Dean's first.

repost from bottom of last thread:

former, sorry, was eating a late meal.

Here:
Senator Gravel clips of the South Carolina Debate

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gMlHv2lD...

Well, soon a bunch of Deaniacs will be coming down on Chicago.

What a great time they will have. Gov Dean, DFA, Deaniacs and Progressives under one roof. Wish I could join you all.


HEY CHERYL (Firefox) BEHAVE! :)

Linda - is that behave well or badly? LOL.

Hey Cheryl, IndySteve is trying to get a get together together - we'd love to have you join us, drop me an email so we can do the contact info exchange thingy :-)

oh - at DeanFestCookBook ~ at ~ gmail ~ dot ~ com

Thankful, behave badly of course :)

...auh, I wish I was there. :(

But too, when you know things aren't settled, you shouldn't committ and it is a good thing I didn't, because man are things crazy these days.

LOL Linda, I suspected that's what you meant :-)

Crazy all over da place. {{{ hugs }}} aplenty atcha.

Time to say g'nite folks.

Sending calm and peaceful waves to ya Linda ♥

All hopes for as few as possible casualties in MN, and wishing well to all those w/ family and friends there or any other difficult circumstance.

♥'s to all

Kindness is free!

Thank you Thankful. Sleep well and have a great time!

Democrats Plan to Assess Voting State by State
By JACQUELINE PALANK
Published: August 2, 2007
WASHINGTON, Aug. 1 — The Democratic Party will announce on Thursday a state-by-state effort to
identify potential problems in how elections are administered before the 2008 presidential
election.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/02/us/pol...





...and with that great news fron the man, Howard Dean, I say goodnight all and be well.

Last night Richard Holbrook seemed to contradict himself telling Charlie Rose that we have to be extremely careful about how we leave Iraq, for the future of the region, then when asked about an impending ethnic cleansing said "we don't know if that will happen" and went on to compare it to the predictions of the "domino theory" in Viet Nam.  Then admitted "we just don't know what will happen."  He also pointed out that we could never have a "Dayton" today with Iraq.  He doesn't think it is possible to end the occupation before 2009. 

The "domino theory" was more of an excuse for going into Viet Nam and "winning," not so much a prediction for the result of how we left.  Most people and the Bushies didn't have a clue about an ethnic cleansing before the invasion.  They had no idea that Saddam Hussein's Iron hand is what maintained the "harmony" between the sects.

Holbrooke achieved great public prominence only when he brokered a peace agreement among the warring factions in Bosnia that led to the signing of the Dayton Peace Accords, in 1995. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Holbrooke

3659

I doubt if gov dean will meet with DFA , conflict of interest. Tried it at TBA and no dice. I think Jim will be there so talk to sheri about a meetup.

Sounds like fun but I don't really get DailyKos.

Have fun tho. Looks like DFA is a sponsor too. good for them

Kesh from DC for Democracy will be there doing a workshop on Taxation without Representation For DC.

She is on the DK program.

I am so jealous of those who are at YK.    I am proud of the new DNC assessment about the voting supporession.

And some words he said that still ring true...wish he could talk like this now.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1412

"There has always been a waxing and waning in the balance of power in America between ordinary people and the wealthy and well connected. Our founding fathers saw it coming and warned against letting the power of wealth outweigh the power of the ballot box. Teddy Roosevelt warned, too: "Every special interest is entitled to justice full, fair and complete....but not one is entitled to a vote in Congress, to a voice on the bench or to representation in any public office."

Holbrooke achieved great public prominence only when he brokered a peace agreement among the warring factions in Bosnia that led to the signing of the Dayton Peace Accords, in 1995.

A broker is "a person who functions as an intermediary between two or more parties in negotiating agreements, bargains, or the like." In Bosnia, the US had no troops involved in the fighting and could therefor serve as an intermediary between parties.

In Iraq, the US is one of the parties that is fighting. Therefor, in order broker an agreement in Iraq akin to the Dayton Accords, the US would first need to get out. 

Good morning, BFA!

**********
annilow: read through your posts about the Swiss-Italy trip! Great descriptions! So, it sounds as if you never got back this way at all, just passed through the airport and took the train.

And yes, isn't it convenient how the airport and train are situated? We find Geneva-Cointrin to be a very user-friendly airport. Do you know also (unless this has been changed lately) that you can check baggage from the train station directly to many mountain area destinations whether you are travelling on the train yourself or not, or even travelling on the same day, and they will hold the luggage in the baggage area of the destination until you come to pick it up? In that way, you don't have to schlep the heavy things with you and you would have been able to have a pantsuit and dress (as you wished). Of course, that wouldn't have helped you all the way to Italy, but had you been making a round trip to your Swiss destination, it would have.

Another thing that makes Cointrin a user-friendly airport is that most airlines will allow you to check in the night before the flight ... or at the very least, from the time the windows open for check-in generally in the morning. So you can check your heavier pieces the night before and then, the next morning, arrive later, avoid the lines, and go directly to immigration and security. It makes those early morning departures much more bearable.

For business trips, e.g., to the US, we liked to use the early morning options and check in on our way to work. Then we would go to the office, put in a few hours of work, grab a cab (or have a colleague give us a lift) and, once arrived, walk directly to check-out. There is almost nowhere in the city that is more than 15-20 minutes away from the airport at a maximum and taxis and buses have special lanes so that even when car traffic is at a rare standstill, the taxis generally sail right on through.

******************
Really sorry to hear about the bridge collapse in MSP. We have many good friends in that area!

Let p&p continue in office much longer and America will look more like Iraq ... a place of almost total chaos and destruction.

Impeach. Now. It. Is. The. Right. Thing. To. Do.

15. Holbrooke himself said that we could not have a *Dayton* today with Iraq.

***********
Actually I know Dayton (W-P AFB) pretty well. Some very nice people there. :)

Perhaps we need to remind our critturs about this ... if nothing else, it's an umpteenth hundre reason for impeachment.

===================
War powers rest with Congress
The Constitution gives a clear vision of the Founders’ intentions. If only Congress hadn’t ceded its authority to a war-bound president.
By Mario M. Cuomo

"The Congress shall have power … to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water."

— Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 11 of the U.S. Constitution

If Congress had paid closer attention to our Constitution when dealing with Iraq, the nation would be much better off than we are today. The frustrating political paralysis that prevents us from pulling our forces out of harm's way in Iraq might have been avoided in 2002 when President Bush first made clear his desire to declare war.

Congress could have — and should have — immediately insisted that by virtue of the unmistakably clear language of our Constitution, the power to declare war resides in the Congress and not the presidency. It was our Founding Fathers' wise rationale that something as significant as war should not be determined by one individual but by many, deliberating the issue in Congress.

This remains true, although since World War II timid Congresses and eager presidents have ignored the Constitution several times, occasionally even explicitly handing over their authority to the president, as it did in the case of the Iraq war. That unfortunate trend relegated the issue of war from a constitutional one to a political one, and today we are paying the price for that lapse.

Had Congress accepted in 2002 the responsibility imposed upon it by the Founding Fathers and conducted its own deliberations instead of ceding authority to Bush and depending heavily on the president's "proof," including the 2003 testimony of then-secretary of State Colin Powell before the United Nations, it might have concluded that the war was not necessary. Now, however, it is virtually impossible for it to end by legislation.

[...]
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/08/w...

Well, *hundred* anyway ...

************
mary vb: I'm not *leaving* la Suisse ... just the job. As an official retiree who has lived and worked here under a special legal status, I have the privilege of getting the Swiss equivalent of a green card. It is no small privilege. One of the responsibilities, however, is becoming liable for Swiss taxes in addition to US. We still have to see how that works out. If it's a net break-even or even a tolerable increase, it will be worth it to be able to maintain a foot in both worlds.

But the privilege is only offered within a certain window and so I opted to try it out.

Had I not, I would practically have had to begin again from scratch unless I opted for naturalization. The latter is a step that I am not yet ready to take. This is a happy compromise that leaves options open.

*************
Thanks again, Thankful ... and Phil! ♥ ♥ to you both.

Impeach Chertoff too ... the US DOJ took a blind eye to these actions, even though it was quite well informed about them.

So many to impeach and imprison ... so little time. But we cannot afford not to impeach.

======================
In Terrorism-Law Case, Chiquita Points to U.S.
Firm Says It Awaited Justice Dept. Advice
By Carol D. Leonnig
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, August 2, 2007; A01

On April 24, 2003, a board member of Chiquita International Brands disclosed to a top official at the Justice Department that the king of the banana trade was evidently breaking the nation's anti-terrorism laws.

Roderick M. Hills, who had sought the meeting with former law firm colleague Michael Chertoff, explained that Chiquita was paying "protection money" to a Colombian paramilitary group on the U.S. government's list of terrorist organizations. Hills said he knew that such payments were illegal, according to sources and court records, but said that he needed Chertoff's advice.

Chiquita, Hills said, would have to pull out of the country if it could not continue to pay the violent right-wing group to secure its Colombian banana plantations. Chertoff, then assistant attorney general and now secretary of homeland security, affirmed that the payments were illegal but said to wait for more feedback, according to five sources familiar with the meeting.

Justice officials have acknowledged in court papers that an official at the meeting said they understood Chiquita's situation was "complicated," and three of the sources identified that official as Chertoff. They said he promised to get back to the company after conferring with national security advisers and the State Department about the larger ramifications for U.S. interests if the corporate giant pulled out overnight.

Sources close to Chiquita say that Chertoff never did get back to the company or its lawyers. Neither did Larry D. Thompson, the deputy attorney general, whom Chiquita officials sought out after Chertoff left his job for a federal judgeship in June 2003. And Chiquita kept making payments for nearly another year.

[...]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...

No surprises here ... just how much scorn will Congress continue to take? They continue to lick the spittle and apparently relish doing so.

Believe me, any Dem who is not working for impeachment and to get us out of Iraq as fast as possible had better not expect ANY help whatsoever next year from this particular grass root ... because they will NOT be getting it here.

Thanks, Jim Dean, for calling clearly for our critturs to get on board with the Gonzalez impeachment.

But let's not stop with AGAG.

======================
Administration Again Rebuffs Senators
Rove Ordered Not to Cooperate; Gonzales Refuses to Alter Testimony
By Michael Abramowitz and Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, August 2, 2007; A06

The Bush administration pushed back against congressional Democrats on two fronts yesterday, as the White House formally directed senior adviser Karl Rove not to cooperate with a Senate probe into the firing of U.S. attorneys and Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales declined to alter testimony that some senators have described as misleading.

The actions seemed certain to heighten the confrontation between Congress and the administration over a pair of investigations, one looking into whether politics tainted the removal of nine senior federal prosecutors, the other involving the legality of a surveillance program operated by the National Security Agency.

As expected, the White House invoked executive privilege in declining to allow Rove and one of his aides, J. Scott Jennings, to provide documents or testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is exploring Rove's role in the firing of U.S. attorneys.

White House counsel Fred F. Fielding wrote to the committee that the decision was rooted in the president's determination to protect "the ability of future Presidents to ensure that the Executive's decisions reflect and benefit from the candid exchange of informed and diverse viewpoints." Fielding provided the Judiciary Committee an opinion from the Justice Department that Rove, as an immediate presidential adviser, is "immune from compelled congressional testimony about matters that arose during his tenure and that relate to his official duties in that capacity."

[...]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...

No surprises here either ... prick can get away with anything, it seems.

==================
Cheney's Unmistakable Admission
By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Wednesday, August 1, 2007; 1:50 PM

He as good as admitted it.

In an interview yesterday, CNN's Larry King asked Vice President Cheney if he dispatched Alberto Gonzales and Andy Card to a Washington hospital room to pressure a sedated John Ashcroft, then attorney general, to approve surveillance techniques that Ashcroft's subordinates had concluded were illegal.

Cheney's response?

"THE VICE PRESIDENT: I don't recall -- . . . I don't recall that I gave instructions to that effect.

"Q That would be something you would recall.

"THE VICE PRESIDENT: I would think so. But certainly I was involved because I was a big advocate of the Terrorist Surveillance Program, and had been responsible and working . . . to get it to the President for approval. By the time this occurred, it had already been approved about 12 times by the Department of Justice. There was nothing new about it.

"Q So you didn't send them to get permission.

"THE VICE PRESIDENT: I don't recall that I was the one who sent them to the hospital."

Have you ever heard such a non-denial denial? Seriously: Can anyone reading this see it as anything but an admission that Gonzales and Card (then White House counsel and chief of staff, respectively) were following Cheney's orders?

He doesn't remember sending them to the hospital. Well, what does he remember? Sadly, King moved on.

And it worked. Many mainstream media reporters just don't know what to do with this sort of flimflam. There's no mention of Cheney's de facto admission of involvement in this particularly sordid saga in any of the major papers this morning.

[...]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...

Extortion with oil ... if putz can behave so badly with no one saying nay, putin figures that he might as go for broke too.

=================
Pay $456m now or we cut your gas, Gazprom warns Belarus
Tom Parfitt in Moscow
Thursday August 2, 2007
Guardian

Russia's Gazprom gas monopoly has threatened to halve supplies to Belarus tomorrow in a payment dispute that could disrupt deliveries to western Europe.

Moscow said yesterday it would cut by 45% supplies flowing to its neighbour through export pipelines - which also carry gas to Germany, Poland and Ukraine - if Minsk did not pay debts of nearly $500m (£250m) by 10am on Friday.

Gazprom said exports to the European Union would not be affected but it is feared that Belarus may replace its deficit by siphoning off gas in transit.

Russia cut off supplies to Ukraine for several days in what became known as the "gas war" in January last year and has since tussled with other former Soviet states over prices and transit fees. The Kremlin insists prices are set by market forces but critics accuse Moscow of wielding its energy reserves as a political weapon.

[...]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,33031...

Yeah, sure ... yawn! There hs goes again.

==================
Rumsfeld denies cover-up over 'war hero'
Ewen MacAskill in Washington
Thursday August 2, 2007
Guardian

The former defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, made a rare public appearance in Washington yesterday when he gave evidence to a congressional investigation into a fabricated Pentagon story about heroics in Afghanistan.

Mr Rumsfeld, who has dropped out of public sight since being sacked last November, denied personal responsibility in the Corporal Pat Tillman scandal and insisted he would not have taken part in a cover-up.

Cpl Tillman, a football star turned soldier, was killed by "friendly fire" but the Pentagon allowed stories to circulate about him dying in battle with the Taliban. The house oversight committee sees it as part of a wide culture of disinformation that has built up in the Pentagon during the Bush administration.

But Mr Rumsfeld, flanked by former senior Pentagon staff, told the committee: "I know that I would not engage in a cover-up. I know that no one in the White House suggested such a thing to me. I know that the gentlemen sitting next to me are men of enormous integrity and would not participate in something like that."

[...]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,33031...

Well, *he* not *hs* ... but you have already figured that out.

**************
Interesting how the media claimed economic disaster anytime oil prices rose on Clinton's watch (never more than USD 37/b, as I recall). Yet, those same prices are now closing in on USD 80/b on putz's watch and there is nary a peep.

=================
Worries over oil and interest rates send markets on rollercoaster ride
· US buyers pile into shares after week of price falls
· Surveys point to inflation build-up amid credit crisis
Ashley Seager, Andrew Clark in New York
Thursday August 2, 2007
Guardian

Global financial markets, reeling from high oil prices and the fallout from the US sub-prime mortgage crisis, suffered wild fluctuations yesterday before a last-minute burst of bargain-hunting sent Wall Street shares soaring.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average closed up 150 points at 13,362 following a series of nervous bounces as rumours circulated, then dissipated, about troubled companies and hedge funds. At one point, oil prices hit an all-time high of just under $79 a barrel although they later retreated sharply to settle at $76.53.

The lurches in oil prices, combined with rising food prices, made dealers edgy that central banks around the world might raise interest rates further to prevent inflation running out of control. That would add to the problems engulfing credit markets, analysts warned.

But there were hopes that Wall Street's late surge could mark an end to a week of sharp turns which have left traders frazzled and investors nursing big losses.

Ernie Ankrim, chief investment strategist at US-based Russell Investment Group, told Bloomberg: "At some point people finally decided unless everything in the world suddenly goes bad here, this is a good time to get in."

News that US refineries sharply reduced stocks of crude last week as they churned out gasoline to supply holidaying Americans was sufficient to push the price of US light crude futures up to $78.77 a barrel, briefly breaking the previous record of $78.40 set last summer.

[...]
http://business.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,...

Frankly, I am getting tired of the turf-pawing ... I would like to see more common sense, instead of candidates aping the Rethugs.

Obama showed a glimmer of common sense in his debate response and then set out to muddy the waters yesterday to show that he can outhug the thugs (shades of mentor Joementum perhaps?). Hill is also much too warlike.

Wonder whether he realizes that sending troops into the territory of another sovereign state without permission could be considered, and has been considered to be, a war crime.

Neither pleases me, I am very sad to say.

Ah, Gore ... if only.

====================
Massive lead for Clinton as Obama trails in US polls
By Rupert Cornwell in Washington
Published: 02 August 2007

Hillary Clinton has further extended her lead in the race for the 2008 Democratic nomination, amid fresh evidence that voters see her as more experienced and more competent - especially in the foreign policy field - than her closest rival, Barack Obama.

A Wall Street Journal/NBC poll yesterday underlined what political pros here have long been saying. The first primary may still be more than five months away, but despite the excitement generated by the youthful Mr Obama among the party's liberal activist base, the nomination as matters stand is Ms Clinton's to lose.

The poll - the first since Ms Clinton's commanding performance in last week's CNN/YouTube debate - shows her ahead of Mr Obama by 43 per cent to 22 per cent, with John Edwards a distant third with 13 per cent. The rest of the field is in single figures.

Compared with the last such poll, Ms Clinton's lead has grown from 14 points in June to 21 points now. The results suggest that ordinary voters agree with her rather than Mr Obama in the row over whether the next president should hold direct and unconditional talks with the leaders of Iran, North Korea and other foes of the US.

After Mr Obama replied to a debate question that he was ready to do so, Ms Clinton called him "irresponsible and frankly naive" - to which the Illinois senator tartly responded that the real show of naivety and irresponsibility was her 2002 Senate vote authorising the Iraq war, which he opposed from the outset.

In a major foreign policy speech here yesterday, Mr Obama tried to repair the damage. He pledged that, if necessary, he would send American troops into Pakistan to hunt down terrorists without permission from the Islamabad government.

[...]
http://www.blogforamerica.com/view/21708...

Whoops, sorry, posted the wrong link on that last ... head needs coffee!

Here's the right one.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/amer...

Believe me, any Dem who is not working for impeachment and to get us out of Iraq as fast as possible had better not expect ANY help whatsoever next year from this particular grass root ... because they will NOT be getting it here.

DCDems seem to have no idea of the fire they're playing with by abandoning the base of their party who put them into power and expect effort at least, if results can't be had.

Conyers has dropped talk of impeachment. Last week they dropped election reform and passed a corporate farm bill. Today they dropped improved mileage for vehicles. And when they come back from vacation look for them to punt the Iraq football all the way to January. Yet they are clueless as to how very many ordinary Democrats feel about it all -- or assume they will fall in line.

Do as he says ... not as he does.

===================
Gas-guzzling cars take New York's 'green' mayor to the subway
By David Usborne in New York
Published: 02 August 2007

Let's face it, no one ever bought the pitch that Michael Bloomberg, New York's media-mogul mayor, was really one of the people.

Even so, a newspaper exposé published yesterday into his "commitment" always to ride the New York subway with the rest of us will be a tad embarrassing.

For several weeks, reporters from The New York Times were surreptitiously stationing themselves outside his Upper East Side townhouse, just off Central Park, to spy on the Mayor's early morning routines.

Ever since Mr Bloomberg, who founded the Bloomberg news service and is reportedly worth in the teens of billions, took office, the fiction of his subway riding has held fast. Each day, he would take the Number 6 line all the way down Manhattan to his office in City Hall and ride back again at night. Well, it is sort of true. In reality, he makes the journey roughly twice a week nowadays. But what definitely sets him apart from the crowd is the part that is not on the rails.

According to the Times, two black Chevrolet Suburbans wait each day to pick up the Mayor, for whom walking to the local subway stop would apparently be too much. It could be, of course, that the walk is ruled out for security reasons. But once in the air-conditioning cab of the car, why not linger a while?In other words, they do not take him to the nearest stop, but twenty blocks south to the 59th Street station, across the road from Bloomingdales. It cuts about a third of his commuting time, mostly because at 59th Street he can hop on an express train to City Hall. No local stops for him.

His chief spokesman, Stu Loeser, shrugged off the investigation. "Who is the average Manhattan subway-goer?" he asked the Times when confronted with their findings. "I don't think that's an answerable question."

But you can be sure your regular subway Joe in New York does not drive to his neighbourhood subway stop. Certainly he is not taken to it by chauffeur.

Mr Bloomberg, who enjoys sky-high approval ratings these days, may have set himself up for this kind of media treatment. As he unveiled plans in recent months to slash carbon emissions in New York to help tackle global warming, he has harped on with particular zeal about the need to take mass transit - like himself. However, the hulking Suburbans are about the worst gas guzzlers on the road.

[...]
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/amer...

Sitka, let us hope that they get a real earful from their constituents during this break!

Ah, Gore ... if only.

Hillary and Obama battling over which can be the ugliest NeoCon may be the straw which forces Gore to step in, if he hasn't already decided to.

Victim of a witch-hunt ... the victims usually were people that someone powerful had a grudge against or who possessed something that the powerful wanted ... or the powerful were looking to dlefect attention from their own wrong-doings and/or omissions.

putzCO may be reincarnations of these unworthy burghers.

======================
Switzerland urged to pardon Anna Göldi, Europe's last witch
By Tom Armitage in Zurich
Published: 02 August 2007

The story reads like a medieval horror yarn: a housemaid sacked from her job finds herself the victim of a genuine witch-hunt by her former employers.

Tracked down and put on trial, Anna Göldi confessed to a crime she did not commit and was beheaded on the orders of a Swiss court.

Göldi was Europe's "last witch", put to death for sorcery in 1782. Her trial and execution gripped the eastern Swiss town of Glarus in and went on to become a cause célèbre in the rest of Europe.

Now her story is entertaining a new generation of readers, as a book about the housemaid rises to the top of the Swiss bestseller charts.

Walter Hauser, a lawyer and the author of the new book about Göldi, said: "This was the last trial against a witch on European soil. It caused a scandal in Europe because it came at a time when the enlightenment was under way in other countries."

Official records show the housemaid was found guilty of trying to poison her former master's eight-year- old daughter by planting needles in her milk cup.

But Hauser argues she was in fact the victim of an archaic witch-hunt, orchestrated by her former employers after she apparently had a sexual relationship with her boss.

[...]
http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/art...

Sitka, let us hope that they get a real earful from their constituents during this break!

I expect they try to avoid people like us and shmooze with party-liners who can't see beyond the (D) at the end of their names instead. 

Sigh ... and this is the last for now.

Have good ones!

=================
Published on Wednesday, August 1, 2007 by CommonDreams.org
Now Who’s “Bush-Cheney Lite”?
by Robert Naiman

Just when some folks might have been thinking that Hillary Clinton had been magically transformed into an actual opponent of the neocon Empire project, what with her outrageous suggestion that the Pentagon might consider talking with Congress about contingency plans for U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, she and her campaign went and manufactured a controversy about whether or not the U.S. should talk to countries that it doesn’t like, scoring points with the Washington punditry but moving our country further away from a sane foreign policy.Just when some folks might have thought that Barack Obama was a real alternative, given his full-throated defense of the commonsense notion that the U.S. should, in fact, talk to countries that it doesn’t like, he tries to burnish his Empire credentials in response to the attacks by Hillary’s people by saying that the U.S. should invade Pakistan, even without the Pakistani government’s permission. Never mind that (a) this would be a blatant violation of international law (b) it could go very, very badly (c) lots of innocent people would die and (d) such statements actually undermine the Pakistani government’s efforts to suppress violent Islamic militancy.

[...]
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007...

FOX OPINION

I was walking down my street yesterday with my handy-dandy XM Inno radio, and, just for a lark, I thought I’d tune in to the Fox Noise channel and see how long it took for me to hear something that was batshit insane.

It happened instantly. Intstantly. Not even a moment passed before something crazy came falling out of the host’s mouth like Linda Blair shooting pea green soup. I don’t know why I was surprised. It was John Gibson, after all.

He was saying that he didn’t care about the Fourth Amendment, that the Fourth Amendment was no longer relevant, and that he was visualizing a judge on an aeroplane that was going down in flames, and the judge would be holding up a piece of paper and saying, well, at least the Fourth Amendment is intact, and then he egged on his callers and/or his audience, asking them, don’t you want MORE wire tapping? Don’t you?

I just can't warm up to Pelosi, whom I consider a coward at this point if she really said this:

A shorter version of this article is published as text and an audio podcast at www.anationdeceived.org

Speaker Nancy Pelosi said today that if she were not Speaker she would probably back impeachment. Other Congress Members are of course free to do what even she admits she would do in their position. They should, I think, start taking her advice and ignoring her ban on impeachment.

The reason Pelosi is being questioned about impeachment has to do with Gonzo, Alberto Gonzales, and a proposal just introduced to impeach him. In the movement to impeach Cheney and Bush, is this a distraction or an opening act?

That's my offering for tonight. I'm just finishing "Potter."  LOL

Never mind that (a) this would be a blatant violation of international law (b) it could go very, very badly (c) lots of innocent people would die and (d) such statements actually undermine the Pakistani government’s efforts to suppress violent Islamic militancy.

(e) it would fail to eliminate or even weaken al Qaeda

(f) past experience with attacking and invading other muslim countries indicate it would make al Qaeda stronger.

Bush Cheney Clinton Obama: The real Not Ready For Prime Time Players

Speaker Nancy Pelosi said today that if she were not Speaker she would probably back impeachment.

Probably? Do DCDems wonder why approval of Congress is around 20%?

Definitely concur with your 38 right now, Sitka ... it's getting very frustrating to see such few profiles in real courage.

*************
I know, I said I was going ... and I am. But first, Buzzflah's *Media putz* of the week award (honoring reporters who just can't handle the truth). I back this one heartily.

Now gone. Truly.

=============
Tim Russert
For reporting that is an embarrassment to the profession of journalism, and for being beholden to corporate paymasters rather than the citizens of America.

Oh boy, does Tim Russert fit the BuzzFlash Media Putz description to a "T": "In recognition for reporting that is an embarrassment to the profession of journalism, and tailored to corporate paymasters rather than serving the citizens of America."

When you work for NBC, owned by GE, you don't make a lot of political waves with the status quo in D.C. that gives big fat contracts to your parent corporation. Tim Russert knows if he ever asked a meaningful follow-up question to Dick Cheney or any other "guest" from the dark side, a reprimanding phone call would come from down on high. Those kind of reprimands could dent a fat paycheck, so Tim knows to just offer up a baby-face smile and let the GOP Masters of the Universe lie away.

In a tribute he wrote to his father, Russert writes about his love and admiration for a no-nonsense working class man who raised four children while working two jobs in South Buffalo, NY. But clearly, while "Big Russ" (as Tim titled the book and calls his dad) was an admirable working class hero, "Little Russ" is a toady who left the integrity in Buffalo as he pursued the big bucks.

Russert's main skill has nothing to do with journalism. It's his affability ratings when they conduct those strange focus groups where they hook people up to wires that somehow detect if they "like" a television "'personality."

[...]
http://mediaputz.com/07/08/putz0802.html...

Good morning, everybody

We had a really sparse Link-up last night.  BUT both the Edwards and Obama campaign sent operatives to explain their health care proposals and the Hillary people sent someone to drop off some documentary evidence that  she has a plan.

Two thoughts this morning.  The report that the campaigns are looking for "angry" voters conincides with my perception that both Clinton and Obama are heavy on laying out the "problems" as if to say, "see, I share your concerns."  It's a variation on the Clinton, "message, I care" model.  While, from my perspective, this is a distinct improvement over "god, guns and gays," it's my sense that people are beyond being impressed by "sympathy" as well.  (Compassion is definitely out).  If you look at Obama's issue statements, they're really heavy on outlining the problem and thin on the solutions.  In a sense, this is honest because the executive is not actually able to design a solution and get it rubber-stamped by the Congress, never mind getting it funded.  On the other hand, the exercise of describing the problem and proposed solutions is a good one, unless, like so many Republican agendas over the years, there's really no intent to actually do what's proposed.

It's a little shocking to me, but the Hillary campaign increasingly is looking like Dukakis Redux.  Perhaps you don't recall, but Dukakis was touted as the great manager who turned the state of Massachusetts around and whose campaign put out a flood of position papers and policy statements.  When Clinton came along four years later, the "policy wonk" mantra was the same, with the difference that Clinton was not going to be portrayed as a scold.  In that sense, the Bimbo erruptions actually provided a nice balance to the intellectualism which is always suspect in the American political arena.  The Bimbo erruptions also distracted from the reputation for wonkishness on the part of Gore.  And still, the Democrats would not have been sent to the White House had Perot not been in the mix.  (Those who hedged their bets on GHWB by staking Clinton were smart since their interests won out with either).  

The 1992 election has left the Democrats with a wrong impression about what "worked" in the sense of persuading voters to vote for them.  Clinton was a more interesting candidate, but not by much.  And, IMHO, the mousy spouse (the two fer deal) would have been a real drag, if there hadn't been the side-show of feminine interest.  You could say that, unlike the bimbos in the Department of Justice, the women flocking around Bill Clinton validated him and got him the female vote.  That Hillary got nowhere with her Health Care Reforms should tell us, and her, that the think-tank approach was/is essentially worthless.  (There's proof aplenty in the Iraq misadventure, which was well researched and planned in the think tanks.  The strategies we see are not necessarily the ones that are responsible for success and/or failure).

Stated bluntly, Hillary is offering up the worst of Clinton/Gore and lacking the side show to demonstrate that she's really human.  Where are Hillary's bimbos?

Where, for that matter, are Obama's bimbos?

Then ask yourself what happened to the Deaniacs?

Hillary comes across as a Puritan without the saving grace of hypocrisy. 

Infrastructure needs and the great heist tax cut will be an issue in the next Senate race in MN and the Democrat's chances just got better.

but having learned from the sad loss of Paul Wellstone it won't come up til next summer.

I cross that bridge everytime I go to the cities, but thanks to the cows didn't take up the offer of a twins ticket this week.

bbl

a little harsh Monica but true

42 was an answer to 43, but you knew that

OK one of us is routed through one server and the other another Monica, does it have to do with coming through DFA link as a member vrs the unwashed masses?

I'll be back after chores but have fair duty today and won't be around much.

Infrastructure just got put on the MN agenda and the tax cutting fools just got stiffed.

first we bury the dead

but that bus load of kids will be on everyone's mind and they can run but they can't hide from their irresponsibility

tax and spend? damn right

36.

It's not a "ban on impeachment."  It's just not on the agenda.  As speaker of the House, Pelosi has an obligation to manage the sessions in an impartial manner, according to the rules.  Not to mention that because in her position she is in the line of succession, she's got an obligation to that role.

Dukakis Redux is feeling better and better in my gut.

Need to walk the dog. 

45.

Don't have a clue, Phil.  This is my home page and my login is automatic, so I have no idea how I get here.