Dems Fold on FISA . . . .

Nicolle Belle, John Amato and the crew at Crooks and Liars have been warning about Hoyer's behind-the-scenes backstabbing on FISA.

Today the knife was twisted.


From Congressional Quarterly:

House Passes Overhaul of Electronic Surveillance Rules

The House Friday passed an overhaul of electronic surveillance rules stemming from a bipartisan compromise that left Democrats divided.

The legislation, which would almost certainly lead to the dismissal of lawsuits against telecommunications companies accused of aiding the Bush administration’s warrantless surveillance program, won the support of 105 Democrats and 188 Republicans to pass by a margin of 293-129.

Senators agreed to place the bill on the calendar for next week and could clear it as early as Monday, delivering to President Bush legislation that gives him much of what he wants but with some restrictions he hoped to avoid. He placed a priority on the lawsuits’ dismissal, and on getting executive branch authority to conduct warrantless surveillance of foreign targets, even when they are communicating with people in the United States.

House members who voted against the bill said its expansion of executive branch surveillance powers would gut Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure.

“This bill scares me to death,” said Rep. Barbara Lee , D-Calif.

Supporters, on the other hand, said it was an improvement over a Senate-passed, White House-backed bill, which contained less court and congressional oversight. Some conservative Democrats have been pressing House leaders to take up that legislation all year long, and House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer , D-Md., said this week their support for that bill forced Democratic negotiators into a reluctant compromise.

“It’s not a happy occasion, but it’s the work we have to do,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif. She said the debate on the legislation was “valuable for making the bill better if not good enough but certainly preferable to the alternative we have.”

Republicans, including Bush himself, praised the legislation.

That last line sums it up pretty well.

Remind me again why someone should vote for a democrat vs. a reguglican ? ? ? ?

(Cross-posted from Moved to Vancouver)

Pot = Kettle = Black . . . .

Please let this democratic primary season be over soon.

"Royalty in Waiting" Billary's rhetoric is getting to be a bit much.

The problem is the masses she appeals to believe her BS.


Compliments of McClatchy today:

Clinton blasts Bush for not stopping a project Bill OK'd
Steven Thomma | McClatchy Newspapers - April 30, 2008

INDIANAPOLIS — Hillary Clinton loves to tell the story about how the Chinese government bought a good American company in Indiana, laid off all its workers and moved its critical defense technology work to China.

It’s a story with a dramatic, political ending. Republican President George W. Bush could have stopped it, but he didn’t.

If she were president, Clinton says, she’d fight to protect those jobs. It’s just the kind of talk that’s helping her win support from working-class Democrats worried about their jobs and paychecks, not to mention their country’s security.

What Clinton never includes in the oft-repeated tale is the role that prominent Democrats played in selling the company and its technology to the Chinese. She never mentions that big-time Democratic contributor George Soros helped put together the deal to sell the company or that the sale was approved by her husband's administration.

_______________


Here’s how she told it a few weeks ago at a union meeting in Washington:

“A Chinese company bought the company, called Magnequench, and they wanted to move the jobs to China. The people in Indiana protested, did everything they could to convince the Bush administration that this was a terrible mistake. Couldn't even get a hearing,” she said.

“The jobs went to China, but so did the technology. And now the United States military has to buy the magnets we need for the smart bombs we invented from China,” she said as the union members booed.

Here's the complete story:

In 1995, General Motors decided to sell the Indiana-based Magnequench to a Chinese-American consortium.

The consortium included:

* San Huan New Materials and Hi-Tech Co, a company owned by the Chinese Academy of Sciences;
* Onfem Holdings, a company controlled by the State Nonferrous Metals Industry Administration in the Peoples Republic of China;
* Soros Fund Management, headed by George Soros;
* The Sextant Group, founded by Archibald Cox Jr.;

Soros, of course, is the wealthy investor who has contributed vast sums to Democratic candidates and liberal causes.

He’s given more than $250,000 to Democratic campaign committees, tens of thousands to individual Democratic candidates and about $2.5 million to the liberal group Moveon.org, according to Federal Election Commission records.

He’s also contributed to Hillary Clinton’s Senate campaign and to Obama’s Senate and presidential campaigns. He contributed to Republican Sen. John McCain’s first presidential campaign, in 1999, when McCain was running against Bush for the Republican nomination.

Politics as usual.

Also as usual, the big losers are the USian public who get the opportunity (?) to choose from "Bad" or "Worse" . . . .

(Cross-posted from Moving to Vancouver)

He's Got a Book ! ! ! !

Please don't do him the favour of buying it, even though he says he's not keeping the profits.





It appears the infamous douglas feith attended the same school of memory lapses as al gonzales. The cretin can't even recall passages of his own book 'til Steve Kroft calls him on it.

The fact that he is walking the halls of Georgetown University and not in prison as a war criminal is the height of injustice . . . .

(Cross-posted from Moving to Vancouver)

Now, There's a Great Idea ! ! ! !

So this is the kind of quality advisers we could expect from a mccain administration?

Education Week
Published Online: April 3, 2008
AP interview: McCain will seek Jeb Bus's help on education
(Ed. note: This headline is re-printed exactly as the original, miss-spelling of jeb's last name inclusive. Pretty good for a site named "Education Week", eh?)

JACKSONVILLE, Fla. (AP) — Republican Presidential candidate John McCain said Thursday he has turned to former Gov. Jeb Bush for advice on education policy and will continue to do so if he wins the November election.

McCain said he's had meetings with Bush for "a couple of years" on education policy and enthusiastically said he would seek his help if elected. The Arizona senator made the remarks after being asked how Bush will help the campaign.

"He has offered to do whatever he says he can and I appreciate it. On the education issue he is already helping out," McCain said. "He's very well respected on many issues, but education is probably one where I think he has a nationwide reputation."

Bush's first priority when taking office in 1999 was a massive overhaul of the state's school system which included using standardized testing to grade schools. Schools were then rewarded or punished based on their grades.

He also put in place the first statewide voucher program, which allowed children to go to private schools with taxpayer money instead of remaining in schools that repeatedly failed. That program, however, was later ruled unconstitutional. Bush also expanded reading and mentoring programs.

Whether schools improved under Bush is a continuing debate. Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test scores would indicate schools improved, and the gap between white students' scores and minorities' scores narrowed. The National Assessment of Educational Progress, the most widely recognized national assessment tool, also showed progress in reading and math scores, particularly among younger students.

But critics, including Democrats and teachers unions, point to other indicators, such as graduation rates and money spent per student, that show Florida schools among the worst in the country. They also said the emphasis on the FCAT means schools now teach to the test.

Thank goodness we'll soon be vacating both the US and Florida.

Now, as additional proof of what a wonderful education system jeb hath wrought in Florida, check out Dave's post below.

You can't make this stuff up . . . .

(Cross-posted from Moving to Vancouver)

Hillary's glass house

But both Democrats are basically the same or so I thought until the last few weeks. I've never had much of a soft spot for Hillary Clinton, she always struck me as being a bit too interested in what was going to advance her career and how things looked rather than how they actually were -- her votes to support military action in Iraq being the obvious example. That said, I still thought she was a smart, capable politician's politician who would do a decent job as president, would do a lot to squelch the rampant sexism that exists in U.S. politics, and would inspire a generation or two of women to succeed and not accept glass ceilings and second-class status.

Having watched her campaign, I'm less keen on her and think she is more likely to be America's Margaret Thatcher. Undoubtedly she would be more than will to go to war to show that "just because she a woman it doesn't mean she isn't tough" much the way George Bush the first invaded Panama to prove he wasn't a wimp.

"But," I told myself, "at least she wouldn't be a stooge for the bible thumping bunch"

Well, not to get all conspiracy-theorist on you dear readers, but I was wrong about that too.

She hasn't said much about Obama's former ministers' remarks damning America for its treatment of blacks or McCain's pandering to the worst of the Christian Taliban. And now I know why.

Positioning Politicians . . . .

Via McClatchy today:

Is Lindsey Graham auditioning for VP?
James Rosen | McClatchy Newspapers - March 18, 2008

WASHINGTON — John McCain's trip to Europe and the Middle East was intended to make him look presidential. U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., went with him.

Was he auditioning for a prominent post in a McCain administration?

Perish the thought, Graham said before leaving the country. "This will be the 19th (foreign) trip I've taken with Senator McCain since (2003)," said Graham, who has represented S.C. in the U.S. Senate since 2002.

"He's one of my closest friends in the Senate. I think I am someone who is a sounding board for him.

"I've been intricately involved in his campaign — a confidant, if you will. I very much admire him. He's got a lot of courage. My relationship with John is not dependent on a position."

Top.

Bottom.

Missionary.

Doggie-style.

Lindsey's OK with any position.

Good thing.

Hanging around in that repuglican crowd, versatility has to be a plus . . . .

(Cross-posted from Moving to Vancouver)

Surprise! House dems Grow Spine . . . .

Well, it's a start, anyway.

From Reuter's today:

House passes spy bill and rejects phone immunity
Fri Mar 14, 2008 - By Thomas Ferraro

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Democratic-led U.S. House of Representatives defied President George W. Bush on Friday and passed an anti-terrorism spy bill that permits lawsuits against phone companies.

But the 213-197 vote was far short of the two-thirds majority needed to override a promised veto by Bush. He has demanded that any telecommunication company that participated in his warrantless domestic spying program secretly begun after the September 11 attacks receive retroactive immunity.

The battle over whether to shield companies has been a key reason why the House and Senate have been unable to agree on a bill to replace a law that expired last month that expanded U.S. authority to track enemy targets without a court order.

'Course, georgie will veto it, but what the hell.

At least the x-ray of the dems will show a shadow of a spine . . . .

(Cross-posted from Moving to Vancouver)

Cross-Border Crap . . . .

Oh, isn't this just great?

Our fearless Canadian leader is making waves South of the 49th and not in a good way.

From Chris Bowers at Open Left today:

The Canadian embassy in Washington has issued a statement indicating its regret at the fact that information has come out that would imply that Mr.--Senator Obama has been saying different things in public than in private.

So, the Canadian conservative prime minister is calling Barack Obama two-faced on NAFTA at the exact same moment that John McCain is indicating that Canada might pull out its troops on Afghanistan if we make too much a stink about NAFTA? That strikes me as more than a little suspicious. In fact, it strikes me as a directly coordinated attack by McCain and Harper to neutralize McCain on trade during the general election. It wouldn't be the first time Harper and Republican leaders have coordinated, given that Harper uses Republican pollsters and the conservative movements in both countries are deeply intertwined. Further, in addition to making Obama look like a two-face panderer who will anger key international allies, this attack serves a triple purpose of weakening Obama by extending the Democratic primary, which might (I emphasize might) further weaken Obama in the general election. Other conservatives, such as Rush Limbaugh, are already pushing supporters to vote for Clinton for exactly this same reason.


I generally agree with Josh Marshall on this one: the whole thing stinks of cross-border conservative coordination on the presidential campaign. The plus side is that not only is what Harper doing probably unpopular in Canada, but that in the general election Obama can probably appear with opposition leaders like Layton or Stephanie Dion to reinforce his position on the issue. That way, not only does Obama's position gain credibility, but his victory might even bring down the Canadian conservative government.

The Right Honourable PM appears to be pandering to the future repug nominee. This before St. McCain has even faced the dem nominee in November's general election. Guess he's trying to win Best in Show for following orders.

It's time for stevie and his crowd to leave the building . . . .

(Photo credit, Alison @ Creekside)

(Cross-posted from Moving to Vancouver)

Tell me the Harperites aren't Republicans again...

From ABC News:

On Wednesday, the Canadian Television network reported that two unnamed Canadian sources said a "senior member" of Obama's campaign team had called Michael Wilson, Canada's ambassador in Washington, in the last month to warn him that Obama would be ratcheting up rhetoric against the North American Free Trade Agreement, but that he should "not be worried about what Obama says about NAFTA," adding, "It's just campaign rhetoric. … It's not serious."

Both the Canadian Embassy and the Obama campaign have repeatedly denied the CTV report.

However, a source close to the Canadian prime minister's office tells ABC News that the original communication was between Austan Goolsbee, Obama's senior economic adviser and an economics professor at the University of Chicago, and Georges Rioux, Canada's consul general in Chicago, about Obama's rhetoric against NAFTA.

According to the source, Wilson exaggerated the communication between the Obama campaign and the Canadian official during discussions this week with Ian Brodie, the prime minister's chief of staff, who leaked the story to CTV.

And now... from Susan Delacourt:

A "source close to the Prime Minister's Office" has told ABC News who leaked some misinformation to CTV News this week about conversations between the Canadian government and Barack Obama's campaign. The alleged leaker? None other than Ian Brodie, chief of staff to Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

[...]

But let's also pause and look again at that ABC News item for a second. Someone close to the PMO is outing Ian Brodie as an anonymous leaker. Hope that "source's" job is secure.

And now, let's also look at what this "source close to the Prime Minister's Office" is saying about how all the misinforming happened.

Apparently, Brodie was the victim of some "exaggeration" by Canada's ambassador to the U.S., Michael Wilson. Ah yes, that notorious exaggerator, Michael Wilson, former finance minister in Brian Mulroney's government, one of the straightest, most understated cabinet members in those times. Does this sound a bit familiar? Didn't "sources" in the PMO try to blame the military for misinformation around the issue of Afghan detainees a few weeks ago? Blame that later had to be retracted? And isn't it interesting how "sources" close to this government are quick to turn on old Mulroney Conservatives when the going gets tough?

It would probably be very interesting to hear conversations going on this afternoon inside the PMO and between Ottawa and Washington. Unless we're reading the ABC News item incorrectly, someone "close to the Prime Minister's Office" has managed to smear the PMO chief of staff and Canada's ambassador to the U.S in one fell swoop.

So, our guys are playing games across the border. How fucking quaint. How fucking Rovian of them.

Further, it shows how Harper and his knee-capping political coalition of wannabe baby elephants doesn't give a red-rat's-ass about the direction of Canadian public opinion. Or are they going to try to tell you they missed this:

Both Democratic nominees remain far and away the preferred option among Canadian respondents to become the next American president when compared to Republicans - a trend that holds true even among Conservative party supporters.

Of course... maybe it's just all of us "out of step" with the movement. Kady explains:

I'm not sure which aspect of this story will thrill Canadian voters more: that the Stephen Harper's chief of staff is allegedly playing electoral silly buggers south of the border, or that he's apparently doing so to help the Republicans. Then again, this is the smartest prime minister in the history of ever, so I'm probably just missing the strategic brilliance.

Exactly.

Turkey See, Turkey Doo Doo . . . .

No offense, but what a bunch of Turkeys:
(Courtesy of McClatchy, Washington Bureau)

U.S. voices support as Turkey seeks to 'eliminate' Kurdish rebels
Nancy A. Youssef and Steve Lannen | McClatchy Newspapers - Posted on Mon, Feb. 25, 2008


WASHINGTON — As the Iraqi government watched in anguish Monday, Turkey's ambassador to the United States set an ambitious goal for his country's incursion into the northern Kurdistan region of Iraq: "to eliminate" a Kurdish rebel force of at least 4,000 fighters.

In Washington, the Bush administration left no doubt of its overall support for the Turkish operation to deal with the Kurdistan Worker's Party, commonly known as the PKK, which both the Bush administration and Europe consider to be a terrorist organization.

The Turkish incursion, which began last Thursday, involves a U.S.-equipped army invading a U.S. ally in the most stable and most pro-American region in Iraq.

"It's obviously not an ideal situation," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said. "We hope that this is a short-term incursion so that they (Turkey) can help deal with the threat." (Emphasis mine.)

Well, no shit, Sherlock, re: "Not an ideal situation."

This whole this whole clusterf_ck sounds like an Abbott and Costello "Who's on First" sketch.

Will someone please take charge of the asylum ? ? ? ?

(Cross-posted from Moving to Vancouver)

And slowly... the smear begins

This post by The Rev. provided the harbinger of what could be expected from the astroturf operators of the Republican election machinery. And, as sure as green apples will irritate your bowels, it's already started.

The word is out and Clif picked up on one moron who couldn't resist running Grover Norquist's message without checking a single fact.

What is more interesting however, is what is going on in Wikipedia. Last week there was no mention of Barack Obama in Bill Ayers' entry.

By Saturday, the 16th a line appeared, without citation, that said:

Ayers is a strong supporter of Barack Hussein Obama.

Today, obviously after some of the Wikipedia editors got to it, the line now appears:

Ayers is a strong supporter of Barack Obama. [citation needed]

So, the editors of Wikipedia did two things: 1) They removed the reference to Obama's middle name, and, 2) They indicated that there is no reference to suggest that the line may actually be true.

The actual truth is somewhat different. Ayers contributed $200 to Obama's 2001 campaign for the Illinois state Senate. That's it. Beyond that, Ayers has said diddly-squat.

In fact, the editors of Wikipedia, either unintentionally or with calculation, are perpetuating a disingenuous lie.

The thing to watch for now is the activity of two of the Republican party's real scumballs: Ralph Reed and Tom Synhorst.

We've already heard from Grover Norquist, who is a mean-spirited, humorless, dishonest little creep. An embarrassing anomaly, the leering, drunken uncle everyone else wishes would stay home. Norquist is repulsive.

My words? Hardly. They come from a member of the Republican noise-machine. None other than Tucker Carlson.

As John Cole points out, the front-runner in the Republican race has a giant millstone around his neck, (which Karl Rove helped put there). Maybe Wikipedia could pick up on that.

Oh Gawd! No!!!!

Ralph Nader has decided it's time to emerge from his burrow. From Melissa:

I'd have a lot more respect for him if he made a concerted effort to make this point—and endeavored to either galvanize a vibrant third party or progressivize the Democratic party—in between elections, instead of popping up once every four years to indulge a vanity campaign.

Why can't he just be happy with having taken on one of the largest corporations on earth, at the time, and beating them.

Punt! Punt now!

Goodbye Giuliani. It must be sad to realize that even Florida Republicans think you're a worthless piece of crap.

The age of American Idol is over (Because they're coming to repossess your big-screen plasma TV)

I hear that George Bush gave some kind of speech tonight. Damn! I wish they would announce those kinds of things in advance. You just know he's going to fuck something up.

I guess it doesn't really matter anymore. Anything the moron has to say is pretty much irrelevant and the fight is on to nominate the contenders.

Driftglass lays it all out and concludes with his special eloquence. His point: This is, perhaps, the only chance anybody will have to fix the damage done by an administration of self-absorbed assholes.

Because with the globe in genuine peril, Dubya's six-week Cakewalk War about to enter its sixth year, the nation plunging into the shitter, our Constitution begging for help and the Supreme Court one bad cold or slippery patch of pavement away from a bulletproof wingnut majority for the next 20 years, I for one am all finished with losing nobly and consoling myself that at least I kept my political hymen pure and intact.

Because America needs more flabby, middle-aged, wealthy, white, nativist reactionaries in power

What with the writers strike and the need for surefire material their hosts can riff on endlessly, I can only guess that the producers of The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, The Tonight Show and The Late Show are behind this. A movement has begun to draft Lou Dobbs for President of the United States

Holding an election in the casinos...

Of Nevada, that is.

Just when I think I understand the US primary and caucus system, they go and change it. Luckily, SueJ explains it all and yes, it's starting to make some sense again.

Well, not actually. I still don't get why caucuses instead of a secret ballot, but maybe that's just me.

'08's Most Important Issue to Voters Is . . . .

Quite an accurate analysis, based on all available polling data ;-) . . . .

Bush made it possible for Hillary to run for president

I like what Marc has to say after the New Hampshire primary. Clearly no fan of Hillary Clinton, he makes a strikingly conspicuous point.

Let's look at the bright side of things, people. One of the things I would enjoy the most about having Hillary Clinton in the White House is that it would drive the nutcase right-wing absolutely batshit. Can you imagine the likes of Rush OxyMoron and that crazy Nazi nutcase Mark Levin in the aftermath of a Clinton victory? That alone would make a Clinton victory a pure pleasure. I've heard some pundits argue that the GOP would really secretly prefer Hillary, if they had to have a Dem in the White House, simply because she's so pro-corporate and business-friendly. But these pundits are over-estimating the wisdom and depth of the Republicans. Talk to a wingnut sometime: these people really do despise Hillary with every fiber of their being.

And it would! In a very The Daily Show kind of way.

Marc isn't wrapped in a pipedream however, and provides a solid dose of reality.

At the end of the day, what's the most important lesson Dems can take from New Hampshire? It's this: nothing is set in stone in the 2008 election. I see too many Democrats who seem smug about re-taking the White House in 2008, simply because Bush has been such a disaster for America. But New Hampshire ought to show all of us that anything can happen and that nothing should be taken for granted in 2008.

Yeah! That's what I thought when the pundits and pollsters were yapping prior to the primary. Pollsters, I suppose, should be given a little latitude. They have, after all, taken a sample which should give them some insight. But the pundits? They have no excuse. They let their hubris direct them and got it stuffed squarely up their asses. They were wrong because they played to their traditional audience... without paying attention to the possible effects of their misogynist ramblings.

Still others are claiming that Clinton's sudden resurgence was brought about by a backlash by the women of New Hampshire.

There was a backlash by women against the media's coronation of Obama. There may well have been something about Clinton implying that she was an older woman who was being passed over by a less experienced man for a job. That may well have resonated with some women, especially after she seemed actually human in the last two days. Once Clinton was weak enough to ask for their help, they gave it to her.

Geez, Andrew. Maybe we should replay that for the next primary. Give the "old woman" a chance? Once Clinton behaved like a "weak" woman? Is that what you're trying to say? They felt sorry for her so they formed a voting block?

I'm glad Andrew tried to defend his pain at Obama's loss with that. Despite the fact that it is despicable on the face of it, it opens up something else.

If the Bush administration has done nothing good in the last seven years, one thing has emerged that may provide a small ray of hope for the future.

Having had their country ravaged by the most incompetent, uncaring, dishonest and reckless administration in the history of the United States, voters are looking for anyone who can provide them relief - even a woman.

Would that it was not that way. A far preferable scenario would be one in which a woman, a competent woman, would be judged against her competing peers by an intelligent and informed population. That her worth was not judged against a depraved and morally bankrupt administration, but solely against those she challenged for high office.

Clinton, being described by Andrew Sullivan as an "older woman" is a joke at best and insulting at worst. On the Republican side stands John McCain who, at 72 years of age, is one of the oldest people to ever run for president.

Hillary Clinton is 61. She will likely outlive both John McCain and George W. Bush, who is a year older than her. She's not running for America's Top Model. She is vying to lead a country which, despite seven years of gross mismanagement, still has calculable but significant global influence and for an office which, once the incumbent is relegated to his Texas outhouse, can once again lead the democracies of the world.

It is sad that it took the turpitude of the Bush administration to finally make it possible for a woman to run for the US presidency and be considered a serious candidate. But, if it's any consolation, the Bush legacy may well be that his presidency was so bad that people finally came to realize that that a person's sex has absolutely nothing to do with their ability to do the job.

Krugman Speaks . . . .

In light of Dave's posts below, Paul Krugman has a great take on the New Hampshire results:

From inevitability to pitiful failure to front-runner again in just a few days. There’s no hint that the market saw either Iowa or New Hampshire coming, or knew anything beyond the bloviations of the talking heads. (emphasis mine)

After all the "expert" talking heads and pollsters announced what the results would be, the voters had their say.

It appears there is still some semblance of democracy alive in the US.

Amazing.

bushco hasn't totally destroyed the political process . . . .

The New Hampshire Primary's most interesting statistic

I have remained detached from the US primary buzz. The Republican offering is nothing short of disgusting and the Democratic field of candidates, while more inspiring, seem to have their hands full fighting the TV pundits and the interest of that group on hair, skin colour, tear ducts and whether any of them has too much education to replace their hero in the White House.

There is, however, something interesting happening in New Hampshire. And it should not be dismissed lightly.

The state of New Hampshire has 850,836 registered voters which identify as follows:

Democrat: 26%

Republican: 30%

Independent: 44%

The vote itself is "semi-open". What that means is that all registered voters may cast a ballot but those registered as either Democrat or Republican must vote within their own party. Registered independents may choose to vote in either party primary, but not both.

With 91% of the New Hampshire precincts reporting, the votes cast in each party breaks down this way:

Democrats: 258,613

Republicans: 213,656

First, in a state where the the registered Republicans outnumber the registered Democrats by a full four points, the Democrats attracted more voters to the tune of a whopping 45,000 votes.

Secondly, the vote attracted by the Democrats exceeded the number of those declared and registered as Democrats by 37,396 voters.

The Republicans, on the other hand, failed to attract 41,595 registered Republicans.

The Democrats attracted a huge number of independents. The Republicans.... stayed home.

Now the primaries are worth watching.

Source: CNN