail against it, go on the Sunday morning talk shows and the cable news channels to decry it, they will allow a vote and it will pass with most Democrats and possibly 10 Republicans with an outside chance of more. Nearly all of the Republicans will be up for re-election in 2010. Bunning (R - Kentucky) will figure prominently in the "Yea" votes as he is up for re-election in 2010 and was already on the ropes with the voters in his state before this issue came up. The Republicans will then win again when it passes because Obama will be faced with signing the bill and making the economic mess worse to preserve his political capital or vetoing it on the grounds that it is a bad idea on several levels and sacrificing a certain amount of political capital at a critical time in pushing his agenda when he needs public support the most. An economic crisis instigated, even caused, by partisan politics.

On a side note, the $165M number is approximately .000097% of the bailout money that AIG received from the government. It is also worth noting that the department at AIG responsible for the majority of the acquisition of troubled assets, Financial Productions, is in the process of being phased out at the company. All FP employees are basically working to tie up loose ends in their jobs (and not all sectors were responsible for the catastrophe but they are being phased out just the same) at which point they will be let go from AIG. Many of these people were counting on the bonuses to make up a significant amount of their salaries running up to their termination. While AIG management probably should have known better than to distribute such a large monetary sum in such a short period of time for bonuses, changing the rules will force them to raise permanent salaries if they want to distribute the money to their workers. Salaries they will have to pay in perpetuity to employees that hire in. AIG may be on a government-sponsored ventilator but that is no excuse for the government forcing the company to make foolish decisions that impoverish the employees because the public is angry.

I'd like to give a thank you to a very conservative member of this site, Donald Turnbull, whose seed turned me onto this video and, following back to the original source, the website for what looks to be a super documentary in the making called How Obama Got Elected by John Ziegler. I was so impressed with the video of these ignorant Obama voters that I simply had to find out more about it.

Now that we've dispensed with the sarcastic introductory paragraph, I can start telling you what I really think about the nearly ten minute long video that can be seen here. There were many inaccurate statements, what some might call blatant lies, as well as mistakes made in proper scientific polling practices and false analogies that some might think were concocted to deceive from the beginning. I will simply give you my ten favorite mistakes the documentary makes that needed to be rectified before it can be taken seriously.

1. At 0:20 of the video, the author makes the following statement: "So On Election Day We Spoke To The Most Informed Obama Voters We Could Find," however, in the paragraph directly above the video the site's author (supposedly the same person(s) that made the documentary) states clearly: "These voters were chosen for their apparent intelligence/verbal abilities and willingness to express their opinions to a large audience." There is a gap large enough to drive a semi truck through between the two statements about how the participants were chosen. According to the second, more specific, description of how the video chose its participants this meant that if you did not express yourself well verbally (i.e. you stuttered, had other speech impediments, or was in any other way unable to explain your reasoning to their satisfaction) you were out. This also meant that anyone that declined to be on camera for fear that it was a scam or fraud of some kind as well as those that declined because they felt their appearance was not up to par to be recorded forevermore in a documentary were uninvolved too. Unfortunately for the documentary, to be taken seriously they either need to go back and find the most intelligent Obama voters around or they need to be up front that they were only able to interview what appeared to be the most intelligent 12 Obama voters out of the group that could explain themselves to the camera adequately and did not decline to be filmed. If they did either I suspect their thesis would be riddled with holes, however, so don't hold your breath.

2. In the video from 4:57 to 5:01 they broke the rules of conducting a poll or study when the person asking the questions also offered up an answer when the subject was trying to think of one. Real studies do not plant answers, they simply solicit them. This should not have made it into the documentary since the documentary seeks to portray itself as exposing the truth and the documentary seemed to desire to prove the point that the media was working in lockstep with the Obama campaign to beat McCain. One has to wonder if they were coaxing this subject into giving the right answer, how many wrong answers and other coaxing by producers wound up on the cutting room floor?

3. Yet another problem with their methodology in questioning the subjects they've chosen. From 7:49 to 8:20 they go from asking the first person which candidate said that the government should redistribute wealth to asking the others what their opinion of wealth redistribution is. Did they make this video to convince people that Obama supporters were unintelligent, brainwashed or descendants of Huey Long?

4. They ask no control questions, ostensibly so that they can set up false analogies that their viewers will take on faith. One example of the false analogies they use is when they ask which candidate lost a presidential primary because he was accused of plagiarism. That was Joe Biden in 1988. The equalizer would have been "Which candidate was a member of the Keating 5?" which no one would have known the answer to either because they're both ancient events when it comes to time in politics. The Keating 5 accusations against McCain came the year after Biden's embarrassing incident, in 1989, by the way.

5. This "documentary" gets far more interesting when you download the PDF of Zogby's results and dig through them. For example, 273 out of 512 Obama supporters knew that Joe Biden said Obama would be tested by an international crisis like John Kennedy. McCain came in second with 107 votes. The video makes no mention of this, perhaps because drawing attention to a question where 53.3% of the "unintelligent" Obama supporters gave the right answer would spoil their hypothesis that the people that elected Obama are idiots. Hold on for a ride because Zogby's results get better. (Source)

6. In an even more jaw-dropping false attempt to misrepresent Obama supporters, the makers of the video take on the now infamous Joe The Plumber moment where Obama said he preferred to "spread the wealth." Perhaps the Zogby results are why the video responses are so schizoid. In the video, as I point out earlier, they ask only one Obama supporter if he knows which candidate wants to "redistribute wealth" and he says he does not know then a few other supporters are shown offering their opinions of sharing the wealth and how good it would be. It turns out that 415 of 512 Obama supporters responded that Obama was the candidate that said the government should redistribute the wealth... if you're keeping score at home that's 81%: more than 4 out of 5 Obama supporters got that question right. Next best answer? Not Sure with 57 votes equaling 11.2%. I suppose the video did the best it could with these numbers and that was to spin then like a top high on crystal meth. (Source)

7. Obama supporters won a majority on a different question as well: "Which candidate started their political career at the home of two former members of the Weather Underground?" Top answer was Obama at 225 votes, coming in second was Not Sure at 206. One supposes that if the makers of the video were facing another question that Obama supporters were able to get right it would make sense to improve their odds by naming a specific member of the group rather than the question as Zogby asked it to get the "I don't knows" flowing again. This looks not only like bad form but also looks very deceptive on their part as well. (Source)

8. In Zogby's results there is a tally for age group. It is not what's there that bothers me but rather what is missing... literally. The age groups are 18-29, 30-49, 50-64 and 65+. This should cover every conceivable person of voting age. However, there is yet another category that has 9 of the 512 respondents belonging to it and that category is entitled "Missing." I am not sure if this is a peculiarity of statistics as a science, if there is a routine explanation for this or if Zogby interviewed 9 people who were not of legal age to vote for Obama and, therefore, had no responsibility to the rest of their fellow citizens to know the answer to these questions as they would not be affecting the election by voting in it. If anyone knows the answer to this question I'm entertaining explanations. There is also another part that doesn't add up which would fit under this heading. Under the Race category, all the participants add up to 509. The "Missing" category from Race is listed at 4, making up 513 respondents overall. What is the "Missing" category's function and why, in this case, did it throw the total of respondents off. (Source)

9. While looking through Zogby's results I found a heading for Ideology among what was supposed to be 512 Obama supporters. The "real" total is brought down to 495 when the 17 "Missing" respondents are taken out of the mix. It then breaks down like this: Progressives - 69 [13.4%] | Liberal - 153 [30.0%] | Moderate - 187 [36.6%] | Conservative - 65 [12.7%] | Very Conservative - 17 [3.4%] | Libertarian - 3 [.6%]. What is interesting about these numbers is that while the thrust of this video is that Obama supporters are nearly totally ignorant of the political situation, 17.1% of Obama supporters in this survey consider themselves conservative or further to the right. I suspect these numbers, nearly 1 in 5 respondents are politically oriented to the right, are something else the video's producer would like to avoid anyone looking at. (Source)

10. In a statistical revelation that must be nightmarish for any serious Republican attached to Reagan's coalition is the number of churchgoers that backed Obama. In just this 512 person survey there were 50 that attended Weekly+ (more than just on Sunday) and 134 that attended weekly, which made them 35.8% of Obama's supporters. If you add in all those that are religious enough to go to church at least once during the year (Weekly+, Weekly, 1-2/mo, Holidays and Rarely) you are struck (likely shocked, I know I was and I'm as strong an Obama supporter there is to be found) by the fact that according to this survey fully 85.4% of Obama's supporters are religious while only around 14% are not. If Republicans are no longer the party of faith and can no longer legitimately call Democrats the party of atheists that is against faith, that makes Obama a different kind of President than we have seen in a generation and with such broad support it is entirely possible that he could forge a large winning coalition that will last for a generation like FDR and Reagan's both did. (Source)

To conclude, this video is ridiculous but the nuts and bolts of Zogby's survey were pretty interesting. The revelations about Obama's wide support among religious Americans being the most interesting of all. Zogby's survey may be saying something, but it is most certainly not what the author(s) of the video insist it is saying which is Obama's supporters are political airheads. What it most likely is saying is that if Obama performs well in his first term that he could potentially create a Democratic governing coalition that will dominate my generation's lifetime. Knowing that, in the end, was worth the ten minutes I spent watching this video that I can never get back. ;-)

McCain advisers have paid close attention to how Hillary Clinton has exploited Mr Obama's weakness among blue-collar, culturally conservative white voters and intend to use a similar strategy against him in the general election. Aides say that if Mr McCain can win about 20 per cent of moderate Democrats nationally – an achievable target, based on recent polls – he will win the White House.

I have to hand it to Hillary Clinton. They said it couldn't be done that the free pass Obama had received thus far from the mainstream media this primary season could never end. They were wrong. They said the walk on water Barack Obama could never be proven just a mere mortal. They were wrong. Turns out Obama's not just a mere mortal he's a mere politician. Yes, it took Hillary several long months but somehow just days before Super Tuesday II all the gods aligned and the infamous Clinton Machine finally inflicted a slow air leak to the Obamapalooza bubble. And it was this slow air leak that allowed Hillary to do what they said could not be done. She won both in Texas and Ohio and stands a very good chance of winning again in Pennsylvania on April 22nd.

Yes, sure, Hillary's new TV ad launched just days before last Tuesday's vote the one with that phone ringing at in the White House at 3AM proved effective. It made voters stop and think maybe for the first time "Is Obama really ready?" But it was not this ad alone that pushed Hillary to her big win last Tuesday. All of sudden there were questions. They may not be all new questions but they were for the first time rising to the surface threatening to prick the Obamapalooza bubble and prick it they did. You know the questions. But they bear repeating. These are among the questions that made it impossible for Barack Obama to seal the deal. These are among the questions American voters now want Obama the man himself not one of his surrogates to address:

1. Please explain to us why your campaign has described your relationship with Weather Underground's Bill Ayers as "friendly?" Do you think establishing a "friendly" relationship with a known terrorist will sit well with the American electorate?

2. Please explain to us why your campaign at first denied the conversation between your chief economic adviser and Canadian officials re: NAFTA ever took place. If indeed there was no "wink wink" why deny?

3. Why have you not rejected and denounced the minister of your church who has bestowed honors on Louis Farrakhan?

4. Please explain to us what role Tony Rezko played in the purchase of your family home and tell us if Hillary's depiction of Rezko as a corrupt slumlord was unfair in your assessment? Why or why not?

These are the questions that prove to all of us that in fact no Barack Obama is not the new messiah. He may indeed be leading a movement ---a movement that many have described as spiritual ----but Obama it seems thanks to that slow air leak has finally floated back down to earth. And there are six long more weeks for more air to escape from the Obamapalooza bubble before the next big state primary in PA. Now that we've proven that Obama is just another man like any other man (albeit with a gift for oratory) doesn't that make Hillary Clinton as the first woman to run for this highest office the new novelty of the day? Is it advantage Hillary going into Pennsylvania?

The polls indicate it would be easier for republicans to win in the fall with a McCain-Clinton match up vs. a McCain-Obama race. I'm not so sure. While it's true a Clinton nominee would help rally conservatives to McCain I for one had been preparing myself to see the GOP take on the inexperienced junior senator from Illinois. While Hillary did effectively hit Obama on NAFTA she was not so effective on the Rezko or Louis Farrakhan bits. I believe the GOP stands a good chance to not only hit Obama harder and more effectively than Hillary did on these issues which speak to character but on the more substantive matters of policy as well. Yes, Obama wants to change America. He wants to trend this country toward higher taxes, socialized medicine, and surrender to the enemy. Yes, Obama wants to change the United States of America the country which I have always loved and the country of which I have always been proud. And so I must warn not just Obama's minions but any undecideds thinking they might support Obama in the fall: not all change is good.

And now I turn once again to you my fellow newsviners and ask you to vote in my Obamapolooza poll. We've seen that Obama's bubble has suffered a slow air leak. But can it be burst once and for all? Please be sure to vote in my survey and share with me your opinions regarding the health of Obamapolooza and as always I thank you once again for your participation.

Some unsatisfied Republican voters, especially conservative ones, have threatened to sit out the Republican primary in protest. Indeed, within GOP circles it is not uncommon that one may hear the refrain, "I'd rather have Hillary or Obama win and start fresh than to vote for a RINO (Republican in Name Only) or some half-committed conservative."

In his recent memoir, Alan Greenspan says he's been pushing a constitutional amendment of his own devising. It reads: "Anyone willing to do what is required to become president of the United States is thereby barred from taking that office." If the Greenspan amendment is ever enacted, it will at last clear the field for Fred Thompson, who might then become president. But not until then.

He's still with his ailing mother. "He's just being a good son."

He has not spoken to any other campaign or any other candidates, nor does he intend to at this time. He will not endorse, I am told by this source close to Thompson. I am also told, "he has no interest in a vice presidency or a cabinet position." At an "appropriate time" he will outline his plans for the near future.

"His rivals would do more in a day than Fred would do in a month," said one disaffected Thompson insider. "He created the perception, fairly or not, that he was just going through the motions."

The loss in South Carolina has had a big impact on Mike Huckabee -- and the reporters covering his campaign. His team has begun to cut back on spending, and the traveling press corps now has to find its own travel arrangements. They may not need to follow him to Florida, either:

And so we come to Florida for the ultimate clarification, much as Rudy Giuliani predicted. Can John McCain win a race that includes only Republican voters? Can Mike Huckabee win another state at all? Can Mitt Romney parlay his financial advantage to victory in a state not predisposed to support him? Will Fred Thompson even bother to campaign?

Fred Thompson supporters are being asked to register their opinions on who they'll support if Fred drops out. As of this posting, Romney is way ahead.

This blog posting asks Fred supporters where they will go if, as it appears, he withdraws from the race following his weak third place finish in SC. . Interesting reading. This, of course, is not a scientific survey, but it's obvious that for many of them, Mitt is the obvious choice, even if Thompson endorses McCain.

All of the Republican candidates, with the exception of Romney, are broke. What money they have left they are deploying in South Carolina and Florida and hoping that the results there will enable them to raise more money to compete in the February 5th Super Tuesday contests.

Looks like there is some interesting political terrorism going on in South Carolina these days. There is a push polling company with a lot of questionable activities doing push polling for Republican candidate Mike Huckabee against Fred Thompson. Fred must be making him nervous!

Go Fred Go!

Last week, Fred Thompson hit Huckabee on the national smoking ban, and now the Preacher has changed his mind on the issue. First it was immigration, then dealing with terrorists, now smoking. And Romney's supposed to be the flip-flopper!

MYRTLE BEACH, S.C., Jan. 10 -- The leading Republican presidential candidates used a Fox News debate Thursday night to draw contrasts with their rivals on the economy, U.S. relations with Iran, immigration and political change in advance of two primaries next week that are expected to winnow the field.

In their last televised meeting before critical contests in Michigan and South Carolina, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney accused Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) of pessimism about the nation's economy for saying that some outsourced jobs are never coming back to hard-hit communities. "I'm going to fight for every single job," Romney said in the opening moments of the debate.

McCain responded by saying that he was offering the kind of "straight talk" that voters appreciate, and that the government is obligated to help laid-off workers through a "rough patch" by offering training and other programs. But he did not back off, saying that "there are some jobs that aren't coming back to Michigan. There are some jobs that won't come back here to South Carolina."

Moments later, former senator Fred D. Thompson (Tenn.) lashed out at former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, charging the winner of the Iowa caucuses with a litany of conservative heresies, including supporting taxpayer-funded programs for illegal immigrants, a smoking ban and liberal economic policies, as well as opposing school vouchers.

"So much for federalism," an animated Thompson said. "So much for states' rights. So much for individual rights."

Huckabee, who is jousting with Thompson and McCain in South Carolina for a victory in the nation's first Southern primary on Jan. 19, dismissed the accusations. "If you're not catching flak, you're not over the target," he said. "I'm catching flak; I must be over the target

Those who know me know I am conservative. They know I am charming and they know I do not like Mike Huckabee because to embrace him would not only be incongruous with my charming conservative persona it would go against my very conscience. We have been watching this surprise rally by Huckabee in Iowa where he stands a very good chance tonight of stealing the caucuses right out from under the early entrenched Romney clan. I listened last night to Iowa voters – many of them evangelicals – who say they like Huckabee primarily because of his family values and his stance on social issues. But if you ask me it seems these all-important evangelical voters are being blinded by the fact that Huckabee was once a Baptist minister. While I think it's nice to know that Huckabee is a God fearing man (and let's face it - I don't see an atheist running for President any time soon) being God fearing alone should simply not be enough for any true conservative voter.

Conservatives outside Iowa are rejecting Huckabee more and more once they get past his ability to turn a warm and fuzzy phrase (which is something I always wished George Bush could do more easily). There's no doubt Huckabee is comfortable in his own skin which is a strong voter attribute for any Presidential candidate. But what about his policy? Come on, conservatives and wake up! Don't let this Baptist Minister fool you! Huckabee's record as governor speaks for itself. He is wrong on taxes. He is wrong on illegal immigration (despite his recent cries to the contrary). He was not all the impressive in the wake of the tragic Bhutto assassination. And Huckabee is so socially conservative that he turned off even this charming GOP voter while listening to his comments regarding homosexuality this past Sunday on Meet The Press.

Another thing I heard over and over again last night but from democratic caucus participants is they want to vote for the candidate who can beat the republicans. The democrats have been down this path before as we saw when they selected John Kerry because they felt he was the most electable particularly after Howard Dean's memorable melt down. The democrats in 04 ran on an "ABB" platform and here in 08 they are still running largely against a man who is no longer even in the race. Yes, electabilty is important but to vote primarily based on "electability" seems somehow misguided to me. Nevertheless, and on the flip side – I will use this "electability" criteria in determining who I will NOT vote for in my primary. I will not vote for Mike Huckabee in my primary #1 because I believe he is no conservative (other than on social issues) and #2 because he can not win the national election. I keep hoping that the pundits are right that Huckabee is but a media creation and that he will quietly go away after this anamoly that is Iowa. Does anyone else think it's strange that the media is enamored with an even-more-than-George-Bush overtly religious candidate? The answer is quite simple and mirrors exactly the reasons why I won't vote for him: he is no conservative and he cannot win the national election.

And so it seems there is only one thing that is certain this time around and that is at this very moment on the eve of the Iowa caucuses there is no sense of inevitability on either side of the aisle. I do believe an inevitable candidate will emerge more quickly on the democrat side with a longer fight to inevitability on the republican side. And while Hillary may lose in Iowa, I still believe she will become the eventual democratic candidate. But just what will happen on the GOP side continues to be anyone's guess. In Iowa no doubt it will be Huckabee or Romney. In New Hampshire I see McCain with a better than average chance which means the GOP will move on to South Carolina, Florida, and Super Tuesday with nearly an open playing field.

But this nagging question on just who to vote for this time around in my primary has been haunting me and haunting me. And now I have my answer. It's once again a simple answer, really. Voters of Iowa, voters of the United States of America, it is time to pick our President….the time is now…..be not afraid….listen to that little voice inside you and by all means vote your conscience--vote not just for the candidate who can win but for the candidate who most closely represents both your values AND positions on the major issues of our day (no easy task to be sure). So while I have reached my answer what about the rest of you? I turn once again to you my fellow viners and I ask you to please participate in my LISAED poll. Tell me what will be the key driver of your primary vote – will it be your conscience or will it be electabilty? As always I thank you for sharing your opinions with me and Happy New Year! 2008 for better or worse is finally here!

My name is Lisa. And I approve this message. (thanks, epi!)

How influential will Newviners be in the 2008 presidential election?

That's the purpose of this poll which asks members to indicate in which state's caucuses or primaries they will be participating. It's the first 6 weeks of the campaign season in which the huge field of candidates will be winnowed down and quite possibly the two major political parties will have their presumed nominees. That means that people living in those states l have a lot to say about who becomes the next president. And Newsvine members tend to be more politically aware (and opinionated) than the electorate at large, which means their circle of influence extends to many family members and friends who look to them for advice when making up their minds.

I realize, of course, that there are a lot of libertarians, independents, and disgruntled partisans who won't vote or go to caucuses, so please don't participate in this poll. And one other request, feel free to comment and, if you want, reveal who you intend to vote for or whether you'll be voting at all. But please, keep the discussion civil and refrain from bashing, insulting, or name-calling other Newsviners.

For those curious about the overall 2008 Presidential Election Calendar, the Boston Globe has a good rundown at http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/primaries/.

Well, he still has a ways to go, but Fred's continuing to show why he's my favorite candidate.

Update: One of the comments below pointed out that this ad doesn't conform to federal campaign laws. I think I know the reason... I went to Fred's website, and found it is billed as "Video: Special Christmas Holiday Message" which leads me to believe this is not a paid commercial as such but rather an internet generated and disseminated video. According to the American Thinker blog, there have been over 30,000 hits on You Tube and bloggers are praising it profusely while linking to it.

Well, it's now December 2007 and we are just 4 weeks away from the first major primary in Iowa on January 3rd. And this story is not new. We conservatives had waited and waited and no not so patiently all last summer for our Fred Thompson to finally and officially throw his hat in the ring and announce his candidacy for President. And alas seasons change and that day finally came one September evening on the Jay Leno Show, but we conservatives worried about Fred's timing. Some experts tried to reassure us that Fred's late entrance was a sound strategic move that would allow him to seem fresh to the electorate, but was it really? He'd missed all that time on the campaign trail pressing palms not to mention countless GOP debates. We all knew Fred had a lot of ground to make up, but was it too much? And so now that the holiday season is here to distract us until the Iowa caucuses I am still asking myself: "Oh Fred, Fred. Wherefore art thou Fred Thompson?"

You see I liken Fred Thompson to some hero in a Shakespearean play---only I just can't say as yet how Fred's story will end. Will it be a comedy or a tragedy? I find myself watching the republican analysts discussing the GOP field and it seems no matter who is being interviewed be it Ann Coulter or even Fred's own Mary Matalin, the interviewer never pushes on the one question I want the experts to answer: "Why isn't Fred Thompson doing better in the polls?" In all fairness, Tim Russert did touch on this lightly with Mary Matalin two weeks ago on Meet The Press. However, Tim allowed Mary to provide us with the same old canned campaign response that "Fred remains #2 in the national polls." But let's face it unless Fred wins some major primaries he will not be our nominee. It's all but a given that Fred has no chance in Iowa or New Hampshire, so we conservatives look to next February's Super Tuesday with high hopes because his campaign tells us that's when Fred will start to move up dramatically in the polls. But will he?

Conservatives remember with fondness this same time in 1999 when George W. Bush was clearly our man. Now in 2007 we look anxiously at the broad field of GOP nominees and know in our hearts that there is not even one frontrunner for us conservatives to love. Romney….Giuliani? They are both all too blue for the conservative base. McCain? Don't even get me started. He threw us under the bus too many times over the last 8 years and we conservatives like our symbolic party elephant do not forget. So when McCain and the rest of the field eventually bow out just who will benefit? I have to believe that Fred could be the beneficiary if he himself manages to keep his horse in the race.

For the record, well it looks pretty grim, I have not yet given up on Fred Thompson. As I noted in my article: "The Hillary 24/7 Show" while Fred may not end up our GOP nominee for President he could still earn a VP nod. I can't help but recognize some similarities with our current VP Dick Cheney – at this stage in their careers both very experienced in Washington insider politics and both plagued by some serious health concerns.

And so my question remains unanswered: Why isn't Fred Thompson doing better? What is the primary (no pun intended) reason? I can think of many potential answers to the question and maybe its some combination of them all. Let's consider the possibilities:

-He's too late to the race and is not likely to deliver a come from behind win.
-His campaign team is an administrative mess despite having that gem Mary Matalin on board.
-He is lackluster in debates---the real Fred Thompson just isn't as powerful as his Law & Order persona.
-He has health issues and though in remission his lymphoma is still troubling.
-The Lazy Factor: He just doesn't seem to want it as badly as Giuliani or Romney

So since the answer to my question apparently is not forthcoming from anywhere else I turn once again to you my fellow viners. I ask you to please participate in my LISAED poll. Tell me what is the number one reason why Fred Thompson continues to lag. I thank you for once again sharing with me your opinions and Happy Holidays!

Relevant Link: "The Hillary 24/7 Show"/ http://lisaed.newsvine.com/_news/2007/10/04/1003172-the-hillary-247-show

A CNN host acknowledged the participation of a retired Army colonel linked to Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton in a televised Republican debate Wednesday.

Keith Kerr of Santa Rosa, Calif., who revealed himself as gay, challenged the eight candidates via video message and on stage at the CNN/YouTube debate in Florida on the right of gays and lesbians to serve openly in the U.S. military.

The broadcast, however, failed to mention that Kerr, who served as a brigadier general in the reserves, is a member of a gay and lesbian steering committee for Democratic candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Looks like Ron Paul is having trouble in his home paradise.

While Texan Ron Paul's stock is soaring nationally, there is trouble on the home front. In September, Paul finished third in a straw poll of 1,300 Texas Republican activists who had been delegates to recent Republican conventions.

It's just October 2007 (and hurrah the Yankees are in the playoffs) and already I'm sick of this. It seems the 2008 election news coverage has been reduced to all Hillary all the time. All I hear when I turn on any of the cable news programs is about Hillary this and Hillary that. It's what I like to call the "Hillary 24/7 Show." There has never been any doubt in my mind that she will be the next democratic nominee for President which makes the whole Democratic primary news cycle and the endless debates all so predictable. Yes – she won the debate again. And yes - she wore something from the orange family again. I do confess that at this stage I could never have predicted the strength of her lead over Obama. John Edwards was a dud nominee from the start. Not too long ago Iowa was his to lose and last I heard Edwards is in third place in Iowa still hiding behind Elizabeth's apron strings. He's done. I would wager that Obama was done too oh some time back when he said he wanted to make nice nice with Iran and then bomb Pockey-stan. Obama also, as others have said, made a fatal error putting himself up onto the "I'm the nice candidate" pedestal from which it seems he cannot climb down to effectively punch Hillary. Ho Hum.

When I watch the Hillary 24/7 Show, I hear about how she will win based on the strength of her healthcare program. What? Perhaps there is something to what Ann Coulter says about the female vote in her new book. Soccer moms and unwed mothers are supporting Hillary in droves. I can't decide if Hillary is like the serpent in the Garden of Eden offering up the HillaryCare apple or if perhaps she is the evil witch in Snow White (heck she has the cackle down, right?) offering up a poisonous apple to the innocent female.

But still I have to give Hillary credit. We're told over and over again on the Hillary 24/7 Show that she has skipped the primaries and is running a general election thumbing her nose at the left and holding on as tight as she can to the center. Her numbers would indicate that this is indeed a winning strategy. Some others on the Hillary 24/7 Show wonder if she has she peaked to soon. Nah. Being a Clinton she has a very well oiled, very efficient election machine that protects her in a bubble from any hard questions from the people or the press. And let's face it. She's too smart to have a Howard Dean-style melt down which is the only way Obama could ever really had a shot. And like they gleefully point out over and over again ad nauseam on the Hillary 24/7 Show she just seems so "Presidential!"

But what about the GOP? With Hillary a foregone conclusion, this is where the true race for the presidency lies. Nevertheless, news coverage of the GOP presidential nominees is just a footnote to the Hillary 24/7 Show. Where oh where is Fred Thompson? A late entry to this race, I yearn to hear more from him. Will Fred be the Reaganesque conservative that can rally the GOP base and save us from Hillary? Or will Rudy Giuliani truly be as he has positioned himself the only candidate who can beat her reminiscent of the Nixon-Reagan race for in '68? Last I heard McCain (who in my humble opinion like Edwards never had a chance to win his party's nomination) was in third place with Romney slipping post Thompson's entry to fourth. And though it seems the GOP race will be between Giuliani and Thompson, it remains to be seen how much more momentum Thompson will gain. Assuming Thompson continues to climb in the polls will those percentage points come from Giuliani, McCain, Romney, the rest of the non-contender field? This indeed will be very interesting to watch, and let's hope the media gives it some coverage!

And when the GOP finally has a nominee – it will be game on. Will it be Rudy? Will it be Fred? To me at this point it's a toss up. If Fred cannot pull ahead in great strength against Rudy then Rudy it shall be. In my opinion, the GOP will need to balance a Rudy for President ticket very carefully with a more traditionally conservative voice. Perhaps Fred Thompson? Being conservative, my vote of course is for a Thompson-Guiliani ticket as the winning combination to beat Hillary. But if Rudy cannot be surpassed, I will settle for Guiliani-Thompson and then dear Hillary, the Hillary 24/7 Show will be pre-empted and the subway series will begin.

(CNN) – On the eve of the New Hampshire primary, former President Bill Clinton criticized the media for not pressing Barack Obama more fully on Iraq, and accused the Illinois senator of shifting his position to reflect changing attitudes on the war.

"It is wrong that Senator Obama got to go through 15 debates trumpeting his superior judgment and how he had been against the war in every year, enumerating the years, and never got asked one time, not once, 'Well, how could you say that when you said in 2004 you didn't know how you would have voted on the resolution? You said in 2004 there was no difference between you and George Bush on the war," Clinton said at a campaign stop in Hanover, New Hampshire.

"And you took that speech you're now running on off your Web site in 2004. And there's no difference in your voting record and Hillary's ever since."

He added, "Give me a break. This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen."

The Republicans have been ridiculed for not wanting to participate in a YouTube-CNN debate, which incorporates user-submitted questions on the video-sharing site. The Democrats have already had a successful debate, which was hosted and promoted by YouTube and CNN. Well, the Republicans have finally agreed to hold a debate on YouTube, but it has already been postponed by more than a couple of months. This is not a huge surprise, considering that a date had been chosen prior to any lead candidates being approached for planning the event.

Today I read an outstanding seed from Killfile concerning Sean Hannity quitting the Republican party. I recommend that everyone read it here. While many responding in that thread may espouse a more liberal or Democratic point of view, and may be focused on their dislike for Republicans, Hannity, or Conservatism in general, I thought it would be helpful to look at this story from another angle.

Let it be said that I have read Sean Hannity's official website today, Hannity forums, and the Fox News site for "Hannity and Colmes" and found no mention of Hannity quitting the party and registering as an independant. Several have said they heard him make the comment, so let us assume for the moment that the rumours may be true. Regardless, there is a bigger and broader question that needs to be asked:

Why are so many conservatives angry with - even disgusted with - the Republican Party? And, since conservatives are not only the core of the party, but the majority of the rank-and-file members of the party, what does this mean for Republicans as they head into the exceptionally important 2008 elections?

It strikes me, as an unhappy Republican, that in taking the action that he has taken and making the statements that he has recently, Sean Hannity is trying to make the most visible point that he can about the dismay many Republicans feel about the direction of the party. Republican Party bosses ignore this trend at their own peril.

I am not attempting to win over anyone here on Newsvine to conservatism or to become a fan of Sean Hannity. But, I would like to present, from a conservative point of view, some of the critical problems facing the Republicans at this time:

* Corruption - most of us who voted Republican did so out of an understanding that they wanted to run government cleanly and efficiently, that they wanted to stop the hogs from running amok in the public trough. As time went on, we've realized that some of the Republicans were the biggest hogs.

* Irresponsibility - while there are some surface indicators that the American economy is robust, there are some more subtle signs that we have major problems and we're going to have more serious ones in the future, thanks to the grossly irresponsible way that our government, led by Republicans, has spent our money.

* Arrogance - sadly, many Republican leaders have shown that they can be every bit as power mad, if not moreso, than the Democrats. And, they have seemingly focused more on maintaining their power than on maintaining their integrity.

* Incompetence - it seems that Brownie was not the only one doing a "heckuva job." All across the halls of power, led by Republicans, our government has been riddled with people who are either unqualified to do their jobs or simply hapless, hopeless, and clueless. Every week seems to bring some humiliating new development of someone who miscalculated, mispoke, misjudged, or missed the mark by a mile.

* Confusion - the Republican party no longer articulates a clear and steady vision. It may be because they don't see one. Basic ideas such as limited government, low taxes, strong defense and national security, support for traditional moral values, reverence for and adherance to the Costitution all seem to be muddled by bad behavior or - worse - a "falling away" from these values and standards. Conflicting or nonsensical statements from public officials only add to the confusion. So many times, it seems that one hand doesn't know what the other is doing. Lack of clear and sound leadership - and basic communication skills - has greatly muddled the Republican message.

Lest you think that Hannity's words are a cheap political stunt, you should be reminded that his recent stinging criticism of Republicans concerning the illegal alien amnesty bill helped to prompt Republican Senator Trent Lott to mutter bitterly that something "needed to be done" to control talk radio. Hannity has deeply angered some very powerful people - some of whom have been his friends for many years. What he has said, he has said out of principle. And, while I don't always agree with Hannity, and I don't know that I agree with his leaving the GOP at this time, I understand his frustration.

You may disagree with every single value that I have espoused here, you may hate Republicans, Conservatives, and Sean Hannity. You may not even be overly fond of me, heheheh, but I wrote this simply to provide some understanding to my more liberal friends why many in the Republican Party are angry with their leaders at this time. We expect remedies in the areas I mentioned, and in others, and we expect them soon, or more will follow Hannity's example.

Among Conservatives, some might see that what Hannity is doing is an act of love for the country and for conservative values, speaking to the Republicans as a voice of conscience, in much the same way that sincere traditional liberals have rebuked the Democratic party in times past.

Thompson's Backers Check His `Fire in the Belly' for 2008 Race

By Kim Chipman and Julianna Goldman
June 28 (Bloomberg) -- Fred Thompson looks the part, and usually gets it.

Long before he became a Hollywood actor, people offered him roles tailor-made for his imposing stature, his rich baritone and his homespun dignity. Throughout his life, he said in a television interview in March, ``doors have opened for me and I had the sense to walk through them.'' He has ascended without much apparent effort from country lawyer to prosecutor to U.S. senator while building a parallel career as a film and TV actor, notably in the NBC series ``Law & Order.''

Now, the powerful Tennessee Republicans who propelled Thompson, 64, into politics three decades ago want to cast him in the role of a lifetime: president of the United States. The question, some of them say, is whether he wants it badly enough to endure the rigors of a campaign.

``Does he really have the passion, the energy, the fire in the belly to run?'' said former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, who is advising his fellow Tennessean. ``I believe he does, but we will only know as he gets on the campaign trail.''

A White House run would be the crowning achievement of a life marked by almost uncanny timing, an ability to leverage his working-class roots in Lawrenceburg, Tennessee, and his formidable presence both in politics and show business.

Even before his expected July announcement, Fred Thompson's all-but-declared entry into the Republican presidential stakes has prompted the Democratic National Committee to attack him as a potential GOP front-runner and to use his prospective candidacy to raise money

In what could be a looming nightmare for Democrats, Ralph Nader said he is seriously considering running for president again in 2008 – calling front-runner Hillary Clinton a "political coward."

"The two parties are still converging," he declared in an interview with Roger Simon of politico.com.

"I really think there needs to be more competition from outside the two parties . . .

"What third parties can do is bring young people in, set standards on how to run a presidential election and keep the progressive agenda in front of the people. And maybe tweak a candidate here and there in the major parties."

NEW YORK - New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg on Tuesday switched his party status from Republican to unaffiliated, a stunning move certain to be seen as a prelude to an independent presidential bid that would upend the 2008 race.

The billionaire former CEO, who was a lifelong Democrat before he switched to the GOP for his first mayoral run, said the change in voter registration does not mean he is running for president.

"Although my plans for the future haven''t changed, I believe this brings my affiliation into alignment with how I have led and will continue to lead our city," he said in a statement.

Despite his coyness about his aspirations, the mayor''s decision to switch stokes speculation that he will pursue the White House, challenging the Democratic and Republican nominees with a legitimate and well-financed third-party bid.

Bloomberg has an estimated worth of more than $5 billion and easily could underwrite a White House run, much like Texas businessman Ross Perot in 1992. Bloomberg spent more than $155 million for his two mayoral campaigns, including $85 million when he won his second term in 2005.

The 65-year-old mayor has fueled the presidential buzz with increasing out-of-state travel, including New Hampshire last weekend; a greater focus on national issues and repeated criticism of the partisan politics that dominate Washington.

"The politics of partisanship and the resulting inaction and excuses have paralyzed decision-making, primarily at the federal level, and the big issues of the day are not being addressed, leaving our future in jeopardy," he said in a speech Monday at the start of a University of Southern California conference about the advantages of nonpartisan governing.

A Bloomberg entry would roil the already volatile and wide-open race to succeed President Bush.

Lord knows how long this may last but the repubs are fighting tooth and nail to bring debate to the house floor regarding earmarks. This is good for us little ol taxpayers who have to pay for this pork.

WASHINGTON -- Warring factions in the House neared the end of a two-day imbroglio over how to handle thousands of requests by lawmakers for home district projects, as Democrats yielded to GOP demands for floor votes on offending "earmarks."

The development came Wednesday evening as leaders in both parties, not to mention rank-and-file lawmakers, became increasingly frustrated over the earmarks impasse that held up debate for a second day on the popular budget bill funding the Homeland Security Department.

We need less spending by the federal government, not more.

1.   Republicans Go To Jail; Democrats Get Disbarred

So Former Clinton NSA Sandy Berger admits stealing and destroying classified terrorism documents prior to a 9/11 investigation and his punishment is to take away a license that he doesn't use? Meanwhile Scooter Libby is bankrupt and heading in for 2 1/2 years for slight misinformation given during a useless investigation where there was no crime and no one to protect.

Does anyone on the Democratic side care to reconcile these for me?

No wonder the pre-9/11 and Iraq pre-war intelligence was so lousy - apparently Bush's predecessor's felt they had custodial control over classified materials and could do whatever they wanted with them.  Even after they left office.

And apparently, they were right. Does this discourage others from destroying classified government documents? If it were a Bush Administration member doing it, wouldn't this be the front page headline and the next anti-Bush blog obsession for the next 18 months?

2.  We'll Always Have Paris:

Paris Hilton is the embodiment of the theory that the media in this country control the agenda.  Otherwise, why in the world would we care about a person who produces nothing, contributes nothing or says nothing of substance?

With the media obsession over Paris Hilton's jail fiasco it seems everyone has an opinion on the fairness of the sentence and the injustice of fame and wealth manipulating court ordered sentencing, I think this is something we might all agree on:  If Hilton hates jail this much, maybe a few weeks in the slammer will teach her not to endanger other, lesser people who share her streets.  Maybe it will even save a life down the road.

3.  Conservatives Endorse Temporary Amnesty:

Thank God for Conservatives!  Now 12 million illegal aliens can continue living, working and hiding in the shadows unhindered and the border situation can remain chaotic!   The answer to not getting everything you want is to make sure that you get nothing at all and further frustrate the nation.  This brings me back to the 2006 elections.  I wonder how many Conservative immigration fundamentalists chose to not vote or vote Republican last year?

Last summer I warned Conservatives (and I had to gripe to get my Conservative hosts to post my article) about sitting out the election.  I said that if immigration is a big issue to you, then don't complain when you don't get anything you want on the immigration issue in the near future.   Withholding your vote or voting for a sure-loser third party will not advance your causes in any way.  Now instead we're working backward.  If we don't get at least some of the things we want in the next session, how many are going to sit out the next election too?  How does a Hillary administration and a Democratic Congress sound to you?  Think 'amnesty' is a looming threat now?  Wait until 2008.  Then we can all reacquaint ourselves with the word and a dictionary.

4.  The Reagan Factor:

Historian Douglas Brinkley was recently on the O'Reilly Factor, rating GOP candidates by the Reagan-gage.  Of the three top contenders in the Republican primary, he cited Mitt Romney as the most Reagan-like.

But when asked about Fred Thompson, Brinkley acknowledged that hands-down Thompson was the most like Reagan, citing his positions and his ability to communicate to everyday Americans:

"Rudy Giuliani's a folk hero of the American people, as Ronald Reagan was. The difference is that Reagan was more genial ... John McCain seemed 'Reaganesque' a few years ago, but he seems to be faltering slightly now ... Mitt Romney, like Reagan, was governor of a liberal state and had to deal with Democrats. There's a bit of the Reagan shine on Romney ... Fred Thompson is the most Reaganesque because he talks folksy and is fiercely loyal."

Have a great weekend!

there's no denying that Fred Thompson has one of the most profound personality cults we've seen in politics for a long time. While traveling around the country in recent months, I've been amazed at how many rank-and-file Republicans see Thompson as a secular savior, as if Thompson were designed by GOP-friendly alien scientists as some sort of Super Candidate.

Ronald Reagan's closest allies are throwing their weight behind the White House bid by the late president's fellow actor, Fred Thompson.The film star and former Republican senator from Tennessee will this week use a speech in the heart of Reagan country, in southern California, to woo party bigwigs in what insiders say is the next step in his coming out as a candidate.

'I think America is ready for a multilingual president," said Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-Bill) last week, responding to pesky critics who don't like the fact she uses various Southern accents, including Daisy Duke. And now they're pecking at her, mercilessly, the way chickens peck on a hen with a head sore.

I happen to think she's correct. America is ready for a president of multiple accents. President Bush talks cowboy when he wants. So why can't Hillary channel multiple Southern women if she so desires?

And if she wants to slip in and out of Southern and Northern accents like a Long Island mom playing Blanche DuBois at the community theater while her thumb is on the nuclear trigger, well, that's her business.

America might finally be ready for a white Yale Law School graduate from Park Ridge who is fluent in Southern Woman and various dialects, including Granny Clampett and Black Female Preacher. She commands many different voices -- and uses them without blushing -- as you may see for yourself on YouTube.

Years ago, she spoke excellent Tammy Wynette, in defending her Bill from the clutches of Yankee females who tried to take advantage of her man.

Recently, she's been using Black Female Preacher to appeal to black voters, first in Selma, and the other day in Manhattan, speaking to supporters of Rev. Al Sharpton.

"Kentucky Fried Hillary!" yowled the Drudge Report. Clinton was "adopting the Southern-fried lilt of a preacher at times," sniffed The New York Times, not generally the Bible of conservative opinion.

Wal-Mart's chief executive is shooting back at Senator Hillary Clinton's comments that the retailer has been a -- quote -- "mixed blessing" for America.

Wal-Mart C-E-O Lee Scott was in Dallas yesterday to accept an award from The Salvation Army.

Scott said Wal-Mart is doing a better job of responding to critics and taking part in policy debates.

During a debate Thursday, Clinton said that Wal-Mart has helped consumers by selling goods at low prices. But she said the company has also "raised serious questions" about how corporations should be leaders in providing health care and not discriminating based on sex or race.

The race for the Democratic presidential nomination has tightened significantly between Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, according to recent polls that show a sharp increase among voters who have negative opinions of the former first lady.
The New York senator held on to her front-runner status last week, but pollsters and political analysts said she was losing strategic segments of her party's base, including younger, single women, liberals and independents.
"The recent decline in her image appears to be broad-based, as it is evident among most key subgroups," the Gallup Poll said.
Gallup's survey of registered voters last week found that Mrs. Clinton had lost her double-digit lead over Mr. Obama of Illinois, who now trails her by five percentage points.
It also found that her favorability ratings had taken a nose dive.
Mrs. Clinton's favorability score fell from 58 percent in February to 45 percent last week her lowest Gallup score since 1993. Fifty-two percent said they have a negative view of her candidacy. This compared with Mr. Obama, who had a favorability rating of 52 percent.

Presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton on Friday assailed a "culture of cronyism" in government as the Democratic front-runner vowed to streamline the federal bureaucracy and improve accountability.

In a speech in early primary state New Hampshire, Clinton called for slashing 500,000 government contractors, potentially saving up to $18 billion a year. The New York senator promised that a second Clinton White House would cut back on no-bid government contracts.

"It's not exactly the subject matter that gets people marching in the street, but if we don't restore the confidence and the competence of our government, we will see the steady erosion of our government's capacity," Clinton said.

The speech also sought to emphasize her knowledge of government and - although she never mentioned him - highlight the differences between her resume and that of Democratic rival Barack Obama, a freshman senator.

"It's time again for a president who can earn your respect and trust, one day at a time," Clinton said

The former first lady acknowledged voters look at politicians and government with cynicism - "that's sort of the American birthright" - but she said her plan could remedy that.

He scares me, but I don't hate him. It's because I don't hate him that he scares me.

You see, on current form, Fred Thompson is the only candidate or potential candidate who could hold the White House for the Republican party in 2008.

Scared yet?

If we analyze Thompson's prospects from the point of view of the electorate as a whole, and then from each of the three broad constituents of that electorate, Republicans, Independents and Democrats, it will be clear why Thompson has the best chance.

First, let us be blunt. Whether by their own fault, as an unintended consequence of some other force, or as victims of a system devised to that purpose, the American electorate is shallow, superficial, easily amused and impulsive. Fred Thompson is perfectly positioned to exploit those qualities. This is not to say that Thompson himself shares those qualities, only that he can exploit them. For example, it seems likely that after the years of emotional instability and immaturity in the White House during Clinton's terms, followed now by years of intellectual instability and immaturity in the White House during Bush's terms, that the electorate will hunger simply for a man of prudence and quiet dignity, of phlegmatic disposition and professional bearing.. I personally have no idea whether Thompson is in fact prudent, dignified, phlegmatic and professional, but I do know that he plays that character on a famous and popular television drama.

In fact, Thompson has pretty much played that character in all his dramatic roles for his twenty years in the business. Is the public likely to accept contrary claims from his political adversaries either in the primaries or the general election whatever level of evidence they produce? On the record so far (barring a closeted skeleton of immense impact), No. A single few months of political attack ads undoing twenty years of Hollywood typecasting? I don't think so. Heck, can you beat a guy running for President playing the President? And having that fictional President face nuclear terrorism? (See photo, courtesy Nuclear Threat Initiative).

For the Republican perspective, first, divide the GOP along the "Grass roots" and "Beltway elite" axis. Every candidate in the field so far has huge, possibly insurmountable problems one side of that divide or the other. While the Republican cosmopolitan elites would no doubt love to welcome a President-elect Rudy Guiliani to Washington, will he play in the provinces? The grass-rootsers despise John McCain with a passion. While the grass roots might find a kindred spirit in the likes of a Mike Huckabee, the elites will rebel at the prospect of another rural Arkansan taking over "their" town. Wall Street would love one of their own, Mitt Romney, in the Oval Office, but will a Mormon carry Mississippi? All the Republican candidates are strongly attached to one wing of the party, yet detached, even the object of hostility from, the other wing. Except Fred Thompson.

While Thompson has no power-base or bloc in either wing, he also as no enemies in either wing .... and he has a few important friends in both places.

Regarding Independent voters, the comments about public persona above apply doubly. But, also, by virtue of the exact years of his service in the United States Senate, Thompson wound up with a voting record that is inoffensive to potential swing or independent voters without being horribly offensive to either Democrats or Republicans. He was usually anti-abortion, for instance, but never signed on to the furthest (and most doomed) legislation. He supported McCain-Feingold, sure, but the anti-McCain-Feingold ire is directed at, well, McCain and independents supported the bill. Other than that, Thompson didn't make a big deal of anything while in the Senate. And he has been out of the Senate for most these last five years of acrimony and controversy. As a fictional New York district attorney, he could comment topically on whatever issue he wanted then either distance himself from his words or adopt them as he chose, while as a real United States Senator he might've had to go on record constantly and consistently on Iraq, on Budgets and on social issues like Terry Schiavo. His recent absence from the Senate was most convenient for appealing to Independents.

Finally, to the Democrats. We don't hate him. While Fred has not yet captured the enthusiasm of the Republican base, neither has he fired up the passions of his adversary's base. The Democrats' grass-rootsers would despise, say, Newt Gingrich as much as the Republican base might embrace him. There are significant numbers of voters on the Democratic side who would vote primarily against a Sam Brownback or a Duncan Hunter on either personality or policy grounds. Objection to Gingrich might drive a measurable portion of the electorate to the polls in November. Does anybody hate Fred Thompson that much? Hell, how can you hate that pretty face??

Or is it a scary face?