ThinkFast: October 18, 2007
ThinkFast: October 18, 2007
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) is still under the microscope from the Kentucky press over his office’s involvement in smearing Graeme Frost. In an editorial entitled “McConnell versus truth,” The Courier-Journal writes, “It’s clear what Mitch McConnell knew and when he knew it. It’s clear he deceived the public.” The Herald-Leader also weighs in. And the Georgetown News-Graphic.
“Under pressure to help override President Bush’s veto, at least five of the eight House Democrats who voted initially against expanding a popular children’s health insurance program now say they’ll switch sides.”
“The Pentagon is preparing to alert eight National Guard units that they should be ready to go to Iraq or Afghanistan beginning late next summer.” A National Guard official explained, “You create holes when you surge units forward, and someone has to fill them.”
The Senate Intelligence Committee reached agreement with the Bush administration yesterday on the terms of new FISA legislation to control the administration’s domestic surveillance program. The draft bill “includes a highly controversial grant of legal immunity to telecommunications companies that have assisted the program.”
Russian President Vladimir Putin slammed the Iraq war yesterday, stating, “it’s absolutely pointless to fight with a people.” “It is absolutely unacceptable to keep the occupation force in place in Iraq for eternity,” he added, emphasizing his support for a “date for withdrawal.”
The head of the Federal Communications Commission is pushing a plan to repeal a rule “that forbids a company to own both a newspaper and a television or radio station in the same city.” The plan would “be a big victory for some executives of media conglomerates,” including Rupert Murdoch.
“It is likely that Blackwater will not compete to keep the job” of escorting U.S. diplomats outside the protected Green Zone after May, according a U.S. official. “[T]here is a mutual feeling that the Sept. 16 shooting deaths mean the company cannot continue in its current role.”
“Alberto Gonzales was briefed extensively about a criminal leak investigation despite the fact that he had reason to believe that several individuals under investigation in the matter were potential witnesses against him in separate Justice Department inquiries.”
And finally: On election night 2006, eight year-old Sarah Maria Santorum wept on national television when her dad lost the election. Country singer Martina McBride on Monday released a song, For These Times, inspired in part by the girl’s tears. “I always tell my children that good things come from bad things,” Rick Santorum said in an interview this week.
What did we miss? Let us know in the comments section.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Thanks for showing absolutely no qualms about covering Bush’s allies in his illegal wire-tapping program. Granting retroactive immunity is spineless and reprehensible!
October 18th, 2007 at 9:09 amPutin is right, the Iraq war is pointless-except to massage the “decider’s” ego.
October 18th, 2007 at 9:09 amThe FCC is a joke and is against maintaining competitive balance in the free market.
October 18th, 2007 at 9:11 amAnd does that FISA agreement/capitulation address the signing statement Bush will use to void the legislation?
October 18th, 2007 at 9:12 amMitch McConnell flat out lied about his staff’s involvement in smearing Graeme Frost. It isn’t the first time this morally bankrupt creep has outright lied, and it won’t be the last.
October 18th, 2007 at 9:12 amUncle Ho – Bush needs to stay relevant in world affairs, that is why we cannot withdraw.
October 18th, 2007 at 9:12 amSo we’re sending more National Guard over to Iraq. What happens when we have an emergency here?
Bush wants to keep fighting his wars but doesn’t want to reinstate the draft, as that would be political suicide (although political suicide wouldn’t make much difference at this point — his presidency is already on life support). Therefore, he depends on Blackwater and the National Guard to do the job that the regular Army should be doing (if they had enough personnel to do it).
What’s next? Sending the Coast Guard?
October 18th, 2007 at 9:12 amI’m glad that McConnell’s people back home are recognizing that he’s a liar. Will they do anything about it?
October 18th, 2007 at 9:13 amCaption Contest:
“Who wants a mustache ride?
OOOOOOoohhhhhh Me me me!!!!”
October 18th, 2007 at 9:15 amBoo hiss to the Senate Intelligence Committee. Legal immunity for the telecom companies only aids this criminal administration’s efforts to keep from being caught.
A lawsuit of any of the telecoms is necessary to bring all the slime out from under the rock. Any competent lawyer would get the telecom exonerated by reason of coersion on the part of the government, but the American people might have a shot at learning the truth.
October 18th, 2007 at 9:17 amI’m really starting to feel that political discussion is basically a lose-lose situation. Our elected officials do not operate with the interests of their constituents, at least the constituents who aren’t lobbyists. The Democrats have kowtowed to Bush since taking control of the Senate, and while they only have a nominal majority they could still use their position to continually hammer away at the fact that the 109th Congress and Bush have been governing this country criminally and irresponsibly since 2001.
October 18th, 2007 at 9:17 amThe Courier-Journal writes, “It’s clear what Mitch McConnell knew and when he knew it. It’s clear he deceived the public.â€
It’s too bad this story hasn’t made it outside Kentucky, though. The MSM (you know, that liberal press) has pretty much ignored this story. I wonder what is going to happen when the Democrats control the government, is the MSM still only going to report what the Conservatives want them to report. It’s going to be very interesting.
October 18th, 2007 at 9:18 ammissmolly, We can’t handle the truth! The government has determined this for us.
October 18th, 2007 at 9:18 amJust in time for Hurricane season.
October 18th, 2007 at 9:18 am“Under pressure to help override President Bush’s veto, at least five of the eight House Democrats who voted initially against expanding a popular children’s health insurance program now say they’ll switch sides.â€
And the other three can kiss their political careers goodby. The fact that 80% of the people in this country support expanding SCHIP must be scaring the hell out of them right now.
October 18th, 2007 at 9:19 amhttp://www.salem-news.com/articles/october172007/repub_scandals_10_17_07.php
interesting run down of republican sex scandals throughout the years (and occasionally murder..look at scarbarough.. holy sh@te)
October 18th, 2007 at 9:19 amI always tell my children that good things come from bad things,†Rick Santorum said in an interview this week…
We agree, Ricky. When you were strutting around & babbling in office it was a bad thing. Losing your re-election in ‘06 was a good thing.
October 18th, 2007 at 9:19 am“The Pentagon is preparing to alert eight National Guard units that they should be ready to go to Iraq or Afghanistan beginning late next summer.â€
Well, I guess that makes a lie Bush’s statement that he will be bringing troops home. Well, actually, it probably isn’t technically a lie. He will be bringing troops home, he will just be backfilling them with new troops.
October 18th, 2007 at 9:20 amThe draft bill “includes a highly controversial grant of legal immunity to telecommunications companies that have assisted the program.â€
Hopefully sanity will prevail in the House. The fact that the Democrats in the Senate would do this shows that they are just as corrupt as the Republicans. Also, what happened to Arlen’s protest? Didn’t even last a day.
October 18th, 2007 at 9:21 am“There is absolutely no reason our intelligence officials should have to consult government lawyers before listening into terrorist communications with the likes of Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda and other foreign terror groups,” said House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio).
That’s correct – as written the FISA law has emergency provisions. Of course, there is also absolutely no reason for the American public to trust that such eavesdropping will be limited to only terrorists, which is why oversight is required. As the neocons often say, if you aren’t doing anything wrong then there is no reason why the American people and/or their representatives shouldn’t know about it. The neocons: the “no reason” arm of the Republican party.
October 18th, 2007 at 9:22 amI know that Etheridge initially voted against the SCHIP bill because he felt the tobacco tax was unfair, not because he was against additional funding for the program. I’m willing to bet there are other representatives who feel the same way. These people will wind up overriding the veto despite the tobacco tax, because they are completely repulsed by the dirty tricks of the right.
I agree with Etheridge about the tobacco tax — I think we have reached saturation point with taxing cigarettes, and if we are to fund programs with “sin” taxes, we should start attacking other sins before attempting to go to the tobacco well again. However, my support for expanding SCHIP funding outweighs my tobacco tax objections, and if this isn’t passed now, it’s doubtful it will see the light of day again for awhile — probably not until a different president is in office.
Let’s just get this veto overriden.
October 18th, 2007 at 9:23 amWe should realize that we would be so much better off if we just let one company own all of the radio, TV, and print press. This one company could then just publish the official government line and we wouldn’t have to worry about competing news and thoughts. We don’t need to stir ourselves up about people that oppose the government view.
October 18th, 2007 at 9:23 amThe Senate is nothing but a country club for millionaires. They wouldn’t spit on an ordinary citizen to put out a fire unless the cameras were rolling.
October 18th, 2007 at 9:23 amGiven the dirty tactics of this administration, I would be in favor of giving the telecoms total immunity, providing they turn over every document and deposition available to demonstrate that, indeed, this administration requested or required these telecoms to engage in spying and exactly what was done.
October 18th, 2007 at 9:25 amHousing market update – not good
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a1t40XgWe6TY
Dollar update – yep, that’s embarrassing.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a0CngbVYg764&refer=home
October 18th, 2007 at 9:25 am“[T]here is a mutual feeling that the Sept. 16 shooting deaths mean the company cannot continue in its current role.â€
So what does that mean? The State Department will find a new role for them. Heaven forbid they should cancel their contract and kick them out of the country.
October 18th, 2007 at 9:25 amcaption:
“I solemnly swear I will do anything you ask of me, Mr. Vice President, so help me Berreta”
October 18th, 2007 at 9:26 am“I always tell my children that good things come from bad things,†Rick Santorum said in an interview this week.
And the good thing is that we no longer have Rick Santorum in our government.
October 18th, 2007 at 9:27 amtelecom immunity? jesus christ, but what do you expect given that rockefeller receives huges sums from the telecoms.
can we not find 40 brave democrats to filibuster this?
if we can’t even get 40 dems to do the right thing, i am officially giving up on the democratic party…
October 18th, 2007 at 9:27 amWhat’s next? Sending the Coast Guard?
Comment by missmolly
Shhh missmolly, don’t give him any new ideas.
October 18th, 2007 at 9:28 amcaption:
“Bye now. See you. So long. It’s been fun and profitable. I hope you miss me when I’m gone.”
next frame:
“Bwaaaahhh!”
October 18th, 2007 at 9:29 amThe current FISA mess has a sunset provision and expires in Feb 2008. After the sun sets on that little fiasco based on lies,the old FISA springs back into existence.
Yes, the version that W has consistently admitted violating and certain telecoms have admits assisting in such violations. So, I ask, what is the rush to “fix” the bill they screwed up in August? Why do anything but put things back to the status quo and argue about this say after the elections. It’s apparent no one in Congess really gives a crap about civil rights in time of war (define this frickin’ war for me, please — endless war for endless peace and the right to suck oil from any place we damn well choose). What’s the rush? Why do a damn thing?>
The evidence is out there that FISA was not the problem in the events of 9/11. No, the problem there, was that political appointees with their own agendas and compliant managers failed to connect the dots gathered under FISA.
The Dems need to learn that less is more, especially if you’ve got the votes to control the agenda but not the votes to override the veto. It’s what’s what you bring up for a vote that matters and there is simply no reason to bring this up for a vote at this time.
October 18th, 2007 at 9:30 amWe should realize that we would be so much better off if we just let one company own all of the radio, TV, and print press. This one company could then just publish the official government line and we wouldn’t have to worry about competing news and thoughts. We don’t need to stir ourselves up about people that oppose the government view.
Comment by BearCountry — October 18, 2007 @ 9:23 am
Exactly. We could just call the media machine PravdaCom. And think of the money saved by just hiring well-coiffed parrots and doing away with expensive investigative reporters!
October 18th, 2007 at 9:30 am“Alberto Gonzales was briefed extensively about a criminal leak investigation despite the fact that he had reason to believe that several individuals under investigation in the matter were potential witnesses against him in separate Justice Department inquiries.â€
Why is this a bad thing? He shouldn’t investigate people just because they may have dirt on him?
October 18th, 2007 at 9:30 amGiven the dirty tactics of this administration, I would be in favor of giving the telecoms total immunity, providing they turn over every document and deposition available to demonstrate that, indeed, this administration requested or required these telecoms to engage in spying and exactly what was done.
Comment by PatrioticLiberalChristian
That has been my point all along. To allow them immunity without getting anything in return is total capitulation and a sell-out to corporate America. I really do wish that someone would run against the Democratic Senators in their primaries. I’m fairly sure that a lot of them would be beat. Unfortunately there aren’t that many people in this country who have the big bucks it takes to run a Senate campaign. We will never have a representative government until the time where we have publically financed political campaigns. As long as our representatives can be bought and paid for by big donors, they will be bought and paid for.
October 18th, 2007 at 9:36 am[T]here is a mutual feeling that the Sept. 16 shooting deaths mean the company (Blackwater) cannot continue in its current role.â€
Well, geez, on the other hand, do you really want 150,000 plus disgruntled, unemployed, heavily-armed ex-security thugs roaming the streets of this country w/ nothing better to do than look for trouble?
Can’t we find another job for them, in say, Iran?
October 18th, 2007 at 9:36 amI agree, Squegeeboo, let the nest of vipers eradicate itself.
October 18th, 2007 at 9:36 amRepukes spent more investigating Clinton’s BJ than they did 9/11.
Think about that.
October 18th, 2007 at 9:38 amBilbo: Wasn’t one of ‘Prophet Gore’s’ main platform concepts the insidious problem which is ushering in total fascism – campaign finance reform??
October 18th, 2007 at 9:39 amThat has been my point all along. To allow them immunity without getting anything in return is total capitulation and a sell-out to corporate America.
Comment by bilbobaggins — October 18, 2007 @ 9:36 am
Geez, I thought the program was “legal” all along… right? Right? How can you grant immunity to someone when you don’t even know what they’ve done yet? And why do they need to be granted immunity? Isn’t THAT in and of itself a confession of wrongdoing?
THIS STINKS, and I’m so F-in’ P*ssed at the Dems for caving in so readily.
October 18th, 2007 at 9:39 amZimzone: The Grand Old Perverts have alway been obsessed with Clinton’s sexual allure. This proves the point: putting their money where their mouth is (no pun intended :)).
October 18th, 2007 at 9:39 amTRoS: This administration of “smoke & mirrors” is asking Congress to “rubber stamp retro-immunity” for something which they haven’t been fully briefed about”…..how totally Republican! If Congress falls for this charade, then they all must go – Dems, too.
October 18th, 2007 at 9:40 amRussian President Vladimir Putin slammed the Iraq war yesterday, stating, “it’s absolutely pointless to fight with a people.â€
Well, Vladimir, you ought to know…
As a “former” chief of the KGB, I’m sure he has extensive knowledge of the Soviet experience in Afghanistan…
October 18th, 2007 at 9:41 amWhy is this a bad thing? He shouldn’t investigate people just because they may have dirt on him?
Comment by Squegeeboo
I guess it never entered your pea brain that perhaps the reason why they were being “investigated” was because they had dirt on Alberto and were about to sing like a bird.
October 18th, 2007 at 9:41 amIf QWEST had the presence of mind and knowledge of the Fourth Amendment, then so should the other bush sycophants/neofascist corporations who spied on americans. They’re cooked and I say: “let the lawsuits fly!”. They deserve what they get. QWEST stood up to the dictator so it must be assumed that they didn’t want to.
October 18th, 2007 at 9:42 amRussian President Vladimir Putin slammed the Iraq war yesterday, stating, “it’s absolutely pointless to fight with a people.
Ye gods, The Idiot In the WHâ„¢ is actually making Putin look like a good guy at this point. The Cold War is back, baby! And perhaps it won’t be a cold one for long, the way things re going.
MISSION ACCOMPPLISHED, Oh Great Decidered. Gosh, yer still relevant!
October 18th, 2007 at 9:42 amIf Congress falls for this charade, then they all must go – Dems, too.
Comment by Veritas
I totally agree with you. Unfortunately it doesn’t look like our Democratic senators running for re-election have any competition. There just aren’t that many people who are rich enough to run a campaign against an incumbent Senator.
October 18th, 2007 at 9:43 amCJ,
there were not 40 Democrats brave enough to filibuster the methodical stripping of our Constitution over the past 6 years.
At every single stage, when it has been Bush’s way or the Constitutional way, Bush’s way prevailed.
Republicans, on the other hand, filibuster quite readily.
October 18th, 2007 at 9:43 am
po: I believe the dems are ultra-focused on fixing the charade they permitted in August is because it will become a campaign issue at this point. Sure, it sunsets in Feb. 08 which may be too late for the damage it’s currently doing and will continue to do unless the dems fix it and restore their image.
Having said that, I can’t believe that the dems on watch permitted this heinous abrogation of the law and constitution.
What I see in congress presently is a huge derelection of duty by congress and usurpation by a unitary executive. A unitary executive along with a corporately-owned government becomes fascism, clear and simple.
October 18th, 2007 at 9:46 amI have no link, but I’ve heard Randi Rhodes just tripped, there was no mugging.
October 18th, 2007 at 9:46 amCaption:
October 18th, 2007 at 9:46 am‘Thank you for the birthday present, Mr. Vice President. I’m this many old today’.
If Congress falls for this charade, then they all must go – Dems, too.
Comment by Veritas — October 18, 2007 @ 9:40 am
Talk about my fondest dreams. **SIGH** There is damned little I’d love to see more than the incumbents, almost across the board, voted out, election after election, until they get it together.
It’s “we, the people”, not “we, the elected few”, or “we, the filthy rich”, or “we, the corporations”
October 18th, 2007 at 9:46 amI can’t believe that the dems on watch permitted this heinous abrogation of the law and constitution.
Comment by Veritas
Is it really that you can’t believe it or that you don’t want to? Because that’s how I feel. Given their history, it’s certainly understandable that they’d capitulate. It’s what the Dems are best at, it seems. I just don’t want it to be true.
October 18th, 2007 at 9:48 amthis just in.. Micheal claims factcheck.org, a website cited by Dick Cheney in the 2004 debates, is slandering the swiftboaters. how funnny, in micheals world, any source that refutes any of the baseless assertions he makes is mere slander. no wonder he’s constantly requesting answers to questions that everyone knows the answer to.
pray tell micheal, why would a website cited by dick cheney feel the need to make up lies about cheney’s allies the swiftboaters?
October 18th, 2007 at 9:50 amI know democrats who ran right down to the elections offices to change their party affiliation to Independent when the democrats bent over (again) to the Bush Cabal and made themselves the new enemy of the people. The first time they caved was on funding the war; the second time they caved was on this NSA bullcrap.
Can you believe this one – I received a call from a democratic phone pollster yesterday who, when I mentioned that 36% of the people are so disgusted that they’ve registered as Independent, told me that if not in 08 then surely in 12, there will be a bona fide “independent party”. I believe it is at the grass roots level right now. But the question is – who will capitalize on this group of disgruntled individuals right now? Will it be the right who realizes that they can get a “second horse in the race” and run Ron Paul as an Indy? Or will it be the dems who will push Bloomberg into the race or one of their other popular candidates? If Hillary get the nod, then Obama will run as an Indy or vice verse?? Once one makes this precedent-setting move, the Independent Party will spring into existence.
Actually, if this group of unaffiliated voters were to be placated and satisfied with a candidate of their own, this party would legitimately become our “second party”, pushing the GOP into a third party position.
October 18th, 2007 at 9:51 amFive to eight Democrats in the House changing their minds and switching sides regarding ‘override veto’.
Another example why Democrats cannot be counted on or trusted in crucial times when their vote is needed.
October 18th, 2007 at 9:51 amVeritas
October 18th, 2007 at 9:53 amIt seems Independents are trending left so they’d split the vote, and the Reps would win.
P.S. And at 36% and growing daily, this chunk of unaffiliated individuals will at least be a force to contend with in 08, if not the decision making segment of the population. With numbers comes power and it’s clear that the dems are not listening to the mandate of the people which is end the war, clean up the government, and impeach Bush/Cheney. What have they done in each of these regards – Answer: Absolutely nothing.
With 37% registered democrats and 36% registered Independents, you’d think that the democrats would be interested in garnering an easy 73% of the population’s vote, which, not so coincidentally, reflects Bush’s new approval rating…..24% and falling.
His numbers (which reflect the sentiment of america toward the GOP) are clearly commensurate with the total number of dems and I’s.
October 18th, 2007 at 9:54 amIf QWEST had the presence of mind and knowledge of the Fourth Amendment…
Comment by Veritas — October 18, 2007 @ 9:42 am
Ya have ta wonder, if what Nacchio said was true (approached SIX months BEFORE 9/11, and then Qwest retaliated against for saying no), was his conviction on insider trading charges politically motivated too?
Who’s that ex-gov from Alabama – D Siegelman?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Siegelman
Rove controversy
In June 2007, a Republican lawyer, Dana Jill Simpson of Rainsville, Alabama, signed a sworn statement that she had heard five years ago that Karl Rove was preparing to politically neutralize Siegelman with an investigation headed by the U.S. Department of Justice.[9]
According to Simpson’s statement, she was on a Republican campaign conference call in 2002 when she heard Bill Canary tell other campaign workers not to worry about Siegelman because Canary’s “girls” and “Karl” would make sure the Justice Department pursued the Democrat so he was not a political threat in the future.[9]
“Canary’s girls” included his wife, Leura Canary, who is United States Attorney for United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama.
[9] Leura Canary did not submit voluntary recusal paperwork until two months after Siegelman Attorney David Cromwell Johnson’s press conference in March of 2002.[citation needed]
In September 2007, Simpson gave sworn testimony to the United States House Committee on the Judiciary regarding this issue (see below under Congressional Reaction).
October 18th, 2007 at 9:54 amWilco: That old argument no longer holds water when the I’s reach these numbers. Sorry – and yes, it did work when it was a mere splinter of the population but today, their numbers rival that of the democratic party.
And, if no candidate really resonates with the will of this 36% of americans and it splits the vote, so be it. We reap what we sow.
October 18th, 2007 at 9:55 amNacchio was framed – just like the attorneys fired by DOJ.
October 18th, 2007 at 9:56 ambilbobaggins
I guess it never entered your pea brain that perhaps the reason why they were being “investigated†was because they had dirt on Alberto and were about to sing like a bird.
So you have no issue ignoring potential criminal behavior as long as it makes it easier to try and nail a Bush crony?
October 18th, 2007 at 9:56 amTweedster; just how many body bags is the wannabe fuehrer’s ego worth?
We need immediate ‘regime change’ at home by ANY means necessary.
October 18th, 2007 at 9:58 amWhen polling I’s, it’s clear that the dem frontrunner (Hillary) would definitely NOT be someone they’d totally support. So then it comes down to precisely whom the Repukes select. This l/3 of the population will determine this next election and it’s just now that the MSM is acknowledging it’s existence…..another tactful concealment by the proponents of our archaic and broken “two party system”. These two parties have far too much invested in this broken system to let it go. They’ve got a monopoly on politics in this country. They’ve got a stranglehold on public discourse.
October 18th, 2007 at 9:59 amUncle Ho: Agreed. Impeachment now is the only hope for this failing democracy. Even the MSM talking heads are saying that we are slipping into third world status. All this, thanks to Bush.
October 18th, 2007 at 10:00 amoh, and Micheal, I’ll bet your going to demand proof that Cheney quoted the website you said “smeared” the swiftboaters.. I’ll give you that proof AFTER you tell me how you will react if the assertion is true..
October 18th, 2007 at 10:00 amWe know the dyed-in-the-wool GOP base will not select someone as honest as Ron Paul which begs the question: Will the moderate arm of the GOP run Paul as an Independent candidate? There are a lot of I’s out there supporting him at this point.
October 18th, 2007 at 10:01 amVeritas, I see your point. But I don’t think your previous conclusion that the Reps would be a minority party of sorts has legs. Remember Bush still garnered over 50% of the vote. They still know how to get the vote out.
October 18th, 2007 at 10:02 amBut the possibility of a viable 3rd party is exciting.
What they are discovering when interviewing I’s or unaffiliateds is that there is no candidate out there on either side (perhaps with the exception of Obama) whom most I’s would support. So, it may very well be that the party who runs their more moderate candidate as an Indy will win the game this time.
October 18th, 2007 at 10:03 amWhy is this a bad thing? He shouldn’t investigate people just because they may have dirt on him?
Comment by Squegeeboo — October 18, 2007 @ 9:30 am
There would appear to be a conflict of interests here. Would it not have been appropriate for Gonzo to recuse himself from this one?
Remember when Scalia and Cheney went duck hunting together?
(CBS) Vice President Dick Cheney and Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia spent part of last week duck hunting together at a private camp in southern Louisiana, just three weeks after the court agreed to take up the vice president’s appeal in lawsuits over his handling of the administration’s energy task force, the Los Angeles Times says in its Saturday editions.
While Scalia and Cheney are avid hunters and longtime friends, several experts in legal ethics questioned the timing of their trip and said it raised doubts about Scalia’s ability to judge the case impartially, the newspaper pointed out.
But Scalia rejected that concern Friday, telling the Times, “I do not think my impartiality could reasonably be questioned…”
Sorry, “Justice Scalia”, but your impartiality HAS TO BE questioned after something like this!
GEEZ, Antonin!!! What are you not clear on here?
October 18th, 2007 at 10:04 amveritas – it seems you are forgetting THE main problem…
VOTING MACHINES.
unless there is an OVERWHELMING DEMOCRATIC VOTER TURNOUT
the criminals will steal the election…
what part of that don’t you understand?
i wish you’d wait till after 08 to clamor for the rightful due
October 18th, 2007 at 10:05 amof independents…
.
So you have no issue ignoring potential criminal behavior as long as it makes it easier to try and nail a Bush crony?
Comment by Squegeeboo
No, but I do believe that the people in the Justice Department can conduct an investigation without the help of Alberto Gonzales. The fact that they briefed Gonzales sounds to me like the investigations were politically motivated.
Don’t you think that the people working in our Justice Department are capable of conducting an investigation without Gonzales? Do you think it is OK for the Justice Department to investigate potential whistleblowers to keep them quiet?
October 18th, 2007 at 10:06 amhttp://bill-in-portland-maine.dailykos.com/
hilarious
October 18th, 2007 at 10:06 amWilco: Unfortunately, most of this is simply empty dialogue at this point. Go to http://www.blackboxvoting.org or get a copy of the HBO documentary entitled: Hacking Democracy if you want to ugly truth.
It’s possible that none of this matters one iota with the DRE’s being hackable since 2004 and no one doing anything about it. It’s a disgrace to our democracy to call ourselves one and then disenfranchise or hack the results of our elections. So all of this may be just for “show” anyway.
I believe that we will discover following this next election that one more of our rights has been stripped – free and fair elections. In actuality, it’s been stripped several elections ago – back to 2000 when Jeb and Katherine Harris rigged Bush’s first term in Florida.
October 18th, 2007 at 10:06 amVeritas,
Name recognition is critical to a Party’s success…any thoughts on a 3rd Party name?
(I know ‘Progressive’ has been used in the past.)
October 18th, 2007 at 10:06 amVeritas
it may very well be that the party who runs their more moderate candidate as an Indy will win the game this time.
When looking at past elections with a strong third party, or indy, candidate, that is more associated with side A than side B, the general rule seems to be that side A gets a splintered vote, giving the election to side B.
Teddy did it in his 3rd run in 1912, Perot hurt Bush in 92, and while not a really strong candidate, whats his name screwed Gore in AughtAught (we had to call it aught, the Kaiser stole our 0) I’m sure there are others I’m not remembering off the top of my head, I feel like there was one in our around 1880.
October 18th, 2007 at 10:07 amPeople On The Air To Oppose Expanding the Children’s Health Insurance Program (POTATOE CHIP).
I think micheal and bigfoot are founding memebers of this group
October 18th, 2007 at 10:07 amWilco: The only reason Bush was able to hack the last election was because the numbers were about even – 50% dem/50% republican. This is definitely no longer the case with 24% republican and dropping so I really can’t see your argument.
October 18th, 2007 at 10:07 amRemember Bush still garnered over 50% of the vote.
Comment by Wilco — October 18, 2007 @ 10:02 am
Yeah, but that was BEFORE all this ugliness had occured. Bush’s 2nd term has been one enormous dismal failure, disaster, and embarrassment after another. I know I’m only hoping, but I’d love to see the GOOP collapse completely.
October 18th, 2007 at 10:07 amSqueege: I concur but it might be time for the Democrats to either put up or shut up. If they get a splintered vote in 08, they will have no one to blame but themselves.
October 18th, 2007 at 10:08 am> but I do believe that the people in the Justice Department
> can conduct an
> investigation without the help of Alberto Gonzales.
I would hope so, considering what a tragic memory loss he seems to have suffered recently..
October 18th, 2007 at 10:09 amHave you checked out Ron Paul’s websites lately? It’s pretty telling and if he ran on a separate ticket, he’d definitely be getting some votes from disgruntled democrats.
October 18th, 2007 at 10:09 amGah, or, not our at the end of 77.
bilbobaggins
October 18th, 2007 at 10:09 amNo, but I do believe that the people in the Justice Department can conduct an investigation without the help of Alberto Gonzales. The fact that they briefed Gonzales sounds to me like the investigations were politically motivated.
True, he didn’t have to be involved, but if I’m reading it right, the leak they were investigating was a high profile leak, so he would need to be briefed at least so he could show a basic level of competence in it when asked about it by people such as the press.
you can’t convince me that repugs are not a part of this big
push for independent candidates…
i don’t even trust the likes of bruce fein pushing for impeachment…
too many wolves in sheep’s clothing…
i don’t trust ANY of ‘em…
October 18th, 2007 at 10:09 amTRoS: The only way Bush garnered 50% of the vote was by hacking the machines (DRE’s) in Ohio.
Just ask Kenneth Blackwell, State Supervisor of Elections who also chaired the Bush/Cheney campaign in Ohio! This man will be in jail someday soon for what he did.
There was NO WAY that Bush got 50% of the vote in 2004!
October 18th, 2007 at 10:10 amKaty: They’re both planning on using this huge bloc of unhappy americans by running a more midstream candidate on both sides of the fence…..then we’ll have 4 candidates on the radar screen.
October 18th, 2007 at 10:11 amDon’t you think that the people working in our Justice Department are capable of conducting an investigation without Gonzales?
Comment by bilbobaggins — October 18, 2007 @ 10:06 am
I dunno… mebbe they were jes’ gittin’ Gonzo’s imput on the appropriate torture methods to use…
October 18th, 2007 at 10:11 amWhat I say is: Bring ‘em on! More choices the better! Why should americans be “stuck” with a highly politicized candidate who will do nothing but lend empty rhetoric to the problems of this country? It’s time the people spoke out – loudly and clearly.
October 18th, 2007 at 10:12 amRoS, I’d settle for a GOP that was true to its roots.
October 18th, 2007 at 10:13 amFrankly, I think an opposition party is essential, but not as the GOP has been run these past few years. This party over country crap has to stop.
Mitch McConnell should exercise more prudence and caution, now that he has been exposed in lying about his involvement in sliming a kid. Something like that could embolden his enemies.
October 18th, 2007 at 10:13 amI heard that Mike Rogers, the one who outed Sen. Craig months before it all became public, also has stuff on McConnell.
There was NO WAY that Bush got 50% of the vote in 2004!
Comment by Veritas — October 18, 2007 @ 10:10 am
I’ve heard so many bad things about Ohio 2004. I’m surprised it was never a bigger story in the media. Oops! Sorry, my bad… what was I thinking?
October 18th, 2007 at 10:14 amKaty – In reading your post, I would have to disagree with at least what I know as an Independent voter. I don’t believe that either party ever imagined our numbers to grow to this position of power over the outcome of the next election.
This group of disenchanted americans are looking for either a) a candidate whom they can trust on their word and who most closely resembles their mindset …. and b) a candidate who is totally “out of the loop of corruption” of this current necrotic government. Unfortunately, Hillary is in it knee deep and probably would become “bush lite” in terms of ending this amoral, highly illegal war in Iraq. She’s too involved in the military war profit machinery to do so.
And Giuliani – well, what can one say about a “one trick pony” on the other side? He’s “mafia lite” and his connection with dirty harry Kerik should tank his campaign.
So what’s left?
October 18th, 2007 at 10:16 amBrownback is going to drop out.
October 18th, 2007 at 10:17 amThis party over country crap has to stop.
Comment by Wilco — October 18, 2007 @ 10:13 am
I think an opposition party is essential too. The current GOOP has debased and discredited itself so badly, I’m not sure how it will recover. Don’t forget, Herr Brusch has another mind-numbing, eternally endless 15 – 16 months left in office. Lord only knows how much MORE DAMAGE he’ll do to his own party before fleeing to the family compound in the Paraguayan jungles.
The potential collapse of the GOOP would hopefully make it possible for another political party to come forward as the oppsotion to what would be the venerable Democratic Party… probably won’t happen, but **Sigh**
…we can hope, can’t we???
October 18th, 2007 at 10:20 amKaty: As far as Hillary is concerned, her refusal to say that this war must end immediately is a direct representation of her “incredible ego” (like Bush’s) who still finds it difficult to admit that she made a personal error in judgment in giving Bush power to wage the war. She carefully and artfully arranges her answers to this question and I’m happy to see Edwards and Obama driving that point home. She’s tenacious and egomaniacal and refuses, just like GWB, to admit that she’s fallible.
She blames her error in judgment on Bush, saying that she was duped by his lies. Be that as it may, many people believe that, above all of the others in Congress, Hillary HAD MORE INSIDE INFORMATION following 8 years in the white house, to make a more informed judgment than the others voting. Many feel that her vote was even more horrendous and inappropriate since she “knew better” from her vantage point as First Lady.
October 18th, 2007 at 10:20 amwell, at least we’ll all know who to blame
when 08 is stolen also…
the “disgruntled” dems who push for splintering the party
at such a critical time, seem no better than the ones in
congress they’re so pissed off about…
thing is, the congress dems don’t have much choice right now…
give them the white house and congress, and so much will change…
but, after only 8 months, so many are ready to “throw out the baby
October 18th, 2007 at 10:21 amwith the bathwater”…
.
you can’t convince me that repugs are not a part of this big
push for independent candidates…
Comment by katy — October 18, 2007 @ 10:09 am
What do you expect? Remember after WW II, when so many Nazi Party members dropped the armbands and swastika lapel pins and just tried to blend in…???
Lapel pins… hmmm…
October 18th, 2007 at 10:22 amTRoS: you can take it to the bank! The third party is coming on big and strong. What course it will take will be determined by the actions of both parties over the coming months. Our two party system is clearly NOT WORKING, as evidenced by the gridlock of this congress. It’s time for new blood in the form of I’s who will be running for offices all over the country in 08 to insert themselves into the national dialogue and not be “wholly owned” by Big Business.
October 18th, 2007 at 10:22 amWilco
RoS, I’d settle for a GOP that was true to its roots.
Frankly, I think an opposition party is essential, but not as the GOP has been run these past few years. This party over country crap has to stop.
And generally speaking, the GOP has a much better history of success as the opposition party. Whenever they get to be the main party they just get even more corrupt. But the only way to get back to their roots is to throw out the christian fundies and let them form their own party. Otherwise their Moral Platform BS will never go away.
October 18th, 2007 at 10:23 amKaty: Why do you think that Congress’ approval rating is so abysmally low? Is it because this “two party system” is working so efficiently? Gridlock is precisely why it fails us. Anyone who believes that a third party would not be at least a temporary panacea for our system of “non government” today is too partisan themselves to see the logic and sensibility in a third party. Regardless….a third party is springing into existence whether the partisans want it or not. It’s either join it or be beaten by it.
October 18th, 2007 at 10:25 amSqueege: We I’s have heard that the Republicans are working right now to run a third party candidate. May be just rumor but, realistically, why not get two horses into the same race? I think the Dems are not smart or savvy enough to even recognize this concept…..hope not though.
October 18th, 2007 at 10:26 amSqueege, I can’t agree more.
October 18th, 2007 at 10:27 amI’d be more inclined to vote Republican if they took their religious dogma out of their platform. But their stances on social inequality just drive me to the Dems every time.
So what does that mean? The State Department will find a new role for them. Heaven forbid they should cancel their contract and kick them out of the country.
Comment by bilbobaggins — October 18, 2007 @ 9:25 a
Do you think Blackwater will replace the National Guard troops being shipped to Iraq when emergencies arise here at home?
October 18th, 2007 at 10:28 amVeritas
Regardless….a third party is springing into existence whether the partisans want it or not. It’s either join it or be beaten by it.
Well, maybe, or maybe not. Once again, history shows us that one of two things tends to happen when a viable 3rd party shows up on the scene.
1. One of the current two parties dies.
2. One or both of the current two parties steals most of the planks from the 3rd party as a way of getting it’s voters and the 3rd party dies.
While there is a good chance I will be supporting a 3rd party this cycle, with out some real changes to things such as how congressmen are elected or how electoral votes are handed out, I have grave doubts about any long term (more than 1, maybe 2 election cycles) success of a true 3rd party forming.
October 18th, 2007 at 10:29 amIf Larry Craig becomes the “poster boy for the 08 race” then the GOP (GOOP, I like that TRos!?)) will find it’s numbers dropping even more radically. After all, how can you look at yourself in the mirror or Craig’s bathroom poster and call yourself a party of “family values”?
Right now, the leaning of the I’s is largely democratic; however, if the GOOP ran a moderate/centrist candidate, the repukes who have jumped ship would glom onto him – taking a good percentage of the leaning dems with them.
In either case, it would be the people who would win whether it be by putting a republican or a dem in the white house.
And, frankly, at this point, I fail to find much difference between any of them!
October 18th, 2007 at 10:29 amGood Morning Veritas and all, Not going to be around much today so will weigh in quickly before our power is off or I have to row to safety…..Great post’s BTW…
It seem’s to me many voter’s are just as pissed off as I am….After finding out Palosi knew about the wire tapping in 2000 I became enraged and will not let go of that mad on any time soon….It’s painfuly clear this entire bunch with the exception of one or two need’s to be booted out of office and reduced to civilian life forever….To bad in doeing that we can’t reduce their bloated benafit’s that they get for life…..Cut their wages, put them on a type of Social Security and make them live with Medacare like we have to…..Term limit’s should be mandatory and there should be age limit’s as well…..Not to mention quick expulsion for all that have comitted crime’s….These jerk’s are suposto be our best representation of the people, protect our constitution and the people of our country….What the hell has happened to my world, I have been diligent and aware and still it has been corrupted and stolen, sold off for pennies to foreign dictator’s that wear dresses……Damn…We are way past thinking Palosi, Reid or enough Dem’s are going to fix this nightmare…..We need new people with out the corruption to lead this country or atleast start with the one or two that are good and get rid of the best……Like an old farmer I think we need to keep the best a cull the rest……..Blessing’s all, Peace is the answer.
October 18th, 2007 at 10:30 amBut the only way to get back to their roots is to throw out the christian fundies and let them form their own party. Otherwise their Moral Platform BS will never go away.
Comment by Squegeeboo
Keep the ironic remarks, Squeegee. You are much more readable. Heh ;)
October 18th, 2007 at 10:32 ami think you’re not seeing that forst for the trees, veritas…
your heart and motives and true and good, but it’s just
NOT THE RIGHT TIME.
that’s all i’m saying… it’s not the right time…
state and local, fine… run your indies… hopefully, someone like
bernie sanders from tiny vermont, running practically unopposed…
but if the dems don’t get the congress and white house,
the “democracy” will be lost… that’s all… gone…
most likely, forever…
October 18th, 2007 at 10:32 amSqueege: The one thing the I’s will have in this election cycle is “power”. This “power” can be used to keep the candidates honest. This “power” can be used to support more independent thinkers to run for office in local districts. This “power” can be the beginning of the end of our two party system – a system which is fatally compromised and flawed.
And, if the end result is that both parties suffer from fragmentation, so be it. Both parties, in my opinion, deserve to suffer right now. Both parties are failing the people horrendously at this moment. They’re asking for what they will get with a huge bloc of voters who can vote with their hearts and not with any sense of party affiliation.
After all, the larger this group gets, the more power they will wield. One would think that some of the so-called “frontrunners” would begin to acknowledge this significant chunk of the population??? Or is it that they’re chickenshit to address them because they will be outed by them??
October 18th, 2007 at 10:33 am“It is absolutely unacceptable to keep the occupation force in place in Iraq for eternity,†he added, emphasizing his support for a “date for withdrawal.â€
Then those Russian tanks in Chechnya are what, Mr. KGB?
Although, your words about Iraq are absolutely correct, everybody knows that.
October 18th, 2007 at 10:34 amugh…
check out this picture of cindy mccave…
why did she want to start looking like his mom?
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/10/18/romney_planning_to_take_aim_at_single_motherhood/
October 18th, 2007 at 10:37 am.
As is the mindset of a good percentage of I’s at this moment is the nagging question of “why isn’t a frontrunner addressing our concerns?”.
One should be very suspicious that this is occurring right now. They are not addressing the concerns of the I’s because they don’t want to answer the real questions, the tough questions. Haven’t you noticed that they are carefully evading all of the real questions? Any time a real question is posed, they each launch into their campaign rhetoric and blur the original question into obscurity.
That no candidate on either side is willing to take a long, hard look at why the number of I’s is reaching these heights is pretty telling in itself. It tells me that no candidate out there presently is worth a hill of beans. It tells me that it will be business as usual if any of them become elected. It tells me that no one has the guts or chutzpah to take on the serious questions which, if not answered and corrected, will result in the end of this democracy.
October 18th, 2007 at 10:38 amVeritas
One would think that some of the so-called “frontrunners†would begin to acknowledge this significant chunk of the population??? Or is it that they’re chickenshit to address them because they will be outed by them??
Don’t worry, they will acknowledge the I’s, but first they need to win their primaries. That means pandering to the base for now. Wait until after the primaries and suddenly the candidates still in it will shift towards the center.
October 18th, 2007 at 10:40 amVeritas is on to something here, folks.
When you realize that either Party will do anything to block, thwart or smear a 3rd entry you begin to realize this isn’t about values, morals, etc., etc., but about POWER.
I agree that the time may be ripe for an Indie, but it’s getting late for ‘08.
This Party will need good name recognition, an inherent level of trust with the American people, a timely & relevant message and the balls to tell the truth when it needs telling.
The MSM will initially treat a new Party as ‘quaint’, and chuckle while mentioning it. The pundits and ‘experts’ will calmly tell America an Indie doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in Hell of succeeding. Repukes will spend untold thousands of dollars to smear, investigate, bloviate and make false predictions so they can use fear to instill doubt in voters.
Big job. Huge amount of work. Very little time. But…is the right time?
October 18th, 2007 at 10:41 amKaty: Contrarily, I believe that I am seeing the “long view” as opposed to the “short view”, sorry. This country does not have the luxury of playing the waiting game. This country must take action NOW. Politics as we’ve known it has changed in this country and the people need to change right along with it. Putting one’s head in the sand and chanting old, staid mantras about things will definitely doom this country even further. And, if the “forest” out there to which you allude is “more of the same” (democrats bending over to abuse of our rights) then so be it. It’s the “trees” in one’s life which must be climbed one by one…..it’s the “trees” in one’s life which eventually become that “forest”.
October 18th, 2007 at 10:43 amZimzone: The two parties have so much invested in this system that it will kick and scream into oblivion to obstruct the rise of a third. After all, just look at the amoral amount of money each spends in the illustrious, totally obscene “conventions”! Wow! Now how much health care would that combined total purchase for our children??
Yet those still in the restrictive mindset of partisanship (and it goes for dems as well here on this blogsite) still haven’t realized the power involved in that 36% of americans out there who, until just recently, were not even included in the polling. Just wait until they are…..and you’ll see how radically things will begin to change.
October 18th, 2007 at 10:45 amIn my opinion, the country would only benefit, right now at least, from a 4-party system, not just the inclusion of a third party. An independent party consisting of all of the religious fundamentalists would separate the negative socially conservative faction from the fiscally conservative faction of the Republican party. An independent party consisting of the socially liberal and non-corporatist Democrats would be an improvement on the current Democratic party. The winner of the first election(s) would probably be one of the traditional parties, however after that perhaps there could be a morphing and blending of the fiscally conservative and socially liberal to create a truly progressive party.
October 18th, 2007 at 10:46 amChris Matthews and Lou Dobbs mentioned the Independents just this past week. The force is mounting and the sheer power this group will wield in 08 will have to be acknowledge. Why even do polls at this point when 36% of the population is not considered in them? The polls really mean zilch.
October 18th, 2007 at 10:46 amIf the Senate Dems let them pass immunity for Lawbreakers, I am going to vote 3 rd party for the rest of my life, phuck both parties.
October 18th, 2007 at 10:47 amWayne: I hear ya! It’s the sentiment right now of the majority of that 36% of I’s out there.
October 18th, 2007 at 10:48 amLet’s suggest that the exorbitant, obscene amount of money spend on the two parties conventions be, instead, put into something to really benefit this country….how about our crumbling infrastructure and water problem? Or should it go to children’s health care? Or should it go to help the Katrina victims? Or should it go to Medicare? Or should it….or should it….the list is too voluminous to itemize here. Clearly, this money SHOULD NOT be spent frivolously on booze, whores, and parties. After all, it’s the taxpayers money (yours and mine) buying these whores their booze.
October 18th, 2007 at 10:50 amperhaps there could be a morphing and blending of the fiscally conservative and socially liberal to create a truly progressive party.
Comment by PatrioticLiberalChristian
mmmm….dreams
October 18th, 2007 at 10:50 amOne thing I’d like to see them do, and which I think would help a 3rd party immensely (so they won’t) is require a majority, not just a plurality to win.
That way, you could truly vote for your first choice, as opposed to vote against your last choice, and in case no one has a majority, you’d be down to just 2 choices for the run-off.
October 18th, 2007 at 10:51 amSqueege: I believe that is also in the works. The person who called me yesterday told me that the dems are planning to “usher in the third party” – contrary to what I’d heard through the grapevine about the Reps doing it.
October 18th, 2007 at 10:54 amSqueege: I think that waiting for the nomination is the wrong approach although I fully realize the need to flatter and, if possible, fatten the base. If one of the candidates did so right now, many I’s would change back to vote in the primaries and boost that candidates numbers significantly.
October 18th, 2007 at 10:56 amTo extend Squegeeboo’s concept in 124, if there are multiple parties it might be good to have people vote a first choice and a second choice at the same time. The winner would be whoever got the majority of both sets of votes. I haven’t really thought this through – it’s just an idea flowing from this conversation.
October 18th, 2007 at 10:57 amName recognition is critical to a Party’s success…any thoughts on a 3rd Party name?
(I know ‘Progressive’ has been used in the past.)
Comment by Zimzone — October 18, 2007 @ 10:06 am
Absolutely, without a doubt, the Constitution Party. If there is any one symbolic name that can be chosen to represent those who desire to follow the Rule of Law, and the guidelines to run our government that the Founding Fathers gave us, it is the name of the document outlining said guidelines.
Constitution Party, all the way.
October 18th, 2007 at 10:58 amThe liberal I’s feel that their mindset is to the “left” of what today has become the Democratic Party…..they feel that the Dems are “pseudo Republicans”. When this occurs, the party begins to lose it’s potency because it’s betraying what it stands for.
October 18th, 2007 at 11:00 amVeritas
many I’s would change back to vote in the primaries and boost that candidates numbers significantly.
I think you give to much credit to the voters. Primary’s have a silly low turnout. If a candidate was to start wooing the I’s now, their best bet would prob. be to declare that way right off the bat and start working on getting on the Ballet in the different states, because the R’s and D’s will do anything they can to keep them off it.
October 18th, 2007 at 11:02 amConstitution Party, all the way.
I like it, Moderation, thank you.
October 18th, 2007 at 11:04 am…
PUBLIC FINANCED CAMPAIGNS and ELECTIONS
will solve many of the problems…
it won’t happen with another repug administration.
October 18th, 2007 at 11:06 am.
Constitution Party, all the way.
Comment by Moderation — October 18, 2007 @ 10:58 am
i’d go there!
October 18th, 2007 at 11:07 amSqueege: You might be right about the primaries turnout. I don’t know much about prognosticating that aspect. What I do know is that if a candidate began addressing the “concerns of the I’s” fully right now, that candidates campaign would blossom magically.
Zimzone: I like that! It’s time for a People’s Party or Constitution Party. Right now the only Constitution Party going on in congress is the one where they have copies of it in the bathroom and the partygoers use it as toilet paper.
October 18th, 2007 at 11:08 amOn 2nd thought, how about the…
‘Goddamn Piece of Paper Party’?
October 18th, 2007 at 11:09 amIsn’t it amazing how many of Al Gore’s platform points have reared their ugly head over the past 8 years and are actually tanking this country? That’s why he’s called a ‘prophet’.
October 18th, 2007 at 11:09 amPerhaps Gore knew well this neofascist plot by corporate america taking control of our government?
October 18th, 2007 at 11:09 amGore has to be saying “I told you so” every day of the week at this point.
October 18th, 2007 at 11:10 amFrench President Sarkozy And His Wife to Divorce
October 18th, 2007 at 11:11 amWall Street Journal – 1 hour ago
AP PARIS — French President Nicolas Sarkozy and his wife, Cecilia, are getting a divorce after nearly 11 years of marriage, his office said Thursday, apparently ending a rocky relationship that has made headlines for years but did little harm to his …
On 2nd thought, how about the…
‘Goddamn Piece of Paper Party’?
Comment by Zimzone — October 18, 2007 @ 11:09 am
No, no, no. That should be the name of the FOURTH party. The American Fascist Party would be the appropriate literal name. The “Goddamn Piece of Paper Party” tells you everything you need to know about them. Much more descriptive.
October 18th, 2007 at 11:12 amZimzone: When GWB uttered those disrespectful words about the Constitution, we couldn’t know how fully prophetic they would become, did we? He’s done his personal best to destroy it, bit by bit, freedom by freedom.
I’m reading Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.’s 1973 book entitled “THE IMPERIAL PRESIDENCY” and it encapsulates the MO of this administration to a tee. It also goes into depth about the wishes of our founding fathers when authoring the constitution. It’s a “must read” and amazing relevant to today’s political landscape.
October 18th, 2007 at 11:13 amKaty: I’m surprised that we haven’t seen those headlines for GWB. How any woman could tolerate such mental cruelty is beyond me.
October 18th, 2007 at 11:14 amGOPP = Goddamn Old Piece of Paper
October 18th, 2007 at 11:14 amthe guidelines to run our government that the Founding Fathers gave us,
Comment by Moderation
But what do you say these guidelines are? The Founding Fathers fought hard against each other over their differing beliefs as to what these guidelines were. Madison is said to have entertained thoughts of secession!
October 18th, 2007 at 11:15 amFrench President Sarkozy And His Wife to Divorce
You go to an election with the wife you’ve got, not the one you want.
October 18th, 2007 at 11:15 amThe only way left to fix this crippled two party system is by “campaign finance reform”. Keep saying it over and over…..because it’s the root of all of our evil right now. Now tell me which candidate is addressing this critical point right now?????
It would mean the end to corporate blackmail of candidates they’ve supported, it would mean the end of lobbyist control of congress. It would also mean the end of a “endless gravy train” which many present congressmen enjoy in the way of perks along the journey.
October 18th, 2007 at 11:16 amPatrioticLiberalChristian
You go to an election with the wife you’ve got, not the one you want.
Well played.
October 18th, 2007 at 11:17 amRight now the salary of Congress is: A flat base salary and all you can steal. Sad.
October 18th, 2007 at 11:19 amWhy do you think so many Congressmen are jumping ship right now – and many who are life-long congressmen?? They see the handwriting on the wall – complicity for what they’ve done to enable this coup on our democracy and possible prison time and perhaps the end of the gravy train.
October 18th, 2007 at 11:20 amVeritas, check out the archival issues of the Enquirer. Similar headlines there for the Bushes.
October 18th, 2007 at 11:22 amThanks, Wilco! I see photos in the grocery store mags of the Bush’s infamous rows and her threats to divorce him because he’s stepping out with Condi. Thanks for the link. Will check it out. Toodles.
October 18th, 2007 at 11:31 am“It’s time for a People’s Party or Constitution Party.”
Which will be attacked by “strict constructionists” as the “penumbra party.”
How about calling them Bealeists, as in, “I’m mad as hell, and I’m not going to take it anymore!”
October 18th, 2007 at 11:35 amcheck this out: October 17, 2007http://thirdpartywatch.com/
October 18th, 2007 at 11:36 amThey see the handwriting on the wall – complicity for what they’ve done to enable this coup on our democracy and possible prison time and perhaps the end of the gravy train.
Comment by Veritas — October 18, 2007 @ 11:20 am
Not only that, but a more immediate concern for them — re-election. In order to get re-elected, they will have to defend to their constituents how they have supported this unpopular administration for so long.
I bet most of them haven’t even thought far enough ahead to be worried about being implicated in actual crimes. After all, even though they recognize that the Bush administration has all the charm of a turd in a swimming pool, they’re still marching in lockstep.
October 18th, 2007 at 11:37 amtrying again….http://thirdpartywatch.com/ or just go to http://www.thirdpartywatch.com
October 18th, 2007 at 11:37 amhttp://www.ballot-access.org/ This is another place to get the scoop on the I’s.
October 18th, 2007 at 11:40 amThey can call it what they want but it’s becoming a reality. State by state independent candidates are joning their respective races. There’s power in numbers which the I’s are rapidly recognizing. You’d think (or wish) the dems “had a clue” about the power in this bloc of voters???
October 18th, 2007 at 11:41 amBut the possibility of a viable 3rd party is exciting.
Comment by Wilco — October 18, 2007 @ 10:02 am
How I wish I lived in South Carolina so I could vote for Colbert…
When you consider half of America doesn’t vote at all, and it is likely fairly large numbers of non-voters watch Colbert, I honestly would not be surprised if he really shocked the system and got a decent number of votes. Kinda like a real life “Man of the Year” scenario.
October 18th, 2007 at 11:43 am(I know ‘Progressive’ has been used in the past.)
Comment by Zimzone
That would be my choice. And the candidate to run would be Russ Feingold.
October 18th, 2007 at 11:44 amBut what do you say these guidelines are? The Founding Fathers fought hard against each other over their differing beliefs as to what these guidelines were. Madison is said to have entertained thoughts of secession!
Comment by Wilco — October 18, 2007 @ 11:15 am
The guidelines they came to a consensus on…the Constitution of the United States of America. The various papers the Framers wrote gives the historical perspective on why we ended up with the form of government we did. I want smaller Federal government, more powerful State governments, federal funding for those things that promote the general welfare of ALL citizens, regardless of State, such as health, the military, guidelines the States must follow in regards to their own policies on such matter, etc. The Feds should also be there to make sure the States are following the rules Washington has laid out for them, to handle international diplomacy, and so on. I would rather see a bunch of diverse States that allow different citizens with similar viewpoints to live and work together, than a Federal government working every year towards controlling most everything.
Oh, and secession is completely legitimate. If the overwhelming number of citizens of a state wish to secede, Constitutionally they are within their rights to do so. The Civil War likely should not have been fought, and the Confederation should have been allowed to falter, as their economy collapsed due to an overdependance on slave labor. In all likelihood, some if not most of those States, after economic collapse, would have attempted to rejoin the Union.
Freeing the slaves = good.
October 18th, 2007 at 11:44 amMilitarily preventing States from legally seceding from the Union = bad.
True, he didn’t have to be involved, but if I’m reading it right, the leak they were investigating was a high profile leak, so he would need to be briefed at least so he could show a basic level of competence in it when asked about it by people such as the press.
Comment by Squegeeboo
“Basic level of competence”…Alberto Gonzales…you really are delusional.
If Gonzales had any morals or ethics he would have recursed himself from these cases and if asked by reporters he could simply say “I trust the people I hired to investigate this and since it involves me to some extent I have recursed myself from the cases”. How refreshing that would have been.
You don’t find it even remotely possible that the investigations were motivated by the fact that these people were going to blow the whistle on Gonzalez? Do you really think that no political manipulations took place in the Gonzales Justice Department?
October 18th, 2007 at 11:47 amDo you think Blackwater will replace the National Guard troops being shipped to Iraq when emergencies arise here at home?
Comment by jb
Probably, since they used Blackwater during Katrina it would make perfect sense to them to send those thugs into our cities to “protect us”. My question is, “who is going to protect us from them”? I’m totally anti gun, but I am to the point where I am considering buying one. I fear a coup is in the works for this country and it isn’t going to be pretty.
October 18th, 2007 at 11:48 amModeration, my point is the Founding Fathers didn’t have a concensus as to the meaning of the Constitution or the limits it placed on the Federal government.
October 18th, 2007 at 11:51 amMadison wrote the Federalist Papers with Hamilton and then considered breaking up the union over differences with Hamilton.
Today, Republicans and Democrats use the Constitution to back up opposing positions on any number of issues.
They all have been bought by the Telecoms, and they will do nothing to stop the cash flow from them.
Election Reform is needed to stop the influence of lobbist.
Buck Fush
October 18th, 2007 at 11:54 amSo what’s left?
Comment by Veritas
Kucinich. Have you been to his page and read up on his views? I truly believe if there was some way for Kuchinich to get his message out there, he would be a front runner. But since he doesn’t have the corporate backing and a gazillion dollars to campaign with, no one ever hears what Kucinich has to say. And the stupid “debates” are another problem. Most of the time if they mention Kucinich, it is only to say that he was there.
I would love to see a non-party way of our deciding on our leaders. Here’s what I would do.
1) Candidates get signatures supporting their candidacy. These signatures can only be gained by volunteer’s, no paid signature gatherers.
2) The top ten candidates with the most signatures run in a “primary”.
3) The top four candidates then run in a general election.
4) The Number 1 vote getter in the general election is President and the number 2 vote getter is Vice President.
An adjunct to this voting method would be that candidates could only accept contributions from individuals with a maximum contribution per individual of $100. Then we should kick in some sort of public financing money. I also think that media advertising should be prohibited. The only advertising acceptable would be print and good old “in person” advertising. This would force the sheeple to actually read to know what their candidates stand for and will help to do away with all the negative advertisements which are mostly lies or half truths anyway.
Wouldn’t that be novel? You could actually vote for someone without holding your nose. And we could end up with a President and Vice President with different values, which could be a good thing.
October 18th, 2007 at 11:58 amModeration, my point is the Founding Fathers didn’t have a concensus as to the meaning of the Constitution or the limits it placed on the Federal government.
Madison wrote the Federalist Papers with Hamilton and then considered breaking up the union over differences with Hamilton.
Today, Republicans and Democrats use the Constitution to back up opposing positions on any number of issues.
Comment by Wilco — October 18, 2007 @ 11:51 am
Well, of course it is open to interpretation. Nevertheless, the Constitution is a powerful tool for running a government. That makes it a good choice of names.
Moreover, that is a great selling point for a Constitution Party. It is a fundamentally moderate idea for a party, since it requires its members to understand that the very set of rules they support are fluid, and DESIGNED to adjust to the times. Such a party, by design, would encourage open debate, and would necessitate cooperation and compromise. Those are healthy for political discourse, as opposed to the two-party head-butting of ideals, which necessitates being at odds with one another, and divisive politics (not healthy for We the People).
If any one name could be chosen to represent a truly moderate stance, Constitution Party is it. Most I’s are moderate leaning, the rest are the extremists that think the Democrats or Republicans aren’t extreme enough.
October 18th, 2007 at 12:03 pmAnd we could end up with a President and Vice President with different values, which could be a good thing.
Comment by bilbobaggins
That’s generally what happened back in the day. 1st place would be Pres, 2nd place Veep. I’m not sure why that changed, though.
October 18th, 2007 at 12:03 pmWell, except for the many disgusted voters disillusioned by the Republicans and Democrats alike, that are currently swelling the ranks of the I’s.
October 18th, 2007 at 12:04 pmThat’s generally what happened back in the day. 1st place would be Pres, 2nd place Veep. I’m not sure why that changed, though.
Comment by Wilco — October 18, 2007 @ 12:03 pm
Because divisive politics is the name of the game nowadays. Look at Bush’s cabinet, advisers, etc. Nary a Democrat in the bunch.
It’s not in the best interest of a secretive, controlling government to allow the “enemy” in to it’s midst. With divisive political discourse being the only game in town at the moment, everything must be “Us v. Them”.
October 18th, 2007 at 12:07 pmBush has had a few dems in his cabinet though.
October 18th, 2007 at 12:09 pmThere just aren’t any currently.
And this isn’t a “b-b-b-b-but Clinton!” parry, but did Clinton have any Reps in his Cabinet aside from Cohen?
October 18th, 2007 at 12:12 pmHonestly, I’m just curious. He’s the only one I remember.
Oh, and secession is completely legitimate. If the overwhelming number of citizens of a state wish to secede, Constitutionally they are within their rights to do so. The Civil War likely should not have been fought
Freeing the slaves = good.
Militarily preventing States from legally seceding from the Union = bad.
Comment by Moderation — October 18, 2007 @ 11:44 am
Well, Lincoln tricked them into attacking Fort Sumter to piss off the North and the rest is history. His legal justification was that the Constitution was a legal contract all the states had entered into, and that one party to a contract could not withdraw unilaterally from said contract without the consent of all partners. But in the end, it was adjudicated on the battlefield, and the 10th Amendment was the lasting casualty.
October 18th, 2007 at 12:14 pmAnd this isn’t a “b-b-b-b-but Clinton!†parry, but did Clinton have any Reps in his Cabinet aside from Cohen?
Honestly, I’m just curious. He’s the only one I remember.
Comment by Wilco — October 18, 2007 @ 12:12 pm
Oh, no, you are quite right.
Divisive politics such as this, as I said, is now the NORM. For a while now, presidents have been more likely to surround themselves with like-minded people, rather than diverse viewpoints. This is a Bad Thing ™. Clinton was guilty of it as well. William Cohen was the only (R) in Clinton’s cabinet. Norman Mineta was the only (D) in GW Bush’s cabinet.
Clinton did indeed do it too. Thanks to the divisive, wedge-driven politics so prevalent today.
I agree with the sentiments of those above, such as Bilbo, who want the office of President to go the winner, and the VP to go the runner-up. More opposing viewpoints, not less. Driving away opposing viewpoints builds up the “bubble” of disconnect we see Bush intimately surrounded by.
October 18th, 2007 at 12:35 pmThat’s generally what happened back in the day. 1st place would be Pres, 2nd place Veep. I’m not sure why that changed, though.
Comment by Wilco — October 18, 2007 @ 12:03 pm
Paralysis in government to a degree that was unworkable. No one ran against Washington; in the 1796 and 1800 elections you had a Federalist and Democratic-Republican saddled with each other (Jefferson and John Adams) and by the time of the 1804 election the 12th amendment had passed and you had Prez and Veep on one ticket.
The original system was modeled on the election of Roman Consuls, where you had a junior and a senior chief executive who would alternate exercise of power every month, though sometimes it swapped every other day when the Consuls were out on campaign. This rather absurd system led to the massacre of Roman legions at Cannae in 216 B.C.
October 18th, 2007 at 12:36 pmI agree with the sentiments of those above, such as Bilbo, who want the office of President to go the winner, and the VP to go the runner-up. More opposing viewpoints, not less. Driving away opposing viewpoints builds up the “bubble†of disconnect we see Bush intimately surrounded by.
Comment by Moderation — October 18, 2007 @ 12:35 pm
I dunno…if such giants of American history such as Jefferson and Adams could not get along and put country before party, it is really hard to see the pygmies we get from both parties these days being capable of doing it.
October 18th, 2007 at 12:42 pmKeltoi,
The current system of a mere two parties is also unworkable. Everyone should be voting for politicians strictly on their own personal platform, not which one of two parties they happen to belong to. A two-party system is incredibly divisive, and has in part gotten us where we are today. Where we are today is not a place America should be.
I, personally, loathe the idea of political parties as they are today. The modern Republican party is a good example of why. Each member is lock-step with the “party line”, regardless of the wishes of their particular State’s constituents. That is incredibly damaging to the Republic. The Democrats are (currently) considerably better, as is evidenced by the voting record. Always, (R)’s vote nearly unanimously for whatever the PARTY decided is the proper stance, whereas the (D)’s currently vote far more along the diverse lines their constituents demand. So in 2007-08, the Democrats are most assuredly the more diverse, more compromising, overall HEALTHIER political party for the country. And look at the state THEY are in!
October 18th, 2007 at 12:44 pmI dunno…if such giants of American history such as Jefferson and Adams could not get along and put country before party, it is really hard to see the pygmies we get from both parties these days being capable of doing it.
Comment by Keltoi — October 18, 2007 @ 12:42 pm
I’d rather have heated arguments, and opposing viewpoints, then the drooling nodding in agreement with The Decider that currently occurs. I’d rather have two near-equals conducting battles of wits with one another than a bunch of pathetic sycophants.
Besides which to say, two giants will always butt heads, even when their ideologies are very similar. Such is the nature of such strong-willed, intelligent people when they are in the same room.
October 18th, 2007 at 12:47 pmi sure hope the immunity agreement doesn’t get any deeper…
this should scare any democratically minded person:
Plan Would Ease Limits on Media Owners
By STEPHEN LABATON
WASHINGTON, Oct. 17 — The head of the Federal Communications Commission has circulated an ambitious plan to relax the decades-old media ownership rules, including repealing a rule that forbids a company to own both a newspaper and a television or radio station in the same city.
Kevin J. Martin, chairman of the commission, wants to repeal the rule in the next two months — a plan that, if successful, would be a big victory for some executives of media conglomerates.
[...]
.
FCC chairman offers ownership plan
By JOHN DUNBAR, Associated Press Writer Wed Oct 17, 8:39 PM ET
WASHINGTON – The chairman of the Federal Communications Commission is proposing a plan that would wrap up by the end of the year the long-running debate over how many media properties a company should be allowed to own in a single market.
FCC Chairman Kevin Martin’s proposal would allow for public comment on the proposed rules in mid-November and a commission vote on Dec. 18.
[...]
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071018/ap_on_go_ot/media_ownership;_ylt=AnZ.rZY_l9763zRsqFj4tHKyFz4D
.
but, we all know the corporatists have no desire for a democracy…
October 18th, 2007 at 12:54 pm…
I am not arguing any of your points in 176 and 177, Mod. The sad fact is, we are stuck with the winner-take-all system set up by the Electoral College. It would be impossible to amend the Federal Constitution to get rid of the Electoral College – the little states would never ratify it, they’d be idiots to do so. State legislatures can change how they allocate their electoral votes and do it by district instead of winner take all, but did you see the caterwauling when a group of Californians advocated doing just that?
I think this system in screwed too, God knows what the Framers would make of it….Parliamentary systems allow for a far greater degree of diversity, but now you are talking total overhaul of the Constitution, not real likely.
October 18th, 2007 at 12:54 pm“The Pentagon is preparing to alert eight National Guard units that they should be ready to go to Iraq or Afghanistan beginning late next summer.â€
How do you ask a soldier to be the last one to die for a mistake?
October 18th, 2007 at 12:55 pmcomment by RU @12:55
You forgot to credit John Kerry for that quote. In 1971 in testifying before Congress.
October 18th, 2007 at 1:17 pmAbsolutely, without a doubt, the Constitution Party. If there is any one symbolic name that can be chosen to represent those who desire to follow the Rule of Law, and the guidelines to run our government that the Founding Fathers gave us, it is the name of the document outlining said guidelines.
Constitution Party, all the way.
Comment by Moderation — October 18, 2007 @ 10:58 am
Already exists.
http://www.constitutionparty.com/
October 18th, 2007 at 1:29 pmSo what’s left?
Comment by Veritas
Kucinich. Have you been to his page and read up on his views? I truly believe if there was some way for Kuchinich to get his message out there, he would be a front runner. But since he doesn’t have the corporate backing and a gazillion dollars to campaign with, no one ever hears what Kucinich has to say. And the stupid “debates†are another problem. Most of the time if they mention Kucinich, it is only to say that he was there.
Bilbobaggins – completely agree with you here. I voted for him in the primary in 2004, and would vote for him again in both primary and general. Unfortunately, living in Florida, looks like our primary votes aren’t going to mean sh*t anyway. But his platform is one that Progressives say they want…but rarely talk about HIM. I, frankly, find that very odd. I’m a Rush Feingold fan, but he’s not running. Kucinich IS.
October 18th, 2007 at 1:40 pmwups – they blew it with this one:
Seven Principles of the Constitution Party are:
[...]
3. Family: One husband and one wife with their children as divinely instituted;
never mind…
October 18th, 2007 at 2:36 pm.
i’ve got to strongly disagree with this idea:
The only advertising acceptable would be print and good old “in person†advertising. This would force the sheeple to actually read to know what [...]
Comment by bilbobaggins — October 18, 2007 @ 11:58 am
for all the obvious reasons…
tv ads should be free, with strict rules to assure facts and civility…
October 18th, 2007 at 2:40 pm…
for the record… i used to think – and sometimes wish – that it should be mandatory to take and pass a civics test of some sort before getting a license to vote… i’ve since realized how discrimatory that is…
i guess…
i do wish there were some way to assure intelligent voting…
for all the obvious reasons…
October 18th, 2007 at 2:48 pm…
Already exists.
http://www.constitutionparty.com/
Comment by impeachcheneythenbush — October 18, 2007 @ 1:29 pm
Yes, I know, but as Katy discovered:
Seven Principles of the Constitution Party are:
[…]
3. Family: One husband and one wife with their children as divinely instituted;
Comment by katy — October 18, 2007 @ 2:36 pm
I’m pretty damned sure there isn’t a damned thing anywhere in the Constitution that lays out a single damned definition of marriage. If people want to go by the Bible, men can get married to men for financial reasons, and women cannot get married at all without their father’s consent. Oh, and women are property of their fathers, until they are wed, when they become the property of their husbands.
Also, Katy didn’t mention their NUMBER ONE PRINCIPLE:
1. Life: For all human beings, from conception to natural death;
And also, right above it:
Join the Constitution Party in its work to restore our government to its Constitutional limits and our law to its Biblical foundations
In other words, a “Pro-Life”, “Family Values”, Christo-centric agenda. This “Constitution Party” is more like a right-wing smokescreen using the name “Constitution Party” to obfuscate their actual mission. Kind of like naming a Constitution-shredding law the Constitutional Restoration Act, or a war-mongering group the Enterprise for World Peace. You know, the typical Republi-fundamentalist “up is down”, “black is white”, “war is peace” bullsh*t.
Being “pro-life” and anti-gay is not something a pro-Constitution party should be touting as two of their seven primary principles for existing.
So, how about a REAL Constitution Party, not the smokescreen that currently exists?
October 18th, 2007 at 3:31 pmYou forgot to credit John Kerry for that quote. In 1971 in testifying before Congress.
Comment by Uncle Ho — October 18, 2007 @ 1:17 pm
Yeah, mea culpa. I was wondering if anyone would pick up on it.
Congrats!
October 18th, 2007 at 4:25 pmIt has as much meaning today as in the 70s..
RU-it is just as relevant now, as it was then.
October 18th, 2007 at 5:11 pmoh my, moderation… i did not look close enough…
well, close enough after all… but i missed the depth of #1 for sure…
and i didn’t read anymore after that…
after reading your comment i’m remembering hearing about that
“consitution” party… like most everything else right wing, the name
is misleading, even opposite…
“clear skies”, “healthy forest”, et.al….
October 18th, 2007 at 7:06 pm.
after reading your comment i’m remembering hearing about that
“consitution†party… like most everything else right wing, the name
is misleading, even opposite…
“clear skiesâ€, “healthy forestâ€, et.al…
Comment by katy — October 18, 2007 @ 7:06 pm
It is specifically intended to influence the foolish. There are those in this country who actually believe that what they are told by those in authority is the truth, and they never question it. If something says, “Clear Skies Initiative”, they assume that is actually MEANS it is an initiative to clean our skies.
Such people become quite removed from reality, and go deep in to denial when presented with cold, hard facts that destroy their assumptions.
To quote such an insidious, evil, and arrogant man:
“You can fool some of the people all of the time and those are the ones you want to concentrate on.” — George W. Bush
October 18th, 2007 at 8:06 pmErr, rather…
To quote such an insidious, evil and arrogant man that exploits such people:
“You can fool some of the people all of the time and those are the ones you want to concentrate on.†— George W. Bush
October 18th, 2007 at 8:08 pmRe: The Senate Intelligence Committee reached agreement with the Bush administration yesterday on the terms of new FISA legislation…
Damn pussies. They won back Congress despite efforts from the Right to paint them as weak on terror. Damn it.
October 18th, 2007 at 11:39 pm