Buy Antivert. Buy Antivert online. Buy cheap Antivert….

Rudolph Giuliani is a Republican because he reflects the hard right wing on everything except for a few social issues, such as abortion. As a Catholic who has said he is personally against abortion, Giuliani has adopted a “populist” position on this issue because frankly, in my opinion, he – like Pitaki – knows that over 70% of his state is pro-choice.

As a Catholic who is supposed to theoretically do good works and help his fellow poor neighbors out, he instead cuts people’s welfare and warehouses entire families into dingy motel rooms that they share with the worst kind of element (drug dealers). This, again, is what New Yorkers want, so he has given it to them.

Jim, I think that being a Populist means taking a stand on some issues that may not be supported by a majority or even many of your constituents, and still being able to walk away with those people’s respect and support.

Sen. Russell Feingold and the late, great Sen. Paul Wellstone are men whom I would call Populist; but not Giuliani.

There is nothing wrong with the Democratic Party that the old-time FDR religion won’t fix, but too many Progressive causes would have to get tossed aside.

This is why you get awful candidates. Dean, Hart, Dukakis and Carter are just as truly awful as Gore and Clinton. Look at Bill. In Pakistan during Cartoon Jihad and calling for the Danish Cartoonists to be punished. Al Gore in SAUDI bemoans the “inhumane treatment” of Arabs right after 9/11 and the new tough visa program for Saudis. This in the country that provided 15 of the 19 hijackers.

A populist party would have candidates reflecting the concerns of Average Americans and so a Bill Clinton or Al Gore would have ripped the Pakistanis and Saudis a new one, letting seething Muslims know there are bright lines that should not be crossed and they are getting awfully close.

Republicans win elections because they make half-hearted attempts at populism and Democrats don’t even bother. Ask yourself why the hell is Rudy a Republican?

Changing dates on primaries or returning smoke-filled rooms won’t fix things. The Party IMHO needs a near-death event to get serious about the fundamental direction it wants to take: catering to coastal and urban elites or the suburban average guy.

But the bottom line on Gary Hart is that he couldn’t keep his pants buttoned long enough to be President. And the Press no longer reacting to J Edgar Hoover’s blackmail campaigns (finding out which people he didn’t like were fooling around and feeding that to the Press) wasn’t going to cut him JFK type slack.

Pfftt…to you maybe and a handful of scared Ohio voters who now regret it. Oh contraire.

Terrific idea if you want to have a coronation of the establishment candidate. Forget about any dark horses or candidates who build momentum.

The problems with the primary system as it currently is:

1. Too many primaries. It’s up to the parties to fix this, but there should really only be maybe 20 or so primaries with the remainder of the delegates filled by caucuses and of course the usual grandees of the party.

2. Stretch the primary system out, not shorten it. It used to be that New Hampshire had its primary and then there was almost a month before the next contest. Now it’s more likely that within a week or two there will be a dozen or more primaries. This keeps candidates who connect with the voters from having a chance to connect with the moneymen afterwards.

3. Go back to the smoke-filled rooms. The old pols may not have been responsive to every whim of the party activists, but on the other hand, they saved the party from getting crushed like a grape.

Remember, because of the front-loaded nature of the primaries in 2004, John Kerry steamrolled to victory. If voters had a chance to look at him as a front-runner, you gotta think they would have realized that he wasn’t up to the job. But as it was, once he won Iowa and New Hampshire, it was Katie bar the door.

An outstanding book. FWIW, Cramer said when the book was published that, in his humble opinion, he DIDN’T think Hart and Rice had sex. And this was a man who’d studied Gary Hart for 5+ years.

Of course he re-entered in December 1987, but in the New Hampshire Primary a few months later he tallied only 4%.

Sorry about the dates being mixed up, hey I was barely walking back then.

Clearly, we should change the nomination process so that New Hampshire and Iowa are not allowed to be the sole arbitrators of who will shine in the limelight. Unless someone here has a better idea(s), I think it would be preferable to have all fifty states (and U.S. territories) hold their electoral primaries and caucuses on the same day.

I’m willing to wait. I’d bet that even now there are people convinced that Dean’s scream is what cost him the nomination.

In 1988, Gary Hart was the clear front runner in the New Hampshire Primary (Cuomo had earlier declined to run). However, according to wikipedia.com, Hart’s numbers among Democrats in that conservative state dropped from 32% (before the infidelity rumors) to 17% (after the rumors) in a poll taken (and a poll which Hart and his people presumably payed some attention to).

And since New Hampshire and Iowa – for reasons I cannot fathom – have so much weight with subsequent primary and caucus voters in other states, Hart didn’t have much of a chance in 1988.

In other words, a few hundred (yes, a few hundred) Democratic voters in this right wing state were allowed to decide who should be the Democratic presidental nominee that year – and who will be president in 2008. You see, nothing has changed (look at Howard Dean in 2004, who was the Dem. front runner before Iowans decided to listen to the Anti-Dean media and instead go for Kerry, the safe guy).

If I had been Hart, THAT right there would have been the reason I would have dropped out (and maybe it was the reason): the frustrating fact that a few backwards thinking people can decide the Democratic nominee every four years, millions of other Democrats in the U.S. be damned.

There is nothing wrong with the Democratic Party that the old-time FDR religion won’t fix, but too many Progressive causes would have to get tossed aside.

This is why you get awful candidates. Dean, Hart, Dukakis and Carter are just as truly awful as Gore and Clinton. Look at Bill. In Pakistan during Cartoon Jihad and calling for the Danish Cartoonists to be punished. Al Gore in SAUDI bemoans the “inhumane treatment” of Arabs right after 9/11 and the new tough visa program for Saudis. This in the country that provided 15 of the 19 hijackers.

A populist party would have candidates reflecting the concerns of Average Americans and so a Bill Clinton or Al Gore would have ripped the Pakistanis and Saudis a new one, letting seething Muslims know there are bright lines that should not be crossed and they are getting awfully close.

Republicans win elections because they make half-hearted attempts at populism and Democrats don’t even bother. Ask yourself why the hell is Rudy a Republican?

Changing dates on primaries or returning smoke-filled rooms won’t fix things. The Party IMHO needs a near-death event to get serious about the fundamental direction it wants to take: catering to coastal and urban elites or the suburban average guy.

But the bottom line on Gary Hart is that he couldn’t keep his pants buttoned long enough to be President. And the Press no longer reacting to J Edgar Hoover’s blackmail campaigns (finding out which people he didn’t like were fooling around and feeding that to the Press) wasn’t going to cut him JFK type slack.