/gasp but of course Rover didn't post a link to it the moment it broke.

Seems he was not only involved in the Abramoff muck ( I hate special interest groups and their power in Washington btw ).

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/1/29/110005.shtml


But apparently some land scam where he made a shit load of money he didn't have a right to and then hid.

http://newsbusters.org/node/8289

Interesting isn't it, the major's fail to carry it eh?

Also of note wasn't Mrs Clinton and crew involved in some land scams ?

Sorry, but when ya'll jumped all the hell over any righty ( rightly so mind you ) and then failed to jump on Mr Reid for the same shit?

A pox, a pox...a pox upon thee and your forcing others into apathy....

Shouldn't dig around in closests Mr Reid when the skellies in yer own are knocking to get the hell out...tsk tsk...

Now to find that link with Nancy Pellosi marching hand in hand in the big San Fran alternative living style parade with that old man that champions the rights of old men to have sex with young boys ( ya'll may know him , he was grandpa on the Waltons )

Fandros Finglaflin

Having a drink and a bit of laugh at hipocrasy....

Mind you, none of this is nearly as important as what North Korea is about to bring upon our world...;(

Actually, he did own that land. It just so happened that three years ago, he transfered the property from his own personal name to that of an LLC which is not an uncommon occurence for those who own land.

There is also a degree of difference between a politician who is soliciting minors for sex and a politician getting a BJ from an adult.

Looking at past investigations this will probably end up with a charge of extramarital sex with an adult.

I dont understand why people have to mix the personal problems of politicians with their politics. The Kerry and Bush military smears, the Foley pedophile case, the Reid whatever. Do you really think that any of these issues has anything to do with their politics? Sick people who break the law deserve to be punished. I really wish people would stop using the personal problems of politicians to bash political parties. Here is a thought; how about judging a politican by his politics?

Also of note wasn't Mrs Clinton and crew involved in some land scams ?
(

Are you speaking of the Whitewater land deal that the Republicans had a special prosecutor set up to investigate, who after going through over $100 million tax payers dollars found nothing, and so exposed infidelity instead?

Ya disappoint me Fanny.

As for reid, I have heard this reported in a couple places, and all of the reports are pretty much saying the same thing, "It is alleged that Reid did not properly disclose money made from a land sale". I have not had the chance yet to see, hear and read the reports on all of the details, and will hold my opinion. But I do think he is as dirty as the rest, just on gut reaction to his tirades; maybe not necessarily on this deal, but I bet he has skeletons, like most politicians.

the Foley pedophile case

Because that was happening at their place of work - which was also our CONGRESS. You know, where laws get made ... thats politics at its core. If a guy is opting to not go vote so he can wank it to some e-mails he's making at work with a 16 year old co-worker, thats bad.

Whats worse is ran a large campaign focusing on his ethics. As did the House Speaker who was notified about these issues and did nothing. Thats like you reporting something to your boss and they did nothing - when the shit hits the fan your boss would have lost their job too.

/gasp but of course Rover didn't post a link to it the moment it broke.
I'm eagerly awaiting your post on Hastert's own land scandal woes that recently broke...several months ago!

And Reid was involved with an Abramoff client, not with Abramoff.

Waiting for something illegal to have happened. Let me know when it does.

Blatent smoke screen attempt, only serving to distract from Ney pleading guilty to Bribery charges on Friday.

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/15754123.htm

oh my!

If in fact Harry Reid did do something either illegal or unethical he should be held accountable. It is about our government and its officials being held accountable for the decisions that are made, our politicians are in general a very arrogant group that does nothing in the way of accountability.

To go back 10, 15, 20 or 30+ years as examples is completely ridiculous as it is what is going on NOW that matters most.

Lets look at the lack of accountability as of late with Abu Gharab prison. From the start this was a failed strategy. We went in and took over a prison that was a huge symbol of the injustices of Sadam's regime. But we, without thought, went into the place and used it just as it was used before, a place of torture a place of humiliation a place utter devestation of human dignity.

There were photos released of what was happening in there and not one single person of any authority in our military or government was held accountable. Then in the most perfect example of the "shit rolls down hill" scenario there was a conviction of two members of the national guard for ALL of the torture and humiliation that went on in there.

So we are lead to believe that this was all hidden from view to those in charge and in positions of authority and that the whole thing was the deviant desires of a pregnant national guard soldier, who had an IQ barely above 70, and her deviant boyfriend. That is shamefully amazing.

The best part of that is, a fairly large portion of this country actually accepted that as the problem being solved. That is also shamefully amazing.

This major effort at spin was the brainchild of someone in charge, I nor anyone else seems to know who, but the result was NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON IN CHARGE AND RESPONSIBLE FOR MAKING DECISIONS WAS HELD ACCOUNTABLE.

This went on, mind you, at a time when it is widely known that our government supported secret prisons and the torture and humiliation of prisoners...this is not partisan spin it is something that has been admitted to by Bush himself.

This has been and as of the past six years, seems to be the root of the problems I have with our elected officials. The arrogance is astounding.

The arrogance of not accepting blame for the world reaction to what are the most obvious failed policies and strategies by those in charge RIGHT NOW. We are supposed to buy into the "look what so-and-so did 30 years ago" ok, so some dipshit did something wrong 30 years ago....what does that have to do with how YOU conduct yourself today? That question can be easily answered by anyone with a 3rd grade education...NOT A FUCKING THING!

The constant look back in history as a way of rationalizing what our officials are doing today is just plainly retarded and arrogant.

Lets look at the lack of accountability as of late with Abu Gharab prison.
Abu Ghraib isn't a big deal now. According to Chris Shays (R-CN) it was all just a big "sex ring" anyway. A good time being had by all! :rolleyes:

Chris Shays (R-CN)

We have a Canadian Republican in our House of Representatives?

No wonder we are going downhill....

Fil

( Connecticut = CT )

LOL

Unreal... Where does the GOP get its candidates?

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/T/TAYLOR_WALL_STREET_JOURNAL?SITE=7219&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-10-13-19-02-24


Democrats dont even need an election, they can wait a few more weeks for all the republicans to be indicted. :D

Curt Weldon also under the FBI microscope (http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/states/pennsylvania/15757798.htm).

Thanks, Fil. I play Planetside and see a lot of CN tags on names (Chinese players). Probably have it in my head from that.

Duncan Hunter R-CA

Jesus...

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20061008-9999-1n8duncan.html

But...But...Clinton!

Yeah, I'm bored. I'd given up reading the Real Life stuff because it always seems to turn back to Bush, WMD's, Iraq, Whitewater, etc.

I just couldn't let this slide though, Rover:

To go back 10, 15, 20 or 30+ years as examples is completely ridiculous as it is what is going on NOW that matters most.
This is why we are doomed to repeat our mistakes. That or it's just the human condition. In which case, I'm sure Pfizer will have a pill for it soon.

Yeah, I'm bored. I'd given up reading the Real Life stuff because it always seems to turn back to Bush, WMD's, Iraq, Whitewater, etc.

I just couldn't let this slide though, Rover:


This is why we are doomed to repeat our mistakes. That or it's just the human condition. In which case, I'm sure Pfizer will have a pill for it soon.

I think you misunderstood my point. To look back historically on issues should be done and should have been done in the case of the invasion of Iraq. But, to point to something such as Clinton/Lewinski as a justification that what Bush is doing and because Clinton got a Blow Job and at first denied it so it makes having lied about the reason for invading Iraq just A-OK. The continual attempt to point at Kennedy and Chappaquidik (sp) as a justification to ignore the current indiscretions is just plain bullshit....those are better examples of what I meant.

Yeah, ok. I'll go with you on that. It's still just the same old "But he did this" and "She did that" that all leads back to Iraq, or Nicarauga, or damp cigars and Abu'garab.

There's a long dead horse somewhere being pummeled.

Ya, crazy how the world is so interconnected isnt it.

Well, so far from everything I have read, the only mistake made by Reid was in not dotting all the i's and crossing the t's in how he reported it in his financial disclosures, which he has now made the proper steps to do before anyone says he has to.

I think this red herring will not be much to bother with, and is only an attempt to distract.

I think what Reid did was a bit shady! Criminal? slightly, very slightly.
Let's be honest with each other. who here has not made the effort to interpret the rules in our favor? who here has never looked for/ taken a loophole?
What really sucks is people with large amounts of money have rigged the system to give them more loopholes than the average american. thats what happens when you put the inmates in charge of the asylum. wich is the best discription of modern american goverment i've heard yet.
IMHO, fess up and put yer paperwork straight(wich he is), pay up on the monies you fucked us out of(wich i'm guessing he will) and i'll be willing to let this go as 2 on the scale of how badly i fucked the American people!

the only mistake made by Reid was in not dotting all the i's and crossing the t's in how he reported it in his financial disclosures, . Guess your Minnesota op-eds are overlooking Reid's use of political donations for Christmas bonuses to his employees. And the NYT just reported on another land deal that looks sweet for him. Oops. Maybe if he gave better Christmas bonuses he would have more capable staff.

which he has now made the proper steps to do before anyone says he has to. ?!? This AP report 3 weeks before the midterms had absolutely nothing to do with it I guess.

Now I know why the 'Culture of Corruption' charges stopped so suddenly this summer.

http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=245977880759879&view=1
We never cease to be amazed at the double standard applied to the morals and ethics of Democrats and Republicans in Congress. We've already commented on how Republican Mark Foley was forced to resign for sending lewd e-mails to congressional pages, while Democrat Gerry Studds received mere censure and standing ovations after actually having sex with one, being allowed to serve until he decided to retire.
But the case of Senate Minority Leader Reid is a double standard on steroids. The latest episode is his request to file an "amended" ethics statement after the Associated Press revealed he made $1.1 million on a $400,000 investment on property he hadn't owned for three years; it was the subject of an earlier editorial on these pages. . . .

OK, fine. But why the double standard and the hypocrisy? Is anybody investigating Harry Reid?

We remember the feeding frenzy over former House Speaker Newt Gingrich's alleged violation of federal tax law in using tax-exempt funds to fund his allegedly political college course, "Renewing American Civilization."

After a 3 1/2-year ordeal, and a $300,000 fine paid to the House Ethics Committee, the IRS finally ruled that the sponsoring organization, the Progress and Freedom Foundation, "did not serve the private interests of Mr. Gingrich" and was both apolitical and completely legal.

Which is more than you can say about Reid's shenanigans. Gingrich wasn't offered a "do-over" or the opportunity to amend anything. In his case, it was sentence first, trial later. But then, unlike Reid, he was both innocent and a Republican.

Oh and Lleauric, remember this quote of yours?

AP isnt investigative journalism. It is a clearing house for news. They print and report basically what is fed to them.

Just sayin.

And Sixee is self-deleting his posts! oh noz :) /tease

pol·i·tics (pŏl'Ī-tĪks) http://content.answers.com/main/content/img/pron.gif
n.

(used with a sing. verb)
The art or science of government or governing, especially the governing of a political entity, such as a nation, and the administration and control of its internal and external affairs.
Political science.

(used with a sing. or pl. verb)


The activities or affairs engaged in by a government, politician, or political party: “All politics is local” (Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr.). “Politics have appealed to me since I was at Oxford because they are exciting morning, noon, and night” (Jeffrey Archer).
The methods or tactics involved in managing a state or government: The politics of the former regime were rejected by the new government leadership. If the politics of the conservative government now borders on the repressive, what can be expected when the economy falters?

(used with a sing. or pl. verb) Political life: studied law with a view to going into politics; felt that politics was a worthwhile career.
(used with a sing. or pl. verb) Intrigue or maneuvering within a political unit or group in order to gain control or power: Partisan politics is often an obstruction to good government. Office politics are often debilitating and counterproductive.
(used with a sing. or pl. verb) Political attitudes and positions: His politics on that issue is his own business. Your politics are clearly more liberal than mine.
(used with a sing. or pl. verb) The often internally conflicting interrelationships among people in a society.
USAGE NOTE Politics, although plural in form, takes a singular verb when used to refer to the art or science of governing or to political science: Politics has been a concern of philosophers since Plato. But in its other senses politics can take either a singular or plural verb. Many other nouns that end in –ics behave similarly, and the user is advised to consult specific entries for precise information.


What we see bolded above is what we see more often that not now days, rather than the other more traditional meanings that are not.

The quote holds true.. Dirt is being slung with alot of velocity. Alot of it is sticking.

And I have no doubt AP or whoever is having stories fed to them from both sides. FBI investgations are another matter.

Take for example the stories about Harold Fords family, or the story that was leaked about Cardins brother in law (forgot details, heard it on Imus this morning). Our press sucks. It is lazy and stupid.

When the top reporter in America is Matt Drudge, and the most informative news show is a fake news program (the Daily Show) be worried about the 4th Estate.

Guess your Minnesota op-eds are overlooking Reid's use of political donations for Christmas bonuses to his employees. And the NYT just reported on another land deal that looks sweet for him. Oops. Maybe if he gave better Christmas bonuses he would have more capable staff.

?!? This AP report 3 weeks before the midterms had absolutely nothing to do with it I guess.

Laughable, Akipt, just laughable.

I replied to the original post regarding the land deal, and you try to slam me about separate issues that are not a part of the original post. Then, when I point out he was correcting the techincal missteps on disclosure before being told he has to (which is what the ethics committee surely would do) you say it is due to the AP report, which is irrelevant to the point that he had not been told to yet.

I am not defending Reid, as I see him as corrupt as the rest. I am simply stating what I read and how the matter looked to me. You do not need to preach to the choir quite so vociferously.

Sorry, just came back from vacation and skimmed most of the thread ;)

You must admit though, it's really something special that in Washington you can actually amend your ethics... by filling out a form.

Sketchy land deal including an LLC vs. possible coverup for a pedophile?

Its a good try.. and ya gotta respect a guy who goes down swinging.. but not nearly enough.

I mean, look.. 3 weeks is a lot of time. And the RNC has 100 Mill in ads going out this week. And the Melhman ground game is superb... And Rove is a genius, but the perfect storm of holy shit bad luck and timing is too much to overcome imo.

Iraq, this month, as of the 18th, has seen 70 American deaths, that makes it on track to be the deadliest month, 4 years into it. By any standard Iraq is a absolute debacle. There is no running from that. Bush has failed and the Congress has been too weak and rubber stampish to hold him to any degree of acountability. "Stay the Course" just isnt going to cut it. 70 deaths even with the cutting of nightly patrols by 50-75% in major cities. Its getting really, really bad.

We all know they are trying to keep Iraq together just another month, but the wheels are coming off this sonvabitch. Iraq and North Korea are making us look stupid and weak. Everyone knows it, they are thumbing their noses at us and laughing, rubbing our noses in the shit we made for ourselves in Iraq. We can do nothing, and they know it. We are as flaccid and ineffectual as we were in 1979.

I just dont see the American people rewarding failure on this scale.

We are now going to see the terrorist threat level increasing...today there is a report of the possibility of dirty bombs being placed at 7 NFL stadiums in the next week. The best part is the government is consulting the NFL to see how they want to handle this...but I guess thats no surprise as they ask Blackwater and Halliburton how they want things handled in Iraq.

FBI said threat wasnt credible. /shrug

FBI said threat wasnt credible. /shrug

Yep, they did say that..../ponder...is there a political reason for the report...

So L2...think left is gonna win both ?


I hope that America isn't so blind, I do believe the left is trying hard to drive the religious right to apathy and win by default.

However, show me one fucking lefty that has ( no not a fucking exit strategy dammit ) a response to the muslim threat.

If by now you think the muslim threat is a byproduct of my imagination I'm shocked.....

Show me how to deal with them, and dammit if your response is one of .....cowing to their requests i'll ask you to look to Europe....

Fandros Finglaflin

Ill give you a pretty damn good way to deal with the Muslim threat right now.

Create a new "Ottoman Empire" so to speak, with the US engaging and being a large part of it, create a new Middle East Alliance coaliton. Like a NATO for the Middle East in a sense. There are several Arab nations that are very reliant on the US for security, if we brought them along and in response to the rising Iranian threat joined them in an official alliance. These nations would be Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya and Turkey.
We make free standing agreements with these nations, independant of Israel. We offer all the same things we offer our NATO partners. In exchange for guarentees of Nuclear Non Proliferation and recognition of Israels right to exist, we agree to help them in the formenting and creation of a defense alliance. Faced with such a powerful adversary, Iran, will do as they have always done when faced with a formindable rival, back down.
This alliance would then be able to police its own backyard with credibility and real power. From acting as a intercedenary force between Isreal and Hamas, to the dealing with such threats as invasions of soveriegn states to helping secure Iraq, patroling and securing the Gulf.
This also has the dual action of removing all credibility of Osama Bin Laden and Al-Queda as defenders of Islam. Being made of predominatly, but not exclusively, Arab states, it also acts as a strong counterbalance to the Persian Aggression in the area, and finally it gives us an exit plan while at the same time bringing stability to the area.

The NeoCon idealism to create a democratic Middle East is dead, it is time to approach the region with realism and practicality. We need to stop trying to be the super cop that patrols the entire world. As we have seen it fails as we inevitablity get bogged down and the other criminals run free as we are helpless to affect them.
Instead what we must do is foster and create real, solid and true alliances and help create reliable and strong regional partners who will be responsible for their own regions always being able to rely on the US for any assistance we can give, short of doing their work for them.

In exchange for guarentees of Nuclear Non Proliferation and recognition of Israels right to exist, we agree to help them in the formenting and creation of a defense alliance.

That bolded part will never fly.
It's one of the reasons why the Middle East is such a cauldron of hatred.

But I'll have to say, the rest of what you wrote, is well thought out.

...These nations would be Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya and Turkey...

Awhile back you and I had a very good discussion on all the different factions and problems in the middle east and how they all have frenzied and realigned since we took out Saddam.

Now you're over-simplifying it. Sounds good, but it's not reality.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1004/p01s04-wome.html

CAIRO – Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is in the Middle East this week seeking to build a network of support for what she calls "emerging moderate forces" (i.e. Iraq, the Palestinian Fatah Party, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt) against "extremist" ones that are opposed to US interests.
...

Ms. Rice is seeking to tap a deep, historical concern among Sunni Arab countries wary of Shiite Iran, with the aim of building a counterweight to Iran's influence.

"The US sees Iran now as the source of destabilization in the Middle East and because there are fears among the Arab countries that Iran also possess a threat this gives the US a chance to form a coalition against Iran and against all its allies, like Syria, like Hizbullah, like Hamas," says Hassan Nafai, chair of the political science department at Cairo University.

Rice's public statements so far have given more time to shoring up the secular Lebanese and Palestinian leaders, ending Iraq's insurgency, and disarming Hizbullah in Lebanon than to Iran. But the confrontation with the Shiite state seems to be at the top of the agenda, and in many ways sits at the center of America's concerns in the region.

Hizbullah is seen by the US as an Iranian proxy that could harass Israel if the nuclear dispute with Iran moves to open conflict; disorder in Iraq is seen as serving Iranian interests by tying up US forces and creating the possibility that the country's Shiites could rise up against US forces in support of their coreligionists; and Hamas, too, is seen by America as a threat to speed attacks against Israel in the event of war.

But Washington's conviction that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons (Iran insists its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only) trumps all other concerns.

...

Rice is meeting foreign officials from eight Sunni Arab nations on the trip, before meeting with Israeli and Palestinian officials later in the week, who all fear the implications of an Iranian nuclear bomb but are also worried about the consequences of an armed confrontation over the issue, since it is likely to inflame popular public sentiments against their own regimes.

Tuesday, Rice flew from Saudi Arabia to Egypt, where she met privately with Egyptian intelligence chief Omar Suleiman, who has been working on reconciling Palestine's warring factions.

"Expectations have to be kind of low on this trip. There are not going to be any major policy breakthroughs, either on the peace process or on Iran," says Josh Stacher, a lecturer at the British University in Cairo. "For Rice this is mostly a bit of a listening trip, finding out what allies want in the lead-up to building a coalition to go after Iran, be that sanctions, or military strikes, or further diplomacy."

Mr. Stacher says that while all eight of the Arab governments are eager to limit the possibilities Iran could go nuclear - particularly Saudi Arabia, which has feared Shiite expansionism since Iran's Islamic revolution - they will be urging the US against military action because of potential blow-back against their own regimes, none of which are democratic and six of which are monarchies.

Mr. Nafai agrees, and says that while the US might get fairly tepid support for sanctions against Iran, he doesn't see an eventual Arab coalition backing military action, largely because of the unresolved conflict over the Palestinian territories. "As long as the US continues to support unconditionally Israel's policies in the region and is not trying to seriously help find a settlement it will be almost impossible to form a strong coalition."

The recent confrontation between the Shiite Hizbullah and Israel boosted the regional popularity of Mr. Ahmadinejad, who supports Hizbullah, and hurt the standings of regimes like Egypt and Saudi Arabia because they were seen by their people as insufficiently condemning Israel's strikes inside Lebanon.

Rice has also adopted a new rhetorical approach on this trip, in which America's allies in the region are cast as moderates, and its enemies as extremists, something she said was demonstrated by the war in Lebanon.

"When Lebanon happened ... [we] got in very stark relief a clear indication that there are extremist forces and moderate forces" in the region, she told reporters. "The countries that we are meeting ... is a group that you would expect to support the emerging moderate forces in Lebanon, in Iraq, and in the Palestinian territories."

"The President isn't going to stop pressing for democracy because he believes that ultimately it's the force that will stabilize the Middle East most," Rice said. "But it does not mean that even if states ... are not yet transformed to democracy that we're not going to have relations with them and that we're not going to work together to resist extremist forces in the region."

Stacher says her comments at the start of her trip make the current administration policy on the region look similar to those of past administrations, when the stability and support of allies was more important than promoting change. "The Bush administration has redesigned policy toward the region. Nondemocratic states that are friendly are being painted as moderates and unfriendly undemocratic states are being branded as extremists. The rhetoric is about to reflect reality"

None of the Arab countries Rice is talking to on this trip - Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, and Oman - are democracies, and most severely limit free speech and political organization.

For many Arabs, says Nafai, ongoing US support for these "despotic" regimes means the promises of President Bush to promote democracy aren't believed, and residents of these countries end up more inclined to support US enemies.

The "NeoCon" dream of using democracy in the region for stability purposes is not dead. It just needs some Miracle Grow.

Heavy emphasis on "Miracle"

Forgot to add about elections.

IDK Fanny, I dont think the left is driving the RR to apathy, I think the people they elected are doing a pretty damn good job of it all on their own, from lack of action on any of their issues, to Harriet Miers, to toleration of sodomites. Basically the Religious Right is to the Republican Party what Black people are to the Democratic Party. "Oh yea? Where ya gonna go? Now shut up and vote for us" They feel they dont have to work for their votes and have them by default, just have to get them to polls once every 2 years.

Do I think Democrats will win both houses? No, not at the moment. I do think they are pretty much a lock for the house, but dont think they will get control of the Senate.
Dem Pick ups will be Tester (over Burns) Casey (over Santorum) Ford (This one is REALLY tight, but Ford is the better politican by a large margin and when its this close, it comes down to talent). Chafee will lose in Rhode Island. Brown will Beat Dewine.

And I think thats it. Not enough to take the Senate. Webb is going to lose to Allen. I think Steele will pull an upset in MD.

That makes 5 pick ups where Dems would need 6. Tie goes to the runner, or Dick Cheney as the case may be.

But the house is pretty much a lock and the GOP isnt even contesting most of the elections at this point in order to save the Senate.

** btw, I know the one paragraph synapsis of this plan was pretty over simplified. I was trying to fit it into 1 easily digestable post. When worked out this would be a 15 page position/analysis paper. I can post a slighty more fleshed out version of it if you want, itll just take some time and be long. ts.
3. Neo Isolationists
d. Effects of successful formation

Isn't it better for the Republicans to control the Senate by such a tiny margin? Then when 2008 rolls around they can't say "Well the Democrats controlled the Senate and the House and couldn't accomplish anything". Your count leaves out the fact that Lieberman, while technically not a Democrat, is quite liberal. It evens out to about 50 Republicans and 50 Democrats or Liberal Independants which isn't horrible for anyone :)

Truthfully Casey winning in Pennsylvania is hardly a win for the Democrats though, that guy gives me the heebie jeebies almost as much as Santorum. And I still hope that Allen will lose, as discussed in a couple other threads that guys quite the douchebag.

It will really be anyone's guess though - were you polled? I wasn't. Most folks weren't. Its one thing to answer questions on the phone with the promise of $2 ... but how many of those who were polled will make it out on election day? How often have these polls proven to be wrong on election night? Or even two weeks after election night as will be the case at least in Maryland since so many folks opted for the absentee ballots after their primaries got screwed up.

Im counting Lieberman, he said he would caucus with Democrats when re-elected.

What did Davy Crockett say at The Alamo?

















"Where'd all these landscapers come from?"