For people from PA - There is a thread on GD saying that Rendell

[Mass]

said on TV today Dems won't run on Iraq because we will because it would be taking a chance that we will be out of there before the next election and it will only put them in a difficult postion." (paraphrase) (quote from the diary - I will not give a name or link as it is forbidden by the rules).

It seems incredibly stupid and cynical of anybody to say that (to think it), but I dont know Rendell very well. Is it possible that he is so stupid?

[MH1]

1. I've been trying to be good.

Really.

But, IMO the answer to your question is *cough* yes *cough*.

PA politics has certain facets that would be amusing if they weren't so aggravating and ludicrous. (Pay raise, anyone? Then today, #&*%*@#* Donald Trump salivating over building a gambling joint in my dear PHILLY.)

:argh:

[jenndar]

2. I saw it on Hardball.

It wasn't *quite* as ridiculous as that - he was saying that somebody up for reelection or election shouldn't have to run a campaign that had to answer for somebody else's position Iraq. It was still a pretty weak thing to say, though.

[wisteria]

3. He has been known to put his foot in his mouth more than once.

I think he may have been trying to say that we shouldn't put all of eggs in one basket. Of course, I haven't read what he said, this is just a guess. Iraq should matter in 2006, but from what I have been reading it does look like we may have a significant withdraw by then. The devil is in the details though,and you can be sure this administration is cooking up something. The party should be exploring additional issues for 2006. Rendell shouldn't of come out and said this though. It would have been better to keep the Repubs guessing.

[globalvillage]

4. Awww, the big dumb lug.

WTF, Ed? Think before you open your mouth.