Liberals

[lawyerlee]

If anyone is interested in continuing a liberals thread, I thought I'd start one up. We can see what happens with it interest-wise. If there isn't any interest, we can just let it die out and discuss issues by topic. It won't hurt my feelings one little bit. :)


LIBERALISM
Main Entry: lib·er·al·ism
Pronunciation: 'li-b(&-)r&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
2c: a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties.

This thread is a place for liberals to discuss progressive ideas. Welcome and happy sharing!

~ Diana


PROGRESSIVE ORGANIZATIONS:

American Civil Liberties Union (http://www.aclu.org/)

People for the American Way (http://www.pfaw.org)

Planned Parenthood - main site (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/)

Save Roe by Planned Parenthood (http://www.saveroe.com/index.php)

National Organization for Women (http://www.now.org/)

NARAL (http://www.naral.org/)

NAACP - Action and Issue Alerts (http://www.naacp.org/departments/washington/washington_index.html)

The League of Women Voters - Democracy Net (http://www.congress.org/congressorg/e4/)

MoveOn.org (http://www.moveon.org)



PROGRESSIVE NEWS:

Air America Radio (www.airamericaradio.com)

Salon (www.salon.com)

AlterNet (www.alternet.com)

Common Dreams News Center (http://www.commondreams.org/)

TruthOut (http://www.truthout.org/)

Tom Paine (http://www.tompaine.com/)



BLOGS:

Daily KOS (http://www.dailykos.com/)

Talking Points Memo (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/)

Media Citizen (http://mediacitizen.blogspot.com/)

Newshounds: We watch FOX news so you don't have to (http://www.newshounds.us/)

Blog for America (http://blogforamerica.com/)



PROGRESSIVE READING LIST:

What's the Matter with Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America by Thomas Frank

Bush at War by Bob Woodward

The Bush Survival Bible by Gene Stone

The I Hate Republicans Reader: Why the GOP is Totally Wrong About Everything by Clint Willis

Citizens Dissent: Security, Morality, and Leadership in an Age of Terror by Wendell Berry and David James Duncan

Don't Think of an Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate--The Essential Guide for Progressives by George Lakoff

[oceaneast]

I just have to say that I bought What's the Matter with Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America by Thomas Frank last week and I'm really enjoying it.

[lawyerlee]

I *loved* that book. As a Kansan and a liberal, it really hit me where I live. (No pun intended ;) ). :)

[Sophia]

hot damn! Look at all those links! Good job!

[oceaneast]

The links are amazing! I'm really liking the book in particular when it speaks to why people have been convinced to vote against their economic interest.

[Camdynlyn]

Has anyone read The Bush Survival Bible or is this not where I post this???

http://images.barnesandnoble.com/images/8480000/8488701.gif

[kakirk]

Ahhh....blissful sigh... A liberals thread; it's like wrapping myself with a warm comfy blanket.

I think I'll have to pick up the Kansas book...sounds great!

Katie

[flygirl]

Camdynlyn, this is exactly where you post that! I bought it within days of the election; I needed something to make me laugh. I was surprised that it wasn't so much a joke book but has honest-to-goodness suggestions of what you can do to help the progressive movement.

[oceaneast]

Okay now I have to go and pick up "The Bush Survival Bible" tomorrow.

[gayle]

I'm here :)

(of course)

[trefoil]

Subscribing. :) I don't really consider myself an across-the-board liberal, but if the standard of what makes a "conservative" is defined by the current administration,then I am certainly far, far, far to the left of that.

[kemaji]

I'm a liberal!

[lawyerlee]

U.S. Has Plans to Again Make Own Plutonium (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/27/politics/27nuke.html?ei=5094&en=c7773ecb46469c9c&hp=&ex=1119931200&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print) NY Times

By WILLIAM J. BROAD

The Bush administration is planning the government's first production of plutonium 238 since the cold war, stirring debate over the risks and benefits of the deadly material. The substance, valued as a power source, is so radioactive that a speck can cause cancer.

Federal officials say the program would produce a total of 330 pounds over 30 years at the Idaho National Laboratory, a sprawling site outside Idaho Falls some 100 miles to the west and upwind of Grand Teton National Park in Wyoming. Officials say the program could cost $1.5 billion and generate more than 50,000 drums of hazardous and radioactive waste.

Project managers say that most if not all of the new plutonium is intended for secret missions and they declined to divulge any details. But in the past, it has powered espionage devices.

"The real reason we're starting production is for national security," Timothy A. Frazier, head of radioisotope power systems at the Energy Department, said in a recent interview.

He vigorously denied that any of the classified missions would involve nuclear arms, satellites or weapons in space.

[Camdynlyn]

Okay, I am glad I picked the right thread. I agree the Bush Bible was more honest ways to survive. My friend's dad recommended it to me.

My biggest complaint right now is the way the government is handling the No Child Left Behind act (known as NCLB to teachers). We have standards we have to meet andi t is just plain bull malarky. There is a saying I have heard, "No child can be left behind if no child moves ahead." This to me, as a teacher, is very bad because it is holding back the children that need to be moved on (AG reasons) and challenged and they are trying to hold them back more because of the stupid NCLB. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

[gayle]

EEEEKKKKKKK
"The Bush administration is planning the government's first production of plutonium 238 since the cold war, stirring debate over the risks and benefits of the deadly material. The substance, valued as a power source, is so radioactive that a speck can cause cancer."

My God. I wrote a fricken college paper for a Poly Sci class 20 plus years ago on this very issue.

There is REALLY no limit to the mindlessness of this administration, and the dangers of the decisions they seem to be willing to make.

I am appalled, and not even sure what to say.........

[artist]

Thanks for starting this here!

I am guessing there will be a conservative thread soon.

[Belm]

Checking in!

Is anyone else from VA around here? Are you going to be doing any campaigning for governor/lt. governor?

[paiger]

What's Next with the Supremes?

www.plannedparenthood.com
by Kate Rounds
06.22.05

In May, a widely publicized image of Chief Justice William Rehnquist in a wheelchair led to inevitable questions about the future makeup of the U.S. Supreme Court. What happens in that august body has been and will continue to be vitally important to the future of reproductive freedom.

The court giveth, and the court taketh away. On January 22, 1973, it gave us Roe v. Wade, the decision that legalized abortion nationwide. But since then, the court has approved restrictions on access to abortion, such as mandatory waiting periods and mandatory parental consent and notification rules. Rehnquist was appointed to the court by Richard Nixon in 1972 and named chief justice by Ronald Reagan in 1986. Under his leadership, the court has taken a hard right turn, putting Roe itself in mortal peril. And his current bout with thyroid cancer has opened the door to questions about the court's future leadership.


Unlike presidents, who have term limits, a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court is for life.
On the campaign trail in 2000, George W. Bush said that if he had a chance to appoint a Supreme Court justice, he would choose someone like his favorites, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Of the nine justices, Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas are the most firmly opposed to constitutional protection of a woman's right to choose abortion.

Scalia has said on numerous occasions that the Constitution does not protect a woman's right to choose. Thomas, who routinely follows Scalia's lead, has described the court's decision in Roe as "grievously wrong."

The four justices who have consistently held that the Constitution protects the right to choose are Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter, and John Paul Stevens. The retirement of any of these four justices during this anti-choice administration could be disastrous for reproductive rights in this country, shifting the balance of the court and setting the stage for the possible reversal of Roe.

The two "swing" justices are Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy. Justice O'Connor has, for the most part, supported the idea that the Constitution protects women's right to choose, although she has been willing to permit restrictions on this right. Were O'Connor to retire and be replaced by a justice in the Scalia mold, it could be disastrous for our right to control our reproductive destinies. And in fact, rumors are rife that she may indeed retire.

While Justice Kennedy has expressed support for the idea that the constitutional right to privacy extends to the right to control one's reproductive destiny, he voted with Scalia, Thomas, and Rehnquist to approve a ban on abortion procedures that contained no exception to protect the woman's health, an opinion that fortunately did not command a majority of the court.

In addition to the infirm Rehnquist, age 80, the other older justices who may be more likely to retire are Stevens, 85, O'Connor, 75, and Ginsburg, 72. Both Ginsburg and O'Connor have had health scares of their own. Scalia is 69 and Thomas, the youngest of all the justices, is only 57.

Unlike presidents, who have term limits, a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court is for life. During Bush's term, one or more justices could retire, and the country could see a court that is overwhelmingly hostile to a woman's right to choose — a court whose decisions could affect the reproductive rights of women for generations to come.

The one ace in the hole is that even lofty Supreme Court nominees need to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate. But the Republican leadership's so-called "nuclear option" to prohibit the filibuster of judicial nominees reveals how an increasingly radical fringe is gaining control over the party's mainstream.

During the recent battle over federal court nominees, extremist Republicans nearly pulled the trigger on the "nuclear option," putting the country in grave danger of losing the vital safeguard of checks and balances. While the "compromise" that ensued preserved the filibuster, it exempted three of President Bush's most out-of-the-mainstream nominees from the filibuster process, thus securing their lifetime appointments to important federal benches.

A growing anti-intellectual bias in this country holds that to be reflective and analytical is somehow weak. But as we face the inevitable changing of the guard at the Supreme Court, what the country needs more than ever is a Senate that deliberates slowly and thoughtfully.

The result of that considered deliberation can only be the confirmation of Supreme Court nominees who are committed to protecting fundamental freedoms, including the right to choice and privacy.

Before Roe v. Wade, women died as a result of back-alley abortions. The Supreme Court justices who may be appointed during the second Bush administration can prevent that from happening again or return us to those terrifying times.

[lawyerlee]

You’d think Republicans and Democrats would agree on an issue like lynching. You’d be wrong. (http://www.radaronline.com/web-only/)

by John Aravosis

On June 13, the U.S. Senate passed Resolution 39, a formal apology for failing to make lynching a federal crime. Between 1882 and 1968 at least 4,742 people—mostly African-Americans—were lynched in the U.S., and 99 percent of the perpetrators escaped punishment, often with the complicity of state and local officials. A federal law would have allowed the government to intervene but Southern senators filibustered the legislation for decades. Even in today’s divided political climate, you’d think that on an issue like lynching, Democrats and Republicans could muster a rare show of unity. You’d be wrong.

In the run-up to the vote, news stories began appearing that indicated some senators had qualms about the resolution. Then, on June 15, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported that Senate majority leader Bill Frist had threatened to table the resolution indefinitely, unless the vote was held at night without a roll call.

Bloggers like myself wondered why Frist was so worried about such a seemingly innocuous resolution so, naturally, we posted the story and began naming names. We found the list of senators who had already cosponsored it, and identified those who were missing. After their office phone numbers were posted on the Web, calls started pouring in and several senators immediately jumped on board, even though the resolution had already passed. But after a week 11 Republicans—one-fifth of all GOP senators—still refused to cosponsor the resolution.

The members of the GOP Lynch Mob, as the hold-out senators became known in the blogosphere, have a variety of excuses. Senator Lamar Alexander (TN) told Roll Call that he condemns lynching (phew!) but prefers to look ahead rather than rehash the past. Thad Cochran of Mississippi said, “I don’t feel I should apologize for the passage of or the failure to pass any legislation by the U.S. Senate.” Mike Enzi (WY) wanted kudos for not objecting to the resolution’s passage (a saint, he). Gordon Smith (OR) “strongly supports the resolution” but still wouldn’t cosponsor it. Craig Thomas (WY) didn’t “see the news value” in discussing the issue. And Jon Kyl (AZ) and Trent Lott (MS) simply refused to comment at all.

Kay Bailey Hutchison (TX), who added her name to the resolution after being browbeaten by callers for a week, echoed an excuse used by many of the senators: While she abhors lynching, “you don’t have to cosponsor everything that you are in favor of.”

Fair enough. Perhaps Ms. Hutchison and her all-male posse weren’t sucking up to the racist wing of the Republican Party. Maybe they were simply being good small-government conservatives who don’t sign on to every Tom-Dick-and-Harry resolution that crosses their desks. Giving them the benefit of the doubt, Radar thought it might be useful to find out what other important resolutions the Lynch Mob has cosponsored recently.

Senators Hutchison and Cornyn, both of Texas, cosponsored a resolution “commending the Lady Bears of Baylor University for winning the 2005 National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I Women’s Basketball Championship.” Alexander, Cochran, and Gregg (NH) cosponsored “National Airborne Day.” Thomas and Enzi cosponsored “The National Day of the American Cowboy.” Bennett (UT), Gregg, Lott, Sununu (NH), and Thomas cosponsored a resolution designating March 25, 2005, “Greek Independence Day.” Smith authored a resolution for the “victims of communism.” And just in time for Father’s Day, Alexander, Bennett, Cochran, Cornyn, and Lott took time out to cosponsor a Hallmark-ready resolution “protecting, promoting, and celebrating fatherhood.” Perhaps they would have cosponsored the lynching resolution if the victims had been Greek airborne cowboys or Cuban refugees.

Would things have been different if just one of the 55 Republicans in the Senate or the 231 Republicans in the House of Representatives were, I don’t know, black? Oh, there I go again, channeling Howard Dean. You remember him, don’t you? The Democratic Party chairman who got lynched in the press a few weeks back for saying that the GOP is “pretty much a white Christian party”? As Dr. John Sperling reports in his new book, The Great Divide: Retro vs. Metro America, 99 percent of Republican federal, state, and local legislators are white. In state legislatures alone there are 3,643 Republicans, only 44 of whom (1.2 percent) are minorities.

Call me crazy, but it sure sounds like Dean had it right. Is it too late for the media to cosponsor a resolution?

[jennylou]

From John Kerry


Dear Jennylou,

If you were a young voter or an African American voter in Ohio last year, chances are, you were mistreated when you went to the polls.

That's the striking and inescapable conclusion of a very important report released this week by the Democratic National Committee's Voting Rights Institute.

I am writing to urge you to act on this report's disturbing findings -- and to support crucial initiatives to make sure there is no repeat of these electoral abuses in 2005 and 2006. Support electoral reform now:

http://www.johnkerry.com/features/votingrights/

The Voting Rights Institute report is called Democracy At Risk -- The Ohio Election. Here's what it reveals:

More than 1 in 4 Ohio voters reported problems with voting, including ballot issues and intimidation at polling places.

Illegal identification requirements were improperly imposed. Two out of every three (67%) young persons reported they were asked for ID. Six out of ten African American men reported being asked to show ID.

African Americans reported waiting an average of 52 minutes before voting. That's two and a half times longer than the average 18 minutes reported by voters overall.

But, here's the most troubling finding of all. Nearly one in four Ohio voters indicated that their 2004 voting experiences made them less confident about the reliability of elections in Ohio.

I urge you to act now to restore confidence in the democratic process in Ohio and all across America:

http://www.johnkerry.com/features/votingrights/

Barriers to voting are always an insult to the freest, greatest nation in the world. But, they are especially troubling when American soldiers are fighting and dying for freedom half a world away. Our democracy is only as strong as our citizens' faith in it. It is unacceptable that in 2005, Americans are still being denied their most fundamental rights as American citizens.

You and I can't stand by and let what happened in Ohio happen again. Not in Ohio. Not anywhere. Not in 2005 or 2006. Not in any election.

There are three things you can do right now.

Support the Count Every Vote Act

Help put pressure on Congress to pass the Count Every Vote Act. Spread the word that Washington is failing to act on this threat to democracy.

Four months ago, I joined with Senators Boxer, Clinton and Lautenberg to introduce this critical legislation. The Act will not only strengthen voting rights, it will prevent many of the problems that happened in Ohio by giving communities the resources they need to provide enough reliable, verifiable voting machines.

We need your help to wake Washington up to the problems our democracy is facing across the country. In January, I was so proud when 35,000 members of johnkerry.com called Senator Frist and Speaker Hastert to put electoral reform on Congress' radar screen. We need your voices again.

http://www.johnkerry.com/features/votingrights/

Join Our Promote and Protect the Vote Team

Let's start organizing at the community level to push for reform of our voting laws and increased voter education. The johnkerry.com community will actively be working over the next months to promote voter education in the 2005 and 2006 elections and to identify important ways in your community to pass legislation and hold local elected officials accountable for protecting and preserving voting rights.

Sign up here if you want to be part of our johnkerry.com Promote and Protect the Vote team.

http://www.johnkerry.com/features/votingrights/

We will send you more information in coming weeks about specific ways you can help -- especially as we prepare for the 2005 elections.

Help Spread the Word

Enlist your friends and neighbors to help us make American democracy stronger. Send them a copy of this email. Send them a copy of this groundbreaking report.

Sign them up to help us spread the word that we won't rest quietly while rights and freedoms are being denied to American citizens.

Forty years ago, in August 1965, the Voting Rights Act was signed by President Johnson. It was a landmark, bi-partisan bill that allowed millions of Americans a true voice in our democracy.

Forty years later, American troops are putting their lives on the line every day in the name of democracy. We owe it to them -- and we owe it to ourselves -- to grow and strengthen democracy and voting rights for all Americans.

Thank you for your commitment and dedication to making America stronger. Let's make every vote count in 2005.

John Kerry

[emschwar]

I'm here! And liberal as ever :)

Oh, and I haven't read this, but my mom suggested this book - Don't Think of an Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate--The Essential Guide for Progressives. According to her, it's what dems are doing wrong, and how to fix it so we can win.

[lawyerlee]

Funny cartoon from Slate:

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b395/lawyerlee2/Celebrities%201/flagburning.jpg

[dionysia]

Is anyone else as annoyed as I am at the recent SCOTUS decision, more to the point how some conservatives think that all liberals support the decision?

Frankly, I'm appalled by the decision. (I grew up in the New London area, fwiw.)

Di

[lawyerlee]

Is anyone else as annoyed as I am at the recent SCOTUS decision, more to the point how some conservatives think that all liberals support the decision?
Yes! I think it was a *terrible* decision. I can't understand why conservatives think it was a liberal decision in the first place, and I don't understand why they assume we're all so happy about it. Best I can tell, no one in the country except for big business is happy about the darned thing! I completely agree with Justice Thomas's (hold me, I'm shaking just saying that) separate dissent when he says that if this kind of taking is appropriate, any taking is appropriate. And how can that be true? It is mind boggling. :(

[dionysia]

Seriously, when I agree with Scalia, it's time to check for horsemen on the horizon.

Di

[kakirk]

no one in the country except for big business is happy about the darned thingDoesn't this very thought make it seem that right-wingers should be HAPPY about this?? I mean, Republican support of big business is one of their cornerstones, no? ;)

Todd & I were discussing the decision over the weekend, and I suppose I can see the flawed logic that taking land for private investment = more tax money = liberal viewpoint. But the thing is, it benefits the private investment WAY MORE than it would the public.

Ugh. I don't like the decision at all. Not one tiny bit.

Katie

[lawyerlee]

Seriously, when I agree with Scalia, it's time to check for horsemen on the horizon.

Di
No kidding, Di. That's exactly the shit I find myself thinking when I read that decision. :(

[Belm]

I'm not sure if any of you are on the Union mailing lists....I got this one today.

Dear Working Families e-Activist,

Tell Us What You Think!

How has being a union member affected your life and that of your family? What do you think are the most important benefits of union membership to workers today? If you are not a union member, what difference would union membership make for you or for the nation?

What has union membership meant for you and your family? Whether you’re a new or longtime union member, we’d like to find out. And if you’re not a union member, we want to hear from you as well—tell us what difference union membership would make in your life and for our nation.

These are the latest in a series of questions we’ve been asking activists about how to strengthen America’s union movement. Your thoughtful comments are helping to shape our planning for the coming years and informing the major proposals the AFL-CIO will take to our 2005 Convention in July. Please take a minute or two to share your thoughts with us again.

Union membership benefits different workers in diverse ways. Please let us know what you think are the most important benefits of being a union member.

And don’t forget to read responses to these questions and others at the AFL-CIO’s Strengthening Our Union Movement for the Future website, where you also can read major proposals for change. Click on the link below to read:
http://www.aflcio.org/aboutaflcio/ourfuture/index.cfm

As the 2005 AFL-CIO Convention draws closer, we will continue to ask your thoughts about strengthening our union movement for the future. Thank you again for your participation in these important discussions.

In solidarity,
Working Families e-Activist Network, AFL-CIO
June 27, 2005

P.S. Don’t miss the AFL-CIO executive officers’ proposal for change, "Winning for Working Families." Click on the link below to read it: http://www.aflcio.org/aboutaflcio/ourfuture/upload/executive_officers.pdf

[chefker]

I'm here, and I'm subscribing.

If there's any truth to the rumor that there will be another Bush in the White house in 2008--that being Jeb--we'll be in dire straits once again. (Of course, Jeb is denying he has any interest in running for president, but I wouldn't put it past him.....)

I recently read Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything your American History Textbook got Wrong , by James Loewen. Fascinating reading, and I highly recommend it.

[gayle]

Jeb will never make the Whitehouse. And, he knows it.


By the time we are done with this admin, not even thinking republicans will be in a spirit of wanting to repeat it.

So, Liberals need the right candidate.

Who, might that be?

[lawyerlee]

Jeb will never make the Whitehouse. And, he knows it.


By the time we are done with this admin, not even thinking republicans will be in a spirit of wanting to repeat it.

So, Liberals need the right candidate.

Who, might that be?

I'm on the Governor Mark Warner of Virginia bandwagon. I think he has done a good job of bridging the gap between the parties, it is good to have your candidate be a governor, and it is good to have your candidate be from the south. I think he fits the bill. Other opinions?

[miel]

Subscribing...I'm sort of a liberal...sorta/kinda!

[chefker]

I'm on the Governor Mark Warner of Virginia bandwagon. I think he has done a good job of bridging the gap between the parties, it is good to have your candidate be a governor, and it is good to have your candidate be from the south. I think he fits the bill. Other opinions?

Would not be surprised if Kerry throws his hat in the ring again. I think Al Gore gave up the good fight after the recount mess, but that's JMO.

God help us all--my mom (who lives in MA) seems to think Mitt Romney, MA governor, has eyes on the White house. He's the one cutting benefits to policemen & women in Mass. right now, or so I have heard. :rolleyes:

[Belm]

I'm on the Governor Mark Warner of Virginia bandwagon. I think he has done a good job of bridging the gap between the parties, it is good to have your candidate be a governor, and it is good to have your candidate be from the south. I think he fits the bill. Other opinions?

A lot of dems in VA think the same way. At all of the Dem rallys, there is usually some sort of mention of Warner running for president.

[oceaneast]

Welcome Meil!

I'm going to have to check out Gov. Warner

[gayle]

I am not familiar with Mark Warner, I'll have to do some research and find out about him.

I like Al Gore, but IMHO he would just have too much too fight to be a viable candidate. Too many negative associations. Not to me personally, but to alot of voters.

[kemaji]

This is a letter to the editor in my local newspaper, The Columbus Dispatch. Aside from the fact that Doonesbury is one of my favorite cartoons (specifically because I really enjoy the political commentary), how can people accuse a cartoonist who should be protected under the First Amendment of treason?


Cartoonist Trudeau is anti-American
Tuesday, June 28, 2005


I spent some time in the Far East as a civilian. If you threw a stick at a crowd, you would knock down some country’s agent. Among the "connected" Americans I knew, I would not number many of them among my friends. Except for the martinis, James Bond they were not. If I were asked to defend them as assets of class to our country, I would find that difficult.

On the other hand, Doonesbury by Gary Trudeau is an anti-American propaganda instrument. The current position of this "comic strip" is that the CIA is teaching its recruits how to torture prisoners and that this is a policy of the U.S. government.

There is an element of cruelty among all prison guards, just as there is a mean streak in many of us. Those people need to be controlled. But the concept that torture is American policy is false. The worst that has been proved thus far is intense ridicule. Ridicule is demeaning. As do most people, I despise being ridiculed. But compared with breaking bones, starvation and hanging people from the ceiling in order to gain information, ridicule is not cruelty.

We are at war. We are dealing with people who are willing to murder babies, not only others’, but children of their own ethnicity. Keeping those we capture in prison is a necessity. When we are at peace with all that is Islam, many of these terrorists will still need to be held out of society.

Trudeau should be charged with treason. He is as anti-American as al-Qaida. The Dispatch is an American newspaper. Why it continues to carry his garbage is more than I can understand.

ALLEN T. SHEPARD

Columbus

[kam]

Checking in. :)

[dionysia]

God help us all--my mom (who lives in MA) seems to think Mitt Romney, MA governor, has eyes on the White house. He's the one cutting benefits to policemen & women in Mass. right now, or so I have heard. :rolleyes:I don't know about the benefits-cutting, but I admit I haven't been reading the local papers lately.

In any case, yes, the theory is the Mitt is jockeying for a run.

I call him Shitt. :D

Di

[dionysia]

Kemaji:
One of the reasons I don't read my local paper's letters to the editor is that it tends to contain such bullshit as the one you posted above.

I don't need ulcers. ;)

Di

[chefker]

I don't know about the benefits-cutting, but I admit I haven't been reading the local papers lately.

In any case, yes, the theory is the Mitt is jockeying for a run.

I call him Shitt. :D

Di

LOL, I like that.

I think what my mother was talking about, had to do with the Springfield PD. Mitt made some comment and pissed off a lot of cops (big surprise there). I'll do a little searching to see if I can find a story.

They called John Kerry a flip-flop, but Mitt (or Shitt), takes the prize on flip-flopping, esp. on his back & forth about abortion. V. scary if this ass clown makes it into the white house in 2008. :(

[kemaji]

Dionysia- I don't usually either, but I was looking for an update on our govenor (I live in Ohio) and his latest scandal about not reporting benefits & perks that people give him. The headline jumped out at me because I love Gary Trudeau's work.

[emschwar]

I'm on the Governor Mark Warner of Virginia bandwagon. I think he has done a good job of bridging the gap between the parties, it is good to have your candidate be a governor, and it is good to have your candidate be from the south. I think he fits the bill. Other opinions?
I like him, although he might have lost some fringe support by managing to fall off a bike and break his arm yesterday when he lost control while taking a drink from a water bottle.

[Belm]

emschwar ~ It made front page news at our local paper and was all over the tv news. :D

[oceaneast]

I like him, although he might have lost some fringe support by managing to fall off a bike and break his arm yesterday when he lost control while taking a drink from a water bottle.

You know that sounds exactly like an accident I would have. I already like him.

[Peaches]

This might be good for the "Progressive Radio" section:


http://www.kboo.fm/index.php

KBOO in a NUTSHELL

What is KBOO?
KBOO is a community radio station providing music, news and public affairs 24 hours/day, 365 days/year to Portland, Corvallis, Vancouver, Salem, Mount Hood and the surrounding areas. All programming is produced by volunteers with assistance of paid staff. The weekly cumulative audience is about 70,000 people.

KBOO is owned and operated by The KBOO Foundation, a not-for-profit corporation, and is a member of the National Federation of Community Broadcasters, West Coast Public Radio, and the Consortium for Public Broadcasting in Oregon. As a 501c3 not-for-profit organization, KBOO is dedicated to peace, justice, democracy, human rights, multiculturalism, environmentalism, freedom of expression, and social change.

KBOO Mission Statement
These are the guiding principles behind KBOO Community Radio:

KBOO shall be a model of programming, filling needs that other media do not, providing programming to diverse communities and unserved or underserved groups. KBOO shall provide access and training to those communities.

KBOO's news and public affairs programming shall place an emphasis on providing a forum for unpopular, controversial, or neglected perspectives on important local, national, and international issues, reflecting KBOO's values of peace, justice, democracy, and human rights, multiculturalism, environmentalism, freedom of expression, and social change.

KBOO's arts, cultural, and music programming shall cover a wide spectrum of expression from traditional to experimental, and reflect the diverse cultures KBOO serves. KBOO shall strive for spontaneity and programming excellence, both in content and technique.

I have moved out of Oregon but still listen via their webcast.

[emschwar]

It made front page news at our local paper and was all over the tv news.
It made the local NPR news here (DC)

You know that sounds exactly like an accident I would have. I already like him.
The worst part is that the bike riding was a publicity stunt.

[lawyerlee]

You know that sounds exactly like an accident I would have. I already like him.
No kidding! Same here ;) :D


What a cruel idiot. :mad:

Bush: Bloodshed in Iraq Is 'Worth It' (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050628/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_20&printer=1;_ylt=AhO_IfJjTtmMyPnm7ugEaNsGw_IE;_ylu=X 3oDMTA3MXN1bHE0BHNlYwN0bWE-)

By JENNIFER LOVEN, Associated Press Writer
President Bush on Tuesday appealed for the nation's patience for "difficult and dangerous" work ahead in Iraq, hoping a backdrop of U.S. troops and a reminder of Iraq's revived sovereignty would help him reclaim control of an issue that has eroded his popularity.

In an evening address at an Army base that has 9,300 troops in Iraq, Bush was acknowledging the toll of the 27-month-old war. At the same time, he aimed to persuade skeptical Americans that his strategy for victory needed only time — not any changes — to be successful.

"Like most Americans, I see the images of violence and bloodshed. Every picture is horrifying and the suffering is real," Bush said, according to excerpts released ahead of time by the White House. "It is worth it."

It was a tricky balancing act, believed necessary by White House advisers who have seen persistent insurgent attacks eat into Americans' support for the war — and for the president — and increase discomfort among even Republicans on Capitol Hill.

Bush marked the first anniversary of the transfer of power from the U.S.-led coalition to Iraq's interim government by focusing on progress in the past year and promising success against the still-potent insurgency.

"The terrorists can kill the innocent, but they cannot stop the advance of freedom," he said in a speech that was to be attended by 750 soldiers and airmen. "They will fail."

He was rejecting calls to set a timetable for withdrawing 135,000 American troops. Instead, he argued for maintaining the present two-pronged strategy: equipping Iraqi security forces to take over the anti-insurgency fight and helping Iraqi political leaders in the transition to a permanent democratic government.

"The work in Iraq is difficult and dangerous," the president said. "We have more work to do and there will be tough moments that test America's resolve."

Bush's repeated acknowledgment of death and difficulty came less than a month after Vice President Dick Cheney proclaimed the Iraq insurgency "in the last throes." Still, the president's overriding message was one of optimism.

"The American people do not falter under threat, and we will not allow our future to be determined by car bombers and assassins," he said.

Democrats and other critics said the country needed more specifics than Bush has been giving.

"We just don't have a clue what the criteria for success is," said Rep. John Murtha (news, bio, voting record), D-Pa., a Vietnam combat veteran. "People are still willing to give the president time if he would just level with them."

Outside the base, opponents of the war planned protests.

The liberal group MoveOn.org also unveiled television advertisements that call the Iraq war "a quagmire." "We got in the wrong way. Let's get out the right way," say the ads running in several contested congressional districts.

Bush reserved a few hours before the speech for a private session to console the loved ones of fallen soldiers. Though he often holds these meetings when visiting military bases, the White House's decision to schedule time with 33 grieving families on the same day as the major address underscored the president's plan to offer a more somber assessment than usual of a war that has killed over 1,740 U.S. military personnel and 12,000 Iraqi civilians.

The Iraqis face the next milestone in their rocky transition to democracy on Aug. 15, the deadline to produce a draft of a new constitution.

[oceaneast]

Di, Cruel is even being kind. It'll be worth it when he goes there himself and fights his war on terror.

[oceaneast]

I'm outraged. I can't believe Bush was at Ft. Bragg tonight. ERRG Have it at the White House haven't those families had enough!

[chefker]

I was so disgusted I couldn't watch the whole address. :mad:



Article of interest, re: Rumsfeld's comments the other day that the insurgency could go on for 12 more years.


From Asia Times Online (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GF28Ak05.html)


Twelve more years
By Pepe Escobar

If only those "axis of evil" fellas were a little more ... cooperative.

In Iraq, the Sunni Arab resistance insists on being on a roll, thus disturbing the Pentagon's plans of quietly building its 14 military bases. In Iran, the new game has not even started, but Tehran and Washington are already at each other's throats. Only one day after his victory, Iranian president-elect Mahmud Ahmadinejad said at his first press conference in Tehran, "Iran is on a path of progress and elevation, and does not really need the United States on this path." A few hours later, US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was snarling on Fox News, "I don't know much about this fellow ... But he is no friend of democracy."

Double standards rule. Imagine the fury in the US if, for instance, an Iranian government official in 2000 said, "I don't know much about this cowboy Bush. But he stole the American elections."

Karl Marx may be rolling (with laughter) in his Highgate, north London grave. Talking about classic class struggle: in Iran, a left-wing, working-class hero (Ahmadinejad) has beaten a super-bourgeois, millionaire mullah (Rafsanjani). In Iraq, the local, deposed, militarized Sunni Arab bourgeoisie is fighting a national liberation movement against an imperialist occupation. According to one of the current running jokes in the vast Iranian blogosphere, Ahmadinejad is already doomed because Bush will never be able to pronounce his name. On a more serious note, as much as for Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the election result is a "humiliation" to America. Yet a much harsher humiliation is being inflicted by a few thousand Sunni Arab guerrillas in Iraq, bogging down the self-described mightiest army in the history of the world.

No wonder Rumsfeld is in a foul mood.

Wait for 2017
Fresh from being invited last week by Senator Ted Kennedy to graciously step down, Rumsfeld is back on his usual attack-dog mode - but now with a downbeat twist. In May, Vice President Dick Cheney said the "insurgency was in its last throes". Now - without even appealing to semantic contortionism of the "unknown unknowns" kind - Rumsfeld in fact has clarified to American and world public opinion that the "throes" will go on until 2017. He said, "We're not going to win against the insurgency. The Iraqi people are going to win against the insurgency. That insurgency could go on for any number of years. Insurgencies tend to go on five, six, seven, eight, 10, 12 years."

So Rumsfeld is in fact admitting what many people already knew: the Lebanonization of Iraq. With the added element of Vietnamization/Iraqification: when Rumsfeld said "the Iraqi people are going to win against the insurgency", he actually meant former Mukhabarat pals of former interim prime minister Iyad Allawi at the Interior Ministry, plus the militia inferno at the core of the ministry (the so-called "Rumsfeld's boys"), ganging up to fight the resistance. Sunni Arab intelligence plus Shi'ite and Kurd militias fighting Sunni Arabs. In other words: civil war. Iraqification as the way to civil war was more than evident when Rumsfeld said, "We're going to create an environment that the Iraqi people and the Iraqi security forces can win against that insurgency."

Rumsfeld also said that the Pentagon is "talking with insurgent leaders": "Well, the first thing I would say about the meetings is they go on all the time." What this actually means is that the Sunni Arab "Rumsfeld's boys" exchange information with the Sunni Arab guerrillas and play a double game, looking for the best deal. It's not dissimilar to the mujahideen in eastern Afghanistan in late 2001 bagging cases full of dollars from the Americans with one hand and passing sensitive information to the Taliban with the other. The resistance has infiltrated each and every government and official body in Iraq, Interior Ministry included. If the Pentagon throws around a lot of money-stuffed cases, it might reach some degree of success.

Rumsfeld took pains to remind and alert American public opinion that the Pentagon does not talk to terrorists, so there's no conversation with cipher Abu Musab al-Zarqawi - maybe for the simple reason that the Pentagon doesn't have a clue where he is (or, cynics would add, because Zarqawi is dead). It gets curiouser. Only hours after Rumsfeld did the Sunday talk show round in the US, al-Qaeda in the Land of the Two Rivers and Ansar al-Sunnah denied that they were talking with anybody. Al-Qaeda said these were "lies", they would never talk to "crusaders, Jews and the enemies of Allah". "Axis of evil" observers will be fascinated by the symmetry: the Pentagon does not talk to terrorists in Iraq as much as it does not talk to the new, weapons of mass destruction-pursuer president of Iran, and vice-versa.

General John Abizaid, the US Centcom commander, was more precise than Rumsfeld when he said that the Pentagon was "looking for the right people in the Sunni community to talk to". "Right people" can only mean people such as the Association of Muslim Scholars. Anyway, all the Sunni Arab "right people", even if they were willing to talk, would press on the Americans their number one condition: the end of the occupation itself.

This blockbuster is a dud
Whoever is talking to whichever evildoers, it all boils down to a massive, desperate public-relations campaign in Washington. The Bush administration must imperatively convince American public opinion that it will "win " in Iraq as a nagging Titanic feeling starts to fill the air. When confronted with a non sequitur, the White House and the Pentagon have always been able to change the script of the Iraqi movie. No weapons of mass destruction? No problem: let's go with "democracy and freedom to the Arab world". Terrorism? Let's fight it with "free elections". Oops, we didn't want these Iran-friendly Shi'ites in power. No problem, let's support them and use them to build an Iraqi army to fight the Sunnis on our behalf.

Now growing numbers of Americans seem to have had enough of all the plot twists - and would rather switch to a Brad Pitt or Tom Cruise vehicle where the bad guys always lose and the good guy always gets the girl. People around the world are always bemused by the fact that American society is a strictly winner-takes-all universe. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld may end up being branded as losers - the ultimate insult (or "unknown unknowns", in Rumsfeld doublespeak). Rumsfeld has finally admitted that the Iraq war is unwinnable. No amount of Washington spin can have it packaged and sold to the American people - again.

[Jessica]

I was so disgusted I couldn't watch the whole address. :mad:


Ughh, I know. As soon as he came on stage with that horrible cat that ate the canary smile I knew I wouldn't make it too long.

[Sophia]

I didn't see it live, but I saw the so-called "highlights" afterwards. He didn't say anything, as usual, and he didn't say anything well, either.

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

Boy, it's taking me forever to get my act together! But finally, I made it over here too... Looking forward to lots more liberal discussion. :D

Kemaji, I'm in Columbus too! :) I try not to read the Dispatch too much either- the owners are just too conservative to represent a fairly liberal town like Columbus very well. But yeah, I love Doonesbury too, so- what to do, what to do!

[Sophia]

Hey! LF is in the house! :)

[lawyerlee]

VA Faces $2.6 Billion Shortfall in Medical Care (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/28/AR2005062800545_pf.html) Washington Post
Agency Undercounted Size of Returning Force

By Thomas B. Edsall
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, June 29, 2005; A19

The Bush administration disclosed yesterday that it had vastly underestimated the number of service personnel returning from Iraq and Afghanistan seeking medical treatment from the Department of Veterans Affairs, and warned that the health care programs will be short at least $2.6 billion next year unless Congress approves additional funds.

Veterans Affairs budget documents projected that 23,553 veterans would return this year from Iraq and Afghanistan and seek medical treatment. However, Veterans Affairs Secretary Jim Nicholson told a Senate committee that the number has been revised upward to 103,000 for the fiscal year that ends Sept. 30. He said the original estimates were based on outdated assumptions from 2002.

"The bottom line is there is a surge in demand in VA [health] services across the board," Nicholson told the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee.

Just last week, the VA revealed that the rise in demand for VA health facilities had caused a $1 billion shortfall in operating funds for the current year. That would more than double in the coming year without congressional intervention.

Senate Republicans, embarrassed and angered over the revelations, yesterday announced plans to pass emergency legislation this morning to add $1.5 billion to the fiscal 2005 appropriation. The move is designed to appease angry veterans groups and preempt a Democratic proposal calling for $1.42 billion in increased VA spending.

The action represents a reversal of GOP policies toward the VA. For the past four months, House and Senate Republicans have repeatedly defeated Democratic amendments to boost VA medical funding.

:mad: :( :mad:

It seems to me that anyone with a brain could have predicted this need. And if the Republicans are so darned Patriotic, why are they resisting efforts to get Vets the care they need and damn well deserve?! :mad:

[gayle]

"It seems to me that anyone with a brain could have predicted this need. And if the Republicans are so darned Patriotic, why are they resisting efforts to get Vets the care they need and damn well deserve?! "


ITA.

They are Patriotic when it suits them, period. And of course the rest of us, who would have thought of this to begin with, are called (in general) unpatriotic by the GOP.

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

Hey! LF is in the house!
What what! ;) :D

[chefker]

Heh. My dad's a vietnam vet trying to get SOME measly coverage from the VA (seeing as he got a head injury while in Nam). You wouldn't believe the hoops they're making my father jump through--then they 'forget' to schedule consultative exams for him, etc.

Don't get me started on that one!

[JRose]

Heh. My dad's a vietnam vet trying to get SOME measly coverage from the VA (seeing as he got a head injury while in Nam). You wouldn't believe the hoops they're making my father jump through--then they 'forget' to schedule consultative exams for him, etc.

Don't get me started on that one!

Tell me about it. My FIL is a Vietnam vet as well (with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and a few other problems) and not only does he have absolutely sh*tty coverage, but his docs are constantly misdiagnosing him and giving him meds that counteract each other.

I was hoping someone had posted a transcript of G's speech last night. I tuned him out after the first few words :p

[paiger]

My dad is a Vietnam Vet (who also things W is perfect and the tv only tunes to Fox News), and he has recently started going to the VA for his medical needs (driving like an hour to get to the nearest one).

I think it is funny that this is a surprise to any politician:
Just last week, the VA revealed that the rise in demand for VA health facilities had caused a $1 billion shortfall in operating funds for the current year. That would more than double in the coming year without congressional intervention.

Most Vietnam Vets are in retirement or nearing retirement and in doing so are losing their healthcare through their jobs. Hardly anyone can afford to pay for their own healthcare, so of course they are going to go where they can get it at a cheaper cost to them. With the cost of health insurance, it is beyond me that politicians wouldn't have guessed this. My dad would have retired last year or this year, but eventhough he and my mom have worked their butts off to have what they need in their retirement funds, he can't retire b/c of his health insurance. The cost of it is the only reason is continues to work when he is not in the best of health to continue to work this hard.

[kemaji]

Kemaji, I'm in Columbus too! :) I try not to read the Dispatch too much either- the owners are just too conservative to represent a fairly liberal town like Columbus very well. But yeah, I love Doonesbury too, so- what to do, what to do!

Cool! There are more of us around that I thought at first. I only get the paper on Saturdays and Sundays and I usually don't read the news coverage, I get it for the additional sections.

[Aletheia]

:D Ooo goody! I'm subscribing, though I haven't read all the back posts yet. I just wanted to share this little picture with you, in case you haven't seen it before- it's pretty popular, and a riff an an older, not really political version. But still, it cracks me up even though I've seen it multiple times...

http://inessential.com/images/run_liberal_run.jpg

[flygirl]

I heard part of Nicholson's testimony on ME this morning and my goodness, the guy's a tool. A senator asked him if we have a problem, and he hemmed & hawed & said, "Well, I wouldn't say we have a crisis..." The senator interrupted him & said again, "Do we have a problem?" He said something like, well, I guess so... The senator asked how much. "Oh, just a billion." Obviuosly no one prepped the poor guy.

I kept the speech on the TV while making dinner, but after the 7th or 8th reference to 9/11 I tuned it out.

[greenbunny]

subscribing.

I love that picture. But why does god send little brown muppets to kill the kittens? Why not just smite the kittens with lightning, or something?

[Belm]

Aletheia ~ Thanks for the laugh!

[oceaneast]

That is HILARIOUS! It made my day I'm using it as a screensaver!

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

A billion dollars in the hole... Just imagine, if we hadn't cooked up the war in Iraq, that'd be no problem. Grr! :(

[chefker]

From the Washington Post:

link to article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/29/AR2005062900035.html?nav=hcmodule)



Prime Time For the President

By Tom Shales
Post
Wednesday, June 29, 2005; C01



Although President Bush's speech at Fort Bragg, N.C., was scheduled to last about 30 minutes, CNN anchor Paula Zahn told viewers last night it would "no doubt" run longer because of "interruptions by the supportive crowd" of men and women in uniform.

Well, yes and no. The speech -- a relatively brief status report on the war in Iraq -- may have run a tiny bit longer than was announced, but there was only one interruption from the "supportive crowd." In fact, since the military men and women were technically at attention, noted anchor Brian Williams of NBC News, they didn't even applaud when Bush walked onstage to deliver the address.

The sole supportive interruption followed a sequence in which Bush built to the line, "We will stay in the fight until the fight is won." NBC's Kelly O'Connell, reporting from Fort Bragg, told Williams afterward that the applause appeared to have been "triggered by members of the president's advance team" and that once they began clapping, the soldiers joined in. (emphasis mine)

Wolf Blitzer, co-anchoring with Zahn on CNN, told viewers there were"no rah-rah hooahs from this group," but no one had said there would be.

Bush's speech aired on all the major broadcast networks, something of a surprise since as of mid-afternoon yesterday, neither NBC nor CBS had plans to cover it. They felt, correctly, that the speech contained nothing new or newsy and that it didn't merit a half-hour or more of prime time. But something changed as the day wore on, and Bush showed up on NBC and CBS as well as on ABC and the various cable news networks that previously had announced they would cover the speech.

In a time when some polls show the popularity of the news media to be even lower than the approval rating for Bush's conduct of the war, the managements of the networks may have feared hostile reaction if they didn't air the speech live. Political conservatives keep up a steady drumbeat of hostility against the media, something the Bush administration does nothing to discourage. Refusing to air the speech probably would have led to unpleasantness -- or at the least given the new subculture of bellicose bloggers another alleged media conspiracy to shriek about.

This was not a major speech by Bush, nor was it particularly well delivered until the end, when he seemed to be straining to hold back his emotions as he spoke of the U.S. troops fighting and dying in Iraq. He referred several times to violent insurgents who stage daily sneak attacks -- calling them "ruthless killers," among other things -- but at the end of the speech said, "They are no match for the men and women of the United States military."

Bush's voice seemed to crack as he spoke those final words. Now the crowd did applaud, but they weren't interrupting the speech, because it was over.

Earlier Bush tried to make it sound as if there were new ideas in the speech. He mentioned three initiatives designed to make the Iraqis more a part of the war, among them "partnering coalition units with Iraqi units" in combat situations. "As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down," Bush promised, but he rejected setting a deadline for U.S. withdrawal because, he said, it would "send the wrong message" to the Iraqis, to U.S. troops who have fought or are now fighting the war, and to the enemy, who could be expected to just "wait us out" if a date for withdrawal were made public.

The president, wearing one of those baby-blue ties that he favors, made a media reference during the speech, saying the insurgents in Iraq "take innocent lives and create chaos for the cameras" to capture.

Having made the decision to carry the speech, NBC and CBS could hardly then come on the air and say it wasn't important. So, whatever they thought, anchors and reporters treated the speech as a news event. ABC, with Charles Gibson anchoring, and NBC both stayed on the air afterward for discussion. MSNBC, enterprisingly enough, did an impromptu town meeting on the speech from a Baptist church in Nashville, having already scheduled a special edition of the Chris Matthews "Hardball" show from that location to discuss, among other things, politics and religion.

Matthews led a post-speech discussion that included assembled experts, most of whom leaned to the right or far right, and an audience made up largely of military families. Matthews got giggles from the audience when he asked one soldier's wife about "IUDs" being used by terrorists in Iraq. He quickly corrected himself; he meant IEDs, he said -- "improvised explosive devices."

Two soldiers' wives interviewed said they were prepared for the war to last 10 or 12 years, which was more alarming than Matthews's tiny gaffe.

CBS was the first network to rush away from the speech. Its coverage, passively anchored by Bob Schieffer, ended abruptly so the network could return to regular commercial programming: a sitcom rerun. CBS boss Les Moonves is no friend to the news division, so it is not surprising that CBS hotfooted it. There was a time when it would have been able to boast of the most extensive and thorough coverage of such an event. That time is sadly over.




*****************

10 or 12 more years of war? God help us all. Vietnam, as bad as it was, wasn't as lengthy a quagmire as W's war.

[hockeybrat]

I only heard a few minutes of Bushie's speech this morning and I just wanted to say that it just pisses me off when he pulls his 9/11 card out. By using that, it is using fear on us, the American people.

Really sad when people actually eat those words though.


I guess I should subscribe. I've always thought of myself as middle of the road, but under this regime, I'd be labeled a "liberal" (as though that was a bad word) :rolleyes:

[chefker]

Interesting clips from iFilm:

iFilm political films (http://www.ifilm.com/bigpicture/political)

Couldn't get it to direct link, but the clips I viewed were 'The Boy who Cried Wolfowitz", and "Wake Up and Smell the Oil"

[alootikki]

Hello my fellow liberals! I couldn't watch Bush's speech last night - can't stand to watch his face and expressions anymore, so I just read the transcript afterwards.

I was watching the CNN morning show today, and they were talking with the widow of a soldier who died in Iraq. Apparently Bush was wearing a bracelet in this soldier's honor yesterday? Anyway, the widow was asked if she believes that Iraq and 9/11 were connected - and she answered yes. I just found that so unbelievably sad - her husband died, and she still believes it was for "revenge" that is completely false. Maybe it's better to believe that Iraq and 9/11 are connected to find some meaning in your loved ones' death?

[Jazz]

Howdy! I only made it through five minutes, then switched to PBS for a delightful show on dogs. Much better for the heart rate and blood pressure. :)

I consider myself a liberal, but am loving "progressive" as a less-loaded word.

Didn't Bush and Kerry both fall off bikes in the year before the election? I think Bush was on a mnt. bike and Kerry on a road bike. Also, if I remember correctly, Kerry's bike went in for a tune-up at the same shop I bought my bike from. :)

[oceaneast]

I actually found Gilmore Girls more enlightening than his speech and changed the channel.

[chefker]

I actually found Gilmore Girls more enlightening than his speech and changed the channel.


For me, I decided that playing Crash Bandicoot was far more educational. :)

[alootikki]

I read a book instead of watching the speech - "The Second Summer of the Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants"! ;) :p

[dionysia]

Dionysia- I don't usually either, but I was looking for an update on our govenor (I live in Ohio) and his latest scandal about not reporting benefits & perks that people give him. The headline jumped out at me because I love Gary Trudeau's work.It's sad, isn't it, that we don't want to read our local papers? *sigh*

Di

[dionysia]

I heard part of Nicholson's testimony on ME this morning and my goodness, the guy's a tool. A senator asked him if we have a problem, and he hemmed & hawed & said, "Well, I wouldn't say we have a crisis..." The senator interrupted him & said again, "Do we have a problem?" He said something like, well, I guess so... The senator asked how much. "Oh, just a billion." Obviuosly no one prepped the poor guyI heard that too on ME.

What a dumbass.

"Do we have a problem?"
"That depends on the definition of problem."

:mad:

Di

[Sophia]

Dear MoveOn member,

Last night, President Bush tried to rescue his failed Iraq policy in a nationally televised address by connecting the Iraq war to the war on terror. He is trying to change the subject from Iraq to terrorism and September 11—implying that Iraq attacked us in 2001.

To keep Bush from changing the subject, we've started running a new TV ad about Iraq. But to keep the advertising on the air, we need to raise $250,000 today. Just $50 from 5,000 of us will make a big difference. Will you contribute to help stop Bush from changing the subject?

http://www.moveonpac.org/donate/hagel.html?id=5724-5622324-7krVsRWLcquPCu.gxXM9Uw&t=3

Even a small contribution will keep the ads running if we all chip in. And, if we raise $500,000, we can expand the advertising into the hometowns of Republican members of Congress who will have tough elections in 2006.

That will help send a signal that Congress will pay a price at the ballot box because of the Iraq failures. The president's speech provided political cover to a lot of members of Congress—letting them get away with not supporting an exit strategy—but we can help neutralize that with the ad campaign. If you don't live in one of those congressional districts, this is your chance to make a huge difference by supporting this ad.

The ad, titled "Hagel," draws a sharp contrast between President Bush's claim that we're making progress in Iraq and the words of Republican Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, who said, "The White House is completely disconnected from reality... It's like they're just making it up as they go along."1 Then, the ad calls for an exit strategy, saying, "It's time to come home. We went in the wrong way, let's come home the right way." An exit strategy with a timeline is supported by nearly 84% of MoveOn members according to the recent vote.

http://www.moveonpac.org/donate/hagel.html?id=5724-5622324-7krVsRWLcquPCu.gxXM9Uw&t=4

Supporting this ad will also show that we won't run away when the Republicans attack. Over the last couple of days, the Bush White House has begun openly attacking MoveOn by name—even accusing us of siding with the terrorists and wanting to make America less safe. It started with lies in a speech by Bush spin-master Karl Rove last week but quickly followed with attacks on "The Today Show" by White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett. Then, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld took a swipe at MoveOn on Sunday talk shows.

We can't let them get away with this. It's the Iraq war that's making America less safe—not the 3.3 million of us in MoveOn.

Because we're out front on Iraq, we can expect more attacks. By standing up to them, we can demonstrate to Democrats that they need not cower when Republicans slander them. But we can't keep these ads on the air without your support. Please contribute at:

http://www.moveonpac.org/donate/hagel.html?id=5724-5622324-7krVsRWLcquPCu.gxXM9Uw&t=5

The advertising is just the first part of MoveOn's new Iraq campaign. Over the coming weeks and months, we'll be pushing for our leaders in elected office to insist that President Bush put together an exit strategy (a plan!) for Iraq. We'll ask you to get involved in lots of different ways, but right now we really need your help to keep the TV ad on the air.

Thank you for all you do,

–Tom, Matt, Eli, Rosalyn and the MoveOn PAC Team
Wednesday, June 29th, 2005

P.S. Can't contribute for an ad? Write a letter to the editor about Bush's speech at:

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=764&zip=78504&id=5724-5622324-7krVsRWLcquPCu.gxXM9Uw&t=6

Source:
1. "Hit by friendly fire," U.S. News & World Report, June 27, 2005
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/050627/27bush.htm

PAID FOR BY MOVEON PAC
Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.

[JenniferEC]

I am new to these boards and was a "lurker" at WC. I consider myself a liberal and am still in denial that W is the prez.

I couldn't bring myself to watch the speech last night, so I watched Blow Out on Bravo instead.

I know I'll enjoy reading this thread.
Jennifer

[chefker]

Has anyone seen this film short? My aunt just sent this to me. It's a bit of a conspiracy theory propaganda piece on what really happened at the Pentagon:

freedom underground (http://www.freedomunderground.org/memoryhole/pentagon.php#Main)


HOWEVER, Snopes did a piece basically discounting the whole theory:

Snopes article (http://www.snopes2.com/rumors/pentagon.htm)


'Course, my aunt will be annoyed with me when I email her back the Snopes story. :)

I don't think I'm THAT liberal to buy into the conspiracy thing, but it was interesting to say the least.

[lawyerlee]

I think we talked about that on the other site that shall not be named, chefker. It is interesting, but I'm not suprised that Snopes has discredited it. :)

[Fluffy Bunny]

Hi - I'm new here but want to join up with the other liberals.

The Washington Post just posted an article on changes within the intelligence community. Full text here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/29/AR2005062900220.html)

Bush Approves Spy Agency Changes

By William Branigin

President Bush announced today that he is creating a new intelligence-oriented security service within the FBI and a national center to counter the spread of weapons of mass destruction, as he moved to implement nearly all the recommendations of a special commission on U.S. intelligence.

The White House said Bush was directing Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales to pull together the Justice Department's security elements and create "a National Security Service within the FBI that will specialize in intelligence and other national security matters." The new agency will "respond to priorities set by the Director of National Intelligence," a post created as part of an intelligence community overhaul following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.




This restructuring makes me a bit nervous. The first thing that strikes me is that with the FBI in charge of intelligence, presumably within US borders based on their mission, how long until J. Edgar Hoover's FBI returns. My other thought is that with both the CIA and FBI working on intelligence, the probability of miscommunication and bureacratic BS increases dramatically.

[oceaneast]

This is probably better for a news post. But I find it hilarious.

MSNBC has an article entitled Eminent domain this! Justice's farm is target

WEARE, N.H. - Following a Supreme Court ruling last week that gave local governments more power to seize private property, someone has made what appears to be a tongue-in-cheek pitch to take over Justice David Souter's New Hampshire farmhouse and turn it into a hotel.

"The justification for such an eminent domain action is that our hotel will better serve the public interest as it will bring in economic development and higher tax revenue to Weare," Logan Darrow Clements of California wrote in a letter faxed to town officials in Weare on Tuesday.

Souter, a longtime Weare resident, joined in the 5-4 court decision allowing governments to seize private property from one owner and turn it over to another if doing so would benefit a community.

[lawyerlee]

Blair: No Predetermination for Iraq War (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/29/AR2005062901644_pf.html) Washington Post

By PAISLEY DODDS and DAN PERRY
The Associated Press
Wednesday, June 29, 2005

LONDON -- Prime Minister Tony Blair firmly denied Wednesday that the Bush administration signaled just months after Sept. 11 that a decision was made to invade Iraq, saying he was "astonished" by claims that leaked secret memos suggested the U.S. was rushing to war.

In an interview with The Associated Press a day after President Bush delivered a televised defense of the war in Iraq, Blair said defeating the insurgency was crucial to protecting security worldwide, and joined Bush in linking the war with the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

"What happened for me after Sept. 11 is that the balance of risk changed," said Blair, interviewed on the stone terrace overlooking the garden of his No. 10 Downing Street offices, where policy meetings on Iraq were held before the invasion.

After Sept. 11, it was necessary to "draw a line in the sand here, and the country to do it with was Iraq because they were in breach of U.N. resolutions going back over many years," he said. "I took the view that if these people ever got hold of nuclear, chemical or biological capability, they would probably use it."

Blair was asked about the leaked memos, which suggest strong concerns in the British government that the Bush administration was determined in 2002 to invade Iraq _ months before the United States and Britain unsuccessfully sought U.N. Security Council approval for military action.

"People say the decision was already taken. The decision was not already taken." Blair said he was "a bit astonished" at the intensive U.S. media coverage about the memos, which included minutes of a July 23, 2002, meeting between Blair and top officials at his Downing Street office.

According to the minutes of the meeting, Sir Richard Dearlove, then chief of Britain's intelligence service, said the White House viewed military action against Saddam Hussein as inevitable following the Sept. 11 attacks. Bush "wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD" (weapons of mass destruction), read the memo, seen by the AP. "But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

In the interview, Blair said raising such concerns was a natural part of any examination of the cause for war.

"The trouble with having a political discussion on the basis of things that are leaked is that they are always taken right out of context. Everything else is omitted from the discussion and you end up focusing on a specific document," he said. "It would be absolutely weird if, when the Iraq issue was on the agenda, you were not constantly raising issues, trying to work them out, get them in the right place," he said.

Blair suggested that ensuring victory in Iraq was now more important than debating the case for invasion.

"The most important thing we can do in Iraq is concentrate on the fact ... that what is happening there is a monumental battle that affects our own security," he said. "You've got every bad element in the whole of the Middle East in Iraq trying to stop that country (from getting) on its feet and (becoming) a democracy."

Blair echoed Bush's pledge a day earlier to keep U.S. forces in Iraq until the fight is won. "There is only one side to be on now and it is time we got on it and stuck in there and get the job done, and not leave until the job is done," he said.

Blair won a historic third term in office last month. But his Labour Party saw its parliament majority slashed, largely because of discontent over Iraq. While Blair's close ties to Bush have cost him with voters at home, he said it's that relationship which allows the countries to talk about tough issues.

"My support for America is not based on you give us support for this and you get that in return," Blair said. "I should only do what is right for Britain. The president should only do what is right for America, and we should both try to do what is right for the world."

That alluded to Blair's ambitious twin goals for next week's summit in Scotland of the world's eight most industrialized nations _ reaching consensus on fighting climate change, and greatly boosting aid to Africa. On climate change in particular, Blair said the going may be rough.

"On climate change there obviously has been a disagreement over Kyoto," Blair said referring to the Kyoto Protocol, which the Bush administration has rejected. He said he hoped to reach agreement on moving toward a low-carbon economy that curbs greenhouse gas emissions.

"On Africa, I don't think there is a disagreement about the basic principles of what we are trying to achieve and obviously I hope that by the time we get to the summit next week we have got agreement on the substance of the package."

Blair is calling for fair trade in Africa and an extra $25 billion a year in international aid for the continent by 2010, and a further $25 billion annually up to 2015.

[lawyerlee]

From Memos, Insights Into Ally's Doubts On Iraq War
British Advisers Foresaw Variety of Risks, Problems (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/27/AR2005062701584_pf.html) Washington Post

By Glenn Frankel
Washington Post Foreign Service
Tuesday, June 28, 2005; A01

LONDON -- In the spring of 2002, two weeks before British Prime Minister Tony Blair journeyed to Crawford, Tex., to meet with President Bush at his ranch about the escalating confrontation with Iraq, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw sounded a prescient warning.

"The rewards from your visit to Crawford will be few," Straw wrote in a March 25 memo to Blair stamped "Secret and Personal." "The risks are high, both for you and for the Government."

In public, British officials were declaring their solidarity with the Bush administration's calls for elimination of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. But Straw's memo and seven other secret documents disclosed in recent months by British journalist Michael Smith together reveal a much different picture. Behind the scenes, British officials believed the U.S. administration was already committed to a war that they feared was ill-conceived and illegal and could lead to disaster.

The documents indicate that the officials foresaw a host of problems that later would haunt both governments -- including thin intelligence about the nature of the Iraqi threat, weak public support for war and a lack of planning for the aftermath of military action. British cabinet ministers, Foreign Office diplomats, senior generals and intelligence service officials all weighed in with concerns and reservations. Yet they could not dissuade their counterparts in the Bush administration -- nor, indeed, their own leader -- from going forward.

"I think there is a real risk that the administration underestimates the difficulties," David Manning, Blair's chief foreign policy adviser at the time, wrote to the prime minister on March 14, 2002, after he returned from meetings with Condoleezza Rice, then Bush's national security adviser, and her staff. "They may agree that failure isn't an option, but this does not mean they will necessarily avoid it."

A U.S. official with firsthand knowledge of the events said the concerns raised by British officials "played a useful role."

"Were they paid a tremendous amount of heed?" said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "I think it's hard to say they were."

Critics of the Bush administration contend the documents -- including the now-famous Downing Street Memo of July 23, 2002 -- constitute proof that Bush made the decision to go to war at least eight months before it began, and that the subsequent diplomatic campaign at the United Nations was a charade, designed to convince the public that war was necessary, rather than an attempt to resolve the crisis peacefully. They contend the documents have not received the attention they deserve.

[oceaneast]

So it was O'Conner first. . . . oh dear.

[emschwar]

Oh dear is right. I'm scared.

[Jessica]

Can we curse on CC? Because this seems the right time for it.

[lawyerlee]

Can we curse on CC? Because this seems the right time for it.
Yes.



Someone please hold me. :mad: :confused:

[lawyergirl25]

I know it's irrational, but I'm feeling a little panicky. It'll be okay, right?

Right?

[lawyerlee]

Am I the only one who feels like she's betraying our country and everyone in it who isn't a right wing nut job? :(

Sandra Day O'Connor leaving Supreme Court (http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/07/01/oconnor.resigns.ap/index.html) CNN

Friday, July 1, 2005; Posted: 10:38 a.m. EDT (14:38 GMT)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the first woman appointed to the Supreme Court and a key swing vote on issues such as abortion and the death penalty, said Friday she is retiring.

O'Connor, 75, said she will leave before the start of the court's next term in October, or when the Senate confirms her successor. There was no immediate word from the White House on who might be nominated to replace O'Connor.

It's been 11 years since the last opening on the court, one of the longest uninterrupted stretches in history. O'Connor's decision gives Bush his first opportunity to appoint a justice.

"This is to inform you of my decision to retire from my position as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, effective upon the nomination and confirmation of my successor. It has been a great privilege indeed to have served as a member of the court for 24 terms. I will leave it with enormous respect for the integrity of the court and its role under our constitutional structure."

The White House has refused to comment on any possible nominees, or whether Bush would name a woman to succeed O'Connor. Her departure leaves Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg as the only other woman among the current justices.

Possible replacements include Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and federal courts of appeals judges J. Michael Luttig, John Roberts, Samuel A. Alito Jr., Michael McConnell, Emilio Garza and James Harvie Wilkinson III. Others mentioned are former Solicitor General Theodore Olson, lawyer Miguel Estrada and former deputy attorney general Larry Thompson, but Bush's pick could be a surprise choice not well known in legal circles.

Another prospective candidate is Edith Hollan Jones, a judge on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals who was also considered for a Supreme Court vacancy by President Bush's father.

O'Connor's appointment in 1981 by President Ronald Reagan, quickly confirmed by the Senate, ended 191 years of male exclusivity on the high court.

She wasted little time building a reputation as a hard-working moderate conservative who emerged as a crucial power broker on the nine-member court.

O'Connor often lines up with the court's conservative bloc, as she did in 2000 when the court voted to stop Florida presidential ballot recounts sought by Al Gore, and effectively called the election for President Bush.

As a "swing voter," however, O'Connor sometimes votes with more liberal colleagues.

Perhaps the best example of her influence is the court's evolving stance on abortion. She distanced herself both from her three most conservative colleagues, who say there is no constitutional underpinning for a right to abortion, and from more liberal justices for whom the right is a given.

[lawyergirl25]

I don't know that I feel betrayed exactly. Upset and scared, definitely.

Although she was very liberal on some issues (like abortion), I know she was also conservative in many ways. So I don't really feel betrayed, since I know she had no allegiance to many of the positions that I feel strongly about.

It's hard to put into words.

[emschwar]

Why now? Would it have been so hard to wait another 3 years?

[trefoil]

Am I the only one who feels like she's betraying our country and everyone in it who isn't a right wing nut job? :(


I might feel betrayed if she had done this during Bush's first term, but we had a chance to get out of this situation and people chose to let him continue (clearly, nobody in this thread, but as a country the choice was made) ). I don't know how many more years she owes us. The Republicans have learned that to win, they can front a conservative Christian and that those social values are enough to win. Fiscal responsibility, sound foreign policy, equal opportunities, and the like are not as important to the majority. I suspect they will continue to front an outspoken socially conservative Christian until it no longer works for them. Who knows how long it will take before the majority decide that this country needs more (like a balanced budget!) to be successful? With her personal life, it's possible she just couldn't afford to wait just in case things turned around politically.

[Sophia]

I feel betrayed, Diana. I'm really surprised and upset that she's the first to retire. Why would she choose right ow to retire? That's what I want to know. And some of the names being tossed around, like Alberto Gozalez, are truly frightening.

I saw Bush's news conference, and when he said that his search for a nominee would be "thorough," he made that awful smirk.

I'm really worried right now.

[trefoil]

I hate that damn smirk.

[emschwar]

Interestingly, CNN showed a poll a bit ago that something like 69% to 29% Americans want a justice that will uphold roe v wade. God, I hope W pays attention to that. But I'm not holding my breath.

[Sophia]

Passing this along:

From DailyKos; help get the word out by posting this in your blog, too!
***********************************************
Supreme Court: What You Can Do RIGHT NOW
by DavidNYC
Fri Jul 1st, 2005 at 08:51:25 PDT

Whatever happens with the Supreme Court nomination battle that is about to ensue, it's going to happen fast. Here are some things you can do right now:

* If you have a cell phone, sign up for People at the American Way's Mass Immediate Response site. This way, you'll be able to receive text message action items instantly as events break. (If you signed up during the nuclear option fight, you'll need to re-sign up.)

* Also sign up with the Save the Court, another PFAW website devoted specifically to this issue.

* Recruit friends and family members to the cause.

* Write to the President, telling him he should choose a consensus candidate to replace O'Connor.

* Contact your Senators to tell them the same thing.

If you have any other action items, please post them in the comments below, with links.

Update [2005-7-1 11:33:32 by DavidNYC]: If you have a blog, please post these action items on your site. If you don't, e-mail them to your like-minded buddies and relatives.

[lawyergirl25]

I'm already signed with with PFAW, thanks to the election, and I've gotten several good emails this morning. I second the suggestion to sign up.

[Jazz]

Am I the only one who feels like she's betraying our country and everyone in it who isn't a right wing nut job? :(


No. I'm disappointed in her.

[emschwar]

I second the suggestion to sign up.
Do you have a link?

[lawyergirl25]

Yes, sorry -

PFAW: www.pfaw.org
Save the Court: www.savethecourt,org

[lawyerlee]

My best friend just e-mailed me about the bad news. In the subject line she wrote "pack your bags" and in the message she said "cause we're moving to Canada!"

I wish. :(

[Aletheia]

75 isn't so old! Step up to the plate, woman! Serve your country in a time of crisis!
Damnit. We *cannot* move to Canada, even if it sounds like fun. We've got to find a way to reestablish some unity in this country.

[maggieb]

subscribin'

And what's really scary is that Rehnquist is pretty ill, isn't he? I'm positive he'll retire soon also. Two justices? WTF?!?!?!

[Anna Low]

I'm here, but a little late to the party.

[sublime311]

Hey ladies, cross-posting this from an email I received - link to petition in text (will also post this in the Sandra Day O'Connor thread):

Dear MoveOn member,

Early this morning Sandra Day O'Connor stepped down from the Supreme Court, leaving the first open seat in more than 10 years. As a moderate Justice, she helped protect our rights for decades. With Bush likely to nominate a replacement in a matter of hours or days, our most basic rights and freedoms are suddenly very much up for grabs.

This is the time to act.

Its rumored that Bush will nominate a replacement as quickly as this Tuesday. In the next few days Bush, the Senate and the media will all be will be listening very carefully—gauging the public reaction to this vacancy and deciding how far they can go.

That's why we've launched an emergency petition calling on our Senators to do what it takes in the crucial weeks ahead to protect our rights. We're aiming to deliver 250,000 signatures and comments by Tuesday. Please add your voice today:

http://www.moveonpac.org/protectourrights/index.html

From the Patriot Act to the Terri Schiavo tragedy, in the last four years the Republican leadership has exploited every opportunity to attack the basic American right to keep our private choices private, and to make personal decisions without government intrusion.

This vacancy could represent the biggest threat yet.

The only clear indication from Bush about who he might nominate is that he intends to follow the example of his two "model" judges—Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia.1 These two have weighed in from the far-right fringe for decades, and another judge in their mold could shift the balance on the Court significantly.

Below are just a few examples of landmark cases where Scalia or Thomas voted against O'Connor to try to strike down core rights and freedoms. In many cases if they had one more vote they would have succeeded.2

Workers rights - Nevada Dep't of Human Resources v. Hibbs, which protected the right of workers to care for newborn children or gravely ill family members.

Women's rights — United States v. Virginia, which allowed women to attend all publicly funded schools. (C'Connor was not on the Court at the time of Roe v. Wade, but has opposed Scalia and Thomas on reproductive freedom issues in such landmark cases as Planned Parenthood v. Casey)

Church and State—Locke v. Davey, which ensured that states could not be required to fund religious training.

Envrionmental rights—Friends of the Earth , Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc. which protected citizens' rights under the Clean Water Act to sue against the illegal dumping of mercury and other toxins.

Civil Rights: * Dickerson v. U.S. which upheld the "Miranda" guarantee that people accused of crimes are read their rights. * United States v. Fordice, which protected the rights of those still suffering from the effects of state-enforced racial segregation. * Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) affirmed the right of state colleges and universities to use affirmative action in their admissions policies.

Civil Liberties—Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, which blocked the government from indefinitely detaining American citizens without charges, an attorney, or any basic rights.

On Capitol Hill, today's resignation unleashed a swarm of fringe groups and corporate lobbyists pushing for a nominee who will favor narrow prejudice and greed over the rights of the American people.

If we can deliver 250,000 signatrures and comments by Tuesday, we can make sure the voice of ordinary Americans can compete with this swarm and tell our senators to stand up for our rights.

Please sign today.

http://www.moveonpac.org/protectourrights/index.html

Thanks for all that you do.

Ben, Joan, Justin, Eli and the MoveOn PAC Team
Friday, July 1st, 2005

P.S. As soon as we heard about the resignation, we put an ad on the air calling for Bush and the Senate to protect our rights and not nominate an extremist. You can check it out at: http://www.moveonpac.org

[oceaneast]

I found Bush's comments to calm down the rhetoric around the appointment patronizing.

[lawyerlee]

I found Bush's comments to calm down the rhetoric around the appointment patronizing.
ITA. He's such a prick. :mad:


You guys will enjoy this. :rolleyes:

Santorum Criticizes Views of Sen. Clinton (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050706/ap_on_go_co/santorum_book&printer=1;_ylt=AlxRaoWA4jqaoozddCArAmOMwfIE;_ylu=X 3oDMTA3MXN1bHE0BHNlYwN0bWE-)

By KIMBERLY HEFLING, Associate Press Writer

Sen. Rick Santorum (news, bio, voting record) compares abortion to slavery in his new book "It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good," which is being promoted as an alternative to the views of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The book by Santorum, R-Pa., was in Washington bookstores on Tuesday. It describes his evolution from a young politician uncomfortable with abortion to a major player in the anti-abortion movement.

It tackles subjects ranging from home schooling to welfare reform, and advocates family over what he describes as the big government village in Clinton's 1996 book, "It Takes a Village."

"The African proverb says, 'It takes a village to raise a child,'" Santorum writes. "The American version is 'It takes a village to raise a child — if the village wants that child.'"

Santorum, chairman of the Senate Republican Conference, is sometimes touted as a possible 2008 presidential candidate.

He could face a tough re-election battle for his Senate seat in 2006. Early polling shows him behind Pennsylvania state Treasurer Robert P. Casey Jr., the favorite to win the Democratic primary.

In the book, Santorum makes the case that abortion puts the liberty rights of the mother before those of her child, just as the rights of slave owners were put before those of slaves.

"This was tried once before in America," Santorum writes. "But unlike abortion today, in most states even the slaveholder did not have the unlimited right to kill his slave."

Santorum questions why Clinton and other liberals tout decreasing abortion numbers if abortion is OK.

"When you look at the politics she would change, her 'politics of meaning' boil down to little more than feel-good rhetoric masking a radical left agenda," Santorum said.

While first lady in 1993, Clinton called for "a new politics of meaning" and said the country should pay more attention to values.

A spokeswoman for Clinton declined Tuesday to respond to the book.

T.J. Rooney, the Democratic Party's chairman in Pennsylvania, said in a statement that Santorum is out of step with the state and "every Pennsylvania woman in particular should be offended."

[lawyerlee]

Unfricking believable. :mad:

Reporters Face Jail in Fight Over Sources (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050706/ap_on_re_us/reporters_contempt&printer=1;_ylt=AjD0T6jPw45y1guGwVR49ehH2ocA;_ylu=X 3oDMTA3MXN1bHE0BHNlYwN0bWE-)

By PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer
In a high-stakes battle over press freedom, two reporters face jail, possibly as early as Wednesday, for refusing to divulge their sources to a prosecutor investigating the Bush administration's leak of a CIA officer's identity.

"Journalists are not entitled to promise complete confidentiality — no one in America is," Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald told a judge.

In court papers, Fitzgerald said the source of Matthew Cooper of Time magazine and Judith Miller of The New York Times has waived confidentiality, giving the reporters permission to reveal where they got their information.

The prosecutor did not identify the reporters' source, nor did he specify whether the source of each reporter was the same person.

U.S. District Judge Thomas F. Hogan held the reporters in civil contempt of court in October, rejecting their argument that the First Amendment shielded them from revealing their sources. Hogan was conducting a hearing on the matter Wednesday, at which time he could order the reporters jailed.

The reporters might decide to talk if they are sent to prison, the prosecutor said.

Cooper and Miller seek home confinement, but that would make it easier for them to continue to defy a court order to testify, the prosecutor said.

Cooper has said it is duplicative and unnecessary for him to testify because his employer, Time Inc., on Friday provided Fitzgerald records, notes and e-mail traffic from inside the company

"By Cooper's own account, his source's confidentiality has been mooted by the production of relevant documents by Time Inc.," the prosecutor said, insisting that Cooper still must testify.

Without elaboration, Fitzgerald said Miller's source "has been identified and has waived confidentiality."

Miller's attorney, Robert Bennett, said he hopes that Time magazine's disclosures "will eliminate the need for Judy's testimony and this crisis can be ended."

In arguing that Miller be jailed, Fitzgerald said other reporters in the case had complied with court orders and that Time Inc.'s editor-in-chief, Norman Pearlstine, had said last Thursday, "I feel we are not above the law." Pearlstine made the comment in explaining why he had turned over documents to the prosecutor.

Columnist Robert Novak revealed in July 2003 that the wife of former U.S. ambassador Joe Wilson was a CIA officer, days after Wilson publicly impugned President Bush's justification for invading Iraq. Revealing the name is a possible federal crime.

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

Rumsfeld has until July 11 to produce Iraq benchmarks (http://www.news-journalonline.com/NewsJournalOnline/Opinion/Editorials/03OpOPN32070305.htm)
President Bush is facing a legal deadline to deliver what he has been most resistant to providing: a set of specific benchmarks for measuring progress toward military and political stability in Iraq.

Under a little-noticed provision of the defense spending bill passed by Congress in May, Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld has until July 11 to send Capitol Hill a "comprehensive set of performance indicators and measures of stability and security" two years after the fall of Saddam Hussein.

If and when it comes in, it could do much more than the president's Tuesday night speech at Fort Bragg to provide a factual basis for judging how close we may be toward reaching our goals in Iraq.
The information required is specific and detailed. It includes measures of the security environment, including the number of engagements per day, the count of trained Iraqi forces and more. It orders up indicators of economic activity. It directs Rumsfeld to provide -- either in public or in classified annexes -- an estimate of U.S. military forces needed in Iraq through the end of calendar 2006 and the criteria the administration will use to determine when it is safe to begin withdrawing forces.

As a senior congressional aide told me, "if the Pentagon takes the law seriously and responds as robustly as it is capable of doing," we may finally begin to learn where we stand.

[lawyerlee]

I think my head's going to explode about Judith Miller going to jail. WTF, man, WTF?!?!?! :mad:

[oceaneast]

I know the Judith Miller case is unacceptable. If she served her four month term would she be sent back to jail if she didn't reveal her source then?

[alootikki]

Did you guys see my boyfriend's latest DVD? ;)

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0009CTV5E.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

I can't wait to order it! Although I'm hoping it won't be too depressing re-viewing those episodes - it might bring back all of those hopeful feelings I had that were crushed on November 2nd.

[artist]

I just got this e-mail. I thought I'd share it with all of you in case you are anyone you know would be qualified.

Hello friends of 21st Century Democrats! We are beginning to review and hire applicants for
several job openings at our DC office. If you know a qualified and
interested fellow Democrat, do not hesitate to pass on the information
below. We're striving to build a progressive future from the
grassroots up, and that starts with hard workers in our organization
and you! Thanks for your continued efforts and support.
Job Descriptions
·Senior Vice President, Director of Programs and Operations
·Communications Director
·Finance Director
·Executive Assistant
·Political Director (job to be posted to website on July 6)

Position: Senior Vice President, Director of Programs and Operations
Reports to: President/Executive Director
Status: Full-time
Supervises: Communications Director, Fundraiser, Field
Director…periodically will supervise up to 120+ employees

PRIMARY PURPOSE:
Oversees the daily operation of the organization, which consists of
administrative, financial, resource development, legal and human
resource functions. Under limited supervision, manages and coordinates
the operational and systems infrastructure of the organization.
Participates in the development and implementation of policies and
procedures. Prepares financial and/or operational analyses and
reports, and assess current procedures to monitor and improve
efficiency of operations.

DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES:
·Design and implement strategies that maximize employee potential and
foster high ethical standards, foster an environment where people can
work together cooperatively and effectively in meeting the
organization's vision, mission, and goals.
·Reviews activity reports and financial statements to determine
progress and status in attaining goals and revises goals and plans in
accordance with current conditions.
·Supervises and reviews the work of management; ensures that
management completes program goals in a timely manner.
·Participates in formulating and administering company policies and
developing long-range goals and objectives in alignment with the
strategic plan.
·Empower staff and volunteers by sharing power and delegating
authority through employee involvement.
·Reviews analyses of activities, costs, operations, and forecast data
to determine progress toward stated goals and objectives.
·Confers with President and other administrative personnel to review
achievements and discuss required changes in goals or objectives
resulting from current status and conditions.
·Responsible for tracking and performing ongoing reconciliations and
maintenance of ledgers for significant balance sheet accounts of the
organization.
·Supports the maintenance of the accounting records of the
organization in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles and grant requirements.
·Oversees the supervision of personnel, which includes work
allocation, training, and problem resolution; evaluates performance
and makes recommendations for personnel actions; motivates employees
to achieve peak productivity and performance.
·Participates in and coordinates the design and implementation of data
collection and analysis systems for the organization, to include
computer, and/or network systems, applications programs, and
administrative procedures.
·Collaborates with Accountant in month-end and year-end closings.
·Participates in the annual audit with the independent public
accountants.
·Manage all vendor contracts, performance and relations.
·Perform duties of President during absence.
·Ad hoc duties as assigned by President.

KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS, AND ABILITIES REQUIRED:
·Ability to gather data, compile information, and prepare reports.
·Skill in the use of personal computers and related software
applications.
·Knowledge and understanding of the principles of fundraising.
·Strong interpersonal and communication skills and the ability to work
effectively with a wide range of constituencies in a diverse
community.
·Knowledge of management principles and practices.
·Knowledge of organizational structure, workflow, and operating
procedures.
·Employee development and performance management skills.
·Skill in examining and re-engineering operations and procedures,
formulating policy, and developing and implementing new strategies and
procedures.
·Knowledge of budgeting, cost estimating, and fiscal management
principles and procedures.
·Knowledge of applicable legislation, standards, policies and
procedures.
·Ability to supervise and train staff, including organizing,
prioritizing, and scheduling work assignments.

EDUCATION & EXPERIENCE:
Bachelor's degree in Business Administration, Political Science, or
Accounting required; A Masters Degree in Business Administration
preferred. Experience should be directly related to management
expertise in fiscal services, administration, and human resources
gained through either 5 years of equivalent-level work experience.
Must be results oriented person who is committed to building 21st
Century Democrats into a powerful catalytic force with the progressive
movement.

Must have 3-5 years of specialized experience in or directly related
to the following areas:

·Effective oral and written communications.
·Excellent analytical skills.
·Extensive knowledge and understanding of D.C.'s legislative and
budget process.
·Leadership skills.
·Efficient time management.
·Proficient in Windows-based computer applications and computer
research skills.
·Non-profit organizing and management.
·Knowledge of political advocacy issues, particularly in the
Washington Metropolitan Area.


Position: Finance Director
Reports to: Senior Vice President, Director of Programs and Operations
Status: Full-time
Supervises: N/A

PRIMARY PURPOSE:
Responsible for coordinating and conducting all fund raising
activities, including annual, special events, capital, and planned
giving programs necessary to ensure that the organization can perform
its mission.

DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES:
·Development and coordination of the individual giving program,
including donor acquisition and renewal strategies and programs,
preparing direct mail appeals, oversight of the donor database and
acknowledgements.
·Provi