Chase Nordengren|W|P|Well, read the fine print on this one: there's no way the WH could get away with a recess appointment, it would create far more disapproval then it's worth. Instead, Bolton will come up with the UN Reform package as part of a total message ... it'll be 24/7 UN. Even if, you know, both of them skip the real ways we should reform the UN."Grassley personally supports creation of the accounts along with a plan to solve the Social Security shortfall. But he said that as he works with committee Republicans, "I can say we're doing very good on solvency but not very good on personal accounts." He said he might put forth a proposal as early as today if he can get dollar estimates on it and coax committee members into an agreement. Grassley did not offer details but has in the past seemed open to slowing the growth of benefits for wealthy and middle-class workers and has said that raising the retirement age must be a part of any package."So, the ball is still rolling--and getting much faster. I'm contacting Rep. Boswell (my Congressman) in a few minutes to see where he stands on the issue in the House. You all should contact your reps as well and then communicate where they stand to Josh Marshall. Should new legislative proposals begin to emerge, Democrats must be ready to yield no ground and to fight back. Pathetic politics should not be the strategy in this game.|W|P|112017888480794201|W|P|Round 2 is gearing up|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"How would the FEC define "blog"? Like every other website you visit, this site is serving content via HTTP protocol on port 80. As far as the guts of the site, Movable Type considers itself a "publishing platform" these days. Like Slate, this site has multiple authors, covers a variety of topics, and updates sporadically throughout the day. If the FEC wants to draw a line between the online world and print, I'd love to see a comparison between the traffic statistics of NYTimes.com and the circulation numbers of The New York Times print version. Then again, the difference between whether or not I'm allowed to discuss politics could be as simple as not using the word "blog" anymore. Semantic restrictions are meaningless when you're a template change away from avoiding legal scrutiny."These efforts are becoming meaningless. Sometimes groups like the FEC need to take the higher ground and worry about the real threats to fair political speech and campaign finance issues. Maybe things like 527s. . .|W|P|112017579284930152|W|P|Online magazines spread across the internets|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
Fred|W|P|Amen!!!!!! Chris Woods|W|P|Too bad your post title didn't go on to say "...But what if O'Connor does?"Lol, this should make for some interesting politics this summer.
- Bob Herbert on incompetent leaders in the NY Times
- Ezra Klein on judicial fiat and abortion
- Looks like Time will be turning over Matt Cooper's source
- Eric Alterman's Nation column on Rove's comments
- Orcinus (David Neiwert) on "Hunting Liberals"
With the hub-bub over the recent FEC testimony and rules-chaning, I'm changing TPF into an online magazine. Entirely commentary, news, and features. All of this spurred by The Talent Show, Atrios, AMERICAonlinemagazine, and others. To understand Atrios' new format, read here.|W|P|112010208739457525|W|P|Welcome to my
|W|P|Have you seen this blog?http://scottfromca.blogspot.com/
It's a new experiment on a community blog that you might be interested in posting at.
Chase Nordengren|W|P|Does this mean I can get somebody to draw New-Yorker-esque cartoons with meaningless caption to be placed alongside anything I want? :)Chase
Drew Miller|W|P|I designed a laptop that my 'rents got me for Christmas from Gateway. It cost around $850, with a 15 inch monitor (1024x768 res), Celeron 1.4m, 512 ram, 40gig hd, CD and DVD burner, and an extended life battery (lasts around 5 hours). It also has a secure digital card drive, which is freaking sweet with my camera, and 4 usb ports. It's not a powerhorse or anything, but it is cheap, light, sturdy, and has a good battery life. I'd recommend it to others. Chris Woods|W|P|That is similar to one I saw at Best Buy on sale Saturday. The problem was that that was the last day of the sale and I didn't have the money on me to buy it (it was $860 with a $250 instant rebate). Supposedly it will be going on sale again, so I'm crossing my fingers... 'yeti|W|P|I'm getting an iBook G4 tomorrow! I'm psyched. It was $1200 including a printer, but that was thru the University of Minnesota's site, so unless you have a similar deal down there you probably couldn't get it that cheap... I think regular price would've been around 1500.I've never had a Mac before though, so we'll see how it goes.
Unadulterated Underdog|W|P|CAFTA must be defeated. If there was ever an obvious sell-us-down-the-river-please piece of legal rubbish, this is it."A Republican congressman from North Carolina told CNN on Wednesday that the "evidence is clear" that Iraq was involved in the terrorist attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001. "Saddam Hussein and people like him were very much involved in 9/11," Rep. Robin Hayes said. Told no investigation had ever found evidence to link Saddam and 9/11, Hayes responded, "I'm sorry, but you must have looked in the wrong places." Hayes, the vice chairman of the House subcommittee on terrorism, said legislators have access to evidence others do not. Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, said that Saddam was a dangerous man, but when asked about Hayes' statement, would not link the deposed Iraqi ruler to the terrorist attacks on New York, the Pentagon and Pennsylvania. "I haven't seen compelling evidence of that," McCain, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, told CNN."WTF, mate? This guy clearly is off his rocker and has been drinking too much of the kool kids kool-aid. Will Bunch has the full interview transcript here, the guy is a nutjob. How can someone in that position lie so bluntly and clearly?|W|P|112007998341670594|W|P|WTF Moment of the Day|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"Now raise your hand if you still think Karl Rove’s 9/11 remarks last week were unintentional. Facing mounting U.S. casualties, an increasingly skeptical public, and a growing chorus of criticism (even within his own party), a confident and resolute President Bush last night directly tied the situation in Iraq to 9/11 and the war on terrorism. To illustrate this renewed focus, he made five direct references to 9/11 and two references to Osama bin Laden."I can hear the White House being physically slammed against a wall by that one.|W|P|112005822934004127|W|P|First Read|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
Chase Nordengren|W|P|I'm surprised you didn't know about this. Having read both for a few months, "First Read" is basically The Note's much more serious (and significant) big brother.Chase
"By the time I encountered Cory Bray, a towering senior from the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School of Business, the beer was flowing freely. "The people opposed to the war aren't putting their asses on the line," Bray boomed from beside the bar. Then why isn't he putting his ass on the line? "I'm not putting my ass on the line because I had the opportunity to go to the number-one business school in the country," he declared, his voice rising in defensive anger, "and I wasn't going to pass that up.""The quotes--and the story--only get better. Go give it a read. That's why I'm proud of my brother--he's a supporter of the war and Bush (for mostly indoctrination reasons via his high school ROTC commanders, but that's for another time)--yet he's still going to put his life on the line. Saying you have convictions and feel one way are great, but proving it through physical and real action is the true hero's way.|W|P|112005650101399218|W|P|Generation chickenhawk|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
|W|P|It makes no sense to say that you aren't a true supporter of a issue unless you are willing to actively devote your life to doing it yourself. Are you for Pro-Choice? Fine, then give up your job and current lifestyle and travel the country to protest at all abortion clinics or join as a full-time staffer any organization that interacts with Congress as a special interest group. Not willing to go to that level of committment? Well, then you're all talk aren't you? Is that a fair gauge of your personal integrity or the validity of your core beliefs? Of course not.
|W|P|Okay, I'm appropriately red-faced.After realizing my completely inaccurate analogy, let's try it again:
What I SHOULD have said is that, in following the logic of the posted article; if you are Pro-Choice but you don't intend to quit your current way of life and join a full-time staff that works to defend Roe vs. Wade by engaging with State and National politicians as a special interest group, then your committment to the issue is shallow and just a lot of talk, instead of putting your life where your views are.
THAT is just as unfair of a judgment to put on "Pro-Choice" advocates as it is for "Pro-War" advocates.
Chris Woods|W|P|Your analogy is misleading. We're not facing a shortage of pro-choicers or pro-lifers, we're facing a shortage of American soldiers. At that point, able-bodied men and women who support the war or who aren't conscientious objectors have some kind of obligation just to say more than "I support it and that's enough."Moreover, these stances are based on principle, more or less. Principles don't just mean preaching to the choir or making online posts about what you believe. It is real physical action.
Were I a woman in a situation where I needed an abortion, then I could really step up to the plate an have one (God, forgive me for making this such a political issue not just one about life). Since I'm not, I support Planned Parenthood and other pro-choice groups however I can through physical actions such as volunteering, running phone banks, etc.
Were I able to join the military and actively supporting this war, I would do the same thing, especially in this period of time when our country needs young, able-bodied soldiers. My complaints and criticisms are lobbed against those young men and women who could join up, but think words at home are good enough.
To truly show your principle and your support, it takes physical action, not just clacking on a keyboard or speaking fiercely.
|W|P|I disagree. Every eligible, able-bodied person who happens to support the actions in Iraq does not automatically have an obligation to enlist in the military or National Guard. You are talking about a level of personal sacrifice and life-altering long-term commitment that can't be equated with someone who supports Pro-Life by answering some phones or who runs an information booth a few times a year! Those are two VASTLY different levels of acting on principles. Listen, if someone was beating their chest about their support of the fight in Iraq and was also pressuring others to enlist and chastising those who didn't, I'd fully agree that the person better have done military service themselves to be talking up such a commitment to others.
Otherwise, no one is in any position to discredit someone's right to an opinion on this issue, just because they won't make a 100% commitment to giving their life to the military.
This is a very intellectually dishonest agrument that has been created to try to invalidate the opinions and beliefs of a segment of those who support Bush and the actions in Iraq.
There are enough straight-up criticisms about how the war and its aftermath have been handled, that distorted arguments like these shouldn't be necessary.
Chris Woods|W|P|I don't think they have an automatic obligation, but it would show some guts. And as for me being a pro-lifer, as a male, what else am I supposed to do? I can't rise to the actual, physical occasion simply because of physiology.As for "beating their chest about their support of the fight in Iraq and was alos pressuring others to enlist and chastising those who didn't" then you're not completely familiar with the actions of those in Generation Chickenhawk, namely a large number of College Republicans. Spend some time with their groups on campuses across the country and you'll understand what I'm talking about.
As for your finaly statement about the straight-up criticisms, you're absolutely right. That is where the real debate should be happening. The Generation Chickenhawk complex frustrates me, but not nearly as bad as the false 9/11 connections, the lies about strategy, and everything else we're doing in Iraq.
'yeti|W|P|Otherwise, no one is in any position to discredit someone's right to an opinion on this issue, just because they won't make a 100% commitment to giving their life to the military.This is a very intellectually dishonest agrument that has been created to try to invalidate the opinions and beliefs of a segment of those who support Bush and the actions in Iraq.
Erm, no. Everyone's opinion is perfectly valid, as long as it's not based in hypocrisy.
The problem is that millions of people like Chris and I are at draft age while we're facing an undeniable manpower crisis. Somebody has to go, no matter if you're pro-war or anti-war, because we all want troops to be secure. Who's it going to be? Sure as hell isn't going to be me - I spoke against this pack of lies from the very beginning.
Who, then, IS going to go? GWB isn't going to pick up an AK-57. Who will?
|W|P|But the point, it seems, to this whole Operation Yellow Elephant ploy is that those who are fit to enroll in the military and are vocal supporters of the war are hypocrites for not enlisting, and "putting their lives where their mouths are". Regardless of any manpower shortage, just because a supporter chooses not to accept such a drastic live-altering change in their life by committing to the military, doesn't invalidate their right to support the actions in Iraq! Although it obviously is an ultimate example of putting your beliefs in action, if someone does enlist.
There is a huge need for more quality teachers in our school systems. So should those who strongly and/or publicly support that view be expected to make the commitment to become teachers themselves or risk being judged as hypocrites?
Should those who passionately support the efforts to bring the US into the Kyoto Treaty to curb global warming be expected to make a commitment to working full-time for a scientific advisory board or a political special interest group that is dedicated to implementing change in US policy toward our global environment? If they won't make that level of commitment, are they hypocrites?
This Yellow Elephant rationale is similiar to these points, in that, if someone supports the war but they choose not to make the total life commitment of joining the military themselves, then they are hypocrites regarding their opinion on Iraq.
I understand the shortage of new recruits that the military and National Guard are seeing right now, but making such a dramatic, life-changing personal decision to join the military isn't required to validate one's opinion or support of US actions in Iraq.
"Our military reports that we have killed or captured hundreds of foreign fighters in Iraq who have come from Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, Egypt, Sudan, Yemen, Libya and other nations."Like I, and the CIA and others have said, this is because we let them get in. Instead of actually defeating al-Qaeda in the first place and focusing a tight mission, we got zealous and rapidly pushed into Iraq. We created the new battleground and it is kicking our collective ass. That's where accountability comes in. We didn't and haven't held ourselves accountable--or at least America via the leadership of Bush and co.--to the results we've gotten. Our cheap and shoddy means created these dangerous, deadly, and destructive ends. To promote accountability, we can't do things like celebrating an accomplished mission a month after invading Iraq like President Bush did. Now he claims that mission is still going:
"To complete the mission, we will continue to hunt down the terrorists and insurgents. To complete the mission, we will prevent al-Qaida and other foreign terrorists from turning Iraq into what Afghanistan was under the Taliban – a safe haven from which they could launch attacks on America and our friends. And the best way to complete the mission is to help Iraqis build a free nation that can govern itself, sustain itself, and defend itself."I thought we did that when you landed on the aircraft carrier with a huge bulge and said we'd accomplished the mission? Was that a lie? I think it was. And now it is our duty as patriots and as Democrats to stand up to the lack of accountability in this adminstration when it comes to Iraq and the war on terror. This is a serious time meant for serious discourse. Democrats are going to step up to the plate and hammer hits on withdrawal and accountability. And undoubtedly, the Washington Republicans are going to strike out. UPDATE: The New York Times and The Washington Post editorial boards both weigh in--and not positively.|W|P|112001899072648836|W|P|Thoughts on the speech|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"Tonight's address offered the President an excellent opportunity to level with the American people about the current situation in Iraq, put forth a path for success, and provide the means to assess our progress. Unfortunately he fell short on all counts. "There is a growing feeling among the American people that the President's Iraq policy is adrift, disconnected from the reality on the ground and in need of major mid-course corrections. "Staying the course," as the President advocates, is neither sustainable nor likely to lead to the success we all seek. "The President's numerous references to September 11th did not provide a way forward in Iraq, they only served to remind the American people that our most dangerous enemy, namely Osama bin Laden, is still on the loose and Al Qaeda remains capable of doing this nation great harm nearly four years after it attacked America. "Democrats stand united and committed to seeing that we achieve success in Iraq and provide our troops, their families, and our veterans everything they need and deserve for their sacrifices for our nation. The stakes are too high, and failure in Iraq cannot be an option. Success is only possible if the President significantly alters his current course. That requires the President to work with Congress and finally begin to speak openly and honestly with our troops and the American people about the difficult road ahead. "Our troops and their families deserve no less."Amen, brother.|W|P|112001907633309986|W|P|Reid's response|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
- Josh Marshall on the offensiveness of the 9/11 invokations and the sad fact that the public buys them
- Matt Yglesias smacks around the idea of Iraq as "another battlefield in the war on terror"
- Ezra and (the newly designed ) Think Progress do a "speech by the numbers post
- Think Progress as a whole offers a fantastic rapid-response to the Bush redundancies
- AMERICAblog fills us in on the fake applause
- Pascal Riche proves that its all about the rhetoric and patriotic references
- Power Line of course calls it an excellent speech, but admits "There was nothing in it that we and our readers didn't already know..." Ain't that the truth
"MR. McCLELLAN: Good afternoon, everybody. Let me begin by giving you a preview of tomorrow night's remarks. [...] So tomorrow night the American people have the opportunity to hear from their Commander-in-Chief about the nature of the enemy we face in Iraq, the situation on the ground and the way forward to victory. [...] This is a time of testing. It is a critical moment in Iraq. The terrorists are seeking to shake our will and weaken our resolve. They know that they cannot win unless we abandon the mission before it is complete. [...] [E]lections have taken place; more than 8 million Iraqis showed up at the polls and defied the terrorists and elected a representative government to serve during the transition to democracy. [...] There is going to be tough fighting in the days and weeks ahead, as the President has talked about. He will talk about the nature of the enemy, as I mentioned. The terrorists have no regard for human life. They have no vision and no alternative but chaos, destruction and violence. It is a determined and ruthless enemy that has chosen to make Iraq a central front in the war on terrorism. They know that their survival is at stake. Iraq -- a free and peaceful Iraq will be a major blow to the ambitions of the terrorists. And every step of the way, these terrorists have failed to stop the progress on the political front. They have failed to stop the Iraqi people from moving forward on holding elections and electing a representative government. They have failed to stop the Iraqi people from signing up to serve in the security forces. And they failed to stop the transfer of sovereignty just one year ago, as well, on the time schedule that was outlined..."Scotty's a goddamn liar--at least by omission. The core of the speech will be Iraq = terrorists, 9/11, voting, war, freedom, etc. The same mumbo-jumbo about all the positives even though they're completely washed away two times over by all the negative. And the omissions that McClellan (and presumably, Dear Leader) will leave out is how the insurgents and fighters in Iraq became terrorists. Prior to our invasion, the only terrorists in Iraq were Iraqis, thus making them domestic terrorists. Our strategic definition of terrorists for decades--both theoretically and literally--has been people outside of their home states and attacking in other states. Moreover, they usually aren't state-sponsored and are for the most part amorphous, transnational actors. Once we invaded Iraq, the al-Qaeda terrorists in Syria poured into Iraq because we didn't secure the borders like we should've. It was all about Don Rumsfeld's cheap and shoddy war plans. We brought the terrorists into Iraq and now we're the ones who have to fight them. And for the actual Iraqi insurgents who essentially just want the US occupying force out, al-Qaeda offers them support. It truly is a vicious cycle. Furthermore, it is the rhetoric of Iraq = terrorism that is worse than the reality the White House and Dear Leader will try to portray. By invoking that rhetoric, they're able to insert connections of 9/11/01 and the war in Afghanistan to Iraq. The problem is that there is no connection--at least before we invaded. Now there is a connection, but because we fucked up. Remember, there has never been and never will be a pre-invasion connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda that would make them a legitimate or fundamental part of the war on terror. That is why we made the case for war (read: lied to the American people). Now what are we going to do to Bush and Regime about it?|W|P|111999423409791099|W|P|Tonight's speech: Iraq = terrorists|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
Yes--27%--9342 votes No--73%--25969 votes|W|P|111997334495505319|W|P|CNN Quickvote|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
Great AP article in Business Week about Markos' and Atrios' preparations to testify before the FEC today. Wish them luck. It is a serious effort they are partaking in, and they're really speaking for all of us.|W|P|111997098380407123|W|P|Puttin' it to the man (Bloggers testify before FEC)|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
UPDATE: Here's a pretty graph showing the quick sinking of the SS Bushtanic. (Click to enlarge)
Rob, get your Republican sub-mariner friends (I know there's one over there) to use their sonar to find Bush's sinking ship. It's not even above the surface anymore:
"The number of Americans disapproving of President Bush's job performance has risen to the highest level of his presidency, according to the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll released Monday. According to the poll, 53 percent of respondents said they disapproved of Bush's performance, compared to 45 percent who approved. The margin of error was plus or minus 3 percentage points. The 53 percent figure was the highest disapproval rating recorded in the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll since Bush became president in January 2001."And instead of pinging sound when they find it, can we use a QUACK?|W|P|111993024926098955|W|P|Get out the sonar!|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
Rob|W|P|:) Our sonar doesn't work to those depths...Your "Democracy Bond" is a commitment to make a monthly contribution the Democratic Party in order to: * Reform the political process by building a political party beholden only to the people, not the special interests * Build the Democratic Party from the ground up in every precinct so that we can compete everywhere * Win elections in every state and territory of the United States, at every level of office "Democracy Bonds" are about building a community of Americans with a stake in our common future -- locally, nationally, and globally. They will bond together a person in Alaska and a person in Missouri in common cause for a political process where parties are accountable to ordinary people and their concerns. You can only buy one bond. You can decide to commit more money per month, depending on what you can afford, but the principle is democratic with a small-d -- one person, one bond. Every person can be a stakeholder in our party.And you get to own a piece of the Democratic pie. We don't need rich lobbyists, porn stars, and special interests--we need the ordinary folks: you!|W|P|111992975752845382|W|P|Own a piece of the pie|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
- CJ Rehnquist and AJ Kennedy agreed with each other 77% of the time, more then any other pair of justices, pointing out that the "voting blocks" so often discussed are still relatively fluid.
- AJ Thomas wrote more majority and minority opinions then any other justice. The justice said to be exhibiting caution because of Anita Hill might not be anymore. Is he the unknown candidate for Chief Justice? (Following my theory that Scalia might not take the position if it were offered to him)
- There was no stable majority block in 5-4 cases. However, AJ O'Connor was the deciding vote in 12 cases of the term.
"While the Supreme Court ruled that the Ten Commandments can be displayed on government land, but not in courthouses... Who wants to explain the logic in that? What's next? Are Muslims going to be granted the right to swear on the Koran when testifying in court?"Matt Margolis' clear contempt for Muslims and Islam clearly shows his bigotry and racism.|W|P|111989265812553571|W|P|Over the line|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
Chris Woods|W|P|This is the comment I left for him over there...let's see if he publishes it or not:It is also important to keep in mind that the Supreme Court made sure to give themselves plenty of wiggle room with regard to statues that currently are there, but don't play a purely religious role or weren't placed there with religious intent.
Oh, and your contempt for Muslims and Islam only shows to a greater degree your bigotry and racism.
'yeti|W|P|Who wants to explain the logic in that?Hmmm... it sure would be nice if, along with their decision, the justices wrote some sort of a statement to explain themselves that everybody could read in order to better understand their rationale... and then they could post it on, say, supremecourtus.gov! Hmm.
Justen|W|P|Can you swear on something besides the bible? You can just raise your hand and swear right? I have no idea, but I thought I would put that out there. Chris Woods|W|P|Yeah, there is no requirement that one place their hand on a bible anymore. In fact, some states have allowed the witness to choose from their faith, i.e. they have the Torah, the Bible, and the Koran to choose from. At least, I think thats true. Chase Nordengren|W|P|Yes, because it would really suck for the American justice system if everyone swore on their religious document thus guarenteeing that they would believe lying would bring the wrath of God. Wouldn't it just be bad for justice if everyone told the truth? Chris Woods|W|P|Was that snark, Chase? lol.I agree, whatever makes people want to tell the truth, bring it on.
"When the culture is sick, every element in it becomes infected. While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm."Wtf? I think from now on I'm gonna have a "WTF?" moment of the day.|W|P|111988599664884432|W|P|Priest abuse? Blame Boston|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
UPDATE (9:35): HOLY SHIT! The Court ruled unanimously that developers of software violate federal copyright law when they provide computer users with the means to share music and movie files downloaded from the internet. In the words of Atrios, things are fucked.
UPDATE (9:17 AM): Matt Cooper and Judith Miller head to jail. Cable companies don't have to share lines with the competition. AP stories here and here, respectively.
UPDATE (9:14 AM): A victory for the separation of church and state--no Ten Commandments displays in courthouses. And now I can hear the collective gasps of millions of wingnuts across America. Five-four decision.
Today is the day of all days to watch in the US Supreme Court. The final day of their term is full of many controversial cases awaiting decisions and speculation about who will resign and who will replace them. Your thoughts?|W|P|111987962282757428|W|P|SCOTUS Watch|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
Slate.com offers in great detail the judicial histories of eight potential Supreme Court nominees to succeed the resigning (When? Maybe tomorrow or sometime this week?) Chief Justice William Rehnquist. The 'Elite Eight', as some have begun to call those on the shortlist, are quite the group of judges. First off, let's list all eight judges. (Current position in parentheses)
- Michael J. Luttig (US Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit)
- John Roberts (US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit)
- Emilio Garza (US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit)
- Michael McConnell (US Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit)
- Alberto Gonzales (Attorney General of the United States)
- J. Harvie Wilkinson III (US Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit)
- Edith Brown Clement (US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit)
- Samuel Alito (US Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit)
Rob|W|P|I don't know a lot about the others, but Gonzales...I'd have to say "NO". I can see his moderate tone, but when you factor in his shocking lack of ethics in the "torture memos", I can't accept him as a Supreme Court Justice. The ultimate question of detainees may again come to SCOTUS, and I frankly don't trust him to do the right thing in that position...and that would even further weaken our standing in the world. Chris Woods|W|P|I would hope that he would honestly consider the issue differently were he to be in that position where the political and superior pressures weren't that there at all.Then again, you could be right. Which is why he's on my questionable/ok list.
And it looks like whoever resigns, Roberts or Luttig are the top 2 candidates for the nomination. I'd pick Luttig over Roberts by far. . .but in a race with Michael McConnell, I'd pick him in a heartbeat. He's the easy political victory for Bush and is pretty well accepted by both parties.
Rob|W|P|Leave it to Bush to pick the worst of the lot just to force another nuclear option showdown. GOPers would call any filibuster to be outside the agreement of the 14, and if they could get enough of the GOP members of the 14 to go along, we'd have nuclear Frist back on the button.But maybe, just maybe, given his lame-duck problems already, he may choose discretion and the political win. I don't mind conservatives per se on the high court...Kennedy has shown that he can rule in favor of law and the Constitution over his own personal leanings when it's the "right thing to do". Hell, I can take Rhenquist...just not another Scalia or Thomas, please.
5. Benjamin Franklin 4. George Washington 3. Martin Luther King, Jr. 2. Abraham Lincoln 1. Ronald ReaganWow...I'm beginning to feel the WTFs. If Ronald "Iran-Contra" Reagan wins I'm going to go apeshit. At 8:46, the WTFs are getting stronger. At 8:56=WHAT THE FUCK?|W|P|111983617418870490|W|P|Greatest American live-blogging==>WTF?|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
'yeti|W|P|Is this the discovery channel thing? Or the AOL thing? Or is that the same thing?I remember hearing the poll on AOL was being freeped big time, and AmericaBlog tried to put a stop to that but no one else really joined in.
As for the Discovery Channel Top 100, it included Dr. Phil, Michael Jackson, and Madonna. So, uh, Dr. Phil > James Madison is not exactly something I would take remotely seriously.
Chris Woods|W|P|Yeah, they're the same thing.I wonder if the freeping had anything to do with the results...
Rob|W|P|I just saw a couple of seconds of it (as the wife channel surfed) and was very dismayed to see the Ben Franklin only narrowly beat out Dubya. George W. Bush????!!!?!?!?? What the fuck indeed!!! Jason|W|P|I haven't watched it but am aware of it. I doubt Reagan will get picked. After all, we are talking Greatest American of all time here...and the folks in charge surely wouldn't want to pick someone who would be considered divisive. My guess is Franklin or Lincoln. Chris Woods|W|P|Reagan did get picked though, unfortunately."A suicide bomber with explosives hidden beneath watermelons in a pickup truck slammed into a police station near a market Sunday in Mosul, the first of three bombings that killed at least 33 people and wounded 19 in the northwestern city. Attacks elsewhere killed at least five other people in Iraq, including a roadside bomb that killed a U.S. soldier and wounded two others in central Baghdad."|W|P|111981218177983085|W|P|'Last throes' watch|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"U.S. officials recently held secret talks in Iraq with the commanders of several Iraqi insurgent groups in an effort to open a dialogue with them, a British newspaper reported Sunday. U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld would not directly confirm or deny the report when asked about it in several TV interviews Sunday, saying only that "we talk to people all the time." The Sunday Times newspaper in London said the insurgent commanders "apparently came face to face" with four American officials during meetings on June 3 and June 13 at a summer villa near Balad, about 40 miles (25 miles) north of Baghdad, the Iraqi capital."First, we have an excellent idea of where OBL is but we can't capture him for some reason. Now we have these leaders right next to us talking and we just try to negotiate. I seriously don't understand what the fuck is happening over there. Maybe these talks have something to do with President Bush's address to the nation tomorrow night.|W|P|111979625588593446|W|P|Who wants to play let's make a deal?|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
FOX NEWS SUNDAY, 9 a.m.: Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. THIS WEEK (ABC), 9 a.m.: Former FBI acting director L. Patrick Gray and Rumsfeld. FACE THE NATION (CBS), 10:30 a.m.: Gen. John Abizaid, commander of U.S. Central Command. MEET THE PRESS (NBC), 10:30 a.m.: U2 singer Bono and Rumsfeld. LATE EDITION (CNN), noon: Sens. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) and Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim Jafari, Lebanese President Emile Lahoud and Abizaid.|W|P|111976076584183370|W|P|Bobbleheads|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
Allura|W|P|The sad thing is that if you showed that list of names to most people the most frequently recognized name would be Bono.Oh well, at least he's getting people interested in politics and global issues... [sigh]
|W|P|Submit your Articles to this new article new submit submit url. article new submit submit url jobs123|W|P|Hey I just love your blog. I also have a teen datingblog/site. I mostly deals with teen dating
Please come and check it out if you get the time!
The late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan recommended changing the way benefits are calculated. All these ideas are on the table.It seemed to me a strange aberation for a President largely known as conservative and largely known to reject "intellectualism" to pick the words of a very liberal New York senator and Ivy League professor. I dismissed it at the time as an attempt solely to illustrate bipartisanship and largely forgot about it. Tonight I read the (now infamous) speech given by Karl Rove at the New York Conservative Party and discovered yet another reference to Moynihan:
A quarter-century ago, a Senator from this state, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, wrote this: "of a sudden, the GOP has become a party of ideas." It was true then; and it remains true today. We are the party of ideasThe President, it turns out, appointed the former Senator to his initial social security panel in 2002 as well, which may explain the SOTU quote. However, I think there's something deeper going on here. There must be a reason for the administration to select someone with such a polarizingly different political nerve both to be on the panel and to be quoted and given national attention. What, then, is the objective? The point is made quite evident in George F Will's tribute to the Senator upon his passing:
But he was a liberal dismayed by what he called "the leakage of reality from American life.'' When in 1994 the Senate debated an education bill, Moynihan compared the legislation's two quantifiable goals--a high school graduation rate of "at least 90 percent'' by 2000, and American students "first in the world in mathematics and science''--to Soviet grain production quotas. The Senate's Sisyphus, Moynihan was forever pushing uphill a boulder of inconvenient data. A social scientist trained to distinguish correlation from causation, and a wit, Moynihan puckishly said that a crucial determinant of the quality of American schools is proximity to the Canadian border. The barb in his jest was this: High cognitive outputs correlate not with high per-pupil expenditures but with a high percentage of two-parent families. For that, there was the rough geographical correlation that caused Moynihan to suggest that states trying to improve their students' test scores should move closer to Canada. For calling attention, four decades ago, to the crisis of the African-American family--26 percent of children were being born out of wedlock--he was denounced as a racist by lesser liberals. Today the percentage among all Americans is 33, among African-Americans 69, and family disintegration, meaning absent fathers, is recognized as the most powerful predictor of most social pathologies. At the U.N. he witnessed that institution's inanity (as in its debate about the threat to peace posed by U.S. forces in the Virgin Islands, at that time 14 Coast Guardsmen, one shotgun, one pistol) and its viciousness (the resolution condemning Zionism as racism). Striving to move America "from apology to opposition,'' he faulted U.S. foreign policy elites as "decent people, utterly unprepared for their work.'' Their "common denominator, apart from an incapacity to deal with ideas, was a fear of making a scene, a form of good manners that is a kind of substitute for ideas.'' Except they did have one idea, that "the behavior of other nations, especially the developing nations, was fundamentally a reaction to the far worse behavior of the United States.'' Moynihan carried Woodrow Wilson's faith in international law, but he had what Wilson lacked--an understanding that ethnicity makes the world go 'round. And bleed. The persistence of this premodern sensibility defeats what Moynihan called "the liberal expectancy.'' He meant the expectation that the world would become tranquil as ethnicity and religion became fading residues of mankind's infancy.Is it that the generally liberal Sen. Moynihan came to (some) conservative conclusions when it was useful for the administration? The several modern examples (think Libermann and media, Dodd and deregulation or even [gasp] Ted Kennedy and NCLB) left unused by the right suggest that may not be the case. The point here, in my opinion, is not that a liberal came to these conclusions, but that an intellectual did. For a president who is mocked by most all intellectual circles to associate his policies more readily with intellectualism is not only purposeful, but political genius. What's illustrated here is yet another example of how the Bush administration can subtly (but effectively) modify its image over time to combat image flaws. Most importantly, it is a significant illustration of what Bush is capable of politically and what Kerry wasn't.|W|P|111975468933028136|W|P|Moynihan and the Republican Ascetic|W|P|chase.nordengren@gmail.com
Chris Woods|W|P|Chase, I understand the association with an intellectual and all of that. It clearly makes sense and I think its a good political objective for each party to take part in.But my question is: What are the new ideas being put out by the Washington Republicans? It seems that what the conservative intellectuals are putting out is the same old, same old. Here Matt Yglesias notes how Bill Kristol thinks the Republicans should keep cutting taxes. Its just a repeat of the same old mantra--yet how many Americans has their policies really helped?
Here's another good "ideas watch" by Yglesias with regards to conservative intellectuals and DR-CAFTA.
Finally, when Bush quoted Moynihan, it now seems that it was just for bipartisanship.
Moynihan was worried about long-term solvency of the program. Bush has admitted that what he wants for Social Security is private accounts--which both he, the White House, and Cheney have all said don't address long-term solvency issues. Essentially, its just an ideological demand or desire.
Their ideas any more seem to be built off of what looks good politically and not what actually is good for people and ideology. It almost seems like intellectual dishonesty.
Hopefully this all made sense...I just woke up from a two hour nap and am groggy still.
Chase Nordengren|W|P|Let me preface by saying that in no way did I intend the quotes from Bush, Rove or Will to be taken as gospel. I only suggest they are, together, a strategic rhetoric change designed to change opinion regarding conservative thought. The quick response to your question is there are none. Moynihan was one of the last politicans on either side who was in the business of coming up with new ideas to solve problems. Political demand has shifted towards asking for reaction to ideas instead of the creation of them, and politicans (or in this case, columnists) have followed suit. Case in point, a quick examination of the major policies of the two major parties:
REPUBLICANS (Or: The White House)
*Privitization SS - idea taken from other countries and the basic principles of IRAs and the like.
*"Culture of life" - a phrase overly cribbed from John Paul II, an idea that's existed well before even Roe v. Wade
*Spread of democracy key - essentally the inverse of the domino theory that governed America's foreign policy for 40+ years
DEMOCRATS
*Keeping SS essentially the same, or with small reforms - obviously either the status quo, or ideas thrown around since FDR
*Universal healthcare - idea spurred in the first place because other countries have found success with it
*Multilateral diplomacy - well, let's see ... arguably as old as the banding together of Greek city states.
Bush's associatons with Moynihan work because we don't want the President to be a writer (Wilson), we want him to be a reader (or an idea filterer like Reagan or Clinton). The best sources for new thought still come from academia, from think tanks, from healthy political debate. While I don't think its necesarily bad that both political parties are recycling ideas, it is the way it is. The judgement on which ideas are better is quite a different plane of thought.
Chris Woods|W|P|Makes sense, Chase.though, on the Democrats universal healthcare plan, the policy ideas coming out of some of our thinktanks and politicos are starting to look quite interesting as they are combo plans, essentially, of pieces of different programs to make one successful single-payer US system.
"To have the sober conversation about the war in Iraq that America badly needs, it is vital to acknowledge three facts: The war has nothing to do with Sept. 11. Saddam Hussein was a sworn enemy of Washington, but there was no Iraq-Qaeda axis, no connection between Saddam Hussein and the terrorist attacks on the United States. Yet the president and his supporters continue to duck behind 9/11 whenever they feel pressure about what is happening in Iraq. The most cynical recent example was Karl Rove's absurd and offensive declaration this week that conservatives and liberals had different reactions to 9/11. Let's be clear: Americans of every political stripe were united in their outrage and grief, united in their determination to punish those who plotted the mass murder and united behind the war in Afghanistan, which was an assault on terrorists. Trying to pretend otherwise is the surest recipe for turning political dialogue into meaningless squabbling. The war has not made the world, or this nation, safer from terrorism. The breeding grounds for terrorists used to be Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia; now Iraq has become one. Of all the justifications for invading Iraq that the administration juggled in the beginning, the only one that has held up over time is the desire to create a democratic nation that could help stabilize the Middle East. Any sensible discussion of what to do next has to begin by acknowledging that. The surest way to make sure that conversation does not happen is for the administration to continue pasting the "soft on terror" label on those who want to talk about the war. If the war is going according to plan, someone needs to rethink the plan. Progress has been measurable on the political front. But even staunch supporters of the war, like the Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, told Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld at a hearing this week that President Bush was losing public support because the military effort was not keeping pace. A top general said this week that the insurgency was growing. The frequency of attacks is steady, or rising a bit, while the repulsive tactic of suicide bombings has made them more deadly."|W|P|111974673700026435|W|P|Three things about Iraq|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"The market for political solutions doesn't really exist. But a smart political party wouldn't take that as a reason not to offer solution. A smart party would find some solutions, create the market in which they can live, and come to dominate that new market."Indeed.|W|P|111974230480106922|W|P|"If you build it, they will come"|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
Via Arianna Huffington at The Huffington Post:
"The guy sent to pick me up by the Vail Valley Institute (where I’m speaking) told me that he had seen the VP’s motorcade speed towards the local hospital. Being an intrepid HuffPost reporter, I asked him to take me straight there. Upon our arrival, we encountered a high level of security -- and a lot of zipped lips: “We cannot tell you anything,” “No comment,” “That information is not available...” But one hospital staffer, obviously not schooled in the secretive ways of Cheney, let it slip: “He’s no longer here”. And since you cannot “no longer” be someplace you’ve never been, we can deduce -- though not confirm -- that Cheney did, in fact, pay a visit to the local hospital. The reason? Over to you AP..."|W|P|111965885040530623|W|P|Cheney sped to hospital|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"Karl Rove didn't get George W. Bush this far just by luck. Rove has a brilliant and so far unbeatable strategy when it comes to political warfare: He doesn't defend his candidate's weaknesses, he attacks his opponent's strengths. Unapologetically. Consider the 2004 campaign, when Rove was faced with a Vietnam problem. A war hero was running against his boss, who had opted to stay well out of harm's way. Rather than defend, Rove attacked -- and put John Kerry on the defensive. Today, Democrats are uniting against the war and the public is increasingly worried and critical about Bush's leadership. So what's Rove doing? Rather than defend against their criticisms, Rove has decided to go for the jugular. The most compelling anti-war arguments are that the war in Iraq was a diversion from the war on terror and that American troops are dying daily for no good reason. So Rove's response is to liken war critics to al Qaeda sympathizers intent on subverting the American military."|W|P|111966947121761996|W|P|Froomkin gets Rove|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
This afternoon, Tapped called the offices of every Republican senator and asked their press staff the following: "Does Karl Rove speak for Senator X in his recent comments on liberals and September 11?" Several offices had no comment. Many transferred us into voicemail boxes, and we plan to call them back on Monday if they don’t respond. But we got two offices to react. While Kay Bailey Hutchinson's staff told us she agrees with Rove's remarks, Rick Santorum's communications director, Robert Traynham, suggested that the Pennsylvanian had a different reaction. He told me: "Karl Rove speaks for himself. He doesn't speak for the senator. On 9-11, there was no such thing as a Republican or a Democrat, and that's what the senator believes."Well, KBH can go fuck off. As for Santorum, good luck against Bob Casey--not. At least the man's got some kind of a backbone.|W|P|111965781819795344|W|P|Santorum distances himself from Rove|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
Busch Light at 10 AM?
How low can you go?
Steve Gilliard takes the College War Avoiders to task here.
And for more and more updates, follow the exploits of the undcover agents over at Campus Progress.
|W|P|111965735042530212|W|P|Campus Republicans like cheap beer|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com-"I am an American, not an African-American." - The Civil Rights movement destroyed black people's sense of self-respect and their compass for what's right. - The Civil Rights Movement took the men out of their homes and prevented black people from thinking for themselves. - It is not racism but lack of moral character that causes problems for black people. - The black leadership succeeds by keeping black folks angry. - Now Muslim folks are moving in and trying to take over. - "I don't care what people say, but (Muslim people) don't like us!" - America has already given black people all it has to give. - On reparations, he emphasizes the fact that all the slaves are dead. - On those who want reparations, he says, "Instead of reparations, how 'bout a free ticket back to Africa?" (Raucous laughter.) - "The Democratic battle is ordained by the devil." - "It's not white vs. black, it's good vs. evil." - "White folks need to get over their fear of being called a racist."This guy is off his rocker.|W|P|111964521093379884|W|P|Blame it on the Civil Rights movement|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"So it is now, with Cheney, Rove, McClellan, and Mehlman all saying the same thing, more or less officially enshrined in the Republican Party platform that those who question or oppose the White House policy in Iraq are "motivated" by a desire to see more dead US soldiers, wanted to give Al Qaeda "therapy" after 9/11, and generally "did not know what they were talking about." Shorter Rove to the Republican rank & file: Sit down and shut up, or go down in Republican history as traitor to both party and country. Shorter Jesse Lee to the Republican rank & file: You've already given up all claim to being independent public servants, you've already swallowed and voted for more garbage than most people see in a lifetime, you've already completely abandoned any pretense of oversight on the Executive, and the White House has already shown a total disregard for your re-election by holding your hands to the third rail of politics for months with no benefit to you."|W|P|111963339868287031|W|P|Nothing like keeping your party in check|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"A suicide car bomber slammed into a 7-ton U.S. military vehicle in Fallujah, killing five Marines and a Navy sailor, Marine Corps sources told NBC News, adding that at least three of the dead were female Marines and that 13 others were wounded. A review of casualty records indicates the attack is the single deadliest toll for female servicemembers in Iraq. Since the war started, 44 female soldiers have died in attacks or in accidents while in Iraq."God rest their souls. And from now on, each time a group of soldiers is killed and a news report comes out, I'll do my best to post it. You guys can help by leaving comments to let me know.|W|P|111962704997895726|W|P|Three female Marines killed in Iraq|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
White House spokesman Scott McClellan says that Karl Rove just meant that Democrats and Republicans had "different philosophies" when it comes to their reactions following 9/11. We agree. Our philosophies couldn't be more different when it comes to fighting international terrorism. Let's compare:|W|P|111962323638694185|W|P|Clear differences|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.comDemocrats Believe capturing the person primarily responsible for the attack should be a top priority.
Republicans It's been four years, and Osama bin Laden is still free, even though Bush's CIA chief says he knows where he is.
Democrats Investigate the intelligence failures that led to 9/11.
Republicans Do everything in their power to block the 9/11 Commission from doing its work.
Democrats Propose creating the Department of Homeland Security.
Republicans Push tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.
Democrats Believe we should have stayed the course in Afghanistan, not allowing the Taliban to resurge, the warlords to take power, and the opium trade to skyrocket.
Republicans Ignore Afghanistan as the situation worsens.
Democrats Believe that we should be honest with our troops about the reasons we go to war, give them everything they need to be safe, and make sure we go in with an exit plan.
Republicans Manipulate intelligence to trump up reasons to go to war, don't give our troops the support they need, constantly mislead the public about the direction the war is going, and fail to make an exit plan. And turn Iraq into the ultimate terrorist training ground.
"They're living in the tropics. They're well fed. They've got everything they could possibly want," the vice president said.Riiiiight. . . Because they want to subject to extreme cold/heat and to shit on themselves. Doesn't everyone else want to do that when they're in the tropics?|W|P|111961985098441170|W|P|Free trips to the tropics|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"But that is where we are heading in the U.S. if we let the combination of the sugar lobby, which wants to block more imports from Central America; the A.F.L.-C.I.O., which doesn't like any free trade agreements; and Democrats who just want to defeat Cafta so they can make President Bush a lame duck have their way and block Cafta ratification. I understand Democrats want to stick it to Mr. Bush, but could they please defeat him on a policy he is wrong about (there are plenty) and not on expanding free trade in this hemisphere, which he is right about."What the fuck? Friedman neglects to look at all the principled reasons that Democrats--and even moderate Republicans--should oppose DR-CAFTA! This isn't about making Bush a lame duck, he can take care of that all by himself. I outlined them in this post. Giving substantial more profit and revenue to pharmaceutical companies while screwing the poor and sick people of Central America is one principled reason to oppose it. He can't tell me that allowing prescription drug competition is a bad thing when he spends the whole column promoting unregulated capitalism, which at its most fundamental is unhindered competition. Second, most Americans won't be impacted by this treaty and won't see any significant benefit--and neither will Central Americans. All it does is codify many agreements we have had in place via bilateral treaties that have worked for much longer. Third, we'd be decreasing labor standards in Central America. And finally, corporations could end up prosecuting poor Central American countries who are just trying to provide water to their people. Look, I'm as much of a free-trade Democrat as a liberal progressive can be. And trust me, that is a lot. But this bill isn't about protectionism versus natural capitalism. DR-CAFTA is worthless at worst and unimportant at best. Besides, with the instability in these countries anyway, bilateral trade agreements will work better until we can actually make our -AFTAs work.|W|P|111958645696447237|W|P|Friedman is WRONG|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
John Aravosis fills us in on the intentional bomb that was dropped on Democrats today in the form of Karl Rove's statement last night. Clearly, this was a public relations move. The obstructionist rhetoric wasn't working, Americans weren't buying the lies from the Bush Administration about Iraq, and the economy still isn't doing all that great. Rove has built a political powerhouse out of polarization and divisiveness, but almost always through some other kind of Washington Republican outlet, not himself. But desperate times called for desperate measures and he stood up. And he pulled the trigger. This coordinated attack is meant to keep our minds off of the massively important things that our government must deal with--the things that the Bush regime is failing to do for us. Iraq is going to hell in a handbasket, they can't 'fix' Social Security because it isn't broken, and they just plain can't get anything done. When that happens, you pull out plan B. Instead of launching an attack on partisan Democrats in America, Karl Rove attempted to term 57% of Americans traitors because we don't support their illegitimate war. The Washington Republicans in this coordinated attack hit not just Democrats, but America. And it just isn't right--ethically, morally, politically--at all. So, while we have the right to demand a repudiation or a resignation, we can't dwell on this for too long. The left wing echo chamber must arise tonight and fight unanimously against this vicious assault on the Americans who give a damn about where our country is headed. However, we can't get bogged down in this battle. The fronts for the war with the Washington Republicans is fluid and all around us. Our guard must be up and we must be prepared. Now that we're united on this front, let's carry it over to other fronts--like Iraq, health care, and judicial nominations. We must take principled stands against the vicious attacks of the Washington Republicans.|W|P|111958415885436657|W|P|A coordinated attack|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"I'm devoting much of today's report to Karl Rove's vile comments denigrating half of the American public. My office overlooks Ground Zero, and I'm looking at the gaping footprint as I write this. My wife and I were in New York that day, on our way to the WTC for a morning meeting. A chance phone call dragged on a few minutes too long and most likely saved our lives. I lost friends in the towers, and when I walk past the site, as I do almost every evening, the pain is as real as it was on September 11th, 2001. I spent my youth in Beirut during the height of Lebanon's civil war, and I fought the Syrian presence in Lebanon long before the "Cedar Revolution." I watched young boys give their lives and mothers cradle their dying children in blood-soaked arms. I've seen more bloodshed, war, and violence, and shot more guns than most of the 101st Fighting Keyboardists combined. I wouldn't presume to question the strength or dignity of a stranger, and I pity those who blithely push the right=strong, left=weak rhetoric. It says far more about their inadequacies than it does about the target of their scorn. Today, Karl Rove took that rhetoric to a new, filthy low."|W|P|111958311700764283|W|P|Listen to Peter Daou|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"These are indeed the public's airwaves, and the taxpayer deserves to retain at least part of it from Viacom and Time-Warner."|W|P|111956826365419013|W|P|A victory of sorts|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
Justen|W|P|Bill Moyers was on the Daily Show last night, and it was rather entertaining. I think that the Daily Show should be on 24 hours a day to combat fox news, it would definately get better ratings. Chris Woods|W|P|Red Green is also my little brother's favorite, as well as my grandfather's. I enjoy watching him as well. Maybe great minds think alike. Chase Nordengren|W|P|You missed your opportunity to add the Texan part and say "adios." As in, "Karl Rove: adios, mofo." James Howard Shott|W|P|I have no idea why you think Karl Rove should resign. I haven't heard of anything outrageous that he's said or done lately.Frankly, I think you'd be better served to try to get the likes of Howard Dean, Richard Durbin and Nancy Pelosi to button their lips.
If anyone should resign their position based upon recent behavior, it is Durbin. He's really crossed the line into la-la land with his absurd attempt to equate Guantanamo Bay with Hitler, Pol Pot and the gulags.
James Howard Shott|W|P|I just saw the next post re: Rove's remarks. His point is that conservatives/Republicans are fighting terrorism while liberals/Democrats are fighting the U.S.He's right.
Justen|W|P|Well, I would like to say that those are total bs statements. Also, republicans keep calling for the heads of Democrats for saying things, why shouldn't we ask for the heads of republican whack jobs. I don't think anyone should resign for just a statement, but they should efinately quit with the name calling on both sides. Chris Woods|W|P|Durbin equated what was written in the FBI report to a description of what conditions were like under Hitler, during Pol Pot's regime, or under the Soviet Gulags. And why are you asking for Durbin to apologize for saying that? Shouldn't you be upset at the investigator who wrote the FBI report for giving liberals fuel to increase the flaming rage of the terrorists. /snarkAnd I hate to break it to you, but there are plenty of liberals in the US armed forces out there fighting terrorism while you, as a Keyboard Kommando on the 101st Fighting Keyboards talk about how great the war is but you won't do a damn thing about it--like join up.
Finally, if you're going to comment on this site, get some goddamned logical reasoning and not just GOP or Bill O'Liely talking points you wingnut.
UPDATE: Democrats are calling for a retraction right now. Chuck Schumer isn't as pissed as he should be, but he better get there soon.
Karl Rove is disturbed.
"Karl Rove came to the heart of Manhattan last night to rhapsodize about the decline of liberalism in politics, saying Democrats responded weakly to Sept. 11 and had placed American troops in greater danger by criticizing their actions. "Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers," Mr. Rove, the senior political adviser to President Bush, said at a fund-raiser in Midtown for the Conservative Party of New York State."Reminds me of the song from Modest Mouse that has the lyrics, "Why'd you have to be such an asshole?"|W|P|111954019354119049|W|P|Despicable|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
Chris Woods|W|P|You're right Chase. I can't wait to get my hands on that decision...especially since those four dissented on something you think they wouldn't. Chase Nordengren|W|P|Actually, it seems pretty much in line with the strict constructionism that Scalia and Thomas practice ... if the Constitution doesn't say a corrupt local politican can drive a bulldozer through your living room, well, he can't.
If they take it down, let me know, I've got my own copy saved.|W|P|111954054637405007|W|P|This is just as bad|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.comToday's Christian Science Monitor has a great article on the readying battle over Chief Justice William Rehnquist's seat on the United States' highest court. According to CSM, the announcement that he is resigning could come as early as next week. Others speculate that it won't happen this term, he'll do it next term. Essentially, no one knows what Rehnquist's plans are--not even President Bush. Instead of speculating on possible nominees, I think it is worthwhile to look at the PR battle that will emerge when a potential nominee is being considered, when he or she actually becomes a nominee, and how Democrats should fight this battle. Here is how the CSM defines the structure of the PR battle:
"The public can expect a two-phase PR blitz, first when a justice announces retirement, then when the White House nominates a replacement. The gap may be a matter of minutes, a few days, or even a few months, depending on White House strategy."Now, I know there are hundreds of files floating around liberal and conservative groups on the pros and cons of each potential candidate, so the minute after the announcement is made, we'll be seeing massive emails sent out from activist groups to members and the pundits from every imaginable perspective will be on TV. How should be approach a candidate that doesn't really appreciate his or her place in the judiciary? Well, first of all, President Bush, at least in this second term, has been especially inept at defining an adequate frame for his nominees--judicial or otherwise (such as the Bolton nomination). What we should do is quickly obliterate any framing the White House may try and create. Unleashing our strong opposition at full force is a critical step--at least for a Supreme Court nomination. Second, if the candidate is chosen without bipartisan consultation, we need to stress that for as much as President Bush spews the rhetoric of compromise and bipartisanship, his negotiation and communication skills with the opposition are non-existent. Finally, for any Washington insider who thinks the Democrats should offer an alternative nominee, that is just ridiculous. We should have a list for the consultation--should it happen--but if we don't like a nominee, we shouldn't have to give other names we'd find more acceptable. Why? Because at that point we start giving up positional footing to the Washington Republicans. Nevertheless, we shouldn't be caught up entirely in strategic details. This is most likely going to be a challenging and tough battle, but one I believe we can win. One important consideration is Sen. Majority Leader Bill Frist and his ability to bring back the Nuclear Option. I'll talk more about how to confront that in a post later today.|W|P|111953840514029973|W|P|New Chief Justice speculation and a strategy for confronting a nomination|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
It will probably be a slow or light posting day for me, busy at work and beyond. I thought I'd bring to your attention this David Brooks column in the New York Times this morning. He's definitely been drinking the kool-aid. I know I'm right this time.
"There are times in the course of war when the outcome is simply unknowable. Victory is clearly not imminent, yet people haven't really thought through the consequences of defeat. Everybody just wants the miserable present to go away. We're at one of those moments in the war against the insurgency in Iraq. The polls show rising disenchantment with the war. Sixty percent of Americans say they want to withdraw some or all troops. Yet I can't believe majorities of Americans really want to pull out and accept defeat. I can't believe they want to abandon to the Zarqawis and the Baathists those 8.5 million Iraqis who held up purple fingers on Election Day. I can't believe they are yet ready to accept a terrorist-run state in the heart of the Middle East, a civil war in Iraq, the crushing of democratic hopes in places like Egypt and Iran, and the ruinous consequences for American power and prestige. What they want to do, more likely, is somehow escape the current moment, which is discouraging and uncertain."His assumptions neglect actual analysis of the polls he's talking about. We aren't just upset because the last month or so has been very bad, we want withdrawl (safe and responsible, mind you) because of the ever-declining support for war. The polls show that month after month more and more Americans are ready to acknowledge that President Bush isn't leading us well in Iraq and that the strategy is failing us. Putting more boots on the ground isn't an option. We just don't have enough troops. With three more years of Bush, there's no way to get a broad coalition of international forces there. So what are we to do? A safe and responsible withdrawl. Give the Iraqis who want results something to look forward to. A date when we'll be gone. Then who will the insurgents fight? It will rid the insurgents (at least some of them--the ones protesting US presence in Iraq) from Iraq. Or the other option is another 2-3 years of 1700 American troop deaths and more lies from the Bush Regime.|W|P|111953078058911262|W|P|Keyboard kommandos|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
Chase Nordengren|W|P|Ahh, yes, flag burning. One of the great speech issues of our time.My position is as follows: flag burning is stupid. It's a form of protests which blankets a group of people, including innocent civilians, as culpable to whatever you're protesting against. It offers no neuance and only works to incite violence.
I am a major proponent of the flag code. I believe that when 13-year-old drummer boys have risked their lives to prevent the flag from touching the ground, public institutions and private corporations should show respect to the symbol by following any regulation, however innane. In the act of following them, they show it what little respect they can.
That being said, this country protects the right of speech, and I am proud to say that the first amendment allows you to burn a flag and allows me to call you a dumbass for doing it.
David Schantz|W|P|Chris, You got all the things the flag stands for right, but I feel you left one out. That Flag represents each and every person that has ever given their life to protect our rights freedoms. To burn the Flag shows a disrespect for them and the price they paid.God Bless America, God Save The Republic
'yeti|W|P|Someone needs to ask the supporters of this amendment what would happen if, at a political protest, someone burns a torn or otherwise worn-out flag. Is he breaking the law? Or is he just following US Code? Chase Nordengren|W|P|Captain's Quarters comes out against flag burning.Chase wonders to himself if this is the first time he, Chris and Captain's Quarters have ever agreed on anything. :)
Chris Woods|W|P|Holy shit. . .are the stars and planets alligned?I better not turn into a goddamned werewolf tonight because of this!
"If the Democratic Party had some popular, smart ideas — and the message discipline to sell them — the balance of power would be much, much different."What the fuck are they talking about? According to every poll I've seen, the Democrats plan to oppose Bush's Social Security plans flat-out have brought some big public support. That's just one example. More further to the point, why should Democrats be offering policy ideas at this point in time? Even if they did, they would never be brought to the floor of the House or the Senate without a Republican's name on the bill--even if they did nothing but tack their name on it. And still, if it wasn't exactly the way the Bush Administration or the RNC wanted it, it wouldn't be given the time of day. The minority party, at least in DC, has become entrenched. We don't get the kind of attention we deserve unless we make a really big commotion. If one Republican so much as spells a word of the Bush message wrong, the media is jumping all over them and calling them moderates or idolizing them. What about the Democrats who are consistently opposing Bush's policies--and deservedly so? The truth is that we, as Democrats, do what we can in our position. If the Gang of 500 or the writers of the Note were in our same position, they'd be doing the same thing. Oh, and if Democrats want message discipline, work with Chairman Dean to keep defining who we are and what we're for instead of criticizing him.|W|P|111946294607278314|W|P|Screw the Gang of 500|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
cryptojoe|W|P|The Bush administration, as well as congress would like to confuse the public so thoroughly that we will have no choice but to go along with whatever cracked up plan they choose. The Democrats want to tax us working folk a little more to pay for those who’d rather not work, the Republicans want to make the wall street people rich. Either way, we are going to loose.Joes Blog
'yeti|W|P|Heck, it would hardly be possible for Acme Inc to look much worse. He's polling at what - 40%?That's a number only Ahhnold can sink lower than.
I can't tell if Tom Friedman is out of his mind today (too much kool kids Kool-aid maybe?) or just writing a column with a clear 800 words of speculation to nowhere. He blames Bush's second term woes so far (the lame duck factor) on the fact that Cheney isn't running in 2008.
"For instance, the spending and tax cutting by the Bush team is ridiculously out of control. It will be a miracle if there is no market-induced implosion in the economy or the housing market in the next three years. But you can bet the farm there will have to be a huge correction after 2008 to get taxes and spending back in line. If Mr. Bush had a V.P. who was clearly anointed to succeed him, and whose success would be viewed as part of Mr. Bush's own legacy, it is hard to believe the president wouldn't be interested in a more sane fiscal policy. One thing for sure, his vice president would be."Sure, that's true. But think about some other things, Tom. First, in Iraq. You want to win and solved that problem, right Tom? So, is Mr. The Insurgency Is In Its Last Throes the guy you want as commander-in-chief of the United States armed forces? Me neither. Second, oil. Dick Cheney has made his life off of oil and its subsidiary contractors. Are biggest problem in Iraq after the fighting is the contractors not paying the billions and billions of dollars they owe us. Will he really do anything about it? Finally, he's part of the Rumsfeld military strategy. Cheap and quick. But look where that got us. Even if Bush was running, I don't think he'd want his legacy to be any different. This is what he wants and he's doing it, so damn his opposition. And it sure seems like Cheney has enough influence in the background to change things if he wanted to, but he hasn't so he doesn't. Tom, lay off the kool-aid. UPDATE: Matt Yglesias takes a look at the column too and offers his thoughts hear. He notices something I didn't.|W|P|111943984318423124|W|P|Out of his mind? (UPDATED)|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
Chase Nordengren|W|P|Okay, Chris, as much as you like to rip on Dick Cheney, the Friedman article provides you no justification to continue doing so. Friedman's only saying that Bush has no political incentive to do things that actually matter because he has no political heir in 2008, Dick Cheney or otherwise. He makes a point (which I think is quite valid, btw), that Bush appears to keep playing the short-term game. Chris Woods|W|P|Friedman is probably saying that, Chase, but the impression I got after the first read of the article was that he's telling Bush to make his second term more effective is that he needs Cheney to be an heir.Then, when you look at the title, "Run, Cheney, Run", one gets the impression that he's encouraging it.
That's me standing up for my post, but after a thorough second read and a couple of cups of something with caffeine in it, I'm more inclined to agree with you. So, this tells me I shouldn't read articles right after I wake up and haven't showered and pass judgment.
A wise lesson for us all.
"The retirement program has been an issue in the past in Nussle's re-election campaigns for the House in eastern Iowa, and he has at times backed personal accounts. During the 2000 campaign, Nussle told the Register: "Seniors who currently rely on the program need to be assured that their benefits are completely secure. Younger workers should also have the chance to invest a small portion of their payroll tax dollars in low-risk investments." In 2002, he told the Register that "I am not for privatization of Social Security. Social Security should be a government-run pension program and should be a guaranteed benefit and operate just the way it is now." This year, Nussle has said that "doing nothing is not an option" but he has not expressed outright opposition to or support for the president's plan. He appeared with President Bush at a Cedar Rapids event where Bush touted personal accounts, and at a House Budget Committee hearing, he accused Democrats of using scare tactics to try to derail the Bush proposal."So, which position is it Jim-Jim? Iowa voters want an answer. And it better not involve privatization--or its spin name, personal accounts.|W|P|111943939043883297|W|P|A little too vague|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"Sixteen Democratic senators called on President Bush to remove Kenneth Y. Tomlinson as head of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting because of their concerns that he is injecting partisan politics into public radio and television. "We urge you to immediately replace Mr. Tomlinson with an executive who takes his or her responsibility to the public television system seriously, not one who so seriously undermines the credibility and mission of public television," wrote the senators. They included Charles E. Schumer of New York, Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, Jon Corzine and Frank R. Lautenberg of New Jersey, Bill Nelson of Florida, Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts and Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer of California. Also on Tuesday, Democratic lawmakers joined other supporters of public broadcasting, including children and characters from PBS children's programs, to protest House Republicans' proposed cuts in financing for the corporation. The Democrats' letter follows a series of disclosures about Mr. Tomlinson that are now under investigation by the corporation's inspector general, including his decision to hire a researcher to monitor the political leanings of guests on the public policy program "Now," the use of a White House official to set up an ombudsman's office to scrutinize public radio and television programs for political balance, and payments approved by Mr. Tomlinson to two Republican lobbyists last year. Mr. Tomlinson said he would not resign."Bullshit. . .we need to fight hard and get this guy out of office!|W|P|111940985203719641|W|P|Democrats call for Tomlinson's resignation|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
J. Ryan|W|P|I heard they had kids holding signs that said "Don't Can Oscar" - refering to Sesame Street.They cut funding for PBS by 25% while claiming that it's to liberal, but they've got plenty of money for the war.
Posted by:Bravo411
Justen|W|P|I am going to be really pissed if they turn around and spend the money on something besides education. Elementary schools are shutting down and merging all of the US, and now the source of smart television is disappearing, leaving kids to watch such drek as fox kids or the formerly educational nickelodean. It is a sad sad time to be living in America. If we spent as much on education as Europe, we wouldn't seem like its slightly retarded little brother. Unadulterated Underdog|W|P|I definitely agree Chris. The CAP will turn into the opposite of the CC I hope. The Christian Coalition is one of the most corrupt political movements in America and the worst twisting of Christian faith in American history. Those folks preach about heaven by making life hell for those who they don't like. They must follow a terrorist named Jesus because only such a person would preach hate. The Jesus I know loved everyone irregardless of their flaws."Look, it's nice that Graham is saying smart, dissenting things about the direction of national policy. But he keeps voting for the policy. Just like Chuck Hagel, Richard Lugar, and the rest of the gang, he has done nothing -- absolutely nothing -- to correct the situation. Instead, he's actively collaborated in generating the problems he cites. The things he claims to regret would have been somewhat mitigated had Graham lost his race to become a U.S. senator. A smaller step might be to use his votes on various committees to help restart the process of congressional oversight. But he hasn't done anything like that and he won't. I don't know exactly what's wrong with these people, but they deserve to be attacked more, not less, harshly than your ordinary party-line Republicans. Voting for bad policies you agree with is bad. Voting for bad policies that, when asked, you say are bad is ridiculous. Liberals should direct nothing but scorn at this crew unless and until they start doing something instead of offering nice remarks to film screening audiences."Look, if you really are a moderate, then you'll definitely have to disagree with some of the policy actions of this administration. If you disagree with them, then on principle you should vote against them, it is just that simple.|W|P|111938375826115326|W|P|No moderate Republicans|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
Daily Kos community poll. 6/20. 13,389 respondents. (No trend lines): Clark 26% (3,496) No Freakin' Clue 17% (2,320) Clinton 10% (1,461) Feingold 10% (1,433) Edwards 8% (1,077) Other 7% (1,088) Warner 5% (689) Richardson 4% (659) Biden 3% (497) Kerry 2% (341) Bayh 2% (328) Vilsack 0% (88)|W|P|111937900126762911|W|P|Final straw poll results|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
The Boston Globe this morning reports:
"Marine Corps units fighting in some of the most dangerous terrain in Iraq don't have enough weapons, communications gear, or properly outfitted vehicles, according to an investigation by the Marine Corps' inspector general provided to Congress yesterday. The report, obtained by the Globe, says the estimated 30,000 Marines in Iraq need twice as many heavy machine guns, more fully protected armored vehicles, and more communications equipment to operate in a region the size of Utah."Plenty of armor my ass.|W|P|111937731292378638|W|P|Bush Regime hasn't provided enough armor|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
Chris Woods|W|P|:-D"If federal policy were changed to allow older full-time workers to rely primarily on Medicare instead of on their employer, they'd have a much better shot at jobs."But wait a second. . .Medicare is a government-run program? Shouldn't we work on privatizing and destroying it, like is suggested for Social Security? Moreover, as much as he complains about Social Security's fiscal crisis (which doesn't exist, mind you), he should be worrying about Medicare's fiscal standing--it'll be bankrupt in 10 years.|W|P|111935614193273181|W|P|Pass the Kool-Aid|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"Nearly six in 10 Americans oppose the war in Iraq and a growing number of them are dissatisfied with the war on terrorism, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll released Monday. Only 39 percent of those polled said they favored the war in Iraq -- down from 47 percent in March -- and 59 percent were opposed. The survey of 1,006 adults, conducted by telephone Thursday through Sunday, had an error margin of plus or minus 3 percentage points."Quack! And Rob gives us a flashback reminder of what things were like back in Johnson's days here.|W|P|111935453062529921|W|P|How low can you go?|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
Evan Bayh: 257 votes - 2 % Joe Biden: 342 votes - 3 % Wesley Clark: 2702 votes - 26 % Hillary Clinton: 1054 votes - 10 % John Edwards: 784 votes - 7 % Russ Feingold: 1110 votes - 10 % John Kerry: 267 votes - 2 % Bill Richardson: 487 votes - 4 % Mark Warner: 541 votes - 5 % Tom Vilsack: 70 votes - 0 % Other: 775 votes - 7 % No Frickin' Clue: 1710 votes - 16 %I just copied and pasted that from Daily Kos, so I hope Markos doesn't mind. Those are some interesting results, if you ask me. I'm off to bed now, after a long day at work and another one to come tomorrow.|W|P|111932723874823570|W|P|Straw poll update|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
Rob|W|P|Clark/Clinton?Doesn't have a "ring", but I'd vote for it.
Drew Miller|W|P|I want to see the list with Al Gore on it. Justen|W|P|Alright, John Edwards is still in there, 7% is good in my book. That is just a little below what he was polling before the '04 Iowa Caucus. Now that Drew mentions it, I wonder what it'd turn out to be if Gore was in the pole.On another note, thanks for putting me on your Blog roll.
Rob|W|P|Edwards damaged his chances by quitting the Senate. He's forever going to be hit in the experience department by being a one-termer. Gore...I was never really excited by him anyway (I was a Republican until nearly 2000, and voted Libertarian in '00...though I'm feeling much better now).I'd like to see Clark back in it...or maybe Dean, but he's been a bit polarizing lately (and frankly I think he's a good "bulldog" as DNC chair). Or Clinton.
"Business on the floor of the House was halted for 45 minutes yesterday after Rep. John N. Hostettler (R-Ind.) accused Democrats of "denigrating and demonizing Christians," prompting a furious protest from across the aisle. The House was debating a Democratic amendment to the annual defense appropriations bill that would have required the Air Force Academy to develop a plan for preventing "coercive and abusive religious proselytizing." Hostettler, speaking against the amendment, asserted that "the long war on Christianity in America continues today on the floor of the House of Representatives" and "continues unabated with aid and comfort to those who would eradicate any vestige of our Christian heritage being supplied by the usual suspects, the Democrats." "Like a moth to a flame, Democrats can't help themselves when it comes to denigrating and demonizing Christians," he said."From the Washington Post. He eventually retracted his statements formally because otherwise the Chair would've taken away his speaking privileges for the day. So, House Democrats have been accused of attacking Christianity and being anti-Semites today (both completely unfounded). What will they think of next?|W|P|111932297917527222|W|P|Really, these nutjobs are crazy|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
Justen|W|P|Yeah, and everyone gets all upity when Dean says republicans are mostly a white, christian party. They call us christian haters(when the majority of Democrats are christian)and nothing happens. Yeah for double standards!"The President has a right to make recess appointments, and the Senate has the right to request evidence and documents about an Executive Branch political appointment, consider this information, and either confirm or deny the nominee. If Bush ends up making a recess appointment of John Bolton, he'll go there through the back door and will have little political latitude."Steve goes on to explain what the political impact of appointing Bolton during the July 4-8 recess would be--mainly, conceding defeat.|W|P|111931860491525991|W|P|Conceding defeat|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
Justen|W|P|Seriously, 38-54? Looks like there are some smart republicans in the senate. Drew Miller|W|P|I love the comparison he makes - Howard Dean to George Bush. If Dean's comments are having an effect on Bush at the expense of his own favorability, I'll take that trade."I've now read and re-read Senator Dick Durbin's comments on interrogation techniques at Guantanamo Bay. They are completely, perfectly respectable. The rank hysteria being perpetrated by some on the right is what is shameful. Hugh Hewitt should answer one single question: does he doubt the FBI interrogator who witnessed the appalling treatment of some detainees at Guantanamo? [...] Is Hewitt arguing that the interrogator was lying? Does he believe that the kind of tactics used against this prisoner are worthy of the United States? Does he believe that this happened without authorization? If he were told this story and informed that it occurred in, say, Serbia under Milosevic, would he be surprised? Hewitt should then answer the same question about the 5 detainees which the U.S. government itself has acknowledged were tortured to death by U.S. interrogators, and the scores of others who died in detention during or after "interrogation". Does he deny that this happened? Does he honestly believe that removing the legal restrictions on cruel and inhumane treatment of detainees by our current president had nothing to do with this? Maybe he needs a little refresher on the extraordinary range and scale of the record of abuse that is still accumulating. I'm just amazed that some can view what has happened and their first instinct is to attack those who have criticized it, rather than those who have perpetrated it. It is this administration that has brought indelible shame on America, and it's people like Dick Durbin who prove that some can actually stand up against this stain on American honor and call it what it is. Good for him. Thank God for him."One of these days Sullivan should just admit his party has gone to hell in a handbasket and that he wants to join the DLC.|W|P|111930222416702498|W|P|Durbin was right|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
Jason|W|P|;-) Chase Nordengren|W|P|My only thought on the matter is that if Porter has an excellent idea, it'd be really nice if he wrote somebody a memo or something. Chris Woods|W|P|Chase, your snark rocks. Jason|W|P|That sounds about right. Rob|W|P|To answer your posted question, no. Chris Woods|W|P|Interesting insight.Or maybe the Vietnamese PM had a more productive meeting with Gates than Bush?
I'm just sayin'. . .
Kn@ppster|W|P|Clark has a better chance next time around than he did in '04. The Busheviks were still able to pretend that national security was their strong suit last year, and Clark does have some skeletons in his closet on that (the airport incident in Yugoslavia, etc.). But the GOP is losing its credibility on national security and will likely be completely in the toilet by '08. The Dems could do worse than Clark. Hopefully, they'll do better, though.Regards,
Tom Knapp
Drew Miller|W|P|Clark is an interesting guy. He made a lot of rookie mistakes last time around, and got in too late to really compete effectively. I worry that he's someone that Democrats would again pick because of his record and not because of his ideas, vision, or personality. Look what credential-shopping got us last time. Jason|W|P|Clark has BOTH the credentials AND the ideas, vision, and personality.I'm happy to hear this news and have been receiving word from other Clark organizers in key states that they are gearing up to be ready for a run -- and I am prepared to do it again at Drake until I leave in spring '06.
Justen|W|P|Hopefully he won't skip over the Iowa caucus again. Rob|W|P|He was my first choice in the primaries. I'd back him. David Schantz|W|P|I just sent you an e-mail, in it I said I was going to check my e-mail and go to bed. I seem to have gotten side tracked. I answered the Straw Poll. Since I no longer support Democrats or Republicans I had to go with Other. In the last election I voted for the Constitution Party's candidate, Michael Peroutka. Right now I think Chuck Baldwin will be the Constitution Party's candidate (just my thoughts, unofficial) in 2008. If the election were held today I would support him.God Bless America, God Save The Republic
Rob|W|P|The Constitution Party? Wow, they are even more in the religious extreme than the GOP..."McGovern's views are well known (that is why he was invited by Conyers, presumably)"That is just insidious and unnecessary. Moreover, equating a challenge to Israel as being anti-semitic is about as ridiculous as saying that rebutting what the Vatican said is anti-Catholic. It makes no logical sense. Baerh is just insane, and if I wasn't at work, I'd rip this asshole to shreds.|W|P|111928094238617785|W|P|Don't accuse us|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"WASHINGTON, June 19 - Five months after President Bush was sworn in for another four years, his political authority appears to be ebbing, both within his own party, where members of Congress are increasingly if sporadically going their own way, and among Democrats, who have discovered that they pay little or no price for defying him. . . . On Monday, Mr. Bush will face another test of his clout, when the Republican-controlled Senate tries again to overcome Democratic opposition and confirm John R. Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations. And with his poll numbers sinking as voters grow more restive about Iraq and the economy, he faces additional big challenges in coming weeks and months, from legislative battles over energy, trade and immigration to the possibility of a divisive Supreme Court confirmation fight. . . . "The political capital he thought he had has dwindled to very little, and he overstated how much he had to begin with," said Allan J. Lichtman, a presidential historian at American University in Washington. "Congress is like Wall Street - it operates on fear and greed," Mr. Lichtman said. "The Democrats don't fear him anymore, and they're getting greedy, because they think they can beat him. The attitude you see among Republicans in Congress is, my lifeboat first." In the last week, Mr. Bush has responded by lashing out at Democrats, casting them as obstructionists, a strategy that carries some risk given that it seems to acknowledge an inability by Republicans to carry out a governing platform. Searching as well for a more positive message, the administration, which has always been reluctant to acknowledge that events are not unfolding precisely as planned, has embarked on a public relations campaign intended to reassure Americans that Mr. Bush is attuned to their concerns. . . . But he has already had to postpone his next big initiative, an overhaul of the tax code. And barring some crisis that creates another rally-round-the-president effect, analysts said, Mr. Bush's best opportunity to drive the agenda may be past."Quack!|W|P|111927922215488585|W|P|Lame Duck watch|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
Justen|W|P|Also check out the WaPo article about bush backfiring, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2005/06/20/BL2005062000576.html"Quack, quack," the president said as the republican congress slowly backed away.
"I don't know how you win a war that your country doesn't want to fight. We sent too few troops into Iraq in the first place and the number of warm bodies available for Iraq and other military missions going forward is dwindling alarmingly. The Bush crowd may be bellicose, but for most Americans the biggest contribution to the war effort is a bumper sticker that says "support our troops," and maybe a belligerent call to a talk radio station. The home-front "warriors" who find it so easy to give the thumbs up to war endanger the truly valorous men and women who are actually willing to put on a uniform, pick up a weapon and place their lives on the line. The president and these home-front warriors got us into this war and now they don't know how to get us out. Nor do they have a satisfactory answer to the important ethical question: how do you justify sending other people's children off to fight while keeping a cloak of protection around your own kids?"|W|P|111926842181560980|W|P|Home-front warriors|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
Drew Miller|W|P|What's the armor class on a cloak of protection?I am a fairly ardenent proponent of gay marriage from a stricly rights standpoint and have (admittedly) had a very difficult time understanding how people I know and respect disagree with me on this issue. However, this article gave me an epiphany and, oddly enough, I think this may all have to do with Watergate. Allow me to explain. The following paragraph spurred my catharsis: Brian Racer is pastor to Laura and Dave Clark and a local opinion shaper on social issues. He is a tall, rangy 43-year-old man with a big mustache and a conversational style that is casual but enormously self-confident. Racer has a vigorous Christianity-in-society approach, which is illustrated by a recent move he made. When Mel Gibson's movie ''The Passion of the Christ'' came out in February 2004, he, like many ministers around the country, booked a whole theater in the local multiplex to accommodate the members of his church. But the venue itself -- comfortable seats, good acoustics, convenient location -- clicked for him. He worked out a rental arrangement with the manager of the theater. So now the Clarks and their fellow congregants worship at the Open Door Bible Church in Theater 24 in the Muvico multiplex at the Arundel Mills Mall. ''The teens think it's pretty cool,'' he said. ''After service they can go have lunch at the food court, then come back to the theater and see a movie.'' Consider that for a moment. The idea of a theater as a place of religious worship would have been unheard of 50 years ago. But after the 60s, Vietnam, Watergate and the like, great symbols of the American culture (American military dominence, the institution of government, the sanctity and peace of youth) have come directly under fire and have often been disproved. With them has gone the importance of a church as a building. Religious activists view homosexuality (according to the article) as an immoral sin which harms children and spreads disease. They act against gay marriage precisely because marriage does not act for them as a symbol but as the literal manifestation of sanctioned love. If marriage was a symbol, this battle would be irrelevant to them. They believe not that marriage is a symbol of social acceptability of love but that it is that love, that it is an acknowledgement of that love's true existance when they believe it cannot truly exist and that by allowing a gay marriage is to allow another case of AIDS or another child to be hurt. Whether they are correct or not (and I believe they are not), it is clear why they believe the cause so strongly. To those who worship in theaters or distrust in symbols, I do not mean to argue with your position. However, I do believe that society's trust in marriage is truly symbolic, that marriage is a response to love and not the other way around, and that a marriage is the acceptance of the relationship primarily by the individuals involved. My favorite piece of literature is Thornton Wilder's incredible play "Our Town," which meditates on the signifigance of two essentially normal individuals. The second act, "Love and Marriage", chronicles their courtship but does not show the marriage ceremony itself. I was offered the explanation once that the marriage does not occur in the ceremony but occurs beforehand: that George and Emily are married in the back of the church five minutes before the bridal march when they confess their love. Perhaps our loss of the meaning of those significant moments has lead to this increasingly polarized debate and the essential question of how truly significant a marriage license is.|W|P|111924389293207562|W|P|The Personal Reality of Anti-Gay Marriage Activists|W|P|chase.nordengren@gmail.com
Chris Woods|W|P|Brilliant post, Chase. I think it really gets to a fundamental issue of the debate--the real heart of it, if you will.The semantics don't matter, its the feelings and emotions that do. They establish the true connections that indeed are marriage and love. The final two paragraphs of what you wrote, I believe are the best part.
And while I haven't read all of "Our Town", I am vaguely familiar with the second act and I think the conclusions you reached are right on target.
I just can't stress this enough, brilliant post.
Now if only we could convert this into a short and simple phrasing that would work politically. However, I don't think that doing that would really do this explanation and thought process the credit and attention it so thoroughly deserves.
"About the Downing Street Memo--which I think deserves sustained news attention, real Congressional hearings, questions and answers at White House briefings, continued blogging, serious examination by all Americans (including the President's supporters) and the interest of future historians, essentially for the reasons articulated here--I have one thought to contribute."Go read the entire post. It is long, but most definitely well worth it. I would go as far as to say that Jay Rosen is one of the most profound media writers or professors of our time. His insights and analysis are always amazing, but his work on today's post was astounding. We really ought to commend him for his bravery on posting this, as he tends to be as nonpartisan as possible. And with regards to the Memos, I think it is hard to try and remain nonpartisan anymore.|W|P|111924352751061648|W|P|Downing Street Memo and the news media|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
1. Smith gets the documents from his source. 2. He photocopies them, returns the originals to the source. (This should put them back in the hands of the British government). 3. He did his stories working off the copies, then (as instructed, due to the cops coming) destroyed the copies. 4. He did, however, have the copies transcribed via typewriter. 5. All this was necessary due to British particulars and legal issues. 6. The British equivalent of our Secretary of State, and a British commission investigating the WMD issue, both have authenticated the documents.Very succinctly put. MemoGate redux just isn't going to happen. And for Rob's sake (and every other American's): Contact your Congressmen. Get your Senators involved. BBA Downing Street Memo|W|P|111923780860341677|W|P|Downing Street Memo 'Chain of Custody'|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
JusticeE.R.|W|P|We need to keep hammering this issue since the corportate media has continued to downplay the Downing Street Memo. This administration needs to be exposed and it's head needs to be impeached."[T]he administration, I think, has said to the American people that it is a generational commitment to Iraq."|W|P|111920425621162638|W|P|The 'Generational Commitment' Lie|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
Unadulterated Underdog|W|P|Ofcourse, the Bush War Administration never uses language like this. They butter things up saying that the war is going well and going to end soon, just as soon as we can get things under control. Many buy into this despite the fact that the war is getting worse if anything, not better. Chase Nordengren|W|P|America has a "generational committment" to not enough things, methinks. Before judging Condi, remember that we had a "generational committment" to Japan as well, just not constantly in the levels we saw during WWII. All wars are mistakes, and learning to make the best of them is the constant struggle of the human race.That being said, the Bush administration should acknolwedge a "generational committment" to the war against religious extremism and oppression (I'm trying to cut back on my use of the phrase "War on Terror", yet there's still not a good one) and I'd be satisfied at this point to see a 3 month committment towards reducing our dependance on foreign energy.
"Nebraska Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel is angry. He's upset about the more than 1,700 U.S. soldiers killed and nearly 13,000 wounded in Iraq. He's also aggravated by the continued string of sunny assessments from the Bush administration, such as Vice President Dick Cheney's recent remark that the insurgency is in its "last throes." "Things aren't getting better; they're getting worse. The White House is completely disconnected from reality," Hagel tells U.S. News. "It's like they're just making it up as they go along. The reality is that we're losing in Iraq."Welcome, Sen. Hagel, to the reality-based community.|W|P|111920211390210692|W|P|Sen. Hagel is pissed|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
Chase Nordengren|W|P|Hagel is one of the stronger Republican candidates in 2008, and I think a race without John McCain features Hagel in the top spot. I also think there are reasonable scenarios under which Hagel can beat McCain. He has a tendency to ramble a little bit, unfortunately, and has not been assertive enough in the past with his positions. "Completely disconnected with reality" is a step politically, I think, in the right direction. He'll lose some immediate support in the Republican party, but gain a lot of respect long-term."But for the anti-gay-marriage activists, homosexuality is something to be fought, not tolerated or respected. I found no one among the people on the ground who are leading the anti-gay-marriage cause who said in essence: ''I have nothing against homosexuality. I just don't believe gays should be allowed to marry.'' Rather, their passion comes from their conviction that homosexuality is a sin, is immoral, harms children and spreads disease. Not only that, but they see homosexuality itself as a kind of disease, one that afflicts not only individuals but also society at large and that shares one of the prominent features of a disease: it seeks to spread itself."|W|P|111920032851145552|W|P|Religious fundamentalists and gay marriage|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
Chase Nordengren|W|P|I am a fairly ardenent proponent of gay marriage from a stricly rights standpoint and have (admittedly) had a very difficult time understanding how people I know and respect disagree with me on this issue. However, this article gave me an epiphany and, oddly enough, I think this may all have to do with Watergate. Allow me to explain.The following paragraph spurred my catharsis:
Brian Racer is pastor to Laura and Dave Clark and a local opinion shaper on social issues. He is a tall, rangy 43-year-old man with a big mustache and a conversational style that is casual but enormously self-confident. Racer has a vigorous Christianity-in-society approach, which is illustrated by a recent move he made. When Mel Gibson's movie ''The Passion of the Christ'' came out in February 2004, he, like many ministers around the country, booked a whole theater in the local multiplex to accommodate the members of his church. But the venue itself -- comfortable seats, good acoustics, convenient location -- clicked for him. He worked out a rental arrangement with the manager of the theater. So now the Clarks and their fellow congregants worship at the Open Door Bible Church in Theater 24 in the Muvico multiplex at the Arundel Mills Mall. ''The teens think it's pretty cool,'' he said. ''After service they can go have lunch at the food court, then come back to the theater and see a movie.''
Consider that for a moment. The idea of a theater as a place of religious worship would have been unheard of 50 years ago. But after the 60s, Vietnam, Watergate and the like, great symbols of the American culture (American military dominence, the institution of government, the sanctity and peace of youth) have come directly under fire and have often been disproved. With them has gone the importance of a church as a building.
Religious activists view homosexuality (according to the article) as an immoral sin which harms children and spreads disease. They act against gay marriage precisely because marriage does not act for them as a symbol but as the literal manifestation of sanctioned love. If marriage was a symbol, this battle would be irrelevant to them. They believe not that marriage is a symbol of social acceptability of love but that it is that love, that it is an acknowledgement of that love's true existance when they believe it cannot truly exist and that by allowing a gay marriage is to allow another case of AIDS or another child to be hurt. Whether they are correct or not (and I believe they are not), it is clear why they believe the cause so strongly.
To those who worship in theaters or distrust in symbols, I do not mean to argue with your position. However, I do believe that society's trust in marriage is truly symbolic, that marriage is a response to love and not the other way around, and that a marriage is the acceptance of the relationship primarily by the individuals involved.
My favorite piece of literature is Thornton Wilder's incredible play "Our Town," which meditates on the signifigance of two essentially normal individuals. The second act, "Love and Marriage", chronicles their courtship but does not show the marriage ceremony itself. I was offered the explanation once that the marriage does not occur in the ceremony but occurs beforehand: that George and Emily are married in the back of the church five minutes before the bridal march when they confess their love. Perhaps our loss of the meaning of those significant moments has lead to this increasingly polarized debate and the essential question of how truly significant a marriage license is.
FOX NEWS SUNDAY, 9 a.m.: Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, former Senate majority leader George J. Mitchell (D-Maine) and former House speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.). THIS WEEK (ABC), 9 a.m.: Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), Army Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, Army Capt. Anthony Odierno and Rice. FACE THE NATION (CBS), 10:30 a.m.: Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.). MEET THE PRESS (NBC), 10:30 a.m.: Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). LATE EDITION (CNN), noon: Reps. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) and Curt Weldon (R-Pa.), former U.N. ambassador Thomas R. Pickering, Rice and Mitchell.|W|P|111915947902155738|W|P|Sunday talk|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
David Schantz|W|P|I've been thinking about hooking the TV up again, sometimes I really miss this stuff. I've posted my Question Of The Week, I hope you will stop by to answer it.God Bless America, God Save The Republic
Justen|W|P|If republicans are stupid enough to run im for president in '08 and the people are so dumb as to actually vote him in, I am moving to Canada. Not actually, but with comments like those we can be darn sure he isn't a big fan of free speech(much like our current pres). However, i don't think newt would think twice about blowing up california if another hippy revolution started over there. God I hate newtie."A SHARP increase in British and American bombing raids on Iraq in the run-up to war “to put pressure on the regime” was illegal under international law, according to leaked Foreign Office legal advice. The advice was first provided to senior ministers in March 2002. Two months later RAF and USAF jets began “spikes of activity” designed to goad Saddam Hussein into retaliating and giving the allies a pretext for war. The Foreign Office advice shows military action to pressurise the regime was “not consistent with” UN law, despite American claims that it was."Go read the full article. And that nasty "I" word keeps appearing in more and more articles. . .maybe sooner or later there might be some movements in Congress to investigate (for real) or take some action.|W|P|111915796240508131|W|P|British bombing raids in Iraq prior to war were illegal|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"Though the rules laid down by the World Trade Organization permit generic competition, CAFTA imposes a five- to10-year waiting period on generic competitors, unless they conduct their own time-and-money-consuming clinical trials for the very same drugs that have already passed such trials. CAFTA thus effectively ensures the drug companies an extension of their monopoly on high-priced medications. It also ensures that thousands of Central Americans in need of such medications will have to go without."So, cheap vaccinations, as well as HIV/AIDS medication and anti-retrovirals would have to be sold by the creating pharmaceutical company for ridiculous sums of money, especially in these poverty stricken nations. Mark Engler in The Nation addresses the same point in this article (as well as other points about DR-CAFTA as well). Now, that provision doesn't have to be included. However, the pharmaceutical companies in America lobbied long and hard for it, and got it just like they wanted. So, should Congress ratify the DR-CAFTA treaty we'd be damning the ill populations of Central America to a decade of devastation and the inability to get the help they desperately may need. Second, DR-CAFTA is massively modeled after NAFTA which has proven to be not that great overall. Myerson's article explains:
"In the 12 years since NAFTA was ratified, the yearly U.S. trade deficit with Mexico and Canada has grown from $9.1 billion to $110.8 billion. Yet, while close to a million jobs have been lost in the United States, it's not as if that money is flowing into Mexicans' pockets. Since NAFTA was enacted, real wages for Mexicans have declined, the nation's poverty rate has increased, and illegal immigration to the United States has soared. For both Mexican and American workers, NAFTA has been a lose-lose proposition."So you see, the basic structure of DR-CAFTA puts the United States overall in a bad position, while corporations who outsource jobs to these areas will see major profit and revenue increases. Moreover, other provisions from NAFTA have been carried over into DR-CAFTA and pose significant challenges or threats to Central American nations. Kelly Hearn in The American Prospect looks at the problems posed by NAFTA's Chapter 11 on the Central American fresh-water drinking supply:
"The World Bank estimates that 76 million of the 510 million people in the Caribbean and Latin America do not have access to safe drinking water. . . . Consider NAFTA’s Chapter 11, the investor-state provision. Locked into CAFTA and favored for inclusion in the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), the provision lets corporations (investors) sue governments (states) if they feel they have lost out on economic opportunity. Translation: If any country, state, or province lets only domestic companies export water, corporations in the other signatory countries could sue for financial compensation for “discrimination.” And if a government attempted to ban bulk water exports, says Antonia Juhasz, an International Forum on Globalization analyst, the very act would automatically turn water into a tradable commodity, which in turn would trigger the CAFTA or, if it’s resuscitated, the FTAA."Essentially, American firms could sue these national governments for millions of dollars should they even barely violate this provision. What it essentially does is require the state to allow foreign firms access to the countries' water supply and then causing them to relinquish any jurisdiction that would not be normal under codified business laws. As Hearn points out, that puts a premium on domestic water supplies and possibly causing a very detrimental effect to the people of these nations. Some will argue that the impact that these nations will have on US industry is minimal, since they only make up about 1% of total American trade. The fact is, however, that the United States doesn't or won't have the ability to help any workers who are displaced by the outsourcing from DR-CAFTA. Daniel Tarullo of Georgetown University and Dan Restrepo of the Center for American Progress explain:
"The Administration's massive budget deficits risk increased problems in the future. Existing safety net programs such as extended unemployment insurance and trade adjustment assistance (TAA) already fall far short of needed support. Yet instead of trying to help more workers make the transition to new businesses or careers, so that they can play as productive a role in the economy as possible, the Administration has tightened the eligibility requirements for TAA, denying many workers even the modest resources available under that program. Although the number of workers likely to be directly affected by DR-CAFTA is small, the Administration again offers nothing to those who will be affected."Without offering substantial alternatives for the workers displaced by the affects of DR-CAFTA, not even a free-trade Democrat should support this measure. Labor is a big voting bloc and were they to vote against the interests of labor and their constituents, they would undoubtedly face some trouble in the primary or general election. Nevertheless some may argue the 1% impact is minimal at best, and that we should support CAFTA because it tightens and strengthens labor regulations and standards the member Central American nations. Unfortunately, that just isn't true. Harold Myerson again offers the explanation:
"CAFTA would actually weaken the not very formidable labor standards that currently exist in the Central American nations. Under the current Generalized System of Preferences, those nations are required to take steps "to afford internationally recognized worker rights." Should CAFTA pass, the nations will be required only to enforce their own worker-protection laws, which they'd be perfectly free to repeal. That's the primary reason why the major union federations in Central America have joined the AFL-CIO in opposing CAFTA's ratification."Any claim that DR-CAFTA improves labor standards is an outright lie. During the 1990s, a political conservatism grabbed most of the leadership in these countries and it took lots of pressure from the international community to get these leaders to impose meaningful labor standards on the businesses in their nations. Now, in one fell swoop, DR-CAFTA opens the door to easy removal all the standards set up in these nations. There does however seem to be one idea that could be DR-CAFTA's ultimate saving grace. Robert B. Reich argues in The American Prospect that "add[ing] a simple provision to CAFTA requiring that every nation that signs have a minimum wage that's half that nation's median wage" would create a race to the top for more people, and not a race to the bottom. Here's how he explains it:
"So when the median wage in places like Honduras or Guatemala starts to rise -- as it surely will when these nations reap more gains from trade -- workers in the bottom half will get a piece of the action. This will help these nations build large and stable middle classes. What they have now are hour-glass economies divided between rich and very poor. But if wages in the bottom half rise, the middle will get larger. And large and stable middle classes will buy more of our exports and keep these nations peaceful."This solves the problems that I outline above. On the issue of drug prices and availability, the increase in wages would allow more people access to the high-priced drugs that are only available for the first decade. While it isn't a total solution, it actually gives more people in these nations a chance than the current set-up. Second, Americans and Central Americans would benefit from the wage increases that citizens would receive, thus removing the lose-lose situation to those citizens. In the case of the United States, minimum wage would go up by $7.00 an hour. Finally, the bigger middle-class and increasing incomes will give the laborers and unions greater political and fundraising clout, thus allowing them to negotiate quality labor standards and decent wage systems. Unfortunately, I think the likelihood of such a provision passing are one in a million. American industry and their subsidiaries across Central America would never allow the provision to be inserted. I actually think they'd drop DR-CAFTA all together before even considering the provision. And even if they did accept the provision, Congressional Republicans would never approve a $7 an hour wage increase--at least not in their current situation. Thus, we're (a collective free-trade Democrat 'we') still left with opposing DR-CAFTA for these reasons. Principled free-traders on the other side of the aisle would also be doing themselves a favor to recognizing these issues as well. For more information and DR-CAFTA issues, please visit the American Progress Action Fund's DR-CAFTA talking points.|W|P|111914407653453462|W|P|Even free-trade Democrats can and should oppose CAFTA|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
|W|P|I found a new article digital directory. Post your Articles, Get Free Content. article digital directory Dream Builder|W|P|Great blog here! I'm definitely going to bookmark you! I have a network marketing leads site. It pretty much covers network marketing leads related stuff.Come and check it out if you get time :-)
Julian Silvain|W|P|I skim a lot of blogs, and so far yours is in the Top 3 of my list of favorites. I'm going to dive in and try my hand at it, so wish me luck.It'll be in a totally different area than yours (mine is about mens male enhancement reviews) I know, it sounds strange, but it's like anything, once you learn more about it, it's pretty cool. It's mostly about mens male enhancement reviews related articles and subjects.
inarticulate resources|W|P|It's A Shame For You Not to Make Good Money -- When These Men Do It So Easily . . . Using Bad Consolidation Credit Debt Goldmedalmortgage.Com Laons Loan Refinancing. Ayoye|W|P|Recycling is good, if you are looking to sell your old items go to one of theseannounce gratuiteannounce gratuite it's better for all of us to recycle what we don't use anymore. read why on my blog, if you don't like this idea, maybe someone else will. jon|W|P|While searching for new window air conditioner info for my house I stumbled onto your blog. I totally agree!Paul
Unadulterated Underdog|W|P|I think from now on whenever a Republican attacks anti-war sentiment or Gitmo criticism, I'm going to send them an emai lwith a link to their nearest military recruiter. If they think Bush's lies are a good reason for war then let's send them over there. Chris Woods|W|P|Sounds like a good plan to me."Something shattered in Europe Friday night. The leaders of the 25 European Union nations went home after a failed two-day summit meeting in anger and in shame, as domestic politics and national interests defeated lofty notions of sacrifice and solidarity for the benefit of all."Essentially, it is a split idealism or vision that is causing the great divide in the EU. For decades, and even at its foundation, the EU was viewed as a way to integrate all of Europe together for peace and prosperity. The principle act to start this was the integration of the coal and steel communities of France, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg. From that point on the theory of spillover would take effect and more and more institutions would integrate for economic purposes, all the while bringing more political integration and unity. Somwhere along the line, however, once the European Community was established (the predecessor to the EU) and the common market arose, the views on integration changed. From the high-minded thinking of its founders and theorists, the idea of one monstrous common market took the charge. At the end of last night's summit, clearly the split in the vision of the future of Europe was shown. The biggest issues were the huge rebate that Great Britain receives and the major agricultural subsidies that France receives via the EU's Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). The Times article or this Guardian article explain more in-depth the arguments that took place over the two issues. Overall, it seems that Great Britain's lack of respect for political integration and a lack of vision for European beyond a large capitalist market are causing signifcant anger among many other EU nations. France's lack of willingness to compromise is also problematic, however, the burden was the UK to somewhat take the lead in compromise during these meetings as they prepare to take over the EU presidency on July 1. (The EU presidency rotates every 6 months between nations. The current presidency belongs to Luxembourg. Prior to Luxembourg, the Dutch maintained the presidency.) The countries that were the biggest losers from the negotiations are the poorer and newly admitted eastern European nations--mostly members of the former Soviet Union. They offered many attempts to compromise on budget issues for the sake of greater European integration, however, the British continued to be the major stalling factor on the attempts of the poor nations to achieve compromise. The next 6 months will be critical for the EU. Will Great Britain entirely redirect the EU during their presidency? Or will they be considered an anomaly and the new presidency in the first half of 2006 resume the integrationist tendencies?|W|P|111912626648828753|W|P|Things are about to get interesting|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
While Crooks and Liars will always be my favorite free digital video site, I thought it would be worth mentioning that it looks like CNN.com has begun their free video service today. I just watched a decent report by Bill Schneider on the Downing Street Memo. If you like actual fair and balanced reporting, check out CNN.com's video services then.|W|P|111912081541807819|W|P|Free video|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"WALLACE: But what the FBI memo alleges, and it is an allegation, is, you know, would be considered a day at the beach in the Soviet gulag or Nazi...I mean, what was so horrific in the memo, and I'm not saying, you know, there aren't legitimate questions there, is that someone is chained to a floor and forced to defecate on themselves, and has loud rock music playing. Excuse me? I mean, you know, Auschwitz? Bergen Belsen? The Soviet gulag? I think they would have been very happy to be allowed to defecate on themselves."|W|P|111911558936546314|W|P|Go shit on yourself, Chris Wallace|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
Kevin|W|P|Faux News trying to position Wallace as impartial was and is a farce."The Bush administration altered critical portions of a scientific analysis of the environmental impact of cattle grazing on public lands before announcing Thursday that it would relax regulations limiting grazing on those lands, according to scientists involved in the study. A government biologist and a hydrologist, who both retired this year from the Bureau of Land Management, said their conclusions that the proposed new rules might adversely affect water quality and wildlife, including endangered species, were excised and replaced with language justifying less stringent regulations favored by cattle ranchers. . . . Also removed was language saying how a number of the rule changes could adversely affect endangered species. "This is a whitewash. They took all of our science and reversed it 180 degrees," said Erick Campbell, a former BLM state biologist in Nevada and a 30-year bureau employee who retired this year. He was the author of sections of the report pertaining to the effect on wildlife and threatened and endangered species. "They rewrote everything," Campbell said in an interview this week. "It's a crime.""Some Democrat better start an investigation into this stuff or I'm gonna go apeshit.|W|P|111910634558610588|W|P|Should we expect anything less?|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"Washington can seem like a strange place indeed. This is a place where a president can try to score political points by accusing the opposition party of -- gasp! -- opposing his agenda. This is a place where the opposition party can try to score political points by opposing the president's agenda without offering much in the way of its own vision."I like the snark at the beginning. But his assertion in the second half seems a little bit naive to me. In fact, Neal is right when it comes to the Washington Republicans. Faced with President Bush's second term ending in 3 years, with no 'chosen one' or clear GOP follower in 2008, enforcing Bush's radical right agenda for the next couple of years is going to be one incredibly difficult task. Moreover, we all know about Bush's approval ratings--the new fast-sinking ship. The lower his approval ratings get, the further Congressional Republicans are going to want to distance themselves from him. The RNC can stand up for him all they want, but they're more worried about the Washington Republicans who face re-election next year (all House Republicans for example, because some are starting to look pretty weak) as well as their ethical crises right now (Tom DeLay, Randy 'Duke Cunningham, etc.). President Bush isn't going to help the RNC get much more than fundraising done anymore. Expect the moderates in his party who are going through tough times in the home district to ask the President to stay away when it comes to campaigning next year. Nevertheless, some people can always find a way to turn the blame or political cheap shot onto the Democrats. Here is what Neal writes halfway through his colum:
"But for the GOP, labeling the Democrats as obstructionists is as much a broad political strategy as it is a general expression of frustration. Several Republican committees have mass e-mailed messages on this theme in recent months, hoping to make the theme stick in the minds of voters, through the media. Democrats don't seem desperate to counter that strategy, in part out of the belief that at this point it's best to stand back and let the GOP implode. Little in terms of comprehensive vision has come out of the party's congressional leaders."I would think that trying to counter the obstructionist strategy would be bad for two reasons. First of all, trying to even clarify the point offers the Washington Republicans to claim "Aha, they admitted it!" Let them keep saying it all they want, the simple fact is that the entire GOP caucus in the House and Senate is not alligned with the political or physical message of the Bush Regime. Party unity is always really hard to get in a second term where there's no clear intellectual or political follow through. Second, when we try to combat it, that requires us to offer clear, focused, and positive policy alternatives. However, that is not something the minority party should actively engage in when the majority party is doing so badly, or even in times when they're achieving moderate success. Why? Because then that allows the Washington Republicans to co-opt policy measures we've taken and turn them into bipartisan efforts. Or they could always just take them over entirely, and by introducing it as their own bill on the floor of Congress, claim all the credit. And I surely wouldn't put that effort past the current bunch of House Republicans. Now, there are important arguments and alternatives that need to be made for 2006 and the following elections. We should take a page out of the political strategy of the Republicans prior to the 1994 midterm elections. That was the last time that Democrats had the trifecta--control of the House, Senate, and White House. But in those two years, we weren't able to accomplish much. In the past almost four years of the Bush trifecta--and unmeasured amount in modern history--the Washington Republicans have done little beyond rush this nation into war, continue the unwise policies of tax less (for the rich, anyway) and spend more, and attempt to end any form of the welfare state that exists in this country. Policy alternatives can't be clearly outlined in midterm House and Senate elections simply because unless we dominate in those elections, we won't be in a big position of power to get that legislation and policy moving until 2008. It is just that obvious. Our plan should be listing off alternatives and reforms that the Democrats provide which the Washington Republicans cannot. We can provide ethical leadership and responsibility. We can make the rules of the House and Senate mean something beyond just how to hold debate. We won't try to change the rules via illegal judgments. We will make Congress worthwhile and productive by adopting an agenda that gives the nation what it needs, not the demands of a White House out of touch with the American people. We will work for health care reform, Medicare protection, troop supplies and protection, education reform, economic stimulus packages, and we will continue to press the ignorant leadership for strategies for winning in Iraq and bring our troops home safely. These are the things that Democrats should be preparing for in 2006. I have faith that the DCCC and DSCC know this and are already hard at work.|W|P|111908470215706472|W|P|Opposition and obstruction|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"But I'm aware of no evidence that our image short-fall is causing us any difficulties in fighting terrorism. Governments still cooperate with us, or not, for the usual reason -- self interest. Moreover, granting prisoners access to federal court won't mitigate our the image problems resulting from detaining prisioners at Gitmo and elsewhere. Most foreigners likely find it as absurd as al Qaeda does that we would consider providing gold-plated legal process to captured terrorists. The image problem stems from claims of torture. Those claims, and the eagerness of elements of the MSM and the American left to advance them, won't end regardless of what we do. Al Qaeda's playbook, and the history of the past few months, tell us so."Ok, let's take this piece by piece. Our image shortfall has inhibited our abilities first in defeating the insurgency in Iraq, and second, by hurting our ability to keep elements of the Taliban from resurging in Iraq. I don't know what they mean with the phrase "governments still cooperate with us" so I'll skip it. The phrase "won't mitigate our the image problems" doesn't make any sense. Don't assume that you know what foreigners consider absurd. Our image problem comes from the documented photos, reports, and testimony of torture/indecency/disrespect at our prisons like Gitmo and Abu Ghraib, not just 'claims.' And finally, WHY ARE YOU GUYS SO FAMILIAR WITH AL-QAEDA'S PLAYBOOK?|W|P|111904742440454710|W|P|Off the deep, deep, deep end|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
Jason|W|P|Ah...the Turban Durbin stuff -- we've been getting some of that b.s. at his Springfield office the past couple days. Some of these folks have made threats as well and are being tracked down by authorities.While some calls are legitimate and reasoned complaints, many are nutjob folks -- those when asked if they condone torture reply with something along the lines of "yes! all 'em arabs deserve it. they're all terrorists."
Today we got a lot more positive phone calls, though, from folks who are proud that Senator Durbin is trying to bring attention to this very important issue and highlighting some of the hypocrisy of this administration in regards to human rights. I think the tide is turning despite the negative press and condemnation from the WH, a couple Senators, and the IL GOP chair.
Just FYI, Durbin released another statement Friday afternoon: “More than 1700 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq and our country’s standing in the world community has been badly damaged by the prison abuses at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. My statement in the Senate was critical of the policies of this Administration which add to the risk our soldiers face.”
“I will continue to speak out when I disagree with this Administration.”
“I have learned from my statement that historical parallels can be misused and misunderstood. I sincerely regret if what I said caused anyone to misunderstand my true feelings: our soldiers around the world and their families at home deserve our respect, admiration and total support.”
Chris Woods|W|P|I'mg glad you guys are starting to get positive calls, that's great. And his new comments/release tonight are the true signs of a reasoned and principled man of the opposition. I'm damn glad that Sen. Durbin is our minority whip.