Running Primaries Thread

Look, an apple.
Look, an orange.
You believe this over here, but you won;t believe what we all believe over here.
Critical thinking continues to be important.

Anyway, in the real rockfight, Saint John receives an endorsement today:
http://www.observer.com/2008/jeb-bush-endorses-mccain

Hugged W. Endorsed by Jeb. McCain -- The Heir Apparent.
Good luck with that this fall.

And I would suggest that any Democratic candidate is prefereable, so we don't wind up with more evil fucks like this on the court:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7239748.stm

 

How do you think Hillary would do against McCain in a cockfight?

 

But I thought W loved Jeebus. Shouldn't he be for Huck then? Is W's Jeebus thing as phony as his down-home diction?

 

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_8208068

Radomski pleaded guilty last year to distributing steroids and laundering money from the drug sales. The conviction was further fallout from the Balco steroids investigation, which led federal investigators to Radomski, who at one point told an FBI informant that he could write a tell-all book about steroids that would overshadow former baseball star Jose Canseco's expose.

Sorry, Ragu, I can't help it if you believe everything you read in this morning's NYTimes puff piece about Radomski and then pass it off as your own thought.

Most people = a handful of Obama supporters who read into a quote what they want to believe even though the quote is offered without context and is offered by a writer who concedes he is an Obama supporter.

Look, guys, HRC is my third choice in this primary and I'll gladly make Obama my fourth if it comes to that but can't you see that you're just sitting around trying to convince yourselves?

 

It's interesting to me that you examine everyone else's psychological motives but Rendell's, cranberry.

We're trying to convince ourselves, the writer's clearly trying to stir something up, but when it comes to the politician in the equation, the one who earns his living motivating people through language, well, his possible motivations are off the table because they were not spelled out.

Is that deliberate?

 

They're not "off the table."
They're just unproveable.
Radomski actually TOLD an FBI informant that he was angling for a book deal.
If Rendell actually TOLD someone he was playing the race card, you'd have a parallel. But you don;t have it here.
But the endless belief that HRC is the most machiavellian politician since, well, Machiavelli goes merrily on.

 

Fens, I'm not talking about steroids and I'm not even talking about HRC.

I'm talking about Ed Rendell.

 

You're kidding, right?
Have you been paying attention the last seven years?
Besides, the "immunity" in question here is against civil lawsuits, not criminal prosecution. In other words, if I wanted to sue my telcom for turning over my data to Fredo's band of merry men, I can't any more because of this provision. And civil lawsuits were one avenue through which we might have developed evidence of criminality against the administration, which is why W fought for it so hard.
HRC: "Not voting."
Seems she's learned something from her opponent.

 

First, read the threads. Zeke, I appreciate your political enthusiasm but the threads (this one and the Super Tuesday, in particular) read like Obama circle jerks.

Second, there was no story here until the writer decided there was something from which to make a story. I still have no idea what that story is because the writer basically tossed a quote out there and failed to provide any context.

I didn't assign motivation to the writer. I just pointed out that it was written by an Obama supporter, which is sort of an important fact when you're discussing a "quote" that was, according to some of you, offered up to hurt Obama's chances.

And, finally, I didn't say Rendell's motivations are off the table; just that the act of assigning motivations to his remarks without understanding the context is pure conjecture.