We're getting started in just a few minutes ...

Posted by Joe Rospars at 10:28 PM | Comments (24)

More Photos from North Carolina

I hate to do this to you, but after these three photos, I am going to head downstairs and catch a bit of the State of the Union myself. So, the remainder of what I have just uploaded to my computer (mostly video, and a lot of it), will come after the address and subsequent conference call with Governor Dean this evening.

Posted by at 8:34 PM | Comments (6)

Governor Dean Introduction Video

I am torn betwen getting the rest of the photos/video taken care of right now for you, or going back downstairs to interview some individuals and watch the State of the Union. That said, here's a bit of a tease for you.

Either way, I'll have much more by the end of the evening, or by the time you wake up.

Posted by at 8:24 PM | Comments (3)

Governor Dean Just Got off the Stage

My pictures are uploading as I type, but I wanted to let you know how electric of an event this was at Satisfaction restaurant in North Carolina. From the moment Governor Dean was announced until he lept off the stage to head to the overflow location, the crowd rarely stopped cheering at a positive Democratic message to provide health care for all Americans, access to quality education, energy independence, cleaning out Republican corruption in Washington, D.C. and keeping American jobs in America.

What an amazing evening it has been so far. Hopefully I'll have the photos and video up by the start of the State of the Union so you have something to lift your spirits as the president addresses the nation.

Oh... Immediately after Governor Dean left the stage, the crowd attempted to pour out and head over to the overflow location across the street. Unfortunately for them, that place is filled to capacity already.

Keep checking in.

Posted by at 8:04 PM | Comments (102)

Watch Parties Getting Started

We've heard from a lot of hosts over the course of the day, and everyone seems excited to get going. I called one host this morning to see how her preperations were going, and she said that she was starting at 11am - before her Republican husband got home. She sent us a picture just a few minutes ago which pretty much sums up what you'll hear tonight...

Posted by Josh McConaha at 6:38 PM | Comments (6)

What a Difference 30 Minutes Makes

The place is really filling up quickly and there is quite a line gathering out both doors into Satisfaction restaurant. There is a voter registration table, local Durham Democratic Party table and banners, and a consistent buzz filling the room. People are excited in North Carolina tonight. Here are some more photos:

Posted by at 6:15 PM | Comments (8)

Live at Satisfaction in North Carolina

I just arrived at Satisfaction restaurant in North Carolina for Governor Dean's State of the Union Watch Party. Much to my, ummm, satisfaction, there is wireless Internet here -- talk about truth in advertising. The place is already starting to fill up, although its tough to tell who is here for the event (2 and a half hours early) and who is here for dinner. So far I have overheard small groups asking about what time the Governor is due to arrive. I will talk to them in a bit... Until then, here are a few photos from the venue to tide you over.

Keep checking back in.

Posted by at 5:13 PM | Comments (3)

Satisfactions v. Signatures

I just landed in North Carolina ahead of Governor Dean's now fire marshall-notifying-sized watch party at Satisfactions restaurant in Durham, North Carolina.

No, not "Signatures," that's Jack Abramoff's restaurant in Washington, D.C. where democratic representation was sold down the river for as little as a filet and a bottle of wine -- We won't be perverting our democracy this evening, we'll be reclaiming it.

From everything I understand, not only has Satisfactions reached capacity already, but the overflow venue across the street where Governor Dean plans on dropping by is pretty close as well. Hopefully I can tap into a wireless connection somewhere and get up instant video/photos, but if not I promise some by the end of the night, and am sure Josh and Joe will hold down the fort in the interim. I'll have full updates as soon as possible -- keep checking back in.

Find an event near you.

Posted by Tim Tagaris at 1:28 PM | Comments (17)

Tuesday morning open thread

For your chatting pleasure.

Posted by Josh McConaha at 10:36 AM | Comments (545)

January 30, 2006

Monday Night Open Thread

Enjoy!

Posted by at 6:44 PM | Comments (359)

Republicans Ask President to Come Clean on Abramoff

Maybe he'll include something in his State of the Union address tomorrow night detailing his connections with Jack Abramoff. An overwhelming number of Americans want to see the president pull back the curtain on the relationship, and now many Republicans are calling on him to do the same. From a CBS News piece appropriately titled, "GOP To Bush: Come Clean On Abramoff."

Some of President Bush's fellow Republicans in Congress are urging him to publicly disclose White House contacts with disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

Releasing records would help eliminate suspicions that Abramoff, who assisted in raising more than $100,000 for Mr. Bush's re-election campaign but has since pleaded guilty to felonies, had undue influence on the administration, they said in television interviews Sunday [...]

Some of President Bush's fellow Republicans in Congress are urging him to publicly disclose White House contacts with disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

Releasing records would help eliminate suspicions that Abramoff, who assisted in raising more than $100,000 for Mr. Bush's re-election campaign but has since pleaded guilty to felonies, had undue influence on the administration, they said in television interviews Sunday

The president has the ear of a nation tomorrow night; that would be a terrific time for a bit of transparency and an opportunity for him to take steps towards restoring the faith of the American people quite concerned by a Republican culture of corruption in Washington, D.C.

Posted by at 5:02 PM | Comments (37)

RNC Promotes a Grand Ole House Party

So, the RNC just sent out an email to individuals in and around Bloomington, Illinois promoting one of their State of the Union House Parties tomorrow night. The "party" features a Jesse Jackson pinata! Apparently this is "A OK" for the Republican National Committee; they sent it out, letterhead and all! Here's the image -- click to enlarge:

You can view more information about the party, or ask for an invitation, on the GOP's very own website. Just click here.

Posted by at 3:43 PM | Comments (13)

Broken Promises - Credibility Deficit - Lies

"President Bush's broken promises have left his credibility in tatters and American families struggling to deal with the consequences," said Democratic National Committee Communications Director Karen Finney. "Americans are fed up with the Republican culture of corruption and Republican policies that only benefit special interests, and they are hungry for change. Democrats will continue to fight for hard-working American families and will provide honest leadership and open government."

Posted by at 2:02 PM | Comments (8)

Little Confidence in Effective Response to Terror/Disaster

We all saw it on our television screens and in newspapers during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. It was our president's first test responding to a disaster since 9/11; a real opportunity to find out just what Karl Rove meant when he talked about Republican "post 9/11 thinking." A recent poll conducted by MyDD & pollster Joel Wright asked the question few have asked lately:

Should a terrorist attack or some other man-made or natural disaster occur in your area, how confident are you that the federal government's emergency response will be timely and effective?

1= Highly Confident, 5 = Not confident at all

1: 13.2% 2: 13.2% 3: 27.7% 4: 17.1% 5: 28.8%

Katrina was a real wake-up call for all Americans. For all the talk about keeping us safe and basing entire election cycles on the Republican Party's ability to do the job better than Democrats, the memory of Katrina's aftermath is still fresh in our heads. Images of people stranded on rooftops for days, starving Americans outside the convention center, and tales about horror in the Superdome will stay with many of us forever.

Meanwhile, the Bush Adminstration is literally failing, miserably, at protecting the country from future devastation -- according to the 9/11 Commission:

The government earned five F's, 12 D's, two incompletes and only one high grade (an A-minus for blocking terrorist financing).

Even more unsettling were the emotions panelists displayed about the gaps in security precautions. "Are we crazy?" demanded Jim Thompson, former Republican governor of Illinois. "Why aren't our tax dollars being spent to protect our lives?"

There are other images we will never forget from Katrina.

That was President Bush, as New Orleans flooded, despite the fact that the White House received reports prior to Katrina's landfall that "New Orleans would likely be submerged by flooding for weeks, and even months."

Posted by at 11:27 AM | Comments (4)

An Upopular President Heading Into SOTU

A quick rundown of recent job approval ratings for the president heading into tomorrow's State of the Union address:

Time Poll. Jan. 24-26, 2006. N=1,002 adults nationwide. MoE +/- 3%

"In general, do you approve or disapprove of the way President Bush is handling his job as president?"

Approve: 41% (41)
Disapprove: 55% (53)
Unsure: 4% (5)

ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Jan. 23-26, 2006. N=1,002 adults nationwide. MoE +/- 3%

"Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president?"

Approve: 42% (46)
Disapprove: 56% (52)
Unsure: 2% (2)

FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. Jan. 24-25, 2006. N=900 registered voters nationwide. MoE +/- 3%

"Do you approve or disapprove of the job George W. Bush is doing as president?"

Approve: 41% (42)
Disapprove: 51% (49)
Unsure: 8% (9)

Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg Poll. Jan. 22-25, 2006. N=1,555 adults nationwide. MoE +/- 3%

"Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president?"

Approve: 43% (50)
Disapprove: 54% (47)
Unsure: 3% (3)

CBS News/New York Times Poll. Jan. 20-25, 2006. N=1,229 adults nationwide. MoE +/- 3%

"Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president?"

Approve: 42% (41)
Disapprove: 51% (52)
Unsure: 7% (7)

In each and every one of those polls, the majority of Americans disapprove of the way President Bush is handling his job. And in all but one of them, his numbers have fallen since the last poll; that must be what the press means when they gleefully report on the "Bush Bounce."

Keep that in mind as the president addresses the nation tomorrow evening -- an extremely unpopular leader peddling even more unpopular plans for the country. It's no wonder an overwhelming majority of Americans want to see him change the course and follow the lead of the Democratic Party.

Posted by at 10:39 AM | Comments (3)

Start the Week Open Thread

Have at it.

Posted by at 9:52 AM | Comments (447)

January 29, 2006

3 Republicans Scramble to Demand Disclosure

On the heels of Governor Dean's call for full disclosure of criminal Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff's meetings and dealings with the Republican White House, the Sunday talk shows featured Members of Congress apparently facing the same crisis of confidence in Republican leadership as ordinary Americans.

Their names: Sen. John Thune, Republican of South Dakota; Rep. Mike Pence, Republican of Indiana; and Sen. Chuck Hagel, Republican of Nebraska.

Here's what Dean said this morning:

We need to know who Jack Abramoff met with in the White House and did he meet with the President in the White House? That's public information, and we're putting in a request to make sure the American people know to the extent of this lobbying scandal. Does it reach into the White House in addition to just the Republicans in Congress?

Or perhaps these legislators would rather attention were focused on Republican corruption in another branch of government for a while -- there's certainly enough to go around.

Posted by Joe Rospars at 2:36 PM | Comments (18)

Excerpts of Dean on 'Fox News Sunday'

In case you missed it:

On the State of the Union

"I think most Americans think the state of the Union is in pretty difficult shape right now. We do need some new ideas on the economy. The Democrats have put forward a jobs plan that has to do with energy independence. We do need a healthcare system that works for everybody. And, frankly, I think we need a little better work on defense. We're worried about the troops not being taken care of properly in Iraq. We're worried about a lack of direction. I think the President is going to have a lot of explaining to do."

On President Bush’s Lack of Credibility

"So, you know, we all want the President to succeed, but the President hasn't succeeded. I think that's because he has a lack of vision and, frankly, he hasn't been truthful to the American people and people, frankly, just don't believe him anymore, and that's a real problem for him."

On the President's Domestic Spying Program

"I support spying on Al Qaeda. Every American thinks we ought to spy on Al Qaeda and do whatever we can do beat them. We have to do it within the law. We need a country that will need -- excuse me. We need a President that will lead the nation but a President that will follow the law. The law says that if the President thinks Al Qaeda is an imminent threat and he wants to spy on them, he can do that immediately, but he's got to get a warrant after the fact. In 2002, there was a memo from the Justice Department that suggested changing the law and the White House said, "No, we didn't need to do it." We are not asking the President not to spy on Al Qaeda. We are asking the President to follow the law when he does so. No one should be above the law. Not even the President of the United States."

On Jack Abramoff and the Republican Culture of Corruption

"Look, I think the President should release the information about when Jack Abramoff was at the White House. We know that he met now -- I think we believe -- I believe it's been confirmed that he's met with Karl Rove before in the White House. We need to know who Jack Abramoff met with in the White House and did he meet with the President in the White House? That's public information, and we're putting in a request to make sure the American people know to the extent of this lobbying scandal. Does it reach into the White House in addition to just the Republicans in Congress?"

On the Democratic Party's Honest Leadership Agenda

"Look, historically, we know that both Democrats and Republicans have done things they ought not to do. What we're saying in the Democratic Party, let's put a final stop to that. We're going to get rid of all corporate jet travel, get rid of all lobbying expenses and golf trips and lunches. One thing we're going to do that the Republicans haven't even talked about is we're going to stop people putting things in conference committee reports in the dead of night when nobody knows about it."

On the Cost of the Republican Culture of Corruption

"Here's the cost of this. It's not just dishonesty in government. The real cost is a couple weeks ago the Republicans stuck in a $22 billion tax money giveaway to HMOs. Nobody knew anything about it. That's the problem with corruption. It's not just dishonesty. It costs the American taxpayers billions and billions of dollars. That is the shame of this scandal."

Posted by Joe Rospars at 1:38 PM | Comments (14)

The Country is Ready for Real Leadership Open Thread

The country overwhelmingly wishes President Bush would begin to follow the lead of the Democratic Party. From the Washington Post:

The Post-ABC News poll offers a revealing portrait of a restless electorate at the start of the campaign year. By 51 percent to 35 percent, Americans said they preferred to go in the direction outlined by congressional Democrats rather than the direction established by the president. On the eve of last year's State of the Union address, 45 percent said they preferred to follow the path of the president, compared with 39 percent who said they favored the Democrats' course.

By 54 percent to 38 percent, voters surveyed said they would vote for the Democratic candidate over the Republican candidate for the House in November. That is one of the largest margins favoring the Democrats in two decades, although the gerrymandered House districts mean that incumbents are safer today than they were in the past.

By 51 percent to 37 percent, Americans said they trust the Democrats more than the Republicans with the main problems facing the country over the next few years, the first time since spring 1992 that Democrats have gained more than 50 percent support on that question.

Change the course.

Posted by at 12:56 PM | Comments (134)

January 28, 2006

Weekend Open Thread

By popular demand.

Posted by at 7:34 PM | Comments (471)

January 27, 2006

*Shrug*

Facts, reality, public sentiment... *shrug*

Associated Press - 01/26/05

Bush shrugged off a recent Pentagon-contracted report which concluded the Army was overextended and the United States cannot sustain the pace of troop deployments to Iraq long enough to break the back of the insurgency there.

Associated Press - 01/07/06

Bush shrugged off a report showing weaker-than-expected job growth on Friday and declared that "the American economy heads into 2006 with a full head of steam."

Cox News - 10/05/05

Amid the increasing criticism and desperation, Bush shrugged off questions about a National Guard depleted by active duty in Iraq. The guard, said Bush, can fight a war and react to hurricane devastation simultaneously.

Knight Ridder - 11/04/05

The Post/ABC survey indicated that 58 percent of Americans have doubts about Bush's honesty, marking the first time in his presidency that more than half the country questioned his integrity.

Bush shrugged off the numbers, saying that if he works hard enough things will take care of themselves.

NewsMax - 03/15/05

Bush shrugged off a question about detainees being sent by the United States back to their home countries where they could be subject to torture.

Alternet - 04/01/03

What he failed to address were the Academy's central conclusions: That global warming is a real threat, that it has intensified in the past 20 years and that greenhouse gases like CO2 are the most likely cause. When the administration's own EPA fortified these facts in 2002, placing even clearer blame on power plant emissions for causing climate change, President Bush shrugged off the findings as a "report put out by the bureaucracy."

Associated Presss - 12/21/01

One of the couple's dogs, Spot, rolled across the carpet as Bush shrugged off suggestions that bin Laden slipped away from U.S. forces during cease fire talks in Afghanistan.

"I don't know where he is. I hadn't heard much from him recently, which means he could be in a cave that doesn't have an opening to it anymore; or could be in a cave where he can get out or may have tried to slither out into neighboring Pakistan. We don't know," the president said.

"But I will tell you this: We're going to find him."

Posted by at 10:33 AM | Comments (318)

"Come Clean on Culture of Corruption"

A new Washington Post/ABC News poll was just released and the results point to an American belief that honesty and ethics in the federal government has fallen under President Bush and its time for him to come clean.

Washington Post/ABC News (.pdf). 1,002 Adults. January 23-26, 2006. MoE +/- 3%

Do you think the overall level of ethics and honesty in the federal
government has risen, fallen or stayed the same with Bush as president?

Risen: 18%
Fallen: 43%
Same: 38%
No Opinion: 1%

Do you think the Bush administration should or should not provide a list of all meetings any White House officials may have had with Abramoff?

Should: 76%
Should Not: 18%
No Opinion: 5%

The poll goes on to suggest that Americans believe the Democratic Party is much better equipped to deal with the culture of corruption permeating the halls of a Republican Congress.

Which political party, the (Democrats) or the (Republicans), do you trust to do a better job - standing up to lobbyists and special interest groups?

Republicans: 27%
Democrats: 46%
Both: 1%
Neither: 20%
No Opinion: 5%

And we will. Just yesterday Senators Ken Salazar (D-CO) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY) called for a special counsel to begin investigations into political corruption and Jack Abramoff. Democrats want answers, Republicans want to obstruct Americans from finding out the truth about the depths to which the Republican Party is controlled by and represents the interests of lobbyists. As the GOP continues its failed attempts to spin corruption as a bipartisan problem, if they had any desire to really pull back the curtain and let the American people find out the truth, they'd accept Schumer and Salazar's request... but I think we all know how this movie will end, with more obstructionism from the Republican Party.

Posted by at 10:08 AM | Comments (6)

The State of the Union

As fluff oozes from press releases sent out by the Republican National Committee, it should be no surprise that regular Americans see the direction of our country much differently than the good folks over at the RNC and inside the White House.

Gallup Poll. 1,006 Adults 18+. January 20-22, 2006. MoE +/- 3%.

"In general, do you think things have gotten better or gotten worse in this country in the last five years?"

Gotten Better: 28%
Gotten Worse: 64%
DK/No Answer: 8%

Here was Gallup's summary with which it opened up the sharing of the poll's findings:

President George W. Bush will face a mostly disgruntled public next Tuesday when he delivers his State of the Union address, in which he will reportedly focus on the positive regarding the economy, Iraq, and government spending. Most Americans are dissatisfied with the way things are going in the country, have negative views of the economy, disapprove of the job Bush is doing as president -- both generally and on several major issues -- and believe the country is worse off than it was five years ago.

Much like their PR plan for Iraq, press conferences beating back reports of illegal spying on domestic citizens, and photo-ops in New Orleans, the State of the Union under this administration has unfortunately become an overtly political affair. Americans can no longer expect to truly glean anything informative about the direction of our country in the address before both branches of Congress next week. Even the White House isn't shy about admitting it:

The state of the union address will be directional for our party and our country, and visionary, Ms. Wallace said. That is not code for it lacking substance.

No surprise, it's always party first, country second with the current incarnation of the Republican Party in Washington, D.C.

Posted by at 9:34 AM | Comments (11)

Friday Morning Open Thread

A quick shot I snapped on my drive to work.

Posted by at 9:12 AM | Comments (505)

January 26, 2006

Open Thread

For the night, at Pam's request.

Posted by Josh McConaha at 6:53 PM | Comments (291)

We Get Letters

From Geraldine in North Carolina:

I've hesitated about committing to a monthly contribution, but after hearing Governor Dean with Wolf Blitzer today, I can hesitate no more. Every time I hear him speak he makes me proud to be a Democrat again!

Thank you, Gov. Dean, for being such a clear, consistent messenger for the Democratic party and our values. Since I live in North Carolina, I'm especially pleased that you are committed to a 50 state strategy. We cannot afford to write off any voter -- our ideals are THEIR ideals, even if the Republican party has fooled them into believing otherwise. ...

Geraldine

Join Geraldine as a member of the growing Democracy Bonds Community.

Posted by at 4:49 PM | Comments (9)

Governor Dean on Domestic Spying Revelation

"Glenn Greenwald discovered that in 2002, Sen. Mike DeWine proposed loosening the standards for domestic surveillance in a significantly more modest way than the President's controversial program. DeWine's proposal would have lowered the standard for obtaining a warrant for surveillance of foreigners within the United States from "probable cause" to "reasonable suspicion." The administration (and Congress) rejected DeWine’s proposal as unnecessary and potentially unconstitutional." (Think Progress)

Governor Dean released the following statement this afternoon:

"Democrats believe that we should spy on terrorists and aggressively fight the War on Terror, and the President currently has the authority to do just that. So, why is it that on day four of the president’s PR campaign to defend his warrantless domestic spying program, he contradicted his own Justice Department’s position from just a few years ago?"

Posted by at 1:56 PM | Comments (19)

Tracking the Glenn Greenwald Story

"Glenn Greenwald discovered that in 2002, Sen. Mike DeWine proposed loosening the standards for domestic surveillance in a significantly more modest way than the President's controversial program. DeWine's proposal would have lowered the standard for obtaining a warrant for surveillance of foreigners within the United States from "probable cause" to "reasonable suspicion." The administration (and Congress) rejected DeWine’s proposal as unnecessary and potentially unconstitutional." (Think Progress)

Newspapers:

The Washington Post - "White House Dismissed '02 Surveillance Proposal"
L.A. Times - "Words, Deeds on Spying Differed"
Knight Ridder - "In 2002, Justice Department said eavesdropping law working well"
Boston Globe - "AG's memo raises questions on Patriot Act"
Cleveland Plain Dealer - "White House balked at DeWine spying bill"
San Jose Mercury News - "In 2002, Justice Department said eavesdropping law working well"
Salt Lake Tribune - "Bush team flip-flopped on spy standards"

Blogs:

Glenn Greenwald (original post)
Georgia 10 @ Daily Kos
Think Progress
Atrios
Atrios
Atrios
Crooks & Liars
America Blog
Daily Kos
Taylor Marsh

Official Statements:

Governor Dean

Posted by at 11:01 AM | Comments (23)

Governor Dean on Domestic Spying

Governor Dean:

"Democrats support the idea that we ought to spy on terrorists. And, we support the idea that we need to eavesdrop from time to time. But we also believe that the President ought to obey the law. The law says that if you have an emergency reason to spy on Americans, you can go ahead and do it. But you've got to justify it with the court afterwards. We don't think this President, who has a habit of putting himself above the law, ought to be able to do this when he is spying on American."

"We all believe that we ought to be spying on Al-Qaeda, but we don't believe you ought to spy on American citizens without some kind of third party looking at this. That's what makes the difference between America and other countries like Iran, where the government can do anything they damn well please. We need to obey the law."

More from Governor Dean on the Today Show this morning, here.

Posted by at 10:55 AM | Comments (21)

"When the President Does It, That Means That It it is Not Illegal"

Flashback:

Video at Crooks & Liars linked above.

Posted by at 10:50 AM | Comments (7)

Blowing up the Administration's "Greenwald Defense"

Two years ago the Bush Adminstration raised constitutional questions about legislation proposed by Senator Mike DeWine (R-OH) that would have lowered standards by which the adminstration could obtain warrants through the FISA Court to eavesdrop on non U.S. citizens. And that was with non U.S. citizens. Glenn Greenwald broke the story two days ago and the press has swarmed all over it today.

Think Progress blows up the adminstrations first attempt at rebuffing the developing story:

Greenwald’s find has attracted the attention of the media and provoked a response from the administration. Here is Justice Department spokesperson Tasia Scolinos:

The FISA “probable cause” standard is essentially the same as the "reasonable basis” standard used in the terrorist surveillance program. The “reasonable suspicion" standard, which is lower than both of these, is not used in either program.

There are two fundamental problems with this argument:

1. It completely contradicts what the administration said earlier this week. Scolinos claims “reasonable basis” is pretty much the same as “probable cause.” On Monday, Michael Hayden – former NSA director and currently Deputy Director of National Intelligence – said that Bush’s warrantless domestic surveillance program was started precisely because it lowered the standard in a significant way.

2. The legal analysis is wrong. Scolinos falsely claims that "reasonable suspicion" is a "lower" standard than "reasonable basis." The term "reasonable basis" has no real meaning in 4th Amendment jurisprudence. To the extent that "reasonable basis" does have meaning, it's used interchangeably with "reasonable suspicion." For example, in the Supreme Court case of Florida v. L.J., Justice Ginsburg wrote: "The officers, prior to the frisks, had a reasonable basis for suspecting J. L. of engaging in unlawful conduct: The reasonableness of official suspicion must be measured by what the officers knew before they conducted their search."

The administration's effort to kill this story isn’t off to a good start.

The president looks awfully uncomfortable on television right now answering questions from the media on the issue of illegal domestic spying authorization coming from the White House.

Posted by at 10:34 AM | Comments (3)

Developing All Day: FISA Flip - Flop

Glenn Greenwald broke the story two days ago, and now Knight-Ridder and the Washington Post have piled on. First, WaPo:

The Bush administration rejected a 2002 Senate proposal that would have made it easier for FBI agents to obtain surveillance warrants in terrorism cases, concluding that the system was working well and that it would likely be unconstitutional to lower the legal standard.

The proposed legislation by Sen. Mike DeWine (R-Ohio) would have allowed the FBI to obtain surveillance warrants for non-U.S. citizens if they had a "reasonable suspicion" they were connected to terrorism -- a lower standard than the "probable cause" requirement in the statute that governs the warrants.

Knight Ridder piles on:

A July 2002 Justice Department statement to a Senate committee appears to contradict several key arguments that the Bush administration is making to defend its eavesdropping on U.S. citizens without court warrants.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the law governing such operations, was working well, the department said in 2002. A "significant review" would be needed to determine whether FISA's legal requirements for obtaining warrants should be loosened because they hampered counterterrorism efforts, the department said then.

President Bush, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and other top officials now argue that warrantless eavesdropping is necessary in part because complying with the FISA law is too burdensome and impedes the government's ability to rapidly track communications between suspected terrorists.

In its 2002 statement, the Justice Department said it opposed a legislative proposal to change FISA to make it easier to obtain warrants that would allow the super-secret National Security Agency to listen in on communications involving non-U.S. citizens inside the United States.

Today, senior U.S. officials complain that FISA prevents them from doing that.

So, three years ago, the Bush Adminstration publically rejected lowering the stnadard to obtain a warrant to eavesdrop on non-U.S. citizens because of constitutional questions. At the same time, they were privately spying on U.S. citizens without a warrant at all.

This story isn't going to go away. About three seconds ago, the president said at a press conference, "there's going to be a lot of investigation and a lot of discussion... about the legality of the program." He's right, there will be a lot of investigation, and for the first time in this administration, there will be a lot of accountability as well.

Posted by at 10:25 AM | Comments (3)

Thursday Morning Open Thread

We'll be monitoring the thread... with a warrant.

Posted by at 9:54 AM | Comments (359)

January 25, 2006

OH-18: Bob Ney as Lou Gherig

As Bob Ney announces the kick-off of his campaign later this week, I can only wonder if he will stand before the admiring handful of supporters and say, "Fans, for the past two weeks you have been reading about a bad break I got. Yet today, I consider myself the luckiest man on the face of the earth."

And despite the bad press Congressman Ney has received from outside his district, for what is actually a lot longer than the last two weeks, he really is the luckiest man on the face of this earth.

Take this story for example:

Ney had dinner during the trip at a posh London casino with FN Aviation Director Nigel Winfield, a convicted felon whose offenses have included tax evasion, and Fouad al-Zayat, a Syrian-born businessman known as a high-stakes casino gambler. Walsh has said Ney did not know about Winfield's background.

Ney returned to the same casino on a personal trip later in 2003 and reported on his financial disclosure form that he won $34,000. Walsh has said Ney parlayed a $100 bet into the large winning on two hands of a three-card game of chance.

I don't know how many three-card games of chance there are out there, but let's take a look at the two most popular.

1.) Baccarat:
In this game, you have the option to bet on the banker, in which a win gets you 95 cents on the dollar - yourself, which is an even money payout - or a "tie" which is an 8 to 1 windfall. Even the totally unlikely event that Ney stepped up and bet his entire roll two straight "ties" that would have yielded $800 and then $6,400 maximum. Impossible there.

2.) Let it Ride
In this game, its actually possible, but highly highly unlikely. At any rate, Ney would have had to find himself with either two straight flushes which he had a 40,000 to 1 chance of aquiring, or a combination of four of a kind or better on a maximum 100 bet, and then decided to wager the whole five-thousand dollrs in winnings in another wager, and then draw either a full-house, four of a kind, straight flush or royal flush. And because of the nature of the game (you have the option to pull back chips), in one of these instances, he was wagering at least $3,300 or 100% of his stack on a blind draw of 2 cards.

The absolute lowest probability of that happening in any combination, regardless of poor play, is 550 to 1 odds -- about the likelihood of his story being true.

Posted by at 5:07 PM | Comments (13)

The Thin Green Line

Associated Press:

Stretched by frequent troop rotations to Iraq and Afghanistan, the Army has become a "thin green line" that could snap unless relief comes soon, according to a study for the Pentagon.

Andrew Krepinevich, a retired Army officer who wrote the report under a Pentagon contract, concluded the Army cannot sustain the pace of deployments to Iraq long enough to break the back of the insurgency. He also suggested that the Pentagon's decision to begin reducing the force in Iraq this year was driven in part by a realization that the Army was overextended.

My head begins to spin when I think of the way the Republican Party viciously attacks anyone who dare question the current troop levels in Iraq. If anyone makes the apparently fact-based argument that it might be time to begin bringing some of those men and women home lest we completely break our ability to defend the nation, they are "giving aid and comfort to the terrorists" -- a rebuttal that essentially labels sensible opponents as treasonous.

It's shameful, and the public relations plan of stay the course is damaging our national security.

And by the way, what's the plan to increase troop recruitment? Raise the maximum age for recruits to 42 years old.

Posted by at 1:33 PM | Comments (14)

Governor Dean on Air America w/ Randi Rhodes

Audio Link (About 1/3 of way through)

Transcript provided by "Renee in Ohio"

Randi started the interview by saying "We've been playing your clip over and over again for like the last week, where you succinctly said 'There is no Abramoff Democratic money. He gave no money to Democrats.' She goes on to say that people in the media have continued to try to portray the Abramoff scandal as bipartisan in nature, and that Tim Russert had put up a pie chart saying that 34% of the money had gone to Democrats.

Howard: Well, you know, I like Tim Russert, but that's just not true.

Randi: I know that's not true.

Howard: The truth of the matter is, this is a Republican finance scandal. Exclusively. There is nobody implicated in this except for Republicans. Not one.

Randi: Do you know how he had to couch it to get away with this kind of lying--

Howard: You know, I'm surprised that Tim would do this because I know Tim and he's an ethical person, but that's just not true. You know, these guys have got to get off their butts and look at those numbers. Here's the deal, Randi, not one nickel from Abramoff ever went to a Democrat. Not one nickel, every dime of it went to Republicans. Secondly, there's no evidence whatsoever that any money was directed by Abramoff to any Democrat. So this is just crap, and it's the RNC, and it's disappointing at this late date after all this corruption exposed on the Republican side, that the mainstream press would fall for this. They've got to do better than this.

Randi: Well, you know, the mainstream press is cooked. Do you understand, they're as coroprate as anybody, and corporatism has--

Howard: --yeah, but I think Russert's a good guy. I really do.

Randi: Yeah, I like to think he's a decent guy from upstate New York too, I really do. You know, like how he honors his father, you see there's a certain warmness about him. But his willingness to lie was apparent to me on Sunday. Here's how he said it, Senator Reid, Senator Kennedy, Patty Murray, and a lot of prominent Democrats received money from--now check out what he had to say--from associate, clients of Jack Abramoff. Two to one Republican, but it's not fair to say that just Republicans took money.

Howard: Well, no! That's completely untrue. That's completely untrue and it's incredibly disappointing.

Randi: Isn't it? I'm telling you, I am grossed out by the way that they add words, and add clients, and add associates of--

Howard: Well, I'm disappointed with Tim. The truth is, what he said was false, and, you know, he's got to do better. He's my friend, but he's got to do better. It's just simply false.

Randi: Well, he asked it to Begala, who immediately said, it's misleading, this is a Republican scandal, Mr. Abramoff is a movement partisan Republican. There is no evidence in all the indictments, in all the emails, in all of the investigation that any of the money that went to Democrats from Indian tribes was directed by Abramoff. And then he neglects to say that not one Democrat received one dime from Jack Abramoff. But it is upsetting--it's really upsetting, and then people start calling and saying "Oh, you're lying!" No, I'm not lying--they're misrepresenting this entire thing. And for Mary Matalin to sit there and say--

Howard: Well, she's a propagandist, Randi, I mean, those folks do propaganda. These are the best propagandists since Vladimir Lenin--you can't believe a word they say. And it's a shame, because, you know, there were good Republicans in this country at one time.

Randi: Yes there were, I agree.

Howard: There still are a few, but they don't vote Republican any more.

Randi: No they don't. They vote for something other than THE Republic. They vote against this country. They vote against Americans constantly. (I think Randi and Howard and talking about entirely different groups here.) I'm sitting here explaining why the prescription drug benefit was SO bad. It's because the pharmaceutical companies got to write it!

Howard: And that's the danger of all this. What Abramoff and the Bush folks did was buy their way in so that they could do things--the Medicare bill wasn't for old people, it was for pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies. Because that's the way the Bush people are; they don't care about ordinary Americans--

Randi: And who wrote the bankruptcy bill?

Howard: Well, it certainly wasn't ordinary people who are struggling with their credit card bills--

Randi: It was the credit card companies. And who's writing all this legislation? It's special interests that pay--you know, I expect to see a backlash from CEOs at this point. Their going broke, people are losing their jobs in droves, and the CEOs are starting to make a little bit of noise at least, that they're being shaken down by this party. That not only do you have to give campaign contributions, but since there's a limit, they now have to buy advocacy ads. They have to support the Swiftboat ads. They have to do "Citizens for a More Just America", name it, and then fund it, and then advertise for this candidate or that candidate. I mean, this is crazy! And these CEOs are sick and tired of watching their employees lose their jobs in thousands at a time. Maybe they will say, "Enough already! We'll take our chances with a Democratic congress. This K Street Project, it was a nice idea, we've given you enough money. You guys have been exposed, you're worthless to us now, we're walking away." If not for principle and character, at least because it's not effective any more. The jig is up!

Howard: I think that's right. I would hope that Americans would be disappointed enough in these folks--but you know, we've got to have a positive agenda. And basically here it is...

First, the Democrats will restore honesty in government. You can't trust the Republicans. They can't balance the budget, they can't manage the finances of this country, they can't manage Iraq, they couldn't manage Katrina. It's time to have honesty in government with people we can trust again.

Randi: They can't tell the truth. They absolutely can't tell the truth. Did you see the president today?

Howard: No, I did not.

Randi: You didn't miss a thing. Listen to how odd this is. Two and one half hours, he was on the TV today at the University of Kansas, and he was selling his lawless, warrantless search idea--

Howard: He was selling what?

Randi: His warrantless spying on Americans.

Howard: Oh, right.

Randi: And, of course, Arlen Specter has said, "No, I don't think so." Mccain has said, "I don't see where there's authority to do this. I think it's illegal." You know, you've had many Republicans come forward and say--even Brownback from Kansas! So it was weird that it was in Kansas--

Howard: You know, Randi, what's a little more scary even than this? Over the weekend, there was a front page article in a lot of papers that said that they were trying now to try to get Google to let them know whatever you looked at. Supposedly it was about a child porn investigation, but the way the government wants it is that whatever you looked at, they get to see. This is the library provision of the Patriot Act on steroids. Whatever you looked at, they get to find out what you're looking at. It really does begin to look like McCarthyism and the Nixon-Agnew regime. They're using the IRS, for example, to persecute people out west who've given sermons against the war, saying that's partisan. Yet, you can go into a church and hear the priest say that it's a mortal sin to vote for John Kerry. I mean, this is very frightening what they're doing. It's bad for the country, and they're going to take the country down if they're allowed to continue in this way, and we're not going to put up with it.

Randi: Well, the Google story I had here on Friday, and we did a little bit on it today. But what's really creepy is how many emails I got from friends who switched their internet providers because Microsoft and Yahoo and AOL all said that they did turn over document.

Howard: That's right.

Randi: So the damage is done. And if they're looking for pornography, and child porn--they're just saying they want a million random web addresses, and records of web searches for an unspecified one week period.

Howard: So, let them get rid of the child pornographers, we don't like them. But let's not--whatever search you make. 'Cause what's going to happen, we'll we've seen what's going to happen. They've already started eavesdropping on people they don't agree with--

Randi: My phone clicks like crazy, I don't know about yours (Howard laughs). You know, I think I'm paranoid sometimes, and then I think just because somebody's tapping my phone doesn't mean I shouldn't be paranoid.

Howard: They went after some group that was protesting something, that wasn't doing anything, and it was sort of a joke--

Randi: The Lakeworth Quakers?

Howard: I don't know if it was the Quakers or what, but I mean this is serious stuff, and they're violating the Constitution and they're breaking the law. You know, the president could defend America, if he felt he had to listen in to a terrorist thing, without getting a warrant. That's legal, if he goes and gets a warrant after the fact. So this is just arrogance. Why not obey the law? Nobody objects to wiretapping terrorists, why not obey the law? But the president's refused to do that.

Randi: Which is--I was going to ask you, what do you think the president's motivation is. I mean everybody's briefed up, we all understand that the FISA court is a rubber stamp, if he asks, he'll get it. If he has a need for speed he can ask for it three days after, once he does whatever he wants to do. But why won't he leave a paper trail?

Howard: Because this president, and this Republican party, are plain arrogant. They think that the laws that are made for America are not made for anybody else. (Think he meant to say "not made for them" or "are made for everybody else".) And that's why there's a corruption scandal...they're just like crooks. Well, they are crooks, I guess. They never think they're going to be the ones to get caught. Duke Cunningham...imagine! What did he think was going to happen on a congressman's salary when he was driving around in a yacht and a Rolls Royce?

Randi: I want to know what a Louis Philippe toilet feels like.

Howard: What?!

Randi: I want to know what a Louis Philippe toilet feels like. (Howard laughs.) He apparently had one--I don't even know what that is!

Howard: Oh, god...

Randi: I'm just from Brooklyn, I don't know. All right, well stay in touch with me, and I just want to play you this sound bite, and I want you to remember this sound bite, and I want you to make commercials about this sound bite. I'm giving money like crazy, and I want to see something on the TV. Do you remember this one?

Bush's voice: So, I don't know where he is, you know, I just don't spend that much time on it...

Randi: Do something with that.

Howard: What was that, Osama?

Randi: That was him talking about Osama, and now he wants to eavesdrop on all of us because he needs to find Osama? Yeah, right. All right, well thank you.

Howard: Thanks, Randi.

Posted by at 10:18 AM | Comments (5)

Wednesday Morning Open Thread

Oh happy days.

Posted by at 9:23 AM | Comments (497)

January 24, 2006

Governor Dean: Alito Not Fit for Supreme Court

Governor Dean:

Today, an outside the mainstream nominee who refused to be forthcoming with the Senate moved one step closer to confirmation. Over the course of his confirmation hearings and through an evaluation of his writing and records, Americans learned that Judge Alito is committed to a radical agenda that threatens Americans’ individual rights and freedoms. Because Judge Alito simply must not be allowed to use a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court to advance that agenda, Democrats on the Judiciary Committee stood together to protect Americans' individual rights and freedoms in voting against this nomination.

While Judge Alito dodged legitimate questions about his judicial record and philosophy, his agenda is clear. His troubling support of unchecked executive power, in light of current scandals over the President's domestic spying program, should concern all Americans. He supports intrusive government power over individual liberties, and has failed to protect crucial Family Medical Leave protections. He used legal technicalities to excuse gross sexual harassment, and supported prosecutors who constructed all-white juries to try black defendants. Worse still, Judge Alito broke his promise to the Senate to recuse himself from cases in which he had a clear conflict of interest-a deeply troubling failure in light of the current Republican corruption scandals.

When the full Senate votes on this nomination, Judge Alito should be rejected.

Posted by at 1:14 PM | Comments (196)

Justices Take Gifts Too

You might remember Senator Feingold asking Chief Justice Roberts about members of the Supreme Court accepting gifts from organizations while they sit on the bench. Turns out, there was a good reason for that question.

At the historic swearing-in of John Roberts as the 17th chief justice of the United States last September, every member of the Supreme Court, except Antonin Scalia, was in attendance. ABC News has learned that Scalia instead was on the tennis court at one of the country's top resorts, the Ritz-Carlton hotel in Bachelor Gulch, Colo., during a trip to a legal seminar sponsored by the Federalist Society. [...]

According to the event's invitation, obtained by ABC News, the Federalist Society promised members who attended the seminar an exclusive and "rare opportunity to spend time, both socially and intellectually" with Scalia.

"I think Justice Scalia should not have gone on that trip for several reasons," Gillers commented. "They are a group with a decided political-slash-judicial profile."

One night at the resort, Scalia attended a cocktail reception, sponsored in part by the same lobbying and law firm where convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff once worked.

"Roberts, Scalia and Thomas declined comment and requests for interviews by ABC News. A spokesman for the Federalist Society also declined to comment."

Posted by at 11:53 AM | Comments (6)

DNC Vice Chair Mike Honda Canvasses in AZ

Your new DNC organizers in Arizona canvassed alongside Vice Chair Mike Honda and the Arizona Young Democrats this weekend. They were kind enough to send over a few photos that I wanted to share with you.

Posted by at 10:55 AM | Comments (1)

Unpopular President

For the 31st straight USA Today/Gallup poll a majority of Ameicans fail to approve of the way "George W. Bush is handling his job as president?"

CNN/USA Today/Gallup. 1,006 Adults. 1/20/06 - 1/22/06.

"Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president?"

Approve: 43%
Disapprove: 54%
Unsure: 4%

Heckuva job.

Posted by at 10:39 AM | Comments (6)

USA Today Raises Questions About Alito

USA Today Editorial:

Obfuscating answers — and avoidance of answers — have been the habit of all recent nominees, making it impossible to say with certainty where a nominee will take the court. But a case decided by the court just last week hints at Alito's potential impact.

In dissent, three justices argued that the attorney general was free to punish physicians who might help terminally ill patients in pain end their lives, even under state regulation. Chief Justice John Roberts, Bush's first choice for a court vacancy, was one. Thomas and Antonin Scalia were the others.

In campaigning for president, Bush said repeatedly that he wanted more justices like Scalia and Thomas. Alito's record suggests he might soon have two — one vote short of a majority that could favor government intrusion in the most personal decisions.

Given this page's historic concerns, Alito would not have been on our short list for the court. But his presence reflects the political reality of the past two presidential elections and the balance of power in the Senate.

The Supreme Court is unquestionably getting a highly qualified legal technician. Whether it is also getting an empathetic justice who will maintain the vital protections the Founders and the court have accorded individual Americans — and the constitutional balance of power among the president, Congress and the courts — is still in doubt.

I don't know about you, but I am tired of listening to the talking heads (and even many elected officials) on television, radio, and in newspapers claiming that Samuel Alito wouldn't bring an agenda (or ideology) to the bench. The "just trust us" administration expects us to just trust nominees like Chief Justice Roberts and now Samuel Alito who avoid to answer questions. Apparently the U.S. Senate is the only job interview in the world where the burden of proof is on the employer, not the potential employee.

The GOP feigns outrage when anyone on the Democratic side of the aisle dares to question whether Samuel Alito has any designs on overturning Roe, weakening the congress in favor of a unitary executive, and his consistent siding against minorities in discrimination cases. Democrats are left to take a man at his word who has, charitably, a questionable history of providing forthright answers during previous "job interviews," and after getting burned by the last nominee, Chief Justice Roberts, on the issue of death with dignity.

And while we are left to cross our fingers and trust this is a "mainstream" jurist, Senator "up or down unless your last name rhymes with fires" Frist knows the score:

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist told Republican Party activists on Friday night that U.S. Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito was the "worst nightmare of liberal Democrats."

This pre-packaged and made for television Samuel Alito might not even be a reasonable facsimile of the Associate Justice Alito we would see on the bench of the Supreme Court. They know it, we know it, and most people paying attention know it as well.

Posted by at 10:00 AM | Comments (12)

White House Was Warned About Katrina

It's like getting the answers to the test of your life days in advance and still getting none of the answers right...

In the 48 hours before Hurricane Katrina hit, the White House received detailed warnings about the storm's likely impact, including eerily prescient predictions of breached levees, massive flooding, and major losses of life and property, documents show.

A 41-page assessment by the Department of Homeland Security's National Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis Center (NISAC), was delivered by e-mail to the White House's "situation room," the nerve center where crises are handled, at 1:47 a.m. on Aug. 29, the day the storm hit, according to an e-mail cover sheet accompanying the document.

The NISAC paper warned that a storm of Katrina's size would "likely lead to severe flooding and/or levee breaching" and specifically noted the potential for levee failures along Lake Pontchartrain. It predicted economic losses in the tens of billions of dollars, including damage to public utilities and industry that would take years to fully repair. Initial response and rescue operations would be hampered by disruption of telecommunications networks and the loss of power to fire, police and emergency workers, it said.

In a second document, also obtained by The Washington Post, a computer slide presentation by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, prepared for a 9 a.m. meeting on Aug. 27, two days before Katrina made landfall, compared Katrina's likely impact to that of "Hurricane Pam," a fictional Category 3 storm used in a series of FEMA disaster-preparedness exercises simulating the effects of a major hurricane striking New Orleans. But Katrina, the report warned, could be worse.

Who wants to take bets that there was a memo titled "Katrina Determined to Strike in US" circulated and ignored at some point?

UPDATE:

Tim reminded me of what George was doing as New Orleans flooded...

UPDATE AGAIN:

Tim also reminded me what Condoleeza Rice was up to (shoe shopping), and what the RNC was up to (sending emails about the estate tax).

Posted by Josh McConaha at 9:52 AM | Comments (16)

Tuesday Morning Open Thread

Enjoy the comments.

Posted by at 9:41 AM | Comments (398)

January 23, 2006

It's Not About Friendship

There's seems to be some question about whether Georige Bush and Jack Abramoff are friends. Time Magazine is reporting that there are multiple photos of them together, and the Washingtonian says that Bush knows the names of Abramoff's children and would ask Jack about them.

Despite this, the White House is scrambling to deny a personal relationship:

"The president does not have a personal relationship with Mr. Abramoff." -- WH Counselor Dan Bartlett, pushing back on the photo story during a morning show blitz, "CBS Early Show," 1/23

By his own admission, we know that Abramoff raised over $120,000 for the Bush campaign in 2004.

We also know that Abramoff charged a client $25,000 to arrange a single meeting with Bush.

That's just the beginning, though. Over the years he received unknown sums from clients for representing their interests in an unknown number of exclusive staff-level meetings at the White House.

It doesn't take too many meetings at $25,000 a pop to make investing in the Republican money-for-influence machine a smart investment, as long as Republican leaders stand ready to deliver in exchange for dollars (and trips and lavish meals).

Now Abramoff has pleaded guilty to fraud, tax evasion and conspiracy to bribe public officials. Republican leaders have responded by scrambling to obfuscate and cover up their relationships with him, rather than coming clean and purging those in their party who created this mess.

Until Republican leaders are willing to come clean, it will be left to the legal process -- and our democratic process -- to examine all of the transactions that constitute the Republican culture of corruption.

Posted by Joe Rospars at 5:42 PM | Comments (18)

Why Did President Bush Deliberately Choose to Break the Law?

Governor Dean:

"In our democracy no one, not even the President, is above the law. Democrats understand that we must take extraordinary measures to defend Americans, and existing laws were crafted to ensure that the President can legally listen to conversations when necessary. So the question remains: why did President Bush deliberately choose to break the law, as the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service has twice reported? The American people deserve an answer."

Posted by at 4:36 PM | Comments (25)

State of the Union Watch Parties

(An email that just went out from Democratic National Commitee Executive Director, Tom McMahon -- Tim)

In hundreds of communities across the country, people won't be sitting back when George Bush delivers his State of the Union address on January 31st. That's because in each of those communities someone decided to host a Watch Party -- a simple event to bring people together to get the facts and take action.

There's still time to invite people over to watch together, react together, and -- most importantly -- decide together what you will do to work for change on the ground in your community this year.

There will also be a Watch Party Conference Call immediately following the official Democratic response. You'll be able to join Governor Dean and other Democratic leaders for immediate reaction and opportunities for rapid response.

You can set up your own Watch Party and start sending invitations using this simple tool on our web site:

http://www.democrats.org/events/create

From Anchorage to Wichita to Brooklyn people have already created Watch Parties. Everyone attending will receive background information before the speech, and the opportunity to hear directly from our party's leaders immediately after.

You can search by zip code for an event in your area:

http://www.democrats.org/events/find

Where will you be next Tuesday night?

Tom

Tom McMahon
Executive Director
Democratic National Committee

Posted by at 4:30 PM | Comments (2)

An Unpopular President

American Research Group, Inc. 1,100 Adults. January 19-22, 2006. MoE +/- 3%

Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his jo