That Liberal Blog

Some Info on Republican candidates

2006-10-24T15:32:00.000-04:00

With the Novemeber elections coming up i felt it was time to resurrect this blog and make available some information on the Republican candidates for those considering voting Republican.

--AZ-Sen: Jon Kyl

--AZ-01: Rick Renzi

--AZ-05: J.D. Hayworth

--CA-04: John Doolittle

--CA-11: Richard Pombo

--CA-50: Brian Bilbray

--CO-04: Marilyn Musgrave

--CO-05: Doug Lamborn

--CO-07: Rick O'Donnell

--CT-04: Christopher Shays

--FL-13: Vernon Buchanan

--FL-16: Joe Negron

--FL-22: Clay Shaw

--ID-01: Bill Sali

--IL-06: Peter Roskam

--IL-10: Mark Kirk

--IL-14: Dennis Hastert

--IN-02: Chris Chocola

--IN-08: John Hostettler

--IA-01: Mike Whalen

--KS-02: Jim Ryun

--KY-03: Anne Northup

--KY-04: Geoff Davis

--MD-Sen: Michael Steele

--MN-01: Gil Gutknecht

--MN-06: Michele Bachmann

--MO-Sen: Jim Talent

--MT-Sen: Conrad Burns

--NV-03: Jon Porter

--NH-02: Charlie Bass

--NJ-07: Mike Ferguson

--NM-01: Heather Wilson

--NY-03: Peter King

--NY-20: John Sweeney

--NY-26: Tom Reynolds

--NY-29: Randy Kuhl

--NC-08: Robin Hayes

--NC-11: Charles Taylor

--OH-01: Steve Chabot

--OH-02: Jean Schmidt

--OH-15: Deborah Pryce

--OH-18: Joy Padgett

--PA-04: Melissa Hart

--PA-07: Curt Weldon

--PA-08: Mike Fitzpatrick

--PA-10: Don Sherwood

--RI-Sen: Lincoln Chafee

--TN-Sen: Bob Corker

--VA-Sen: George Allen

--VA-10: Frank Wolf

--WA-Sen: Mike McGavick

--WA-08: Dave Reichert

Google biased

2006-09-30T21:25:00.000-04:00

Here's an interesting observation. When you type "failure" or "miserable failure" in Google the first thing you actually get is a Google blog entry explaining the reasons President Bush's website comes up when typing in those search terms. It's what they call a "google bomb". They explain that Google is not politically biased. However, when you type in the term "waffles" in Google you'll get John Kerry's website but no explanation as to why John Kerry's site comes up when using that search term.

This sums it up nicely

2006-08-29T17:52:00.000-04:00

From Nancy Gregg's Journal:

I’m supposed to believe that the man who sat in a classroom reading a kids’ book for seven minutes AFTER he was told the country was under attack, who was warned repeatedly about imminent threats against the country and chose to ignore them, who has traipsed off on vacation every time there is a domestic or international disaster, is a decisive man-of-action with the fortitude to run a nation.

I am supposed to believe that God himself chooses my nation’s leaders and that, in His infinite wisdom, he chose a lying, thieving, self-absorbed, pro-torture, pro-war, lazy frat-boy jerk like George W. Bush.

I am supposed to believe that the same man who used family money and influence to duck military duty, who has failed at every business venture he ever tried, who never did an honest day’s work or accomplished anything of value in his entire life, is fit to be Commander-in-Chief.

I am supposed to believe that a man who ignores the Constitution he swore to uphold, breaks the law with abandon, repeatedly lied about the reasons for going to war, its cost, its duration, and even its goals, is honest and trustworthy.

I am supposed to believe that the escalating violence, chaos and deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan are a sign of progress.

I am supposed to believe that a man who, by his own admission, does not read newspapers, who only meets with and listens to ‘yes’ men, who refuses to speak before any group that is not hand-picked from his staunchest supporters, is in touch with the realities of the world.......

Well said indeed.

Why does Joe Scarborough hate america?

2006-08-22T18:23:00.000-04:00

From MSNBC:

SCARBOROUGH: Is George Bush an idiot? That‘s the subject of tonight‘s “Real Deal.” Now, new and old media alike are buzzing about last week‘s SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY segment on the president‘s mental prowess. In Sunday‘s “Washington Post,” Peter Baker wrote this. Quote, “Bush advisers said that the president‘s political weakness has encouraged soft supporters and quiet skeptics to speak out. Few have struck a nerve more than Scarborough.”

“Struck a nerve” is an understatement. I‘ve been blasted by Republican loyalists for asking whether Linda Ronstadt‘s description of the president as an “idiot” was out of line. That question was important not because another Hollywood liberal was blasting Bush but because conservatives have been doing the same thing privately since the Harriet Miers and Katrina debacles of last fall. Well, and because of the steady roar of Bushisms like these seen daily on late night TV.

SCARBOROUGH: Look it up! Now, I know the president. He‘s no idiot. But history‘s also proven that he doesn‘t like listening to dissent. He lacks intellectual curiosity, and he inspires fear among allies every time he gets behind a microphone doing a press conference. Now, with Iraq in flames, Iran on the rise, Afghanistan in crisis mode, Hezbollah on his scent, Israel in disarray and North Korea testing missiles, we got to have a president who projects confidence. Right now, this president is not.

I was a conservative when I ran for Congress in 1994. I am a conservative now. I was against big deficits when Bill Clinton was running Washington, and I‘m against them now that Republicans are running D.C. I was attacked by sycophants and suck-ups when I dared to criticize Newt Gingrich for backing down on spending reductions and tax cuts when he was Speaker of the House. And I was attacked two years ago when I wrote a book that took on big-spending Republicans. History proved me right before, and history‘s going to prove me right again.

When in doubt, friends, always choose country over party, and time will prove you did not only what was best for your country but also did what was best for your party. And that‘s tonight‘s “Real Deal.”

I always hear the phrase "lacks intellectual curiosity" from critics of President Bush. To me it's just a nice way of calling the guy a moron. Scarborough has been critical of the president since the Hurricane Katrina debacle. He's also been highly critical of Republicans in Congress. This simply could be a result of him trying to distance himself from the likes of Bill O'reilly who has on ongoing feud with MSNBC, the network Scarborough works for. Perhaps Joe Scarborough has come to the same conclusion a majority of americans have come to which is that Bush is not competent to be President. It's a pity Joe Scarborough didn't realize this in 04.

Has the South actually won the civil war?

2006-08-17T10:50:00.000-04:00

It's been awhile since i've posted anything at this blog as i've been busy and a little burnt out on politics. The recent controversy over Senator George Allen's use of a racial slur has got me to thinking about who actually won the civil war. Sure his remarks have gotten a fair amount of media attention but i think what is not so widely reported is that his audience actually cheered him on when he attempted to embarrass S.R. Sidarth, a 20-year-old volunteer who was videotaping Allen for Democratic challenger Jim Webb by referring to him as a "Macaca".

Should a man who at the very least has shown gross racial insensitivity and who is at worst a racist even be considered a legitimate candidate for President of the United States? Of course not. Has this country moved so far to the right under President Bush and the Republicans that it's now acceptabe to have a US Senator who's a racist? Like it or not, George Allen is representative of the Republican party. I have to chuckle when pundits wonder as to why the Republicans receive such little support from blacks and other minority's. All they have to do is have a look at Senator George Allen's record on race related issues as well as his insensitive remarks and they'll have a clear answer. The Republicans are truly taking this country backwards. Allen's biggest mistake is that he hasn't done what many of his Republican colleagues are good at, which is speaking in code to his constituency when it comes to their feelings about minorities. Instead he gave an unedited view of today's Republican conservative, particularly in the south.

The Swiftboating of Murtha

2006-08-04T19:10:00.000-04:00

From Crosswalk.com:

A veterans' group opposed to the re-election of anti-war critic Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) Thursday denied claims that their organization is the same one that ran television advertisements attacking Sen. John Kerry's military record during the 2004 presidential election, though a spokesman replied: "Thanks for the compliment."

The exchange took place during back-to-back events held outside the Johnstown, Pa., office of the Democratic congressman who has been hammered by conservatives for urging a U.S. military withdrawal from Iraq.

The first event was a rally supporting Murtha that was co-sponsored by the Patriot Project and Veterans' Alliance for Security and Democracy (VETPAC).

"As an organization dedicated to defending and supporting the rights of Americans to debate American foreign policy, we simply cannot stand by and allow someone like Rep. Murtha, a man who has served his country with distinction and courage in Vietnam, have his patriotism questioned by partisan political groups," said Mike Lyon, executive director of the Patriot Project's board of directors.

"Larry Bailey and his 'Swift Boat' buddies represent the lowest level of personal smear politics," Lyon told the 125 people attending the rally. "They should be ashamed."

In a press release accompanying their event, the organizations defending Murtha charged that Vets for the Truth (VFTT) is "the same group, which defamed Sen. John Kerry's military record during the 2004 presidential election," and "has launched a new smear campaign against Murtha."

However, Mark Parker of nearby Waynesburg, Pa., responded to the charge during a news conference held by VFTT immediately after the pro-Murtha rally.

"We're not the Swift Boat Veterans [for Truth]," Parker said. "They are an entirely separate group, but thanks for the compliment. We're local veterans, local guys."

The Bush administration must be really scared of Congressman Murtha to bring back the swiftboat liars. The good news is Murtha is the type of guy who will fight back unlike John Kerry. There's quite a lot of Democrats and even some Republicans who've made statements similar to Murtha's. Why not go after them? I'll tell you why. It's because Murtha has tons of credibility on military issues and the Bush administration fears his criticisms are hurting the spin they're trying to put on the Iraq war. The only way to marginalize him is to make him out to be unpatriotic. Murtha is speaking out on the Iraq war because he cares about our troops, not because he hates them. Murtha's record bears out his concern for those in the military. To accuse him of hating our soldiers or of trying to smear them is dispicable and i believe this is going to backfire on the Republicans as November gets closer. The american people are fed up with the Republicans being more concerned about politics than actually governing.

Glenn Greenwald on Alan Colmes (Murtha lawsuit)

2006-08-03T13:07:00.000-04:00

CallingAllWingnuts has the audio. This is the first time i've heard Alan Colmes on his radio show. I must say he's much better at asking the tough questions on his radio show than he is when he's with Hannity. Glenn Greenwald did an excellent job of smacking down the attorney for the marine who's suing Jack Murtha. The attorney tries to claim partisanship has nothing to do with the lawsuit but how else can you explain why he's not going after a Republican who's made statements which are very similar to Murtha's. Not only that but the facts that are coming out clearly support what Murtha was saying about civilians being murdered.

GOP Donors Funded Entire PA Green Party Drive

2006-08-02T20:29:00.000-04:00

Courtesy of TPMmuckraker.com:

The Luzerne County Green Party raised $66,000 in the month of June in order to fund a voter signature drive. The Philly Inquirer reported yesterday that $40,000 came from supporters of Rick Santorum's campaign (or their housemates). Also yesterday, we confirmed that another $15,000 came from GOP donors and conservatives. Only three contributions, totaling $11,000, remained as possible legit donations.

Today, I confirmed that those came from GOP sources.

I love it when the immorality of the GOP is exposed. Luckily this was exposed early. I'm sure the Green Party is not very happy about this. Let's hope they do the right thing and return that money.

Leiberman campaign recruiting college Republicans

2006-08-02T16:47:00.000-04:00

Sort of stealing from Jeff Foxworthy. You might be a Republican if you're having College Republicans campaign for you.

Mel Gibson a Liberal?

2006-08-02T12:18:00.000-04:00

From Libertas:

I couldn’t agree more - although I’m still a little hazy on how Gibson is a figure of the political “right.” Although Gibson clearly used the conservative media to promote a product of his, Gibson’s politics remain vague. Basically Gibson appears to be an idiosyncratically devout Catholic whose agenda crossed paths with religious conservatives when his film came out, and also when Gibson lobbied against stem-cell research. Otherwise, it isn’t clear to me how the mythology of Mel Gibson as political conservative began. In fact, these days I’m sensing the opposite may be true: Gibson may be a left-wing Catholic much like … Michael Moore.

Many Catholics are left-wing, and it’s conceivable that Gibson’s been this way all along. This could explain Gibson’s otherwise odd chumminess with Michael Moore when the two met at the People’s Choice Awards last year.

Glenn Greenwald has more on this ridiculous notion that Mel Gibson is a liberal simply because he doesn't completely support President Bush and the Iraq War.

A November Rout?

2006-08-01T20:34:00.000-04:00

From The Stakeholder:

With fewer than 100 days left before the Nov. 7 election, certain assumptions can now be made, contingent upon the absence of a cataclysmic event.

First, the political climate will be extremely hostile to Republican candidates. Second, while Republicans benefited from turnout in 2002 and 2004, this time voter turnout will benefit Democratic candidates. And third, the advantages that the GOP usually has in national party spending will be significantly less than normal.

In terms of the political climate, the facts are clear. All of the traditional diagnostic indicators in major national polls taken in the past 10 days show numbers consistent with an electoral rout.

In the latest Cook Political Report/RT Strategies poll, conducted last Friday through Sunday among 809 registered voters, only 27 percent said the country was headed in the right direction and 63 percent said it was off on the wrong track. In polling for NBC and the Wall Street Journal, conducted July 21-24 and for CBS and the New York Times, taken July 21-25, the right direction numbers were 27 and 28 percent, respectively, while wrong track results were 60 and 66 percent respectively. These numbers are about the same as they were at this point in 1994 and going into Election Day that year.

Best case scenario is that the Democrats regain control of both the Senate and the House. I'll be happy if the Democrats just regain the House which is more likely. I don't even want to contemplate the worst case scenario. One thing for sure, since the 2004 Presidential election, i'm not counting my chickens. The future of our country is at stake in the upcoming midterm elections. In my opinion these elections are even more important than the 2008 Presidential election.

52 killed in Israel strike on Qana

2006-07-30T12:03:00.000-04:00

From Yahoo News:

QANA, Lebanon (AFP) - Fifty-two people have killed, more than half of them children, in an Israeli air blitz on the Lebanese village of Qana, triggering outrage around the world and warnings of retribution for Israel's "war crime."

The raid on Qana, which left homes in ruins and villagers trapped under the rubble, was the deadliest single attack since Israel launched its devastating war on the Shiite Muslim group Hezbollah 19 days ago.

In Qana -- scene of another deadly bombardment 10 years ago -- rescue workers with only their bare hands clawed through rubble of flattened homes and an underground shelter to find survivors while mothers hugged their dead children in a final hopeless embrace.

Police put the death toll at at least 52 including 30 children.

"The bombing was so intense that no-one could move," said a distraught Ibrahim Shalhoub, 26. "I succeeded in getting out and everything collapsed. I have several members of the family inside and I do not think that there will be any other survivors."

Israel has given up any moral high ground they had with their heavy handedness and cavalier attitude towards all those innocent Lebanese women and children who have been killed. What outrages me is that those are american made bombs killing all those civilians. In the end Israel is only hurting itself. They're creating more terrorists as well as causing people to rethink their blanket support of Israel. They're also creating more hatred towards the US because of our supplying them with weapons and our President's support for Israels bombardment of Lebanon. If only Clinton were President we would have had a cease fire by now. This is like Hurricane Katrina all over again with Bush sitting on his hands while people are dying.

Bush turning US into a police state

2006-07-29T16:48:00.000-04:00

From Dailykos:

A new AP report shows that Bush has now submitted a new terror bill which now says any U.S. citizen "suspected" of terror ties can now be held "indefinitely". Forget the Bill of Rights. Forget due process. Forget the courts of law. Welcome to our own Guantanamo Bay, right here inside the United States.

This is more in Bush and Rove's playbook to step around the ruling of Hamdan, rendering the Supreme Court irrelevant (when Scalia's opinion isn't in the majority).

With the November elections coming up a bill like this would be very useful. Just think about it. Bush could have Howard Dean or any other Democrat locked up just by saying he suspects that Democrat of having terror ties. I used to think Bush would never go so far as to literally declare himself dictator but now i'm not so sure. Rove and Cheney are probably getting scared that the Democrats might actually gain control of one of the Houses so they're getting desperate. With all the stuff that has leaked out about this administrations illegal activities so far you gotta figure there's a whole bunch more americans don't know about. If you have Democrats with subpoena power things could get really ugly for Bush and his cronies. I really fear a desperate Bush administration.

Taliban still influential in Afghanistan

2006-07-23T11:06:00.000-04:00

From the Sunday Times:

AFGHANISTAN’S notorious Department for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice, which was set up by the Taliban to enforce bans on women doing anything from working to wearing nail varnish or laughing out loud, is to be re-created by the government in Kabul.

The decision has provoked an outcry among women and human rights activists who fear a return to the days when religious police patrolled the streets, beating or arresting any woman who was not properly covered by a burqa or accompanied by a male relative.

“This is a very bad idea at a bad time,” said Sam Zia-Zarifi, the Asia research director of Human Rights Watch. “We’re close to the edge in Afghanistan. It really could all go wrong and it is alarming that the United Nations and western governments are not speaking out on this issue.”

President Hamid Karzai’s cabinet has approved the proposal to re-establish the department, and the measure will go to Afghanistan’s parliament when it reconvenes later this summer. The conservative complexion of the assembly makes it likely to be passed.

It's only a matter of time before the Taliban regains control of Afghanistan. Perhaps if President Bush hadn't gotten sidetracked in Iraq more attention could have been focused on keeping Afghanistan out of Taliban control. Many parts of that country remain under the control of the Taliban and warlords. The Bush administration can't seem to do anything right.

When will the madness stop?

2006-07-22T22:28:00.000-04:00

I came across this pic from this site with the caption "Israeli girls write messages to their neighbors" followed by some very graphic pics of Lebanese civilians who were killed. Sure there are photos out there of Palestinian children dressed in suicide vests but we're talking about Israel, they're supposedly our greatest ally in the Middle East. Allowing children to write messages on bombs is no better then Palestinians dressing their children up like suicide bombers. This photo in a nutshell is why there most likely never will be peace in the Middle East. You have a hatred that's handed down from generation to generation on both sides. Israeli and Muslim children are taught to hate each other from an early age. It's a vicious cycle. How does Israel think the Lebanese people are going to feel about Israeli's after Israel is finished going after Hezbollah and Lebanon is left in ruins? How is the Lebanese prime minister supposed to reign in Hezbollah when support for Hezbollah will be at an all time high thanks to Israel's bombing of Lebanon's infrastructure? It's really too bad that this President won't take an even handed approach when it comes to Israel.

Charles Barkley, "I was a Republican before they lost their minds"

2006-07-20T20:49:00.000-04:00

Courtesy of travelgolf.com:

When John Mellencamp let loose with a rip on the Bush administration in the middle of an celebrity golf tournament event concert, sending ex Vice President Dan Quayle marching for the exit, he may have shot a few shockwaves through the American Century Championship. But one of the biggest celebrities in the Lake Tahoe field - a man who used to be one of America's biggest Republicans literally - wasn't shedding any tears for Quayle.

"He's right," Charles Barkley said of Mellencamp. "The word conservative means discriminatory practically. It's a form of political discrimination. What do the Republicans run on? Against gay marriage and for a war that makes no sense. A war that was based on faulty intelligence. That's all they ever talk about. That and immigration. Another discriminatory argument for political gain."

In mid show Friday night, Mellencamp introduced a song with "This next one is for all the poor people who've been ignored by the current administration," according to witnesses.

Quayle almost immediately marched towards the exit from his high profile seat at the outdoor venue.

"I didn't appreciate the comment and besides I didn't think the show was very good," Quayle told an observer as he bolted.

Barkley argued that attacking George W. Bush is a waste of energy that frustrates him, but he wasn't going to dispute the premise.

"The Democrats have done a horrible job," Barkley said. "A really crappy job. They spend all this time and energy getting on George Bush. They're going after a guy who's on the way out in two years no matter what they say anyways. He can't run again. He can't get fired. Why are you worrying about him?

"Democrats have wasted the last two years going after this guy and two years from another election, we don't have a frontrunner or a plan."

Hearing Barkley saying "we" with the Democrats would be surprise to many. For years, the NBA Hall of Famer was a very public card carrying member of the Republican party.

"I was a Republican until they lost their minds," Barkley said.

Charles Barkley is right, the Republican party has become the party of intollerance and discrimination. While he's partly right about the Dems going after a guy who can't run again, the Democrats should do all they can to tie the Republican party to President Bush. Bush is after all supposed to be the head of his party. Republicans who support this President are every bit as responsible for the mess this country is in as Bush is. Republican Congressman and Senators need to pay a price at the polls come November for their support and enablement of one of the worst Presidents in our history.

The Middle East Mess

2006-07-15T12:11:00.000-04:00

Looks like World War III is about to begin in the Middle East with Israel bombing Lebanon. In my opinion this is an intense overreaction on Israel's part. Just because they have all that military might doesn't mean they should be so quick to use it. Dropping bombs all over the place terrorizes innocent civilians and galvanizes support for that country's government. If Israel further escalates the situation and bombs Syria or Iran then all hell will break loose in the region with the US in the middle. Israel needs to realize that they're supposed to be on morally superior ground compared to the terrorists. Just because terrorist groups murder innocent civilians doesn't make it right for Israel to do the same. When it comes to innocent civilians being killed, it's equally appalling whether it's a Jewish child or a Muslum child who is killed. I know there are those that will argue that Israel doesn't purposely target civilians but Israel knows that when they shoot a missile at a car driving on a busy street, innocent civilians will be killed along with the terrorists.

Of course the US government is in no position to lecture Isreal about high moral standards when our own government has approved of torture and went to war with a country based on lies. It's really ashame we don't have a President who has an understanding of whole Middle East region like President Clinton did. This President will not stand up to Israel which means Israel has the green light to unleash their military superiority on their Muslim neighbors. While i have no sympathy for the terrorists, i do have sympathy for all those innocent civilians which will be killed as a result of Israel's actions. It's really ashame that the extremist on both sides are the ones that will determine the outcome of the latest crisis in the region.

George W. Bush like a painful rash

2006-07-11T13:12:00.000-04:00

From Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist:

It is like some sort of virus. It is like some sort of weird and painful rash on your face that makes you embarrassed to walk out the door and so you sit there day after day, waiting for it to go away, slathering on ointment and Bactine and scotch. And yet still it lingers.

Some days the pain is so searing and hot you want to cut off your own head with a nail file. Other days it is numb and pain-free and seemingly OK, to the point where you think it might finally be all gone and you allow yourself a hint of a whisper of a positive feeling, right up until you look in the mirror, and scream.

George W. Bush is just like that.

I suppose the ever shrinking percentage of Bush appologists will read Mark Morford's column and think to themselves that he's just another Bush basher. I guess they never stop to think that there are very real and legitimate reasons why many people feel the way Mark Morford does about this President. The November elections can't come fast enough. With a Democratically controlled Congress Bush will be stopped in his tracks from doing any more damage to this country than he already has.

Michelle Malkin tries to outdo Ann Coulter

2006-07-06T20:07:00.000-04:00

MALKIN SMEARS DEAD WOMAN, SAYS SHE'S A "CORRUPTOCRAT."

Terror suspects entrapped by FBI?

2006-07-06T16:07:00.000-04:00

From the NY Daily News:

An FBI informant urged seven terror suspects to target FBI offices throughout the country - including one in New York - and even helped the men scout the buildings, law enforcement sources told the Daily News yesterday.

The suspects, who also allegedly schemed to blow up the Sears Tower in Chicago, were denied bond in a Miami federal court yesterday as sources shed light on the FBI effort to ensnare them.

Last December, the FBI arranged for an undercover informant posing as an Al Qaeda terrorist to meet with alleged ringleader Narseal Batiste, who authorities say had already recruited six men to help bring down the landmark 110-story Chicago office tower.

But in March, in an effort to solidify his "terrorist credentials," the informant suggested the men widen their aims to attack FBI offices in Miami, Chicago, Los Angeles, Washington and New York, a law enforcement source said.

Batiste and his followers readily agreed, even taking an Al Qaeda oath at the suggestion of the informant, Justice Department sources said. Soon, Batiste and the agent began a surveillance operation of the FBI office in Miami - while the bureau watched their every move, sources said.

"The FBI made sure the informant suggested Bureau buildings and not, say, airports, in order to maintain an element of control," said a law enforcement source. "The FBI knew exactly what was going on and was in complete control."

The terror suspects never performed reconnaissance on the Sears Tower or any other FBI office, including the one in lower Manhattan that was also targeted in a 1993 plot to blow up New York landmarks. They also never acquired any of the explosives to carry out their attacks, authorities said.

It wouldn't surprise me if these so called terror suspects are eventually let go provided they have a competent attorney. This is looking more and more like a Bush administration political operation to show that something is actually being accomplished on the war on terror. How hard could it have been to get some poor angry black americans to vent some anger towards our government? My guess is not hard at all considering Bush's approval ratings among african americans. My take on this is that these guys never had the knowledge or the resources to carry out any terrorist operations. If this is the standard by which you can arrest someone for planning terrorist attacks, then Ann Coulter should be in prison for stating that the New York Times building should be blown up.

The difference between right wing and progressive bloggers

2006-07-04T19:46:00.000-04:00

Progressive bloggers will admit to their mistakes.

Bush supporters arguements against NY Times debunked

2006-06-27T17:47:00.000-04:00

Courtesy of Glenn Greenwald:

The clear rationale underlying the arguments of Bush supporters needs to be highlighted. They believe that the Bush administration ought to be allowed to act in complete secrecy, with no oversight of any kind. George Bush is Good and the administration wants nothing other than to stop The Terrorists from killing us. There is no need for oversight over what they are doing because we can trust our political officials to do good on their own. We don't need any courts or any Congress or any media serving as a "watchdog" over the Bush administration. There is no reason to distrust what they do. We should -- and must -- let them act in total secrecy for our own good, for our protection. And anyone who prevents them from acting in total secrecy is not merely an enemy of the Bush administration, but of the United States, i.e., is a traitor.....

Somehow i can't imagine these people crying for the New York Times editor to be tried for treason would feel the same way had this been a Democratic administration. No way in hell would they give a Democrat President their complete and unquestioned trust nor should they. These attacks on the press are the equivalent to attacks on our Democracy and will only lead this country further towards fascism. It's beyond me how many of these Bush supporters are so willing and eager to give up their rights. It's as if they've forgotten the abuses of the Nixon administration. If Nixon had the political climate we have today he would never have resigned. In fact Woodward and Bernstein most likely would have been tried for treason.

Treason at the New York Times

2006-06-27T12:29:00.000-04:00

From Matthew Yglesias at Prospect.org:

NONE DARE CALL IT BULLSHIT. I never, ever, ever watch prime time cable news because it makes me want to kill extremely large numbers of people. Tragically, I walked through the door yesterday and my roommate already had Hardball on. There were two people debating the issue of . . . whether or not The New York Times should be brought up on charges of treason. Seriously. Treason. For publishing an article in a newspaper. Treason. And there was Chris Matthews happily presiding over the whole thing as if this was a serious conversation that people should be having. This all taking place on a network that, allegedly, does journalism.

This person posting in the comments section summed things up pretty well:

"I don't want to sound hyperbolic, but modern American conservatism really is sliding into fascist territory by the day."

What you said is hardly hyperbolic...it's more like an understatement. Frankly, the American right wing has been sliding into fascist territory for the past quarter-century. They're well inside it now.

In a healthy democracy, for example, the screeds of Ann Coulter or Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh would not be given a platform in the mass media, outside of public access channels. Also, the very idea that an arrogant, ignorant, incurious dolt like George W. Bush would run for President would be treated by the media in the same manner as Lyndon Larouche's campaigns.

And Tweety Pie Matthews would be a star on QVC.

I fear that American democracy is dead, murdered on 12/12/2000, although it had been very sick since the early 80s.

Posted by: monchie b. monchum | June 27, 2006 11:20 AM

Liberal doesn't have to be a dirty word

2006-06-25T20:41:00.000-04:00

I always wondered why liberals have let right wingers redefine liberalism. If President Kennedy hadn't already given this speech it would have been a great speech for a Democrat to give at the next Democratic convention. Here's a portion of the speech then Senator John F. Kennedy gave on September 14, 1960 at the New York Liberal Party nomination. This is taken from turnleft.com:

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."

But first, I would like to say what I understand the word "Liberal" to mean and explain in the process why I consider myself to be a "Liberal," and what it means in the presidential election of 1960.

In short, having set forth my view -- I hope for all time -- two nights ago in Houston, on the proper relationship between church and state, I want to take the opportunity to set forth my views on the proper relationship between the state and the citizen. This is my political credo:

I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, in human liberty as the source of national action, in the human heart as the source of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas. It is, I believe, the faith in our fellow citizens as individuals and as people that lies at the heart of the liberal faith. For liberalism is not so much a party creed or set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man's ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves.

I believe also in the United States of America, in the promise that it contains and has contained throughout our history of producing a society so abundant and creative and so free and responsible that it cannot only fulfill the aspirations of its citizens, but serve equally well as a beacon for all mankind. I do not believe in a superstate. I see no magic in tax dollars which are sent to Washington and then returned. I abhor the waste and incompetence of large-scale federal bureaucracies in this administration as well as in others. I do not favor state compulsion when voluntary individual effort can do the job and do it well. But I believe in a government which acts, which exercises its full powers and full responsibilities. Government is an art and a precious obligation; and when it has a job to do, I believe it should do it. And this requires not only great ends but that we propose concrete means of achieving them.

Our responsibility is not discharged by announcement of virtuous ends. Our responsibility is to achieve these objectives with social invention, with political skill, and executive vigor. I believe for these reasons that liberalism is our best and only hope in the world today. For the liberal society is a free society, and it is at the same time and for that reason a strong society. Its strength is drawn from the will of free people committed to great ends and peacefully striving to meet them. Only liberalism, in short, can repair our national power, restore our national purpose, and liberate our national energies. And the only basic issue in the 1960 campaign is whether our government will fall in a conservative rut and die there, or whether we will move ahead in the liberal spirit of daring, of breaking new ground, of doing in our generation what Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and Adlai Stevenson did in their time of influence and responsibility.

Some election advice for Senator Santorum

2006-06-25T11:51:00.000-04:00

Courtesy of Tom Ferrick Jr. of the Philadephia Inquirer:

To: Sen. Santorum

From: Your Campaign Advisory Group

Re: Tactics & Strategy

As you know, the election is just over four months away and our private tracking polls confirm recent public polls. You are trailing Robert P. Casey (RPC) by mid-double digits.

Clearly, something must be done to make up the deficit in the next 120 days, lest you suffer defeat in the General Election (GE).

How to catch up with RPC and win the GE? We suggest a two-pronged strategy.

One is to saturate the airwaves with commercials presenting the "Rick Santorum Story." These will be sepia-tinted-family-oriented 30-second spots that remind voters that you are, at heart, a sweet guy.

They are designed to draw back into your tent defectors among independent voters and moderate Republicans who, for some reason, consider you a "hairy-knuckled, mean-spirited, right-wing troglodyte," as one target voter put it in our focus groups.

These TV spots have tested well in the same focus groups. We call this the "Cuddles Initiative."

Your recent statements against Hepatitis B can go a long way toward lessening concerns among these voters that you are - again quoting our focus group - a "heartless, harsh, judgmental twit."

Why not Skippy?

It is also essential that you continue your attacks on RPC. Referring to him, in the diminutive, as "Bobby" is crucial.

Our opposition research has yet to turn up the "smoking gun" we can employ against RPC.

But there are obvious avenues of attack. For instance, an exhaustive search of the record has uncovered no public statements by RPC on Hepatitis B. Accordingly, we are preparing a radio ad. Partial text:

"Hepatitis B is a disease that afflicts many Asian Americans and African Americans. Rick Santorum is against Hepatitis B. Yet Bobby Casey remains silent. What have you got to hide, Bobby? Why won't you condemn this life-threatening disease...?"

However, these actions alone will not defeat RPC in the GE.

The other portion of our two-pronged strategy calls for you to rally your conservative base. Disheartened by the war, disillusioned with President Bush's administration, your core constituency is in danger of staying home on election day.

They need to be energized with heavy doses of high-protein, red-meat issue mongering. We call this portion the "Cleaver Initiative."

Your recent visit to Geno's Steaks to stand behind Joe Vento's neo-Know Nothing initiative against immigrants is a good first step. Though, as your campaign advisers, we were dismayed that you failed to use the line we had crafted for you to quip:

No hablo

"Spanish? We don't speak no stinkin' Spanish!"

It would have drawn a laugh and made the point.

Your efforts to tack to the right may be impeded by the fact that you don't have much room left.

Your assertion last week that there are, in fact, WMDs in Iraq, while false, cements your standing among Warrior Conservatives, who feared the president was going defeat-monkey on them.

But what of the Moralist Conservatives? Your creds are high, but they need a feeding, lest some be tempted to defect to RPC.

Abortion is a no-gainer, but we do see an opening with homophobia.

We propose that you offer a constitutional amendment to ban gay dating on "slippery slope" grounds, namely that it could lead to gay engagement and gay marriage.

The news release would have you say: "We need to nip this in the bud on a national level before we are confronted with a wave of gay engagement showers and gay bridal registries."

Among moderates/independents, you could take a softer line, saying: "I'm just trying to prevent a tragic epidemic of gay divorce."

These steps, we are convinced, will help you defeat RPC in the GE.

Otherwise, you will be DOA.

Santorum is toast in November. He's become a joke and an embarrassment to Pennsylvania. It would't surprise me if Santorum ratcheted up the gay bashing because that's all he's really got left. Fortunately that doesn't play as well in Pennsylvania as it would in one of the red states.

Specter, At&T chief clash over phone spying

2006-06-23T22:54:00.000-04:00

From the Western Star:

A Senate hearing intended to explore the consumer impact of a proposed AT&T-BellSouth merger instead turned into a contentious face-off over phone privacy Thursday.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., asked AT&T Inc. chairman and chief executive Ed Whitacre whether his company had turned over phone records to any law enforcement agency. The question stemmed from his concerns about a report last month in the newspaper USA Today involving the National Security Agency's (NSA) use of phone records.

"The privacy of our customers is utmost (in importance) and we follow the law," Whitacre replied.

The senator repeatedly asked for a fuller explanation, but Whitacre only said again and again that "we follow the law."

Specter, appearing increasingly impatient, said, "I think that answer is contemptuous of this committee."

Suggesting more hearings would follow, he told Whitacre, "you and I will talk about this further."

Earlier this month, Specter reached a deal with Vice President Dick Cheney to head off a possible confrontation between the Senate and administration over the issue.

Cheney, a key player in overseeing NSA surveillance efforts, promised the White House would consider supporting Specter's legislation to place a domestic surveillance program under the watch of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, a special federal court.

For his part, Specter agreed to indefinitely postpone subpoenas or public hearings into the issue. But Thursday, with the phone executives present, he said he couldn't resist "raising an issue which is very much on my mind and on the minds of many people."

Specter is part of the problem because when push comes to shove he always backs down. The only way any thorough investigations of the Bush administration will be done is if the Democrats get subpoena power by winning back the House and/or Senate in November. Then maybe we'll get some oversight of the Bush administration.

Only right wing singers can express political opinions?

2006-06-23T17:17:00.000-04:00

Soledad O'Brien interviewed Bruce Springsteen and one of the questions put to him was about singers expressing political opinions. Here's the transcript taken from Think Progress:

O’BRIEN: In 2004 you came out very strongly in support of John Kerry and performed with him - your fellow guitarist, I think is how you introduced him to the crowd. And some people gave you a lot of flack for being a musician who took a political stand. I remember…

SPRINGSTEEN: Yeah, they should let Ann Coulter do it instead.

O’BRIEN: There is a whole school of thought, as you well know, that says that musicians – I mean you see it with the Dixie Chicks - you know, go play your music and stop.

SPRINGSTEEN: Well, if you turn it on, present company included, the idiots rambling on on cable television on any given night of the week, and you’re saying that musicians shouldn’t speak up? It’s insane. It’s funny.

O’BRIEN: As a musician though, I’d be curious to know if there is a concern that you start talking about politics, you came out at one point and said, I think in USA Today listen, the country would be better off if George Bush were replaced as President. Is there a worry where you start getting political and you could alienate your audience?

SPRINGSTEEN: Well that’s called common sense. I don’t even see that as politics at this point. So I mean that’s, you know, you can get me started, I’ll be glad to go. […] You don’t take a country like the United States into a major war on circumstantial evidence. You lose your job for that. That’s my opinion, and I have no problem voicing it. And some people like it and some people boo ya, you know?

I guess it's ok for musicians to get political as long as they express a right wing view. I mean right wing musicians such as Toby Keith and Charlie Daniels can express pro Bush opinions and write songs about "ragheads" and yet if Springsteen or the Dixie Chicks write songs critical of President Bush or publicly criticize the President you'd have sworn they joined Al Qaeda.

Will Bush pardon Scooter Libby?

2006-06-20T13:04:00.001-04:00

Talking Points Memo has a post about how Joe DiGenova is floating a trial balloon by stating that he thinks Bush will pardon Scooter Libby. As Josh at Talking Points Memo has pointed out, this is being done to put the idea in the public consciousness so when the pardon actually does happen it won't be such a big deal. I really hope Bush does pardon Libby, it will only be another mark on his already atrocious record. If the Democrats were smart they'd go on all of the news shows and say that if Bush had any integrity, he'd promise not to pardon Libby either before a trial starts or after the trial if Libby is convicted. They should force Bush to go on the record as to whether or not he's going to pardon Libby.

More Republican family values

2006-06-19T12:48:00.000-04:00

From themonitor.com:

A young girl featured in a controversial television ad during the 2000 presidential campaign testified this week that the man who developed the commercial molested her for years and forced her to watch pornography and use sex toys.

The girl, now 15, told jurors Carey Lee Cramer — a 44-year-old political consultant who gained national notoriety when he released an anti-Al Gore ad showing a young girl picking daisy petals and ending in a nuclear blast — began molesting her in the third grade, when she lived in Mercedes with him, his then-wife and her younger brother.

The ad in which she and another girl were featured was a remake of one Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson’s campaign used against Republican Barry Goldwater in 1964.

Anyone who votes Republican because they're the "family values" party is a fool. Most of these Republican politicians and those with influence in the party only pretend to care about family values in order to get the red staters to vote for them. I really wish that more conservative voters would be aware of that come November when Republicans will be bringing up the values issue.

Lame lieberman campaign ad

2006-06-17T14:37:00.000-04:00

Really Lame.

What's in store for MSNBC?

2006-06-15T21:38:00.000-04:00

Now that Dan Abrams has been put in charge of MSNBC i have to wonder what direction the network is going to take. There is already a dispute between Keith Olbermann and Rita Cosby to be dealt with over an email Olbermann sent to a fan. I really hope that Dan Abrams and Keith Olbermann can get along because Keith's show is the best thing going on MSNBC. I think it'll be a big mistake for Abrams to continue to make MSNBC into another Fox News. That hasn't worked so far. One thing i'd really like to see is MSNBC have live news casts on weekends and to stop showing those damn prison shows.

The A-Team sent on mission in Iraq

2006-06-14T13:01:00.000-04:00

This is one of those times when a picture really is worth a thousand words.

From Yahoo News: White House Press Secretary Tony Snow, left, and White House Counselor Dan Barlett, ride in a military helicopter wearing helmets and flak jackets for a trip from Baghdad International Airport to U.S. Embassy in the Greenzone.

Rove won't be prosecuted

2006-06-13T11:41:00.000-04:00

From MSNBC:

Top White House aide Karl Rove has been told by prosecutors he won’t be charged with any crimes in the investigation into leak of a CIA officer's identity, his lawyer said Tuesday.

Attorney Robert Luskin said that special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald informed him of the decision on Monday, ending months of speculation about the fate of one of President Bush’s closest advisers. Rove testified five times before a grand jury.

Fitzgerald has already secured a criminal indictment against Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby.

This isn't good for the Democrats chances of winning back Congress in November. Rove will now be able to practice his dirty politics without the distraction of an indictment hanging over his head. I can hear the Bush supporters laughing already.

Marine lawyer says Haditha killings were lawful

2006-06-12T11:18:00.000-04:00

From Yahoo News:

The lawyer for a Marine being investigated in the deaths of two dozen civilians in Haditha, Iraq, described the event as "tragic," but denied innocent people were killed intentionally and said troops followed military rules of engagement.

No one has been charged in the Haditha case, which centers on allegations that a small number of Marines from Camp Pendleton's 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment killed 24 Iraqi civilians, including unarmed women and children, on Nov. 19 after a roadside bomb killed a fellow Marine.

Lawyer Neal A. Puckett said Sunday that Staff Sgt. Frank D. Wuterich, 26, told him several civilians were killed after the bombing when his squad pursued insurgents firing at them from inside a house.

Puckett quoted the sergeant as describing a house-to-house search that went wrong and resulted in unintended civilian deaths. Wuterich denied allegations of an intentional massacre, Puckett said.

"(It was) certainly a tragic result and (Wuterich) understands that it's tragic and he feels extremely badly about the fact that innocent civilians were killed," Puckett told The Associated Press in a telephone interview from Alexandria, Va. "But he was following what he understood to be the rules of engagement and standard protocol."

An investigation has been examining whether Marines tried to cover up the shootings and whether commanders were negligent in failing to investigate the deaths when they were reported.

Wuterich's version of events differs from some accounts of Haditha residents. They have said that innocent civilians were executed, including some who pleaded for their lives.

The Marines cleared the rooms in the way they had been trained, Puckett said.

"Everything happened very fast," Puckett said. "There's no preparation, there's no deliberation involved, it's just a quick reaction time, shooting and neutralizing any threat that might be in there. And in these cases it turns out after the fact that there weren't threats in that room."

The Washington Post, the first to speak with Puckett about Wuterich, reported that lawyers for two other Marines involved in the incident said Wuterich's account was consistent with what their clients have told them.

Puckett said it was possible none of the Marines would be charged with murder and instead some commanders could be charged with dereliction of duty for failing to properly investigate the incident at the time.

He added Wuterich remained at Camp Pendleton and had been promoted to staff sergeant since the incident.

I can't believe that it is justified to go into civilian homes and just start shooting women and children. You also have to take into consideration that these are well trained marines. They are trained to make instant judgements as to who is a threat. This lawyer wants people to believe that the marines just went in shooting indiscriminently. That is not how they are trained. I'm fairly certain that forensics as well as the video evidence will determine what actually happened at Haditha. For example, they'd be able to determine if the women and children were shot at close range. The US military needs to get to the bottom of this and if innocent civilians were purposely killed, those responsible need to be severely punished.

E-mail shows Bush glad FEMA took Katrina flak

2006-06-09T21:06:00.000-04:00

From CNN:

The former emergency management chief who quit amid widespread criticism over his handling of the aftermath Hurricane Katrina said he received an e-mail before his resignation stating President Bush was glad to see the Oval Office had dodged most of the criticism.

Michael Brown, former director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, said Friday that he received the e-mail five days before his resignation from a high-level White House official whom he declined to identify.

The e-mail stated that Bush was relieved that Brown -- and not Bush or Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff -- was bearing the brunt of the flack over the government's handling of Katrina.

The September 2005 e-mail reads: "I did hear of one reference to you, at the Cabinet meeting yesterday. I wasn't there, but I heard someone commented that the press was sure beating up on Mike Brown, to which the president replied, 'I'd rather they beat up on him than me or Chertoff.' "

The sender adds, "Congratulations on doing a great job of diverting hostile fire away from the leader."

This doesn't surprise me at all. This president does not accept responsiblity for his actions. I'll say one thing, Michael Brown's stock has gone up in my book. I don't care how loyal you are, no one wants to be the scapegoat when it involves being blamed for the deaths of thousands of american citizens.

Ann Coulter strikes again

2006-06-06T20:35:00.000-04:00

This time she's going after the 911 widows in her new book. Here's the video of her Today Show interview with Matt Lauer. Sometimes i wonder if Ann Coulter is this generations Andy Kaufman, and the jokes really on the right wingers who idolize her. More than likely she's just the hate filled nutcase that she portrays herself as.

Was the 2004 Election Stolen?

2006-06-02T19:58:00.000-04:00

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has a very detailed article at Rolling Stone charging that Republicans prevented more than 350,000 voters in Ohio from casting ballots or having their votes counted -- enough to have put John Kerry in the White House. Here's a short excerpt:

But despite the media blackout, indications continued to emerge that something deeply troubling had taken place in 2004. Nearly half of the 6 million American voters living abroad(3) never received their ballots -- or received them too late to vote(4) -- after the Pentagon unaccountably shut down a state-of-the-art Web site used to file overseas registrations.(5) A consulting firm called Sproul & Associates, which was hired by the Republican National Committee to register voters in six battleground states,(6) was discovered shredding Democratic registrations.(7) In New Mexico, which was decided by 5,988 votes,(8) malfunctioning machines mysteriously failed to properly register a presidential vote on more than 20,000 ballots.(9) Nationwide, according to the federal commission charged with implementing election reforms, as many as 1 million ballots were spoiled by faulty voting equipment -- roughly one for every 100 cast.(10)

You would think the american people would be outraged by these revelations. Whenever i see these kinds of stories i have to wonder, will there ever again be another Democrat elected as President of the United States?

Olbermann hammers O'reilly over Malmedy comments

2006-06-02T16:21:00.000-04:00

YouTube has the video up. Crooksandliars has the transcript.

New Poll - Bush Worst President Since World War II

2006-06-01T16:04:00.000-04:00

From E&P:

A new Quinnipiac Poll finds American voters selecting George W. Bush as easily the worst American president in the past 61 years, with fellow Republican Ronald Reagan picked as the best.

Bush was named by 34% of voters, followed by Richard Nixon at 17% and Bill Clinton at 16%, according to the Quinnipiac University national poll of over 1,500 voters released today. Leading the list for best President since 1945 is Ronald Reagan with 28%, and Clinton with 25%.

While Democrats and Republicans split widely on the "worst" choice, 35% independent voters picked Bush.

Among young voters, 42% listed Bush as worst, while Clinton "won" for worst among white Protestants.

The main reason cited by voters who disapprove of Bush is the war in Iraq -- listed by 43%. By 56% to 39% they say that that going to war in Iraq was the wrong thing to do. Nearly 6 in 10 want withdrawal of troops from Iraq.

From May 23 - 30, Quinnipiac University surveyed 1,534 registered voters nationwide. The survey has a margin of error of +/- 2.5 percentage points.

Dixie Chicks fly to No. 1 on album charts

2006-05-31T16:22:00.000-04:00

I'm so glad that despite the lack of play from country radio, the Dixie Chicks new cd is a smashing success. From CNN:

Despite a cool reception from country radio, the Dixie Chicks returned to No. 1 on the pop and country charts with their first album since publicly criticizing the president three years ago.

The album "Taking the Long Way" took the top spot on country albums chart and the Billboard 200 overall chart -- which are based on sales rather than radio airplay -- with 526,000 units sold in its first full week.

For the year, the Chicks' first-week showing is behind only Rascal Flatts' "Me and My Gang" (722,000 units), according to Wade Jessen, director of Billboard's country charts.

The new album hit stores May 23, and its first-week sales are the trio's best since "Home" sold 780,000 units in its first week of release in September 2000.

First-week sales on "Taking the Long Way" were better than Toby Keith's "White Trash With Money" (330,000) and Tim McGraw's "Greatest Hits Vol. 2: Reflected" (242,000).

Country radio programmers have been slow to embrace the group since lead singer Natalie Maines told a London audience in 2003 on the eve of the war in Iraq that the group was ashamed President Bush was from their home state of Texas.

Back in the U.S., their music was boycotted and the Chicks said they received death threats, leading them to install metal detectors at their shows.

Associated Press caught misleading readers about Democrat Harry Reid

2006-05-31T12:45:00.000-04:00

From Media Matters:

Summary: Associated Press writer John Solomon reported that Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid (NV) had attended three Las Vegas boxing matches as the guest of the Nevada Athletic Commission while the agency "was trying to influence him on federal regulation of boxing." But Solomon failed to inform readers that, rather than taking any actions favorable to the NAC, Reid allowed the specific legislation that the agency had opposed to pass.

John from Americablog has more on this story.

Bigfoot mystery solved?

2006-05-30T21:28:00.000-04:00

These two pics were posted at Bartcop.com.

War on terror a sham?

2006-05-30T12:44:00.000-04:00

Firedoglake has a must read post about how there is no war on terror.

Right wingers owe Al Gore an apology

2006-05-28T21:49:00.000-04:00

From working for change:

Indeed, Mr. Gore became a safe, easy target for every Republican politician and every right-wing commentator, who brandished Earth in the Balance as if it were The Communist Manifesto. “This is a book written by an extremist, and it's filled with extremism …. He wants to do away with the automobile as we know it today,” complained Jim Nicholson, then the Republican national chairman (and now the Secretary of Veterans Affairs). What was once the most controversial recommendation in Mr. Gore's book-phasing out that infernal combustion engine- is today the official objective of the Bush administration.

And, of course, the same hacks who shrieked back then about the damage this radical change would inflict on the American economy would surely praise President Bush for his farsighted leadership.

Now that nearly everyone else acknowledges Mr. Gore's point, however grudgingly, those who attacked him so viciously owe him copious apologies. He would be wiser, unfortunately, to anticipate further assaults instead. The inevitable intrusion of reality has restored his stature, but the mean character of his enemies remains depressingly the same.

I remember during the 2000 campaign that was the right wingers main arguement against Gore, that he was some sort of environmental extremist. If Gore does decide to run for president in 08, and that's a huge if, i wonder how they'll try to smear him since their biggest arguement against him has been taken away.

Country radio disses Dixie Chicks

2006-05-22T13:05:00.000-04:00

This is no big surprise. From CNN:

By picking the defiant "Not Ready" as the first single, they've reopened a wound that was particularly deep for country radio fans, and left many country programmers with the burning question: Why on earth would the band choose to do this?

After hearing the album, WKIS Miami program director Bob Barnett says he was "excited about the opportunity to introduce some great Chicks music to the listeners." But the group's decision to come with "Not Ready" as the lead single left him "stunned, especially in light of the fact that, when asked, programmers and consultants that listened to the project were virtually unanimous in saying we should put the politics behind us and concentrate on all this other great music we were hearing."

KUBL/KKAT Salt Lake City PD Ed Hill criticizes the song's "self-indulgent and selfish lyrics."

Barnett played the song for a week, but pulled it after listeners called to say it sounded like the Chicks were "gloating" or "rubbing our noses in it," he reports. "We didn't need to pick at the scab any longer."

He and other country programmers were upset that the group chose to launch its new album with a single that rehashed all the angst of three years ago.

CD and download sales will be the determining factor of the success or failure of the Dixie Chicks latest release, not whether country radio refuses to play their songs. Corporate america is one of Bush's biggest supporters so it's no surprise that they're going to do all they can to derail the Dixie Chicks success.

Conservatives unhappy with Bush and Republican Congress

2006-05-21T12:57:00.000-04:00

From the Washington Post:

The current record of Washington Republicans is so bad that, without a drastic change in direction, millions of conservatives will again stay home this November.

And maybe they should. Conservatives are beginning to realize that nothing will change until there's a change in the GOP leadership. If congressional Republicans win this fall, they will see themselves as vindicated, and nothing will get better.

If conservatives accept the idea that we must support Republicans no matter what they do, we give up our bargaining position and any chance at getting things done. We're like a union that agrees never to strike, no matter how badly its members are treated. Sometimes it is better to stand on principle and suffer a temporary defeat. If Ford had won in 1976, it's unlikely Reagan ever would have been president. If the elder Bush had won in 1992, it's unlikely the Republicans would have taken control of Congress in 1994.

At the very least, conservatives must stop funding the Republican National Committee and other party groups. (Let Big Business take care of that!) Instead, conservatives should dedicate their money and volunteer efforts toward conservative groups and conservative candidates. They should redirect their anger into building a third force -- not a third party, but a movement independent of any party. They should lay the groundwork for a rebirth of the conservative movement and for the 2008 campaign, when, perhaps, a new generation of conservative leaders will step forward.

I've never seen conservatives so downright fed up as they are today. The current relationship between Washington Republicans and the nation's conservatives makes me think of a cheating husband whose wife catches him, and forgives him, time and time again. Then one day he comes home to discover that she has packed her bags and called a cab -- and a divorce lawyer.

As the philanderer learns: Hell hath no fury. . . .

This bodes well for the Democrats chances of taking back the House, maybe even the Senate. Let the Republicans stay home in November, they owe the country that much for getting behind a guy who was unqualified to be President. The wanted another Ronald Reagan but instead got Richard Nixon.

Corporatations under increased pressure to release customer information

2006-05-21T11:28:00.000-04:00

From WSJ.com:

Since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, law enforcement efforts to secure corporate information about clients and suppliers have reached such levels that some companies have had to create special units that do nothing but deal with these demands, a process often called "subpoena management."

Banks, Internet-service providers and other companies that possess large amounts of data on their customers say that police and intelligence agencies have been increasingly coming to them looking for tidbits of information that could help them stop everything from money launderers to pedophiles and terrorists.

"Corporate counsel that used to see law-enforcement-related requests five times a year are now getting them sometimes dozens of times a day," says Susan Hackett, a senior vice president and top attorney for the Association of Corporate Counsel, which represents the legal departments of leading U.S. companies.

In short, phone companies currently caught up in a controversy over reports that they gave the National Security Agency access to records of customers' calls are hardly the only businesses fretting over how to cooperate with the government in the war on terror. Internet and financial companies also are frequently targeted by intelligence and law enforcement agencies, forcing them into situations where they must choose between customers' rights to privacy and their own corporate desire to help the government without being seen as agents of the government.

The situation is made even more complicated when the companies are government contractors, vying for federal business or in an industry subject to complicated regulation.

Is it any wonder why americans rights to privacy are being so blatantly violated when we have a President who has probably never read the Constitution much less have an understanding of it. What it all comes down to is that this president believes that american citizens have no right to privacy. As i've said before, a president takes an oath to defend the Constitution. Just wait til a Democrat wins the presidency, Republicans who are now willing to accept all of this president's powers will do a complete 180 and start preaching about Constitutional rights.

TV ad blitz targets Gore, warming ‘alarmists’

2006-05-20T12:08:00.000-04:00

From MSNBC.com:

A little girl blows away dandelion fluff as an announcer says, “Carbon dioxide: they call it pollution; we call it life,” in a new ad campaign targeting global warming “alarmists” — especially Al Gore.

The television ads, which will air in 14 U.S. cities through May 28, are part of a campaign by the conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute to counter a media spotlight on threats posed by worldwide climate change.

The spots are timed to precede next week’s theatrical release of “An Inconvenient Truth,” a documentary film on global warming that features Gore, the former vice president and Democratic presidential candidate.

Against backdrops of a park, a beach and a forest, one ad celebrates the benefits of greenhouse gas-producing fuels.

“The fuels that produce CO2 (carbon dioxide) have freed us from a world of back-breaking labor, lighting up our lives, allowing us to create and move the things we need, the people we love,” the ad runs. “Now some politicians want to label carbon dioxide a pollutant. Imagine if they succeed — what would our lives be like then?”

I'm at a loss for words as to how to reply to something like this given the ovelwhelming scientific evidence that global warming poses a very real threat to our planet. Stealing a famous quote from John McEnroe the only thing that comes to mind is you cannot be serious.

2006-05-19T12:33:00.000-04:00

Please help Jesus' General promote his cheetos for chickenhawks program.

Murtha: Iraqis Were Killed 'in Cold Blood'

2006-05-18T21:14:00.000-04:00

From Fox News:

A Pentagon investigation will show that U.S. Marines killed 15 civilians in Iraq in cold blood a U.S. congressman said in Washington.

Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., confirmed Wednesday that Iraqis in Haditha said Marines killed the unarmed Iraqi civilians, including seven women and three children, NBC News reported. Military officials told NBC the Marine Corps' own evidence appears to confirm Murtha's statement.

A Marine spokesman issued a statement in November saying a roadside bomb had killed 15 civilians and a Marine, but U.S. military officials later retracted that account.

Murtha said military sources have told him the Pentagon investigation will show the troops overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood.

Three officers in a California-based Marine battalion involved in the incident were relieved of command. A spokesman for the 1st Marine Division said the officers were removed due to lack of confidence in their leadership abilities stemming from their performance during a recent deployment to Iraq, the Marine Corps Times reported last month.

The officers were Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani, commander of the 3rd Battalion, 1st Marines, and two of his company commanders, Capt. James Kimber and Capt. Luke McConnell.

The attacks on John Murtha have begun.

Bushlandia

2006-05-18T18:01:00.000-04:00

This was posted at billmon.org. I came across it via Americablog. Bush has a positive approval rating in only three states. It's too bad it took america so long to realize that Bush is a lousy president.

More Evidence of Evolution

2006-05-18T11:55:00.000-04:00

From the Washington Post:

According to the new theory, chimps and humans shared a common apelike ancestor much more recently than was thought. Furthermore, when the two emerging species split from each other, it was not a clean break. Some members of the two groups seem to have interbred about 1.2 million years after they first diverged -- before going their separate ways for good.

The research is the latest fruit of the Human Genome Initiative, the effort to transcribe and read out the entire genetic message of human chromosomes, which was completed in 2003.

The evidence of ancestral chimp and human interbreeding emerged from comparing parts of their genomes to each other and to those of gorillas, orangutans and macaques. The scientists now want to know whether similar "hybridization events" happened between other emerging species.

Don't these scientists realize that the earth is only five thousand years old? This is really going to piss off the religious right. Science must have a liberal bias, no wonder conservatives show such disdain for it.

Republican adulterer Don Sherwood wins GOP nomination

2006-05-17T13:03:00.000-04:00

Adulterer and accused mistress beater Don Sherwood has won the GOP nomination to run for re-election. Republicans love to bring up Clintons morals but they want everyone to ignore their immoral behavior. When it comes to family values, there seems to be a double standard with the Republicans. Somehow i can't help but think that if a guy like Sherwood was a Democrat, he'd be toast.

I think i've found one of the 29% that supports Bush

2006-05-16T23:19:00.000-04:00

I just thought i'd share a post from one of the message boards i'm a member of. This comment was posted in response to a little debate i was having with this person over whether or not we'd be better off with a Gore Presidency, of course you know what my position is. Well the war in Iraq came up and i stated that Gore would have kept the focus on Al Qaeda and not gotten distracted with Iraq. Here is the response i got:

Iraq may have had nothing to do with 9-11. But it certainly had something to do with terrorism. There was numerous links to terrorist groups. That, alone, is justification enough for the invasion of Iraq. Iraq hasn't created any more terrorists than it would have otherwise. You have no way to prove such the outlandish accusation that millions more were created. There is much more to the global War on Terrorism than merely Al Qeada. A fact that the left conveniently forgets. Under a Gore presidency we wouldn't be in Iraq because we would be busy fighting the terrorists on the streets of America. Would you prefer that? That never seems to be an issue with the left.

Sometimes i wonder why i even bother debating people who seem to live in another universe. The scary thing is that there are more people than you would think who believe the same thing he does and would vote for Bush all over again if they had the chance.

As usual Specter caves to the Bush administration

2006-05-16T17:00:00.000-04:00

Courtesy of Glenn Greenwald:

A front-page article in this morning's The Hill reports that Sen. Specter has finally made enough concessions to secure the support of the more right-wing members of the Judiciary Committee for his legislation that (along with a bill from Sen. DeWine) would render legal the NSA warrantless eavesdropping program. As part of this negotiation, what were these Bush allies (Hatch, Sessions, Cornyn, Kyl) holding out for? The removal from Sen. Specter's bill of a clause that would mandate that the FISA court rule on the legality and constitutionality of the NSA program. As usual, the thing which Bush supporters fear most - and which they most desperately seek to avoid - is a judicial ruling on the legality of the administration's behavior.

Why are Republicans so afraid of this failed President with an approval rating hovering around 30%? This is yet another reason why anyone running with an R next to their name in November must be voted out. The only way Bush will be held accountable is if the Democrats gain control of the House or Senate, preferably both.

Rove Indicted this week?

2006-05-16T16:35:00.000-04:00

Rumor has it that Karl Rove will be indicted this week. If and when it happens watch Bush's approval ratings drop even further. Bush may even set the record for the lowest approval rating of any President. Couldn't happen to someone more deserving.

More speculation on Gore running in 08

2006-05-15T10:48:00.000-04:00

An Andrew Sullivan reader speculates about Al Gore running for President in 08. As i've said, i believe Al Gore has the best chance among Democrats of winning the Presidency. Check out the Draft Gore 2008 blog.

Dixie Chicks interviewed on 60 Minutes

2006-05-14T20:13:00.000-04:00

From cbsnews.com:

It’s no surprise that the backlash is still there, given the demographics of country music — generally speaking, country's core audience resides in states where support for President Bush and the war is the strongest. So why risk insulting an audience that gave you fame and fortune in the first place?

"I think I know where your question's leading and it just goes back to the answer that we don't make decisions based on that. We don't go, 'OK, our fans are in the red states.' So I'm gonna play a red, white and blue guitar and put on my I Love Bush T-shirt and … we're not like that because we're not politicians. We're musicians," says Maines.

"Anybody ever tell you one of the big rules of the music business, or business in general, is never try to antagonize your customers?" Kroft asked, laughing.

"Well, that's what music is. That's what the music I always admired and liked was. I didn't like, I saw no honesty in people being safe or opinionless. Is that a word? I always loved the music that was about something," says Maines.

They have already paid a huge price for their outspokenness, and not just monetarily. A half-hearted apology for the London comments three years ago didn’t help much, and neither did posing for a magazine cover several weeks later. The worst part was the threats.

"There was one specific death threat on Natalie. [It] had a time, had a place, had a weapon. I mean, everything," banjo player Emily Robison recalls. "This was at our show in Dallas. 'You will be shot dead at your show in Dallas' on whatever the date was," she says.

Gotta love Natalie Maines, still taking a shot at Toby Keith. Anyone who cares about free speech ought to buy their new cd or download it from Itunes.

Al Gore on SNL

2006-05-14T10:32:00.000-04:00

Al Gore was in the opening skit on Saturday Night Live last night in which he addresses the nation as if he was the President of the United States. Crooksandliars has the video. Here's a rough transcript:

Announcer:
And now, a message from the President of the United States.

President Al Gore:
Good evening, my fellow Americans.

In 2000 when you overwhelmingly made the decision to elect me as your 43rd president, I knew the road ahead would be difficult. We have accomplished so much yet challenges lie ahead.

In the last 6 years we have been able to stop global warming. No one could have predicted the negative results of this. Glaciers that once were melting are now on the attack.

As you know, these renegade glaciers have already captured parts of upper Michigan and northern Maine, but I assure you: we will not let the glaciers win.

Right now, in the 2nd week of May 2006, we are facing perhaps the worst gas crisis in history.

We have way too much gasoline. Gas is down to $0.19 a gallon and the oil companies are hurting.

I know that I am partly to blame by insisting that cars run on trash.

I am therefore proposing a federal bailout to our oil companies because - hey if it were the other way around, you know the oil companies would help us.

On a positive note, we worked hard to save Welfare, fix Social Security and of course provide the free universal health care we all enjoy today.

But all this came at a high cost. As I speak, the gigantic national budget surplus is down to a perilously low $11 trillion dollars.

And don't get any ideas. That money is staying in the very successful lockbox. We're not touching it.

Of course, we could give economic aid to China, or lend money to the Saudis... again.

But right now we're already so loved by everyone in the world that American tourists can't even go over to Europe anymore... without getting hugged.

There are some of you that want to spend our money on some made-up war. To you I say: what part of "lockbox" don't you understand?

What if there's a hurricane or a tornado? Unlikely I know because of the Anti-Hurricane and Tornado Machine I was instrumental in helping to develop.

But... what if? What if the scientists are right and one of those giant glaciers hits Boston? That's why we have the lockbox!

As for immigration, solving that came at a heavy cost, and I personally regret the loss of California. However, the new Mexifornian economy is strong and el Presidente Schwarznegger is doing a great job.

There have been some setbacks. Unfortunately, the confirmation process for Supreme Court Justice Michael Moore was bitter and devisive. However, I could not be more proud of how the House and Senate pulled together to confirm the nomination of Chief Justice George Clooney.

Baseball, our national passtime, still lies under the shadow of steroid accusations. But I have faith in baseball commissioner George W. Bush when he says, "We will find the steroid users if we have to tap every phone in America!"

In 2001 when I came into office, our national security was the most important issue. The threat of terrorism was real.

Who knew that six years later, Afghanistan would be the most popular Spring Break destination? Or that Six Flags Tehran is the fastest growing amusement park in the Middle East?

And the scariest thing we Americans have to fear is ... Live From New York, its Saturday Night!

You can also view the video on YouTube.

Scarborough tries to tie Bush's illegal spying to Clinton

2006-05-12T10:46:00.001-04:00

The transcript isn't up on MSNBC.com yet but on last night's Scarborough Country Joe Scarborough tried to place the blame on Clinton for Bush's unlawful data mining of americans cell phone records. I don't know if Joe Scarborough actually believes that or he was just invoking Clinton's name to give him cover with his conservative viewers for criticizing President Bush. Statements like that are so outrageous that you have to question the sanity of those making them. It's about time Republicans give Bill Clinton credit for his accomplishments as President and get over their hatred of a man whose biggest mistake while in the White House was getting a blow job from a chubby intern. Do Republicans seriously want to compare Bill Clinton's record with George W. Bush's record? I say bring it on. It's time for a Republican reality check. Republicans need to join the majority of americans who are reality based, you know the ones who think that President Bush is one of the worst Presidents this country has ever had.

Update: The transcript is now online.

SCARBOROUGH: You know, Brad, I‘ve got to say this. Hold on a second, guys. When I was on the Judiciary Committee, I was shocked by all the presidential directives that Bill Clinton passed in the late 1990s. I said it was a dangerous thing then. Paul Begala had said, It‘s pretty near, you don‘t have to pass laws anymore, just a stroke of the pen and it has the effect of law.

Now we‘ve gotten to a point in 2006 where the president can decide on his own he‘s going to get all of our phone records, and Congress isn‘t involved! This is an imperial presidency, started with Bill Clinton, and it‘s dangerous!

Gore still very popular

2006-05-07T10:37:00.000-04:00

From the Washington Post:

Former vice president Al Gore sent an e-mail to Democratic donors recently to "commemorate" the final 1,000 days of the Bush administration.

"I am here to tell you that we simply cannot afford to wait 1,000 days to put the brakes on the Bush agenda," wrote Gore, adding that "the level of cynicism and crass political calculation . . . is truly breathtaking."

The goal of the appeal was to collect $150,000 for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee -- or $10,000 for each of the 15 seats the party needs to regain the House majority in November. Aides at the committee said the e-mail -- the first Gore had done on behalf of House Democrats this cycle -- brought in more than $200,000.

"He is the most successful signature on an e-mail that we have ever had," said DCCC Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.). Emanuel added that Gore, who many think still has presidential ambitions, has agreed to campaign for House candidates this fall as long as they favor measures to curtail global warming, long his pet issue.

Al Gore is the Democrats best chance at regaining the Presidency in 08 as far as i'm concerned. Red staters simply will not ever vote for Hillary. Don't get me wrong i think Hillary would make a fine President but it's impractical to think that she could win in a general election. Those living in all but the most liberal of blue states view her as the devil and would turn out in droves just to vote for whoever is running against her. Hillary energizes the Republican base, there's no denying that.

Al Gore's capital has gone up since the global warming issue has become a concern for americans and the rest of the world. No one took Al Gore seriously when he was talking about global warming years ago, they are now. Another important point to remember is that Al Gore got more votes in 2000 than GW Bush. There's also the issue of all the shennanigans that went down in Florida. Al Gore deserves another shot at the presidency. Many, including myself feel that Bush stole the presidency from Al Gore in 2000. Gore to his credit did what he thought best for america and that was to concede the election to Bush. Somehow i can't ever imagine a guy like GW Bush doing that if the situation was reversed.

Third Anniversary of 'Mission Accomplished'

2006-05-01T10:46:00.000-04:00

Media Matters takes a look back to when President Bush landed on that aircraft carrier and proclaimed victory in Iraq under a banner that said mission accomplished. It tells you a lot about the press by some of the statements they made at the time. Of course they include many of Chris Matthews "man crush" type comments about how great President Bush looked in that flightsuit. G. Gordon Liddy even commented on the size of the President's "package".

The next time some right winger cries about the liberal press, give them the link to the Media Matters article. Even today the press is still covering for this disaster of a President. Chris Matthews and all the others who fawned over the President when he did that ridiculous publicity stunt, which by the way the american taxpayers paid for, should be ashamed of themselves. I was going to post some of the comments they made from the media matters article but there is so many over the top comments i had a hard time choosing which ones to post. Go and read the whole article, if they weren't shilling for one of the worst President's this country has had, the comments would be pretty funny. It's hard to find the humor when our country is in such sad shape.

Stephen Colbert rips Bush at White House Correspondents Dinner

2006-04-30T10:29:00.000-04:00

From Editor and Publisher:

A blistering comedy “tribute” to President Bush by Comedy Central’s faux talk show host Stephen Colbert at the White House Correspondent Dinner Saturday night left George and Laura Bush unsmiling at its close.

E&P's Joe Strupp, in the crowd, observed that quite a few sitting near him looked a little uncomfortable at times, perhaps feeling the material was a little too biting--or too much speaking "truthiness" to power.

As Colbert walked from the podium, when it was over, the president and First Lady gave him quick nods, unsmiling, and handshakes, and left immediately.

E&P's Joe Strupp, in the crowd, observed that quite a few sitting near him looked a little uncomfortable at times, perhaps feeling the material was a little too biting--or too much speaking "truthiness" to power.

I love the fact that Colbert not only ravaged the President but got in some really good shots at the press who have been enablers of Bush ever since he took office. Here's a sample:

Also lampooning the press, Colbert complained that he was “surrounded by the liberal media who are destroying this country, except for Fox News. Fox believes in presenting both sides of the story — the president’s side and the vice president’s side." He also reflected on the alleged good old days, when the media was still swallowing the WMD story.

Addressing the reporters, he said, "Let's review the rules. Here's how it works. The president makes decisions, he’s the decider. The press secretary announces those decisions, and you people of the press type those decisions down. Make, announce, type. Put them through a spell check and go home. Get to know your family again. Make love to your wife. Write that novel you got kicking around in your head. You know, the one about the intrepid Washington reporter with the courage to stand up to the administration. You know--fiction."

You can watch the video over at crooks and liars.

Washington Post now reporting on 'Hookergate'

2006-04-29T10:50:00.000-04:00

From the WashingtonPost:

Federal authorities are investigating allegations that a California defense contractor arranged for a Washington area limousine company to provide prostitutes to convicted former congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-Calif.) and possibly other lawmakers, sources familiar with the probe said yesterday.

In recent weeks, investigators have focused on possible dealings between Christopher D. Baker, president of Shirlington Limousine and Transportation Inc., and Brent R. Wilkes, a San Diego businessman who is under investigation for bribing Cunningham in return for millions of dollars in federal contracts, said one source, who requested anonymity because the investigation is ongoing.

The San Diego Union-Tribune yesterday cited a letter from Baker's lawyer, Bobby Stafford, saying that Baker "provided limousine services for Mr. Wilkes for whatever entertainment he had in the Watergate" from the company's founding in 1990 through the early 2000s. The letter also stated that Baker was "never in attendance in any party where any women were being used for prostitution purposes." Reached by telephone yesterday, Stafford would not comment on the letter.

Since this was going on since the early 90s it will be interesting to see whether other lawmakers were involved and to also note if they voted to impeach President Clinton during the whole Monica Lewinski scandal. Since the media loved constantly reporting on the Lewinski scandal they should love this one. It even involves the infamous Watergate Hotel. Let's see if this sex scandal is treated differently by the media since it involves Republicans.

15-yr-old girl gets death threats for anti-war video

2006-04-29T09:50:00.000-04:00

Yet again the right wingers show disdain for the right to free speech by threatening a 15 year old Alabama teen for producing a pro peace animation on her website. What the hell is wrong with these people? They're terrorizing a 15 year old girl because she throws some uncomfortable facts in their faces. What a bunch of lowlife cowards they are. They are the absolute opposite of what America is supposed to stand for.

10 Reasons Republicans Are To Blame For High Gas Prices

2006-04-25T12:48:00.000-04:00

DSCC has the list. I really wish working class americans, especially those in the red states, would realize that the Republican party does not have their best interest in mind. I think they should realize by now that gay marriage doesn't matter so much when you're barely able to survive.

This sums it up nicely

2006-04-22T13:23:00.000-04:00

Ed Tracey over at DailyKos has a post which really sums up how i feel about President Bush and his rabid supporters. Here's a short except:

The election of 2000 was the first indication of how bad things were to come: the brazenness with which all of us were tagged with horrible epithets, the absolute bootlicking quality that came over Republicans that I know (mercifully, my middle sister hasn't gone that far) and the rise to power of the Savages, Malkins, Coulters and others that - in a more decent, normal time - would have been laughed at as clowns. In fact, the measuring stick that I use for how low the party of my parents has sunk is not the radio talk-show hosts, letter-to-the-editor writers, nor the 101st Fightin' You-Know-Whos...it is those incendiary pundits that are welcomed at official GOP events, and even numerous elected officials who come across as crass, arrogant parrots (with only the parrot's crackers missing) that are what makes our opponents so dyspeptic.

Read the rest of his post at Dailykos. I think you'll agree that it puts into words how many of us feel about politics in general and the effect Bush's presidency has had on all of us. He concludes by saying that he'd like to see the Democrats take back both Houses and for politics to return to normalcy. I think we'd all like to see that except for the Bush cultists.

Best anti-Bush song I've heard so far

2006-04-22T11:04:00.000-04:00

Here's a video of Pink singing "Dear Mr. President". It's a must see.

Michelle Malkin controversy

2006-04-20T21:23:00.000-04:00

i'm sure most blog readers are aware of the recent Michelle Malkin controversy in which she posted the home phone numbers of three UC-Santa Cruz students who led anti-military protests. Orcinus had a very good post about this. Here's a short excerpt:

There is a good reason that using the power of mass media to expose individual citizens' private lives to abuse and threats is considered unethical: It represents unchecked and abusive power. No one interested in holding the public trust should either want or seek it.

Yet this, of course, is exactly what Malkin did this week in publishing, on her blog, the home phone numbers of three students who led anti-military protests on the campus of UC-Santa Cruz.

Predictably, the students were deluged with hate mail and phone calls, including a number of death threats.

Malkin not only refused to take the numbers down -- in response, she reverted to her timeworn victimization schtick, posting some of the nasty e-mails she received in return and pretending there was nothing wrong or unethical in her behavior.

We're all too familiar with this routine. After all, it's what the entirety of her book Unhinged was predicated upon. Malkin, as I said then, is like the lunatic who walks around the public square and pokes people in the eye with a sharp stick, and then is shocked, shocked, that anyone would respond with anger and outrage.

Predictably it was only a matter of time before bloggers retalliated against Malkin by publishing her home address on the internet. Here is Malkin's reply:

You know who you all are.

And if you think I'm going to stop blogging/writing/making a living because you've plastered my family's private home address, phone numbers, and photos and maps of my neighborhood all over the Internet to further your manufactured outrage and pathetic coddling of a bunch of lying, anti-troops punks at UC Santa Cruz...

...you better think again.

This is a case where two wrongs don't make a right. It's just plain wrong to post people's personal information on the internet. Malkin was wrong to post those numbers and should have appologized and taken those numbers down, not dig in her heels. Malkins reply shows the hypocrisy of the right and a disdain for people's Constitutional right to protest in this country. They may in fact be lying, anti-troop punks but as long as they're not breaking any laws they have the right to be. People's lives should not be put in danger simply because they hold unpopular views. Punishing people who hold unpopular or different views by posting their personal information which may lead to physical harm coming to them ain't what america is about. What the bloggers did by posting Malkins address was just as wrong but Malkin gave up all rights to be outraged when she refused to admit any wrong doing by posting the UC Santa Cruz students home phone numbers.

How low can he go?

2006-04-20T19:20:00.000-04:00

From Fox News:

NEW YORK — More Americans disapprove than approve of how George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld and Congress are doing their jobs, while a majority approves of Condoleezza Rice. President Bush’s approval hits a record low of 33 percent this week, clearly damaged by sinking support among Republicans.

I'm shocked that Fox News is actually reporting that. It makes you wonder who the hell those 33 percent are that actually think Bush is doing an ok job.

Worst President in History

2006-04-19T20:16:00.000-04:00

From RollingStone.com:

Even worse for the president, the general public, having once given Bush the highest approval ratings ever recorded, now appears to be coming around to the dismal view held by most historians. A majority of voters in forty-three states now disapprove of Bush's handling of his job. Since the commencement of reliable polling in the 1940s, only one twice-elected president has seen his ratings fall as low as Bush's in his second term: Richard Nixon, during the months preceding his resignation in 1974. No two-term president since polling began has fallen from such a height of popularity as Bush's (in the neighborhood of ninety percent, during the patriotic upswell following the 2001 attacks) to such a low (now in the midthirties). No president, including Harry Truman (whose ratings sometimes dipped below Nixonian levels), has experienced such a virtually unrelieved decline as Bush has since his high point. Apart from sharp but temporary upticks that followed the commencement of the Iraq war and the capture of Saddam Hussein, and a recovery during the weeks just before and after his re-election, the Bush trend has been a profile in fairly steady disillusionment.

The scary thing is that Bush still has two years left in his term to screw up the country even more.

Hypocrisy of the right wingers exposed

2006-04-18T20:19:00.000-04:00

I'm a big fan of Glenn Greenwald's blog. He has a real gift for exposing the hypocrisy of the right. His latest post regarding Bill Bennett's double standard when it comes to freedom of the press is no exception.

America must stand up against voter fraud

2006-04-18T10:48:00.000-04:00

I came across this in the comments section at ThinkProgress.org:

the more you back the repubs in the corner (or any politician) the more they will fight, bush is way too vulnerable to do nothing short of rigging elections to keep the legislative branch, even if they lose the majority, they still need to keep enough seats to keep the dems stalled until 08 when they can rig another election (probably another terror attack - IMO the only reason there hasn’t been one since 9-11 in the US is b/c it shows how strong bush is) - maybe something in canada to show how close it still is but not on our soil…or they can just steal another presidential election - I think that we are witnessing the begining of a dictatorship and we will only have “republican” “presidents” in the future…they have safely split the country so there is no unity.

That last sentence is so true. The Republicans have divided this country starting in 2000 when Bush stole the presidency. It's much easier to steal elections when there is a divided electorate. Bush and the Republican party have used guns, god, and gays to scare red state voters into voting against their own best interest. The question remains, with the disaster of a presidency Bush has had and with gas prices continuing to rise, will the Republicans still be able to scare the red staters? Let's hope not. With the majority of this country united, elections will be much harder to steal. There needs to be a major overhaul of voting machines and americans need to demand that there be a paper trail to determine if any vote tampering has occurred. We now know that Republicans have shown a willingness to engage in voter suppression to win. Is it much of a leap to conclude that they would engage in rigging the voting machines?

Neil Young urges Bush impeachment on protest album

2006-04-18T10:30:00.000-04:00

From Yahoo News:

Veteran rocker Neil Young has recorded a protest album featuring an anti-Iraq war track with "a holy vow to never kill again" and a song titled "Let's Impeach the President," the singer said on Monday.

The 10-track set, called "Living with War," was recorded this month by a "power trio" -- electric guitar, bass and drums -- plus trumpet and a 100 voices, the 60-year-old Canadian-born musician announced on his Web site.

Young's longtime manager, Elliot Roberts, told Reuters the album, which has been the subject of Internet buzz for several days, will be played for executives at his label, Warner Music Group's Reprise Records, on Tuesday.

"It's devoted to the state of America, or the direction that America is moving in," Roberts said of the album.

I can hear the attacks on Neil Young by the right wingers already. They'll probably bring up the fact that he's from Canada a million times and call him a washed up hippie has been because all they've got is their hatred for anyone who speaks out against the moron in chief. It's nice to see someone of Neil Young's stature speaking out against the Bush administration. Hopefully the songs are really good so they get a lot of airplay and attention. I know Green Day's American Idiot was a slam against the President but from what i read about Neil's latest cd, it's very direct. Of course with Bush's continually sinking approval ratings, Young isn't taking much of a risk.

McCain sucking up to the religious right in Iowa

2006-04-13T17:38:00.000-04:00

From Forbes.com:

Republican Sen. John McCain is courting conservative activists, crucial to any White House hopes, in an early test of his political strength.

He has his work cut out for him in Iowa.

"I don't want to say it's an insurmountable hurdle, but it's a big, big hill to climb," said Steve Scheffler, who heads the Iowa Christian Alliance, formerly the Christian Coalition. "There's no support for McCain in this constituency, and I don't see how you can make a scenario where you can bypass us.

McCain has no integrity. Even the Kool Aid drinkers know he's a phoney. The religious fanatics want another GW Bush who's a true believer like they are. Why should they vote for John McCain when there are others who they know will push their agenda of intollerance? Shame on John McCain for pandering to the likes of Jerry Falwell and his followers.

Bush using scare tactics on Iran nuclear issue

2006-04-12T17:20:00.000-04:00

I've come across a really clear explanation of Iran's true nuclear capability via Firedoglake. Juan Cole explains that Iran is no where near as close to obtaining nuclear weapons capability as the Bush administration maintains. This so much reminds me of the leadup to the Iraq war with Cheney and the rest of the Bush gang making claims about mushroom clouds.

Christians sue for right to be intollerent

2006-04-11T16:18:00.000-04:00

From the LA Times:

ATLANTA — Ruth Malhotra went to court last month for the right to be intolerant.

Malhotra says her Christian faith compels her to speak out against homosexuality. But the Georgia Institute of Technology, where she's a senior, bans speech that puts down others because of their sexual orientation.

Malhotra sees that as an unacceptable infringement on her right to religious expression. So she's demanding that Georgia Tech revoke its tolerance policy.

With her lawsuit, the 22-year-old student joins a growing campaign to force public schools, state colleges and private workplaces to eliminate policies protecting gays and lesbians from harassment. The religious right aims to overturn a broad range of common tolerance programs: diversity training that promotes acceptance of gays and lesbians, speech codes that ban harsh words against homosexuality, anti-discrimination policies that require college clubs to open their membership to all.

The Rev. Rick Scarborough, a leading evangelical, frames the movement as the civil rights struggle of the 21st century. "Christians," he said, "are going to have to take a stand for the right to be Christian."

In that spirit, the Christian Legal Society, an association of judges and lawyers, has formed a national group to challenge tolerance policies in federal court. Several nonprofit law firms — backed by major ministries such as Focus on the Family and Campus Crusade for Christ — already take on such cases for free.

Make no mistake, if these types of lawsuits are successful, they won't stop with the gays. You'll see lawsuits over allowing women in the workplace as well as blacks and Jews. The fanatics on the religious right are never happy. They'll start with the gays because they're the easiest target. They won't be happy til we're back in the Dark Ages. Their ideal america is modeled after the Old South where women and blacks were looked upon as property. It's quite transparent what the wingnuts are doing. They're setting themselves up as the victims. I got news for them. There is no war on Christianity, just like there was no war on Christmas. The only war is the war on secularism. The religious right wants everyone to live under their religious beliefs but that is not what america is about. These people are called the American Taliban for good reason.

The true cost of the Iraq war

2006-04-10T19:46:00.000-04:00

Final Salute.

The night before the burial of her husband, Katherine Cathey refused to leave the casket, asking to sleep next to him for the last time. The Marines made a bed for her, tucking in the sheets below the flag. Before she fell asleep, she opened her laptop computer and played songs that would have been played at a formal wedding they never held. She asked the Marines to continue standing watch. "I think that's what he would have wanted," she said.

Star Wars kid suit settled

2006-04-10T09:40:00.000-04:00

From Sci-Fi Wire:

"Star Wars kid" Ghyslain Raza, the Canadian teen whose lightsaber fighting was caught on video and posted on the Internet, and his parents reached an out-of-court settlement with the families of three former schoolmates who were sued for making Raza an object of ridicule, the Toronto Globe and Mail newspaper reported.

The settlement came on the eve of a civil trial set that had been set to begin April 10, which would have scrutinized one of the world's first and most-publicized cases of cyber-bullying, the newspaper reported.

Raza and his parents had sued for $351,000 in Canadian currency (about $305,000 U.S.), saying that the experience left him unable to attend school. "It was simply unbearable, totally. It was impossible to attend class," Raza said. Specifics of the settlement remain confidential.

The three students accused of circulating the video were Michaël Caron, Jérôme Laflamme and Jean-Michel Rheault. Proceedings against a fourth, François Labarre, were dropped after Raza acknowledged that the allegations against that student were based on hearsay.

Under questioning, Laflamme and Rheault conceded their role in spreading a video that Raza, then 15, had made of himself and left on a shelf in the school TV studio. Laflamme said he discovered the tape in April 2003, when he took school equipment to film a varsity football game. He showed the tape to Rheault, who made a copy of it.

Caron, who said that he didn't even know the two other pranksters, said in examination that as the tape was being e-mailed among students, he created a Web site and posted the video on it.

According to court filings, the video first appeared on the Internet on the evening of April 14, 2003. About a month later, one U.S. Web blog that had posted the video said it had been downloaded 1.1 million times. Raza's lawyer said in a court filing that the video was so widely circulated that one Internet site solely dedicated to the two-minute clip recorded 76 million visits by October 2004.

I meant to post about this last week but i didn't have the time. I'm glad Ghyslain was finally able to get some justice. I know some would argue that he shouldn't have left the tape where it could easily be found but even so, what his classmates did went way too far. Hopefully someday he'll look back on things a little more positively. While the original video made him look really goofy, what many computer geeks did by adding special effects to the original video turned it into something pretty cool. You can find the original video as well as videos with special effects added here. My favorite is the Drunken Jedi Master. There was even a blog that accepted donations for ghyslain when the video first appeared on the net.

Washington Post editorial page in full spin mode

2006-04-10T09:26:00.000-04:00

From Editor & Publisher:

It’s no secret that the Washington Post’s editorial position and its news reporting often are not on the same page--in more ways than one. But rarely has that gulf seemed wider than in the Post’s Sunday edition this week.

The editorial page, a co-producer and then staunch defender of the war in Iraq, declared in a headline on Sunday that the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) info “Scooter” Libby gave to reporters in 2003 was in reality “A Good Leak.” The White House was not out to punish Ambassador Joe Wilson for raising doubts about pre-war intelligence; in fact, Wilson is the bad guy in this story for making false claims. Bush, in a sense, is the hero, for instantly declassifying the key NIE document--he was only out to inform the public. Now the poor guy, the Post complains, is the target of “hyperbolic charges of misconduct and hypocrisy” from the Democrats.

As often the case in Post editorials related to Iraq, reporting in the newspaper proves that much of the above is pure hogwash. This reality checking usually doesn’t happen the very same day, however.

With that kind of spinning it's no wonder why many americans believed that Saddam was responsible for 911. It's almost comical how they have to bend themselves like a pretzel to make the facts conform to their beliefs. Then again whoever wrote that editorial probably doesn't even believe what they're writing. Hell all they did was repeat the White House talking points so it required no thought. It's hard to believe that whoever writes these kinds of editorials for the Washington Post are getting huge salaries. It seems the only talent necessary is knowing how to cut and paste the latest talking points from the Bush administration.

Worse than Watergate

2006-04-07T10:15:00.000-04:00

With the recent revelations that Bush was leaking classified information to attack his political enemies i immediately thought of this book written by John Dean two years ago. If he'd written that book today he could add a lot more chapters. If only we had the kind of press that was around when Nixon was President instead of the press we now have that won't ask the tough questions and just repeats the White House talking points.

Republican Values

2006-04-06T12:36:00.000-04:00

There's a list over at Daily Kos of all of the investigations, arrests, indictments, and guilty pleas of Republicans. I don't see how Republicans can run on the family values platform with a straight face. Now it is also being reported that Scooter Libby told prosecutors that President Bush authorized the leak of sensitive intelligence information about Iraq. It's a new scandal a day with this administration.

Wingnut Fantasies

2006-04-03T22:27:00.000-04:00

This is just too damn funny.

Guiliani is the McCain of 2008

2006-04-03T15:26:00.000-04:00

After reading about John McCains flip flop regarding his previous comments about the reverend Jerry Falwell it is obvious that McCain is going to use the GW Bush playbook of politics. During the 2000 Presidential campaign i was hoping that McCain would win the Republican nomination as i felt that compared to GW Bush, John McCain was someone i could live with as President and there wouldn't be much cause for concern. I just had a terrible feeling about then Governor Bush. Maybe it had something to do with the way he took glee in the execution of Carla Faye Tucker. At that time the media was really playing up McCain as a maverick Republican and straight shooter. He was polling fairly high among Democrats and independents as well as with those in his own party. Then came Karl Roves dirty tricks and his candidacy was derailed and unfortunately we ended up with Bush as president.

Now that Senator McCain has morphed himself into President Bush i'm now comtemplating who will be the 2008 version of John McCain. Who will be the Republican i want to get the 2008 nomination? The Republican i would be able to live with and not lose sleep over should they win the Presidency. The one name that comes to my mind is Rudy Guliani. The problem is that Guiliani despite how well he polls and his name recognition would have a hell of a time winning the Republican nomination. One of the main reasons being that Guiliani is pro choice and that's big no no among religious conservatives who are the base of the Republican party. Sadly it's looking like a repeat of the 2000 campaign with most Republicans sucking up to the religious right because they have all the power in the Republican party. My biggest fear is that another GW Bush gets elected who thinks God talks directly to him. We've seen how that worked out.

Jill Carroll releases statement

2006-04-01T20:51:00.000-05:00

From Yahoo News:

Protected by the U.S. military and far from the country where she had been held hostage, Jill Carroll strongly disavowed statements she had made during captivity in
Iraq and shortly after her release, saying Saturday she had been repeatedly threatened.

In a video, recorded before she was freed and posted by her captors on an Islamist Web site, Carroll spoke out against the U.S. military presence. But in a statement Saturday, she said the recording was made under threat. Her editor has said three men were pointing guns at her at the time.

"During my last night in captivity, my captors forced me to participate in a propaganda video. They told me I would be released if I cooperated. I was living in a threatening environment, under their control, and wanted to go home alive. So I agreed," she said in a statement read by her editor in Boston.

"Things that I was forced to say while captive are now being taken by some as an accurate reflection of my personal views. They are not."

In the statement, Carroll also disavowed an interview she gave to the party shortly after her release. She said the party had promised her the interview would not be aired "and broke their word."

"At any rate, fearing retribution from my captors, I did not speak freely. Out of fear, I said I wasn't threatened. In fact, I was threatened many times," she said. "Also, at least two false statements about me have been widely aired: One — that I refused to travel and cooperate with the U.S. military, and two — that I refused to discuss my captivity with U.S. officials. Again, neither statement is true."

I'm glad Jill Carroll made that statement because judging from some of the comments from the right wing blogs it looked like they were going to turn her into the next American Taliban. Common sense would tell anyone that whatever Jill Carroll said while being held hostage with guns pointed at her head should not be attributed as being what she actually believed. Common sense however, has never been the wingnuts strongpoint. Let's hope this press release by Jill Carroll puts an end to statements like these.

Dirty Jobs

2006-04-01T16:00:00.000-05:00

I was checking out the Gun Toting Liberals blog again today when i came across another great post on the whole immigration issue. The Gun Toting Liberal really has a good grasp on this issue. Anyway, he posted this quote by President Bush:

[President] Bush, at a U.S.-Mexican-Canadian summit in Mexico today, said that U.S. laws should “recognize there are people in our country doing work that Americans will not do, and those people ought to be given a chance to have a tamper-proof card that enables them to work in our country legally for a period of time.'’

The Gun Toting Liberal pointed out that there are plenty of americans doing undesirable jobs but the difference being that they are paid a fair wage for their work and often belong to a union. He's exactly right. Reading his post made me think of the Discovery Channel's newest show called "Dirty Jobs". If you haven't seen it, the premise of the show is that they find the hardest, dirtiest jobs in america and Mike Rowe, the show's star, gets to perform those jobs. He's done jobs such as cleaning out septic tanks and sewers to chimney sweeping and everything in betweeen. Many of those jobs would be considered jobs that americans don't want to do by President Bush but the fact is, it's americans who are doing those jobs. The difference being that they are being well paid. All of the people doing those jobs mentioned on "Dirty Jobs" show a lot of pride in their work. It's goes to show that if you pay someone a fair wage for the type of work that is to be done, then they will gladly perform that job. That is something to keep in mind when President Bush or supporters of his amnesty plan repeat the falsehood that illegal immigrants are doing the jobs americans don't want to do.

Randi Rhodes kicking butt on Larry King

2006-04-01T12:10:00.000-05:00

I just love it when Air America's Randi Rhodes goes on talk shows and kicks some wingnut ass. Last night Larry King had on Ed Shultz, Martha Zoller, and right wing fanatic and Bush appologist Hugh Hewitt along with Randi. Here's some of what Randi had to say taken from the transcript:

KING: Let's start this go around with Randi Rhodes. How weak is Bush, what does it look like for you in 2006 in the congressional elections?

RHODES: I think we're going to take the House. I didn't know if we could take the Senate, but I really do think we can now. I think that the mood in this country is, you know, just something's wrong, something's so wrong. All the problems that we had, you know, we had. And we were moving into the 21st century, and we thought, OK, this is the century to cure disease, this is the century to cure poverty.

And everywhere this guy goes, he leaves a mess. I mean, you look at Katrina survivors, the trailers sit there. Look at Iraq, it's a mess. You look at the border security, it's a mess. Port security, it's a mess. Everywhere this guy goes, it's almost like he's so used to his daddy or somebody bailing him out, he leaves the mess for the next -- and last week what did he say? He said he's going to leave it to 2009, the war. He just leaves a mess wherever he goes.

KING: All right, hold it, Martha, don't interrupt.

RHODES: I'm hearing so many Republican callers. And it takes a real man to do, to do it in public, too, it's especially difficult, I think. Especially for guys in a backyard barbecue, they've been fighting girls like me, they've been fighting their neighbors.

This guy's great, Republicans. They're all calling me now and they're saying, "I will never vote Republican again. You're right. They have it all. It's getting worse. A man can't find a job."

I have calls from people who say, "What is this deal about jobs Americans won't do? I'm a mud driller plumber. I do some of the most disgusting dirty work. I pick up road kill from the highway. I'll do anything as long as I'm paid a fair wage." They're so tired of the rhetoric, just tired of it.

Ed Schultz was also pretty good though not as good as Randi. He had a memorable line last night when asked his thoughts on President Bush:

KING: Ed Schultz, what do you think?

SCHULTZ: Well, first of all, Hugh, let's be a little easy about how we throw the word hate around. I don't hate anybody and I don't hate George Bush. I just don't think he's a very good president.

I just came off a seven-city road trip and I could tell you what's on the minds of people, and that's health care. And what's going to happen at the end of eight years of this Bush administration is we will have made no progress for helping people who don't have any health care, or planning for the future.

Now, Hugh, how can you think that's a good thing? The fact is that this administration has done two things, basically, cut taxes and go on vacation. The top 2 percent of this economy, sure they're doing well. Wall Street's doing fine for some people. Main Street is not doing very well.

We're shipping jobs overseas. Was that part of the Bush plan? You've got to be fair to the American worker. You've got to be fair that the $600 tax cut was nothing but a fraud, and the top 2 percent are rolling under the Bush administration. But average Americans are not moving forward.

Randi and Ed were the clear winners in that debate last night, it wasn't even close. I just wish our side had more people like Randi Rhodes and Ed Schultz speaking out because they can easily articulate the Democratic message and they're really good at cutting the Republicans off at the knees when they try to spin.

The illegal immigration issue

2006-03-31T22:13:00.000-05:00

The Gun Toting Liberal has a really good post about the illegal immigration problem. Here's an excerpt but you should read his whole post because he makes a lot of good points.

I can’t believe so many “liberals” are in favor of the “guest worker” ideas being currently debated on Capitol Hill right now. Well, actually I can. I admit, I once (not so long ago; last week even) thought that the President’s proposals for a guest worker program sounded like a pretty damned good idea. It’s natural, after all, because… we Liberals CARE about people. People first, then prosperity will always follow… it’s inevitable.

But the more I ponder it, the more I am beginning to believe that the right wing is trying to further a horrid system where indebted, low-paid Mexican citizens come here to work their asses off for our corporations for less than a living wage to better aid them in reaching a highly profitable bottom line that helps further drive the nail into the coffin of our middle class here; nothing more, nothing less.

One of the main reasons why americans don't want to do the jobs the illegals are currently doing is because those jobs are paying very low wages and no health care benefits. Big business loves the idea of Bush's amnesty program because they love the idea of cheap labor. Cutting down on the flow of illegal immigrants passing into this country and severly punishing employers who hire illegal immigrants will go a long way in relieving the burden on the middle class in this country.

This song sums it up nicely

2006-03-31T19:31:00.000-05:00

BushWhacked

The trash bin of History

2006-03-30T11:54:00.000-05:00

Way back during the 2000 campaign, President Bush talked of restoring honor and dignity back to the White House. That statement seems so ironic now considering all of the scandals involving the Bush administration. Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinski when compared with all of Bush's indiscretions with the US Constitution doesn't seem as such a big deal. Clinton never lied about matters of war as Bush has. With the release of those British memos the Bush defenders can no longer claim that President Bush didn't lie about Iraq without looking like the Kool Aid drinking partisans that many of them are.

Why aren't all of the Republicans who voted to impeach President Clinton for lying about an affair calling for the impeachment of President Bush for lying to Congress and the american people? Even if you set aside the Iraq issue, there still is the matter of Bush's illegal spying on american citizens. In that case it's pretty clear cut that President Bush broke the law. There is also the matter of Bush allowing the use of torture on detainees. I'm sure i could come up with many more impeachable offenses committed by the Bush administration. What this shows is the hypocrisy of the Republicans who impeached Clinton. They're all for the rule of law when it involves a Democrat but when it's one of their own they look the other way.

While i believe President Bush clearly deserves to be impeached, the reality is that it is a long shot at best. I know i've previously posted that the Democrats should begin impeachment procedings the day they're sworn in if they regain control of both the House and Senate. The problem is they'll have a tough enough time dealing with the mess Bush and the Republican controlled Congress have created. Our troops will still be bogged down in Iraq. Impeaching Bush would probably rally the hardcore Republican base as they'll whine that it's only retaliation for Clinton's impeachment. You know Fox News and conservative talk radio will be crying foul 24/7. Instead i think we should let history be the judge of President Bush. I truly think he'll go down as our worst president ever. He belongs in the trash bin of history.

More proof Bush lied

2006-03-27T15:21:00.000-05:00

Yet another memo shows that Bush was going to war with Iraq even if there were no WMDs. The New York Times has the whole memo. Here's an excerpt from the NY Times article:

In the weeks before the United States-led invasion of Iraq, as the United States and Britain pressed for a second United Nations resolution condemning Iraq, President Bush's public ultimatum to Saddam Hussein was blunt: Disarm or face war.

But behind closed doors, the president was certain that war was inevitable. During a private two-hour meeting in the Oval Office on Jan. 31, 2003, he made clear to Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain that he was determined to invade Iraq without the second resolution, or even if international arms inspectors failed to find unconventional weapons, said a confidential memo about the meeting written by Mr. Blair's top foreign policy adviser and reviewed by The New York Times.

The memo also shows that the president and the prime minister acknowledged that no unconventional weapons had been found inside Iraq. Faced with the possibility of not finding any before the planned invasion, Mr. Bush talked about several ways to provoke a confrontation, including a proposal to paint a United States surveillance plane in the colors of the United Nations in hopes of drawing fire, or assassinating Mr. Hussein.

You'll recall Bush's response to a question recently from Helen Thomas asking him about the reasons we went to war with Iraq. Here's the question and Bush's response from Whitehouse.gov:

Q I'd like to ask you, Mr. President, your decision to invade Iraq has caused the deaths of thousands of Americans and Iraqis, wounds of Americans and Iraqis for a lifetime. Every reason given, publicly at least, has turned out not to be true. My question is, why did you really want to go to war? From the moment you stepped into the White House, from your Cabinet -- your Cabinet officers, intelligence people, and so forth -- what was your real reason? You have said it wasn't oil -- quest for oil, it hasn't been Israel, or anything else. What was it?

THE PRESIDENT: I think your premise -- in all due respect to your question and to you as a lifelong journalist -- is that -- I didn't want war. To assume I wanted war is just flat wrong, Helen, in all due respect --

Q Everything --

THE PRESIDENT: Hold on for a second, please.

Q -- everything I've heard --

THE PRESIDENT: Excuse me, excuse me. No President wants war. Everything you may have heard is that, but it's just simply not true. My attitude about the defense of this country changed on September the 11th. We -- when we got attacked, I vowed then and there to use every asset at my disposal to protect the American people. Our foreign policy changed on that day, Helen. You know, we used to think we were secure because of oceans and previous diplomacy. But we realized on September the 11th, 2001, that killers could destroy innocent life. And I'm never going to forget it. And I'm never going to forget the vow I made to the American people that we will do everything in our power to protect our people.

Part of that meant to make sure that we didn't allow people to provide safe haven to an enemy. And that's why I went into Iraq -- hold on for a second --

Q They didn't do anything to you, or to our country.

THE PRESIDENT: Look -- excuse me for a second, please. Excuse me for a second. They did. The Taliban provided safe haven for al Qaeda. That's where al Qaeda trained --

Q I'm talking about Iraq --

THE PRESIDENT: Helen, excuse me. That's where -- Afghanistan provided safe haven for al Qaeda. That's where they trained. That's where they plotted. That's where they planned the attacks that killed thousands of innocent Americans.

I also saw a threat in Iraq. I was hoping to solve this problem diplomatically. That's why I went to the Security Council; that's why it was important to pass 1441, which was unanimously passed. And the world said, disarm, disclose, or face serious consequences --

Q -- go to war --

THE PRESIDENT: -- and therefore, we worked with the world, we worked to make sure that Saddam Hussein heard the message of the world. And when he chose to deny inspectors, when he chose not to disclose, then I had the difficult decision to make to remove him. And we did, and the world is safer for it.

If President Bush holds another press conference i sure hope that the reporters grill him over his obvious lies.

Dixie Chicks newest song

2006-03-25T15:07:00.000-05:00

Atrios posted a link to the Dixie Chicks website. Their latest song plays when you go to their site and they have the lyrics posted as well. I was never a fan of the Dixie Chicks. There was a time when they were all the rage and i use to wonder to myself what the hell is the big deal about the Dixie Chicks? Admittedly i'm not much of a fan of country music though these past few years i've become a fan of Martina McBride. Ironically, the one song i did like by the Dixie Chicks called Traveling Soldier came out around the time of their controversial comments about President Bush. I always thought they got a bum rap over that, so much so that when their newest cd comes out on May 23 i'm going to buy it. It will be my first Dixie Chicks cd. I view it as my little way of thumbing my nose at all the intollerant bastards that threw away their Dixie Chicks cd's and the wingnut owned radio stations that stopped playing their songs.

Ben Domenech resigns

2006-03-24T15:47:00.000-05:00

From the Washington Post:

In the past 24 hours, we learned of allegations that Ben Domenech plagiarized material that appeared under his byline in various publications prior to washingtonpost.com contracting with him to write a blog that launched Tuesday.

An investigation into these allegations was ongoing, and in the interim, Domenech has resigned, effective immediately.

When we hired Domenech, we were not aware of any allegations that he had plagiarized any of his past writings. In any cases where allegations such as these are made, we will continue to investigate those charges thoroughly in order to maintain our journalistic integrity.

Plagiarism is perhaps the most serious offense that a writer can commit or be accused of. Washingtonpost.com will do everything in its power to verify that its news and opinion content is sourced completely and accurately at all times.

We appreciate the speed and thoroughness with which our readers and media outlets surfaced these allegations. Despite the turn this has taken, we believe this event, among other things, testifies to the positive and powerful role that the Internet can play in the the practice of journalism.

We also remain committed to representing a broad spectrum of ideas and ideologies in our Opinions area.

Jim Brady
Executive Editor, washingtonpost.com

Broad spectrum of ideas and ideologies? I don't think having a wingnut blog titled Red America and no liberal blog to add some balance is representing a broad spectrum of ideas and idealogies. I'm sure the search is already on to find another right wing partisan hack to replace Ben Domenech. They'll probably vet the next one much more than they did Domenech so it may take awhile. The sad thing is the only lesson those running the Washington Post will take from this is to make sure they don't hire someone who's a plagiarist. The real lesson should be not to placate those on the extreme right in this country by giving in to their cries of liberal bias. That was what was behind this whole idea of theirs to hire a right wing blogger. It couldn't have been any more obvious when they named the blog Red America.

If the Post wants to have a right wing blog they need to be fair and balance it with a liberal blog. If they insist on just having the views of a small minority in this country represented and not the views of those in the the mainstream then they are just setting themselves up for further embarrassment. The Washington Posts' credibility is at an all time low. It's time for them to get back to being an organization that is respected and places a high value on journalistic integrity. Hiring right wing hacks like Ben Domenech isn't the way to go about doing that.

Controversy growing over new Washington Post blog

2006-03-22T13:46:00.000-05:00

I'm sure most liberal blog readers are now aware of the controversy over the Washington Post's hiring of right wing Republican Ben Domenech to run their new blog titled Red America. Check out some of the comments over at the Washington Post. I wonder how long before they remove all the negative comments? As if we needed more proof that the "liberal media" is nothing more than a myth, made up by the right wing in order to move the media even more to the right. George W. Bush's presidency is a direct result of what happens when the media is afraid to do their jobs because they don't want to be labeled as having a liberal bias.

Tillman's family continues to demand answers

2006-03-21T11:17:00.000-05:00

From the NY Times:

Patrick K. Tillman stood outside his law office here, staring intently at a yellow house across the street, just over 70 yards away. That, he recalled, is how far away his eldest son, Pat, who gave up a successful N.F.L. career to become an Army Ranger, was standing from his fellow Rangers when they shot him dead in Afghanistan almost two years ago.

"I could hit that house with a rock," Mr. Tillman said. "You can see every last detail on that place, everything, and you're telling me they couldn't see Pat?"

"There is so much nonstandard conduct, both before and after Pat was killed, that you have to start to wonder," Mr. Tillman said. "How much effort would you put into hiding an accident? Why do you need to hide an accident?"

An examination by The New York Times of more than 2,000 pages of documents from three previous Army administrative reviews reveals shifting testimony, the destruction of obvious evidence in the case and a series of contradictions about the distances, the lighting conditions and other details surrounding the shooting.

I thought i may have gone too far when the last time i posted about Pat Tillman i asked if it was possible that Pat Tillman was killed for his political beliefs. Now i'm beginning to think that was not such a bold statement after reading the latest New York Times article.

Bush's real approval rating

2006-03-20T10:44:00.000-05:00

I came across a link to this blog post from bartcop.com. Here's an excerpt:

The party affiliation question is directly related to your views on the President. If you like the guy, you’ll say you approve of him and identify yourself as a Republican. Conversely, if you think Bush is dumb as a stump then you’ll identify yourself as a Dem or Independent.

But lets looks a little closer at those numbers. Lets see… 1018 people were polled and 34% sayed they approved. That’s a total of 347 people. But, lets consider the fact that during the height of Watergate, even Nixon had 25% approval. So, no matter who is President, I contend 25% of the people polled are gonna approve of them. 25% of 1018 is 255. That means of the 347 who approved of Bush 255 would’ve approved of him no matter what. Lets throw those 255 out of our sample of 1018. That leaves 763 total people polled. Of those 763, 92 approved (347-255) that is a whopping 12% approval rating!

He makes a good point. There is a percentage of people out there that approve of President Bush simply because he has an "R" next to his name and no matter how much he screws up they'll continue to support him. If the Democrats would show some courage they'd go on all of the news shows and hammer that point home. In many ways President Bush is even worse than Nixon.

Bush and Barry Bonds

2006-03-16T16:39:00.000-05:00

Jim the crazy liberal has a list of comparisons between President Bush and Barry Bonds over at his blog. The comparisons are eerie. When it comes to arrogance, it'd be hard to tell who was more arrogant, Bonds or Bush. At least Bonds is only ruining the image of baseball. Bush is ruining or i should say has ruined america's image.

Yet another reason Lieberman must go

2006-03-15T12:23:00.000-05:00

There a proposed bill in Connecticut that would require state hospitals to provide emergency contraceptives to rape victims who are determined to be ovulating at the time they're attacked. It should be of no surprise that Senator Joe Lieberman is against this proposed bill. What is shocking to hear are the callous words coming from someone in the Democratic party. Here's what Lieberman had to say. From the Huffington Post via the New Haven Register:

This fight isn't exclusively being drawn along party lines.U.S. Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, who often takes a conservative line on social issues, is facing a liberal Democratic primary challenge from wealthy Greenwich businessman Ned Lamont. But that hasn't stopped Lieberman from supporting the approach of the Catholic hospitals when it comes to contraceptives for rape victims.

Lieberman said he believes hospitals that refuse to give contraceptives to rape victims for "principled reasons" shouldn't be forced to do so. "In Connecticut, it shouldn't take more than a short ride to get to another hospital," he said.

The only person who needs to take a short ride is Joe Lieberman. He can take a short ride on a plane from Washington back to Connecticut and let someone who represents the true values of the Democratic party take his place. If the Democrats can just rid themselves of the Joe Liebermans they'd be much better off. The Republicans wouldn't be able to say "look, if Joe Leiberman, a Democrat approves of our policies then they mustn't be extreme". The reality is that guys like Joe Lieberman allow the Republicans to put a moderate face on their extreme policies even though most Democrats realize that Lieberman is just as extreme as the extremists he supports. The Republican enablers in the Democratic party must be thrown out.

Former neocon denounces neoconservatism

2006-03-13T19:25:00.000-05:00

From the NY Times:

America at the Crossroads" serves up a powerful indictment of the Bush administration's war in Iraq and the role that neoconservative ideas — concerning preventive war, benevolent hegemony and unilateral action — played in shaping the decision to go to war, its implementation and its aftermath. These arguments are made all the more devastating by the fact that the author, Francis Fukuyama, was once a star neoconservative theorist himself, who studied with or was associated with leading neoconservative luminaries like Paul D. Wolfowitz, William Kristol, Albert Wohlstetter and Allan Bloom, and whose best-selling 1992 book, "The End of History and the Last Man," was celebrated (and denounced) as a classic neoconservative text on the end of the cold war and the global march of liberal democracy.

Mr. Fukuyama predicts that "one of the consequences of a perceived failure in Iraq will be the discrediting of the entire neoconservative agenda and a restoration of the authority of foreign policy realists." He writes that "neoconservatism, as both a political symbol and a body of thought, has evolved into something that I can no longer support." In its place, he calls for a "realistic Wilsonianism" that would involve "a dramatic demilitarization of American foreign policy and re-emphasis on other types of policy instruments," the jettisoning of incendiary rhetoric about a global war on terrorism and the promotion of political and economic development abroad through "soft power" ("our ability to set an example, to train and educate, to support with advice and often money").

The ability of the current Bush administration "to fix the problems it created for itself in its first four years will be limited," Mr. Fukuyama writes near the end of this tough-minded and edifying book. "Repairing American credibility will not be a matter of better public relations; it will require a new team and new policies."

It's ashame that it's taken the deaths of over two thousand of our troops and thousands of Iraqi civilians for many to realize that neoconservatism is flawed. Yet that doesn't stop the Bush administration from beating the war drum over Iran. From Yahoo News:

While blaming sectarian violence on the "enemies of freedom" in Iraq, Bush also pointed the finger at Iran, saying some of the homemade bombs wreaking havoc in Iraq had been traced to its eastern neighbor.
Locked in a test of wills with Iran over its nuclear ambitions, Bush said: "Coalition forces have seized IEDs (improvised explosive devices) and components that were clearly produced in Iran."

Bush is beginning to sound like he did before he invaded Iraq. Surely the american people will not fall for that again? To quote President Bush, "Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."

Senator McCain sucking up to President Bush

2006-03-11T15:37:00.000-05:00

Atrios has an interesting post about how Senator McCain is sucking up to President Bush at a time when most Republicans are desperately trying to distance themselves from him. I'm losing more respect for John McCain by the day. The man so desperately wants to be President that he's willing to suck up to the man responsible for smearing his military service and his family. He's now in danger of losing his maverick tag which i never really bought into like the main stream media has.

The problem for McCain is that the exreme right wingnuts aren't all that crazy about him. He thinks by continually praising President Bush that it will endear him to Bush's base. It ain't going to happen. There are already Republicans who plan to run in 08 who have more credibility with Bush's right wing base. My guess is that McCain has made some sort of deal with President Bush for supporting Bush during the 2004 Presidential elections. Bush needed McCain to put a moderate face on his extreme right wing administration. Bush has probably promised McCain that he would throw his support to McCain when he runs in 08. The problem is that President Bush is so unpopular with both Democrats and Republicans that an endorsement from him will be the kiss of death. Senator McCain may regret his strategy of attaching himself at the hip to President Bush.