The so called "experts".
 

He's being pro-white collar-criminal. That does not qualify him as a Lefty.

The so called "experts".
 

No, his words (which he has eaten all day) were that he'd give passes (at least one, maybe two) to anyone who committed a non-violent crime. Where I come from, white collars aren't the only ones who commit non-violent crimes. Us blue collar folk may not have the edufication to do real big money crimes but we can handle a swindle or two.

The so called "experts".
 

I couldn't care less about her sex. In fact, in my view, we're way overdue for a woman president. We need a fresh perspective. And I don't care if she's a bitch.

What I care about is that she's a fucking old school tax and spend liberal parading around as a moderate.

We got burnt voting for one liar in 2000. But at least that asshole hasn't yet cost me serious cash. Hillary will try to resurrect nationalized health care and pour money into usseless programs to socially engineer the country. Fuck that. Bush is a horse's ass, but one thing he did get right is that we need to keep staring the beast. We need to keep cuitting the govt until it becomes a size that works for us, rather than acting as a fucking speedbump to all entreprenuerial endeavors in this country.

Hillary is a bureaucrat's wet dream. I believe she deep down wants to start the Great Society II. We can't afford that.

That, and only that, is the reason I loathe her.

ETA: If only Bush actually practiced what he preached re: starving the beast...

The so called "experts".
 

Not yet. Remember, law school didn't really cost you anything until after you graduated.

The so called "experts".
 

That would be a better argument if Bush actually had tried to cut government. All he's done is cut taxes. That's like starving your wife's jewelry purchasing by taking a lower-paying job.

The so called "experts".
 

You're right... I knew I forgot one important point in my earlier post. Thanks.

The so called "experts".
 

Then I suppose you'd never make a point about her weight or cankle-size, nor suggest the inevitable heinousness of her spawn , then would you, Mr. Above-Board?

The so called "experts".
 

I miss ThrashersFan. <sniff>

The so called "experts".
 

Sidd,

I gotta disagree. I think there's a sliver of Jesus Nazis and scared, sexist assholes who will mobilize into an anti-"bitch" contingent. But the majority of anti-Hillary votes will come from scared moderates who see her as one massive future tax bill.

She'll actually disprove the conventional wisdom that winning a pres race is all about money. A candidate with less money could beat her because her own ads - her own face - is an advertisement against her to so many.

She's just too damned polarizing. And she's got too many skeletons. She lowers the "morals" bar because of her husband. If McCain runs, he can pick up an otherwise unelectable Guiliani as a VP. Normally, Rudy wouldn't stand a chance because of his divorce, affair, pro-choiceness... But against Hill, as a VP to McCain - a one term president - Rudy's a fucking home run VP choice.

Who's going to beat a McCain/Rudy ticket? Not Hillary. In a sense, she'd be the best gift ever for the GOP. She'd allow the party to win without the Jesus Freaks, curing it of that "keeping the big tent together" problem its had.

Or maybe I'm just insane,
SD

The so called "experts".
 

Of course I'll make fun of her appearance... Do you recall who you're bantering with here? But what's that got to do with anything?

Here's the offending quote, proving that I dislike Hillary because she's a woman, and not for valid poliitcal reasons:

"Are you serious? Hillary has legs that belong on a piano, an ass wider than two strike zones and a face that could scare a dog off a meat wagon.

Bill may have a WC Fields cauliflower nose, but otherwise, he's a normal looking cat. Compared to his wife, he's Pierce Brosnan.

How could poor Chelsea avoid being ugly?"

The so called "experts".
 

I stand corrected. But I will point out that arguing over who read more of Sebby's posts more closely is like competing in the Special Olympics.

The so called "experts".
 

It cost me three years of sex with normal people. Can you put a present value on that?

The so called "experts".
 

The only eating taking place on the fb was your gurgling with with your well endowed albino boyfriend's member.

And if his balls are truly that color, you should have his liver checked out...

The so called "experts".
 

Hahahahahahaha. You have got to be kidding. I agree that people like you will be part of the group voting against her, but socially moderate/fiscally conservative voters will be but a small, small portion of the anti-Hillary vote. The ditto-head talk radio listeners, the O'Reilly/Scarborough viewers, the freeper-type blogosphere afficianados -- they all have a visceral hatred for her. Take the irrational hatred that Bill inspired among these folks and add to it the fact that many of these people think of Hillary as a lesbian killer, and you will see how they will react. Think of the anti-Bill fire, and add gasoline.

The idea that you, with your concern about taxes, reflect more than 10% of the people who oppose her is truly laughable. The vast right wing conspiracy will never forgive her for pointing out on national tv that the people behind the Paula Jones/Starr inquiry were, well, a vast right wing conspiracy.

John Connolly and Phil Graham. Money is needed in competitive amounts, but the guy with the most money isn't always the one who wins.

I'm with you there. I don't think that she'll make a good president, and I plan to support someone else in the primaries. I think that her experience in running the health care initiative showed that she is tone deaf, condescending, thin-skinned, and vindictive. She is not portrayed as a nice person in any of the memoirs of the administration that I have read. Sure, she's smart, and loyal, blah blah blah. Anyway, if she's the nominee, I think that she loses to almost anyone reasonably sane.

But I don't think that McCain will be the GOP nominee (a pity) because, unlike the donkeys, the GOP likes loyalists, and McCain is Not Loyal. Plus, McCain is not viewed as a conservative, and the primary voters in the GOP tend to be more to the right (just as the Dem primary voters tend to the left). And you just know that W will push for someone else, anyone else, and the party faithful will probably follow.

The so called "experts".
 

Bob,

I just don't agree that the virulent right wing is that big. I've spent some time in the red state sticks and most people talk about taxes and terrorism, not hatred of Clinton.

I think she'd lose without the lesbian-killer haters.

SD

The so called "experts".
 

Just so we're all clear here, is the allegation that Hillary is a lesbian who murders people, or a person who murders lesbians?

Just checking.

The so called "experts".
 

As long as the epithet includes the word "lesbian," I'm not sure it matters.

Which reminds me -- I was listening to some schmuck on the radio this morning theorizing that McCain and Giuliani should keep their positions in the GOP firmament for the forseeable campaign future (a.k.a the next 12 months or so), when I wondered, Why would the GOP Faithful back an admitted adulterer? I understand the cleansing effect of the Post 9/11 Leader-stuff, but damn. I thought this kinda stuff was (in part) what got Bush elected in the first place.

The so called "experts".
 

The Party establishment loathes McCain, but that doesn't matter because they do not control the primary system. The average Republican conservative voter has nothing against him because he is pro-life and pro-gun. He will have the money and the name recognition. Tough man to beat. Only Guiliani will give him a run for his money, but he won't have a chance (although I will be supporting Giuliani).

The so called "experts".
 

I'll defer to your knowledge in this area. I was always under the impression, though, that the GOP establishment had more influence in the primaries. Maybe it just seems that way in comparison to the influence that the Democratic establishment (heh, now there's an oxymoron) has in Democratic primaries in the post-1968 era.

The so called "experts".
 

A lesbian who murders people. Or is complicit in the murder of people. Except when we talk about how Vince Foster was her luv-uh (and the father of Chelsea).

The so called "experts".
 

Just when I thought it was safe to be here again, and Not Bob starts channeling Penske.

The so called "experts".
 

In Texas, the portion of voters who were into the lesbian allegations early in Bill's first term was quite high. The first time I met my former in-laws, who weren't total wackadoos (but were religious conservatives), they shared with me that Hillary was a dyke. I believe my response was "so what?" But in the So Baptist church, they apparently care about that sort of thing.

The so called "experts".
 

I can't think of anyone less likely to have sympathy with you on that one.

The so called "experts".
 

I've spent time in Coastal Texas and many other southern states and the hatred for this woman is over-the-top irrational and I rarely hear economic policies discussed. Sebby's "sticks in red states" (Philly suburbs?) are probably different than southern red states.

Anyways, I bet your former inlaws never tried her chocolate chip cookie recipe.

The so called "experts".
 

I agree completely, assuming sort of divine intervention gets him through the GOP primaries.

eta: Not Bob has my not proxy, apparently.

The so called "experts".
 

How many years of borrow-and-spend Republicans will we have to ensure before this "tax-and-spend" thing no longer has any meaning? I think we're about halfway there.

The so called "experts".
 

I think they were unwilling to forgive her somewhat before that. Like Diane, I think there's something more viscerally wrong with those people.

Good or Bad: Not so sure
 

I used to think the hatred of Hillary by the arch consevatives was bad for her, but now I am not so sure. I have noticed that the more the left hates Bush the more the right loves him. It is like the Cindy Sheehans help him solidify his base. With Hillary, as long as the far right hates her it does not matter how far she moves to the center to court the moderates, the left will stick with her purely because the Right complain about her so much. And these arch conservatives were never going to vote for her anyway. Just like the ultra liberals were never going to like Bush.

And she is moving pretty far to the center now.

Good or Bad: Not so sure
 

I think you are confused about what the partisans on both sides are reacting to. The right doesn't love Bush because the left hates him. Bush purposefully governs in a way that polarizes -- the right loves him and the left hates him because he wants it that way, and works for this result. This is how Rove works. It's been very effective for Bush.

And the left doesn't love Hillary. She has her support, but it's not necessarily the lefties among the Dems.

The so called "experts".
 

we spend on good stuff that helps. You guys piss it away. Watch the PBS Reagan special where they prove he spent a ton to destroy the USSR and at the same time it rebuilt the economy Carter had ruined. Ty- are there duck and cover drills at your kids schools now? why not?

The so called "experts".
 

No idea if they exist anymore, but if not, my guess as to why would be that we all expect that the terrorists will hit swiftly enough that ducking and covering won't do much good. Is this the correct answer?

The so called "experts".
 

Name 1 movie Kirk Douglas was in. even 1.

The so called "experts".
 

Was he in some schmaltzy father-son flick with Michael towards the end of his career? Those are de rigeur, no?

Good or Bad: Not so sure
 

Sometimes I think you and I live on different planets. It seems on your planet that the extremes of the party care more about policy than emotion. Reagan did not do much for the social conservatives, but he said what they wanted to hear so they loved him for it. The elitest conservatives were angry when Reagan cosied up to Gorbachave, but the rank and file stuck by him.

Bush was not a very strong social conservative (the appointment of Alberto Gonzales to the Texas Supreme Court, saying the country was not ready for an amendment banning abortion, in his speeches always mentioning "Churches, Synagogues and Mosques". The Alan Keyes conservatives were not behind him. At the California Republican Assembly nominating convention (the social conservative wing of the CRP) out of 360 delegates, Alan Keys got 185 votes, Gary Bauer got sixty five votes and Steve Forbes got one hundred votes. What did Bush do to get them so solidy behind them. He angered the left. Everytime a Cindy Sheehan gets on TV bitching about Bush the more the right rank and file loves him. Ann Coulter can bitch about Bush's nominations, the other conservatives can talk about his tax and spend policies, or the fact that he never really got behind the defense of marriage act or the flag burning amendment but those weaknesses are drowned out by the screaming of bloody murder by the left.

At any Republican convention, when the social conservatives want to whip up their crowd they just read excerpts of what liberals have said about him (calling him a war criminal, stupid etc). It is a highly effective technique and I have seen it used many times.

And the rank and file far left love Hillary. I have seen the focus groups. The far left leaders, who get interviewed on TV and the ones who are writing to the editor may not be so enamored with her, but the rank and file love her. Dean and Sheehan hate her, but in any focus group the self identified strong liberals all say they love her.

There are three hundred million Americans and you can never know what they are really thinking by listening to the leadership of any group. The only way I know of discerning what the rank and file of any political persuasion really thinks is through focus groups.

The so called "experts".
 

I don't think the primary will be that tough. McCain almost won the primaries in 2000 when he had no money and almost no endorsements and Bush had sixty million dollars and every endorsement. I was a paid consultant to the Bush campaign in the spring of 2000 and I remember this very clearly.

Everyone assumed Bush had a walk so every politicians, from city councilman to Senator endorsed him early. The unanimity was really shocking. The only people not on the band wagon were the arch conservatives.

Then McCain won New Hampshire quite handily despite no money. McCain barely lost South Carolina and then won Michigan. The entire establishment went into a panic because everyone had endorsed Bush. Almost every politicians endorses based on who they think will win, not who they like. Every Republican politician across the country panicked, because if McCain won they would be on the losing side. After Bush lost the New Hampshire primary almost every Republican office holder in norther California asked "what can I do to help Bush?". Those appointments people had dreamed about were going up in smoke. Moderate, Conservative, it didn't matter. McCain ran out of money, and the local politicians were able to mobilize their employees and Bush took it. McCain got tons of volunteers, but they were all political neophytes. The rank and file came out of the woodwork and they were fanatical. Bush's support was wide but very thin.

But this time around McCain will have the money early, and every politician will not be behind the same man. If McCain seems inevitable, it will be a self fulfilling prophesy, and then unlike Bush, he will not only the endorsement of local politicians but he will also have fanatic grass root support.

But I wouldn't count Hillary out. I have siad this many times on the board, her support in focus groups is amazing. The left loves her and the moderates don't mind her. All feminists love her. Moderate Republican women like her. She is like Reagan in a way. The elite like her but can see she is a typical pandering politician. But the left rank and file have an emotional bond to her. Moderates don't mind her and all moderate women really like her.

The so called "experts".
 

Hah! for those of you who are mostly lurkers, this maybe goes over your head. Some facts- those of us in the in-crowd socialize and hang with each other. This weekend as we counted down to 12, SS, my illegetimate son, wondered if I would do some post with him as my last post when it comes time for me to retire- like the douglas' did. I said no. I never cared for his mom- receptacle.

The so called "experts".
 

I can name six right of the top of my head. There was a twenty year period where I don't think there were any movies he wasn't in.

The so called "experts".
 

Then you need a better slogan than "tax and spend." Something like: "Borrowing from future generations so we can give money to the rich and Abramoff's pals." Although that's not very catchy.

Slippery Slope to Legalization
 

Slippery Slope to Legalization
 

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/01/03/RI....ap/index.html

Rhode Island is the eleventh state to legalize medical marijuana. Eventually, pot is going to be legal. At some point I think the laws concerning tobacco use and cannabis use will become the same. Highly restricted but legal. Tobacco use will be reigned in more and more and marijuana use will become liberalized more and more. However, I don't think they will ever change sides - in other words tobacco use becoming more restricted than marijuana use.

It is also interesting to note that the list of states included both red and blue states: Maine, Vermont, Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington