particularly because the former New York mayor has focused on attacking Democrats,

I love that this is their idea of what a President should do.

Fuckwits.

Giuliani is Galileo next to Uncurious George.

Unless Bush is the Decider in picking the 2008 Repug nominee, his opinion is worthless.

Well now, that is ironic, because his opinion is worthless simply using any standard of merit.

Rudy would guarantee that this country continues its downward spiral re the global economy. He'd continue fighting the GWOT in all the wrong places.

Because of this, he would get his ass kicked in a New York minute.

Rudy will not carry rural voters. I just spent two weeks in north central Missouri drinking coffee with bow hunters, and they loathe Rudy. The rural ethnic/Catholics won't vote for him because he is pro choice and dressed in drag. The anglo-descendants with populist leanings won't vote for him because he is a New York Italian.

If you think those prejudices don't still exist, you don't spend any time in the boondocks.

Oh! I forgot guns! Rudy can not run away from his record on guns! And the folks who think gun control means hitting your target will not vote for him for that reason.

The Bush White House wants Giuliani to be skating towards the nomination for several reasons:

One, Giuliani is the 9/11 candidate and will remind voters at literally every chance about 9/11. They believe this will help play well for Bush's trademark and legacy. Having Giuliani at the top of the pack is like having Tiger Woods wear a hat with a Nike swoosh on it if you're Nike. And what are Democrats going to attack Rudy with? Stories about how he made 9/11 worse - putting the command center in WTC so he could have affairs there; not fixing the firefighters' communication equipment; his alleged abuse of the firefighters themselves. But hey, at least everybody will be talking about 9/11!

Two, as Kevin said, if Giuliani were to win, he'd probably make Bush look like a thoughtful, law abiding and temperate saint by comparison. Good for the legacy.

Three, more realistically they know Giuliani can't win. He's practically a liberal based on his past history on issues like gay rights, gun control, family values. He's an adulterer in his third marriage. He's the easiest guy in the entire pack of Republicans for Democrats to slime.

Why is it good for Bush if Giuliani fails? If a Democrat wins the general election, Republicans can blame the "loss" of the Iraq war on the Democrats because it happened on their watch (you know this is coming). Iraq is Bush's main legacy and they'd love to have someone, preferably a Democrat, take the fall for its failure.

(Plus deep down they'd also love if the Republicans who are currently disenchanted with Bush would find themselves even more exasperated under a Clinton White House that they would start to remember the Bush White House a little more fondly... and maybe, just maybe, even start to muse about how it might have been better if only Jeb had run in 2008. Wait, what about 2012?!)

I figured it goes without saying that Bartlett is a liar, sleazeball, and Bush loyalist of the highest degree. The only way it's possible that he doesn't have ulterior motives in expressing these views would be if the Bush White House truly didn't care who followed Bush... which is absurd. They want Giuliani - not because they think he would be the right guy for the country but because they think he'd be best for the Bush legacy, win or lose.

They don't like McCain because neocons and Bush loyalists see him as an enemy who would undermine the Bush stranglehold control over the party, do the most damage to the Christian Right, and do a better job than Giuliani at mending the rift between the two parties both in congress and among voting public.

>>Mike Huckabee's last name is too hick

Ouch! I suppose Obama is sunk too then if your last name is a disqualifier.

I recall a song called "America Needs You, Harry Truman" (Wikipedia Entry). Maaann! I'd settle for Nixon!

So, Giuliani has the "best message"? Which I presume is "Terror, Terror, Terror, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11"?

What a pathetic political party the Republicans have become!

The Republican candidates are uninspiring? How is that news? In the history of the Republican Party, how many Presidents could be called "inspiring"? Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, maybe Reagan. That's about it.

Daniel Kim: "I'd settle for Nixon!"

Hell, I'd even settle for South Vietnam's Nguyễn Văn Thiệu!

This reminds me of walking through a dairy pasture. Cow patties everywhere. Which is the best?

Ah, Kevin.

"I just spent two weeks in north central Missouri drinking coffee..."

LOL. Hey, Blue Gill, you just spent two weeks drinking coffee? You must be pretty bloated.

Giulani/Tancredo in '08!

Hey, Blue Gill, you just spent two weeks drinking coffee? You must be pretty bloated.

Actually, coffee is a diuretic. I should know.

This is some pretty insightful analysis. (Huckabee's last name is too hick!) Seriously, did Dan Bartlett just go over to Howard Fineman's house and download this info from his MSM Conventional Wisdom Machine? Sheesh.

This is the first in what will become many attempts of the Bushies to claim that Republican losses in 2008 have nothing to do with them.

Naturally after a President like George W Bush all contenders will look pale by comparison. But given the chance I am sure that any Republican contenders can face the challenges facing America.

Seems more likely that all Bush (and Bartlett and Cheney and Rove) care about is getting an unethical creep similar to themselves in office who will obstruct the truth from comming out about their reign of terror. To this end, Rudy would make the ideal candidate. As unethical, corrupt and thugish as they come.

Too bad Rudy seems headed down the political chute. Major flop in shaping up in Iowa for Rudy and if Romney wins he will head into NH (his neighboring state) with some momentum. Then SC which will probably hand Rudy his third loss.

Blue Girl, Red State is right. No one outside of New England will be motivated by a Giuliani nomination. He is too slimy, too New York and too liberal. Nothing about the man translates. He is just not the rural red or Sunbelt candidate.

Alternatively, all Bush cares about is which candidate promises to kick the most Middle Eastern ass. I think Giuliani comes out on top in that contest too.

I think you misunderestimate the xenophobia, in general, and the Middle Eastern antipathy, in particular, of all the candidates. Giuliani may be best at articulating his willingness to adhere to the Cheney doctrine (must control oil supplies) but I have little doubt Duncan Hunter (he even knows what weapons systems to use) or Tom Tancredo (no, Tom, not Mexico) or any of the others could meet your criterion. There's little to distinguish these sacrificial lambs from one another on that basis.

All my life it's been a constant of political campaigns that you make an issue of your opponent's personal history if it was unsavory or scandalous enough to merit such attention. Giuliani presents a treasure trove of such material. The list is too long to enumerate but his domestic life and business dealings and associations would have disqualified him for the Republican nomination in almost every Presidential race I can remember. He rubs elbows with felons and mobsters. Hell, he actually employs them, knowingly and unapologetically. His marriage history rivals many of Hollywood's more notorious bed hoppers. Have things changed that much all this is now worthy of no more than a shrug of the shoulders? Will we see the eventual Dem nominee make an issue of these dalliances? Rudy seems so ripe for derision and scorn I can't understand the "party of values" even considering him. Yet there he is, leading in the polls, attracting the support of all the "moral" citizens on the Right. Strange that.

Thompson: [is the] "biggest dud,"
Mitt Romney: has "a real problem in the South" [,]his religion
Mike Huckabee's: last name is too hick
John McCain: could pull a repeat of his 2000 performance by winning New Hampshire yet losing the battle.

....The only top-tier candidate Bartlett did not criticize was Rudolph W. Giuliani, who he said has the "best message,"

Seriously, after going trough names religions and past campaign performance "a good message" is all he can think of? Talk about being damned by faint praise. No wonder Bush doesn`t move a finger for the GOP and wants to chat with Hillary.

This worthless lying prick is all over my Washington Post this morning. The reason? He's charging between $10,000 and $30,000 a speech now that he's in the private sector, and he thinks its time to raise his media profile. I suspect we'll be seeing Danny all over the place for the forseeable future. Can you imagine people are actually willing to plop down about what the average American earns annually to hear the ramblings of an asshole who helped guide some of the worst policy decisions by a President in U.S. history? I guess, though, if you just mentally add "not" to whatever Bartlett says from the podium, you've got something ...

It really is worthwhile to temper one's belief in the soundness Bartlett's opinions with the consideration that he is and always has been an utterly vacuous imbecile.

I love it: "Mike Huckabee's last name is too hick."

This from the second-string advisor to America's most shameless and shameful phony--George W. "Dusty" Bush, the Kennebunkport's buckaroo, Yale's yahoo, Harvard's hayseed, president of the United States.

Both the Democrats and Republicans suffer from the same problem, and whoever solves this problem will be the dominate Party for the next forty years.

The problem is that both of them are fighting the battles of the past while ignoring the battles of the future.

The Republicans are fighting the tax cut battle of the past, not remembering that Reagan already won that battle. The Democrats are fighting the safety net battle of the past, not understanding that Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson won that battle.

Both sides are ignoring the greatest economic battle that demands leadership: the budget battle. The deficits that have been run by Washington, D.C., devalue the dollar, make Americans more dependent on foreign capital, and increase the amount of money that won't be used for America, but used for interest payments on the debt.

Clinton was the only President in the last generation to balance the budget. Whichever Party runs toward this policy, takes it, and runs with it, will be the Party of the future.

Likewise, both Parties are clinging to the Cold War policy of intervening around the globe. No, what the U.S. needs a patriotic foreign policy that takes advantage of Reagan's victory over the Soviets, extricates the U.S. from outdated entanglements, and uses the resources and manpower saved to construct a defense so awesome that never again would any enemy could achieve parity with us. As a wise man once said, it is time to "retrench and rearm."

The Democrats' safety net battle, the Republicans' anti-tax battle, and both Parties global interventionism were noble pursuits during their day. But they are largely resolved battles. Americans now have a social safety net-social security, medicare, welfare, medicaid, environmental protection. Americans now have lower taxes (35% instead of 90% on the highest earners). Americans now have a world free of the Soviet tyrant.

It is time to stop fighting the battles of the past, and start fighting the battles of the future.

*never again would there be any enemy that could achieve parity...

brian, everybody's bfavorite faux-reasonable concern troll, wrote: The deficits that have been run by Washington, D.C.

You mean Republicans (Reagan, Bush I, Bush II), don't you?

Keep on pretending anyone takes your GOP apologia seriously, though...it's precious.

Or that "battles won," are somehow settled questions that may not be revisited. Bizarre.

And George Stuffin Envelopes agrees with bartlett. He was practically swooning over guiliani this morning on GMA

Al: Naturally after a President like George W Bush all contenders will look pale by comparison.

Al's in good form today.

steve duncan,

Rudy seems so ripe for derision and scorn I can't understand the "party of values" even considering him. Yet there he is, leading in the polls, attracting the support of all the "moral" citizens on the Right. Strange that.

I know. All I can figure is the Republican base stays in the dark and does what their leader's tell them to do. They don't really have principles, they have subservience to their leaders. Many is the time I shake me head at what they do and who they support. It is so contradictory.

Likewise, both Parties are clinging to the Cold War policy of intervening around the globe. No, what the U.S. needs a patriotic foreign policy that takes advantage of Reagan's victory over the Soviets, extricates the U.S. from outdated entanglements, and uses the resources and manpower saved to construct a defense so awesome that never again would any enemy could achieve parity with us. As a wise man once said, it is time to "retrench and rearm."

Sadly, only one party has been ridiculous about these issues, and that is the Republican Party, everyone's favorite gang of sex perverts and money grubbing human filth.

There is no "Cold War" mindset about defense issues anymore. We pulled our troops out of Germany, for the most part, rotating those heavy divisions into other areas, then reorganizing them into smaller brigades. We have pulled troops out of Korea, out of Okinawa and have repositioned our forces to support an entanglement entirely without connection to any Cold War thinking, the Iraq war. We have left behind the types of units that would have fought against Soviet-styled or Soviet-doctrine units and replaced them with more light wheeled vehicle brigades--like the Stryker vehicle. In no way, shape or form could we have a Stryker vehicle if we were still in a Cold War mindset--the silouhette is too high and the skin too thin.

On what battlefield did we beat the Soviets? We beat them with economics, with ideas and by having the moral authority to talk to the world about their use of the gulag, of torture through the destruction of people by making them subservient to the Soviet state, and by isolating dissidents and silencing dissent. We beat them because there was a Polish Pope, a Europe that got tired of being under their heel and by the sheer fact that they were rotting from the inside--see, the gulag, torture and dissidents again.

Modern Republicans sure took care of eliminating our ability to lecture people about the gulag, torture and silencing political opponents, didn't they? Gitmo, waterboarding, and wiretapping peace activists sure fucked up our ability to wag our fingers at people, huh? Or was that just the Republicans trying to show their daddies what badasses they are?

So what's your point exactly? Oh, it's that "pox on both your houses" stance we're so tired of in concern trolls.

"a defense so awesome that never again would any enemy could achieve parity with us" is the kind of talk from a boy with latent issues of inadequacy from not being able to live up to the potential of a disapproving father. It is not a rational way to go about assessing what it will take to defend this country. We need a bigger Navy, a complete withdrawal from Iraq, a re-focusing on supporting the NATO forces in Afghanistan so that we can keep the Taliban from retaking the country, and a smarter way of keeping people who use the tactic of terrorism from coming to this country. We need to focus on the gear a man or woman wears and on making sure we retain them because of their technical training and their talents--but instead we give them body armor that comes from a wealthy donor to the Republicans in Congress and we lose talented people in droves because we're deploying them for longer than they get to be at home.

What part of our nuclear arsenal have you forgotten exists? What part of our nuclear attack submarine forces have you failed to take into account? What part of our Stealth bomber and Stealth fighter forces did you forget we had? We have long had the number one military in the world. What we have suffered is Republican mismanagement of a war that has bled our conventional forces dry. Nuclear weapons, submarines and Stealth technology can keep nation-states in check but they are useless when we try to invade countries and build nations.

Nation building doesn't work. Unless you go about it the way Clinton did it in the Balkans, which is, get everyone on board in a broad coalition and let the people whose nation you're trying to build actually build it. We didn't do any of those things in Iraq. We let the children of big donors to the Republican Party fuck it up.

So, shut the fuck up--war pr0n gets old. The world is never going to look the way a wingnut wants it to look because the simple fact of the matter is--your dad thinks you're a putz. He always has thought you were a slimy little putz and he always will think you're a fat little toad.

Once you go deal with those issues, come back and see if you can have a serious debate about the adult world.

Tripp: It is so contradictory

Just remember these three simple rules, and it will all make sense.

1. War is Peace
2. Freedom is Slavery
3. Ignorance is Strength

W probably doesn't want someone who will promise to restore honor and integrity to the White House - which would be a slap in the face after he said the same of Bill C. - and Giuliani won't dare promise that.

Boolaboola: This from the second-string advisor to America's most shameless and shameful phony--George W. "Dusty" Bush, the Kennebunkport's buckaroo, Yale's yahoo, Harvard's hayseed, president of the United States.

That was a luscious sentence.

It is truly too bad, liberals have no reckless dimwits like Rush Limbaugh (sp) & Michele Mawkin (sp) to point out that no less than a couple of miles from the Dearborn location of last night's Republican Presidential debate is one of the largest concentrations of Arab Americans in the US. It is possible that attendees of that debate pumped a fair piece of change into that local economy last night through food, off location parking, gasoline, etc.

Money that might make it "home" to the Middle East. See two people can play that game!

I really don't understand or even believe the "I won't vote for Rudy because he dressed in drag," claims. I mean, seriously, people hold that against him? Everyone in the New York metro was pretty amused by the whole thing.

I really don't understand or even believe the "I won't vote for Rudy because he dressed in drag," claims. I mean, seriously, people hold that against him? Everyone in the New York metro was pretty amused by the whole thing.

In the small town in which I grew up, I knew people who refused to go see Tootsie because the whole concept offended them. Okay, that was 20-25 years ago, but even now there are lots of places where that sort of thing is frowned upon by suspiciously hypermacho men and the wives whose frilly underwear they may secretly covet.

I have learned not to underestimate how weird people can be about sexual behavior they find threatening, even when it's only perceived sexual behavior.

In the small town in which I grew up, I knew people who refused to go see Tootsie because the whole concept offended them.

Principal filming of that project took place not far from where I lived, in Manhattan, and I can be spotted as an extra in several scenes. I will not tell you which ones, because you gun-crazy liberals will start peppering me or my property with ball ammunition were I to do so. Suffice it to say, they filmed on West 42nd Street in Manhattan and I am there, in a nice suit, oblivious to the silliness of the picture show business.

The reason why God fearing folk fear a movie like Tootsie is because it is sexuality as fraud, with comedy made out of situations where a man and a woman should have man and a woman parts but they have dressed up in opposite roles. This is confusing. It breaks what those of us who study these issues call "taboo" and it gets right to the psyche of some people and makes them nervous, uncomfortable, and afraid to be touched. If a person is super-ticklish, and/or confused about themselves, it could cause them to prematurely ejaculate or urinate uncontrollably and collapse into hysterics. I have not seen such behavior, I just know it occurs when someone comes into close proximity to a cross dresser or a transvestite.

You liberals with your Rudy Guiliani jokes, stay your hand. Rudy dresses that way for a laugh--like Milton Berle used to. Or Benny Hill. Or Jack Palance. So, don't even go there.

Simple people get upset at the notion of confused gender roles. In what we call the heartland, where Short-Drop finds herself hailing from, the simple folk have forgotten how funny it was for Uncle Milty to dress up because they've been assaulted for decades by entertainment that is sexually repressed while being outwardly immodest. One need only to look at the Hispanic male, non-English speaking variety, and his obsession with transsexuals. The Hispanic male is absolutely smitten with the subject, possessing books and videos of transsexuals and making a cult of it. In Mexico City, the richest families possess their own transsexual employees and pay them a good wage.

As the Hispanic male goes, so goes everyone else. They are leading a transformation (pun intended) that will loosen sexual mores and get people to think about gender roles. It is enlightening--but we need not talk about that.

Beginning in 1996, Giuliani and Hanover's public relationship became distant, with Hanover appearing at few public events. In 1997, a Vanity Fair article report that Giuliani had a romantic relationship with Cristyne Lategano, the mayor's communications director. The mayor and Lategano denied the allegations. On Father's Day, 1995 Giuliani had told reporters that he was returning to Gracie Mansion to play ball with Andrew. However, he instead went to City Hall, to a basement suite with his press secretary. Three hours later, Hanover, angered, appeared at City Hall; yet a mayoral aide prevented her from entering the suite.

In May 2000, the New York Daily News broke news of Giuliani's extramarital relationship with Judith Nathan, a sales manager for a pharmaceutical company. Giuliani then called a press conference to announce that he intended to separate from Hanover. Hanover, however, had not been told about his plans before his press conference, an omission for which Giuliani was widely criticized. Previously, Giuliani had hinted at the relationship by referring to Nathan as his "very good friend." Giuliani now went on to praise Nathan as a "very, very fine woman", and said about his marriage with Hanover, that "over the course of some period of time in many ways, we've grown to live independent and separate lives." Hours later Hanover said, "I had hoped that we could keep this marriage together. For several years, it was difficult to participate in Rudy's public life because of his relationship with one staff member," a reference to Lategano. Giuliani, Hanover and Nathan appeared on the cover of People magazine in the aftermath.
-----------Courtesy Wikipedia
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is the guy Republicans want for President?

Everyone in the New York metro was pretty amused by the whole thing.

Be that as it may, we're talking about a prospective President of the United States.

When it comes to being President, there really is something to the dignity thing, you know. Maybe if he were dressed as a woman in a production of a Gilbert and Sullivan opera it would pass, because that's got some culture mixed in to leaven the effect. But just to entertain staff (or whatever the purpose was)? I don't think so. He comes across as too much of a buffoon happy to do anything for laughs.

Looking back fondly at Bush could almost be true. If we think that Bush has unduly fostered presidential executive power, wait if we come to see a President Giuliani.

homer www.altara.blogspot.com

My prediction: Romney will be the GOP nominee. In fact, he would already have it in the bag if he wasn't a Mormon.

(Plus deep down they'd also love if the Republicans who are currently disenchanted with Bush would find themselves even more exasperated under a Clinton White House that they would start to remember the Bush White House a little more fondly... and maybe, just maybe, even start to muse about how it might have been better if only Jeb had run in 2008. Wait, what about 2012?!)
Posted by: Augustus on October 10, 2007 at 2:33 AM
------
And if Jeb got re-elected, Chelsea could run in 2020. Sounds like an endless run of Itchy and Scratchy episodes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reservoir_Cats

In fact, he would already have it in the bag if he wasn't a Mormon.

And if the Queen had balls, she'd be the King.

I see Rogers has fooled the staff at the hospital into giving him a day pass by trotting out his "sociologist" personality.

**

Jimmy Carter, who greeted Brezhnev with a kiss

Is that anything like "W" holding hands with Saudi princes?

In time Reagan dealt with Gorbachev and the two signed a treaty that rid Europe of nuclear weapons. "Trust but verify" was Reagan's motto. No rational and honest discussion about the end of the Cold War and the fall of the "evil empire" can omit the name of Ronald Reagan. mendacious, hapless retard

Oh puh-lease! The cold war was won in spite of Reagan, not because of that doddering old fool!

Really moderator, I think mhr is only deserving of one * until he proves himself.

Oh! I forgot guns!

Paleez... do you really expect us to believe that?

;)

And George Stuffin Envelopes agrees with bartlett. He was practically swooning over guiliani this morning on GMA

Bi-curious men like GS love the tough guy schtick.

I know. All I can figure is the Republican base stays in the dark and does what their leader's tell them to do. They don't really have principles, they have subservience to their leaders. Many is the time I shake me head at what they do and who they support. It is so contradictory.

You could basically say the same thing about the "anti-war" Democratic Party, which is on the verge of nominating a pro-Iraq War Senator for the presidency, again.

Romney is dismissed because of his religion will be a problem in the south. What I find interesting is that few liberals seem bothered by this religious bigotry. In fact, some of them share the bigotry. Two that I'm closest to (my best friend and my spouse) both said they would never vote for a Mormon.

What I find interesting is that few liberals seem bothered by this religious bigotry.

We're as used to religious bigotry from Republicans as we are to dishoenst posts from you, "ex-liberal."

Shouldn't you worry about Republicans not being bothered about Republican religious bigotry first, ex lib?

Two that I'm closest to (my best friend and my spouse) both said they would never vote for a Mormon.

LOL. Oh, your spouse is now a "liberal," too, is she? How about that?

ex-lax liberal:

Isn't your spouse supposed to be your best friend? Or do you have friends that you have "privileges" with?

If so, no one wants to hear about it.

Two that I'm closest to (my best friend and my spouse) both said they would never vote for a Mormon.

I think you misheard. They said they'd never vote for that Mormon.

And why would the possibility of this "liberal" "spouse" and "best friend" voting for a Republican even be under discussion (especially when our lineup has so much more talent than yours)? Do you hear us expressing distress that Republicans aren't sufficiently condemnatory of the racism of wingers who won't vote for a biracial man?

Man, yesterday was a lousy day for me, but for some reason every troll here is just cracking me up today. I can't stop laughing. Thanks, freepers, for improving my outlook and extending my life!

... and I can be spotted as an extra in several scenes.....Norman Rogers at 11:30 AM

shortstop: And why would the possibility of this "liberal" "spouse" and "best friend" voting for a Republican even be under discussion

Yes, these two individuals will vote for the Dem candidate in any case. That's one reason their comment surprised me.

Here's a question for you: Are these the only two Dems who openly say they would have a problem voting for a Mormon? Do you know of any others?

Are these the only two Dems who openly say they would have a problem voting for a Mormon? Do you know of any others?

Perhaps you could ask the voters of Nevada, who have voted for a Mormon, Harry Reid, to represent them as Senator.

Apeaking as an agnostic, I don't have a problem with Romney being a Mormon. Speaking as a Massachusetts resident, I do have a problem with him being a brainless twit, but that's non-denominational.

Here's a question for you: Are these the only two Dems who openly say they would have a problem voting for a Mormon? Do you know of any others?

Shorter "ex-liberal": I don't have a point, so could you please make one for me?

"ex-liberal" revels in bad faith commentary -- as if anyone believes your characterization of, or even claims of the existence of, your spouse and/or friend -- but that one's a doozy.

DJ: Perhaps you could ask the voters of Nevada, who have voted for a Mormon, Harry Reid, to represent them as Senator.

Glad you mentioned Reid, DJ. My friend and spouse have never complained to me about Reid's religion. I don't think they'd hesitate to vote for a Democratic Mormon. It makes their comment about Romney's religion even more puzzling.

My friend and spouse have never complained to me about Reid's religion. I don't think they'd hesitate to vote for a Democratic Mormon. It makes their comment about Romney's religion even more puzzling.

Not that anyone believes you for a moment, "ex-liberal, but perhaps they said they'd never vote for a moron.

Of course, we know you have no such compunctions.

Not that anyone believes you for a moment, "ex-liberal, but perhaps they said they'd never vote for a moron.

Of course, we know you have no such compunctions.

You can just drive on over here and wipe the coffee off my monitor, sonny! You might want to get started now before rush hour begins!

I don't think they'd hesitate to vote for a Democratic Mormon. It makes their comment about Romney's religion even more puzzling.
Posted by: ex-liberal

Then, just maybe, they are opposed to Romney because of things other than his religion. Simple enough, even for you.

Not that anyone believes you for a moment, "ex-liberal, but perhaps they said they'd never vote for a moron.

You can just drive on over here and wipe the coffee off my monitor, sonny!

I've got tears streaming down my face and colleagues questioning my sanity.
Thanks for the relief Gregory.

I wonder if you can make an analogy between TV and the present crop of Washington politicians and wannabes. Paraphrased TV quotes: "Politics is a vast wasteland." "No matter how low the standards sink, we have not yet found the lowest common denominator."

....The only top-tier candidate Bartlett did not criticize was Rudolph W. Giuliani, who he said has the "best message,"

Since when is having Tourette's Syndrome a message?