Enjoying the Morning Paper

(so I'm slow, missing a thread change is also proof of poor sleep isn't it?)

Funny what a lousy night's sleep will do to a person. Then I check in here and I find out that a bunch of others are sleeping poorly also. Is it that we can't find any relief from the horrors surrounding us anymore?

Peace of mind has been destroyed.

I spent a restless night, too. I had this running dialogue with myself that goes something like this....

What happens if the Bushista's get EVERYTHING they want? What does America look like in 2009 when the moron rides off into the sunset? It's not a pretty picture. I had any number of visions, more homeless people, disabled vets unable to obtain benefits, hospitals swamped with people using E.R's as their only means of health care, foreclosures at record highs, increase in herion use (love those afghan poppies) college costs beyond more millions, birth control obtainable only after running a gauntlet of pro-life crazies at the few pharmacies still willing to sell birth control, AIDS cases growing, teen pregnancy on the rise, schools unable to stay open, ANWR littered with drilling equipment and reports of fouling 'accidents', churches on competetive footing for aid money that ONLY goes to people who spout their doctrines, increase in domestic violence, increase in inner city gang violence, untold numbers of rendition victims languishing in various foreign jails, Iraq still a quagmire, Iran either bombed or showing off their bombs, North Korea laughing at the U.S. terrorist bombings the rest of the world over, deficit spending at unbelievable record highs, the devaluation of the dollar, high interest rates, inflation, the bust of the housing bubble, oil companies making record profits on $5.00 a gallon gas, but asking for increasing subsidies to make up for people who can't afford that gas, Public transit systems swamped by increased ridership, but no increase in funding, high school children quitting school to take minimum wage jobs to help their families make ends meet, failure of family farms, high electricity costs and record shut offs, home heating oil too expensive for millions of families, more fouled water systems, increased levels of pollutants in the air where deals were cut to lower standards, auto industry lay-offs, plant closings, record outsourcing, senior citizens unable to pay for even OLD style medications, big pharma crying for subsidies to cover meds that no one can afford, credit card interest rates at 50%, judges applying their religion to court cases with the blessing of the supreme court, roe v. wade gone, griswold gone, faith based laws written, unmarried women who get pregnant shunned, women denied jobs in an effort to keep them at home, gun violence up, social security gutted, social programs like day care rolled up and tossed out, medicaid/medicaire bankrupt.

There's more isn't there? And should even half of this list comes to pass, how does the country fare? If people can't drive, pay for their utilities, find gainful employment, afford food and medication, or stay in school, will we finally be a country of the rich and the poor? Is the middle destined to collapse? Once the richest of the rich have everyting they want to make them as rich as they can possibly be, what else is there to take from the poor that will keep the rich in the lifestyle to which they are accustomed? Will we have to become serfs? Slaves? Sharecroppers? Does everyone end up begging at the mercy of the fundementalist churches or joining the only industry that is healthy--that being the military war complex?

The ugly Bush induced future marches closer to us every day, and there are not enough people (YET) who have looked at what could be and have shouted NO MORE!!! Does anyone doubt that 2006 is probably the most important year in our lives? If we fail next year, and the Republicans retain their majority, do you have any doubt that there will be more supreme court picks that will crush the Constitution? Does anyone doubt that Fitzgerald will be crushed, and treasonous people will go free? Does anyone doubt that big oil, big credit, big pharma, big business and big guns will own more and more of our government, and that the special interests and fundy religion will rule the land? Does anyone doubt that civil rights and equal protections will be things of the past?

No wonder we all sleep so poorly!!!!

And about Hillary:

#1. More women vote in primaries.
#2. More women vote than men.
#3. There are more registered women then men.
#4. MORE women voted for kerry than men.
#5. There are more women in this country than men!

#1. There is not one 'pure' politician left.
#2. They will destroy any DEM on any record!
#3. We don't have 'one' good choice!
#4. Hillary is politically very SMART!
#5. She won't be slapped around by anyone!
#6. She is EXPERT on slinging back cleaned poop
..... and offering up a GOOD DEBATE!

I like that, and so do alot of other women!
If not a Women President now?..... Then WHEN!

It's a silly argument to say America isn't ready.
THE MEN AREN'T READY!
But then....They are no longer the majority of voters... ARE THEY?

I could rally alot of women behind her, I could get excited about her, what a new and thrilling adventure.

It would be political death to any politician to attack her abilities JUST BECAUSE SHE IS A WOMEN!
("america is not ready for a woman..." type of poop!)
Hillary could slap down, very quickly all the other slams!

Just take a minute and taste it, just one minute run it around your mouth like a fine wine and TASTE it.... before everyone brings on the arguments of why not.

Just one minute clear your mind, take a deep breath and imagine...

posted really at 5:48AM Hawaii time

Tutter, you are so fly!

I read your posts and always just want to pick up the phone and say... "Girl you are so together, such a caring clean machine." LOVE your posts...
Keep it up!

Have to get up early to catch you in here!

Ira and others...we need a catchy way to sum up our goal of being energy independent in the next ten years. A slogan....

Posted by: Veritas at July 27, 2005 10:31 AM

My phrase: Develop American Power.

Hillary has more authentic (not manufactured) baggage than she can possibly defend in a nasty primary fight - with her family's involvement in the 2000 pardon scandals being one primo example. If she runs in 2007, she better plan on wearing a raincoat, because the authentic dirt of the Clinton era will end up flying in her direction, but this time from Democratic operatives working for other candidates. I don't want either of the Clinton anywhere near the White House every again, except as visitors. This party can do better. Hillary is the one candidate that can probably hold the right together, after the scandals we're about to see emerge in the Bush Administration.

"Harlow said that after Novak's call, he checked Plame's status and confirmed that she was an undercover operative. He said he called Novak back to repeat that the story Novak had related to him was wrong and that Plame's name should not be used. But he did not tell Novak directly that she was undercover because that was classified."

Fascinating revelation in Pincus' Post story. So, if Harlow is telling the truth, somebody gave Novak the OK to use her name. Who might that person be?

No wonder we all sleep so poorly!!!!

Posted by: tutterfly at July 27, 2005 11:47 AM

Yes tut...

You forgot one thing though (and I added it to the last thread): LGBT folks (including Log Cabiners) all jailed or executed.

At this point, Canada will be too swamped with asylum seekers to be a viable option.

To avoid this, I will do the only thing I can do for now: BUY BLUE. Red products and services are killing me literally and figuratively - the brake on my Ford failed yesterday! (Driving my father's leased BMW today.) I've also said goodbye to Bank of America after 11 years, as they are red as well.

Posted by: Cyrano at July 27, 2005 11:59 AM

Unfortunately I do have to agree with this assessment. Hillary unites the right even more effectively than Bush unites the left.

Posted by: Cyrano at July 27, 2005 11:59 AM

Oddly enough, I agree with you.
BUT!

The average american, as you well know is not as politically knowledgable as you.

All they will think is...
Well my life was good when Clinton was in office!
If I vote for Hillary, perhaps I can have that way of life back.

As you know, most folks only care about themselves.

Tut,

You ain't kidding sister. No sleepy except starting a 5 AM. It's driving me insane. I can stand alot of things, but trying to sleep at night is turning into a battle of the sheets.

oncall:

developing American Power may include drilling in Anwr and twisted by those deisiring to destroy the Environment.
I think that energy independence needs to be linked to National Security and aversion to terrorism. something to the effect of Developing Energy Security in this Decade.
But I think that a call for a goal and a specific timetable like JFK linked to patriotism and civic responsibility which is nonexistant with this administration, would be a good idea. We need to reconnect with security moms.

I am not a Hillary fan, I am still joined at the hip to JK, but it is self destructive to attack Hillary.

We were so distressed when the fear of terror re-elected BUSH...

We couldn't understand why?

American voters never 'make sense'

But I do know all my friends who voted for Bush... "get-it" now, they are VERY un-happy now.

All they care about is..
my job
my pension
my health care
my savings
my kids

I think they know now all politicians are crooks.
It's just a choice between the better crook.

The woman thing is being ignored.
We all have heard how women aren't rational...

Who's to say we woman wouldn't just vote for her BECAUSE SHE IS A WOMAN!!!

I'm sad to have to say this, but I think that it would be women that would defeat Hillary. There is nothing worse than women enjoying sabotaging other women. The men will watch a good cat fight. Look at the women who enjoyed Martha Stewart going to jail and Carly Fiorina getting the boot from HP. Much as women decry the inablity to break through the glass ceiling, and holler for equal pay, we shoot ourselves in the foot when it comes to sticking together.

That being said, I have no doubt Hillary wants to run. The Republicans are salivating over the idea. The fundies are whipped up about what they can do to destroy her. I don't dislike her. I don't think she would make a bad president. But, I'm dead sure that she would lose. And, think about the Republicans who plan to run. Frist? Allen? Romney? McCain? Santorum?

Like I said, I don't think she can carry women and I don't think I want to watch how horribly a large segment of the female population would treat one of their own. If she thinks she can overcome the Clinton bagage, she's crazy. That is only MHO, and I'm sad to have to offer it.

OT but it's all relevant these days... The Toledo Blade has cajones we wish more MSM newspapers had... Whodda thunk it...

The Iraq mess

IN SPITE of expressions of determination by President Bush and members of his administration to stay the course, the flow of bad news out of Iraq indicates that it is a mess which will get worse before it gets better.
--snip--
The bombings in London illustrated that Iraq has increasingly replaced Afghanistan as the primary training ground for terrorists, and the devices used by the suicide bombers appear to have been a form of the explosives developed in Iraq. One recently killed 24 children and an American soldier who was passing out candy to them in Baghdad.
--snip--
The next step toward making the government self-sufficient is the development of a draft constitution, now set for Aug. 15, a deadline that will probably not be met.

In the meantime, the U.S. Army said this month that it has signed another extension of its contract with Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root for another $5 billion to support U.S. forces in Iraq. The Army had not seen fit to announce the extension when it awarded it in May, in spite of the fact that some of Halliburton's previous billing, which has netted it $9 billion so far in the war, was disputed.

None of this has much to do with American elections, or Republican and Democratic wrangling. Mr. Bush will be president until January, 2009, whatever his ratings might be. The Congress shows itself as largely irrelevant to what is going on in Iraq, apart from being required to vote the money to finance the war, now running at about $5 billion a month.

It is increasingly clear that this war will not be won in any way that can be discerned as victory, and, in the meantime, it is draining America's blood away, in the lives of our soldiers and in resources that could be used to meet other needs.

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050727/OPINION02/507270307/-1/OPINION

BTW, Rumsfeld is in Iraq now ordering/threatening them to complete the first draft of their Constitution by Aug. 15. Here's what Reuters says...

Rumsfeld, making his tenth trip to Iraq since the war began, urged Iraqis to finish drafting their constitution by an Aug. 15 deadline. "We don't want any delays," Rumsfeld told reporters. "Now's the time to get on with it."

The committee drafting the constitution resumed work on Tuesday after Sunni Arabs -- the 20 percent minority community -- ended a six-day boycott that began when one of their committee members was gunned down last week.

The committee's chairman, Humam Hamoudi, said on Wednesday committee members would meet on Aug. 1 to decide whether to ask for a six-month extension. This would push back the entire process by six months, meaning elections currently pencilled in for the end of the year would not happen until mid-2006.

That would be a severe blow to Washington, which is keen to keep Iraq to a tight schedule in its transition to democracy.
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L27617063.htm

I agree tutter, again.

But, I would like to wait and see...

If the 'Bush Bad Government' breaks open, like it might.

Perhaps the Clinton's bad deeds won't matter.

I meet every two weeks with voting folks and it is a different world intellectually than 'this blog' (especially.)(I mean no disrespect of these great and wonderful folks)

It is based on pure emotion, that is just the truth.

Also in the WaPo this morning on page A6...a must-read, IMHO... What are they trying to hide this time???

White House To Withhold Nominee's Tax Returns
Document Release Excludes First Bush Administration

By Charles Babington and Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, July 27, 2005; Page A06

The Bush administration will not give Senate investigators access to the federal tax returns of Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr., White House and congressional officials said yesterday, a break with precedent that could exacerbate a growing conflict over document disclosure i

Although nominees to the high court in recent decades were required to provide their three most recent annual tax forms, the administration will neither collect such documents from Roberts nor share them with the Senate Judiciary Committee, the officials said. Instead, the Internal Revenue Service will produce a one-page summary.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/26/AR2005072601879.html

Ah, just found this update on the tax return issue... They're up to something again...

White House Collects Roberts's Tax Returns
Administration Won't Commit to Release

Wednesday, July 27, 2005; 11:54 AM

The White House said this morning that it has collected and examined federal tax returns from Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. but would not commit to allowing the Senate Judiciary Committee to review them as part of its confirmation process.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said the returns were provided to the White House counsel's office while it was vetting Roberts prior to his nomination last week. Asked if the returns would be made available to Senate investigators, as they have been for previous high court nominees, McClellan said, "It's getting ahead of things. There just hasn't been a request at this point."

The statement at McClellan's morning briefing contradicted information that the White House provided in response to questions by The Washington Post yesterday. The White House said then that under a policy enacted in 2001 it would neither examine Roberts's tax returns itself nor provide them to the Senate. The policy, enacted after President Bush took office, ended the longstanding practice of collecting tax forms from the past three years from all judicial nominees and instead asked the Internal Revenue Service to perform a "tax check" to determine if any problems existed.

But White House spokeswoman Dana M. Perino said this morning that she had not been aware Tuesday that an exception had been made in the Roberts case. Neither were Republican and Democratic officials at the Judiciary Committee, who told The Post that Roberts's tax returns were not being examined.

The tax return issue reflects a broader conflict over document disclosure between the White House and Senate Democrats. The White House yesterday began releasing the first of 75,000 pages of documents stemming from Roberts's service as a lawyer in President Ronald Reagan's administration two decades ago but refused to release papers from his time as deputy solicitor general under President George H.W. Bush from 1989 to 1993.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/27/AR2005072701035.html

Again, I appreciate this blog, that is so different than the majority out there.

Thankyou for letting me have my say!
I have to go to work, 6:30am here,
But will check back later.

From the depths of my heart, I am just looking at it from the ordinary guy's point of view, and searching for a way to bring as many of us together under one banner as possible.

What worries me most is the huge separations in our party and the in-fighting.

Posted by: madame defarge at July 27, 2005 12:33 PM

Once again, something like this SHOULD be a showstopper... but I'm more than confident that the "opposition" in the confirmation process will bend over and say something nice and some lameass deal will be struck in te name of civility that allows like 1/5 of his tax returns to be released.... blah blah blah.

HEY YOU! YEAH YOU, OUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES!

We say, "Sorry, no taxy returny, no confirmy."

What else ya hidin' under that Iraq?

didn't Clinton lose several attorney general nominees over failing to pay nanny taxes which showed up on Zoe Baird's tax returns. Am I missing something here. Clinton's nominees were expected to turn over tax returns and rejected because of them, but we now have a different standard for Robert's tax returns? Is McClellan suffering from selective amnesia here?

Is McClellan suffering from selective amnesia here?

Posted by: Ira at July 27, 2005 12:43 PM

That's a rhetorical question, correct?

It taxes the mind.

The something to hide nomineee probably paid big bucks for his Aryan looking adopted children. Sorry if that sounds awful.

As far as Hillary goes, I've talked to non-internetS types of people too, and I've gotten more negatives than positives. Males and females both. The one man I talked to said he would vote against her simply because she is a woman. And, one female semi-friend calls A Hillary campaign a hand over to the Republicans.

As far as the DNC and the DLC joinging hands and making peace, as much as it would be for the good of the party, we have to realize that we STILL have individual agendas being put ahead of team playing. The Republicans have nearly banned that kind of thinking. They walk, talk, eat and sleep in lock step. It's the same tune all the time, and the singers are in perfect harmony. I will say it one more time, EVEN if people don't like or agree with what they say, it gets in, it computes, it gets remembered, quoted and requoted till it's true, and when we try to talk their talk we sound like idiots, because we are trying to insert our messages into their music, and instaed of hearing any harmony, people STILL only hear the parts they are used to hearing.

The disorganized democratic party is still there for all to see. Hillary running the DLC is a dividing issue, and if that's not proof enough what a presidential run would look like, I don't know what is.

Posted by: tutterfly at July 27, 2005 01:10 PM

Exactly.

ACTION ALERT!!! IMPORTANT PETITION FROM PFAW!!!

Please go to this site to sign this petition demanding that the White House release ALL papers about John Roberts so that senators can make an informed decision based on facts. We all know what's at stake here. We've been discussing it all morning. Here's a chance to do something and pass the word onto others.

From People for the American Way

Petition the Senate: "Demand White House Comply With Information Requests"

Americans know very little about Judge John Roberts, or what Mr. Roberts would do to our rights and freedoms if confirmed by the U.S. Senate to a seat on our Supreme Court. In order to make an informed decision, Senators must receive the same kind of information that they have been given during previous nominations. Right now, the White House is refusing to give your senators such information. Let your senators know you expect them to stand up for their constitutional role in the confirmation process!

Read the rest, sign the petition (please!!!), and pass it onto others ===> http://petition.savethecourt.org/ft/

Do you want to know the first thing I thought when I heard about Hillary and the DLC? I thought that this is all about a Hillary vs. Dean power play. So, before we can ALL get on the same PARTY page, we have to pick between Hil and Howie. Lovely. Eat your own, and then go beat up the bad guys. There is no recipe for success in this.

We plainly expose that there are factions and forces who dislike each other, who disown each other. These factions want to be the hands down voice of the party without compromise. They make it hard for people who would come over to figure out where they fit in. Trying to find a place where they see agreement is harder than trying to find hens teeth.

Are we going to have two party platforms? Are we going to have a platform at all? Why worry about swiftboating or fundy attacks? We can sink our own boat and recite bible verses as the ship goes down, and then enjoy the slugfest of Dems blaming Dems after we lose ground in 2006. Russert and all the others fun pundits will have a ball a asking all the 'leaders' what went wrong.

Lovely.

OT but Right On!

Responsibility can be contaigeous...

Really it can. Even in the Deep South.

Testing for depleted uranium in La. soldiers passes into law
By Jan Clifford, Contributing Writer
June 27, 2005

Louisiana became the first state in the nation to pass a bill to give to all military veterans returning from Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom the right to be tested for depleted uranium (DU) contamination. The bill received unanimous bipartisan support, and Governor Kathleen Babineaux Blanco signed it into law on June 16.

The bill, Act 69, was introduced in the Louisiana State House of Representatives by Rep. Juan LaFonta and co-sponsored by Rep. Jalila Jefferson-Bullock. Retired Army Command Sgt. Maj. Bob Smith, who served three tours of duty with the Green Berets during the Vietnam War, is responsible for bringing the issue to the attention of the legislature. Advocates testifying for the bill were Smith of New Orleans and Army veteran Ward Reilly of Baton Rouge.

"'Supporting the troops' means more than magnetic yellow ribbons and plastic flags on SUVs - it also means truly caring about the health and welfare of each and everyone one of our young women and men in uniform," Smith said. "That is why we pushed for this bill."

Among some military health experts, DU contamination is believed to be responsible for the varieties of symptoms associated with Gulf War Syndrome. They say it can cause leukemia, various other cancers, DNA breakdown and an unusually high occurrence of severe birth defects in offspring of soldiers who have come into contact with it. Current mandatory testing by the Veterans Administration and the Department of Defense has been shown to be ineffective due to the lack of adequate testing procedures.

Smith hopes that the test will be a best practices health-screening for exposure to DU and will include a procedure involving sensitive methods capable of detecting DU at low levels, using equipment with the capacity to discriminate between radioisotopes in naturally occurring levels of uranium and the far more harmful characteristics of DU. Specific details of the test's adminsitration have not yet been determined, but no state expenses will be incurred since the federal government subsidizes the $170 test.

New name for 'war on terror'
By Matthew Davis
BBC News, Washington

The Bush administration is abandoning the phrase "war on terror" to better express the fight against al-Qaeda and other groups as an ideological struggle as much as a military mission.

While the slogan - first used by President George W Bush in the wake of the 9/11 attacks - may still be heard from time to time, the White House says it will increasingly be couched in other language.

In recent days, senior administration figures have been speaking publicly of "a global struggle against the enemies of freedom", and of the need to use all "tools of statecraft" to defeat them.

The shift in terms comes at a time when the US public is increasingly pessimistic about the war in Iraq - and sceptical about its links to the fight against terrorism.

One White House official told the BBC the move did not mark a change of approach, but was intended to give a broader perspective to the "evolving nature" of the struggle.

'Economic influence'

Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld spoke in the new language on Friday, praising a retiring Navy officer who had served as "our country wages the global struggle against the enemies of freedom, the enemies of civilization".

The next day, national security advisor Steven Hadley co-wrote a piece for the New York Times in which he set out the current thinking.

"Military action is only one piece of the war on terrorism," Mr Hadley wrote.

"At the same time, however, we must bring all of the tools of statecraft, economic influence and private enterprise to bear in this war.

"Freedom-loving people around the world must reach out through every means - communications, trade, education - to support the courageous Muslims who are speaking the truth about their proud religion and history, and seizing it back from those who would hijack it for evil ends."

The country's top military officer spoke in a similar vein on Monday.

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

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4719169.stm

Evo Devo Is the New Buzzword ...
... for the 200-year search for links between embryos and evolution
By Brian K. Hall

It would be hard to imagine two more different timescales in the lives of organisms than development--the transformation of an embryo to an adult within a single generation--and evolution--the modification and transformation of organisms between generations that reach back 600 million years. Yet for the past two centuries, natural philosophers, morphologists and biologists have asked whether there is a fundamental relationship between development (ontogeny) and evolution (phylogeny). There is, and it finds expression in the thriving discipline of evolutionary developmental biology (evo devo, as it has been called since the early 1990s).

Endless Forms Most Beautiful examines one of the most exciting aspects of evo devo--the incorporation of molecular biology that followed the discovery of classes of conserved regulatory (developmental, or "switching") genes: the homeobox, or Hox, genes. Carroll, who is a professor of genetics at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, writes in a lively style, peppering the book with endlessly fascinating examples that are beautifully illustrated by color and black-and-white drawings and photographs. To appreciate where this latest book devoted to evo devo is situated in the long history of the discipline, we need to go back almost 200 years.

The study of embryonic stages across the animal kingdom--comparative embryology--flourished from 1830 on. Consequently, when On the Origin of Species appeared in 1859, Charles Darwin knew that the embryos of all invertebrates (worms, sea urchins, lobsters) and vertebrates (fish, serpents, birds, mammals) share embryonic stages so similar (which is to say, so conserved throughout evolution) that the same names can be given to equivalent stages in different organisms. Darwin also knew that early embryonic development is based on similar layers of cells and similar patterns of cell movement that generate the forms of embryos and of their organ systems. He embraced this community of embryonic development. Indeed, it could be argued that evo devo (then known as evolutionary embryology) was born when Darwin concluded that the study of embryos would provide the best evidence for evolution.

Darwin's perception was given a theoretical basis and evo devo its first theory when Ernst Haeckel proposed that because ontogeny (development) recapitulates phylogeny (evolutionary history), evolution could be studied in embryos. Technological advances in histological sectioning and staining made simultaneously in the 1860s and 1870s enabled biologists to compare the embryos of different organisms. Though false in its strictest form, Haeckel's theory lured most morphologists into abandoning the study of adult organisms in favor of embryos--literally to seek evolution in embryos. History does repeat itself; 100 years later a theory of how the body plan of a fruit fly is established, coupled with technological advances, ushered in the molecular phase of evo devo evaluated by Carroll.

MORE>>>

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=12&articleID=0005D708-2F7C-123B-AF7C83414B7F0000

Just read this and had to share.......

Since the WH has decalred that the 'global war on terror' (GWOT) is now the 'global struggle against violent extremism' (GSAVE) does that mean the 'war preznit' is now the 'struggling preznit'

And according to an advisor for Jean Schmidt running against Paul Hackett in the Ohio special election, I quote the NYT article....

'We are not at war here'

Got that people--there is no war anymore!!!!

New Name for War On Terror, eh?

Freedumb

I just don't see Dean and Clinton as enemies.

Whoever said "Just swish it around in your mouth for a while" or whatever it was regarding a possible Hillary candidacy should be writing speeches for Dems.

I've read all sorts of things about how good she'd be and how bad she'd be, and nothing touched me the way that phrase, really the whole post on the previous thread, did. Who posted that? OK, I'm being lazy, but in my defense, I've got dail-up and it's really acting up this morning! Honest!

Anyway, (this is more conversational than I usually get in print, I know...) that post was a real show stopper. All those facts about women in America... and then, "taste it."

I'll vote for any Dem. Biden, Clinton, Kerry, heck - Tom Dick OR Harry will do, just as long as he's not a Republican.

But - I've swished it around a little, tasted it, savored it... Oooo, I like it. I like it a lot.

Sounds like a Neo-Con-flict

Amy Goodman/Democracy Now! interviewed Alfred Ross who broke the story about Roberts being a part of the Federalist Society. Here's a small snippet from the interview and the link to the entire background story and transcript of the interview...

some background info:
As the TV ad war continues, the Roberts story has taken a new twist. There is growing focus today on an organization that Roberts claims he cannot remember if he joined or not: the Federalist Society. Roberts and the White House say the nominee has no recollection about his possible membership. But yesterday, the Washington Post reported that it had obtained a 1997-98 Federalist Society leadership directory listing Roberts, then a partner in a private law firm, as being a steering committee member in the group's Washington chapter.

On Monday, Roberts declined to say why he was listed in the directory when asked by a reporter about the discrepancy during a morning get-acquainted meeting with Sen. Dianne Feinstein. White House spokesperson Scott McClellan was asked about Roberts and the Federalist Society at the daily press briefing.

snip from interview...

AMY GOODMAN: It’s good to have you with us. Can you tell us about what you know, what evidence you have that John Roberts is a member of the Federalist Society, and then, of course, what the Federalist Society is?

ALFRED ROSS: Well, Roberts, whether he’s paid his dues or not, was prominently listed in the 1997/1998 leadership directory published by the Federalist Society itself. So it is very difficult to believe that he didn't have any membership. He was on the Steering Committee. The important question is not whether he paid dues as a member or not. The question really at stake here is where does Roberts and his Federalist Society cronies plan to steer our ship of state. If one looks at the history of the Federalist Society, which was established at the inspiration of Robert Bork in the early 1980s, their entire trajectory has been to move our judicial system in an extremely radically right wing direction.

In order to effectuate this, the Federalist Society has established 15 practice groups which you can find on their own website which is fed-soc.org. These 15 practice groups are busy developing new legal theories for every area of American jurisprudence, from civil rights law to national security law, international law, securities regulations law, and so on. And if one goes through the publications of their practice groups, one can only gasp not only at the breadth of their agenda, but the extremism of their ideology.

It is not insignificant that today Timothy Flanigan will have hearings at the Senate Judiciary Committee on his nomination to be Deputy Attorney General of the United States. In the same leadership directory that lists John Roberts on the Steering Committee to the Federalist Society, it lists Timothy Flanigan on the Program Committee of the Federalist Society. And both men have their own personal track records in the right wing of American jurisprudence. In 1987 the Senate Judiciary decided that Robert Bork's ideology was so far outside the mainstream of American jurisprudence that he was not fit to serve on the Supreme Court. The same kind of strict scrutiny should be applied to John Roberts who is on the Steering Committee of the organization that Robert Bork inspired.

--snip--
AMY GOODMAN: Are you saying that the White House called The Washington Post to get them to retract that Roberts was a member of the Federalist Society, which then they did and now with the documents they are reasserting that he was?

ALFRED ROSS: Well, that’s clear. They not only called The Washington Post but they called a number of other prominent newspapers across the country. And the reason why they were doing it is they very much did not want the Senate Judiciary Committee or the American people to unravel the thread of the Federalist Society and begin to discover the incredible penetration of its membership throughout our judicial system and, more importantly, the underlying ideology that the group represents. Roberts himself has only sat on a federal court for basically about two years, which is amazing for someone to be appointed to the Supreme Court. And the question is how does one begin to access his underlying ideology? And this is a very important way for the Senate Judiciary and the American people to understand Roberts, Flanigan, and the Bush administration's goals for our legal system.

--snip--
AMY GOODMAN: Finally, do they take a stance on abortion?

ALFRED ROSS: Well, officially the Federalist Society, as an organization, doesn't take a stance on anything. But that's rather a sham. Throughout their literature and at their forums, they endorse not only anti-abortion ideology, but extremist ideology on civil rights, national security law, telecommunications law, and every other issue you can possibly imagine.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/07/26/1419244

**********

Scary, eh? Please sign the PFAW's petition!!! http://petition.savethecourt.org/ft/

And according to an advisor for Jean Schmidt running against Paul Hackett in the Ohio special election, I quote the NYT article....
'We are not at war here'
Got that people--there is no war anymore!!!!
Posted by: tutterfly at July 27, 2005 02:56 PM

But - but - but -
What happened to our "War President" ???

Nice try Georgie, but it ain't gonna happen. You conned us, you dragged us into a full scale WAR, you idiot. Re-labeling it will not make it go away.

Well that settles it...

I get it--We are not at war HERE because we are at war THERE so we don't have to fight them HERE and anyone who goes over THERE and then comes back HERE and talks about war is not following the proper we are at war over THERE so we don't have to fight them over HERE method of describing war. A vet who comes home from over THERE and acts like we should pay attention to it over HERE is a vet who doesn't support the troops, you know. I mean, just going over THERE does not mean you can come over HERE and act like you have a credible thing to say about what is going on over THERE because when you talk about it over HERE, the new memo says this is not GWOT but GSAVE, silly.

Neo-conflagration?

I like Hillary, I like her spine of steel and I like her smarts. But I would prefer if she were not the Dem candidate in '08.
Enough already of the Bu$hes & the Clintons....since 1980 there has been either a Bu$h or a Clinton as either Prez or VP....by the '08 election, that will be 28 YEARS of this country being run by Bu$hes or Clintons...Enough already!! Too much power held in the hands of 2 Bu$hes and 2 Clintons, for 3 decades.
Looking at the slug-fest of the primaries..If Hillary is too divisive & Biden is too corporate-friendly, and Kerry and Edwards cancel each other out (how could they possibly campaign against one another now?), and Warner (V) and Obama would be good VP choices, but not enough gravitas yet for Prez...so if not Hillary, then who??
I am with Ira, my personal choice is still JK..but if Hill doesn't get the nomination, will the party look to someone from the center, from a red state, someone without a lot of built-in baggage to overcome...
My best guess at this early stage is Evan Bayh, D running against George Allen,- R.

This just in...

U.S. President George W. Bush has announced he is legally changing his name to Cesare Borgia in keeping with the Machiavellian tradition of his administration.

Got Despot?

LOL!

Tutt, great line:

The War President has become The Struggling President ("Hard work, hard work.")

Hard not to love it.

I wonder if any other presidents complained about all the hard work. Most I've heard only mentioned what a privilege it was....

Global
Struggle
Against
Violent
Extremism

GSAVE

Get used to it. Say it. Think it.

WE ARE NOT AT WAR.

Think of how convenient it will be to deny vets benefits when they didn't actually fight in a combat war, but were only helping out on the global struggle against violent extremism.

WE ARE NOT AT WAR.

Forget those war widow pensions.

WE ARE NOT AT WAR

How about starting up that struggle draft?

very good editorial today from the L.A. Times:

EDITORIAL
Operation Coverup

Scandals metastasize. That is the pattern since Watergate. What starts out looking like a small, isolated incident gradually reveals itself to be part of a larger abuse of power. Meanwhile, an unraveling coverup adds new elements. Is that happening now with the scandal over White House leaks of the identity of a CIA agent?

Some folks say that as we learn more, the scandal is getting smaller, not larger. Valerie Plame was a CIA functionary commuting openly to agency headquarters, not a spy working behind enemy lines. The law against revealing the identities of intelligence agents is complicated and probably wasn't broken in this case. And the story line gets muddier: Journalists may have revealed Plame's identity to White House honchos.

We don't buy it. However they came to learn about this juicy factoid, people in the Bush administration misused an intelligence secret to discredit a critic of its Iraq policy. And outing Plame, whether illegal or not, did harm to our national security. Plame may work in Langley, Va., but she worked with others who work in more dangerous locales. You only need to imagine how Republicans would have treated such a leak in the Clinton administration to dismiss their protestations that it's all no big deal.

It's a good bet that there has already been some lying under oath. One theory about the puzzling tenacity and ferocity of special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald — why he is sending journalists to jail for refusing to provide information he already has about an activity that probably wasn't even a crime by people other than the ones he is persecuting — is that he's switched his attention from the leak itself to perjury by White House officials who were asked about it earlier in the investigation.

Perjury is your classic coverup method, and still is used when other methods have failed. Advances in the science of spin since Watergate, however, have made a high-risk, Nixon-style coverup unnecessary in many situations.

President Bush says he won't publicly comment about the Plame case while the investigation continues. But the reason the investigation continues is partly his fault. He should have determined early on who leaked Plame's CIA identity to members of the press, and dealt with it.

Why didn't Bush two years ago just ask Karl Rove and a few others in the administration whether they had leaked Plame's identity to Bob Novak and the others? Why doesn't he ask Rove now? Is it because he knows the answer? Or because he doesn't want to have to fire Rove?

As a precaution against such a catastrophe, Bush now says he will fire anyone found to have broken the law by outing an undercover intelligence operative. Previously he had said he would fire anyone who outs an intelligence officer, period.

The coverup, in short, is going well.

http://tinyurl.com/am3al

Posted by: madame defarge at July 27, 2005 03:04 PM

I'm glad you posted that info.

"Extremist" legal society (and if he can't remember if he was ever a member or paid dues, he may have early-onset Alzheimer's and be mentally unfit to sit on the bench)... deal breaker. Not turning over papers from Bu$h 41 administration... deal breaker. Gonzilla's statement this morning paving the way to repeal Roe v Wade... deal breaker. No tax returns (precedent - Clinton's nominees had to turn their tax info over to Judiciary Committee - and I remember reading a couple of days ago that Roberts' net worth was between 2 & 6 million, but I can't remember where I read it)... deal breaker.

Got filibuster?

on.to---

didn't you get the memo? there was no cover-up leading to the war in Iraq because there is no war in Iraq. Its the global struggle against violent extremism. How can you cover up a war when there was no war in the first place. I mean, really, a war is a pretty big thing to try to hide, don't you think. The global struggle against violent extremism is right out there for everyone to see, we're winning it, and it isn't a war of any kind, it's kind of like an um, well, global struggle against violent extremism.

See, nobody covered up getting us into a war. Calm down, relax, nothing to see here, move along.

...bu$h/cheney/rumsfool & GOPers said setting a timeline would "embolden our enemies"...
This sure sounds like a timeline to me...just in time for the '06 elections::

US aims to sharply cut Iraq force within a year By Peter Graff
1 hour, 36 minutes ago

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - The United States hopes to sharply reduce its forces in Iraq by the middle of next year if all goes according to plan, its top commander on the ground said on Wednesday.
snip~
At a briefing with visiting Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, General George Casey said he expected troop cuts after a referendum on a new constitution due in October and an election for a new leader in December.

"I do believe that if the political process continues to go positively, if the developments with the (Iraqi) security forces continue to go as it is going, I do believe we will still be able to make fairly substantial reductions after these elections -- in the spring and summer of next year," he said.

It appeared to be the first time since the insurgency worsened in April that top Pentagon officials have suggested a timeline for withdrawal.

Casey's remarks came as a new poll showed most Americans think the United States will lose the war in Iraq.

continue~
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050727/us_nm/iraq_dc

"he may have early-onset Alzheimer's and be mentally unfit to sit on the bench)... deal breaker."
this is way over the top and offensive to families who have lost family members to alzheimers. call me a censor folks, but this is unproductive politics.

Does everyone else get the Media Matters for America e-newsletter? One of the emails today carried the full transcript of Ben Stein's idiotic blather from CBS Sunday Morning news show that I wrote to CBS about right after it happened (I posted my letter on the blog). The email with Stein's transcript contained his email address. I sent him Johnson's statement and my letter that I wrote to CBS.... I'll send you Stein's statement if you don't already have it; email me. Stein did (or still does?) a commercial for some eye drops of some kind. Another product not to buy goes on the list....

didn't you get the memo? there was no cover-up leading to the war in Iraq because there is no war in Iraq.
Posted by: tutterfly at July 27, 2005 03:24 PM

Are we on top of things or what???
While you were alerting me to the fact that the GWoT has been down-sized to a "struggle" and that Iraq is no longer a war, I was reading the Reuters story that evidently we won in Iraq, because we will be turning their bombed-out country back over to the Iraqi's, whether they are in the midst of a civil war or not, it appears we don't have enough spare fresh troops to send, so we're getting out of dodge...silly me, just last week I thought I heard the GOPers say, "we won't cut & run".....

I am not a Hillary fan, I am still joined at the hip to JK, but it is self destructive to attack Hillary.

Posted by: Ira at July 27, 2005 12:13 PM

once again, i find myself agreeing with you 100%!

Posted by: Ira at July 27, 2005 03:31 PM

My grandfather was senile before he died, as was his mother - they didn't call it Alzheimer's in those days. My uncle, oldest son of my maternal grandfather, has one of the sub-classifications of Alzheimer's. My aunt's husband just died in Sept. last year of Alzheimer's. I know what Alzheimer's symptoms are, and that's why I know Reagan was "senile" while still in office (my grandfather was in the last stages of "senility" and died the day after my birthday about four years before that, and he was sometimes more cognizant of his surroundings than Reagan seemed to be when he was testifying at the Iran-Contra hearings and coming up with blank looks when he was asked questions. He truly didn't remember things....

I have a higher than average IQ and I remember the organizations I've belonged to and have paid dues for, and what I don't remember from 30 or 40 years ago I can find out from journals and scrapbooks. I'm implying Roberts is lying about not remembering whether or not he belonged to the Federalist Society since it was only a few years ago.

I was using satire, Ira. Get over it.

...I would add though that the "not ready for a woman president" agrument is ridiculous. what we're ready for-- what we NEED-- is a GOOD, HONEST, STRONG president, man or woman. People think of Hillary too much as a woman politician. She's not. she's a politician that happens to be a woman. (I am not a Catholic running for president; I am a guy running for president who happens to be Catholic." -JFK) But either way, I'm not really her greatest fan...

McCain revives "Straight Talk America PAC"-

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050727/ap_on_go_co/mccain_politics

Can you say 2008?

Nonny O: I guess this site has become yours and anything you say goes. My dad died a long painful death from alzheimers, its not a joke to me, my family or millions of other touched by alzheimers, and no I won't get over it.

"I have a higher than average IQ" and I remember the organizations I've belonged to and have paid dues for, and what I don't remember from 30 or 40 years ago I can find out from journals and scrapbooks. I'm implying Roberts is lying about not remembering whether or not he belonged to the Federalist Society since it was only a few years ago.

I was using satire, Ira. "Get over it."

Questioning this Administration or their appointments is appropriate and valid but throwing any garbage onto this site is not.Telling another blogger to get over it b/c you have such a high IQ is hutzpah, plain and simple.

Bush adviser Karen Hughes responds to eleven questions from Senator Kerry on role in CIA agent outing with just two sentences... Developing...

Developing...

Posted by: monkey at July 27, 2005 04:03 PM

MonKeY???

Developing what?

Hemorrhoids from sitting on her fat ass is Texas?

Hey Monkey...

Want to show Ira and Nonny-O how to really sling crap at each other?

Whazzzamatter?!?!?

Goat got your tongue?

Fuggghetaboutit!!

two sentences from Cow Hughes----

We are not at war, just a global struggle against violent extremism. The CIA had no one working on GSAVE, so there was no one to be outed.

Indy: you are exactly right, its wortless c***, beneath this site.

two other sentences.

I cannot comment on an ongoing investigation.
I already answered that.

two more sentences.

Karl who? Never met him.

Posted by: Ira at July 27, 2005 03:31 PM

You know, Ira, I've been guilty of saying things that are "over the top" myself, and regretted it, and so I'm glad you brought it up.

Personally, I get very frustrated about the "religion" situation. I hope I never offended anyone.

I suppose we have to decide what kind of blog we want to be. I love going over to DU and reading all the hilarious but often inappropriate posts they get there. I suppose I shouldn't find them funny, but I do. At the same time, I'm glad we here tend to be a little more circumspect. It gives us a little more power, in some ways. We get a little more respect. At least, that's what I think.

Not wanting to single Nonny out at all, I would say that some of us lately, perhaps in particular myself, have gone a little hog wild with some of our comments, and it probably doesn't help our cause any. It definitely makes us feel better, but I'm sure it does little to get Dems elected and defeat the neo-cons.

Can't give up yet!!!
slowly but surely, US must be waking up:

Bu$h's approval ratings...still sinking, he's almost into the 30's "approval"...
new poll:

American voters disapprove of the job President George W. Bush is doing 53 - 41 percent,
his lowest approval rating since becoming President.

This compares to a 50 - 44 percent disapproval in a May 25 Quinnipiac University poll.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x11385.xml?ReleaseID=820

and my favorite pick for two sentences in answering Senator Kerry.

You lost. Get over it.

Wait...

I know it is FRACKIN' hot here in Austin...and I may be hallucinating due to heat stroke...but did Ira just say I was "exactly right?"

WOW!

I guess we are due for a cold front...

Hell might be about to freeze over!

It could happen...

LOL Indy!!

A caller to Ed just said that Bush has the right to do anything he wants because he won. Anything he wants.

Where do these people come from?

Hell might be about to freeze over!

Posted by: Indy at July 27, 2005 04:16 PM

... and you'd be right there to stick your tongue on the flagpole.

On the lighter side:

NAIROBI, Kenya (AP) -- A Kenyan says he offered Bill Clinton 40 goats and 20 cows for his daughter's hand in marriage five years ago -- and is still waiting for an answer.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/africa/07/27/clinton.kenya.ap/index.html

reading more into today's Quinnipiac poll:
Since Bu$h is on his way out anyway, his sinking approval numbers are fantastic to behold, but its Congress' numbers that are really important, if we hope to take back Congress in '06 and '08:

"Voters disapprove 60 - 30 percent of the way Congress is doing its job"
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x11385.xml?ReleaseID=820

We have to keep reminding joe& jane Q. Public that it is the "Republican Congress" ...
Republicans control Congress and if 60% of Americans disapprove of the Republican controlled Congress, then we must keep on reminding them of the fact that they disapprove of the "Republican controlled Congress".....

Will they ever look into the Niger forgeries?

New York activists want an anti-war next time. Are they talking IWR? Do they any idea who is, isn't, and what they mean by anti-war? Still calling JK pro-war, so I guess he doesn't have their votes. I see the same crazy, self-destructive splits. Welcome to my Blue heaven.

Funny what a little reporting of some facts do to his poll numbers and distaste for the war. Timing not a little deliberate?

When was the last time kingGeorge got off his throne and personally went to Capitol Hill? For his god-almighty State of the Union speech?
Well, he went today...to twist some Republican arms, to get them to pass Cafta. (even though Cafta is unpopular and some Reps don't want to vote for it, because they face angry voters back home next year & Bu$h doesn't...)
Sinking poll numbers, his brainRove under investigation, the quagmire in Iraq more unpopular than ever,not enough new recruits for more neocon wars, etc. etc...so Bu$h goes to Capitol Hill...its starting to smell like , um...
des-per-A-shun..

Posted by: Marjorie G at July 27, 2005 04:51 PM

Marjorie, Marjorie, Marjorie...there is no war, there never has been a war. It's all been in our imagination.

What we have here is a fay-lure to com-mu-ni-cate...

What we have here is a global struggle against violent extremism...

when you are right Indy you are right.
"I know it is FRACKIN' hot here in Austin...and I may be hallucinating due to heat stroke...but did Ira just say I was "exactly right?"

There is just too much garbage coming out of D.C. for us to be throwing out more garbage and eating our young. Attacking each other, attacking John Kerry, John Edwards, Hillary, why in the world would do we want to keep doing that? Didn't we get enough of that from the swiftboat scum. That old phrase of doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity, comes to mind.

I don't come here to vent or throw anything on my computer to make me feel better. I truly wish for us to be taken seriously, b/c I take what we are doing here as serious business, not just mere entertainment. Levity and sarcasm are fine, but at times our words are mean spirited, insensitive and ocassionaly hateful. I see those times as being counterproductive to our shared goals of changing the direction of this country. We can stoop to the level of our opponents but that does nothing to further our cause, it only feeds the sterotyping the right has about the left. Call it censorhip, I call it common sense political strategy.

Amy I've never been bothered by anything you have said about religion. That is what sets us apart from the RNC we are truly inclusive and nonjudgmental of your values.

tutter: W might have been elected(questionably) but no one annointed him as king.

"and my favorite pick for two sentences in answering Senator Kerry.

You lost. Get over it."

FYI--the Hughes machine answer/non answer is up on Rawstory, and I was right. (ahem)

.....ongoing investigation, blah blah blah blah.

BUT--she was voted out of committee on a unanamous vote. Whick mean Kerry asked tough questions, got no answers and capitulated anyway.

GO DEMS!!!!

I know I just barked and hollered about us eating our own, but jeez, how come it feels like our own are happy to feed us ALL to the sharks?

Madame--as soon as i saw you respond to marjorie I had the naughtiest thought. and it would never have come into my innocent little head except You and I are just 'girls just wanna have fun 'types at heart.

GSAVE
G-STRING.

lol lol lol

...asked tough questions, got no answers and capitulated anyway.
Posted by: tutterfly at July 27, 2005 05:05 PM

As one famous Dem once said (repeatedly), "I feel yer pain."

Seems the "words without deeds" thing is going around.

GSTRING

General
Struggle
To
Rap
Idiot
Neocon
George

Posted by: tutterfly at July 27, 2005 05:07 PM

;)

tutter: blocking Karen Hughes is just not at the top of our list of priorities. JK probably felt there were more impt battles to fight.

I think it's a pick your fights, and not over Hughes.

Report: CIA officials involving in Iraqi beatings

By The Associated Press Wednesday, July 27, 2005

DENVER (AP) -- Classified U.S. personnel used a sledgehammer handle to beat prisoners in Iraq, according to a National Guard soldier who testified during a closed military hearing involving four Colorado-based soldiers in March.

Sgt. 1st Class Gerold Pratt of the Utah National Guard said he saw the unidentified personnel use a 15-inch wooden handle to hit prisoners.

"They'd ask you a question, and if they didn't like it, they'd hit you," he said, according to a transcript of the hearing obtained this week by The Denver Post.

The hearing will determine whether three Fort Carson soldiers will stand trial for the death of Iraqi Maj. Gen. Abed Hamed Mowhoush during an interrogation in 2003: Chief Warrant Officer Jefferson Williams and Spec. Jerry Loper, who are charged with murder, and Sgt. 1st Class William Sommer, whose final charges are pending.

more... http://www.casperstartribune.net/articles/2005/07/27/news/regional/6e9f5a768434d4008725704b0061be50.txt

Oh, Ira, once again...

The following is a text of a letter from Sen. Joseph Biden asking the Bush administration to clarify whether John Bolton has testified before the grand jury investigating the Valerie Plame leak:

July 27, 2005

The Honorable Condoleezza Rice
Secretary of State
Washington, DC 20520

Dear Madame Secretary,

I write in connection with the nomination of John R. Bolton to be Permanent Representative to the United Nations.

On July 21, 2005, MSNBC reported that Under Secretary Bolton testified before the federal grand jury in Washington that is investigating the leak of the identity of Valerie Plame as an agent of the Central Intelligence Agency.

I write to request that you or the nominee inform the Committee whether Mr. Bolton did, in fact, appear before the grand jury, or whether he has been interviewed or otherwise asked to provide information by the special prosecutor or his staff in connection with this matter, and if so, when that occurred. As you know, the Committee questionnaire, which the nominee completed in March, requires all nominees to inform the Committee whether they have been “interviewed or asked to supply any information in connection with any administrative (including an inspector general), Congressional or grand jury investigation within the past 5 years, except routine Congressional testimony.”

Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely,

Joseph R. Biden, Jr.
Ranking Minority Member

People aren't mentioning that so many of these supposed insurgents or terrorists are people just caught in a net, or just pretty upset with what we've done to their neighborhood.

Not justified to whatever range of guilt, but often not at all guilty.

Oh, I agree Ira, but it looks bad. If you want to come out hitting hard, then would it at least not have been better for Kerry to say that due to a lack of answers he just had to vote her down in comittee? He knew she was getting out, we all did, so why step in your own gum once you've spit it on the sidewalk?

Biden writes letter.

Let's all guess the answer.

Can you say.........

can't answer that due an an ongoing investigation?

I know you can!!!

I think I've finally lost it. I'm beginning to hear Mr. Rogers in my head doing the answering of the 'can't talk about it during an ongoing investigation' line.

I require caffeine and sleep. (but maybe not in that order)

tutter you know that we agree about most everything. JK is running for Pres. in '08 unless there is some catastrophe.
He and all Dems have to pick our battles. We can't be known as just the No party, (like the capital one commercial) if we are to be taken seriously, now, in '06 or in '08. There are many serious battles ahead; Roberts, Bolton, SS, and probably a replacement for Rehnquist. I have to agree with this JK pass, its just not that important in the scheme of things. We can't expect our elected officials to be right about every vote, just the important ones. I just don't see where this is one of them.

I have to agree with this JK pass, its just not that important in the scheme of things. We can't expect our elected officials to be right about every vote, just the important ones. I just don't see where this is one of them.

Posted by: Ira at July 27, 2005 05:38 PM

I agree about this. He and others with elections to face have to be careful not to be "obstructionist" - ie - vote against everything and everyone just because it's Bush, or Republicans, who are doing the nominating.

Both sides of the aisle are important to democracy. We need people who are willing to compromise on the less important things and who are equally willing to fight when it's necessary.

Agreed Ira, yes we have bigger fish to fry. If Hughes is a non-issue, that's fine with me. I don't think her work, whatever it turns out to be will amount to a hill of beans. Can you imagine being someone in the Middle East and having that witch tell you she is there to organize a 'love dubya' festival? She doesn't ever do anything else, does she?

Posted by: tutterfly at July 27, 2005 11:47 AM

Tutterfly,

I love your post. You and I have discussed this before.

Call me crazy, but wouldn't that be a great commercial?

"People SAY there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans, but if this is what has been done in 6 years of Republican control, imagine life with another 4!"