So. What is John Robert's opinion of the Permian extinction? Does he think methyl hydroxide is the culprit?

AND this is surprising?

No of course it's not surprising.

What IS surprising is the conservatives who now think Roberts is not rightwing enough to satisfy them. They want someone who will be behind restrictions of rights, allow the Christian Taliban to move into schools and government and allow Roe v Wade to become history and more importantly try and find a way to outlaw the two party system in America.

Ya gotta wonder about Roberts. Just who is he really? Talk about a man with no "personal" past! NO one seems to be able to say he is one way or the other.

I agree with the premise of your posting, and agree that Bush unconstitutionally decided to restrict access to records, BUT:

I read the article through (it is dated from November 2001, the day after he issued the executive order) and found this line:

White House counsel Alberto R. Gonzales said any decision to withhold documents could be challenged in court, adding that the administration would lose if a decision did not have solid constitutional grounding. He acknowledged that the process could take years.

Well, did anyone bother to file a challenge then? If not, then we have to cast some blame on our side, for not having already challenged the law in court and having the case underway. It might not have been decided yet, but as we saw in the 2000 election and Schiavo cases, the courts can hasten a decision if the matter has a sense of urgency attached to it. But, even if someone files suit today, it won't be decided for many years.

And (wouldn't this be the ultimate irony) even if someone does now begin the process of challenging this order, it might end up in Judge Roberts' lap on whether or not to overturn it.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm a committed Democrat, but I've thought for years (in fact, ever since no one at the Iran-contra hearings bothered to ask Oliver North why he sold missiles capable of bringing down an aircraft to the #1 villain of the day, instead concentrating on an amendment that Joe Average had never heard of) that we never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

And, to further clarify:

If the suit had been under way in the courts since 2001, then we would be able to make the executive order and the President's recalcitrance a major issue here, instead of a minor sidebar.

8/12/05

The End Is Near

With Mrs. Sheehan on the steps at Versailles, Americans are quickly rallying to her cause (or against it.) Her message is clear, she wants answers and wants them now. It is unlikely that she will receive her answer. For, if she were to receive her long deserved reparations, the entire administration would be forced to uncover many truths to all of us, which is obviously an impossibility as it would cause the institutional and political demise of a large and powerful constituency; one that reaches the very nexus of the conservative political structure.

What we must realize is that Mrs. Sheehan has placed this administration in an inescapable situation. As each day passes, more and more people want answers. The answers they demand go beyond a moral issue of his "noble cause." They encroach on every tangible action that this President, his administration, and his party have taken. It is only a matter of time before we, in the greater public and of all parties, demand our representative government to investigate current issues and revisit past investigations, overturning every stone to discover any criminal acts, however great or small. It is an unavoidable problem for this administration and they are fully aware of it.

The second element of the "last throes" of this administration is the subdued, but not buried investigation into the Valerie Plame leak. Mr. Fitzgerald will return his case very soon. I am confident that there will be indictments, and they will reach high places, possibly the President himself.

And so, the end is drawing nearer as each moment passes. It is a factual inevitability. There is no single entity within the American structure that is immune to the rule of law. Mathematically, it is like a bell curve. There are statistical periods of success; but eventually, there will be a decay of the event until it ultimately reaches its collapse, thus beginning a new cycle.

Adversely, let us suppose for a moment that this opinion proves wrong. Suppose that Mrs. Sheehan is answered and satisfied with her answer. Suppose Mr. Fitzgerald returns no indictments. Suppose the House and Senate resist the request by their voters to investigate into perjuries and illegal deceit to their committees and bring no charges nor petitions for impeachment. Where will the President be? Will he claim victory? Will he be an effective leader? The answer is most assuredly no.

The President has lost already. There will be no act or measure for the duration of his Presidency that will be free of scrutiny or opposition. Both sides know this. For example, the President was sure to sign both the energy and transportation bill as quickly as he possibly could. Further, he has recess appointed the most contentious man ever to step foot into the United Nations since Khruschev. He may hold the office, but he is finished and everyone knows it.

Mr. Mehlman knows it. He has decided to ignore any current concerns on his GOP website, opting to fill his headlines with "in case you missed it," slants on members of the Democratic party. Further, he is more than likely busy pondering how he can justify his organization's decision to pay over $722,000 to help James Tobin's legal woes.

All of the above is swiftly binding up into a snowball that will lead to a great avalanche. As we can see, they are caught completely unprepared for it. Their only method is to scramble and adhere to the same tactics of murk and unbearable repetition that has brought them this far. Unfortunately, it is too late. Consequence is unavoidable. Reality cannot be ignored for more than just a little while.

So, where does that leave all of us? What plans should we draw? The Democratic Party has been criticized relentlessly for "having no message." Might I suggest that our message be to reverse every possible policy of this "dying king?" We must not wait to begin collecting our spoils. For, they are the very spoils that have been pillaged from us over the past six years. Let us all fight from this day forward to explore a universal and successful withdrawal from Iraq. Let us diligently pursue criminal indictments for all whom have served to perpetuate the lies that had placed these noble men and women there in the first place. Let us repeal the USA PATRIOT ACT and take the time to explore a beneficial plan that does not rob us of our civil rights (nor has to be distributed in the middle of the night to avoid debate.) Let us recapture our individual stake in our political structure. Let us prosecute all whom have taken action to defraud us from our vote.

Rest assured, my friends. The end is near for this President. Let us be ready.

This is another game of Political Cops and Robbers.

The question is, is the right-wing risking their political careers to withhold information and avoid being caught? Or are we Dems risking our careers to have all the info we need so we can determine Roberts is right for the job?

The answer to those questions, is obviously, Yes.

Because, this is just like us ordinary people applying for a job. Just one fib on the application, and we're out the door in a flash.

John:

Because, this is just like us ordinary people applying for a job. Just one fib on the application, and we're out the door in a flash.

Unless, of course, the fib is about betraying your country in time of war by leaking the name of a CIA operative. In that case, you will have the full backing and confidence of your employer.

What I don't get is, Why doesn't the American public understand that if the administration is unwilling to release records, (as they also refused to do with Bolton), there must surely be something very wrong in them, or else they would give them willingly! Why isn't there a cry to let them out. Are people so dumb as to not understand this position is one for Life! It can affect them in so many ways.

PamB:

I have to play devil's advocate again. I agree that this is probably illegal (and a court case should have been filed) but the idea that the only people who withhold records are guilty is a very dangerous one. I don't use drugs, but I would refuse to submit a urine sample as a condition of my employment, because I don't consider that it is anyone's business (except maybe my physician) to examine my piss. No one has a right to my medical records, or my academic records, or other records unless I authorize their release.

Not that your point isn't valid, but it has to be made without the assumption that the only reason someone would withhold a record is because the record is compromising, because there are a lot of other good reasons to withhold a record.

Didn't the executive order state that the sitting president and the president whose papers are in question both have to agree to release the papers?

At the time I thought it was all about protecting Poppy from his involvement in Iran Contra. Now I wonder if it was to protect Cheney. Bolton and Cheney both worked tandem on the fixed intel for the Iraqi invasion. As long as Bush Sr. or Jr. are alive they can protect Cheney and all those that helped them do the dirty work for them on both Iran Contra and the Iraqi WMD scam.

Quite clever really. But it is unconstitutional...unless you put some of those who did the dirty work on the Supreme Court to rule that it isn't. Gonzales has already been tarnished by the torture memo, but what exactly did Roberts do for them...beside the obvious 2000 Florida election work?

Reinquest openned the doors for this type of judicial corruption, and apparently they think they can manipulate it even further. What did Roberts do for Cheney?

Eli BLake,
You bring up a very good point in your response to PamB, but i think you are comparing two things that are very different. If you went out of your way to withold your urine from ur employer, yeah, that would signal guilty. The Bush administration is illegally holding papers back, and that is why guilty is implied. Atleast that is my take...
NYDem

Has anybody heard anymore on "Able Danger"? This could be really damaging to our party. It could distract from some of the issues that are going on now

Eli,

I think you misread the article. Gonzales was not saying that the executive order could be taken to court but that if a president uses the executive order to withhold papers then the requestor could take them to court. Since the president hasn't used the executive order yet then no challenge can be made against it.

At least that's how I read it...

How can this be controversial. Democrats doing their job. Asking for official documents for a Supreme court Justice. Sounds like the usual to me. Let's make these democrats understand that yeah we expect them to stand up to Republicans no matter how scary they may seem. It's time to confront the abusive father or mother we may have had, and kick them squarely in the mental ass. Rise mother ******s rise.

Good morning, Democrats

Considering that supposed incompetence of the administration prior to the attacks of 9/11, they sure got busy consolidating the executive's powers right after.
According to a report in rawstory, on October 5th they issued an executive order which limited the dissemination of sensitive information from the intelligence agencies to just eight members of Congress--not their staffs and not the committees on which they served.
And then, of course, there was the "finding" on how foreign captives were to be dealt with ("humanely" like we do with dogs and other four-legged creatures).
The failure to release the Roberts papers is just part of the pattern of secrecy and cover-up.

Posted by SandyH on August 13, 2005 at 12:24 AM

Actually, we keep forgetting that Poppy was in the CIA before he became its director under Ford. And we forget that, for some reason, he was removed or removed himself after Carter came in. That was rather unusual since agency heads are more commonly retained by subsequent administrations, even if the party affiliation is different.
So, my guess is that it's Poppy's records that are being protected. He claimed to be "out of the loop" during Bush/Reagan but did that mean he didn't know anything or was the one holding the rope that was looped?

The reason I stopped by is actually the following:

Been trying to get straight on who knew what when.
If the rawstory report

click

is accurate about the executive order issued in October of 2001 limiting the dissemination of classified and sensitive information gathered by our intelligence agencies to just eight people, the leadership in the house and senate and the chairs of the intelligence committees, then the following would have been the relevant people in 2001:

Hastert
Gebhardt
Daschle
Lott
Graham of Florida
Shelby
Goss
Pelosi

and if the import of the order was communicated to their successors in those offices, the people now in the know would be:

Hastert
Pelosi
Reid
Frist
Roberts
Rockefeller
Hoekstra
Harman

Moreover, if the order was issued and if it hasn't been rescinded, then the meeting of the Senate Foreigh Relations Committee about which Sy Hersh reported, on the basis of confidential sources, that the CIA laid out the information on the supposed purchase of yellow cake uranium from Niger, either didn't happen and Hersh was used to transmit disinformation, or the Senate Committee was lied to, or the executive order was violated or waived and the Senate Committee got accurate information and someone decided to pass on false information to Hersh.

While this seems terribly confusing, it does seem interesting that of the original gang of eight, only Hastert and Pelosi are left in the loop.
Gebhardt, Daschle, Graham and Goss are no longer in Congress. Shelby has been timed out by an eight year rule. Lott is still on the Senate Select Committee but has not moved up to Chair.
So, maybe Nanci Pelosi is the person to ask for an explanation about what the President did and when he did it.

Eli,

I have to agre with NY above, that you are comparing two different things, when you discuss your privacy issues, with employment.

If you were applying for a job, it is only reasonable and prudent that the employer gets a chance to see if you are capable of the work he is requiring of you. They do in-depth interviews now, they call past employers, they ask you for a portfolio of your work.

There are certain areas of one's life, which Should be an open book, if one is applying for the highest position in the land, and it is for their entire lifetime. We are not asking him for urine, finances, past grades in school, medical condition. We are asking, did this man's past cases show he was fair and balanced in his decisions.

Now just the fact that this man's wife is head of an Anti-Abortion group, makes one believe it is with the blessing and approval and same thought process as this man. But the question is, has he in the past proven he can make a decision with an open mind. I think we have the right to know that, as well as other issues dealing with Rights.

There's a discussion of Judge Roberts' position on the right to privacy on KOS this morning. I'm not sure the answer would/could be found in his briefs for earlier administrations. Indeed, I am beginning to think that this insistance on documentary evidence has little to do with Roberts and much to do with the fact that the Administration is generally not forthcoming with specific information about ANYTHING.

Anyway, on Roberts I have the following thoughts:

It strikes me that it would not be unfair to raise the question whether an adherence to the notion of "original intent" isn't somehow connected to a belief in "original sin" which, as a Catholic, Roberts must hold.

Fundamental to the concept of original sin, despite the fact that Jesus Christ's mission was to free mankind from it, is the belief that man is born wicked and must be saved by the action of grace and good works.

Since this commitment to repentance and good works is obviously not shared by all people, this perspective is likely to lead to the conclusion that the primary function of government is to compensate for and regulate those people who are unwilling to submit to the rule of religion. In other words, government is a secular implementation of what religion does for those who believe.

If so, if government is seen as an agent of rule over recalcitrant (disobedient, bad) individuals, then it would make sense to consider the three branches that have been set up under our system designed (original intent) to be complementary. That is, the legislative and judicial branches merely serve as handmaidens to the executive, to facilitate the absolute rule of that entity. Whence comes the notion of "judicial restraint" which argues that the judiciary should limit itself to a supportive role for the executive, rather than act as a check or corrective for any excesses or abuses that might occur.

And, of course, if the individual is perceived as inherently bad and in need of correction and rule, then the notion of individual rights, beyond those that the Constitution (reluctantly) grants, is moot. Why should the wicked be outfitted with rights?

So, instead of trying to formulate questions for Roberts based on hypothetical situations, it might be more useful to explore his attitude towards the purpose of government, as well as the roles of the three branches in achieving that purpose.
"Government" is, of course, concerned with control, regulation to keep entities from doing what they ought not, or to keep them from doing them too quickly. It has absolutely nothing to do with the provision of desired services and the concept of the "public servant" is inimical to government. Government is the exercise of authority. It is the obligation of those who wish to be recognized as citizens to submit, not presume to give orders. From this perspective, the "consent of the governed" is just a convenient fiction or trick to get people to do what they are ordered by pretending that they have volunteered to do so.
Consider the difference between voluntary and involuntary servitude. It's only the latter we have done away with--unless it is considered useful to re-institute the military draft.

The hubris of George the Luster is manifest in his conviction that his lies are sufficiently convincing to make a military draft unnecessary. And, just in case they're not, there are always economic policies that can make a military career look attractive.

John Kerry Delivers the Democratic Hispanic Radio Address Marking the 70th Anniversary of the Social Security Act
August 13th, 2005

John Kerry delivered the Democratic Hispanic Radio Address today, marking tomorrow as the 70th anniversary of the Social Security Act being signed into law.

The following is the translation of this week’s Democratic Hispanic Radio Address delivered by Senator John Kerry.

“Hello, this is Senator John Kerry from Massachusetts.

This Sunday – August 14th – marks the 70th anniversary of the day the Social Security Act was signed into law by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Social Security has been called the most successful government program in the world because it lifted millions of seniors out of poverty.

Hispanics are less likely to have additional sources of retirement income, and therefore after a lifetime of hard work rely on Social Security to a greater extent. Without Social Security, 56 percent of Hispanics would live in poverty.

MORE & LINK To AUDIO - http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=226

Have you ever looked on the RNC Blog? They have the most garbage of any blog seen in modern history! At least our articles are based on fact and our complaints are useful. Have you tried to post anything on it? I did, and it failed. They are so afraid of the truth. I expect to find them any day cowering in a cornor with their head covered. Don't you know God shakes his head at how evil they have become? Some say that they are just power drunk but you have to have evil in your heart for it to be so total.

You noticed that about the RNC Blog eh?

I think the longest post I ever had there was about 49 seconds. It was as respectful a question worded very politely and only asked a single question. I was surprised it lasted that long.

HOWEVER

This what I thought you might all like to read

SUPPOSE FOX NEWS HAD BEEN AROUND WHEN ROSA PARKS SAT IN THE FRONT OF THE BUS??

What Fox News Channel Would Have Done to Rosa Parks

Cindy Sheehan - in case you've been living in a box or you only watch the mainstream media - is the mom of slain Iraq War veteran Casey Sheehan. She is protesting in front of George Bush's Crawford ranch this month. This grieving mom has been characterized as a flip-flopper, accused of putting on a public circus, lambasted as a publicity seeking grandstander and criticized for not truly speaking for her family since an aunt and a godmother Matt Drudge found somewhere in the Sheehan family disagrees with her. The conservative attack machine is in high gear in the efforts to tear this woman down.

That made me think of how it would have been in the Civil Rights era if Fox News Channel, Rush Limbaugh, Matt Drudge and the rest of the gang were around back then.
-------------------------

O'Reilly: "Rosa Parks claims she speaks for all of the African-Americans in the South, but in fact, we have found two African-Americans who say they disagree with her. They say she's just trying to gain publicity and doesn't speak for anyone in her race. They would know, they're black."

Hannity: "Could Rosa Parks be angling for a Senate run? What does she have to gain from her public stand? Coming up next, the incredible story of how this woman might be deceiving the whole country!"

Drudge: "We have found three members of the Parks family who say that Rosa doesn't speak for them. That, in fact, they are very happy with the government of the state of Alabama. The uncle, step-brother-in-law and niece three-times removed all agree that the better route is a dignified, respectful silent deference to authority. Developing ..."

Limbaugh: "We have just found information that before Rosa Parks sat in the front of the bus, there were numerous times, she sat in the back of the bus! Ah ha! A flip-flopper!"

Drudge: "More stories on Rosa Parks scandalous history of consistently sitting in the back of the bus before she changed her position and insisted she would only sit in the front of the bus. Developing ..."

Malkin: "I think I speak for the entire Parks family, and especially her children, when I say that they are so embarrassed by their mother who is making a public spectacle of herself."

Hannity: "Rosa Parks has turned this whole so-called civil rights issue into a public circus. We have information that Ted Kennedy might have put her up to this. That amazing story when we come back!"

Colmes: "You're right, Sean. I'm sorry."

O'Reilly: "To question the government of Alabama and implicitly the entire United States government by defying the political order like this has to be considered treasonous. Civil disobedience is a code word for I hate America. These people are criminals, simple criminals. It's ridiculous that they think they don't have to live by the same rules as the rest of us."

Scarborough: "Yeah, whatever they just said on Fox News Channel! Well ... I mostly agree with it."

Kaplan: "Can we hire Shep Smith to cover this? Maybe give him his own show?"

Limbaugh: "What did I tell you folks? These libs like Parks would rather live in France where they can sit anywhere they want on the bus. They hate America. They want special privileges to be able to sit anywhere they want. They hide behind the color of their skin to try to undermine this country."

Coulter: "Rosa Parks is a dyke!"

Blitzer: "Dr. King, is it true that you support the liberal agitator Rosa Parks in her defiance of America? Can you confirm whether she has in fact sat in the back of the bus before? Do you think this makes her a flip-flopper? If she has been so inconsistent on this, how can we trust her on anything?"

Drudge: "MY SOURCES TELL ME THAT THIS MIGHT BE THE FIRST TIME ROSA PARKS HAS EVER SAT IN THE FRONT OF THE BUS. A whole life of sitting in the back of the bus and now this woman claims all of a sudden she wants to sit in the front of the bus. Developing ..."

O'Reilly: "Unbelievable, just unbelievable. Ridiculous!"

Hannity: "Incredible!"

Scarborough: "What did they just say?"

In Unison: "Flip-flopper! Flip-flopper! Flip-flopper!"

Blitzer: "Ms. Parks left the bus in disgrace today after it was confirmed that some members of her family did not agree with her, she had ruined her credibility by working for the NAACP before the bus incident, and she had in fact sat in the back of the bus on previous occasions. Now back to the emotionally wrenching story of the girl missing in ..."

The post was originally done by: CENK UYGUR over at huffingtonpost.com

BUSH'S CRAWFORD FUNDRAISER: REMEMBER "EYES WIDE SHUT?"

"The Bushes and some 230 people attended the fundraiser at Stan and Kathy Hickey's Broken Spoke Ranch, a 191-hectare spread next to Bush's ranch in Crawford."

I suspect there's an entire story here that's being missed. Remember the Cruise/Kidman movie "Eyes Wide Shut?" I can't describe it, but I feel it as strongly as anything I've ever felt...I'm almost POSITIVE that something similar was goin' down at that so-called "fundraiser." A bunch of creepy, obscenely rich Republicans in a no-press, closed-to-the-public "party." But you know how it went down with Cruise...a tribe of wealthy SEX FREAKS flopping around an opulent mansion, servicing and being serviced in a genderless, pagan orgy of schlongs, bodily orifices, and crotch juices, all anonymously hid behind garish face masks. I'm sure of it...I'm positive that that's what went down in that Crawford ranch house with George and Laura. All that's needed is for a brave butler or house 'ho to come forth and dish out the dirt! An image or two caught by a cell phone camera wouldn't hurt either.

You noticed that about the RNC Blog eh?

I think the longest post I ever had there was about 49 seconds. It was as respectful a question worded very politely and only asked a single question. I was surprised it lasted that long.

Posted by Buzz on August 13, 2005 at 07:37 PM

Good to see you Buzz, well at least you got to post in 60 steps or less. Everytime I click that category tht contains African-American I get thrown off and everything shuts down. This has happened about 5 different times. I've finally given up. Just not meant for black folks.

Yikes! Count down to midnight! I wonder if we'll get a new thread for Sunday morning?

(cough) ahem! (rib rib) (poke poke) tickle!

If you need ice cream I'm sure J will provide some as she has the keys to the locker. ;-)

Posted by Dawnelle on August 13, 2005 at 11:33 PM

Hey J,

Well here is something else to show the Repugs ARE NOT REALLY fighting terrorism or are giving lip service to it in exchange for big bucks campaign donors.

Just treasonous in my opinion.

It's from the New York Times. THIS is something democrats should be ALL OVER. But for some strange reason, they are just being quiet...as usual.

The repugs got an amendment to allow WEAPONS GRADES URANIUM to be exported with MUCH FEWER RESTRICTIONS.

"a majority of the Senate, leaders of the House Energy Committee, and nuclear regulators from the five preceding presidential administrations - Senator Pete Domenici, Republican of New Mexico and chairman of the Energy Committee, included an amendment that guts restrictions on the export of highly enriched uranium, the same material used in the Hiroshima atomic bomb.

If terrorists obtained enough such uranium they could fashion a full-fledged nuclear weapon, not merely a "dirty bomb" that would scatter radioactive waste. "

It's entitled: THE ENERGY BILL'S GIFT TO TERRORISTS.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/11/opinion/11kuperman.html?n=Top%2FOpinion%2FEditorials%20and%20Op-Ed%2FOp-Ed

Suggestion: Web site headline should be about Bush's war in Iraq (until it's over).

Suggestion: Every Democratic representative in Congress who voted for the war should immediately and unequivocally renounce their vote, explain briefly in non-technical terms, and demand immediate withdrawal from Iraq.

If our Party is unwilling to begin quickly now to correct the error so many of our Congressmen and Congresswomen made on October 10, 2002, our chances for making gains in 2006 and 2008 are diminished. Only 21 of 50 Democratic Senators, voted against the war. A higher percentage of Democratic Representatives (126 of 208) in the House voted against the war. Still, the confusion our Party displayed in that vote hobbled the Party badly. Either the Democratic Party fixes this, or it continues not to stand for anything, and it continues to lose.

Nothing suprises me with this administration. They do what they want and feel like they do not have to answer to anyone. It should not suprise anyont that they are keeping certain things hidden with Roberts, look at how they are handling the Rove situation.

Industry related 527's are making the Roberts nomination into a sideshow, rather than a serious event for the Senate to judge whether Roberts is too corporate oriented to offer balanced judging on issues before the Supreme Court or an acceptable nominee to be appointed to the court.

Progress For America is funded by the heir to Wal-Mart and other big money interests. A recent court case allowed local governments to seize homes for development of Wal-Mart stores and other "public" developments.

And NARAL, the abortion business lobby organization, had to pull their $500,000 dollar false advertising campaign off the air the other day after complaints. The ads accused Roberts of endorsing violence against abortion clinics, when the violence actually occured 7 years after Roberts merely worked with other attorneys on a Supreme Court brief that disallowed the use of the 1871 Ku Klux Klan Act against legal and peaceful abortion protests. The Roberts' brief actually aided any legal protest, including antiwar activity, and was hardly an support for the activity of Eric Rudolph or other violent extremists. NARAL has a financial interest in the 44 million abortions since the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, and should be seen as a business 527.

Today, Ken Mehlman, RNC head wrote a very partisan Email condemning Democrats like Howard Dean for not condemning the NARAL ad. But Democrats had no connection to this independent business 527, and in no way should act responsibile for something they had no part in. If Mehlman wants a fair hearing for Roberts, he should not poison the political environment with sharply partisan Emails like this nearly as false in premise as the NARAL ad itself.

PROGRESSIVE VALUES

Ken Mehlman is the ultimate in HYPOCRISY. You didn't see a SINGLE repuglican denouncing the Swift Boat Liars for Shrub did you?

You DO remember that SHRUB himself refused to denounce the Swift Boat Liars for Shrub?

Democrats need to let the RNC idiot chairman remember that. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Screw 'em.

NEWS RELEASE
Last Friday, small-time chickenhawk radio host Mike Gallagher, a Bill O'Reilly wannabe, led a group of listeners to hold a counter-demonstration against Cindy Sheehan in Crawford. Only 50 or so "Gallagher's Army" supporters heeded his call, patriotically chanting "We Don't Care" for a spell. Then they left just 30 minutes after they arrived, but not before Gallagher asked his supporters to individually chip in for the bus rental. Here is General Gallagher's official report:

ACTION REPORT
12 August 2005, 16:30 hrs
Enemy engagement at Crawford, Texas
Submitted by: Gen. Mike Gallagher

Enemy was first sighted at 11:15 hrs by special op's units assigned to Major Hannity's "Fightin' Imbeciles" platoon. Along enemy's western flank, Hannity's troops engaged in seek-and-harass actions by frantically waving arms and yelling "We Don't Care." Five scouts came within 100 ft of enemy defenders, but quickly retreated under fire by several banner-waiving grandmas. The "Faux Patriot" brigade, led by Lt. Rove, attempted a pincer movement from the south, but were halted by a 4 ft high fence which few were able to breach due to exceptionally poor physical conditioning. (Medics note that "Beer Belly Syndrome" is rampant among this brigade.) Along the eastern front, units of Col. Limbaugh's "Hillbilly Hellions" successfully came within 50 yds of enemy positions, but his shoeless troops were halted by a scorching asphalt walkway that proved impassable. The "Team Redneck" special forces unit led by Lt. Cheney did not participate, as the horse trailer they were riding in blew a tire just outside of town. Supply company Delta-Bravo successfully delivered twelve cases Schlitz Malt Liquor and twenty bags fried pork rinds to battlefield positions, although there are reports that many troops were inebriated by the time hostilities began, with at least eight soldiers passed-out at their positions.

CASUALTIES: Zero killed, ten injured. Four troops accidentally shot themselves in the feet or legs, one choked and passed out while eating a pretzel, three suffered broken limbs after falling from the bus's roof, and two were beaten up by a waitress at the nearby cafe.

SUMMARY: The Chickenhawk Army's Crawford mission is considered a resounding success, with textbook precision and all objectives achieved.

J, I am very white and they won't let me post on the RNC Blog! I don't think it has much to do with color. I believe the RNC has started doing like Bush, he has to screen everyone to see if you are against him. They are very afraid of controversary. We need to tell everyone how they are doing and make sure they know if they aren't very wealthy and powerful they don't know you?

Guess what?

Even I'm surprised. I ran into this over at DailyKos. A CONSERVATIVE blogger is refusing to buy into the attacks on Sheehan and in fact is embarrassed about them and disgusted as well.

Here is a bit of his post. EXCELLENT READING!

==Something else about this story that infuriates me is the vision of feckless, smarmy smearsters and cowards hiding behind keyboards in cities like Washington and New York (and yes, Miami), punching out electronic missives in a pathetic and desperate attempt to impugn the integrity of a woman sitting in the dust and August heat of Texas---a woman who, along with her dead son, embodies everything that's right about this country. The growing division between the professional class of spinning punditry and the vast expanse of Middle America that actually does the working, the fighting and the dying so the pundits can spend their time chattering has never been more clear than with this story.==

http://cunningrealist.blogspot.com/2005/08/decency-is-not-in-them.html

The scary part is that there are millions of people out there who feel just like MichaelC. Somehow, the republican party has convinced them that gay mariage, affirmative action, and keeping their taxes low (even though we are running up huge deficits for our children) are more important than ethical, honest government based on sound fiscal,foreign and domestic policy. They have people voting for them based on a platform that involves telling two people what they can and cannot do in the privacy of their bedroom while ignoring that we were mislead by this party into a war unjustifiable which we cannot now get out of. We have lost close to 2,000 American lives. They have these people convinced that they should vote for a platform which dictates to a woman that she has no right to choose to have a child or not while they ignore the quickening decay of our standing in the world due to an arrogant foreign policy. I agree with MichealC on most of his positions, but I differ greatly on the priority. How have their priorities gotten so mixed up? How have the republicans sold them on the wedge issues and gotten them to ignore the core issues? Maybe MichaelC and others like him can help us to understand.

"all you dems do is tax tax tax"...

It is easy to see how some people have been sold a bill of goods by the republican party. Kind of like taking candy from a baby... But the republicans have also convinced intelligent people of the same thing. The question is how?

Check out this link:

Reagan library releases documents that unmask the real Roberts.

In particular, if you go down to the end, you will see Roberts' attack on three Republican congresswomen who agreed with a court ruling in favor or equal pay for equal work.

He said, attacking the three Congresswomen, "I honestly find it troubling that three Republican representatives are so quick to embrace such a radical redistribute concept. Their slogan may as well be 'From each according to his ability, to each according to her gender,'"

And oh, yeah, one of the three former congresswomen who needs to be reminded of this personal and sexist attack by John Roberts, is Olympia Snowe, who is now one of the Senators who will be voting on his confirmation.

How much you wanta bet that even if the White House continues to refuse to comply regarding the information on Roberts, after settling for a little much anticipated 'tough' questioning, the Democrats will fold as usual and give Mr. Roberts a post on our highest court for the next thirty years.
So much for the famous compromise the Democrats made by confirming Bush's remaining horrific judges in return for the right to filibuster. If that happens we should call every Democrat senator that approved this smiling right winger and tell those wimps they are the reason we keep losing elections. Viva Dean.

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7218.shtml

"Buy beleaguered, overworked White House aides enough drinks and they tell a sordid tale of an administration under siege, beset by bitter staff infighting and led by a man whose mood swings suggest paranoia bordering on schizophrenia. They describe a President whose public persona masks an angry, obscenity-spouting man who berates staff, unleashes tirades against those who disagree with him and ends meetings in the Oval Office with 'Get out of here!'

In fact, George W. Bush’s mood swings have become so drastic that White House emails often contain 'weather reports' to warn of the President’s demeanor. 'Calm seas' means Bush is calm while 'tornado alert' is a warning that he is pissed at the world.

Decreasing job approval ratings and increased criticism within his own party drives the President’s paranoia even higher. Bush, in a meeting with senior advisors, called Senator Majority Leader Bill Frist a 'god-damned traitor' for opposing him on stem-cell research.

'There's real concern in the West Wing that the President is losing it,' a high-level aide told me recently.

'I was really very unsettled by him and I started watching everything he did and reading what he wrote and watching him on videotape. I felt he was disturbed,' (psychiatrist) Dr. Justin Frank said. 'He fits the profile of a former drinker whose alcoholism has been arrested but not treated...'"

The Washington Post reported that there are files missing from the Reagan library concerning SC nominee Roberts. The documents went missing after the lawyers from the White House and Justice Dept. reviewed them. Commenting on the missing documents, White House spokesman Steve Schmidt said, "Hopefully that missing folder will turn up at the library. But what's most important is for people to understand the remarkable job that the staff at the Reagan Library did."

Yes, remarkable indeed. It remarkable that the White House commends those for blatantly fouling up the job they're hired to do. I wouldn't be surprised if the new White House chef one day served fresh monkey feces with a side of mustache wax at a State dinner and received some award for it. They'll grant her the Presidential Award for Culinary Innovation.

I wonder if Judge Roberts, a Judge that is "in the tradition of Justices Thomas and Scalia" as the president said, is truly of the "originalist", aka "structuralist", aka "moral interpretationist" tradition of Constititutional law.

The afore-mentioned Justices Thomas and Scalia chose to ignore the restrictions on separation of church and state, explicit interpretations of the Constititution itself, by admitting theological interpretations or "speculations" about how our forefathers may have "felt" about the laws that were written, rather than instead, interpreting whether the merits of the current case comport with the logical necessities of the wording of the Constitution, in so far as those sections of the Constititution are logically consistent within the context of their own respective sections within the document.

For there was much disagreement in the wording of the document and sections were added and ratified that may contradict other sections of paragraphs within sections. If this occurs, then this would render entire sections of the Constitution invalid.

In so far as the Constitution was meant to be a "guide" to our Government structure, it seems it is the task of successive generations to discover those inherent inconsistencies that may impede the proper functioning of Government.

Such as section II paragraph 2 of the Constitution on recess appointments. A recess vote by Congress is not a Constitutionally-mandated surrender of Congressional authority to give the president the power to make nominations of Inferior Officers of Government (such as UN Ambassador John Bolton), unless the Congress votes to give the president such authority prior to recess.

Is Judge Roberts going to vote to give ultimate power to the president, or will Judge Roberts vote for popular sovereignty and give Congress back their power to check the president?

That is what we need to know.