The projection behavior of Hannity talking about "liberals'" hate and intolerance is classic. But as usual in stuff like this, the two seem to be talking past each other...

Not exactly political, but here's a more interesting debate: Hitchens vs. Sharpton, on religion and atheism.

http://empirezone.blogs.nytimes.com/200 ... and-faith/

Houshphandzadeh wrote:Maybe I'm being a bit naive, but that mayoral debate last night went a small ways toward restoring my faith in American democracy. All five of those guys (maybe not Fattah), seem pretty genuinely determined to help Philadelphia.

Evans and Nutter both look like a great choice either way. I'm not a fan of Brady simply because of the appearance(or actual) of a conflict of interest with him still leading the Democratic party in the city. Knox, meh, I don't see what's so great about this guy.

Califfornia has a republican governor partly because the state democratic party seems dumb as a box of hammers.

First, davis was recalled, so instead of finding a new candidate, they backed davis...and he had no electoral support from the average voter...not really, any republican could have beaten him, plus the election itself turned into ssort of a circus.

The msot recent election, state treasurer phil angelides (that was his name as far as i can tell, cause i never heard them separated) was wetter than the ocean, had no personality, charisma, and relaly nothing going for him but the ability to buy the california primary, and schwarzenegger ran unopposed.

This is a state with two, female, senators, but they've elcted this austrian douche bag twice....and don't underestimate the star factor, many people still think it's cool that the terminator is governor.

There were rumors that meathead might have run, he might actually have beat the governator

Disco Stu wrote:

phdave wrote:

Disco Stu wrote:

phdave wrote:

Disco Stu wrote:http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6153683903005498978&hl=en

Anyone who listens to Hannity and agrees with this one note bully can't think for themselves.

2 hours long?

Go past the first hour to the point that they are asking each other questions. Neither did a great job, but all Hannity did was insult, insult, insult.

Isn't that what he does daily on his shows?

Yeah, but it seems so much more pathetic when he is doing it in front of an audience in this situation. Don't bother if you don't care, but I like to watch asses make themselves look foolish.

Here ya go...

Dick Morris on Faux News H & C this Monday on why we should stay in Iraq...

"... if we stay in Iraq, it gives them the opportunity to kill more Americans, which they really like. One of the things though, that I think the anti-war crowd has not considered is that if we're putting the Americans right within their arms' reach, they don't have to come to Wall Street to kill Americans, they don't have to knock down the Trade Center, they can do it around the corner. And convenience is a big factor when you're a terrorist."

Dick Morris' true calling... writing military recruiting posters and ads.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HqePWUikLbQ[/youtube]

jemagee wrote:This is a state with two, female, senators, but they've elcted this austrian douche bag twice....and don't underestimate the star factor, many people still think it's cool that the terminator is governor.

I honestly can't imagine any other reason why people would have voted for him

Well, this made my blood boil...

Hack Attack

Not anything new, but more detail than I'd previously seen. Utterly disgusting. And yeah, it would be equally bad if a Democrat did it. Maybe worse.

My neighborhood (29th + Girard) is totally covered in red flyers that read "NUTTER IS FOR STOP & FRISK" "RACIAL PROFILING!" paid for by Knox.

dajafi wrote:And yeah, it would be equally bad if a Democrat did it. Maybe worse.

Captain Liberty Bell approves of your advance clarification!

dajafi wrote:Maybe worse.

Why worse?

phdave wrote:

dajafi wrote:Maybe worse.

Why worse?

I expect more of the people who haven't spattered crap on the Constitution for the past 35 years.

Mike Bloomberg really might run for president. Some links:

NYT

NY Daily News

Washington Times

A Bloomberg/Giuliani race would be fascinating, considering that New Yorkers themselves (ourselves) overwhelmingly prefer the current mayorboth in that job and the presidency. I could see Rudy running against New York even as he presents himself as its, and the nation's, defender against the turr'ists. But I don't think Rudy's getting to the general election, which would obviate the awkwardness of Bloomberg running against the guy who (like it or not, and I don't) basically gave him the mayoralty in late 2001.

But the real intrigue would be Bloomberg versus Hillary Clinton.

For non-zombified Democrats, particularly the progressive activists who disdain (or detest) Hillary and are currently supporting Barack Obama or John Edwards, this will pose a conundrum. Bloomberg's a better manager, he would have vastly more ability to get legislation passed in a closely divided Congress, and in some respects he could run to Sen. Clinton's left--he's simply a much stronger social liberal, with a demonstrated commitment to economic justice.

But he's not a Democrat (anymore), and might struggle to draw from the rest of the Democratic coalition. The unions probably would back Hillary... though the NYC unions don't hate Bloomberg, and Clinton's top advisor, Mark Penn, has some pretty ugly anti-labor credentials that Bloomberg's team would be quick to exploit. She'd have African-Americans, probably, though Bloomberg is sufficiently popular with black leaders in the city that he could send out a bunch of plausible surrogates and probably do at least as well as Bush did in '04.

Holding Bloomberg in as high regard as I do, I'm maybe looking for excuses to believe... but I've almost convinced myself that this could happen. If ever the country were ready for a "short, divorced Jewish billionaire" who doesn't pander or dumb it down and mostly offers managerial excellence, it would be after the disastrous years of Bush, who is Bloomberg's polar opposite--a tall, married "Christian" (in the "our team roolz" sense, not the "let's honor the teachings of Jesus" sense) who couldn't manage a Little League team and is transparently more interested in winning political fights than governing well. If the Democrats really do nominate Hillary, that will block off millions of independents and moderate Republicans who would be open to some Democrats but not to That Woman. None of the Republicans really look credible in a general election; Fred Thompson has huge flaws that will come into focus if and when he gets in, McCain is too tied to the war and carries the baggage of his past good deeds; and Romney is just sort of pathetic.

It still feels like a stretch that the country would recognize Bloomberg for the excellent president he could be. But not nearly as much as it did a few months ago.

Ron Paul: If he somehow, miracously, gets the Republican nomination, are the Dems then scared?

dajafi wrote:
Holding Bloomberg in as high regard as I do, I'm maybe looking for excuses to believe... but I've almost convinced myself that this could happen. If ever the country were ready for a "short, divorced Jewish billionaire" who doesn't pander or dumb it down and mostly offers managerial excellence, it would be after the disastrous years of Bush, who is Bloomberg's polar opposite--a tall, married "Christian" (in the "our team roolz" sense, not the "let's honor the teachings of Jesus" sense) who couldn't manage a Little League team and is transparently more interested in winning political fights than governing well. If the Democrats really do nominate Hillary, that will block off millions of independents and moderate Republicans who would be open to some Democrats but not to That Woman. None of the Republicans really look credible in a general election; Fred Thompson has huge flaws that will come into focus if and when he gets in, McCain is too tied to the war and carries the baggage of his past good deeds; and Romney is just sort of pathetic.

It still feels like a stretch that the country would recognize Bloomberg for the excellent president he could be. But not nearly as much as it did a few months ago.

Just remember the last time you went off the reservation and voted third party.

Phan Paul wrote:

dajafi wrote:
Holding Bloomberg in as high regard as I do, I'm maybe looking for excuses to believe... but I've almost convinced myself that this could happen. If ever the country were ready for a "short, divorced Jewish billionaire" who doesn't pander or dumb it down and mostly offers managerial excellence, it would be after the disastrous years of Bush, who is Bloomberg's polar opposite--a tall, married "Christian" (in the "our team roolz" sense, not the "let's honor the teachings of Jesus" sense) who couldn't manage a Little League team and is transparently more interested in winning political fights than governing well. If the Democrats really do nominate Hillary, that will block off millions of independents and moderate Republicans who would be open to some Democrats but not to That Woman. None of the Republicans really look credible in a general election; Fred Thompson has huge flaws that will come into focus if and when he gets in, McCain is too tied to the war and carries the baggage of his past good deeds; and Romney is just sort of pathetic.

It still feels like a stretch that the country would recognize Bloomberg for the excellent president he could be. But not nearly as much as it did a few months ago.

Just remember the last time you went off the reservation and voted third party.

Zing.

But, again, my 3p vote in NYS didn't matter that year. Next year could be different, but I'm sufficiently pro-Bloomberg that it wouldn't be a spite or protest vote--I genuinely prefer the guy.

Disco Stu wrote:Ron Paul: If he somehow, miracously, gets the Republican nomination, are the Dems then scared?

I was thinking last night that Libertarianism is probably the most internally consistent political philosophy out there. It doesn't work in the real world, but they get style points at least.

Paul's chances at the Republican nomination are about the same as Tommy Thompson's for "America's Next Top Model."

dajafi wrote:

Phan Paul wrote:

dajafi wrote:
Holding Bloomberg in as high regard as I do, I'm maybe looking for excuses to believe... but I've almost convinced myself that this could happen. If ever the country were ready for a "short, divorced Jewish billionaire" who doesn't pander or dumb it down and mostly offers managerial excellence, it would be after the disastrous years of Bush, who is Bloomberg's polar opposite--a tall, married "Christian" (in the "our team roolz" sense, not the "let's honor the teachings of Jesus" sense) who couldn't manage a Little League team and is transparently more interested in winning political fights than governing well. If the Democrats really do nominate Hillary, that will block off millions of independents and moderate Republicans who would be open to some Democrats but not to That Woman. None of the Republicans really look credible in a general election; Fred Thompson has huge flaws that will come into focus if and when he gets in, McCain is too tied to the war and carries the baggage of his past good deeds; and Romney is just sort of pathetic.

It still feels like a stretch that the country would recognize Bloomberg for the excellent president he could be. But not nearly as much as it did a few months ago.

Just remember the last time you went off the reservation and voted third party.

Zing.

But, again, my 3p vote in NYS didn't matter that year. Next year could be different, but I'm sufficiently pro-Bloomberg that it wouldn't be a spite or protest vote--I genuinely prefer the guy.

Yeah, it was a little bit of a cheap shot.

And Hillary is truly loathsome, though not for the reasons the troglodytes on the right think.

Frankly, it is something of a dilemma for me as well--as you know, I'm pretty disillusioned about the political class and in general think the only rational thing to follow Candide and tend my garden. But I still have an obvious interest in how these things turn out, and being a party loyalist is hardly either honorable or rewarding.

Disco Stu wrote:Ron Paul: If he somehow, miracously, gets the Republican nomination, are the Dems then scared?

Who the hell is Ron Paul?

pacino wrote:

Disco Stu wrote:Ron Paul: If he somehow, miracously, gets the Republican nomination, are the Dems then scared?

Who the hell is Ron Paul?

Not sure if you are serious, but he is a libertarian/Republican congressman out of Texas. I vaguely remember him, but he put up fireworks at the Republican debate going head to head with Guliani about the war.

Ron Paul?

No man with two first names has ever been elected President of the United States.

It will probably take about five minutes for me to be proven completely wrong about this.

swishnicholson wrote:Ron Paul?

No man with two first names has ever been elected President of the United States.

It will probably take about five minutes for me to be proven completely wrong about this.

"Franklin Pierce" is both two first names and two last names.

For that matter so is "Abraham Lincoln," though I doubt there were too many people named "Lincoln" before Abe. And both Roosevelts, I guess.

And Bill Clinton is kind of two first names. Thomas Jefferson...

The hell with this--it's not like I have all night here