Media Priorities: Prince Harry or Abu Ghraib Torture Trial?

interesting coronaiton coverage..

http://bushinauguration.blogspot.com/

For a break read this:

Concerned that some in the global community may have been confused by his inaugural address last week, President George W. Bush delivered a simplified version of the speech today, asking the world, "Who's your daddy?"

http://www.borowitzreport.com/

Satire which makes a great point and don't forget to read the last paragraph.

oops s/b coronation... the crowning of big dummy..

funny story oncall....

Sorry-posted this at the end of the last thread.

I would also point out that while the paper reported the name of the woman with the bumpersticker, they did not name the man who followed her into the store & harassed her.

1st ammendment??!! We don't need no stinkin' 1st ammendment!!

Sticker stuck in cop's craw
He's subject of probe after coming unglued over bumper theme

By Brian D. Crecente, Rocky Mountain News
January 25, 2005

A Denver police sergeant is under investigation for allegedly threatening to arrest a woman Monday for displaying on her truck a derogatory bumper sticker about President Bush.

"He told her that this was a warning and that the next time he saw her truck, she was going to be arrested if she didn't remove the sticker," said Alinna Figueroa, 25, assistant manager of The UPS Store where the confrontation took place. "I couldn't believe it."

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_3495709,00.ht

Anyone else feeling, or being made to feel, how simply we could have won, now that we aren't in the middle of the fear and spin machine? I wonder if all those hindsights will impact Kerry badly, since smoking guns weren't found. We had such a lousy August.

Needed and couldn't find again for my media comparisons, how much face time of Bush vs Kerry? Ads, or appearances, with 527s being different. Please help...

A long, esoteric read about 4g warfare describes what is going on in Iraq and why BushCo is doomed. I also read Kerry's book on the subject and he and tihs autor's views are identical..

http://www.d-n-i.net/second_level/fourth_generation_warfare.htm

[snip]
If these or similar factors are indeed driving the evolution of conflict, then solutions must lie primarily in their arenas, that is, within the realms of economics, diplomacy, and law-enforcement. Military force will play a smaller role, performing specific tasks to solve problems that are intractable through other means. A coherent "grand strategy" is needed to ensure that military (destructive) actions harmonize with our overall objectives and do not undermine the public support needed to prosecute a fourth generation war to its successful conclusion. In grand strategy, the carrot is as important as the stick, and alliances are critical—factors which should favor the United States and its allies in the 4GW against al-Qa'ida and those who support similar ideologies.

Technology is not unimportant, and may provide options, but the fact is that lack of suitable technology cannot explain our less-than-stellar track record in fourth generation warfare.

Sorry, Cyrano, just now read your important submission, which really synthesizes all that is wrong with our morals, media, administration, rationale of this war, and military applications run amok.

Soldiers and unprepared youngsters going over with the idea that every Iraqi is evil and responsible for 9/11. Permitted and encouraged from on high to do wrong, but escaping scrutiny.

Wish we all had spoken out more, but we did try.

Frank Rich says if not on TV, not true or understood. From the campaign, we know the difference in sway and effectiveness between non-stop swifities on TV and glowing print endorsements.

Marjorie,
I understand fully where you are coming from and any residual feelings you have regarding the outcome of a close election. I'm still reading material from like-minded people about what Sen. Kerry or his strategists could have said or done. All I can do is stay informed and active where possible; and know that the Dem Party will stake out a uniform message in the months and years to come.

You Don't Say...

Bush to Seek About $80 Bln for Military Operations
Mon Jan 24, 2005 11:33 PM ET

By Adam Entous

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Bush administration is seeking about $80 billion in new funding for military operations this year in Iraq and Afghanistan, pushing the total for both conflicts to almost $300 billion so far.

Administration and congressional officials said the new request, expected to be announced on Tuesday, would come on top of the $25 billion in emergency spending already approved for this fiscal year.

That means funding for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan will total nearly $105 billion in fiscal 2005 alone -- a record that shatters initial estimates of the cost.
--------------------------------------SNIP-------------------------------
http://today.reuters.com/News/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2005-01-25T043254Z_01_N24180124_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-IRAQ-BUSH-DC.XML

Bush's tax cuts gave great wealth to the wealthy and screwed the rest of us...

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=297656&kntaw727=0BECD6965DAC4732B18537ED19C13701

The last paragraph sums them up perfectly and should at least be part of our argument.

generational warfare over Social SEcurity

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=295673&kntaw727=2B048D3214094106A66C6BEB1700EA7F

[snip]
As for creating strong ties between generations, this administration has harnessed every American under the age of 30 to an enormous national debt -- much of it accumulated in order to give tax breaks to the ultra-rich. And remember, young people are one of the largest and fastest-growing groups without health insurance. They will breathe dirtier air, inherit degraded public lands and national parks, and bear the burdens of our continued dependence on foreign oil -- all thanks to policies advanced by this administration. And don't forget the Iraq war, where thousands of young people are fighting and dying far from their families.

Thank you, Eric. Not the first time, but one of the hardest, to have to let go. Thirty years is a long time to then have an aborted pregnancy. I was definitely pro-life for all of us on this, my choice.

What if RvW were overturned?

http://www.crlp.org/crt_roe.html

[snip]
The sober truth, though, is that old laws are on the books that could ban abortion right away in many states. In states where the old laws have never been blocked by a court, state officials could begin enforcing these laws immediately; in states where the old laws have been blocked but never repealed, state officials could move to vacate court orders preventing enforcement and then enforce the bans. And anyone who claims that states are unlikely to enact new laws banning abortion simply hasn’t been paying attention

The pro-birth folks are confident..
A short report on their plan to send women back to the butcher shops.

http://www.nrlc.org/Federal/LegUpdates/challenges2005.html

Bush and the anti-abortion folks..
trying to sway public opinion. If not, too bad, they'll try to force their will on women anyway..

http://wireservice.wired.com/wired/story.asp?section=Breaking&storyId=979988&tw=wn_wire_story

This is the cost illegal abortions in lifes lost now. Think what happens if RvW is overturned.

http://www.abortionaccess.org/AAP/publica_resources/fact_sheets/illegalabortion.htm

-------------------------------------------
COMMON GROUND – REDUCING UNWANTED PREGNANCIES: In a speech yesterday at the New York State Capital, Sen. Hillary Clinton said, "There is an opportunity for people of good faith to find common ground in this debate – we should be able to agree that we want every child born in this country to be wanted, cherished and loved." The best way to reduce the number of abortions is to help people out of poverty, get them access to medical care – including family planning – and a high-quality education. That is what happened during the 1990s, and the abortion rate declined. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, during the Clinton years the abortion rate fell by about 27 percent. Now that we have abandoned many of those policies and poverty is back on the rise, the trend has reversed. A new independent study by an ethics professor at Fuller Theological Seminary finds that "contrary to popular assumption, abortion has risen in the U.S. during George W. Bush's presidency." And protecting women's rights isn't about rejecting faith. The Rev. Debra W. Haffner writes that "for more than fifty years, many religious leaders from diverse denominations have affirmed the moral agency of women."

------------------------------------------

this should make Bush happy - abortion center violence..
http://www.atf.treas.gov/explarson/abort_clinic.htm

Bush wants 80 bil more for Iraq..

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/politics/politics-iraq-bush.html?oref=login
[snip]
Not including the new funding request, Congress has so far approved $120 billion for Iraq and another $60 billion for Afghanistan. Last year it also approved a $25 billion contingency fund for the Pentagon.

Yet only a fraction of the $18.4 billion set aside for rebuilding Iraq has been spent. The White House blames the insurgency for the slow pace of reconstruction.

---------------------------------------------
Pentagon short of cash...time for bake sales?

http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-vpada244123817jan24,0,2615606.story?coll=ny-viewpoints-headlines

[snip]

We need to confront the underlying dilemma: Does the strategy make sense? Do we want to be the world's policeman, with declining international support (except for the United Kingdom)? Is it right to give the military primary responsibility for occupations, peacekeeping, security, counter-terrorism and reconstruction?

Or is it time to combine all our tools of statecraft and bring allies to the table to address the underlying causes of terror and proliferation - global inequality, failed governance and religious and tribal hatreds. Until we address this underlying agenda, and do so in a way that truly wins international support and participation, we will be paying the piper and dancing alone.

----------------------------------------------
or solve the Pentagon problem by not paying the troops...

http://www.dhonline.com/articles/2005/01/23/news/top_story/news01.txt
--------------------------------------------
but you gotta have money for graft and corruption..It is not only Haliburton

http://www.journalnow.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=WSJ%2FMGArticle%2FWSJ_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031780414203&path=!localnews&s=1037645509099

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040704/news_mz1b4nation.html

-----------------------------------------------
Afganistan has a cash crop - opium

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52402-2004Dec9.html

80 bil doesn't go very far these days...

Billions Spent in Iraq, For What?

January 25, 2005

The Bush administration is expected to request an additional $80 billion to fund on-going actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. This latest supplemental brings the total amount spent in these countries to more than $280 billion since 9/11, more than $200 billion in Iraq alone. With daily bombings in Iraq, thousands of new terrorist recruits, and the constant threat of civil war and unrest in the nation, Americans are increasingly skeptical of the Bush administration's strategic failure in Iraq.

Iraq is now a hotbed for terrorist activity and the focus of the global jihadist movement. President Bush and his cohorts assured Americans that the war in Iraq would make us safer. Hundreds of billions later, the exact opposite has occurred. Iraq has become the central focus of terrorist actions around the world and the top rallying cry for terrorists seeking to kill Americans.

The war in Iraq has set back America's efforts to fight tyranny and spread freedom. Freedom starts with making the lives of the average Iraqi better, something we have yet to do. The failure to achieve genuine security has all but halted reconstruction. An oil-rich country suffers from gas shortages. The abuse at Abu Ghraib by American soldiers has led many in the Muslim world to view our actions and intentions with great skepticism. All of Bush's talk of liberty and freedom rings hollow without significant actions to show those in the Middle East that he means what he says and can deliver on his promises.

Perhaps President Bush should ask his wealthy patrons to sacrifice for the war rather than the underpaid, overburdened soldiers and the already pressed middle class. As the war in Iraq (the one the administration claimed would "pay for itself") now exceeds $200 billion dollars, President Bush amazingly continues to push for permanent extensions of tax cuts for the wealthy and has made the privatization of Social Security—an additional $2 trillion debt load—his chief domestic priority. The numbers don't lie and reveal how hollow the President's claims of fiscal responsibility and deficit reduction really are in light of his policy decisions.

If you get a chance to listen to Terry Gross's Fresh Air today on NPR, she is discussing the Abu Ghraid torture issue with:
- Karen J. Greenberg and Joshua L. Dratel, authors of 'The Torture Papers' Detail U.S. Detainee Policies
- John Yoo, a former deputy assistant attorney general in the office of legal counsel of the Dept. of Justice. He wrote some of the memos in the new book The Torture Papers, including some pertaining to the Geneva Conventions and the definition of torture.
- Kenneth Roth, the executive director of Human Rights Watch

If you missed the show, audio for today's show will be available at approx. 3:00 p.m. ET

http://www.npr.org/templates/rundowns/rundown.php?prgId=13

Iraq is now a hotbed for terrorist activity and the focus of the global jihadist movement.

Battlebob,

You are so right. I've just heard a special flash on my radio news.

"The police arrested 6 people yesterday in the 19th precinct of Paris, linked to jihadist movement. They have been recruiting and sending young fighters to Irak for months."

Amen!

I read as well that Kerry and Clinton will be attending the Davos Summit.

On topic:

I've heard more on the radio today about the Academy Award nominations than the request for 80 billion for Busco war machine and the American hostage tape combined. In case you are wondering, I do listen to NPR, but the radio I have been hearing is not mine.

Here is a little bit about the Davos Summit.
Leave it to the Dems to save Bush's ass and the rest of the world. If it goes well (as we all hope it does), Bush will clain it was his leadership.

yeah right, like a rooster crowing at sunrise brings the dawn..

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L19376818.htm

How Bush Soc Sec Reform hurts women...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/2005-01-24-social-security-women_x.htm

[snip]
But if, as one widely mentioned option suggests, workers are allowed to put up to one-third of their payroll taxes into a private account, this shift would sharply reduce the size of the Social Security check of workers who take that option. It would also slash their spouse's share of their benefit.

Since women are the biggest recipients of this benefit option, they have the most to lose if workers are permitted to put a portion of their Social Security taxes into a private account and pass on that money to whomever they choose.

[snip]
If all this isn't bad news enough for women, the chairman of a congressional committee that will play a major role in reshaping Social Security thinks the checks women receive might need to be cut because they live longer than men.

Marjorie: my theory is that the election was lost when we scheduled our Convention 4 weeks before the Republicans. Husbanding our August 75 millions to spent in October was stragically the right choice but being blown out of the water in Oct. w/o spending money to respond to the Swift Boat jerks was a disaster. The 2 weeks after our Convention cost us the Whitehouse. We can only pray that the people at the DNC who planned the timing of the Conventions and cost us the election have learned something. I don't blame JK for that decision as I see it he had no choice other than to opt out of the 75 million. He was in a box without a correct answer.

These people sure are full of themselves now aren't they??!!

Swift boat co-author ponders Senate bid
Published 1/25/2005 12:53 PM

BOSTON, Jan. 25 (UPI) -- The co-author of a book accusing Democratic presidential nominee John F. Kerry of embellishing his war record plans to run against him for U.S. Senate.

Jerome Corsi, who, with retired Navy Lt. John O'Neill, is credited as the co-author of "Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry," said he plans to move to Massachusetts later this year as the first step in his 2008 campaign for the U.S. Senate seat now held by Kerry.

"I'm going to do it," Corsi said. "I've got serious political aspirations now."

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20050125-123609-9018r

See flash on why Gonzales is the wrong choice for AG & link to letter to senators:
Note - It isn't very pretty.

http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/etn/video/index.htm

nancyjane:

The owner of Perry Homes, Bob Perry, a major Texas home builder is the financial muscle behind Oneil and his band of thugs. Let me know if you have any ideas how a general boycott of Perry Homes can constructed and communicated. Perry is a slimeball who his used similar smear tactics here in Texas elections notably against John Sharp, who should have been our Lt Governor and Governor 4 years ago but for those slime balls. Any Texas Democrat who buys a home from them should have their head examined.

Here's one from the "Ma-he's pickin' on me" department...............

Williams says he regrets taking money from Bush administration

PAMELA HAMILTON

Associated Press

MULLINS, S.C. - Commentator Armstrong Williams called the probe into his $240,000 deal with the Bush administration to promote the No Child Left Behind Act a "witch hunt" and vowed to rise from the controversy that he said has brought shame to him and his profession.

http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/10725091.htm

Posted by: nancyjane at January 25, 2005 02:07 PM

remember what they say about paybacks...I think the people of mass. are not stupid enough to even consider him.
However, he is a threat and threats must not be ignored.

Ira-does he build homes in Texas only or in other state's also? Perhaps using real estate publications? How about an ad in the Crawford Iconoclast-they need the ad revenue-kind of a 2 birds with one stone approach?

nancyjane:

we can check their web site to see if they build in Louisiana or Arkansas, bu they build new moderately to higher priced homes mainly in Houston and Dallas. Doubt they build too many homes in Crawford or if anyone is even interested in my idea. But these guys have been a threat to Democracy and as battlebob stated, don't ever underestimate them. Politics in Texas has become a totally ugly activity. Ethics seem to have been thrown out the window. Our Republican State Legislature is prepared to overturn an election they lost, but you know, they really don't care. If you ask them why, their answer is, Because We Can.

As for creating strong ties between generations, this administration has harnessed every American under the age of 30 to an enormous national debt -- much of it accumulated in order to give tax breaks to the ultra-rich. And remember, young people are one of the largest and fastest-growing groups without health insurance. They will breathe dirtier air, inherit degraded public lands and national parks, and bear the burdens of our continued dependence on foreign oil -- all thanks to policies advanced by this administration. And don't forget the Iraq war, where thousands of young people are fighting and dying far from their families.

Posted by: battlebob at January 25, 2005 11:54 AM

And yet some of the twentysomethings smell money in the SS privatization scheme and voted Bush, even though they support our more progressive social values. They call themselves Republitarians.

And don't even get me started on the younger Generation Y who, raised on the Lewinsky scandal and Britney Spears morals, are socially conservative and of course voted Bush.

A whole bunch of idiots, I'd say.

Ira-Texas politics are now the national model as well. Win at all costs, smear, lie, fear-monger, rinse, repeat............

Posted by: Ira at January 25, 2005 02:43 PM

Gather information on Perry Homes (like their corporate HQ address) and hand it over to buyblue.org and choosetheblue.com. This kind of information deserves to be disseminated throughout the Internet.

I spent my entire evening on buyblue.org and had a blast doing so, even though I was disheartened to find that Shell Oil, just like everyone else in the oil industry, was a red company after all. I was however pleased to find United Airlines once again in blue column (though barely) again...

Despite the concerns of Kennedy and Boxer, several Democrats, such as Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, support Rice's nomination.

"I've always believed that our responsibility to advise and consent does not mean that we have to agree with every opinion or every action that the nominee has ever taken," Lieberman said in his opening remarks.

"Our responsibility is to determine whether the nominee is fit for the position ... and whether the nominee, in our judgment, will serve in the national interest. And of course I conclude that Dr. Condoleezza Rice meets that standard at least and much more."

Posted by: Ira at January 25, 2005 02:05 PM

Wholeheartedly agreed. While JK was taking a "break" these Swift Boat Veterans came out of nowhere and trashed JK. He never recovered.

Even to this day my Repug father is well convinced that JK was unfit for the job of presidency. We know better, but perceptions are all that matter.

Posted by: Marc Trager at January 25, 2005 02:58 PM

We need to somehow punish these Repug-Lites like Lieberman. By selling the Democratic Party out and moving it further to the right they are destroying the party.

I sincerely hope the Dems can really sort itself out and re-establish itself on solid ideologies and agendas. The Republicans have. Otherwise we will have a one-party fascist state.

I lived in CT for 22 years. He is definatly right of his constituincy-he should just try honesty for once & identify himself as the repug that he really is. Haven't lived there since 1990 though so, I don't know who the Dems have to run against him in a primary if he insists on continuing to call himself a Democrat.

skinny... I'm tellin ya, I for one am growing tired of those who keep defending Lieberman... he may be a decent man, but he is CERTAINLY not a good man for the cause of those on the left, and how he can make such comments about Rice is beyond my comprehension.

I never met a Joe I didn't like... but this one is getting close.

Soros takes a crack at the Bush world order..

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/the_new_bush_doctrine.php

Cheney beating the drums to invade Iran...

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/the_new_bush_doctrine.php

Listening to Ed Schultz-he just said-Liberman should just change parties!!!!

BushCo, the ani-science bunch..

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=9102

U.S. Faces More Tensions Abroad as Dollar Slides
By DAVID E. SANGER

Published: January 25, 2005

his article was reported by David E. Sanger, Mark Landler and Keith Bradsher and written by Mr. Sanger.

WASHINGTON, Jan. 24 - After a first term in which terrorism and war dominated President Bush's foreign policy agenda, his allies in Europe and Asia suspect that his next confrontation with the world could take on a very different cast: a potential currency crisis, in which a steep plunge in the value of the dollar touches off economic waves around the world.

Already, the tensions over the dollar are becoming a recurring source of friction, a conflict that does not reverberate as loudly as the differences over Iraq but may be as deeply felt. At a meeting in Paris on Monday, the finance ministers of Germany and France complained that Europe had unjustly borne the brunt of the dollar's decline, and called for coordinated action to stop it.

"Europe has until now paid too big a share in this readjustment," Hervé Gaymard, the French finance minister, said. His German counterpart, Hans Eichel, said the United States needed to reduce its deficits, adding "each one has to play its role."

Two months ago, similar sentiments came from China's prime minister, Wen Jiabao, whose nation is at the center of a struggle with Washington over currency policy. He complained about the fall of the dollar, asking, "Shouldn't the relevant authorities be doing something about this?"

In an interview just before President Bush's inauguration, Treasury Secretary John W. Snow played down the tensions. "We understand that deficits matter," he said, insisting that the tight budget Mr. Bush is expected to send to Congress next month should give foreigners and the financial markets the solace they seek.

------------------------------------------------------snip------------------------------------------

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/25/business/25dollar.html?

I had reservations about Harry Reid but maybe not so much anymore. I am encouraged by this.........

Senate Democrats coordinate message, attack on Bush
Parties declare their priorities
By Rick Klein, Globe Staff | January 25, 2005

WASHINGTON -- Senate Democrats yesterday unveiled plans to push for expanded healthcare and education programs, higher troop levels, and better benefits for veterans, as they use a retooled and coordinated communications strategy to push their priorities and gird for fierce fights against major initiatives on President Bush's agenda.

snip....

For the first time, the 44 Democratic senators are coordinating their media messages through a centralized Senate Democratic Communications Center. The new center has its "war room" in an office on the Capitol's third floor, where staff members send out daily talking points to Democratic press secretaries, line up radio and television interviews with senators, and issue "rapid-response" news releases in the style of political campaigns.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/01/25/senate_democrats_coordinate_message_attack_on_bush/

Suicide protest at Camp Delta

David Teather in New York
Tuesday January 25, 2005
The Guardian

Twenty-three detainees at the Guantánamo Bay military camp made an apparent mass suicide attempt in an orchestrated protest during 2003, the US confirmed last night.
The captives tried to either hang or strangle themselves in their cells over eight days in August of that year. Ten made an attempt on August 22.

The military did not say why it had not previously reported the incident, described by officials as "self-injurious behaviour" - an attempt to get attention rather than genuine attempts at suicide. The plan had been engineered, they said, to disrupt operations and unnerve new guards.

Sixteen of the 23 are among 553 prisoners still at the camp. Many of the detainees have been held for three years without being charged.

Critics said the mass protest came in the same year that Major General Geoffrey Miller assumed command of the camp in Cuba with orders to get more information from prisoners suspected of having links to al-Qaida or the Taliban.

------------------------------------------SNIP----------------------
http://www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo/story/0,13743,1397979,00.html

nancyjane:

I am sure that the RNC would love to see that happen. I am a progressive, at least in relation to Texas politics, but we must we, must make room for conservatives in this party. If we seek to drive out all those that don't genuflex to progressive politics we become a carbon copy of the RNC. I don't want any part of such a party. We need conservative Dems down here in the south if we are ever to start winning in the south again (excluding Zell Miller).

Liebermann and Miller. What a handsome couple they make. This is one couple that the ultra right wingers wont complain about.

I would recommend we start an e-mail campaign to big Joe. Let him know how you feel about his comments about Condi Rice. I have included an easy link so that you can write to him.

http://lieberman.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm?regarding=issue

I don't know why I am alone standing up for Lieberman.As much as we hate to admit it Lieberman was responsible for Gore carrying Florida in 2000 for Al Gore. To compare Lieberman and Miller is going way over the line. Are we looking for a homogenous party that agrees 100% on everything like the RNC? Is that what this party and this blog are about? What happened to divergent opinions? We need a conservative voice to the party. I am not saying that should be the face of the DNC just a vital component. I disliked and therefore refused to send Lieberman one dime in his campaign, but in no way does that mean the same as we others have posted here.

I think the Democrat focus generally reflects areas that we can all agree on.
Missing are deficit reduction, non-abortion alternatives to counter the pro-birth Republicans.
Democrats get killed with gun-control. Are we going to abandon assault weapons and cop-killer ammo bans, the 3 day cooling off period, and closing trade-show loop-holes? These are concerns of urbanites who get to face assault weapons in the hands of street gangs and city cops who find their body protection doesn’t work. Non-city dwellers see this as a violation of 2nd. Amendment freedoms. City dwellers see this as survival.

My e-mail to Joe Lieberman:

Your comments about Condi Rice were despicable. I am so glad you did not get the nomination. You purport yourself to be a man of high integrity, yet when you had an opportunity to state that the American people have not been given the complete truth from Condi Rice,.....you crapped in your pants. Shame on you.

Boxer on C-Span2 now on Rice nomination!!!

There was no mention of repealling the Bush tax cuts. If we are to get our arms around the deficit and hope to have our programs even considered by the public, this must be done.

I agree with Ira about the big tent...
Maybe Reid is coming up with a vital few - just like we in the business community do. Concentrate on a few important issues and not on all issues. If we use the shotgun approach where we fully emphasize everything, the public will have trouble figuring out what we believe. We emphasize a few core valuses that negate the Repub anti-value. Then we choose a few more.
This makes a lot of sense.
So maybe, just because they aren't mentioned now doesn't mean they aren't important; they may be addressed later.

The minute after the election, Kerry met with Reid and Pelosi. Words appeared immediately about language framing and war room. I, for one, am hopeful. Wish they'd gotten their act together earlier, before the swifties and for all the heavy defense to be done by the campaign.

I like Harry. Unfrightening style that belies a toughness. Wish Kerry had been seen that way-or at all. Our invisible candidate.

Ira,

No we don't need 100% unanimity, but we do need to hold accountable those who are not willing to stand up for the truth. Condi Rice lied to America. What makes anybody think she wont lie to us and our allies again? Joe Liebermann's comments were a nod and a wink to Bushco.

oncall:

I am looking at the big picture and Condi Rice is not the big picture. Do you think sending emails telling Lieberman he crapped in his pants does anything but subject you to ridicule. Rice was going to get the nomination whether you like it or not. I am for reserving our focus to big issues like SS, tax cuts, deficit and Supreme Ct. nominations. Yes Rice lied and so did Bush about the war, is a protest voice against Rice going to change that? That is my test of party loyalty and common sense not whether you vote for a nominee or give her 95 votes instead of 96 votes for confirmation.

Ira,

I know she is going to get the approved. I am not contesting that. I can handle the ridicule. I am not worried about that.

I expect that the "big issue" is one based on a pursuit for truth and honesty. If somebody (Liebermann) is unwilling to speak out against Rice's deception, I am afraid that some of the "big issue" items will not be pursued in a truthful and honest manner by Senator Liebermann. Where else will he compromise his integrity?

Ira... yeah, what oncall said.

Definitely not looking for a one size fits all party, but come on, Lieberman has consistently been on the wrong side of a good many issues, and his statements on Rice are polar opposite to what we know to be true.

And as for Lieberman helping Gore carry Florida... uh, I live here, and if I'm not mistaken, history shows Gore didn't take Florida.

Furthermore, I would argue Lieberman might be the reason why Gore didn't take a good many other states as well... was never a good mix on that ticket.

Don't wanna quibble about 4 years ago, but I would say that, without the Republican nastiness and bile that Miller spews, Lieberman fails to hold the line on much of anything.

Big tent is one thing, circus tent is quite another.

Send in the clowns, JoJo.

I dunno Ira, I do not think we should allow Bush a free pass where our values are damaged. By blessing Rice and Gonzales, we essentially validated BushCo lying about the Iraq war and are approving the use of torture.

We must hold our party members accountable. I wanted to see all Democrats stand up and say no to the war in Iraq and no to abu Graib. We missed the chance to show how shallow Republican values are and show how united we are.

If we only protest the fights we can win, we will never protest because we will loose most fights. It is kinda like guerilla warfare. You can loose every battle, but still win the war.

I will admit that my comment equating Miller and Liebermann was not fair. But, for Liebermann to make statements actively supporting Rice is beyond my comprehension.

I beg to differ, Condi Rice is very much part of the big picture.

The big picture is deception, and she is at the core of the Bush Nuclear Machine... and allowing her to go unfettered into Sec of State KNOWING what we know about her and her lies, and the perception the rest of the world has of her and her boss is not only irresponsible, it is dangerous as hell.

This country has already sent a message to the world with the election that it doesn't give a rats ass what anyone else thinks, and rubber stamping a liar into the top post at State reduces our credibility even lower.

Don't think for a second that we are not gonna pay for this, bigtime. Showing contempt invites disaster... global test, anyone? Pop quiz?

Adjust your set, the big picture is quite clear.

Some peope say unfettered Condis could lead to teenage pregnancy...

Get back JoJo!

You have entered a dimension not of sight and sound...but of mind...the sign post up ahead lets you know you have entered...

The Neocon Zone...
(smoking is optional)

One more item about my above post.
The Repubs are not as solid as they were before the election. A lot of them are wavering over suppporting Bush policies. If we oppose Bush when our values are assaulted, the wavering Repubs may join us.
Blanket opposition will get us the obstructionist label which will negate our protest.
We must be very specific about why we are protesting something and what the alternative is.

We must propose programs that the Repubs won't propose. Issues such as health care.

We must propose programs that are stronger then the Repub position. Examples are military defense.

We must promise to not do things Repubs are doing. How about not lying to the public about war?

This is the way Clinton won.
Propose what your opponent won't propose.
Do what your opponent does only better.
Do not do what youur opponent is doing..

Sorry but Gore won Florida by over 65,000 votes.
"and if I'm not mistaken, history shows Gore didn't take Florida." History will show that Bush the Whitehouse in 2000 by illegitimate means. I am not buying that one by a long shot.

I am not posting here to please you guys or agree as I do most of the time, but we have bigger, much bigger fish to fry. Yes the war is impt and it will take the college students to step up to the plate just like Kerry and our generation did with Richard Nixon to end the VN war. A few no votes against Rice doesn't mean squat in fact I think it undermines our credibility. If the public sees us as complaining about every single vote on secondary nominations how in the world do we think they will take us seriously when we have a real fight about a real nominee like a Scalia or Thomas Chief Justice who will be around for at least 30+ years. I am not suggesting we should fold in face of such remarks but we need to choose our battles carefully. We have SS dismantling to deal with, a staggering deficit and 2-3 Supreme Ct. nominees and a Chief Justice to fight over this year. Again if we oppose every nominee and ridicule Dems that in a weak moment lose their senses like Lieberman who will take us seriously. I am worried sick about the economy, SS, and the Supreme Ct. I don't want to lose any of those battles as they will effect our lives long after we are out of Iraq or Iran. We need the good will of every Dem every Organization like the AARP to win those battles. If we blow our wad (whatever that means) too soon I fear the public will abandon us and not take us seriously for what I consider the REAL BATTLES Ahead. I will not make any friends here with that argument but I did not think that was what we are here for.

Sorry but Gore won Florida by over 65,000 votes.
"and if I'm not mistaken, history shows Gore didn't take Florida." History will show that Bush won the Whitehouse in 2000 by illegitimate means. I am not buying your revisionist position that history will show that Bush won in 2000 or in 2004 by by a long shot. 2000 will stick in my brain like the Kennedy Assasnation.

Battlebob's post mirrors my sentiments as well. He just said them better.
"Blanket opposition will get us the obstructionist label which will negate our protest.
We must be very specific about why we are protesting something and what the alternative is.

We must propose programs that the Repubs won't propose. Issues such as health care.

We must propose programs that are stronger then the Repub position. Examples are military defense"

Revisionist history it's not. I know what went down, who got how many votes, etc. It's all about the bottom line.

Like the Kennedy assassination, which still rips me to the core as well, it doesn't matter who did it, we lost JFK on 11/22/63 ... the same way Gore lost Florida after the Supremely Dumb Court planted a Shrub on the Grassy Knoll.

I'd like an order of Splitting Hairs, to go.

P.S. Ira...

I think you are a rockin' good American, and always appreciate your thoughfulness...

ALWAYS!

1 order of Hossenfeffer sliced thin for the road!

Every day its always the same thing...

Variety!

Ira,

I don't see the Secretary of State as a "secondary nomination". She would be in line for the Presidency if this nation should suffer an untold disaster. The world has come to recognize the Secretary of State as the face for American policy on international matters. You are implying that opposing Condi Rice is the equivalent to opposing the undersecretary of energy. No comparison. In my view taking a stand on this issue (honest, trustworthiness) is nearly equivalent to taking a principled stand on health care, social security, voting reform, energy policy, defense, etc.

In a way, I agree with everyone in one point in another.
We cannot be shrill about our protest, but specific and measured.
I applaud Kerry and Boxer for voting against.
I was hoping the protest would be more global in cope by condemning Bush for the actions Rice and Gonzales did in his stead. The Dems need to state what properties are acceptable and not acceptable. Otherwise, we are noise. The Dems must state those who lied and promoted activities such as torture will not be accepted. Make it a moral issue. Force Bush to publicly defend their actions in his name over and over again.
Lying to go to war must not die.
Abu Graib must not die.
These are examples of BushCo moral values. Make him eat those words.

oncall:
Some how you have the wrong impression that I support Rice or feel she should have been confirmed. Perhaps we could have mustered enough votes to defeat her, unlikely, but then what. Paul Wolfowitz as Secretary of State. And yes it is impt that we choose battles that we can win (the Boxer vote on voter irregularities excluded).
We have to deal with Bush for 4 more miserable years. Until we choose a new Congress we will have to find votes that make a difference. Harry Reid I understand is antiabortion. Does that mean that he should be shoved out of the party or out of a position of a ledership b/c he doesn't toe the line. And you have ignored more earlier post when I suggested that I don't want to be a Taliban party like the RNC that demands singular opinions. I hope and presume that is not what you are advocating. If we fight each and every battle on principle, my fear is that we will be ignored, ridiculed, or even worse lose those battles.Battles that yes we must win for the sake of our children and grandchildren. I am looking at these votes in the long perspective, from a histocrical context, not just in the moment as I think you are doing. Bush will someday be out of office and we will have Supreme Justices,Deficits and SS policies to deal with long after he is gone along with numerous policies he will have effecetd. Lets just say we agree to disagree; that is what this site is about. We are all on the same side here in our objectives we just have different philospohies on how to get from here to there.

I even opposed some of our boycotts, b/c they were not targeted and hurt mom and pop businesses. Others thought a blanket boycott made a better statement. My political leanings are differnt from your's; my goals I am sure are similar.

Dianne Feinstein is arguing that Condi is "qualified" because she is experienced and has some successes behind her. I don't think that is disputed. What is disputed is her integrity, her honesty. While she may have an impressive resume, she has an equally notable record of dishonesty and lack of integrity.

I can't see how Dianne Feinstein's position can be defended as a difference of opinion with Boxer. Feinstein is denying a certain set of facts; Boxer is questioning Rice on her role in creating those facts.

Go Jack, go!!! Reed D-RI

Posted by: oncall at January 25, 2005 03:54 PM

Ira,

No we don't need 100% unanimity, but we do need to hold accountable those who are not willing to stand up for the truth.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You should also know that I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that you don't support Rice. I too am anti-abortion, but I am pro-choice.

My differences in various positions relate to picking and choosing our battles. I think we never ignore an issue that is against what we stand for. We must not ever be just no without any discussion of why and what the alternatives should be.
Who is going to stick up for all those that die and will die in Iraq if it isn’t us?
Who is going to oppose the atrocities of abu Graib if it is not us?
Who is going to oppose SS if it isn’t us?
The Repubs are trying to paint us as obstructionists. We must not allow that to stick and counter that they are the party of torture, of lying, of deficits, of abuse of power, of (pick one).
Our positions must be clear, understandable and put the Repubs in positions that are untenable.
Let them defend torture, or lying, or abusing power, or deficits.
The numbers say we will loose most battles but we will win in the court of public opinion if we are smart.
We are the voice for those that lack one. That is our legacy and our future. That will allow us to regain power.

I've just read the thread - should read before posting I suppose!

I think politicians like Liebermann are a lot more damaging to our cause than politicians like Miller. Miller is the enemy we know - he is an ass and hides it from no one. He pretends nothing. He shouts out "I am a traitor to my party" and everyone can hear him. Politicians like Liebermann, on the other hand, pretend to share democratic principles yet quietly and sometimes less quietly act mainly in self interest. The are ultimately much more dangerous. Bell Hooks, one of my favourite author/activists, has a great discussion of this phenomena in her book "Yearning: race, gender and cultural politics."

Posted by: Ira at January 25, 2005 02:05 PM

Nice thread--good points. But just for info purposes, the DNC did not choose the schedule for the Conventions. The opposing party goes first, the party in power second. The DNC chose to go as late as they could; then the Repubs chose--as late as they could.

Don't expect it to happen this way next time.

Or, at least, don't expect the Dem candidate to take time off...

TED TURNER COMPARES FOXNEWS TO HITLER
Tue Jan 25 2005 15:53:55 ET

Ted Turner called FOX an arm of the Bush administration and compared FOXNEWS's popularity to Hitler's popular election to run Germany before WWII.

Turner made the controversial comments before a standing-room-only crowd at the National Association for Television Programming Executives's opening session Tuesday.

His no-nonsense, humorous approach during the one-hour Q&A generated frequent loud applause and laughter, BROADCASTING & CABLE reports.

While FOX may be the largest news network [and has overtaken Turner's CNN], it's not the best, Turner said.

He followed up by pointing out that Adolph Hitler got the most votes when he was elected to run Germany prior to WWII. He said the network is the propaganda tool for the Bush Administration.

"There's nothing wrong with that. It's certainly legal. But it does pose problems for our democracy. Particularly when the news is dumbed down," leaving voters without critical information on politics and world events and overloaded with fluff," he said.

A FOXNEWS spokesperson responded: "Ted is understandably bitter having lost his ratings, his network and now his mind -- we wish him well."

Developing...

Karen:

You or someone else posted last week that the party out of office chooses the Convention date first. Its only in hindsight which it is always easier to be a Monday morning quarteback, but McAulife could have chosen to have his Convention 2-3 weeks later and forced the RNC's hand. From what I have read the August Convention date was chosen a year or 2 out with the assumption that our nominee would be flat broke by his Convention date which it turned out he wasn't. No one knew about internet funding the Dean phenomena or Dems hatred of Bush and willingness to raise big bucks 2 years out. But it is another example of how the DNC gets constantly out maneuvered in strategy from Convention planning to debate planning (it cost Gore tremendously) by the RNC. McAuliffe is our best ever fund raiser but just didn't cut it as a communicator or strategic planner, requisites I hope we weigh when choosing our next Chair. That's why I advocated that we have a CFO type position as a subchair for strictly fundraising and a CEO position as Party Chair. I may be way off base here but I think that the person we choose in 3 weeks as Party Chair will dictate our chances to win in '08. So we better get it right this time and we better start having better strategists running our campaigns.

A great column by Mark Shields about the REAL John Kerry.

The John Kerry I never knew
Monday, January 24, 2005 Posted: 4:35 PM EST (2135 GMT)
http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/24/shields.kerry/

Posted by: Ira at January 25, 2005 06:33 PM

I happen to agree with you about McAuliffe and the next Chair. But I also think that if we do not get the media reform and voting reform efforts to be highly effective, soon, it does not matter much how strategic the next Chair is.

I am fascinated by it, watching it from close up (it's all people talk about at gatherings here in DC), but I also want to slap people upside the head and say "Can we just buy a TV Station NOW, please?"

If Boxer spoke again, does Kerry? Has he?

Posted by: Ira at January 25, 2005 06:33 PM

nicely said...

The problem is, the mistakes of the last election are corrected in the next election. Always the political terrain changes and new strategies develop. The winning party figures out what is important from the last election and pursues the new strategies. We made up for our historical problem with fund-raising, but lost the registration and voter-turn out battle.
The Repubs are going to throw out a lot more 3 G initiatives (Guns, Gays, God). We need to plan for that.
The Repubs know they have to mine the internet money better. They seem to have unlimited accesses to personal data. This sounds unscrupulous but it is perfectly legal. States and companies sell it all the time. Maybe we should be buyers?
The Repubs must soften their harsh vision. We Dems must keep them as the party of a**holes.

The permanent war room is a good lesson learned. Getting the data to supporters is relatively simple via email lists.

The idea of CEO/CFO makes sense and is what the Repubs did successfully. Their money guy was virtually unknown until after the election. Now he is all over the place talking about how well he did. Enron Ed was their voice and his job was to make Terry look foolish – which he did very well. Their strategists operated in secret.

As a personal note, I like Dean and at the same time am worried about his need for attention. Should he be the face on the tube or a person behind the scene? Often, those behind the scene have the most power. Think Howard would stand for being the tube face only? Think Howard would be a behind-the-scene strategist and be off the tube?

Posted by: Amy at January 25, 2005 05:49 PM

Dianne Feinstein is arguing that Condi is "qualified" because she is experienced and has some successes behind her.

Doesn't surprise me. She voted for the Medicare Modernization Act (MMA). Doesn't mean I think she should be tarred and feathered either.

Posted by: Florida Dem at January 25, 2005 06:51 PM

Great story about great people.

Thanks Mark Shields.
Too bad it is three months late.
What would Bush do?
Pitch him a Bible and tell him to pray his way out of his problems?

Posted by: Karen at January 25, 2005 06:59 PM

I forgot to mention vote fraud. If that doesn't get fixed, we will be having this same discussion in 2009.

I promise to start spelling Abu Ghraib correctly!!
sorry.

This is the good Doctors latest news letter..

http://www.democracyforamerica.com/features/2005/01/24/from_the_ground_up.php

He talks about empowering the local people from the bottom up.

He mentions the Repugs are still a top down, Command and Control operation. That is unlikely to change because they must have a rigid hierarchy else their folks will defect.

Posted by: battlebob at January 25, 2005 07:24 PM

From the ground up is a great notion and one that I feel Dean/Trippi contributed to the 2004 election, changing the entire modus operandi.

On the Kerry-Edwards Blog, there were some great examples of bottom-up messaging, especially early on.

One of the things we are trying to foster here at the DCP is edge-to-edge communications, and I don't hear a lot of discussion out there about that.

Bottom-up can often mean using the grassroots as a source of resource development, i.e. donations of time and money. Whether or not the opinions of those contributers are heard and acted upon varies greatly. There were complaints in the Dean Campaign that people did not feel heard, but were motivated to contribute nevertheless. Many here may feel similarly about the Kerry-Edwards campaign.

Edge-to-edge will probably not produce the level of buy-in (literally and figuratively) that appeals to and is required by the Washington-insiders, but it may foster our purpose even more effectively.

Once people are talking to each other, supporting and sharing resources, democratic principles are spread around; in fact, they are modeled.

I'm not sure that contrasting the bottom-up model Dean plans with the Republican top-down model is such a good idea - the Republicans won big with that model.

From what I have heard and read, everyone has a different idea about what bottom-up organizing is all about. I fear that some will feel disappointed when the elections come around, and speak loudly about their disappointment.

Interesting Bush Inauguration Coverage:

http://bushinauguration.blogspot.com/

Posted by: battlebob at January 25, 2005 10:24 AM

Battlebob,

Thank you so much for posting that link. Those pictures were outstanding. The most stirring thing I have seen in a long, long while.

Ok here is my latest attempt for a LTE-

I watch with amusement and sadness, the media’s rush to change from “privatization” & “private accounts “to “personal accounts” when discussing social security reform. Since “privatization” and “private accounts” did not poll well, the decree has gone out and all the little speakers are scurrying around to correct everyone. This from an administration that presents itself as being “unnuanced” and straight forward. The words “privatization” and “private accounts” are the ones that this administration has used for many months. And yet , now there is a campaign accusing anyone using these terms as partisan or biased in some manner. I watch with sadness as the media , in general, has rushed to accept this flim-flam. It is sad when ANY government tells the press what words to use and what words not to use. What was it we objected to in the Soviet Union again? Oh yes. Torture of dissidents and Government controlled media.

any comments?
ps-to Karen- THIS made me feel better...perhaps it's a control issue....

re obstructionist-
we need to point out every time they say this- hey- we are acting on our values - like you want every one to do! It's our job-it's not our job to rubber stamp ANYTHING@!

Have you guys been to this site? http://democrats.senate.gov/

It's the Dem Senatorial Committee site. The Dems are finally getting a communications strategy and they will start doing the things we have been complaining about for months like getting more senators on news shows, and begin a rapid response plan. Also, this site is suppose to be a way for the the committee to communicate with the Dem blogs. FINALLY, some strategery. ;)

Also it seems like the Dem legislative agenda is being packaged as The American Promise. It's not as catchy as Contract With America, but it's a start. Yay!

Here's more...

The new session is opening amid signs of uncommon Democratic unity in the Senate. Minority leader Harry Reid of Nevada used a news conference on Democrats' legislative priorities to boast that majority leader Bill Frist, a Tennessee Republican, "wishes every day" that his members were as united as Democrats.
For the first time, the 44 Democratic senators are coordinating their media messages through a centralized Senate Democratic Communications Center. The new center has its "war room" in an office on the Capitol's third floor, where staff members send out daily talking points to Democratic press secretaries, line up radio and television interviews with senators, and issue "rapid-response" news releases in the style of political campaigns.

The center has an aide dedicated to getting information to Democratic-leaning bloggers and yesterday launched a website, democrats.gov, to better communicate the positions of Senate Democrats.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/01/25/senate_democrats_coordinate_message_attack_on_bush/

Cell Lines in U.S. Too Contaminated to Use - Study
Mon Jan 24, 2005 11:08 AM ET

By Maggie Fox, Health and Science Correspondent

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Batches of human embryonic stem cells available under the strict policies of the U.S. government are contaminated with an animal molecule and are probably no good for using to treat people, scientists reported on Sunday.

Their finding, published in the journal Nature Medicine, supports arguments that federal government policy is holding back research in the promising but controversial field of stem cell research.

The only way around the problem is to start again with new batches of stem cells -- something that cannot be done using federal funds, said the team at the University of California San Diego.

Human embryonic stem cells are taken from embryos at fertility clinics. Many researchers say they can form any cell or tissue if grown correctly, and offer the promise of treating diseases like Parkinson's, Alzheimer's and juvenile diabetes.

Opponents, who include President Bush, say destroying a human embryo for any purpose is immoral and unethical. Bush issued an executive order in 2001 restricting federal funding for stem cell research to only those batches of the cells, called cell lines, that existed at the time.

The idea was to prevent the destruction of any more embryos while allowing the research to continue.

Many scientists argued this was too restrictive and later said it was likely the existing cells would be contaminated by the animal products the cells were grown with.

Dr. Ajit Varki of UCSD, Dr. Fred Gage of the Salk Institute and colleagues said they had confirmed this.

They found batches of available stem cells were contaminated with a non-human molecule called N-glycolylneuraminic acid or Neu5Gc. The molecule is found on the surface of animal cells but not on human cells, and is attacked by the human immune system.

It is a major reason why the human body rejects animal organ transplants.

Neu5Gc is taken up by the stem cells when they are grown or derived from laboratory cultures that contain animal-derived materials, including "feeder layers" from mice and fetal calf serum," Varki's team found.

"The human embryonic stem cells remained contaminated by Neu5Gc even when grown in special culture conditions with commercially available serum replacements, apparently because these are also derived from animal products," Varki said in a statement.

"It would seem best to start over again with newly derived human embryonic stem cells that have never been exposed to any animal products. However, such an approach could not be pursued under existing rules for the use of federal grant dollars."

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=scienceNews&storyID=2005-01-24T160711Z_01_N23607325_RTRIDST_0_SCIENCE-SCIENCE-STEMCELLS-DC.XML

Stem Cells and the Future of Regenerative Medicine

Statement of Bert Vogelstein, M.D.
Chairman, Biological and Biomedical Applications of Stem Cell Research Committee
National Research Council
and
Institute of Medicine
Professor of Oncology and Pathology
Johns Hopkins Oncology Center and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute

Concerning Stem Cells

Before the
Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies
Committee on Appropriations
U.S. Senate

October 31, 2001

http://www4.nationalacademies.org/ocga/testimon.nsf/0/f83313747c99707185256b18005a20d0?OpenDocument

Everything you EVER wanted to know about Stem Cell Research:

http://www.isscr.org/science/index.htm

It only makes sense for HUMANITY!!!

I mean...like...DUH?!?!

Posted by: florida dem at January 26, 2005 12:16 AM

The word "contract" will come back to haunt the Republicans, mark my words. A government in Ontario once used the same terminology - I think it was the "Social Contract" and it was used to institute some radical changes, reductions in the rights of union workers, etc.

Boy, did that come back to haunt them. Contracts have a way of getting broken, especially by greedy, power-hungry politicians....

Posted by: mkh at January 25, 2005 10:36 PM

Great letter and idea. I'm going to follow suit. Tomorrow is my day at home and I'm going to be on the computer. Thanks.

More Science Cuts from the Dark Ages Resident...

U.S. to Cut Funds to Fix Hubble Telescope-Source
Sun Jan 23, 2005 11:29 AM ET

By Caren Bohan and Deborah Zabarenko

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Bush administration plans to propose cuts in funds to fix the aging Hubble Space Telescope, a U.S. official said on Saturday, as the head of the telescope project said he hoped Congress would approve money for repairs.

The 14-year-old orbiting observatory has produced path-breaking science and created a popular appetite for its spectacular images of the cosmos. It is due for a servicing mission to replace its batteries and the gyroscopes that keep it steady, and to upgrade some of its equipment.

The repair mission has been on hold since the Feb. 1, 2003, disintegration of shuttle Columbia. Debate in the astronautical community has raged over whether to send robots or astronauts to fix the telescope, or whether to fix it at all.

Reports on the Web site www.Space.com and in The Washington Post said the Bush administration plans to scrap any Hubble repair mission and eliminate those funds from the proposed budget for fiscal 2006. A U.S. official confirmed those reports.

Bush will release his fiscal 2006 budget proposal on Feb. 7.

Speaking on condition of anonymity, the U.S. official told Reuters the estimated cost of a robotic repair was $2 billion and one feasibility study gave it an 80 percent chance of failure.
------------------------------------------SNIP-------------------------------------
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=scienceNews&storyID=2005-01-23T162818Z_01_N22676949_RTRIDST_0_SCIENCE-SPACE-HUBBLE-DC.XML

Re "obstructionist" - in real democracies, the party not "in power" is SUPPOSED to act in opposition - in fact, they're called "The Loyal Opposition" indicating that it is not only important to have someone questioning the government, but it is patriotic to do so. It is necessary, and we have seen many times throughout history what happens when the system breaks down.

This attempt by the neo-cons to silence Dems is the most fascist thing BushCo has done yet, and they've done some pretty nazi-like things. (Today a Rep senator actually said that if Dems don't play nice they're hurting our country's reputation with our former allies - as if it could be worse!! I call that blackmail.)

I congratulate our senators. If Dems had been doing this kind of job two years ago, we wouldn't be in this perpetual-war-loop we're in now.

Let's hope our Dems don't lie down for this crap. They should be proud. Asking questions and demanding answers is their patriotic duty, as Boxer made so clear today.

If obstructionist means trying to prevent America from attacking yet another country, and wanting our soldiers already in a bogus war to at least have proper equipment, and fighting against the handing over to Wall Street of our internationally-respected Social Security Program, then let me be the first to claim the label:

I AM AN OBSTRUCTIONIST!! You bet I am! I'm going to do everything I can to obstruct the un-American, barbarian agenda of this corporate mafia - I won't let them destroying my country!

It is the nature and intention of a constitution to prevent governing by party, by establishing a common principle that shall limit and control the power and impulse of party, and that says to all parties, thus far shalt thou go and no further. But in the absence of a constitution, men look entirely to party; and instead of principle governing party, party governs principle.

~Thomas Paine

And to feed your anger about corporatism Amy...

When people hear the word “fascism” they naturally think of its ugly racism and anti-Semitism as practiced by the totalitarian regimes of Mussolini and Hitler. But there was also an economic policy component of fascism, known in Europe during the 1920s and ’30s as “corporatism,” that was an essential ingredient of economic totalitarianism as practiced by Mussolini and Hitler. So-called corporatism was adopted in Italy and Germany during the 1930s and was held up as a “model” by quite a few intellectuals and policy makers in the United States and Europe. A version of economic fascism was in fact adopted in the United States in the 1930s and survives to this day. In the United States these policies were not called “fascism” but “planned capitalism.” The word fascism may no longer be politically acceptable, but its synonym “industrial policy” is as popular as ever.

--------------------------------------SNIP-----------------------------

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo85.html

Bush vehemently denied that he was going to "privatize" social security during the campaign - remember the names they called Dems for making that accusation? Well, it's not the first time Bush has lied... and it was a blatent, deliberate, calculated lie. I can see it's a family tradition. Remember "read my lips"?

Anyway, we can always humor them, and instead of using "privatize" use "corporatize." The plan is to give money to corporate money-managers, to invest in corporate ventures - hard to get more corporate than that.

Great to see you posting, Indy! I saw a bumper sticker today that made me think of you -

"There are patriots on all sides" or something like that.

Thanks Amy!

There are Patriots, and there are fools...the real difference is in the defining Principles of one's actions.

Here is another one for you Amy...you lil' rebel you!

"If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters. This struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physical one; or it may be both moral and physical; but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what a people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress. Men may not get all they pay for in this world; but they must pay for all they get. If we ever get free from all the oppressions and wrongs heaped upon us, we must pay for their removal. We must do this by labor, by suffering, by sacrifice, and, if needs be, by our lives, and the lives of others."

~Frederick Douglas

January 26, 2005
WHITE HOUSE MEMO
Bush Finds a Backer in Moynihan, Who's Not Talking
By RICHARD W. STEVENSON

WASHINGTON, Jan. 25 - As he pushes ahead with his proposal to remake Social Security by adding private investment accounts, President Bush has so far failed to attract any prominent Democratic supporters.

At least, no prominent Democrats who are still alive.

Instead, Mr. Bush is taking cover under the reputation of Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, the New York Democrat who died nearly two years ago. Mr. Moynihan served as co-chairman of the commission Mr. Bush established in 2001 to recommend ways of establishing personal accounts, a fact the president and his aides mention almost every time they discuss the issue publicly.

"Much of my thinking has been colored by the work of the late Senator Moynihan and other members of the commission, who took a lot of time to take a look at this problem and who came up with some creative suggestions," Mr. Bush said to reporters last month in the Oval Office.

Treasury Secretary John W. Snow began an op-ed article about Social Security in The Wall Street Journal recently by invoking Mr. Moynihan. Scott McClellan, the White House press secretary, frequently refers to Mr. Moynihan's leadership of the commission in defending the president's call for personal accounts.

But in implying that Mr. Moynihan was a supporter of his approach to Social Security, Mr. Bush and his team are open to challenge, based on Mr. Moynihan's record and documented indications that he was not totally happy with the commission's work. Moreover, their use of his name has drawn criticism from the Moynihan family and people who worked with him.

"It's confusing to me and my mom why they are constantly invoking him without presenting his position on Social Security," said Maura Moynihan, the senator's daughter, referring as well to his widow, Elizabeth.

"I think it's odd or strange or unsettling that the Democrat being invoked here is dead and not able to defend or explain his position, which we all know he would have done with eloquence and passion," said Ms. Moynihan, who described herself as a liberal who supported Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts in the presidential race.
[SNIP]

MORE:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/26/politics/26moynihan.html

Is Maggie Gallagher the Next Armstrong Williams?

My question... is this the real story or another false Administration "leak" akin to the Dan Rather debacle meant to blur the issue? If nothing else, this is reasonable for the GAO and FCC investigations to continue.

---
$41,500 is a far cry from the quarter million dollars that Williams received and at first glance, this looks like a far cry from the Armstrong Williams debacle.

But again that doesn't matter. The appearance is enough to bring forward accusations of "payola."
http://www.nationalledger.com/commentary/article_176.shtml

My friend attended the anti-inaugeral ceremonies. Below are some interesting photos of that the media most likely did not show.....

By George! Our city has been besieged by men in tuxedos wearing cowboy hatsand women wearing fur coats! For the record, I have nothing against Texans.I like the Dallas Cowboys cheerleaders. Here are some photos of the protest to counter the coronation of our king...

http://www.flashito.com/photos/album.php?name=personal/2005/inauguration
_________________________________________________

The Onion | The Rice Confirmation
http://www.theonion.com/wdyt/index.php?issue=4104

Views from the street - hilarious!
_________________________________________________

The more honorable Ms. Rice - the Evil Condi's
Cousin Connie, actual public servant

http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/rice.html
_________________________________________________

Gore Vidal gets to the point in this wonderful democracy now speech.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/01/25/1458238
_________________________________________________

Washington Revote? Only if Florida & Ohio Go First!

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/209165_paulloeb.html GOOD ONE!! AC
_________________________________________________

Bush tried to 'bully' Canada (Vancouver Sun)

WASHINGTON -- U.S. President George W. Bush tried to bully Canadian officials on missile defence during his visit last month by linking Canada's participation to future protection from the U.S., the Washington Post reported Sunday.

The newspaper quoted an unidentified Canadian official who was in the room as saying Bush waved off their attempts to explain how contentious the issue is for Prime Minister Paul Martin's minority government.

"[Bush] leaned across the table and said: 'I'm not taking this position, but some future president is going to say, Why are we paying to defend Canada?' " the official was quoted as saying.

"Most of our side was trying to explain the politics, how it was difficult to do," he said.

But Bush "waved his hands and remarked: 'I don't understand this. Are you saying that if you got up and said this is necessary for the defence of Canada, it wouldn't be accepted?' "

The White House refused comment on the surprisingly pointed remarks.

"I'm not going to comment on an unnamed source in a newspaper," spokesman Ken Lisaius said Sunday. "The president has been quite clear about the strong relationship with Canada."

Amy Butcher, a spokeswoman for the Prime Minister's Office, said she couldn't talk about the particulars of the missile-defence discussion.

"Our position is clear. We'll make a decision based on Canadian interests," said Butcher, adding that the House of Commons will participate in the debate.

Martin has told reporters that Bush's position at the meeting was one of incredulity that anyone would oppose the system, aimed at knocking out supersonic missiles launched by terrorists or rogue states.

But the Post report suggests the meeting was far more tense than that.

U.S. diplomats had assured their Canadian counterparts that the prickly issue wouldn't be raised during Bush's visit.

But it came up at the private meeting with Martin and the president unexpectedly raised it during a major foreign-policy speech in Halifax the next day.

Paul Cellucci, America's ambassador to Canada, said earlier this month that the United States is optimistic Canada will sign on to the missile-defence plan before the end of March 2005.

The system will rely on interceptors based in underground silos at Fort Greely, Alaska, and Vandenberg Air Force Base in California.

Pentagon officials blamed an unsuccessful test launch last month on a "minor glitch" in computer software. They say they may never actually publicly declare when the shield is fully ready.

From MN Vets for Peace

I learned yesterday morning that insurgents released a video of two American hostages in Iraq. This by itself isn't a huge shock, but what IS a huge story, and obviously part of a cover up, is that there are apparently American hostages and some of them have been held SINCE
BEFORE THE ELECTION.

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/057056.php

Carol, sounds like you didn't watch Matt's interview of JK back in October. Lauer has become such a pompass ass I don't know why Katie stands for it. Why are you blogging at 4:34 a.m.? I like the Today Show but won't watch it, national news or talking heads as long as they continue to focus on the egos of Matthews and folks like Lauer and basically give Bush and everyone in his Admin a free ride.There are no more Cronkite type new folks anymore, its all about ratings, doing what they think 51% of the audience approves and their egos My personal boycott continues.Watching is a pure waste of time.

On Anniversary of Auschwitz, seems ironic how US treated British prisoners in Guantanamo. Guardian article mentions frequent injections which made them psychotic. This article is from the BBC. see also http://www.guardian.co.uk

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4208927.stm

CSPAN3 is showing the chimps press conf. Here's what they're calling in on their web-site.....

CURRENTLY ON...

C-SPAN
House Session

C-SPAN2
Senate Session

C-SPAN3
Lost in Space

"As a personal note, I like Dean and at the same time am worried about his need for attention. Should he be the face on the tube or a person behind the scene? Often, those behind the scene have the most power. Think Howard would stand for being the tube face only? Think Howard would be a behind-the-scene strategist and be off the tube?"

The answer is no Bob,Dean is a great Dems but demands too much attention. Some say lets not play it safe and go out on a limb with Dean. I'm personally unwilling to gamble the future of the party on Dean. I was going to post that he he is a great strategist but on second though his strategy during the primaries was a disaster.

A Tuesday quote of Bush shows what a hypocrite he is. "Bush said that while outlawing abortion remains a DISTANT GOAL, it is one that seems to be moving into view." But even from the far side of the river we can see its glimmering."

Why is he being allowed to be on both sides of Abortion. How is that any differnt from saying I voted for it before I voted against it. It may be a Distant Goal, but the fact that he admits it is a GOAL at all tells us where he stands. He won't try and unilaterally abolish it, but will set everything in motion for the Supreme Ct. To do exactly that. We should archive these quotes for the upcoming Chief Justice hearings. The media has bought into Bush's bs position that he dopesn't want to abolish all abortions.He is on both sides of the issue and getting away with it. My guess is that he wants it abolished after he leaves office.

Clarence Page had an interesting editorial regarding Bush's push for a "ownership society" that he labels a RISK TAKER SOCIETY. A phrase that we need to hone. His take is that it is targeted towards minorites he would like to see gamble away their retirement.

Interesting thought: Evangelicals are uniformly against state run Gambling Operations. Why are we not pushing them to Oppose Nationally sanctioned Gambling with SS monies?

Posted by: Ira at January 26, 2005 11:16 AM

Ira,

Great post. Like you, I just got done listening to the chimp in chief. Bushco will come out with all guns blazing claiming that the "math tells us" that social security will be "broke" in 25 years. We all know it's because of his misguided economic policies that our system is in such terrible trouble. We have to make the argument that HE HAS BROKEN THE BANK. I also agree that we should all start to use the term Risk Taker Society as a means to highlight what Bushco's plans are. Personal accounts my ass. "Personal risks" is the way to put it.

We need to start demanding that Bush tell us now what social programs he plans on cutting. The deficit is out of control and unless he plans on breaking his pledge to cut the deficit in 1/2 (which woould not be surprising) we should expect draconian cuts in programs. Which ones.
Gee he withheld the $100 billion expenditure on Iraq until after the election. Didn't he accuse Kerry of exagerating when Kerry accused Bush of wanting to spend at least another $100 billion on Iraq? Ben Nelson is an ass. Yea right Senator we are going to BUY our way out of this debacle. That seems to be the American answer to everything. If you screw up throw more money at it. In psychology its called cognitive dissonance.

WASHINGTON — White House officials said Tuesday that this year's budget deficit would reach a high of $427 billion, propelled by President Bush's request for an additional $80 billion for war costs in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Separately, congressional analysts forecast a generally worsening budget outlook, saying the federal deficit would become a knottier problem in the next 10 years.

Together, the developments suggested Bush would have a harder time than previously thought in keeping his promise to cut the deficit in half by the end of his presidency. White House officials said, however, that they would still meet that goal.

On Capitol Hill, the news caused Republicans and Democrats to wring their hands.

"Difficult debates and choices are at our doorstep," said Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), chairman of the Senate Budget Committee and an administration ally who has called for new controls on entitlement spending. "If we do nothing, our kids and grandkids will be overwhelmed by the cost of our inaction."

Bush on Feb. 7 will send Congress his proposed budget for the fiscal year that begins in October — setting off a debate among Republican lawmakers on how to balance the competing goals of deficit reduction, extending the president's tax cuts and approving an overhaul of Social Security that could cost more than $1 trillion.

In July, the administration had projected this year's budget deficit would hit $331 billion. The deficit last year was $412 billion, a record.

As U.S. troops fight deadly, rear-guard insurgencies in Afghanistan and Iraq, the cost of the conflicts has far exceeded initial predictions from senior Bush administration officials.

The president's request for additional war funding — if approved as expected — would bring the total authorized for the current fiscal year to $105 billion, compared to $87 billion last year for military operations and reconstruction aid in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The new request also would raise the total cost of military operations since Sept. 11, 2001, to about $280 billion, far exceeding many initial estimates.

Larry Lindsey, then-director of the president's National Economic Council, estimated before the Iraq war began that its total cost would be $100 billion to $200 billion.

The estimates were dismissed by other administration officials as too high, and Lindsey was fired shortly afterward.

In spring 2003, top administration officials, including Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz, said that Iraq's vast oil reserves would help defray the costs of an extended U.S. occupation. Nearly two years later, the Iraqi government is able to pay for only a small fraction of its reconstruction, let alone the U.S. forces.

Of the administration's new $80-billion request for Iraq and Afghanistan, about $75 billion would go to the Pentagon.

Military operations in Iraq are costing on average $4.3 billion a month, and in Afghanistan, $900 million, a senior official said.

Although officials revealed few specifics about how the new money would be spent, one senior administration official said much of it would be devoted to refurbishing and replacing Army equipment and to training Iraqi security forces — which the U.S. hoped would bring about a reduction of American troops in Iraq.

Another chunk of the money would go toward combat brigades that the Army is developing to ease the strain of overseas deployments on its soldiers. The supplemental request also would help fund the additional 30,000 soldiers Congress authorized for the Army last year, a senior official said.

In addition to the $75 billion for the Pentagon, $5 billion would go to State Department projects, such as building a new embassy in Baghdad, providing relief to the stricken Darfur region of Sudan and fostering peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

"Most of these funds will support American troops on the ground by continuing to provide them with the equipment and other supplies they need," Bush said in a statement.

"And resources are included to accelerate efforts to train and equip Iraqi and Afghan forces, so they can assume greater responsibility for their own security."

The administration's request for supplemental war funding comes months later in the budget process than it did last year, leading to speculation that the White House purposefully delayed announcing the total figure until after November's presidential election.

Although the budget request no doubt will bring fresh criticism from Democrats about the course of the Iraq war, the money is expected to be approved relatively swiftly, because lawmakers hesitate to cast votes against money earmarked for U.S. troops in harm's way.

"There may be a lot of debate about whether or not the effort [in Iraq] is successful … but there will not be any debate about whether we support the troops," said Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.).

"If we want the American troops to come home, we have to do what we can to buy that ticket. Eighty-billion dollars is part of it."

In its forecast Tuesday of a rising deficit in the coming decade, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office did not include the new request for war funding. The budget analysts projected a cumulative deficit of $1.3 trillion from 2005 to 2014.

The 10-year figure represented an increase of nearly 60% from the budget office's comparable $861-billion estimate just four months ago, partly because of recent legislation extending popular tax breaks that were due to expire, such as relief from the "marriage penalty." In addition, disaster assistance to victims of the Florida hurricanes last year prompted the budget office to project similar expenses in the future, in accordance with forecasting rules.

The budget office's figures also did not take into account the revenue loss to the Treasury if Congress were to give its expected approval to an extension of major tax cuts that were enacted in 2001 and 2003, and which were scheduled to expire in the next 10 years. Nor did it include potential relief from the alternative minimum tax — which was designed to prevent high-income taxpayers from using tax breaks to escape most income taxes but was beginning to bite ordinary taxpayers as inflation pushes their income higher.

A handful of Republicans tried to argue that there was some good news in the Congressional Budget Office report. "I hope these numbers temper continued efforts to create unprecedented levels of new spending so that our economic recovery can continue without being drowned in red ink," said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas).

Democrats expressed particular anger at the administration's insistence on keeping war costs, Social Security restructuring and the revenue losses from extending Bush's tax cuts out of the budget that the president was to submit. Excluding those costs, they said, would allow Bush to spend money without counting the expenses, making the deficit look artificially low.

"Why don't you just leave out some more things and claim you balanced the budget?" said Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Budget Committee. "The only way he got to cutting the deficit in half is, he just left out things."

Conrad and House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) warned about the long-term effects financing the additional debt might have on the economy.

"Economists have warned that huge deficits are a drag on the economy that will eventually force interest rates up. If we do not act to restore accountability, then mortgages, car loans, credit card debt, and student loans will all cost more," Pelosi said.

From Kos-here's how our Dem Senator's voted on Condi...............

AYE
[some noteables]

Salazar (CO)
Lieberman(CT) [he'd vote 3 times Yes if he could]
Biden(DE) [right off the bat]
Dodd(CT)
Feingold (WI)
Clinton(NY)
Feinstein (CA)
Corazine (NJ)
Wyden (OR)
Obama(IL)

NAY
[send them thanks]

Levin(MI)
Dayton(MN)
Kennedy(MA)
Bayh(IN)
Boxer(CA)
Byrd(WV) - a most inspiring, eloquent and emphatic NO!
Kerry (MA)
Durbin(IL)
Reed(RI)
Jeffords (IND-VT)
Harkin (IA)
Akaka (HI)
Lautenberg (NJ)

FINAL TALLY: 85-13 [AYE-NAY]

nancyjane:

Bahyh, really? What a pleasant surprise. Maybe we need to give him a second look.

Glad to see my senator Durbin on the list (even though Obama isn't...). And Carl Levin too. They seem to get it.