Thursday Thirteen

Thirteen Reasons why John McCain is the most dangerous Republican to run in 2008 election:

1. Because he COULD win!

2. He is the least objectionable Republican candidate.

3. He's NOT a fundamentalist.

4. While the American public is not happy with the Republican administration we have now, they MIGHT vote for McCain because they believe he has integrity.

5. NO Democrat would be a shoe-in with McCain as challenger.

6. He is respected as a man who served his country and suffered at the hands of the enemy as a POW.

7. He believes in tax cuts.

8. He has been elected 4 times to the U.S. Sentate. He's experience personified.

9. While generally adhering to American conservatism, McCain has established a reputation as a political maverick for his willingness to defy Republican orthodoxy on several issues.

10. In the 2000 elections he ALMOST beat George W. Bush for the presidency.

11. He won the New Hampshire primary, a very impressive COMEBACK.

12. He's perceived as a straight-talker.

13. No matter what his politics, he's LIKEABLE. Obama might have a chance against him but not Hillary!

theteach


Get the Thursday Thirteen code here!

The purpose of the meme is to get to know everyone who participates a little bit better every Thursday. Visiting fellow Thirteeners is encouraged! If you participate, leave the link to your Thirteen in others' comments. It’s easy, and fun! Trackbacks, pings, comment links accepted!

View More Thursday Thirteen Participants

Romney Deserts Craig

Via Slate Magazine:

Mitt Romney shivs his friend Larry Craig

by John Dickerson

After hearing about Larry Craig's arrest, Mitt Romney ran from his former Idaho campaign chairman as if he'd been in the next stall.

"Once again, we've found people in Washington have not lived up to the level of respect and dignity that we would expect for somebody that gets elected to a position of high influence," the former Massachusetts governor told Larry Kudlow on Tuesday. "He's no longer associated with my campaign, as you can imagine."

When asked similar questions after the news broke, most of Craig's Senate colleagues demurred, saying they wanted to see all the facts before commenting. They might have been acting out of loyalty or might have wanted to avoid the topic of bathroom sex altogether. But Romney showed no such reticence, linking Craig—who denies he did anything improper—to Bill Clinton and Mark Foley, and the larger culture of corruption in Washington. (Though Romney said he wanted to wait for the facts before calling for Craig's resignation, he could only draw that parallel by assuming the worst).

Photo: (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)
___________________________________________________________________

So what do we call Romney now? A hypocrite? He's got Craig guilty while he (Craig) is denying culpability. You know these righteous Republicans ought to watch themselves and those who work for them.

Ya just never know, Mitt, who will be found out next...

theteach

The Real Terrorists

I watched the TV show Criminal Minds last night in which they showed a guy who boarded a public bus in Seattle, Washington, with two pipe bombs attached to the inside of an umbrella he carried. He was dressed in a business suit. He sat down in the center of the bus, placed the umbrella under his seat and got off at the next stop. As he walked away, he detonated the bombs.

The odd thing was he didn't kill very many people, maybe 20 or so, but he scared a lot. Then a thought occurred to me.

We here in the United States keep being told that we need a big, bad Department of Homeland Security to keep us safe from terrorist attacks. We need wiretapping, and suspension of habeus corpus. That we need to suspend civil liberties so we can be secure and safe. That we need to close borders (accept the one with Canada) because these terrible dangerous terrorists are getting into our country and planning, planning big, horrendous attacks that will kill us all.

Here is the truth: the terrorists perpetrated ONE great big LUCKY attack on us on September 11, 2001. And there's been nothing since!

If terrorists were planning attacks to scare us or kill us, all they would have to do is blow up a bus or two a couple of times a week in a few different cities across the country and we would be out of our minds with fright. So why don't they do it? They've done it in Israel. They did it once in Madrid, Spain, where they blew up trains. But they haven't done it here.

Who is it then that's frightening us? Who makes us think that when a steam pipe blows up in a New York City street that al-Qaeda has come to town?

Yup, it's Bush and Company. Remember when Michael Chertoff said he had a "gut feeling" that a terrorist attack was iminent? Bush and his buddies have jumped on an idea, a concept and run with it. We the government can do anything (make legislation, change laws, ignore the rule of law) in the name of fighting terrorism at home and abroad.

And no one can deny that. The Democrats can't deny it, college professors, journalists can't deny it. When I publish this post everyone will tell me "You're nuts." Bush has got us by the proverbial "short hairs" and you know why? Because all he has to say is "What if it happens again?" and we all shrivel into shaking, sweating little babies.

I don't know Ladies and Gentlemen, but Slate Magazine might have an answer. It has a good article called "Scare Them Back." It quotes Bush in a totally outlandish statement:

"And there's some good people in our country who believe we should cut and run. They're not bad people when they say that, they're decent people. I just happen to believe they're wrong." They're not bad sniveling cowards, I just happen to believe they're wrong sniveling cowards. The president went on to suggest that a show of weakness in Iraq will lead to more deaths in the United States. "If we leave before the mission is complete, if we withdraw, the enemy will follow us home."

The message is clear: Vote for Democrats and more Americans will die. For the president and Republicans to pretend this isn't their political message is silly. And in the end it's counterproductive, because it imperils their reputation as the party that assesses threats clearly and speaks about them plainly.

The question the Democrats should be asking is whether Bush's policies are inspiring the people who want to kill us. Since Republicans argue that if you elect Democrats, more Americans will die, it's logical for Democrats to ask whether continuing the current policies will cause more American deaths.

And that might just be the way to get terrorists to listen.

theteach :)

immigration bill; McSweeney's Pros and Cons; Hillary's Chances

10:48 AM:

The new immigration bill looks good BUT I don't like the merit-based provisions. Or the fees the immigrants have to pay to stay. Also some immigrants will have to go back to their country of origin and then begin the program to enter the U.S. all over again. The New York Times has a good article that explains the legislation clearly.
_____________________________________________________________________
3:58 PM:

I meant to be back sooner than this but got caught up in some things important and not so important... Take a look at McSweeney's PROS AND CONS OF THE TOP 20 DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES BY JOHN MOE.

Then when you finish that try PROS AND CONS OF THE TOP 20 REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES BY JOHN MOE.

Definitely worth the read and funny.
____________________________________________________________________
4:36 PM:

Oliver Willis asks:

What Is The Real Beef With The Immigration Bill?

But why does the Republican base act with so much revulsion at any sort of immigration deal short of closing America?

a) They don't like hispanics
b) They don't like all immigrants
c) They're afraid increased immigration means more Democratic voters?

I'm honestly asking.

_______________________________________________________________________

4:46 PM:

From Bartcop.com:

"A new Cook Poll shows Hillary "remains far and away the leader of the pack" with 36%, followed by Obama at 25% and Edwards at 15%." -- Political Wire, politicalwire.com

"Don't pay too much attention to the national polls just yet. Essentially, they are useful for measuring name recognition and are great for candidate hype and fundraisings." -- John Zogby, wehatehillary.com

Reassuring our Asian Allies?

Bush is reassuring our Asian allies (who are nervous after the Democratic landslide of last week) that there won't be a return to isolationism and protectionism of the past.

What? Who is he kidding? He's pulled this before... blaming the Democrats for pulling away from the global community.

Quoting from a January 31, 2006 article in Democracy Arsenal:

Bush referred a half-dozen times tonight to the dangers of an American retreat to isolationism. He's adopting a strategy of trying to paint his critics as favoring a retreat to inward-looking policies and a renunciation of America's role in the world.

For more than a century isolationism has been a Republican, not a Democratic platform. In 2000 Condoleeza Rice said that the US should not do nation-building and should not be a police force for the world. And Bush thought the scope of the Clinton Administration's international involvements - many of which revolved around replacing dictators and building democracy in places like Bosnia and Haiti - was too broad.

Except for the fact that we're in Iraq.

To the extent that ordinary Americans are tilting toward isolationism, polls show that such attitudes are linked directly to Bush Administration policies in Iraq. If it surges, the isolationism Bush rightly dreads will have been born of his own misguided policies, his breach of the public trust, and the strain he has put on the military. (democracyarsenal.org)