TampaYankee

I don't disagree with any of that but it misses one very significant point IMO. Any party government or administration that fails so horrendously, repeatedly, not to mention abuse of power and politicization of nonpartisan government process just needs to be thrown out on its ass. There has to be some prize for such major screw ups. No amount of promises to come back to the old time religion should spare them from serving some penance in the desert. They earned the time off. They need it too to get their act together.

Do I detect a whif of AuH2O republicanism in the air? That would be appealing IMO. That would include dumping the activist (war mongering) Neocons in favor of a more traditional conservative foreign policy.

Read this yesterday. Seems like the smut side of the house won out with the online incarnation. Can't be all bad.

Sad because it is so, so plausible. Dubya: The Sarah Palin of his time.

Yes, I think they can. Not alone of course. This seems a clear Free Speech issue. With legal support from the Free Speach Coalition and the ACLU I'm confidant there is little doubt they would prevail. It might take years and a trip to the Supreme Court. It seems they don't have the stomach for that burden. All of that presumes some legal action taken against then of which I am unaware at this point. The other potential concern is about their reputation being sulllied. I dont understand that as a concern as CL has always been an anti establishment operation from the get-go. A free, out-of the mainstream avenue for business and social contacts. I dont see that it relies on mainstream advertising and charitable support these days either. FWIW

James, Thanks for the interesting read. Enlightening about what is afoot in Europe and NZ. I'm somewhat disheartened that the AMsterdam approach hasn't been more successful. However it is not totally suprising without the 'pimp model' of the enterprise being broken through laws and enforcement.

Enforcement is part of an agreement with attorneys general in 40 states http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27575624/ by Pat Eaton-Robb updated 3:06 p.m. ET, Thurs., Nov. 6, 2008 HARTFORD, Conn. - Under the watchful eye of law enforcement in 40 states, Craigslist pledged Thursday to crack down on ads for prostitution on its Web sites. As part of Craigslist's agreement with attorneys general around the country, anyone who posts an "erotic services" ad will be required to provide a working phone number and pay a fee with a valid credit card. The Web site will provide that information to law enforcement if subpoenaed. Jim Buckmaster, Craigslist's chief executive, said the deal will allow legitimate escort services to continue advertising, while providing a strong disincentive to companies that are conducting illegal business. "We don't view it as a penalty, we view it as raising the accountability," he said. "A legitimate business should have no problem with that. They should have no problem providing a phone number or credit card credentials." Craigslist filed lawsuits this week against 14 software and Internet companies that help people who post erotic service ads to circumvent the Web site's defenses against inappropriate content and illegal activity. Craigslist, which posts 30 million ads every month for everything from apartment rentals to jobs in hundreds of cities, will also begin using new search technology in an effort to help authorities find missing children and victims of human trafficking. Police across the country have been arresting people for using Web sites like Craigslist to advertise the sexual services of women and children. "The dark side of the Internet must be stopped from eclipsing its immense potential for good," said Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, who brokered the agreement. He added: "I am fully convinced that Craigslist wants to stop this activity as much as we do." Buckmaster said the agreement does not cover Craigslist's personal ads, where prostitutes have been found advertising for "dates." But he said the San Francisco-based company has been working with authorities on that issue and on cutting down on the sale of stolen merchandise on its sites.

Prior to her entry into the Senate I had always had a positive view of Elizabeth Dole. I hadn't paid attention while she was in the Senate. However, her despicable campaign tactics has forever changed my view. I am so pleased that these Lee Atwater/Karl Rove tactics have failed so badly this election cycle. Not sure whether the voters are wising up or the targets are better at responding. Probably both.

Sorry Stu, mangled my post. Thank you for the synopsis. I finally caught up with the complete article on Crooks and Liars (dont ya just love that site name ) where it was reprinted.

Adam, thanks for the synopsis. I agree with Mr. Krugman. That is why I suggested it will take a few more signficant failures before the culture warrior right wing base looses heart. Let me clear up confusion I sewed. I choose not to accept the NYT conditions for access to their articles. I don't trade my email address for easy access at most -- almost all -- online sites. Call it a quirk or peculiar personal principle. Sometimes that leaves me out of the conversation. I live with it.

Not sure what Mr Krugman had to say as I do not access to the NYT but I just heard Buchanan and Barnicle opine on the possibililty that the conservative movement might fall back on the old populist Goldwater conservatism of spending restraint and stayinging out of the bedroom - a move I would welcome. Part of the basis for the opinion was recognition of the wave of immigrants and the increasing hispanic and African American participation in future politics. I'm doubtful the right wing religious groups will give up on GOP control until a string of defeats demoralizes their base. The first step in that string, IMO, is cementing the Right of Privacy in the Supreme Court for another generation. Maybe the second step will be a realization that they cannot get their Constitutional Ammendments adopted, if that day ever comes. They will remain active at the state levels. For now I expect warfare between the conservative intellectual wing and the religious wing. The business wing will align with the percieved strength left standing as their ideology extends little beyond their checkbooks. Although some are likely to proclaim a new American political realignment for a generation, do not believe it. I have see it all before. No party has a lock on virtue and either party's grasp is always firm until their own abuses do them in or outside circumstances overtake them such as the business cycle or war.

Saw this earlier at the Huff post. I've long been wary of polls. It has gotten even worse now that population sampling has become a really black art. I'm doubtful about all of them. As was mentioned in the article, pollsters get paid whether they are right or wrong. Bookies can't afford to be wrong. Not much anyway. Particularly impressed with their 50 state stats in the last election and the depths of the political scene they plumb.

Thanks for the link. I've always been a closet ALW fan. Never thought of an Evita/Palin angle though. But the rabid support among the base share similarity on that level:P Laurence Eagleburger's latest pronouncement on Palin is devastating. He finally speaks his mind. I've always liked Eagleburger. I just couldn't understand how he and other conseravtives I respect could sully their reps by standing behind her, party politics notwithstanding. Several haven't and seem to be relegated to traitor status. Add one more. It will be interesting to see how the GOP sorts itself out after the election. I hope it returns to a more moderate party of past eras as I like acceptable alternatives to Democratic Party excesses. I doubt it though. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/31/e...i_n_139524.html

1$ USD = 1.2776 CAD Yeah!!! Happy Days are coming back maybe. A small silver lining to much bigger dark clouds rolling in.

I answered this in reply to an email you sent. It was there all the time as I pointed out. http://www.maleescortreview.com/index.php?...rt_id=107010477

Crooks and charletons know no party bounds, not to mention the incompetents, barely competents and demogogues. ditto... I have had enough Big League US politics to last me a lifetime. So depressing watching politics bring out the worst in people. I have forsaken the 24/7 spin cycle on cable too. Give me a good prison documentary re-re-repeat or color test pattern with elevator music.

If that is true then I strongly doubt that Obama could win. This poll seems to run counter to everything else I see. I maybe could believe 70% of all white males. I don't believe much in polls though anyway, only votes. It seems that the vast majority of polls are all trending in the Obama direction though. And it appears the McCain camp believes them based on their actions of late. I suspect the decks of the Titanic were more seemly as it was going down. Nevertheless, I respect the ability of the in-the-middle electorate to turn on a dime and it never ceases to amaze me about the ability of politicans to commit the most greviously stupid gaffes. Just look at this last week -- on both sides. Both sides might be better off at this point to just shut up the surrogates and leave it to the primaries to speak for themselves or safer yet sit everyone down and coast to the finish after a final national broadcast by each side to the nation.. We have all had enough and so have they. At this point the campaigners can't even give their own scripts on the stump correctly or wisely. If anyone remains undecided at this time it is just because they refuse to commit. They'll remain that way until they have to choose it or loose it. KYTOP, at this point what is your gut feel on the fate of Mitch McConnel?

Actually Rollins is one of the few conservative opearatives for which I have some respect. Sure he's a partisan Republican but he doesnt embarass or shame himself by signing on to ideologue idiocy and cynical spin. He's a political professional without being a cheap political whore, whores being the norm in both parties. Would that we had a few more of his ilk. It might raise the GOP out of the cess pool it has taken up as home.

Probably craigslist to check out the local scene. Strictly window shopping.

It's likely.

I'll get excited when they become price competitive. Until then I'll keep cursing Windows.

Agreed. Smart move I've been expecting. Running away from it won't help. Neither has ignoring it. SNL is likely to trim its wings if the target is onstage as part of the skit. Human nature. Plus the potential for unknown volatility with the principle makes for setting boundaries. If they had balls they'd center the sketch around 'guilt by association' and trot out the usual Obama accusations along with Keating Five and McCain's Board Membership on Right Wing Org with former Nazi supporting death squads in Latin America and Palin's witch hunting pastor and hubby's membership in a secession organization. Oh, and work in Palin's support for assault weapons use from helicopters to blow the shit out of Alaskan wolves from the air. Just a ole fun lovin' Alaska girl! A funny sketch on that would be devastating. Not likely to happen in a face-to-face though. Doesn't mean it couldn't be done on another weekend.

Oz, thanks for the link. I enjoyed very much. Cute ditty, cute guy. Takes me back a few years to Naked Guys Singing in the Big Apple.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/226/story/53341.html Posted on Wednesday, October 1, 2008 Next president will reshape U.S. courts from top to bottom WASHINGTON — The next president will tip the courts, one way or another. Supreme Court openings are all but guaranteed, and that's just the start: 44 trial and appellate federal judicial vacancies already await filling. There will be more. Consider this: President Bush has placed 316 judges on the bench during his two terms. One out of three federal judges now owes a lifetime-tenured job to the current president. Whoever replaces Bush will be likewise recasting courthouses, top to bottom. "The proper role of the judiciary has become one of the defining issues of this presidential election," Republican presidential candidate John McCain said in May. "It will fall to the next president to nominate hundreds — hundreds — of qualified men and women to the federal courts, and the choices we make will reach far, far into the future." In truth, many polls suggest, relatively few voters consider the federal judiciary a defining issue. But those who do care, care a lot. On Monday, timed to the opening of the Supreme Court's new term, the conservative Judicial Confirmation Network will begin running on ads Fox News Channel attacking Democratic nominee Barack Obama. "It's kind of a sleeper issue in this election, with so much else going on," said Wendy Long, counsel for the Judicial Confirmation Network, but "our internal polls show people do care about the issue." McCain used his May speech at Wake Forest University to drive home what his campaign terms his own "vision for the courts." This includes homage to a "strict constructionist philosophy" and a commitment to appoint Supreme Court justices like John Roberts and Samuel Alito. Obama, a former part-time University of Chicago law lecturer, takes a different direction. While praising their legal qualifications, Obama voted against both Roberts and Alito. In doing so, the Harvard Law School graduate shed light on his own judicial inclinations. "Legal process alone will not lead you to a rule of decision," Obama declared during debate over the Roberts nomination. "In those difficult cases, the critical ingredient is supplied by what is in the judge's heart." Tellingly, Obama cited affirmative action, reproductive rights and the rights of the disabled as among those legal questions requiring judges to posses "empathy." It is now commonly assumed in Washington legal circles that Obama is bound to appoint a woman and/or a person of color to high court if given a chance. Either candidate is bound to put his standards into practice. By next September, six of the nine Supreme Court justices will be at least 70 years old. Justice John Paul Stevens turns 89 in April. "The Supreme Court is on the ballot this fall, and the stakes could not be higher for Americans," said People for the American Way President Kathryn Kolbert in a statement released Wednesday. In some ways, the advocacy groups are out ahead of the public at large. The Supreme Court and the federal judiciary didn't even crack the top 20 issues considered important to voters, a late-September ABC/Washington Post survey found. A recent Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg survey asked voters why they had negative impressions of either McCain or Obama. Only 1 percent cited the courts. This was less than the number who claimed that Obama was "not Christian" or that McCain was "too old (or) could die in office." Moreover, no president can unilaterally impose judges. The Senate, too, has a say. Consequently, stark campaign declarations tend to soften amid the real-world confirmation requirements on Capitol Hill. Every one of the 48 U.S. District Court judges confirmed during the current Congress has swept through the Senate by a unanimous or voice vote. Appellate vacancies tend to be more controversial. They shape lasting constitutional interpretations and they cover multiple states. Even so, eight of the 10 federal appellate judges confirmed during this Congress secured a unanimous or voice vote. Obama is on the Senate Judiciary Committee and McCain isn't. But when controversy over judicial nominations threatened to cause a Capitol Hill showdown, it was McCain who played the far more active peacekeeping role. Frustrated over Democratic impediments to GOP judicial nominees, Senate Republicans in the spring of 2005 contemplated changing the rules to make it easier for the majority to end filibusters. McCain was part of a bipartisan "Gang of 14" senators who opposed this so-called nuclear option, flying in the face of his party's most adamant conservatives. "I think it's a very dangerous course to embark on," McCain said at the time. McCain also had voted for both of President Clinton's Supreme Court nominees, Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. However, McCain is far more likely than Obama to flog the Supreme Court with immoderate rhetoric for decisions he doesn't like. McCain, in June, denounced the court for "an assault" on law enforcement after the justices struck down Louisiana's law permitting execution of child rapists. He called "outrageous" a 2005 decision allowing governments to seize private property for economic development. He called a 2008 ruling extending constitutional habeas corpus rights to Guantanamo Bay detainees "one of the worst decisions in the history of this country."

If only that were my affliction and I had the bank account for an agressive course of therapy.