Ooh, scary! Call me when you guys can protect Americans from Category 3 hurricanes and Congressional sex chat, 'kay Chachi?

The dems have a plan for repelling hurricanes?

Do tell!

the good Clown has confirmed this will be an effective ad.

it forces democrats to openly belittle the war on terror.

which is clarity for all of us.

And thus does the GOP hand terrorists their ultimate victory. After all, the goal of terrorists is not to kill--it is to forment terror.

Good to see your party continuing to assist them.

And thus does Jeff Fecke hand us our victory.

Awareness isn't "terror".

And the word you're looking for is "foment".

Wow. Great ad. I hope it's as successful as Johnson's "Daisy" ad was.

I didn't think AC would like this. Wonder how he feels about the ads by Wetterling scaring seniors about their meds. Scaring is only good for the Dems, and about "entitlements," cause, why should seniors (who, incidentally, hold most of the wealth in this country) have to pay for prescription drugs?

Then again, it was Bush who signed that dreadful program into law.

Yes the Taliban is still plotting terror from their sanctuary in Afghanistan and Pakistan. I say we send 150,000 ground troops there to kill them. Oh that is right, you people said the Taliban was history ("I really don't think that much about him" - GWB on OBL) and our troops were sent to Iraq.

I don't think national security helps the party that has lost two wars in six years.

Serious threats require a serious party of serious people. If we ever go to war with Grenada again, will give you a call.

Redeploying to Okinawa isn't a serious plan.

But it's the democrat plan.

Geoff:

Like I said when we have a problem with Grenada we will let you know. If you do not recognize that getting out of Iraq is a serious option, in fact an option widely discussed by GOP leaders like Baker and Warner, you have no business sacrificing more of our defenders to your strategic fantasies. At this point, our viable Iraq options all stink - that is what happens when you lose, but we need some clear eyed cold hearted Democrats to make the tough calls. 5 years of happy talk - look we painted another school - the media does not report the good news - the next six months are critical - proved that you people can not be trusted to defend this nation.

Should have been using ads like as a boot into the face of liberals and fellow travelers alqueda/terrorist apologists for two years now...

A day late and a dollar short....handholding and kumbayya ain't gonna hack it anymore.

This is a war of survival and will encompass the planet before it is done.

Now if we can get GW to say the "islamofascist" word again??? Somehow I doubt that.

"hope it's as successful as Johnson's "Daisy" ad was"

Goldwater, you mean?

Given that there's an actual war in progress (well, for some of us), it's not quite the same context.

That's was LBJ's commercial, meeyotch.

Doh. You're right. It was LBJ's smear attack!

Hard to tell 'em all apart after a while!

All I get is a black screen, a ticking sound followed by a heartbeat and the GOP responsibilty claim.
I don't get it.

So, how's the party in power doing with that whole, y'know, finding Osama bin Laden thing?

I used to wonder, like many others, if he'd be conveniently found a month before the election. Now I know that will never happen - it would deal a terrible blow to the GOP, because then who would you hold up as the bogeyman? Who would you claim is going to massacre the voters if they do anything so treasonous as - *gasp* - elect a Democrat?

The ad and the sentiment behind it are despicable. We need people who are serious about making us safe without relying on fear to hold onto their power.

"So, how's the party in power doing with that whole, y'know, finding Osama bin Laden thing?"

Beeeej,

This question may come off sounding a lot more peevish than I intend. Bear with me.

You think "finding Bin Laden" is the dispositive goal of this war? As if he were an organized crime boss, without whom his gang would wither away?

He's a sick guy hiding in a cave somewhere, communicating via couriers, moving constantly to avoid the CIA, MI5, NSA, NRO, GQHS, BND, DGSE, and a good chunk of the special forces of a number of big, proficient nations.

"I used to wonder, like many others, if he'd be conveniently found a month before the election."

Yeah, lots of people wondered lots of things about this Administration; was he a draft-dodger, did the Administration blow up the WTC or start the whole thing to get pipeline rights through Afghanistan, was Flight 93 shot down, was the Pentagon attacked with a US cruise missile...

"Now I know that will never happen - it would deal a terrible blow to the GOP, because then who would you hold up as the bogeyman?"

It's only a boogyman if it doesn't exist.

" Who would you claim is going to massacre the voters if they do anything so treasonous as - *gasp* - elect a Democrat?"

Not sure where you work Treason into this. I don't know a single credible Republican who's used the term.

Would electing the Dems be a fatal blow to the war on terror? Absolutely, if for no other reason (it's it's NOT the only one) that the Democrats are pure hell on the military. Inevitably. Even the "good" Democrat, Clinton! The Cut and Run strategy - the Dems can doll it up any way they want, but that's what it is - is an attempt to doll up a strategy of appeasement as something else.

"The ad and the sentiment behind it are despicable. We need people who are serious about making us safe without relying on fear to hold onto their power."

Statement without evidence. "Relying on fear?" I don't think so. Stating the facts as they are, and hoping that Americans can see the situation clearly is more like it.

Which is more than the Dems have, on the war as on all other issues.

"Stating the facts as they are, and hoping that Americans can see the situation clearly is more like it."

You're political strategy is as pathetic as your military strategy. In Iraq you sit around hoping something get better. You 'hope' Americans see the situation clearly? We see the situation extremely clearly.

It has become clear that the war in Iraq no longer serves any military or strategic purpose. The Iraqis will have to sort this one out for themselves. It has become clear that you lost this war. You didn't just lose this war, you lost ugly in a way that will embolden our enemies for a generation. It has become clear that only Democrats can undo the wrekage of your failure.

So go ahead run the ad 24/7. It only highlights your failure.

RickDFL says that we've lost two wars in six years. There is only war and it's still being fought. This ad speaks to that difference in understanding. Democrats still don't seem to comprehend that we are in a larger conflict and that it won't go away even if we withdraw from it. I suggest some clarity and patience. The enemy is radical Islam and the timetable is for the forseeable future. Until Democrat leaders understand this they are a danger to the safety of Americans.

Rick,

Virtually every word you wrote was wrong. It's late, so who cares, but while you're entitled to your opinion, you are not entitled to your own facts.

Do you think you guys could come up with something a little better than recycled cliches? Seriously, a ticking stopwatch and a heartbeat?

Oh... and I LOVED the V.O. at the end called in on a feaking cell phone.

This is truly, TRULY awful.

"Do you think you guys could come up with something a little better than recycled cliches?..."

...presented, ironically, in the form of Doug's 20,000th consecutive sarcastic, detail-free snark.

Apparently Rove's big October surprise is to further expose George Bush as the incredibly ineffective, laughable, loony toony buffoony most of the world believes him to be by telling him o say he never was a "stay the course" kind of guy. Does the Republican party have a plan to deal with the terror of enduring two more years of Bush? If not, then the blame for what is "next to come" falls squarely on the shoulders of this babbling idiot and the rubber stamp Republicans. They've had control of Congress since 1994. That's 12 years of poor leadership. Terrorists didn't just pop out of the bushes yesterday, so dealing with them should have been top priority all along. 9/11 was only the half way point.

Teenea said,

That's 12 years of poor leadership. Terrorists didn't just pop out of the bushes yesterday, so dealing with them should have been top priority all along.

But Teena, you have to subtract 1995 - 2000. The time it took to investigate and prosecute Whitewater - which led to investigating the Paula Jones incident - which led to Monica Lewinski. Along the way, they had to investigate Travelgate and half a dozen other "gates".

That leaves them effectively 2 years to deal with issues like terrorism. Wait... there was also "reforming" social security in there from 2000 till the attacts on 9-11.

OK. 1 year to deal with terrorism and obviously it was all Clintons fault.

"But Teena, you have to subtract 1995 - 2000. The time it took to investigate and prosecute Whitewater - which led to investigating the Paula Jones incident - which led to Monica Lewinski. Along the way, they had to investigate Travelgate and half a dozen other "gates"."

Um...right.

But for the investigations (which related to perjury to a grand jury, not Monica Lewinski), Clinton would have been at his rightful post, at the head of a team of SEALs, parachuting into the Sudan to bring Bin Laden back in handcuffs?

The CIA, DIA, NSA, NRO and the Department of Defense were involved in the Whitewater investigation?

Note to future presidents; tell the truth to grand juries, and do your damn job.

"Note to future presidents; tell the truth to grand juries, and do your damn job."
Posted by: mitch

I am confused as to just why the Republican-dominated Congress thought the Clinton administration's anti-terror measures were ill-timed and excessive. Oh, well. I guess they knew something they weren't sharing with the rest of us.

Presidents, just like anyone else, have to be sworn in first. At least I imagine judges or Congressional committee heads THINK they'll tell the truth if they are. I'm remembering Condi Rice's denial of ever thinking planes could be used as missiles. Quite a lack of imagination for a Secretary of State, don't you think?

Is there any chance Bush or Cheney will ever agree to being sworn in? Uh-uh. Not a snowball's chance in hell. I think a sodium pentathol drip might work nicely, though. I believe that may qualify as an extreme measure against an enemy combatant. Oh, goody! It's legal then.

Teena,

is the secretary of state in charge of defending the country?

Nice to see your tin-foil hat is still glowing red-hot!

For a second there I almost forgot the Dems message of calm and collected vs. FEAR! The rational wisdom of the Red Star in the Opeds, the steady calm of Cindy Sheehan, even Howard Dean keeping things cool and collected about returning power to the sane and guiding hand of the zen like Dems. Heck, even Hillary, Soros, Sharpton, Pelosi, and Reid have always kept thing in perspective, never being excessive with their hints of nazis in power or how our civil rights are being trampeled.

Olberman rips the Republicans a new one over this piece of dung.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/10/23/olbermanns-special-comment-on-gop-fearmongering/

Oh, if OLBERMAN says so...

Jeez, Doug. Why not quote Michael Moore or Noam Chomsky or Teena while you're at it?

Olberman is a documentable moron.

Mitch said,

"Olberman is a documentable moron."

...who still manages to skewer the latest piece of Republican pornography.

And Mitch, if Olberman is a documentable moron, he should run for President. It worked for Bush after all.

"who still manages to skewer the latest piece of Republican pornography"

In the great big short bus that is the Bush Derangement Syndrome support group, the standard for "Skewer" is down low enough where even Keith Olberman can qualify. Among that kind of audience.

"And Mitch, if Olberman is a documentable moron, he should run for President. It worked for Bush after all."

You did that without help? Excellent!

Hey, how's that research down at Goverment Center? Have all your lawyer friends ponied up about how very very wrong I am yet?

Get back to me on that.

Condoleezza Rice was in charge of the security of our country on September 11, 2001. The attacks happened on her watch. At least 14 countries warned the Bush administration in advance that the attacks would likely come in the form of highjacked planes. Apparently it does take a tin foil hat to understand such complexity as "Bin Laden determined to stike." In that case, I am proud to wear one. Better yet, we ought to pass them out to Bush and his cabinet, eh?

The "Democrats have no plan" line of bull crap holds no water - never did. Which Republican leaders would like to allow the Democratic leaders to publicly share what their plans are? Hmmm? Any volunteers? I thought not. You need to look beyond the MSM for those answers. I prefer to watch c-span when possible, visit the websites of our Democratic leaders, and catch their speeches and interviews. You can remain ignorant about Democratic plans if you like. But when ignorance is purely a choice, is it really advisable?

Mitch said,

"Hey, how's that research down at Goverment Center? Have all your lawyer friends ponied up about how very very wrong I am yet?"

Funny you should ask...

Lets review how we got to this point...

Mitch said,

"Don't hang around family court much, do you?

Under current law, the police don't *need* the spouse to press the charges; mindful of the fact that many spouses refrain from pressing charges, the County Attorney will *very* frequently file charges *without* the spouse's cooperation - if there's evidence."

To which, I responded,

"First of all Mitch, a charge of physical abuse would likely be handled in the criminal court - not family court so your sarchasm is wasted."

Now, on to the facts...

If a person files a complaint against a spouse and later drops the complaint, the police can pursue the matter independently. When this happens, the police file a complaint and the County attorney then files the charges and then the courts take over - that's the criminal court. NOT the family court.

With regard to the family courts, they act collaterally with the criminal courts when issues of spousal support and maintenance apply and they deal with issuances of restrining orders.

Additionally, county attorneys can file charges without the consent or cooporation of a spouse but it is done in situations where there is a history of abuse reports that go without intervention or prosecution or if the severity of a single incident justifies the county interveening on the victims behalf.

To suggest that this happens very frequently is just plain wrong.

Granted, I only talked to three attorneys regarding this and they all gave the same answer but I'll take the word from people who do this for a living over yours.

Doug,

So you snark, but you don't really attack my facts, nor do you address the basic question: Under what standard of journalistic ethics does a paper not report the fact that Fine was never convicted? Or the standard for getting an arrest expunged?

Pure yellow journalism.

Mitch said.

"So you snark, but you don't really attack my facts"

You know, I just spent the last 10 minutes drafting a very clever response when it occured to me that I'm debating with Nathan Thurm.

I'll let your responses speak for themselves.

Oh, get over yourself.

You found a few pointillistic, picayune legal practices that were different in process, but not fact, from what I already said (and that's assuming that what you wrote was truthful and accurate, which after your little "election observer" stunt is always up for question)...

...and after a few days of going around and around, you have yet to address my question about journalism. Under what standard is leaving such a key point out, acceptable?

There is none.

But it's a shame you tossed your "very clever response". It would have been a first.

Mitch said,

"which after your little "election observer" stunt is always up for question"

You mean my little "stunt" where I described in detail exactly what I was doing as a volunteer for MoveOn but foolishly and incorrectly called it election observing which was followed immediately by my acknowledgment that I was wrong?

Would that be the little "stunt" you're refering to Mitch?

Yep.

And I'm starting to see why you think it's OK for the Strib to leave out big swathes of stories:

"which was followed immediately by my acknowledgment that I was wrong?"

After you were caught.

Mitch said,

"After you were caught."

You mean after I described in detail activities that had nothing to do with the official activities of a registered elections official.

Wow. What awesome powers of detective skills you possess.

I said I was there as an elections observer because that was what I was doing. Observing the elections. I never said I was a registered elections official.

If I had known how anally retentive you and your regulars were when I started frequenting this blog, I would have been more careful in selecting my words.

I misspoke but like I said, the chance of you letting it go are somewhere between zero and none.

Funny how you were able to deduce that I wasn't a registered elections official based on my description of sitting in a parking lot with a MoveOn button and a clipboard but the whole "Fine was never convicted thing even though there was never a trial" completely escapes you.

Two strawmen, two torches.

"Funny how you were able to deduce that I wasn't a registered elections official based on my description of sitting in a parking lot with a MoveOn button and a clipboard..."

I wasn't. My readers and commenters were. I didn't much care. I used to work as a bar DJ; EVERYONE is a former SEAL or undercover cop or FBI agent or election observer at last call. I thought the whole episode was funny, in a Cliff Clavin-y kind of way.

" but the whole "Fine was never convicted thing even though there was never a trial" completely escapes you."

Doug, you seem to be having a hard time not appearing irredeemably dense on this topic. I'll explain again; I DIDN'T "know" he was never convicted - and, given my background as a father's rights activist, you should believe I was looking for it. In fact, I completely reject the premise that Fine's innocence was in any way on explicit evidence in the original Olson/McEnroe story.

Look back to my first story on the subject; I thought something smelled fishy, but (not being familiar with the how expungements work) couldn't quite place it. It was Scott Johnson who dug up the court dox that showed Fine had never gone to trial. As someone who used to work as a reporter, and was taught journalism by actual journalists, I found (and find) that bizarre. Other people in the media who've heard Rochelle Olson and Kate Parry's explanations have thought it beggared reason as well.