I don't think there is a chance Obama will put a Republican on the ticket. That would, to me, mean that he has lost his marbles.

But again, isn't this a red herring (no pun intended)? There is no evidence to suggest such a thing.

Posted at July 13, 2008 11:41 PM in response to Can Progressives Unite, or Will It Be the Same Old Bit-Politics Story?

I agree with the basic premise of the post. We have chosen a nominee using the agreed upon process. Time to move on.

However, I also feel that this division is somewhat overblown. Even in our so-called divided state, polls show a pretty decisive win for Obama (especially crunching the electoral numbers).

The real question is whether we want to win, or whether we want to make a statement. I'd prefer the latter, but would accept the former if that means pissing on the toes of the pouters.

Posted at July 13, 2008 11:18 PM in response to Can Progressives Unite, or Will It Be the Same Old Bit-Politics Story?

I would take out the "please go somewhere else," and change "four-letter word" to explicit language.

Posted at April 24, 2008 1:23 AM in response to Acceptable Commenting

I'm coming in at the end here, but I have to speak my peace.

While not a convicted felon, I committed a very serious crime when I was seventeen years old. It is still on my record 15 years later. I can never be bonded or work for a financial institution. I accept it and have moved on, but that is where my sympathy for Raymond ends.

As others have stated, he feels no remorse for his actions. His excuse is a cross between "everyone else was doing it" and "I was just doing my duty."

This bullshit about the law being some kind of tightrope is just silly. In criminal law, crimes have specifically defined elements, and ignorance of those is not a defense.

Intent is a key element of crime. Raymond is arguing that he did not intend to commit the crime until he did it, or that he didn't know he was doing it when he did it. Both points are moot as they are not legitimate defenses, legally or morally.

I, for one, do not believe that a person should be able to commit a crime and then profit by writing a book about it. If he wants to come clean via interviews or if the book serves some common good and the proceeds go to the victims or charity, maybe an exception could be made.

What this man did undermines our entire system of government. No, Raymond was not hired by a campaign to be a saint. But if he wanted to get into politics, his goal should have been PUBLIC SERVICE, regardless of how many marks are in the win column.

Raymond's post is self-serving and sleazy, and I would say the same about anyone in any party who engaged in this sort of thing.

Finally, there is a question of civility and low ratings being given on that front. Yes, this is Josh's "house," and Raymond is a guest. But we are all guests as well. And if I am at a house party, and someone says something asinine, rebutting that statement is not rude at all, so long as it does not come to blows.

So that's my three cents. I will not buy this guy's book, and so long as I am a guest here as well, I reserve the right to call bullshit when I smell it.

Posted at January 14, 2008 7:18 PM in response to Morality vs. Politics and My Job as a GOP Operative

Duck,

You are tossing around 1 ratings like candy. Take it easy...

Posted at January 8, 2008 10:37 PM in response to How Could the Polls be so Wrong?

Normally, I would rate this post low and move on, but Larry has been pretty intense in his responses as well.

That said, I have heard that Larry is the type of guy that could kill two stones with one bird, so I would warn against trying to "smack the crap" out of him.

Posted at January 8, 2008 8:21 PM in response to How Could the Polls be so Wrong?

I'm no Clinton fan, and that's why I agree with Larry's post here.

The media, by trying to change the story and crown Obama the victor, pissed off a lot of voters.

Obama exceeded expectations by winning Iowa and finishing a very close second in New Hampshire.

However, his large margin of victory in Iowa probably costed him a victory in NH, because the media decided to change the storyline.

I'm an Edwards guy (with Obama and Hillary almost tied for my second choice), so I have issues with the media because of their dismissal of John.

So Larry is right, the media dropped the ball on this one. But had they not, Obama would likely be giving a victory speech right now.

Posted at January 8, 2008 7:51 PM in response to How Could the Polls be so Wrong?

Whoa..this is getting exciting! Before anyone starts slapping at Larry too hard, though, one should remember he is ex-CIA! (snark)

A couple points...

First, and I am not entirely innocent of this myself, it seems lately that to praise Hillary is perceived as an attack Obama, and vice versa.

Not saying this is the case here, nor that it is always bad (politically) when two teams are heading into the 4th quarter pretty much tied.

Second, I am an Edwards guy, and when it comes to my second choice, I (barely) lean Obama.

However, I do believe that Hillary's first lady experience counts. If I spent eight years living with Albert Einstein, I'm sure I would walk away with an above average knowledge of physic even if I never picked up the first book.

Posted at January 1, 2008 4:36 PM in response to No Time for Amateurs

Wow, I'm shocked by all the negative comments. I loved the Dukeys. They provided some fun in the middle of polls and Iowa and a vacationing Congress and the looniest gaggle of Republicans I can ever recall.

Sure, there was a time when I looked at the sheer number (and depth) of examples of corruption in our government and took pause, but then I remembered a few things:

1- Going into an election year, I NEEDED to be reminded of these events.

2- Going into an election year- OTHERS NEEDED to be reminded of these events.

3- The joke isn't about the event that occured. The joke was about the irony- the hypocrisy of anti-gay homosexuals, truth-seeking liars, and justice-seeking criminals.

These f***ers deserve to be ridiculed and mocked and called what they are: heaping piles of pure Dukey.

Posted at January 1, 2008 2:07 PM in response to Golden Dukes Discussion Thread

Don,

I was watching a doc on ancient Rome today, and your post hits the nail on the head.

When one man controls the military, bad things always happen. This is precisely why the founders implemented a policy to prevent just that.

One must ask the question: has the US already crossed the Rubicon, or are we merely at "the water's edge?"

Posted at December 30, 2007 8:31 PM in response to Agonizing Over the Candidates and Who They Really Are