Indexes
November 21st, 2009
November 20th, 2009
November 19th, 2009
November 18th, 2009
November 17th, 2009
November 16th, 2009
November 14th, 2009
The following stories have received the most reader comments during the last 7 days.
- The country's mess is our fault (165)
- Obama is not a moderate (130)
- Sarah Palin's book hits the shelves: Locals react (70)
- Lodi City Council plans to cap number of taco trucks at 22 (48)
- The haves should help the have-nots (30)
- Public health care is a Christian option (29)
- Tokay in, traveling to unbeaten No. 3 Grant for football playoffs (25)
- Government-run health care is a bad idea (17)
- Young woman fatally shot at Acampo home (17)
- Sierra Adventure store to close after four years in Downtown Lodi (16)
ADVERTISEMENT
California GOP in total denial
Saturday, March 1, 2008 6:20 AM PST
As it wrapped up its convention last weekend, delusional delegates predicted that Sen. John McCain would not only battle on even footing whichever Democratic candidate emerges but also stands a decent chance to carry the state.
Blind optimism is to be expected. California party leaders have to stir up the troops to make sure the faithful vote. If they told the truth — that McCain doesn't have a snowball's chance — then the Republicans would stay home and his beating would be worse than anyone could have imagined.
Among McCain's many problems in California is the state's voting pattern over the last two decades. Twenty years have passed since a Republican presidential candidate carried California — George H. W. Bush in 1988.
The last California Republican in the U.S. Senate was Pete Wilson, elected in 1982. Coincidentally, Wilson was also California's last Republican governor serving in that position until he resigned to run for the Senate.
My recap ignores Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, the movie star/politician elected more because of his Hollywood image than his loose ties to Republican standards.
The majority of the California Republicans who have run in the last 20 years for either president or statewide federal office have been buried at the polls.
Included among those humbled by the voters is none other than Bill Jones who chairs McCain's California effort.
You have to laugh at Jones's appointment. While the former California Secretary of State is a respected figure in some conservative circles, Jones was last seen getting steamrolled by Sen. Barbara Boxer in 2004 by a 20 percent margin.
If Jones knows anything about delivering California votes, why didn't he get more of them himself?
No matter how you analyze it, McCain comes up short against either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.
Looking at most key issues, McCain is out of step with Californians. McCain is pro-life; the state — and its elected officials — leans heavily toward choice.
Obama and Clinton want to start an Iraqi troop reduction; McCain has consistently supported the war, a stance that doesn't play well in California.
On non-immigrant employment visas, the source of thousands of lost California jobs, no one in the Senate has a worse voting record than McCain's endorsement of foreign-born workers.
Only on amnesty for illegal immigrants, which McCain favors, can he go toe to toe with the Democrats. But, bad luck for him, he can't out pander either Clinton or Obama — their position is the same as his.
The irony is that, and this is what hurts McCain with his party, amnesty is the biggest reason that Republicans view him with such disdain.
What McCain does have going for him with Republican voters is that he's not a Democrat. That's simplistic. But it's the reason behind whatever votes he will get — although it will not be enough to pull off an upset or come anywhere close.
In a January News-Sentinel column, before McCain pulled away from the Republican pack, I wrote that a CNN political analyst summed the 2008 election up by saying: "What strikes me is the lack of sincere enthusiasm for any of the candidates." The key word: "sincere."
He was referring to Clinton and Obama but we can safely include McCain.
And back in September I wrote that if a third candidate enters the race, "anything is possible."
At the time, I had in mind New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg who has since declared that he will not run. But a third candidate, Ralph Nader, has emerged.
Despite what you are reading about Nader being a non-factor, I expect him to collect many more votes this year than he did in 2004. His support will come from disgruntled and disgusted middle class voters, Democrats and Republicans alike who see through and are repulsed by the three current leaders.
Nader's candidacy makes what I said last fall a certainty: "anything is possible."
Joe Guzzardi is an instructor at the Lincoln Technical Academy. Send him mail at guzzjoe@yahoo.com.
Search for Ads 
Today’s Print Ads 
RSS Feeds
Reader Feedback
girard74 wrote on Mar 10, 2008 4:16 AM:
If you read all of the posts by girard and myself, you would see what I'm talking about.'
I hope folks do review these posts, if they desire. What they will find is that once wtf is confronted with his errors or his ill-conceived opinions, his skin somehow becomes incredibly thin.
As I've stated time and again, 'debate' is practically a contact sport. It isn't designed to be 'clean' and 'easy.' "
girard74 wrote on Mar 10, 2008 4:13 AM:
'Unless, of course, it's a letter to the editor he can "rip into"; on top of which, he admits it's "fun"'
I am VERY opinionated; I make suggestions OFTEN. I most certainly DO 'rip into' provocative letters, especially when there is so much evidence that no real thought or preparation was given by the author. And yes, I do believe that debating is 'fun.' Is any of this a problem? "
Lodian wrote on Mar 9, 2008 9:35 PM:
I love that! "
wtf wrote on Mar 9, 2008 6:24 PM:
nylodian wrote on Mar 9, 2008 8:43 AM:
peace and pasta :)
"
Lodian wrote on Mar 8, 2008 11:16 PM:
Lodian wrote on Mar 8, 2008 11:11 PM:
wtf wrote on Mar 8, 2008 8:39 PM:
If you read all of the posts by girard and myself, you would see what I'm talking about. "
wtf wrote on Mar 8, 2008 8:36 PM:
Again, originally I attempted, like you, to keep each blog separate; however, it was girard, himself, who referenced other blogs in one of his.
I've seen one nice post by him. Period. I've never seen an opinion by him; never seen a suggestion. Rather, I see he waits until someone posts something he can "rip into" then he attacks.
Unless, of course, it's a letter to the editor he can "rip into"; on top of which, he admits it's "fun" "
wtf wrote on Mar 8, 2008 8:32 PM:
Originally, I attempted to debate with him in good faith; but it soon became apparent to me that it was futile.
He would ask what reference I had to back up what I said; so I'd provide references. Then he would say that I should say it in my own words.
In other words, I "lose" regardless what I did. "
nylodian wrote on Mar 8, 2008 3:58 PM:
Brian wrote on Mar 8, 2008 7:11 AM:
I'm anxious to see what new name I now have since I agree with girard74 and rf.
I'm awaiting a reply from the peanut gallery. "
girard74 wrote on Mar 7, 2008 6:06 PM:
I should have been more clear and I also should have quoted wtf's 'I tend to agree with Joe' line as well.
As for the balance of the posts, aside from the timing of exactly when things 'show up,' I believe I was very clear in my intent. "
girard74 wrote on Mar 7, 2008 4:44 PM:
wtf wrote on Mar 7, 2008 4:43 PM:
wtf wrote on Mar 7, 2008 4:41 PM:
Why, I remember seeing Ghouliani, Manchurian McC and Romenoid giggling, talking and rolling their eyes while Ron Paul answered.
That shor is prezidenshul material to me. I say, put one of them boys in the ovoid orifice, er, oval orifice...no that's Monica Lewdskinski, oval office, *that's* the ticket.
Manchurian McCain's the man! Makes me prouder 'n sh*t to be an Amurikan!
Manchurian can laugh and roll his eyes while the chimp smirks! LOL!'
Oh, no, girard74! Just wanted a neo-con like you to feel at home. Since you admire this behavior. LOL! "
girard74 wrote on Mar 7, 2008 4:34 PM:
I never implied that you should read my mind. I did, however, believe that you should at the very least remember what you wrote, not only here today, but yesterday as well.
Your oppositional posts contained inaccurate 'facts' that when pointed out to you, caused you to become angry. THIS is the source of your dismay. If you want to blame me, then go right ahead. I would think more of you if you would be a grown-up and accept defeat. "
girard74 wrote on Mar 7, 2008 4:30 PM:
I'd like to know what has changed, wtf? Why aren't you so happy to have me here now? Unless I've missed something, my posts in response to what you have written have been logical, thought-provoking, and made sense.
Your responses, however, appeared to have become more and more anger-filled up to the point where you decided to quit.
Now, a long time ago I was on a debating team. If, at any point during the debate, the opposition 'quit,' the debate would be declared finished and the other team would win. Are you conceding? "
wtf wrote on Mar 7, 2008 4:30 PM:
girard74 wrote on Mar 7, 2008 4:25 PM:
Why, I remember seeing Ghouliani, Manchurian McC and Romenoid giggling, talking and rolling their eyes while Ron Paul answered.
That shor is prezidenshul material to me. I say, put one of them boys in the ovoid orifice, er, oval orifice...no that's Monica Lewdskinski, oval office, *that's* the ticket.
Manchurian McCain's the man! Makes me prouder 'n sh*t to be an Amurikan!
Manchurian can laugh and roll his eyes while the chimp smirks! LOL!'
Losing control? "
girard74 wrote on Mar 7, 2008 4:22 PM:
Actually, I have wanted to state my opinion about those 'words' for some time, yet I've never had the opportunity.
I raised them now because by reading your posts, you verified my exact sentiment that they are often used in sarcastic, mean-spirited ways. It has nothing to do with my sense of humor, and I don't agree with you that it is 'petty.' (IMHO) "
girard74 wrote on Mar 7, 2008 4:17 PM:
I'm sorry you feel that way. I suspect, however, that the true reason you become upset is when your facts are disproved or your mistakes are pointed out to you. As I've said, I rarely ever belittle or put people down. However, your suggestion that my posts are somewhat responsible for your feelings is disingenuous at best. In reality, you’re blaming me for your own shortcomings.
You really should do something about that problem. "
girard74 wrote on Mar 7, 2008 4:14 PM:
You included Joe's paragraph in your post. I know that is his paragraph. You, however, wrote, 'I tend to agree with Joe' at the end of that post. This is why my comments were directed to you.
I suppose I should have included that, but I believed you would have remembered what you did or not agree with. "
girard74 wrote on Mar 7, 2008 4:10 PM:
But when you outline certain 'facts,' as you believe them to be, in a numbered list, are you not, at the very least tacitly, inviting people here to either agree or challenge those facts?
If not, then your idea of debate is very different from not only mine, but I would imagine 99.9% of those reading this post at this moment. "
wtf wrote on Mar 7, 2008 4:09 PM:
I somehow overlooked this gem.
Uh, try looking at the first paragraph of the article g. This is Joe's article and the paragraph came from. By your statement, it appears you didn't even bother reading what Joe wrote. "
wtf wrote on Mar 7, 2008 4:07 PM:
girard74 said, "You didn't see a sarcastic 'LOL' or any other type of grandstanding."
It's neither sarcastic, nor grandstanding; however, that would be lost on you. LOL! Plus you brought up text-isms, as is your wont, when things aren't going little g's way. That's just plain petty.
And yes, you do bring out the worst in me; therefore this conversation is terminated on my part. "Rip" away girard74, that seems to be what you do best.
"
girard74 wrote on Mar 7, 2008 4:06 PM:
I somehow overlooked this gem. While I already stated that McCain's chances of taking California are slim, you seem to change the definition of 'delusional' at your leisure.
While you agree with the author that McCain has a 'snowball's chance,' you still seem fixated on Paul's chances as being somehow better than McCain’s snowball.
Just how do you rationalize that mind-set? Curious. "
wtf wrote on Mar 7, 2008 4:03 PM:
Why, I remember seeing Ghouliani, Manchurian McC and Romenoid giggling, talking and rolling their eyes while Ron Paul answered.
That shor is prezidenshul material to me. I say, put one of them boys in the ovoid orifice, er, oval orifice...no that's Monica Lewdskinski, oval office, *that's* the ticket.
Manchurian McCain's the man! Makes me prouder 'n sh*t to be an Amurikan!
Manchurian can laugh and roll his eyes while the chimp smirks! LOL! "
girard74 wrote on Mar 7, 2008 3:53 PM:
You didn't see a sarcastic 'LOL' or any other type of grandstanding. Could I have? I suppose, but that is NOT my style. I will, however, go on the offensive when I believe I am being attacked, belittled or mocked. And 99% of the time I attempt to stand my ground with my dignity intact and maybe with a little style.
You made a statement; I countered it with 'fact.' End of story. That, my friend, is debate. "
girard74 wrote on Mar 7, 2008 3:48 PM:
Actually, I did. And you complimented me for it. Or did you forget? You stated, 'Nice post, girard74!’ yesterday.
To be honest, though, I would rather debate. It's exciting and it's fun. It's supposed to be! I rarely spew 'venom,' 'belittle,' or put people down as you suggest.
I do, however, state my opinion, and sometimes forcefully. Again, THAT is what debating is all about. "
girard74 wrote on Mar 7, 2008 3:43 PM:
I am really curious here. With the nomination securely in McCain's pocket, just why would Paul have, as you insist, 'no intention of leaving' the race?
What does he have left to prove either to himself, his supporters or the country? What could he possibly gain by remaining in a contest that he has absolutely, positively no means by which to prevail?
I could see him remaining until the delagates were locked into someone else (like Huckabee did), but to continue on in the face of absolute defeat is, certainly to me, very mystifying. "
Robb wrote on Mar 7, 2008 3:39 PM:
there go the monkeys out of my butt again....
dam.. I hate it when they do that... "
girard74 wrote on Mar 7, 2008 3:38 PM:
Actually, it is neither a dream nor a nightmare regarding anything that Paul does or does not do. I was just stating what I had heard on several different news outlets today.
But, hey, let the race continue if he wants. He obviously has no compunction against wasting his supporters' money; he's probably still accepting donations knowing full well that he has no chance. And that's not his fault; the blames lies solely with those foolish minions who continue to send their money to him. Such a waste. "
girard74 wrote on Mar 7, 2008 3:32 PM:
I have an incredible sense of humor. Things such as 'LOL' make no sense. First of all, the majority of people when 'laughing' do it 'out loud.' It's superfluous to add that to it. But mostly because they're used when people are too lazy to actually write out what they mean. While I know there is a word limit here and at times it's necessary, the majority of the times you have used it, there has been room to spell out your 'feelings.'
Regardless, it is just my 'opinion.' "
girard74 wrote on Mar 7, 2008 3:26 PM:
Sure it is; yet my responses were directly in line with what you (wtf) stated. Apparently you are somewhat intimidated about my 'weight' and how influential I must be. Obviously you didn't understand what I just wrote below about 'rip' vs. 'debate.' Up until this particular post, I had thought that you and I were, in fact, debating.
Now it's apparently about your fear. If so, I’m not interested. Soothe your ego elsewhere. "
wtf wrote on Mar 7, 2008 3:24 PM:
You mean something like this? LOL! Or this? ;)
That's sums you up, g74; you have no sense of humor. I've read your posts and they tend to be full of thinly veiled venom, put downs, and belittling of others' opinions.
In fact, I haven't seen you posting on any of the other LNS stories the last few days. Could this be because they were basically "nice" stories and too tame for you to "rip into"? "
wtf wrote on Mar 7, 2008 3:13 PM:
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977276435&grpId=3659174697241980&nav=Groupspace
The last paragraph sums it up:
"Hang in there folks...the battle seems to have been lost, but the war is far from over. While they think we are in defeat, we are marshaling our forces for the great battle to be fought in Minnesota. The fight that will take back our party and ultimately, our nation." "
wtf wrote on Mar 7, 2008 3:12 PM:
Dream on, my friend. It ain't gonna happen. ;) The MSM, who has been marginalizing Ron Paul with a virtual media blackout, are terrified of the fact that he's the only one left...after Manchurina McCain, and Ron Paul has **no** intention of leaving.
"
wtf wrote on Mar 7, 2008 3:07 PM:
wtf wrote on Mar 7, 2008 3:06 PM:
"As it wrapped up its convention last weekend, delusional delegates predicted that Sen. John McCain would not only battle on even footing whichever Democratic candidate emerges but also stands a decent chance to carry the state."
I tend to agree with Joe. "
girard74 wrote on Mar 7, 2008 3:05 PM:
Again, I HATE those silly text-isms. Regardless, what I meant, and you certainly were inable to understand, that once the 'presidential' contest is underway, I would expect the Democrat nominee to address those issues. "
girard74 wrote on Mar 7, 2008 3:03 PM:
It appears, as I am sure you now know, that Ron Paul is purportedly getting ready to concede. His road is much shorter now. "
girard74 wrote on Mar 7, 2008 3:02 PM:
When I used the words 'rip into' that is exactly what I meant. That letter you refer to was well below any level that would come close to offering a reasonable debate. It literally BEGGED to be ripped apart; something that I was happy to respond to.
I DO know what a debate is; you and I are doing it now. "
girard74 wrote on Mar 7, 2008 2:59 PM:
I imagined such a response from wtf. First, the economy has been perceived to be in trouble. So, whether or not it truly is, doesn't make a difference after the nation has over-reacted to such a perception.
Be that as it is, Paul's 'narrow' solution, it seems, to EVERY PROBLEM, is to blame it on the economy. This is where he is single-minded. (LOL - God, I hate these text-isms!!) "
wtf wrote on Mar 7, 2008 2:48 PM:
EXACTLY!!! This is why, contrary to all the BS currently being put out by the MSM, Ron Paul has not conceded. Too much road yet to travel. "
wtf wrote on Mar 7, 2008 2:47 PM:
Saw those; plus the original one from several years ago that these newer ads came from. This is why Ron Paul is the **best** choice. I'd love to have a President whose foreign policy is such that the "red phone" DOESN'T EVEN RING AT 3:00 a.m. "
wtf wrote on Mar 7, 2008 2:43 PM:
The above refers to the S&L scandal. You *really* think this will be addressed. ROFLMAO!!!! Hey! I have a bridge in the Mojave you might want to buy. LOL! "
wtf wrote on Mar 7, 2008 2:42 PM:
That you *know* of. With the MSM being as complicit as it has been with the Neo-Cons, I seriously doubt if Americans would be given honest information regarding *any* politicians' health. Your "points" don't fly. Cancer, can, and does, reoccur regardless of the current cure rate. "
wtf wrote on Mar 7, 2008 2:39 PM:
Man what are you smoking? LOL! 70% of the American public want the U.S. OUT of Iraq. "
wtf wrote on Mar 7, 2008 2:38 PM:
Uh, girard74, haven't you been paying attention? The U.S. economy is in the toilet. The saying, "It's the economy, stupid" really seems to apply in this case. LOL! "
wtf wrote on Mar 7, 2008 2:36 PM:
wtf wrote on Mar 7, 2008 2:36 PM:
I saw *all* the debates he was in and I beg to differ with you. You obviously do NOT know what the word "debate" means since on another blog, you used the words "rip into" to describe what you *think* means debate.
Look it up. "Rip into" means to "attack" while "debate" means "a civilized discourse of opposing viewpoints" - something that you, g74, know nothing about. "
girard74 wrote on Mar 7, 2008 12:45 PM:
As we can see from recent events, tracking polls can be very misleading and possibly disastrous if a candidate relies upon them too much.
There is too much road to travel between now and November for anyone to concede anything. "
girard74 wrote on Mar 7, 2008 12:40 PM:
As such, if there is an issue involving McCain, that will most definitely be addressed during the campaign. "
girard74 wrote on Mar 7, 2008 12:37 PM:
McCain, very plainly and simply, is a U.S. citizen. He was born to two citizens in an area deemed at that time to be U.S. controlled.
Your suggestion that he is not a citizen would be then to declare that all children of U.S. service members born in foreign countries while their parent(s) were serving this country, are not citizens.
That's just another smokescreen. "
girard74 wrote on Mar 7, 2008 12:34 PM:
The article you referred to was from 2000. As in all presidential elections, the subject of a candidate's health will come into play. He will have a physical and the results of that procedure will reveal just how 'healthy' he is.
Cancer now, unlike it was even 15 years ago, is more and more curable. In fact, five years is the threshold considered to be the time period after which someone is deemed to be 'cured.'
It's been (probably) seven or eight years for McCain.
Then the people can decide. "
girard74 wrote on Mar 7, 2008 12:30 PM:
The people want 'success,' also known as 'Victory.' "
girard74 wrote on Mar 7, 2008 12:27 PM:
I just now hopped onto this blog.
Referring to Ron Paul, wtf, did you NOT watch the debates in which he did participate (saving the one at the Reagan Library)?
Paul, although intelligent (I'll give him that), cannot debate. He comes off as weak and timid. There is no room in debate for that kind of disposition.
He is also obviously single-minded. From what I can tell from his campaign, EVERYTHING is economy-related to him. It simply isn’t that ‘simple.’ "
Lodian wrote on Mar 7, 2008 10:15 AM:
wtf wrote on Mar 7, 2008 10:00 AM:
http://www.cfr.org/publication/14668/michael_gerson_former_speechwriter_and_adviser_to_george_w_bush_calls_for_new_direction_in_conservatism.html
Regarding Manchurian McCain, we have a whole menu of options to choose from:
1. His health as in *malignant* cancer.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9C0CE3DA103EF933A1575BC0A9669C8B63
2. His honesty ala "The Keating Five"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five
Remember the S&L Scandal?
http://www.inthe80s.com/sandl.shtml
3. His birth
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=apbg9.XKhWbs
And after Junior's endorsement, you have him saying Johnny Boy will "stay the course" in Iraq. Guess what the American people want, doesn't matter.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/03/06/bush_says_mccain_will_stay_the_course_in_iraq/
"
Brian wrote on Mar 7, 2008 7:24 AM:
wtf, here's a good article about the myth of America's unpopularity.
I still suspect Ron Paul is a closet isolationist. You keep dreaming that he doesn't view this popularity issue much the same as Obama and Hillary. "
sam wrote on Mar 7, 2008 6:59 AM:
Lodian wrote on Mar 6, 2008 8:12 PM:
Baby Bush! That always makes me laugh! :-) "
wtf wrote on Mar 6, 2008 11:08 AM:
As for Manchurian Candidate McCain...I'll give him until this coming July before he's history. You watch; something will come up that will disqualify him and then it will only be Ron Paul left standing.
Don't forget....Ghouliani and Romenoid were listed as "front runners" and where are they now?
Besides, Baby Bush gave Manchurian McCain his endorsement - that's as good as the kiss of death.
"
Brian wrote on Mar 6, 2008 7:44 AM:
JD wrote on Mar 6, 2008 7:36 AM:
JD wrote on Mar 6, 2008 7:31 AM:
wtf wrote on Mar 5, 2008 9:16 AM:
Brian wrote on Mar 5, 2008 7:14 AM:
Brian wrote on Mar 5, 2008 7:04 AM:
Brian wrote on Mar 5, 2008 6:59 AM:
wtf, The best interest of the country
is the security of this country. McCain
will wipe up the floor with either Hill
or Obama. "
Ivan Dixon wrote on Mar 4, 2008 7:39 PM:
wtf wrote on Mar 4, 2008 7:37 PM:
BUT...my boy, Ron Paul, could whip their butts! LOL! He's dusted Chris Peden in the Congressional race, even though he's still trailing - way behind - in the Presidential race.
BUT...Mike Huckabee has dropped out and now there are two. My boy and McCain.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: If it were a race between Obama and Ron Paul we'd have some interesting, intellectual and civilized debates. "
Brian wrote on Mar 2, 2008 1:40 PM:
our next president in Calif. It won't matter what's in the best interest of the country. It will only matter to the libs that they can chart unchartered territories just for the sake of maintaining their reputation of being progressive. Obama or Hillary in office will guarantee a change of rules in the middle of the game. "
sam wrote on Mar 2, 2008 11:33 AM:
Cogito, great quote. I love it. "
Cogito wrote on Mar 2, 2008 9:27 AM:
sam wrote on Mar 1, 2008 7:23 PM:
sam wrote on Mar 1, 2008 7:22 PM:
Cogito wrote on Mar 1, 2008 5:00 PM:
Patricia wrote on Mar 1, 2008 12:58 PM:
wtf wrote on Mar 1, 2008 11:44 AM:
sam wrote on Mar 1, 2008 9:59 AM:
I am a life-long republican and I am just begging for one reason, any reason, to vote for McCain. "
nylodian wrote on Mar 1, 2008 8:07 AM:
Comments on this story are now closed.