Jackson Free Press

Democratic challenger Gary Anderson defeated incumbent Insurance Commissioner George Dale 51-49 percent Tuesday night. Dale had mounted his re-election campaign under intense scrutiny for his support of and by the insurance industry in the wake of Katrina. The tort-reform lobby had campaigned heavily for him, saying he was the candidate to counteract "lawsuit abuse" and accusing him of being the candidate for "personal injury lawyers." Many victims of Katrina have sued their insurance companies for trying to pay their policies, in most cases saying they lost their homes due to wind, not water. Because only a slab was left in many cases, policy holders could not point to a water line, as insurance companies said they needed to do. Many people on the Coast are still living in FEMA trailers.

If Anderson defeats Republican Mike Chaney in November, he would be the first black statewide official elected in Mississippi since Reconstruction. He was defeated as state treasurer four years ago by a lesser-qualified white Republican, Tate Reeves.

Previous Commentsshow

Now Dale can go join the repugnants where he belongs like Amy Tuck eventually did. Anyone who would vote for Gerge Bush the second time is clearly a repugnant person in my view. I wish Gary Anderson the best on his historic victory and hope it continues on.

Ray Carter

Aug 8 2007

I don't know anything about Chaney, but I think Anderson could have broad support and walk with this one. And at the risk of being a dumbass later, I think this guy could be governor in the future.

golden eagle

Aug 8 2007

"He was defeated as state treasurer four years ago by a lesser-qualified white Republican, Tate Reeves." Way to sneak a gratuitous, baseless editorial jab implying racism into a two paragraph news blurb. "Barack Obama, who was once selected over several better-qualified white candidates to serve as editor in chief of the Harvard Law Review, defended his stance on Social Security reform today . . ."

laughter

Aug 8 2007

It's actually a fact, LTG. It would only be "baseless" if it weren't, er, true. And your analogy isn't good—my example is why an imminently more qualified black candidate for state treasurer was defeated by a while Republican youngster for a statewide office in Mississippi. Hell, even Sid Salter agreed with me on this one. Yeah, I think Anderson could be governor, too, golden—especially the way our electorate is changing. Judge Graves could be, too, should he want the job. Remember that Mississippi led the South, including Florida and Texas, in the percentage of under-30 voters who voted for Kerry over Bush in the last presidential election. We're seeing more and more signs of change, politically, and there is a lot in this election. Now, the Mississippi Democrats are highly unlikely to figure out how to capitalize on it. But maybe some individual candidates will. And Kimberly Campbell's victory shows that you need to stand up for what you believe in, and let the voters follow. It's what we've been trying to tell the damn Democratic Party here for years now. Stop pretending to be a Republican; Republicans will beat you if you do. Eaves should take note and cut out the prayer commercials. Smart progressives aren't going to vote for a man who doesn't get basic constitutional principles of freedom.

DonnaLadd

Aug 8 2007

That is, go populist and talk about issues that really matter to people, and stop trying to treat us like we're idiots.

DonnaLadd

Aug 8 2007

I always wondered how Barack Obama got that position. I thought he got it from using national, regional, local, political, economic, religious, educational, familial and other institutions to invest himself with public reconition, great power, privilege, status, entitlements, and preferential treatment which produced and maintained a large quota of white men with political and financial support, and with education, training, skills and experience to take advantage of a myriad of choice of political, economic, and cultural opportunities that guaranteed his desired outcome - white male affirmitive action. I should have known he got it from affirmitive action that came from black quotas and preferential treatment. My apology to the white guys he stole the position from. Cheers, Law Talkin, I enjoy your posts.

Ray Carter

Aug 8 2007

So is being a 'youngster' a bad thing? Personally, I'd like a LOT more "youngsters" in public office. I can see what a bang-up job the older and wiser people are doing to get themselves re-elected... Sorry, I mean, for the citizens they represent.

LawClerk

Aug 8 2007

Of course not. We endorsed three "youngsters" who lost. The problem is that Reeves was so clearly less qualified for *state treasurer* than Anderson was. And the elephant in the room is that this state, except while under Reconstruction and orders from "carpetbaggers" has refused to elect one‚one, African American to statewide office. This in the state with the highest proportion of blacks than any other. Careful, the elephant is peeing on your foot. Better jump. Nice one, Ray. ;-)

DonnaLadd

Aug 8 2007

BTW, the Democratic Party should spend 99.9 percent of its time trying to reach out to voters under 30 if they want to have a good future here. But I think they're too worried that a lot of them will vote against old Dem coots who need to go if they get interested enough to turn out. In other ways, they fear the unfamiliar, and as a result we get so many Democrats trying to pretend they're Republican, even as the wingiest-nuts and southern strategists are starting to loose. Could someone please read the damn writing on the wall and stop pandering to the extreme right!?!

DonnaLadd

Aug 8 2007

"Of course not. We endorsed three "youngsters" who lost." Good... I'm gonna hold you to that. :D

LawClerk

Aug 8 2007

I don't know anything about Chaney, but I think Anderson could have broad support and walk with this one. At this point, I agree. I'm still trying to figure out who Chaney is. Maybe he'll promote himself a little better this time around.

LatashaWillis

Aug 8 2007

Please do. Obviously, youth can't be the only qualification. Neither should being white.

DonnaLadd

Aug 8 2007

Yeah, Anderson seems laser-focused. I think the treasurer race was just the practice he needed. Read the JFP Interview with Anderson, if you haven't already. We'll be requesting an interview with Chaney, now that we're past the primaries (he didn't have a challenge, so his could wait).

DonnaLadd

Aug 8 2007

BTW, you just cannot understate the importance of the Katrina factor last night. And the Dems could do more with it if they tried. They're too afraid of Barbour, though, to really call him out on Katrina, though. Eaves may, though. I think that's going to be an interesting race regardless of outcome. The populist/insurance reform issue is going to finally get its day in Mississippi court, helped along by the fiery Franks who is going to be a formidable opponent for Bryant. In a post-Katrina world, the "lawsuit abuse" bullsh!t just doesn't carry the weight it did in Barbour's early years as governor. Watch.

DonnaLadd

Aug 8 2007

Race shouldn't have anything to do with qualifications, personally. If they can do the job, then fine. We don't need to become like England, really.

Ironghost

Aug 8 2007

BTW, read our 2003 Hoodwinked! cover story on tort reform for some well-needed perspective (and more evidence of how much The Clarion-Ledger sucks).

DonnaLadd

Aug 8 2007

Agreed, Iron, but it still does. But it's changing slowly.

DonnaLadd

Aug 8 2007

Thanks, Donna. Just trying to do the best I can. I'm no match to Mr. Harvard. None of us are! I finally visited that fine law school about 6 years ago and I felt amazingly smarter as I walked through the buildings. Too bad I couldn't stay and have those fine teachers "learn me something."

Ray Carter

Aug 8 2007

The point, as I'm sure you know Ray, was that the jab at Tate Reeves was out of place in a fact piece. Donna, perhaps "baseless" wasn't the right word. The point is, "lesser-qualified" is never an objective fact. It is always a subjective opinion, even in cases where most reasonable people would draw one conclusion. Descriptors like this shouldn't be slipped into the last sentence of a news blurb. And back to Ray: For what it's worth, I can tell you that, for the last 25-30 years at least, electing the EIC of the Harvard Law Review (and I'd wager, similar publications elsewhere) has had little or nothing to do with political connections. Superior educational opportunities for rich whites may factor in, but being a Rockefeller or Kennedy simply does not. In Obama's case, he was never deprived of the best educational opportunities, and yet came up objectively short of two or three other candidates on academic merit. I'm not saying it's necessarily wrong for law reviews to make political statements in their choice of editors. That point is debatable. But that is indisputably what happened. (And, to get back to my point, this has nothing to do with Obama's stance on, e.g., social security.)

laughter

Aug 8 2007

Here's a question about Tate Reeves. If he wasn't qualifed then how is it he has done such a good job that he drew no real opposition this year? I think the boy is doing just fine. He's one of those young politicians that should be endorsed.

LakesideRes

Aug 8 2007

I can't dispute your comments on Obama, Law talkin, except to add that I bet all 3 or 4 were likely qualified to have the job, and it's too bad only one could get it. I wish the other 2 or 3 the best, too. I have a great preference and respect for public interest lawyers, especially those who spends the extent of money you people spend for law school. At my high school, the race for valedictorian was so close until no one is sure to this day who actually or really won. My cousin and a white girl both had made all A's. The white girl was chosen by an all white group by some fractional number I still can't compute or conceive. I'm not saying anyone cheated. I don't really know. My cousin who I couldn't hold a candle to acadademically didn't later finish college. She was smart but not motivated or driven. Obama strikes me as the kind who liked to party and have fun a little too much during his college days. I'm not surprised that someone out performed him in some ways at some point in time. He's a gifted and talented individual nontheless. Frankly, I can see your point with respect to how that wording or opinion could offend someone. However, I believe Donna was expressing her obvious opinion which she knew not all would agree with. And while others might disagree, that doesn't mean she's wrong. I imagine that comment or opinion is quite debatable. Yet, I agree with it. Surprise!

Ray Carter

Aug 8 2007

As for the Insurance Commissioner race. Anderson is going to have to fight to beat Mike Chaney. He, Chaney, has connections all over the state and will probably use them. The JFP might blow a gasket if they look into his back ground and see where he has made his living.

LakesideRes

Aug 8 2007

I saw a comment up above that said if someone voted for Bush the second they are a repugnant person. Well I voted for him twice Ray so what does that make me?

LakesideRes

Aug 8 2007

While y'all know I can't spell, I can spell academically better than I did above.

Ray Carter

Aug 8 2007

"Better qualified" is a better phrase, LTG. It's less subjective. ;-) As for Reeves, I suspect that there was a lesson in the Anderson race last time. And it's great that he's turned out not to be incompetent in the job—as often happens when someone is elected for the wrong reasons. (Can anyone say MELTON?) Even better, I would blame the Dems for not putting up someone against him. Just like not putting up someone against Pickering, which was absurd. Patently. Otherwise, there is a serious need for diversity in government, as well as on law reviews, and everywhere else. Face it, all-white male line-ups miss stuff that is important to people who aren't them, usually because it never dawns on many of them that everyone doesn't think like they do or enjoy the same built-in privileges. All other things being equal with Reeves and Anderson—which they weren't, but we'll pretend for a second—Anderson would have been a better choice for the state with the highest proportion of African Americans, and from an eco-devo point of view. As it was, with his superior background, Anderson would have been an outstanding choice for state treasurer, just as he is for insurance commissioner. And it would have been a major step forward for the state and our future, whereas we stuck with another competent white Republican guy. Ho hum, so what. It's not hurting (as far as I know), but it ain't helping a damn thing, either. I tend to believe things happen for a reason, though, and I suspect Anderson's time may well be here. We'll see what he does to ensure that is true.

DonnaLadd

Aug 8 2007

Naive, Lakeside. Damn naive.

DonnaLadd

Aug 8 2007

LakesideRes, you read and yet you ask!?

Ray Carter

Aug 8 2007

Descriptors like this shouldn't be slipped into the last sentence of a news blurb. Thanks for the journalistic advice, LTG. Where have you been all these times that we've talked about the fake "objectivity" lie? I'm not objective. You're not objective. The Ledger isn't objective. The Wall Street Journal isn't objective. FOX News isn't objective. The Associated Press isn't even objective. I stated a fact above. I'm sorry you don't like that fact, but it is a fact.

DonnaLadd

Aug 8 2007

For what it's worth, I'd definitely give Justice Graves my vote for Governor or Lt. Governor. The only thing I like about Chaney is his idea to do away with electing the Insurance Commissioner. But, unlike he thinks, he doesn't have the power to do that. That would be up to the Legislature, I assume. I voted for Anderson, and will do so again.

LambdaRisen

Aug 8 2007

Ms. Ladd, What's is so damn naive?

LakesideRes

Aug 8 2007

Lakeside, you said you voted for Bush twice, right? Are you among the tiny percentage who still thinks he's been a good president? If so, fine. That's your thing. However, it's rather clear at this point that voting for him the second time came with a certain amount of blindness—the same as my voting for Clinton did, despite the mountains of evidence that he is a sexual harasser. I was naive, too.

DonnaLadd

Aug 8 2007

Ok Ray if you want to go there. What is repugnant is some of the people you chose to denfend.

LakesideRes

Aug 8 2007

It may be repugnant, but it is also American that everyone deserves a defense, Lakeside. I often have to remind myself of that when I see people I respect defending someone like James Ford Seale. Cue the patriotic music.

DonnaLadd

Aug 8 2007

Ok Ms. Ladd for enough I guess. I still would vote for Bush over Kerry if that were my only choice. Bush has made some mistakes, but he's not the worse ever and not the best ever.

LakesideRes

Aug 8 2007

Ray, I want go any futher than that. I'll just leave it at calling everyone who voted for Bush again repugnant is just wrong.

LakesideRes

Aug 8 2007

He's pretty much one of the worse ever, Lakeside. He's hit most of the bad targets, and it's not in a "making a mistake" kind of way. It's been in a "defiant to the end no matter how many American soldiers die in this mess" kind of way. And his network is one of the most corrupt Washington has ever seen. It's going to take years to clean this mess up. Sadly, he's made it much harder to be a Republican or even a "conservative" than it was just a few years back. That bunch has done more to hurt the Republican Party then the Democrats could ever hope to do. The bottom line is: A party based mostly on greed on limiting the number of people at the table and with power is doomed to fail. That's been the GOP. It could be the Dems again, if the GOP wises up before they do. Corrupt is corrupt. And I don't say that as someone who gives a damn about any political party.

DonnaLadd

Aug 8 2007

Back to the Insurance Commissioner race. I'm here to tell you from what I know of Cheney that Anderson is really going to have to dig to beat him. I don't think he is going to have all the help from Dickie Scrugss this time. Cheney is a fromiable opponent with deep pockets and connections across the state. With that said. From what I've seen I don't think Anderson would make a bad insurance commissioner. I think both he and Cheney would lead the office in a differant direction than it's going now. Not taking money form insurance companies would be a good start.

LakesideRes

Aug 8 2007

Sexual harasser, really? Quite debatable, many would aver. What drunken or powerful man hasn't taken a few liberties until straighten out? The conduct is very wrong though. I'll take a little screw-up any day over a very large and incurable one. Lakeside, Bush's rating or job approval is now so low that we're running out of calculations and scales by which to measure it. Clinton was a very competent president. And brillant to boot. Sure, he wore I-Stay-Ready pants, but I'd take him any day over Georgie boy who is still trying to prove he's a big boy ready for prime time. No honest republican can hide his failure or their disappointment, although many voted blindly for him twice.

Ray Carter

Aug 8 2007

I believe that Anderson is going to have to work hard to win, Lakeside. But I think it is possible and that he has the "Katrina effect" at his back. I don't think any big state race will be easy, in fact—perhaps not even Barbour's, depending on what Eaves does. And I don't think Chaney would be awful, either, so we're agreeing on something. ;-) If that is bad as a Mississippi Republican got, we'd be sitting pretty. Frankly, though, the wingiest-nuts didn't fare that well, so we may be on our way.

DonnaLadd

Aug 8 2007

I'd call using highway patrolmen as guards a bit beyond a simple case of having I-Stay-Ready pants. I don't believe in "boys will be boys" excuses, even for presidents. His daughter was in the building when he playing cigar games and getting blowjobs when doing the nation's business on the phone, and then later trashing the young woman he drew into his boy games. This is a kind of "brilliance" women don't need. And that is the last I'm saying on that matter. Go, Obama.

DonnaLadd

Aug 8 2007

Alright. Those were despicable acts, offensive behavior on behalf of a very important yet very irresponsible person, and dereliction of duty at the highest level on his part. I don't condone that. I'm merely comparing over-all job performance beyond those facts, and joking a little bit too. My last comment too. Folks, you see, no one agrees all the time. No one had heretofore explained the behavior quite this way. I understand now, I think.

Ray Carter

Aug 8 2007

Do we measure a president by whether he gets caught in some hanky panky? Apparently yes, and my guess is that most Americans will eventually reject Hillary because of that. Anderson stands a chance, and since A is before C, I say he has an even better chance, especially for voters who don't vote straight party lines.

GLewis

Aug 8 2007

No one had heretofore explained the behavior quite this way. I understand now, I think. Ray, a huge problem I've always had with Clinton supporters on this front is that they excuse away despicable, disrespectful, dishonest behavior on the part of that man because he's a Democrat and they think he otherwise did a good job (which I don't buy, either, but that's a different subject. Agreed, no one died when he lied, but still). I always strive to look at a politician at any party the same as I would as if he/she were in a different party. That has not been done with Clinton, and it hurts the credibility of Cllinton supporters and Democrats who say they care about the treatment of women. I cannot be a hypocrite on this issue, and that has pissed off a lot of Clinton supporters over the years, but I don't care. As for Hillary, I don't blame her for her husband being a cad. But I have problems with her separately, and I'm sick of political royalty, meritocratic and otherwise. I want all Bushes and Clintons to disappear for at least a generation.

DonnaLadd

Aug 8 2007

Oh, and I'm well aware that Clinton is very charming. So is Melton. Nuff said.

DonnaLadd

Aug 8 2007

I don't hold men, women, politicans or hardly anyone else to very high standards anymore. I wish then the best, hope they deliver the best, and am rarely really shocked or surprised anymore when I see the worse. I'm pessimistic now days. I don't diss or disrespect republicans because they fall short or fail, I do it because they lie about who and what they are. When caught they just become quiet hoping all will go away and they can soon resume their lying ways. In other words, I'm hurt less by the person I know is a phony or admit he is one than I am by the one who decives me. People are people - defective, imperfect, limited, good, bad, etc.. No exceptions. All I hope is that the good outweighs the bad, and we do the best we can. As you might have noticed, I enjoy picking with republicans. They don't have as much fight in them as they used to, and I expose it all the time.

Ray Carter

Aug 8 2007

WJTV just reported that Anderson "swept" the Coast and took Jackson by 70 percent.

DonnaLadd

Aug 8 2007

[img]http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/smilie_re.gif[/img] Go Gravel!

LambdaRisen

Aug 8 2007

OK, I'm not being self-promotional when I urge you all to read my 2003 Hoodwinked story for a bit of important background on the concept of "insurance reform." I just read through it, and this part made me as angry as it did then: California is a case in point. Interestingly, that state is the poster child for many advocates of medical-liability reform. In 1975, the state instituted $250,000 pain-and-suffering (non-economic) caps in response to the first round of spiking malpractice rates in the U.S. Fast forward 28 years, and California’s rates are still high, but more stable than many other states. "You can look at caps and see the way they work," said David Clark, an attorney and partner in Bradley Arant Rose & White, major backers of tort reform in Mississippi. "Look at California 27 years ago; they were running into a crisis. When they imposed $250,000 caps on damages, it brought them back from by far the highest to back in line." The problem with that example, repeated incessantly by tort-reform supporters, is that a major piece of the puzzle is left out. In fact, after California capped damages, its rates kept shooting up—increasing 190 percent between 1976 and 1988. Californians, in the way that they do, got mad and demanded insurance reform. In 1988, they passed Proposition 103, mandating oversight of insurance companies and state approval of premium rates. When asked about that part, Clark expressed disbelief that the insurance reforms even happened in California, not believing me until I read him several different news reports out of the thousands about Prop. 103 that are available in the Nexis database. "I never heard about it," he said of the insurance reforms. If that’s true, it might speak to the poor media coverage too often given to vital issues in the civil-liability debate, as referenced in the GAO report. My search of the Nexis database, for instance, turned up no mentions of Prop. 103 in Mississippi press stories that otherwise focused on California’s damage caps. Indeed, an Aug. 12, 2002, Clarion-Ledger article by Jerry Mitchell, headlined "Calif. Held Up As Tort Model," simply left the pivotal point out. Starting out saying that Mississippi’s medical malpractice premiums were "skyrocketing 400 percent," Mitchell wrote, "It’s also what took place three decades ago in California." He wrote about Gov. Jerry Brown’s special session in 1975 to cap non-economic damages, along with other legal reforms. Then, he wrote: "Since the reforms, premiums have risen 167 percent compared to 505 percent nationally, according to a 2000 study by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners." He quoted Hattiesburg doctor George McGee saying, "California is a glowing success." He quoted David Baria saying that the average malpractice payout per doctor in California is $55,000, but that premiums haven’t fallen. And he said that California’s average premium of $25,451 is higher than the national average. But he did not say that Californians had rebelled against the insurance industry, and sternly regulated it in 1988—a move widely believed to have kept rates "only" up 167 percent, as opposed to twice that or more. The Clarion-Ledger used the California example several times in editorials calling for non-economic caps, but without bringing in its insurance-reform component—a breathtaking factual omission, considering that national media around the country have repeatedly reported Prop. 103’s role in California’s saga.

DonnaLadd

Aug 8 2007

Ledger editorial today: U.S. Attorney Dunn Lampton should vigorously investigate and prosecute any insurance companies if they are found to be exploiting Katrina victims. The issue has arisen with U.S. Magistrate Judge Robert Walker on Tuesday setting a Jan. 31 deadline for the U.S. Justice Department to decide whether to join in a lawsuit that accuses insurance companies of overbilling the federal government for Katrina's flood damage in Mississippi. What stands out is that if the federal government intervened, it would create some strange bedfellows, with Lampton joining well-known Coast attorney Dickie Scruggs. Scruggs filed the "whistleblower" lawsuit on behalf of Cori and Kerri Rigsby, sisters from Ocean Springs who worked for a company contracting with State Farm. The sisters secretly copied thousands of pages of internal State Farm claims records and turned the documents over to Scruggs, along with state and federal authorities. The sisters claim the documents show that State Farm manipulated engineering reports so that claims could be denied after Katrina, a charge denied by the insurer. In court papers, Lampton said opening the case could jeopardize the department's investigations. Good for Lampton. So where is Barbour's outrage about this? Have I missed it?

DonnaLadd

Aug 9 2007

*sigh* the cause of justice get caught up in the cause of getting paid.

Ironghost

Aug 9 2007

For months now, spokespersons for the left and the right in Washington have contended that bringing the troops home from Iraq would cause massive amounts of chaos in the region especially in Iraq. My friends, there was no chaos at all in Iraq until the Nation Builders marched in. Iraq has become a massive recruiting ground for terrorists only because of our presence there. They say that if you are against the war, then you are against the troops. I say this. If you vote to send our men and women back over there to be mangled and killed, 100 every month, then you are against the troops, not I and the others who want them safely back home. Our military is in a quagmire right now and there is no other way out but to leave the region just like we did in Vietnam. As long as the top level Democrats and Republicans of this country continue to take Wall Street money, then Wall Street's war will go on. Let's get some people in there folks who are willing to stand up to this out of control power monopoly that is the New World Order and bring the troops home. If they are over there when another terrorist attack occurs, our military will be increased through a draft and could quite possibly never see American Soil as we know it again.

billcane

Aug 9 2007

eruh, yeah, what he said. [img]http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/lachen/laughing-smiley-014.gif[/img]

LambdaRisen

Aug 9 2007

I totally disagree that nothing was done about Clinton. This President was actually impeached in the House for something that so many of our Presidents, Senators, Representative, Cooks, Cleaners, Garbage Engineers, Teachers, Lawyers, and also John Q. Public have been a part of. The big animal that is called "INFIDELITY." There are cazillions of couples who will face or have faced faced this in the course of a relationship. Some of the same people who were pushing so strongly to get ridd of Clinton were also having affairs. My hat goes off to Husler magazine editor/owner, Earl Flint, for exposing those who were living in glass houses; yet, throwing stones. There were women who thought and verbalized the idea that Hilary should divorce Bill and move on with her life. Where was the spirit of forgiveness? So, you are asking the "First Lady of the United States of America" who had a staff, a voice, cooks, cleaners, secretaries and a mansion big enough to get lost in, to just give up everything because your spouse has broken the rule of fidelity. They wanted Hilary to leave the White House going WHERE?????? I personally think that a lot of women wanted Clinton to pay for the things that their own spouses/boyfriend/fathers or significant disappointing others had done. Bill Clinton was one of the smartest Presidents this country has ever elected and it will take a "Clinton Type" to bring it back to the status America had for so long in the world: A country and its people who were looked up to - not down on.

justjess

Aug 10 2007

PS. Bill got reported by Monica who was pushed by Linda Tripp. So we know what Bill did. How many people in this country or anywhere in the world know WHAT HILARY DID???????? INFIDELITY works both ways and it is not only husbands who participate: Many, many wives do also. Read the statistics on this issue.

justjess

Aug 10 2007

People forget that, but Reeves was far less qualified than Anderson and if not for the obvious, Anderson would have won that. As for the Clintons, I think people hold them to a different standard than they hold themselves. I doubt that in the history of this country, no family has been investigated as intensely as they were with so little found. I say so little because I would bet that if hundreds of millions of dollars were put toward investigating most people, including those here, tons of dirt would be turned up. Hilliary Clinton was well within her rights to do what she did by supporting her husband. It was her choice and hers alone and no one really has the right, nor insight, to question her motives. People also have a right to form whatever opinions they have about someone. My problem with Clinton is that most of the negative aspects people talk about are unsubstantiated. In my own little world, I have been at the top of the food chain and know how people can be envious, jealous, make up stories, etc. So, I am not so quick to believe every accusation I hear about people. I think Bill Clinton had failings, as do we all. The question is, do we think of ourselves and our own failings as harshly as we think of other people's? Call me crazy, but I think Bill Clinton was better politician and President than George Bush has been. It is beyond my pay grade to rate him as a person.

Goldenae

Aug 10 2007

If you're the president, you should get "serviced" every single day by whomever you wish! [img]http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/lachen/laughing-smiley-014.gif[/img] Yet we can't get Bush impeached for all the laws and lies he has broken/told?

LambdaRisen

Aug 10 2007

If you're the president, you should get "serviced" every single day by whomever you wish! LRisen Ok, so that means if you were working for Pres. Clinton & he asked you to blow him you would, right? I think those emoticons are annoying. I'm a purist, I'd rather read ideas without the cheesy animated antics.

Izzy

Aug 10 2007

Izzy, I thought of you last week while in San Francisco and Oakland. How could you give up that good weather for this oven?

Ray Carter

Aug 10 2007

You know what, I strangely LIKE this oven. Think of it this way, if you stand outside long enough you will experience the benefits of a steamy spa, only without paying for it. Heh heh. How's the bay area? I'm getting to go there later in the month to see some pals.

Izzy

Aug 10 2007

The lies he continues to tell is one but, the lives of our young people being needlessly taken is another. there were no weapons of MASS DISTRUCTION. We know this yet, each day with billions of dollars being spent monthly, we are being drawn into Bush's lies. Enough is Enough on this issue. What happened with Clinton, Monica and Hilary was between three consenting adults. Nobody was killed and all thre people continue to strive. Even Chelcy Clinton moved out, moved on and is now working professionally. Izzy, I really don't know what a "purist" is but I do know what a realist is. I think your ideas are being confused with someone's silly humor. "No" is always an acceptable answer for a person with their brain working correctly. This goes for anyone - EVEN A PRESIDENT.

justjess

Aug 10 2007

The weather was excellent. Spent every day in meetings. Enjoyed eating, shopping, walking around and looking at folks afterward. LamdaRisen, I know you were joking and I hope you will apologize for the joke before we lose you.

Ray Carter

Aug 10 2007

Well, it was a joke but why should I apologize for a joke? [img]http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/fragend/confused-smiley-017.gif[/img]

LambdaRisen

Aug 10 2007

I think you should apologize for all the $%#@ smilies. ;-)

Todd Stauffer

Aug 10 2007

I'm so lucky I have noscript. :D I can block those things....

Ironghost

Aug 10 2007

I'm so lucky I have FireFox BBCodeXtra that lets me do smilies with a click rather than a type and paste. [img]http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/lachen/laughing-smiley-004.gif[/img]

LambdaRisen

Aug 10 2007

Lambda, is BBCodeXtra a plugin?

LatashaWillis

Aug 10 2007

Yes.. Go to http://www.sephiroth-j.de/1/mozilla/ and scroll down to MISCELLANEOUS. Install BBCode 0.4.1.6 3DCenter Special Editon (sic). Then when you got it installed, go to Settings, then to Custom Tags. For a lol smiley, I labeled it LOL Smiley and in the tag, I put the img code tags with the URL to the smiley. Click OK. Then right click on a text area, such as this one im typing in, you'll see BBCode menu, choose Custom Tags, and you should see your LOL Smiley. It also does HTML tags and XHTML tags. Very useful for if you post alot in all kinds of forums and blogs that allow BBCode, HTML and XHTML.

LambdaRisen

Aug 10 2007

This is a modified version, btw. The original BBCodeXtra doesn't allow for custom tags. This modified version does but also includes a menu for 3DCenter forums (apparently whomever modified this addon, uses 3DCenter forums alot so made his own thing here). You can disable 3DCenter menu under Settings. If you don't want or need the custom tags option, just do a google search for BBCodeXtra.

LambdaRisen

Aug 10 2007

Show off. :mrgreen:

Jeff Lucas

Aug 10 2007

Nerds. (And when the "iTodd" calls you a nerd, you know you're in trouble. ;-)

Todd Stauffer

Aug 10 2007

Lambda, I can't locate a menu for the program so I can see the code choices. Where do I find it?

LatashaWillis

Aug 10 2007

Never mind, Lambda. It shows up when I do a right click. :mrgreen:

LatashaWillis

Aug 10 2007

Oops, wrong code. How do I get the right code to come up?

LatashaWillis

Aug 10 2007

[code][img]http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/huepfen/jumping-smiley-014.gif[/img][/code]

LatashaWillis

Aug 10 2007

Got it?

LambdaRisen

Aug 10 2007

I got it, thanks.

LatashaWillis

Aug 10 2007

iTodd? Nerd? [img]http://messenger.msn.com/MMM2006-04-19_17.00/Resource/emoticons/49_49.gif[/img]

LambdaRisen

Aug 10 2007

NoScript pwns you, Lambda. :D It's the equivalent of going LALALALALACAN'THEARYOU!

Ironghost

Aug 10 2007

Would somebody start a column about Carl Rowe resigning from the Bush administration at the end of August? I don't know how to start one. Help me out Ironghost. You can call it, "Chuckie returns to Hades. I have some comments to make concerning it. I won't talk bad of republicans anymore. You trust me, don't you?

Ray Carter

Aug 13 2007

Good idea, Ray. I don't know how to start a link but, this issue is HOT. In the meantime, what was the straw that broke Rowe's back? He will have an interview at 11:30am today. What will Bush do without his "BRAIN?" Are we smelling the beginning of the END?

justjess

Aug 13 2007

Thanks, Justjess. I looked up his last name and it Rove. Y'all know I don't care for misspellings.

Ray Carter

Aug 13 2007