1) Ongoing developments in Iraq, and a remainder that realpolitik always ends up dominating the conduct of foreign affairs.
2) The elevation of domestic issues well above Iraq as a voter concern in this election. Good news for Republicans on the whole. Generally good news for Dino Rossi. A mixed blessing for John McCain...can that VP pick talk economy with skill?
3) MSM coverage turns bizarre: the Washington Post, following in the footsteps of the New York Times, goes to work on John McCain in a front-page Sunday splash after the lengthy GOP nomination contest. The result? Top McCain aide Mark Salter calls a very public BS (on the handling of the story, not necessarily the notion that McCain has a temper...good luck denying that).
4) Rising food prices. Ugh. A double whammy with gas prices. And my 11 and 8 year old don't appear to be eating any less in the coming years.
Combination effect of gas and food prices soaring: higher underlying angst with the status quo.
Posted by Eric Earling at April 21, 2008 07:27 AM | Email ThisI don't believe for a second the story on Iran. Whoever that reporter you cited was reminds me of Jimmy Carter coming back from his meeting with Hamas and stating Hamas wants to live side-by-side with Israel. Both are jokes.
Iran wants an escalation of violence in Iraq for both the October elections in Iraq and the November election in the USA. I just hope McCain and the military prepare us for the increased violence so the "emotional" types don't freak out and vote for the idiot that promises the troops will be coming home on January 19, 2009. If we can weather this upcoming storm, it will be good for the USA and Iraq.
Posted by: swatter on April 21, 2008 07:35 AMSo either McCain needs to look for a geographical running mate, a proven social conservative one, or one that can enlarge the moderate base he is looking at. It depends on how he's looking at his math. I don't see Romney doing anything to help with votes, rather he could hurt just a bit. Granted, he may be okay once in the position, still, he is not a good fit for the ticket.
Posted by: Doug on April 21, 2008 08:08 AMa. Regarding the viaduct tunnel. There are two issues, one is the actual road replacement of the viaduct and the other issue is the seawall. It is my understanding that the soil under the viaduct is such that it would have to be a very deep tunnel and that would raise the cost significantly. Can any one say "big dig."
b. The eight lane option for the 520 bridge would probably be tied up in environmental litigation for decades as the residents of Monlake are very politically smart. The legislature is dem controlled and would they go against the wishes of the constituents?
c. Regarding the veep options, Senator Mc Cain simply has to pick some one who can take over.
The dem race is a bit more interesting. If Senator Clinton stays in through the convention, then neither she or Senator Obama may head the top of the ticket. If she runs out of other people's money and has to drop out before the convention, former senators David Boren and Sam Nunn have just endorsed Senator Obama. If Senator Obama heads the ticket, Sam Nunn is a possible veep. Regarding that Rev. Wright problem, many candidates have bigot supporters in their closets, some even have those who love the book Little Black Sambo and who think all Black people are pimps, prostitutes, and drug dealers in theirs.
If McCain had an economy wonk, he would have the Iraq and economy covered. His candidate could hit back daily on economics and let McCain do big picture and not get caught up in the minutiae that is disguised as MostImportantMicroIssueoftheDay that has to be solved in July 16 and only forgotten on the 17th.
Eric is right that it is all about Iraq (and the expected 'Tet-like' offensive by Iran this fall and the economy dominated by high gas prices caused by failure of the Democrat establishment over the decades regarding energy independence.
I mean, come on, Democrats. Pressuring the governor to stop drilling offshore only to have the Chicoms come in and drill in the same oilfield a few miles away? Weird policy you have, Democrats.
Posted by: swatter on April 21, 2008 09:17 AMYet they enjoy living in a total different way.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on April 21, 2008 09:53 AMIt sounds as though the newspapers are finally waking up and realizing they need to at least put on the facade they are sort of, kind of balanced.
Posted by: swatter on April 21, 2008 10:10 AMI couldn't agree more.
I really like Tim Pawlenty , Gov. of Minnesota, to be the Veep.
Posted by: McCain fan on April 21, 2008 11:06 AMI couldn't agree more.
I really like Tim Pawlenty , Gov. of Minnesota, to be the Veep.
Posted by: McCain fan on April 21, 2008 11:06 AMI couldn't agree more.
I really like Tim Pawlenty , Gov. of Minnesota, to be the Veep.
Posted by: McCain fan on April 21, 2008 11:07 AMRegarding the cost of gasoline and food, well can always thank the politicos we elected to Congress for those problems...
Posted by: juandos on April 21, 2008 11:07 AMThis shows the panic the left is feeling with regards to Obama's electability.
One nice feature of McCain, is that for the most part, he is a Democrat. So it's pretty hard for the left to attack him on anything substantive. And that then leaves the left exposed for their intolerant racism.
Posted by: Jeff B. on April 21, 2008 11:22 AMBut such foundation work is done all the time in construction. Also in SF, the latest Bay Bridge build for the new Eastern Skyway Oakland to Treasure Island was in the soft shallow muck of the Bay. They simply went down to bedrock for each pylon base. Obviously doing so in water is hard, because you have to build a coffer dam. But doing so on the existing Alaskan Way surface street to simply shore up each column would not be that big of a deal, or by instead replacing the viaduct with another elevated structure using new pylons with better bases. Either way, the whole seawall issue is really only needed if they do the big dig. So they use that as an argument, but that's a diversion and it is false because that presumes that the tunnel is the only option, which it is not.
They best option is whatever will cost the least and preserve that thoroughfare. There have also been great studies showing that a cross Eliot bay bridge span would be cheaper than a retrofit, and certainly cheaper that a big dig.
I trust Rossi to arrive at a solution that is both more affordable and functional. If we leave it to Gregoire and the Left, the viaduct will de torn down and turned in to a surface street. The thoroughfare of 99 will be lost, and then there will only be one stunted single lane North South corridor in the downtown Seattle Area as it is now on I-5 under the convention center. Gridlock will get worse, and they'll be scratching their heads trying to figure out why their 1000 foolish little ideas did not work.
Bottom line, people use 99.
Posted by: Jeff B. on April 21, 2008 11:39 AMOnly problem is, only those in the ice fishing communities know who this Pawlenty guy is.
Romney is a solid choice both politically (more than capable of taking over the job/experience) and demographics (east coasters). McCain/Romney 2008 is a viable ticket no matter who the Dems run.
The only thing plagueing a Romney choice is the bigots both in the party and out of the party regarding the mormon religion.
Posted by: Rick D. on April 21, 2008 11:46 AM4) It is not so much rising prices of gas and food so much as it is lowering value of the US $. Until we start implementing Rep Pauls proposals to return to a gold standard and elliminate the central bank we can expect to see higher and higher prices across the board as inflation will become a worse and worse problem.
Posted by: Lysander on April 21, 2008 12:01 PMOh please, sir, what is the depth of bedrock under the viaduct where the foundations are to be 'dug out'?
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on April 21, 2008 12:23 PMWasn't RP caught doing another dumb stunt a few weeks ago?
1. saying Caught implies he was not being open with what he does. Ron Paul is an advocate for and huge practicioner of open government.
2. saying another implies that he has done a dumb stunt in the past. I am not aware of any dumb stunts.
3. saying dumb stunt implies he is either advocating something dumb or that the way he is advocating it is not smart. His policies are almost unquestionably conservative and his methods of raising awareness have been hugely successful given his previous and for the most part still existing media and GOP establishment bias against him.
So the answer to your question is a resounding.... No he was not caught doing a another stupid stunt.
I am curious... do you support a return to a gold standard and ellimation of the federal reserve or do you support the continuation of the unsound monetary policies that McCain favors?
Posted by: Lysander on April 21, 2008 12:45 PMObviously you are not an engineer or in constrution. They dig a small surface pit, and then they use a pile driver to drive piles down through the soft soil until they hit bedrock. Then, a pad and structural steel is formed and poured and anchored to the top of the piles. Then the new pylon or column is anchored in turn to this pad and to new concrete beams which support the elevated structure. This results in a strong structure-to-bedrock connection, that requires only a small amount of digging. This is how it is done every day.
It's a lot less costly than digging a massive mile long cut and cover tunnel combined with a complete replacement of the adjoining seawall, all while below sea level. With all of the requisite pumping of seeping water, and the requisite permanent pumping systems installed in the final tunnel to keep sea water and drainage water out. Not to mention ventilation, and on-and on.
You might want to fly down to San Francisco, drive North on 101 to the junction with 280, go North on 280, and then exit at the first exit. Drive back under the structure and look at it. That's what a retrofitted elevated double-decker structure looks like. And it works great, and never had to halt the flow of traffic.
Posted by: Jeff B. on April 21, 2008 01:03 PMSorry but your not going to suck me in.
I've said many times on this website that I'm no fan of McCain. But I find RP to be a bigger fool than McCain.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on April 21, 2008 01:16 PMNo one is disputing that. According to the DOT Hwy-99/AWV handles almost as many vehicles a day as SR-520.
What people are disputing the guesstimated costs of Rossi's "big dig" project that will take longer to build, cannot be expanded/replaced, and will never come in under budget. Not to mention it was the LEAST popular option on that godawful vote we had. Rossi seems out-of-touch with his attempt to pander to Seattle/KC voters.
Americans asked for change and got it. Perhaps not what they wanted, but change nevertheless.
Posted by: Snuffy on April 21, 2008 01:23 PMTrue, but considering the Congressional Dem's have not passed a budget yet it's a pretty hard case to make that it's their fault. Seems like some drunk with power Conservatives decided to go out on a 4 year spending spree without bringing in the income to pay for it. Bush of course signed off on all of it since he didn't veto a single spending bill until May, 2007 when the Dem's came back into the Majority.
Yes, yes, the dreaded 'copy and paste'... get over it...
Remember the election in 2006? The election of CHANGE (oops now, that sounds familiar... pardon me while I gag)
Thought you might like to read the following:
A little over one year ago:
1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;
2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;
3) The unemployment rate was 4.5%.
Since voting in a Democratic Congress in 2006 we have seen:
1) Consumer confidence plummet;
2) The cost of regular gasoline soar to over $3.50 a gallon; (to say nothing of food prices: thank you ethanol and food unfriendly subsidies)
3) Unemployment is up to 5% (a 10% increase);
4) American households have seen $2.3 trillion in equity value evaporate (stock and mutual fund losses);
5) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $1.2 trillion dollars;
6) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.
America voted for change in 2006, and we got it!
Remember it's Congress that makes law not the President. He has to work with what's handed to him.
Quote of the Day........"My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world. I hope you'll join with me as we try to change it." -- Barack Obama
Taxes...Whether Democrat or a Republican you will find these statistics enlightening and amazing.
www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html
Taxes under Clinton 1999
Single making 30K - tax $8,400
Single making 50K - tax $14,000
Single making 75K - tax $23,250
Married making 60K - tax $16,800
Married making 75K - tax $21,000
Married making 125K - tax $38,750
Taxes under Bush 2008
Single making 30K - tax $4,500
Single making 50K - tax $12,500
Single making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 60K - tax $9,000
Married making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 125K - tax $31,250
Both democratic candidates will return to the higher tax rates
It is amazing how many people that fall into the categories above think Bush is screwing them and Bill Clinton was the greatest President ever. If Obama or Hillary are elected, they both say they will repeal the Bush tax cuts and a good portion of the people that fall into the categories above can't wait for it to happen. This is like the movie The Sting with Paul Newman; you scam somebody out of some money and they don't even know what happened.
You think the war in Iraq is costing us too much?
Read this:
I hope the following 14 reasons are read and mailed over and over again until they are read so many times that the reader gets sick of reading them. I have included the URL's for verification of all the following facts. NOTE: I have not checked the veracity of all the links... but then again, I'm also not your secretary... :P
1. $11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to illegal aliens each year by state governments.
Verify at: http://tinyurl.com/zob77
2. $2.2 Billion dollars a year is spent on food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens.
Verify at: http://www.cis..org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html
3.$2.5 Billion dollars a year is spent on Medicaid for illegal aliens.
Verify at: http://www.cis..org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html
4. $12 Billion dollars a year is spent on primary and secondary school education for children here illegally and they cannot speak a word of English!
Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.0.html
5. $17 Billion dollars a year is spent for education for the American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies.
Verify at http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
6. $3 Million Dollars a DAY is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens.
Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
7. 30% percent of all Federal Prison inmates are illegal aliens.
Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
8. $90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on illegal aliens for Welfare & Social services by the American taxpayers.
Verify at:
http://premium.cnn.com/TRANSCIPTS/0610/29/ldt.01.html
9. $200 Billion Dollars a year in suppressed American wages are caused by the illegal aliens. Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
10. The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate that's two and a half times that of white non-illegal aliens. In particular, their children, are going to make a huge additional crime problem in the US
Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/12/ldt.01.html
11. During the year of 2005 there were 4 to 10 MILLION illegal aliens that crossed our Southern Border, also as many as 19,500 illegal aliens from Terrorist Countries. Millions of pounds of drugs, cocaine, meth, heroin and marijuana crossed into the U.S. from the Southern Border.
Verify at: Homeland Security Report: http://tinyurl.com/t9sht
12. The National Policy Institute, "estimated that the total cost of mass deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion or an average
cost of between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period."
Verify at: http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.org/pdf/deportation.pdf
13. In 2006 illegal aliens sent home $45 BILLION in remittances back to their countries of origin.
Verify at: http://www.rense.com/general75/niht.htm
14. "The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One Million Sex Crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants In The United States ."
Verify at: http://www.drdsk.com/articleshtml
The total cost is a whopping $ 338.3 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR.
Are we THAT stupid?
Boy am I confused. We have been hammered with the propaganda that it is the Iraq war and the war on terror that is bankrupting us.
If this doesn't bother you then just continue to ignore it.
If, on the other hand, if it does raise the hair on the back of your neck, I hope you forward it to every legal resident in the country including every representative in Washington, D.C. - five times a week for as long as it takes to restore
some semblance of intelligence in our policies and enforcement thereof.
FREEDOM IS NOT FREE ... and I am NOT a victim!
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on April 21, 2008 02:18 PM
This seems like a pretty stupid stunt to me.
Ron Paul favors eliminating jail time for drug dealers!!
Ron Paul wants to get your child hooked on gateway drugs. =P
2. It was in response to Snuffy @ 26;
3. I don't plagiarize; I DO indeed use the works of others to validate, bolster, and reinforce my assertions;
4. Citing the works of others is valid in RESEARCH... ever written a research paper? Know how? Know the definition?
5. Wiz is the "copy/paste complainer... have you no original thoughts?
6. Have you nothing better to do with your opinions/silly comments than to waste them on me? Thanks for the attention!
FREEDOM IS NOT FREE ... and I am NOT a victim... nor a mindless knee-jerker!
i am not trying to draw you into anything. You made an absurd claim about Paul so I called you on it. If you do not want to defend... all the better, I would much rather talk about McCains piss poor plans for the economy than your claim that Ron Paul is doing some stupid stunt.
The doctor introduced a bill decriminalizing marijuana. Introducing bills hardly qualifies as a stunt. Nor does ending the drug war equate to wanting kids to get hooked on drugs. Also the gateway theory is pretty throughly debunked. I guess that news has not made it to the drug warriors yet... :)
Posted by: Lysander on April 21, 2008 02:56 PMYour game is old and you don't play it well.
~~~~
I enjoy reading intersting (and quirky) stories (and especially the comments that follow them) and I like to LINK interesting stories... although I'm not sure if the Paulbearers are interested.
FREEDOM IS NOT FREE ... and I am NOT a victim... nor a mindless knee-jerker!
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on April 21, 2008 03:01 PMUh huh, you keep telling yourself that.
Sounds like the Ron Paul peeps need to befriend the Lyndon LaRouche peeps. That way all you guys can join up with Scientologists and share all your wack job ideas with each other.
I would much rather talk about McCains piss poor plans for the economy
I agree, McCain would make an excellent Secretary of Defense. He's looking more and more like Bob Dole II, now with less fainting and more temper tantrums.
2. Uh huh, no one is stopping you from using independent though (something you must lack) instead of copy/pasting long plagiarized diatribes.
3. Copy/Pasting full articles rather than linking to them and then sticking your name on the end is plagiarizing.
4. Who's Wiz? I don't see anyone by that name on this thread.
5. I have plenty of things to do, I just wanted to point that you have a LONG history of stealing from others and claiming them as your own. How about you just post your own thoughts rather than ripping off ones published by Pat Buchanan or Ann Coulter?
Do you feel the federal government currently wants all our children to become alcoholics or are you in favor of reintroducing alcohol prohibition?
Posted by: Lysander on April 21, 2008 03:41 PMRun, circular obfusCATOr, run!
Am I the only one who's noticed how testy our liberals are lately? I wonder why that is...LMAO!
FREEDOM IS NOT FREE ... and I am NOT a victim... nor a mindless knee-jerker!
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on April 21, 2008 04:22 PMYour name is art the end of the post as well as your little fake victim quote. You are a victim, a victim of your own delusional postings that are not even your own, just copy/paste jobs stolen from the works of others.
Ragnar the serial plagiarist!
Am I the only one who's noticed how testy our liberals are lately?
Nice dodge, I'm still calling you out for what you are. A person who has to steal from others because they can't think for themselves.
Maybe this will help you...Commandment #8: Thou shalt not steal.
You simply cut and paste some recent piece of propaganda you've read and then chant "all cons good, all libs bad."
At least Army med vet posts original thoughts, even though no one can make sense of them.
You guys are just too easy.
You kiddies should probably get some for those overworked jerking knees of yours!
FREEDOM IS NOT FREE ... and I am NOT a victim... nor a mindless knee-jerker!
Sure seems like it is, at least you are born or emigrate here. People like Army M/V put their lives on the line at one point or another for that, but they get paid.
and I am NOT a victim
You're an idiot who cannot think for themselves. I bet you even stole this tag line from someone else.
nor a mindless knee-jerker!
Ummm, yeah. When you plagiarize broad swaths of text and don't think for yourself you become a the very definition of a mindless knee-jerker.
Get a clue Ragnar, think for yourself. Everyone else here does...even the liberals.
I notice you failed to answer my question posed in post 37. Do you think the federal government encourages our youth to become alcoholics? Or more generally... the question posed is this, can the government allow something without encouraging or endorsing it?
Conservatives have traditionally taken the view that individuals can best make decisions for themselves. With that philosphy in mind, one must accept that the government will allow many things that society does not necessarily endorse.
But we digress. The original reason this subject was brought up was becuase you made the claim that a medical doctor who proposed a bill in congress decriminalizing the possession and use of a recreational drug was somehow pulling a stupid stunt. You have yet to explain adequately or even inadequately how introducing a legitimate bill in congress is a stunt. do you care to attempt to explain?
Posted by: Lysander on April 21, 2008 05:14 PMThe problem these drugstore conservatives have with Ron Paul is that he exposes their blatant hypocrisy. He is the real deal, a true conservative in every sense of the word, in both his domestic and foreign policy. Yet they run like the wind from him, because it's rather obvious his policies would be disastrous.
I am not sure it is obvious his policies would be disastrous. Most his policies were in place during Americas rise from fledging colonies to a world super power. Which policies do you think are disastorous?
Posted by: Lysander on April 21, 2008 05:33 PMThe difference between us, circular obfusCATOr, is that I readily and willingly admit to using the words of others to support my points of view, while you, little circular obfusCATOr haven't the ... courage... to admit your arguing techniques have much in common with an old washer: round, empty and only good for agitating.
What angers you more little circular obfusCATOr, that I don't care what you think, that I neither need nor want your (or anyones) validation, that I'm ususally right, or that I merely consider you as i would a fly in a jar i.e., harmless amusement?
Once, when I was posting there, a knee-jerker over at HA complained that conservatives in general (and I in particular) were just too sure of themselves.... like it was a bad thing! It speaks volumes to the differences between liberals and conservatives, takers and producers, don't you think, little circular obfusCATOr? Oh wait... it's that thinking thing again... never mind.
My knees don't jerk and I've NEVER been a victim!
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on April 21, 2008 05:46 PMMost people rode horses "during Americas rise from fledging colonies to a world super power ". Does that argue that we should return to horses as a mode of transportation? I think not.
As for which policy would be disastrous, let me count the ways:
His demand that we return to the Gold Standard, his stance on international trade agreements, his stance on immigration, his stance on gun control, his plan for protecting the environment, and my very favorite... his education policy.
All of these would be, at least by their posts on this forum, very, very close to the hearts of conservatives. But no, they refuse to take him seriously because he doesn't support their little war in Iraq.
Pauls problem is that he's an 'all or nothing' kind of guy, and frankly in todays heated political environment a pragmatist stands a better chance of being heard. Ugly but true.
Why is that Rags?
Maybe, just maybe, could it be that both sides have valid points?????
Or will you revert to your pure good (conservatism) vs. pure evil (liberalism) point of view?
2. No, pragmatism is necessary for VOTERS, not "necessary to accomplish much in today's political environment". Nice try.
3. No, I never said one was pure good and the other is pure evil. However I stand behind the notion that they are mutually exclusive and that one particular ideology does not use relativism to dance away from the difference. Nice try.
4. Sure both points have valid points. The problem for one side is that they are only valid to them when expedient... that nasty relativism again.
A is A, it cannot be B. Brush up on your Aristotle.
Posted by: Raganr Danneskjold on April 21, 2008 06:17 PMYour arguement is weak. You claimed that Pauls policies would be disasterous. I point out that they in fact had been enacted in the past and did not result in disaster as you said they would. Your counter arguement is to suggest that I am in favor of returning to 18th century technology rather than 18th century policies?
Technology by its definition always moves forward, I do not propose we revert back. Government policies do not always move forward. In that regards Paul suggests we have not made wise decisions in the past 50-100 years. To equate the two is not being very intellectually honest.
Now to take your favorite... pauls stance on education. He proposes the federal government have no role in it. That is precisely the policy the federal government took through most of its first 100-150 years of existance. The result was the most highly educated populace in the world. So call it disasterous if you want, evidence shows it is successful.
Posted by: Lysander on April 21, 2008 06:21 PMRon Paul holds purely conservative values. Ron Paul is a "fringe kook". Someone who holds purely conservative values can be a "fringe kook." Your words, Raggy, not mine.
Brush up on your Aristotle yourself.
"No, pragmatism is necessary for VOTERS, not "necessary to accomplish much in today's political environment". Nice try." ????? When you sober up, let us know what you might have been thinking when you wrote that.
Which ideology does not use relativism to dance away from good and evil? Certainly not the neo-conservatives.
"Both sides have valid points"? Now there is at least the glimmer of a concession.
Like a lot of our generation, writing is not your forte Rags. But keep at it. You'll get better with practice.
Think of it this way... you've no where to go but up.
1. Because there has to be digging to actual bedrock, no one really knows how deep that it and what problems would be encountered in the digging. I believe one group of engineers said that the project could be done, but the cost estimates were low-ball.
2. There is the question of environmental litgation. Since time is money, if litigation delays the project a couple of years, costs go up.
3. Does a project of this type require some sort of voter approval and is it just Seattle voters, King County, the region or even the state for approval. Seattle voters do not seem to be in favor of the project.
I think how one reacts to what Senator Rossi has proposed depends upon whether one uses a single occupancy vehicle most of the time or uses public transportation most of the time. There is a huge lobby in favor of public transportation and there is a big highway roads/lobby, the question is which is bigger.
Posted by: WVH on April 21, 2008 09:33 PM