Gotcha moment or not, he should have anticipated the question and been better prepared. He had to know it was coming. If he couldn't interpret the question he could have easily repeated the question and asked for clarity.
Another real winner - Jeb.
I'm no Jeb fan, but I think Jeb has been getting skewered unfairly about his answer to this question. I believe his explanation, i.e. that he misinterpreted the question and really thought he was asnwering whether he would have made the same decision knowing what his brother new AT THE TIME, not in applying hindsight. Unfortunately this "gotcha" moment will be used against him and will probably be effective on some level, but I don't think it is fair and it is a non-starter for me.
Come on Gondicar he misunderstood the question? really? According to his mother I thought he was supposed to be the smart brother? 😛
Gotcha moment or not, he should have anticipated the question and been better prepared. He had to know it was coming. If he couldn't interpret the question he could have easily repeated the question and asked for clarity.
Disagree. He heard what he thought he heard, and when he answered he wasn't confused and didn't feel the need to have the question repeated. No question it was a mistake, humans do make them (even politicians running for POTUS) but a rather minor one. Unfortunately mistakes aren't allowed in politics and gotcha moments are seen as gold, and his opponents will try to hang this one around his neck at every turn.
Like I said, I've never been a Jeb fan but this particular gotcha will have no bearing on how I assess his candidacy (there are plenty of other reasons not to vote for him).
Another real winner - Jeb.
I'm no Jeb fan, but I think Jeb has been getting skewered unfairly about his answer to this question. I believe his explanation, i.e. that he misinterpreted the question and really thought he was asnwering whether he would have made the same decision knowing what his brother new AT THE TIME, not in applying hindsight. Unfortunately this "gotcha" moment will be used against him and will probably be effective on some level, but I don't think it is fair and it is a non-starter for me.
Come on Gondicar he misunderstood the question? really? According to his mother I thought he was supposed to be the smart brother? 😛
I didn't say misunderstood, I said misinterpreted. Or maybe he misheard it. In any case, "misunderstood" implies he couldn't grasp what was being asked and I think it was more he heard it wrong without realizing it and answered based on what he thought was being asked.
[Edited on 5/21/2015 by gondicar]
Another real winner - Jeb.
I'm no Jeb fan, but I think Jeb has been getting skewered unfairly about his answer to this question. I believe his explanation, i.e. that he misinterpreted the question and really thought he was asnwering whether he would have made the same decision knowing what his brother new AT THE TIME, not in applying hindsight. Unfortunately this "gotcha" moment will be used against him and will probably be effective on some level, but I don't think it is fair and it is a non-starter for me.
Come on Gondicar he misunderstood the question? really? According to his mother I thought he was supposed to be the smart brother? 😛
I didn't say misunderstood, I said misinterpreted. Or maybe he misheard it. In any case, "misunderstood" implies he couldn't grasp what was being asked and I think it was more he heard it wrong without realizing it and answered based on what he thought was being asked.
[Edited on 5/21/2015 by gondicar]
According to Webster Merriam dictionary misunderstood can also mean he interpreted the question incorrectly.
Misinterpreted is defined as to understand wrongly so they can basically mean the same thing.
Anyway no use splitting hairs as I was just teasing you and was not being serious.
But as someone said he may not be very smart if he did not anticipate such an obvious question and have a prepared answer for it.
All I was really trying to say is that it's just not the big deal that some people are making it out to be. In my opinion of course.
[Edited on 5/22/2015 by gondicar]
All I was really trying to say is that it's just not the big deal that some people are making it out to be. In my opinion of course.
It appears that nothing any candidate says will really matter. It looks like the winner will be determined by how much free speech they buy. It isn't thoughts, or ideas, or proposals that will win this election, its how much they spend.
How will cutting these minor departments get the budget under control? They are a minute part of the budget. The big financial drag on this country is defense spending. There isn't a Republican alive who will cut that in any meaningful way. The last president to make series military cuts was Clinton and the Republicans were all over him on that. The GOP won't do anything to offend their military corporate supporters.
"It does not matter which party is in power."
jkeller 5/21/15
All I was really trying to say is that it's just not the big deal that some people are making it out to be. In my opinion of course.
It appears that nothing any candidate says will really matter. It looks like the winner will be determined by how much free speech they buy. It isn't thoughts, or ideas, or proposals that will win this election, its how much they spend.
Thank you to the Supreme Court & the Citizens United decision. What a pathetic decision.
Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy and Alito "decided that the American people are powerless to stop corporations from using corporate funds to influence state and federal elections."
"The ruling dramatically expands the new “corporate rights” doctrine that has transformed the First Amendment in recent years, and exposes an already-corrupted political process to a new flow of billions of dollars of corporate money."
Look at the the 5 justices, & it's easy to conclude based on the far majority of their votes over the years which way they lean.
Repeat - a pathetic decison. We need more money out of poltics not more money into politics.
And now john "bombs away" mccain and his girlfriend lindsey graham want 10,000 troops on the ground in Iraq.
Of course none of their relatives would be going so..........
How will cutting these minor departments get the budget under control? They are a minute part of the budget. The big financial drag on this country is defense spending. There isn't a Republican alive who will cut that in any meaningful way. The last president to make series military cuts was Clinton and the Republicans were all over him on that. The GOP won't do anything to offend their military corporate supporters.
"It does not matter which party is in power."
jkeller 5/21/15
Hey genius, nice of you to take my comment out of context. I was talking about local economic conditions. I didn't realize that you were such a simpleton. 😛
How will cutting these minor departments get the budget under control? They are a minute part of the budget. The big financial drag on this country is defense spending. There isn't a Republican alive who will cut that in any meaningful way. The last president to make series military cuts was Clinton and the Republicans were all over him on that. The GOP won't do anything to offend their military corporate supporters.
"It does not matter which party is in power."
jkeller 5/21/15Hey genius, nice of you to take my comment out of context. I was talking about local economic conditions. I didn't realize that you were such a simpleton. 😛
"Local economic conditions'"...Local, as in something a Mayor might govern? ...or "The big financial drag on this country is defense spending"....Let's not forget that according to you..."It does not matter which party is in power.".....
How will cutting these minor departments get the budget under control? They are a minute part of the budget. The big financial drag on this country is defense spending. There isn't a Republican alive who will cut that in any meaningful way. The last president to make series military cuts was Clinton and the Republicans were all over him on that. The GOP won't do anything to offend their military corporate supporters.
"It does not matter which party is in power."
jkeller 5/21/15Hey genius, nice of you to take my comment out of context. I was talking about local economic conditions. I didn't realize that you were such a simpleton. 😛
"Local economic conditions'"...Local, as in something a Mayor might govern? ...or "The big financial drag on this country is defense spending"....Let's not forget that according to you..."It does not matter which party is in power.".....
My comment was made in a discussion of cities. Now, genius, what do mayors have to do with defense spending? Does the mayor of your town have anything to do with the federal government? Can I dumb this down for you any more than I already have?
Hah! Chris Christie - another classy Republican running for President! Sheesh. You can't make this stuff up!
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) gave a speech on Wednesday full of vulgarities directed at reporters over the George Washington Bridge scandal, New Jersey's finances, and his travel history.
"We don't give a s--- about this or any of you," Christie told a crowd of 350 people at the Hamilton banquet hall on Wednesday, according to Bloomberg Politics. The event was an annual event in New Jersey which features a roast of the sitting New Jersey governor. Elected officials, journalists, and lobbyists attend the event.The New Jersey governor said one journalist should "open your eyes" and "clean the s--- out of your ears."
"This is a guy who says he doesn't know what I'm doing every day," Christie said of another journalist according to the Bloomberg report. "Then just get the f--- away from me if you don't know what I'm doing."
Senator Rubio earns his money legally through hard work.
Hillary takes illegal donations from foreign countries, governments and people soliciting The State Department for favors.
i've heard for a number of years now about all of the "illegal" things that Obama has done and now we are hearing about all of the "illegal" things Clinton has done. Aren't you the least bit angry at the GOP for doing nothing about these "illegal" things? Shouldn't someone be impeached especially after the landslide sweep of congress by the GOP? I don't know, seems to me conservatives should be livid that nothing is being done to throw these lawbreakers in jail, actually they are helping to allow this "illegal" activity because everyone knows they won't do anything about it.
it's just very strange, or just bullshlt.
Senator Rubio earns his money legally through hard work.
Hillary takes illegal donations from foreign countries, governments and people soliciting The State Department for favors.i've heard for a number of years now about all of the "illegal" things that Obama has done and now we are hearing about all of the "illegal" things Clinton has done. Aren't you the least bit angry at the GOP for doing nothing about these "illegal" things? Shouldn't someone be impeached especially after the landslide sweep of congress by the GOP? I don't know, seems to me conservatives should be livid that nothing is being done to throw these lawbreakers in jail, actually they are helping to allow this "illegal" activity because everyone knows they won't do anything about it.
Must something necessarily be illegal before it's considered a problem?
Lets see if we can lower the bar any further.
Senator Rubio earns his money legally through hard work.
Hillary takes illegal donations from foreign countries, governments and people soliciting The State Department for favors.i've heard for a number of years now about all of the "illegal" things that Obama has done and now we are hearing about all of the "illegal" things Clinton has done. Aren't you the least bit angry at the GOP for doing nothing about these "illegal" things? Shouldn't someone be impeached especially after the landslide sweep of congress by the GOP? I don't know, seems to me conservatives should be livid that nothing is being done to throw these lawbreakers in jail, actually they are helping to allow this "illegal" activity because everyone knows they won't do anything about it.
Must something necessarily be illegal before it's considered a problem?
Lets see if we can lower the bar any further.
Epic failure of a response.
Republiclowns have control of both houses.
If Obama is doing so many "illegal" things, you should have all the votes you need for impeachment.
Unless of course the R's are lying through their faux teeth.
crickets...........
Senator Rubio earns his money legally through hard work.
Hillary takes illegal donations from foreign countries, governments and people soliciting The State Department for favors.i've heard for a number of years now about all of the "illegal" things that Obama has done and now we are hearing about all of the "illegal" things Clinton has done. Aren't you the least bit angry at the GOP for doing nothing about these "illegal" things? Shouldn't someone be impeached especially after the landslide sweep of congress by the GOP? I don't know, seems to me conservatives should be livid that nothing is being done to throw these lawbreakers in jail, actually they are helping to allow this "illegal" activity because everyone knows they won't do anything about it.
Must something necessarily be illegal before it's considered a problem?
Lets see if we can lower the bar any further.
Epic failure of a response.
Republiclowns have control of both houses.
If Obama is doing so many "illegal" things, you should have all the votes you need for impeachment.
Unless of course the R's are lying through their faux teeth.
crickets...........
Muleman's post didn't even mention Obama.
[Edited on 5/24/2015 by alloak41]
Senator Rubio earns his money legally through hard work.
Hillary takes illegal donations from foreign countries, governments and people soliciting The State Department for favors.i've heard for a number of years now about all of the "illegal" things that Obama has done and now we are hearing about all of the "illegal" things Clinton has done. Aren't you the least bit angry at the GOP for doing nothing about these "illegal" things? Shouldn't someone be impeached especially after the landslide sweep of congress by the GOP? I don't know, seems to me conservatives should be livid that nothing is being done to throw these lawbreakers in jail, actually they are helping to allow this "illegal" activity because everyone knows they won't do anything about it.
Must something necessarily be illegal before it's considered a problem?
Lets see if we can lower the bar any further.
Epic failure of a response.
Republiclowns have control of both houses.
If Obama is doing so many "illegal" things, you should have all the votes you need for impeachment.
Unless of course the R's are lying through their faux teeth.
crickets...........
Muleman's post didn't even mention Obama.
[Edited on 5/24/2015 by alloak41]
That's the best you can do?
Even had to edit it?
after the landslide win of the senate by the GOP i expected alot more out of them at this point. they seem quite out of step with those who are running for president.
The GOP may have won the midterms but they are as dysfunctional as always. It will be fun to watch all the GOP wannabes flip flop to try to satisfy the tea party as the election gets closer.
Not their fault as if they want any chance to win the nomination they will have to pander to the hard core right. It is a catch 22 as this pandering will result in them losing the election as the country rejects their far right ideologies.
[Edited on 5/25/2015 by Bill_Graham]
The Republican establishment views the electorate as three pieces of pie. The 40%
Republican base, who they believe will show up at the polls and vote Republican no
matter what. The 40% Democrat base who will do the same. And the 20% comprised
of "independents."
They have been duped into believing that an all out effort to win a majority of the 20%
group is the key to victory. They believe that the 20% group is made up of voters who
want bi-partisanship, want compromise, don't like confrontation, want the parties to get
along and want Washington to "work" and "get things done." Attacking Democrat
candidates and attacking Liberalism will turn this group off, supposedly.
Subsequently, their campaigns reflect this philosophy. They don't run to win, and fail to
excite their base. Democrats are the opposite. They attack relentlessly and try to pull
voters from every group, not just the middle 20%.
For whatever reason, the GOP fails to take note of this.
hmmm
I agree about the 3 segments of the population - I would put the numbers at 45 - 45- 10 but that is neither here nor there.
I have also not seen or heard a GOP candidate refrain from attacking liberals, liberalism or Democrats. (Giulliani saying that Obama doesn't love the country comes to mind most recently). IMO the GOP knows how to attack and run attack ads.
personally, I am put off by all political advertisement. Neither party seems to have any real interest in compromise.
I find the GOP more objectionable in that regard, but that's just me.
I have also not seen or heard a GOP candidate refrain from attacking liberals, liberalism or Democrats. (Giulliani saying that Obama doesn't love the country comes to mind most recently). IMO the GOP knows how to attack and run attack ads.
STRONGLY disagree. The Romney and McCain campaigns both made a game of patty cake
look aggressive by comparison. The GOP in general has not even scratched the surface of
what would be possible in attacking the long list of Liberalism's consequences.
The present day Democratic party is concerned about only two things IMO.
1) Expanding the size and scope of the Federal Government
2) Demise of any opposition
Now I'm sure someone with faulty logic will translate this into "Conservatives are perfect."
agree to disagree
I have also not seen or heard a GOP candidate refrain from attacking liberals, liberalism or Democrats. (Giulliani saying that Obama doesn't love the country comes to mind most recently). IMO the GOP knows how to attack and run attack ads.
STRONGLY disagree. The Romney and McCain campaigns both made a game of patty cake
look aggressive by comparison. The GOP in general has not even scratched the surface of
what would be possible in attacking the long list of Liberalism's consequences.The present day Democratic party is concerned about only two things IMO.
1) Expanding the size and scope of the Federal Government
2) Demise of any oppositionNow I'm sure someone with faulty logic will translate this into "Conservatives are perfect."
Ah yes, those wimpy Republicans refusing to attack the opposition. Maybe attacking Obama more would have worked. Maybe they should have tried saying he was born out of the country, or being a secret Muslim, or being a socialist, or hating America, or something like that. No attack at all. The Republicans only offered their ideas and failed to attack Obama. Had they offered fewer ideas and attacked Obama more, clearly they would have won the election.
Republicans don't attack? Wow. What are they doing to Hillary?
What about the crap they pulled on Max Cleland?
Alloak you are really out of touch.
This is what the Republicans did to Cleland, a war hero and triple amputee:
Dirty-Bomb Politics
By Mary McGrory
Thursday, June 20, 2002; Page A23
If the mugging of Sen. Max Cleland of Georgia is a fair indicator of what is to come, the fall elections will be ugly. Cleland, a decorated veteran and triple amputee, was attacked by his Republican opponent, Rep. Saxby Chambliss, "for breaking his oath to protect and defend the Constitution."Shades of Lee Atwater, the fabled Republican cutthroat politico who helped pilot the first President Bush to victory. But even Atwater might have hesitated before going after a man who lost both legs and an arm in the service of his country. Chambliss did not participate in Vietnam. He had a bad knee, he told columnist Mark Shields, who was the first to call national attention to Cleland's bizarre situation -- veterans whose war wounds confine them to wheelchairs are often given a pass on patriotism, especially by those who never wore the uniform.
_____What's Your Opinion?_____
Message Boards • Share Your Views About Editorials and Opinion Pieces on Our Message Boards
• About Message Boards
_____More McGrory_____
• 'The Saddest Loss' (The Washington Post, Apr 23, 2004)
• Blossoms and Bombs (The Washington Post, Mar 16, 2003)
• Tony Blair in the Doghouse (The Washington Post, Mar 13, 2003)
• About Mary McGroryAdd Mary McGrory to your personal home page.
Free E-mail Newsletters
Today's Headlines & Columnists
See a Sample | Sign Up Now
Breaking News Alerts
See a Sample | Sign Up Now
But Chambliss was not deterred. On May 16 he issued a press release about Cleland's insufficient contribution to the defense of his country: Cleland had voted for an amendment to the Chemical Weapons Treaty that eliminated a ban on citizens of terrorist nations being on U.N. inspection teams in Iraq. It was a majority vote, 56 to 44, and among those in support were Sen. Bill Frist, the stately chairman of the Senate Republican campaign committee who handpicked candidate Chambliss.While the 55 other senators seem equally reprehensible and guilty of oath-breaking, Chambliss says through his campaign communications director, Michelle Hitt, that the majority was not "overwhelming," and that, although the aye-sayers merited the lash, Chambliss was letting them walk because "he is concerned only about how Sen. Cleland voted, which was contrary to the way Georgians would have voted."
Hitt says there has been little adverse criticism of Chambliss's dirty-bomb attack. Only the "Mark Shieldses of this world complain," she says. Conservative columnist Jim Wooten of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution wrote that Chambliss had a right to reveal Cleland's voting record -- though it was never a secret.
Chambliss may have been under the influence of Bush's top adviser, Karl Rove, a disciple of Lee Atwater, who has said from the first that the war on terrorism is a good issue for his party and can help close gaps such as Chambliss's 22-point deficit.
Throughout the country, patriotism, under Rove's coaching, has become the sub-theme of the campaign. The message is sometimes coded, sometimes not. It is not the first time a campaign has turned into a brawl over custody of the flag: Remember the senior Bush's melodramatic 1988 trip to a flag factory? In Iowa, Democrat Tom Harkin is getting clubbed by opponent Greg Ganske, who went at him on the flag-burning amendment. Harkin's record as a Navy pilot during Vietnam was no help to him in Ganske's attack on him for voting against the amendment. Ganske, although he is running as "a compassionate doctor," made a tacky jest about Harkin's recent operation for a cancer on his lip. Ganske promised that when he defeats Harkin, he will make sure Harkin has a lot of sunscreen "down there," presumably referring to Harkin's house in the Bahamas.
The chairs of the Democratic House and Senate campaign committees, Rep. Nita Lowey and Sen. Patty Murray, say their issues -- prescription drugs, patients' bill of rights, schools and jobs -- will prevail in November. Both have found on recent tours that Democrats are talking more about Social Security than about homeland security.
They advise candidates to do what they are already doing: getting close to Bush on the war on terror and protecting the country. House Democratic leader Richard Gephardt is going the distance. He has endorsed the invasion of Iraq and is pushing for passage of a homeland security bill by 9/11. Bush himself would be satisfied with the first of the year.
Questioning the president on anything -- on early knowledge of the attacks, exclusion of the FBI and CIA from the homeland security complex -- is considered risky business for Democrats. Said Sen. Bob Graham of Florida on "Face the Nation": "If the administration takes a stonewall position, and every word in their plan is biblical, and if you change it, you are unpatriotic."
Both Murray and Lowey say that an emerging issue that might work for them is increasing consternation about corporate greed. L. Dennis Kozlowski, who made a killing while running his company into the ground, makes people mad. They are interested in the safekeeping of their retirement funds.
It's too soon to say whether Rove will succeed in making the November vote into a referendum on the wartime leadership of George W. Bush. But the meanness has begun early and can only be expected to get worse.
Max Cleland -- and it's not his style -- has begun to quote Shakespeare in a line from "Romeo and Juliet": "He jests at scars that never felt the wound."
I have also not seen or heard a GOP candidate refrain from attacking liberals, liberalism or Democrats. (Giulliani saying that Obama doesn't love the country comes to mind most recently). IMO the GOP knows how to attack and run attack ads.
STRONGLY disagree. The Romney and McCain campaigns both made a game of patty cake
look aggressive by comparison. The GOP in general has not even scratched the surface of
what would be possible in attacking the long list of Liberalism's consequences.The present day Democratic party is concerned about only two things IMO.
1) Expanding the size and scope of the Federal Government
2) Demise of any oppositionNow I'm sure someone with faulty logic will translate this into "Conservatives are perfect."
Ah yes, those wimpy Republicans refusing to attack the opposition. Maybe attacking Obama more would have worked. Maybe they should have tried saying he was born out of the country, or being a secret Muslim, or being a socialist, or hating America, or something like that. No attack at all. The Republicans only offered their ideas and failed to attack Obama. Had they offered fewer ideas and attacked Obama more, clearly they would have won the election.
I guess we were watching totally different campaigns. The Romney campaign went after Obama's record a little bit at times. McCain's went after nothing.
This is what the Republicans did to Cleland, a war hero and triple amputee:
Dirty-Bomb Politics
By Mary McGrory
Thursday, June 20, 2002; Page A23
If the mugging of Sen. Max Cleland of Georgia is a fair indicator of what is to come, the fall elections will be ugly. Cleland, a decorated veteran and triple amputee, was attacked by his Republican opponent, Rep. Saxby Chambliss, "for breaking his oath to protect and defend the Constitution."Shades of Lee Atwater, the fabled Republican cutthroat politico who helped pilot the first President Bush to victory. But even Atwater might have hesitated before going after a man who lost both legs and an arm in the service of his country. Chambliss did not participate in Vietnam. He had a bad knee, he told columnist Mark Shields, who was the first to call national attention to Cleland's bizarre situation -- veterans whose war wounds confine them to wheelchairs are often given a pass on patriotism, especially by those who never wore the uniform.
_____What's Your Opinion?_____
Message Boards • Share Your Views About Editorials and Opinion Pieces on Our Message Boards
• About Message Boards
_____More McGrory_____
• 'The Saddest Loss' (The Washington Post, Apr 23, 2004)
• Blossoms and Bombs (The Washington Post, Mar 16, 2003)
• Tony Blair in the Doghouse (The Washington Post, Mar 13, 2003)
• About Mary McGroryAdd Mary McGrory to your personal home page.
Free E-mail Newsletters
Today's Headlines & Columnists
See a Sample | Sign Up Now
Breaking News Alerts
See a Sample | Sign Up Now
But Chambliss was not deterred. On May 16 he issued a press release about Cleland's insufficient contribution to the defense of his country: Cleland had voted for an amendment to the Chemical Weapons Treaty that eliminated a ban on citizens of terrorist nations being on U.N. inspection teams in Iraq. It was a majority vote, 56 to 44, and among those in support were Sen. Bill Frist, the stately chairman of the Senate Republican campaign committee who handpicked candidate Chambliss.While the 55 other senators seem equally reprehensible and guilty of oath-breaking, Chambliss says through his campaign communications director, Michelle Hitt, that the majority was not "overwhelming," and that, although the aye-sayers merited the lash, Chambliss was letting them walk because "he is concerned only about how Sen. Cleland voted, which was contrary to the way Georgians would have voted."
Hitt says there has been little adverse criticism of Chambliss's dirty-bomb attack. Only the "Mark Shieldses of this world complain," she says. Conservative columnist Jim Wooten of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution wrote that Chambliss had a right to reveal Cleland's voting record -- though it was never a secret.
Chambliss may have been under the influence of Bush's top adviser, Karl Rove, a disciple of Lee Atwater, who has said from the first that the war on terrorism is a good issue for his party and can help close gaps such as Chambliss's 22-point deficit.
Throughout the country, patriotism, under Rove's coaching, has become the sub-theme of the campaign. The message is sometimes coded, sometimes not. It is not the first time a campaign has turned into a brawl over custody of the flag: Remember the senior Bush's melodramatic 1988 trip to a flag factory? In Iowa, Democrat Tom Harkin is getting clubbed by opponent Greg Ganske, who went at him on the flag-burning amendment. Harkin's record as a Navy pilot during Vietnam was no help to him in Ganske's attack on him for voting against the amendment. Ganske, although he is running as "a compassionate doctor," made a tacky jest about Harkin's recent operation for a cancer on his lip. Ganske promised that when he defeats Harkin, he will make sure Harkin has a lot of sunscreen "down there," presumably referring to Harkin's house in the Bahamas.
The chairs of the Democratic House and Senate campaign committees, Rep. Nita Lowey and Sen. Patty Murray, say their issues -- prescription drugs, patients' bill of rights, schools and jobs -- will prevail in November. Both have found on recent tours that Democrats are talking more about Social Security than about homeland security.
They advise candidates to do what they are already doing: getting close to Bush on the war on terror and protecting the country. House Democratic leader Richard Gephardt is going the distance. He has endorsed the invasion of Iraq and is pushing for passage of a homeland security bill by 9/11. Bush himself would be satisfied with the first of the year.
Questioning the president on anything -- on early knowledge of the attacks, exclusion of the FBI and CIA from the homeland security complex -- is considered risky business for Democrats. Said Sen. Bob Graham of Florida on "Face the Nation": "If the administration takes a stonewall position, and every word in their plan is biblical, and if you change it, you are unpatriotic."
Both Murray and Lowey say that an emerging issue that might work for them is increasing consternation about corporate greed. L. Dennis Kozlowski, who made a killing while running his company into the ground, makes people mad. They are interested in the safekeeping of their retirement funds.
It's too soon to say whether Rove will succeed in making the November vote into a referendum on the wartime leadership of George W. Bush. But the meanness has begun early and can only be expected to get worse.
Max Cleland -- and it's not his style -- has begun to quote Shakespeare in a line from "Romeo and Juliet": "He jests at scars that never felt the wound."
Great, a 2002 Senatorial race. I thought the topic at hand was the 2016 Presidential race, but never mind that....here's the thing, CHAMBLISS WON!
See what I mean? Democrats run the same type of smears, so the GOP shouldn't be afraid. The last two GOP Presidential hopefuls ran what most consider pretty docile campaigns and lost, so RUN TO WIN! The Democrats sure do.
