Tue, 13 May 2008 10:00:06 -0400
"I'm not going to quit. Why should I quit? This country is worth fighting for."
- Hillary Rodham Clinton, Ellen DeGeneres interview, 04-07-08
Obama's Inability to Hire Good Help Rears Its Head … Again
Just like Chimpy, nothing is O's fault.....evah!
And also from Trapper...
Why Shouldn't Obama Win West Virginia?
money quote....
.....If these Democrats vote for Clinton, the presumptive loser, overwhelmingly -- as is predicted -- that indicates a real problem for Obama. I know the delegate math is close to dispositive for Clinton, but tomorrow's butt-stomping seems to me like it should merit some serious hand-wringing among Democrats.
"A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood of ideas in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people." JFK
the hollers. They're going to create a brand new party of people who sip wine 'stead of 'shine. We can just sit in our rockin' churs with our shotgun in one hand 'n' our Bible in t'other 'n' not worry our dizzy little heads about what goes on in that big city of Warshington.
That accent really takes me back home! :) Living in that converted two car garage way up on top of the hill "wasn't half bad". ;) We always knew who we could count on, and it sure wasn't the bunch living by the country club way over yonder.
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.
"Hillary, Democrat with a spine" t-shirts are being sold at No Quarter
"A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood of ideas in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people." JFK
let them know we noticed.
I find it astonishing that NPR neglected to mention, even in passing, that there is a primary in West Virginia today.
I imagine the upcoming primary in Oregon will be covered, since Obama is expected to win, but the fact that Clinton will most likely win WV in a landslide is not worth a mention?
I used to depend on NPR to be fair and balanced. I don't know what happened, but your slanted coverage of this primary is the reason I did not participate in the pledge drive this time.
I hope you can get back to unbiased coverage in politics.
Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right.
But my friend said he woke up at 6:30 a.m., turned on the radio, and they did a whole segment on the race. I should have asked him what time, but didn't.
I tuned in around 7:50 and since then they haven't mentioned it.
Off to walk Z. Back laters.
Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right.
but I'm guessing the WV election will get little, if any, coverage. Later tonight, they'll make a pronouncement that Hillary didn't do as well as expected and the Obamazation of our world continues at lemming speed.
We're electing the President of the United States, not some g.d. prom king.
Look what loudmouth Carville said - I wish he'd just go away...quietly.
(snips)
CNN — Speaking to students at Furman University in Greenville, South Carolina, Carville argued Clinton should stay in through the final nominating contest in early June, but said the Democratic tide appears to be moving in Obama's direction.
"I still hear some dogs barking," Carville said. "I'm for Senator Clinton, but I think the great likelihood is that Obama will be the nominee."
"As soon as I determine when that is, I'll send him a check," he added.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/13/carville-obama-likely-to-win-nomination/
Carville right up there with Begala and Brazile as not being very beneficial to the Dem Party in general. Nothing's changed imo.
Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right.
just dropping by to see how things are going. There are a lot of Obama folks in these parts (see bluemassgroup.com and converstaions I have had with state committee members) talking up Clark as a VP choice. I don't think he would take the job, but it is nice to know he and we have not been forgotten.... of course this a bit of cart before the horse.
From my point of view I am becoming more comfortable with Obama as the nominee. I have been very uncomfortable with his sagging numbers vs McCain in April, but they have taken a strong turn for the better in past week or so. In the end winning this thing is the most important thing to me, and if he can do it, great. (see pollster.com for details on national numbers). I still think his road is more difficult than Clinton's, but if he can really put VA and CO in play it might counter some of his weakness elsewhere.
My 2 drachmas.
Laters,
Jason
J. Armstrong not an Obama fan; this morning front page Virginia polls have Obama's lead for McCain going up and up;
as far as I know Virginia is Obama country; Ca just did a poll and it has Obama leading McCain ( Clinton won the primary ) so the public has gotten familiar with Obama, accepted him and they will GOTV for him in November; they are running a good campaign they know where they have work to do and how to make the electorial map make a win; at this point he is making his case to the public for the general election and the Democratic base remaining is getting comfortable with him; Oregon poll last few days has him gaining women's vote ahead of the HRC numbers; so don't worry the message is solidifying that Obama has the strength to win vs McCain essentially we are in general election mode just can't tell the MSM has its own intentions, motives and message/agenda to grind - the news has been cancelled check blogs online for real political journalism :-)
Bush wants a war with Iran - - scroll down to action alert comment: Conyers ( with support ) is threatening Bush with impeachment proceedings if he strikes Iran WITHOUT war authorization from Congress -
that is what you have to worry about and help build public pressure for the Congress to know they can impeach Bush with public support;
if you have been keeping up with impeachment movement - there is PLENTY OF IT from the public BUT THEY NEED THE PETITION strength to build on the lastest Conyers letter to Bush;
The true test of our patriotism is whether we will serve our returning heroes as well as they've served us. - Obama
...on VA on the front page of MyDD is by Jonathan Singer, not Jerome Armstrong...
McCain Can't Shake Obama in Virginia
by Jonathan Singer, Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:18:31 PM ESTIt looks like the commonwealth of Virginia is shaping up to be a real problem for John McCain and the Republicans in 2008.
The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in Virginia finds John McCain leading Barack Obama by just three percentage points, 47% to 44%. That's a significant improvement for Obama after trailing the presumptive Republican nominee by eleven points a month ago.
The survey, which was in the field on Thursday, has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points, so McCain's lead over Barack Obama is not statistically significant. In fact, with the exception of a poll from March, McCain hasn't been able to hold a lead outside the margin of error in Virginia against Obama in Rasmussen polling this year (he led by 2 points in January and 5 points in February). McCain's lead in the commonwealth in April wasn't statistically significant either, according to SurveyUSA. According to the Pollster.com trend estimate, McCain can't crack 50 percent in Virginia, leading Obama 48.3 percent to 43.6 percent. With numbers like these it's little wonder that the bright minds at The Atlantic only rate Virginia as "tilts Republican" in the general election.
http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/5/12/22403/5154
And you are incorrect when you say that "Clinton won the primary" Obama won VA.
But this is from Jerome Armstrong today...
WV Prediction thread
by Jerome Armstrong, Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:55:30 AM ESTI thought that Obama would be able to close the margin in West Virginia, but none of the polls think he will. Obama went along with the outlandish prediction that he'd lose 80-20-- that's one way to tell West Virginians they don't matter. Anyway, I'd better revise my thinking last month that Obama would close the gap.
I'm predicting:
Obama loses West Virginia to Clinton by a 62- 35 margin.
Obama doesn't win a single West Virginia county.
Obama doesn't visit West Virginia again before the GE.
Obama loses West Virginia to McCain 66 - 33.Permalink :: 209 Comments
http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/5/13/115530/989
"A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood of ideas in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people." JFK
The true test of our patriotism is whether we will serve our returning heroes as well as they've served us. - Obama
He bought into the polls that he could not win there--sweet, silly man! So he only made one appearance. Dear, dear! And--psst! The hillbillies aren't all over on the WV side of the line! There are plenty in western VA, and they may be busy working or just not take phone polls, but they'll probably bother to vote against an elitist radical whose friend stomps on the flag. And all those military folk there probably will too.
Roy Romer– former Colorado governor and DNC chair
endorsed Obama today;
The true test of our patriotism is whether we will serve our returning heroes as well as they've served us. - Obama
(snip#1)
In the photographs and videotapes, as well as other records obtained by Insight - allegedly obtained between April and July 1995 - Romer* is seen embracing, hugging and kissing a woman said to be Thornberry** during visits to Washington (read more at the link).
*Romer:married; father of seven; active churchman; former trustee of the Iliff School of Theology in Denver; DNC chairman.
**Betty Thornberry:once a confidential assistant to Romer at the DNC and previously a top state-paid political aide to the Colorado governor as well as a senior adviser on his many political campaigns.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_n7_v14/ai_20301290/pg_1
(snip#2)
After admitting to the affair:
Why did you not admit to the affair, in 1990 and in 1994, when you were running for elective office? one reporter asked.
''I didn't have the confidence that you could be this forthcoming and still be given a chance to serve public life,'' replied Governor Romer
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B07E6DA103DF934A35751C0A96E958260
Hmmm, I'm missing the hope/change that this endorsement will bring for Obama. All I see is Washington politics, as usual.
Obama: "Old politics just won't do." -1/30/08
but here's an interesting story within that story (of his 16 yr affair with Ms Thornberry)
He repeatedly lied about the affair, for years, insisting vigorously that it just wasn't true. Until the video leaked of the famous six minute smooch with her in the car. But the paper who released the leak refused to disclose who it was that provided the video. Who tracked him down and got the goods that made him admit to it publicly?
One of the many theories of the day was that it was the Clinton White House! (because as we know... they are responsible for everything of negative consequence in this universe-- aka "Clinton Did It") The reason Clinton was suspected was that it was released mid-90's in the thick of the Lewinsky scandal, Thornberry worked in the Clinton admin as well as for the DNC, and perhaps Clinton Did It to distract from his own scandals...
http://www.westword.com/1998-02-12/news/sealed-with-a-kiss/1
So I'm asking myself if perhaps Romer may have bought into that theory himself?? A little payback??
He was the Supervisor of LA Unified School District out here for awhile and left with a LOT of enemies in town and complaints about his "top down" style of leadership and overlooking of financial corruption. Linky's below.
and
from the first link.
"What is the truth of my statements in 1990 and 1994? They were truthful. I was asked did I have an affair and did I have a sexual relationship. My answer was 'no.' Now, let me explain that answer. There was no sexual relationship.
'Affair' is a word that you have to interpret. I chose in those years, '90 and '94, to interpret that if you don't have a sexual relationship, you don't have an affair."
A six-minute smooch is no handshake, however.
"Let me say it straight," Romer repeated. "This is not a sexual relationship; it is a very affectionate relationship. And I'm not trying to define when affection ends and sex begins, okay? That's as straight as I can be."
Uh, kissing doesn't define it as a sexual relationship? Isn't that how 'things' usually begin? Ok, I don't about the rest of you, but a 'six-minute smooch' would make my ears wiggle!
Ok...TMI...back to Hillary's victory Party!!
Hope you all have your party hats on the charger!
The true test of our patriotism is whether we will serve our returning heroes as well as they've served us. - Obama
How does that square with his absence from the Senate for two recent important veteran's votes?
Obama did not show up for the April 24 2008 vote on enhancement for Veteran's insurance and Veteran's benefits (Clinton did- and voted Yea) McCain, a veteran himself, was also a no-show for Vets on this vote. Shame.
Additionally, Obama and McCain did not show to vote on legislation increasing benefits for disabled Vets and WW2 Filipino veterans. Clinton did and voted Yea. Unfortunately the bill lost -- by only 15 votes. Too bad for disabled vets.... A new kind of politics.
do as I say, not as I do.
We're electing the President of the United States, not some g.d. prom king.
that's what it is about but you know that; who were the 13 Democrats that didn't vote
and what did the inside players ( who whip the count and analyze it from all angles before it goes to the floor for the vote )
tell the public ( and Congress members ) would DEFINATELY be happening about this bill;
if Obama had been told by Senate leaders that his vote would have passed the bill that he should be there to be counted
for the GI bill that would have been tragic that he wasn't there for the vote;
apparently EVERYBODY but the public knew this bill and the vote for it was symbolic and political in election year for the Dems;
not something that they were actually going to move forward;
Dems without veto proof majority can't get much done;
Get over it. It's so old by now. - Justice Antonin Scalia
Only 3 Senators missed the vote on these important Veteran's bills:
Republican John McCain
Republican DeMint (SC)
and
Barack Obama
Every other Senator was able to make it there and to cast their votes.
the Dem Senate whip had firm numbers way before the voting happened on Senate floor;
they have Obama's private personal phone number if they needed him;
Get over it. It's so old by now. - Justice Antonin Scalia
...I like about HRC is, she never neglects her day job whilst campaigning.
BO.....not so much
"A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood of ideas in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people." JFK
Hi Jason,
Good to hear from you. Though I am not that politically active, the feel to the west of you is still pro-Hillary. Based on my encounters while coaching youth soccer.
My wife's informal polls of her 5th graders has actually shown a shift from Obama to Hillary in recent weeks. Usually a very good metric.
2008-05-13 http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/33389
Please call your Congress Member at 202-224-3121 and Email them and ask them to co-sign a letter to President Bush from House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers threatening impeachment if Bush attacks Iran. Below is a note from Conyers asking his colleagues to co-sign. Below that is the letter to Bush.
May 8, 2008
Join Me in Calling on President Bush to Respect Congress’ Exclusive Power to Declare War
Dear Democratic Colleague:
As we mark five years of war in Iraq, I have become increasingly concerned that the President may possibly take unilateral, preemptive military action against Iran. During the last seven years, the Bush Administration has exercised unprecedented assertions of Executive Branch power and shown an unparalleled aversion to the checks and balances put in place by the Constitution’s framers. The letter that follows asks President Bush to seek congressional authorization before launching any possible military strike against Iran and affirms Senator Biden’s statement last year that impeachment proceedings should be considered if the President fails to do so.
I hope that you will join me in calling on the President to respect Congress’ exclusive power to declare war. To sign the letter below, please contact the Judiciary Committee staff at 225-3951.
Sincerely,
John Conyers, Jr.
Chairman
____________
May 8, 2008
The Honorable George W. Bush
President of the United States
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mr. President:
We are writing to register our strong opposition to possible unilateral, preemptive military action against other nations by the Executive Branch without Congressional authorization. As you know, Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power “to declare war,” to lay and collect taxes to “provide for the common defense” and general welfare of the United States, to “raise and support armies,” to “provide and maintain a navy,” to “make rules for the regulation for the land and naval forces,” to “provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions,” to “provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia,” and to “make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution ... all ... powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States.” Congress is also given exclusive power over the purse. The Constitution says, “No money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by law.”
By contrast, the sole war powers granted to the Executive Branch through the President can be found in Article II, Section 2, which states, “The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into actual Service of the United States.” Nothing in the history of the “Commander-in-Chief” clause suggests that the authors of the provision intended it to grant the Executive Branch the authority to engage U.S. forces in military action whenever and wherever it sees fit without any prior authorization from Congress. In our view, the founders of our country intended this power to allow the President to repel sudden attacks and immediate threats, not to unilaterally launch, without congressional approval, preemptive military actions against foreign countries. As former Republican Representative Mickey Edwards recently wrote, “[t]he decision to go to war ... is the single most difficult choice any public official can be called upon to make. That is precisely why the nation’s Founders, aware of the deadly wars of Europe, deliberately withheld from the executive branch the power to engage in war unless such action was expressly approved by the people themselves, through their representatives in Congress.”1
Members of Congress, including the signatories of this letter, have previously expressed concern about this issue. On April 25, 2006, sixty-two Members of Congress joined in a bipartisan letter that called on you to seek congressional approval before making any preemptive military strikes against Iran.2 Fifty-seven Members of Congress have co-sponsored H. Con. Res. 33, which expresses the sense of Congress that the President should not initiate military action against Iran without first obtaining authorization from Congress.3
Our concerns in this area have been heightened by more recent events. The resignation in mid-March of Admiral William J. “Fox” Fallon from the head of U.S. Central Command, which was reportedly linked to a magazine article that portrayed him as the only person who might stop your Administration from waging preemptive war against Iran,4 has renewed widespread concerns that your Administration is unilaterally planning for military action against that country. This is despite the fact that the December 2007 National Intelligence Estimate concluded that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program in the fall of 2003, a stark reversal of previous Administration assessments.5
As we and others have continued to review troubling legal memoranda and other materials from your Administration asserting the power of the President to take unilateral action, moreover, our concerns have increased still further. For example, although federal law is clear that proceeding under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) “shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance” can be conducted within the U.S. for foreign intelligence purposes, 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(f), the Justice Department has asserted that the National Security Agency’s warrantless wiretapping in violation of FISA is “supported by the President’s well-recognized inherent constitutional authority as Commander in Chief and sole organ for the Nation in foreign affairs”.6 As one legal expert has explained, your Administration’s “preventive paradigm” has asserted “unchecked unilateral power” by the Executive Branch and violated “universal prohibitions on torture, disappearance, and the like.”7
Late last year, Senator Joseph Biden stated unequivocally that “the president has no authority to unilaterally attack Iran, and if he does, as Foreign Relations Committee chairman, I will move to impeach” the president. 8
We agree with Senator Biden, and it is our view that if you do not obtain the constitutionally required congressional authorization before launching preemptive military strikes against Iran or any other nation, impeachment proceedings should be pursued. Because of these concerns, we request the opportunity to meet with you as soon as possible to discuss these matters. As we have recently marked the fifth year since the invasion of Iraq, and the grim milestone of 4,000 U.S. deaths in Iraq, your Administration should not unilaterally involve this country in yet another military conflict that promises high costs to American blood and treasure.
Sincerely,
been blowing hot air over impeachment for years now; if they wait to do this until after Chimpy hits Iran, it will be too late. Impeachment proceedings should have been started long ago.
We're electing the President of the United States, not some g.d. prom king.
you should not have been downrated for stating the truth. I am thankful for much of what Conyers has done (or attempted to do) in Congress over the years -- but on impeachment he has been notoriously evasive and weak.
The ratings system here was instilled primarily as a method of approval for fellow Clarkie's - and to be used only 'sparingly' in the negative when a poster steps over the line.
As we stated in the CCN User Guidelines some time ago... in case anyone needs a 'refresher' about the mechanics and purpose of the four star karma ratings system:
Trollish comments and malicious posts should expect to be low rated, but otherwise, 1's should be rare.
Rating comments is also a way to give kudos even when you don't have time to reply to a comment. We're a very friendly community, so don't be hesitant to reward the effort and insight other CCNers contribute to the discussion.
would you expect from everybody's sweetheart? Including mine. The facts are that Conyers has had several closets full of dirt on Chimpy for years - and still refused and refuses to act. I think those meetings in the basement must have affected his willingness to proceed. Probably something about jobs or $$ in Detroit. After all, he is a politician - and a pretty good one, at that.
We're electing the President of the United States, not some g.d. prom king.
I am going to note you - using 'sweetheart' to address me or identify me in your comments;
your comments are offensive to me and anyother sweetheart that disagrees with you
so drop it - you are trying to provoke blog firestorm and that is the wrong thing to do;
Get over it. It's so old by now. - Justice Antonin Scalia
It's a term of endearment. I'm not your enemy, but you seem insistent on making me one. I won't bite. You are not the blog queen and if you want respect then treat others in a respectful manner.
P.S. You're assuming I was referring to you? #1 rule: Don't make assumptions.
We're electing the President of the United States, not some g.d. prom king.
I'm a pretty great guy. If you haven't figured it out yet, Sweetheart is made in jest, but I'm discovering you don't have much of a sense of humor. Sorry about that.
Now, where were we about Conyers? Oh, the guy who has the goods but won't use them. I hope his letter does some good but knowing Chimpy's busy schedule in the weight room, no one probably read it to him.
We're electing the President of the United States, not some g.d. prom king.
they are really good photos; but that's you the writer too? if so you can write a book or two or three or more
that is a talent I appreciate;
Get over it. It's so old by now. - Justice Antonin Scalia
in old and crabby. And if you're old, and not somewhat crabby, well, ya jes' ain't payin' attention. ;-)
chance I'll read one of your books; I jotted down a few titles that caught my eye;
so post your before and after portrait photos and let other people be the judge of that ;-)
(men unfortunately age better than most women in many ways they look better as they get older )
Get over it. It's so old by now. - Justice Antonin Scalia
but I think you're looking at the wrong "author."
We're electing the President of the United States, not some g.d. prom king.
to a list of 12 books by an author name of Johnson saying you were photographer and a writer: so that Johnson isn't you then?
<!-- type = text --> I'll vouch for great guy...
Submitted by Dormaphaea on May 13, 2008 - 2:50pm....and photographer and writer. :-) writer is a link to Amazon.com with his books?
goes directly to my Lübeck book; the other guys listed under Johnson aren't me. Damn. I have written another book earlier, called "The Marinique Diversion," but I don't think I had any copies sent to Amazon, since I'm preserving the few I have for posterity. (Almost said posterior.) Anyway, I want to slightly revise both books this year and get another one in the can before summer's end. Actually both books are decent, quick reads, but certainly not Pulitzer Prize material, nor were they meant to be.
To be honest, writing a book is a helluva lot of work and not recommended for those thinking they're going to get rich and famous. They won't. Just take a walk through your neighborhood Barnes & Noble and look at the thousands of titles just sitting there, collecting dust. Some are only worthy of dust, of course, but many others of quality are simply ignored and unread. In order to sell a book, it almost takes a personal handing one over and signing it experience, which explains the book tours - and then probably less than a hundred get sold at each stop. It takes thousands and thousands of sales to make it worth the time. I'll bet even someone as well known as Wes has trouble getting his books sold. Write only for fun and expect nothing in return except the joy of knowing that, damn, I did that.
We're electing the President of the United States, not some g.d. prom king.
like an interesting story; selling anything creative is a lot of hard going self promotion;
Get over it. It's so old by now. - Justice Antonin Scalia
public pressure backs him up; there have been many many communities and cities across US that have made declarations in support of impeachment for Bush ( Cheney )
if Bush doesn't believe there are any consequences to unilateral preemptive war than he isn't living in the real world;
how effective those consequences might become has direct relationship to public support behind it; the public has been known to rise up on a dime and use their voices and votes their democracy franchise;
Get over it. It's so old by now. - Justice Antonin Scalia
attacks nearly everything I post no matter what the content and that is why I did and will troll rate him;
thanks for intervening on his behalf I see you encourage him and also you are the self appointed blog police on CCN policy;
Get over it. It's so old by now. - Justice Antonin Scalia
I don't play the childish karma downrating game, like you.
Frankly, I don't care what you post, as long as its relatively relevant. I don't know you and don't really care to, however, your baseless anger tells me you have a pretty thin skin. Kindly lighten up; no one is injured by these posts.
We're electing the President of the United States, not some g.d. prom king.
not the "self appointed blog police on CCN policy"
We were a small hard-working team of CCN bloggers who actually wrote that particular piece of "CCN Policy" for you. None of us were 'self appointed'.
Kat and her software genies were able to then translate the four-star / karma concept into reality for us all.
Many of us appreciate it and use it generously as intended. To boost another bloggers efforts and give a cyber pat on the back to fellow bloggers.
But then again... not all of us seek to promote unity here it appears.
But then again... not all of us seek to promote unity here it appears.
you are rude to me because I disagree with you on HRC - democracy minded long term strategy
and I expect you will be lay in wait for every comment ( as you have since WKC's endorsement )
I make to draw blood so others on blog will be encouraged/have the courage to do the same;
democractic debate on CCN has been suffocated to near death experience to not agree with your four five digits;
Get over it. It's so old by now. - Justice Antonin Scalia
Don't bother. Honestly. Scroll by. Not worth time or effort to engage. I know you know that, but you're fresh back from a wonderful cruise/vacation and I don't want you to burn out your first day back! ;-)
Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right.
don't have to get over myself cause I learned from legal eagles in my tribe that depending on circumstances some things can become cause for concern;
Get over it. It's so old by now. - Justice Antonin Scalia
like crap. :D
Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right.
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/61454
Excerpt
May 11, 2008
I've done no survey. There are probably a heck of a lot more candidates out there who haven't contacted me or I haven't happened to run across. But I have put together a list, thus far, of 111 candidates for Congress, the Senate, or the White House who support impeaching Bush and Cheney. Here's the list, organized by office and by state / district:
http://afterdowningstreet.org/...
Most of the candidates on the list are Democrats, either incumbents or challengers. Others are Green, Libertarian, Independent, and even Republican.
The list includes three candidates for the White House who are generally considered hopeless but whose campaigns are pushing positions supported by most of the people who obediently deem them hopeless.
In Senate races, there are a dozen pro-impeachment challengers on the list. Barbara Boxer could be added as an incumbent, since she's said she supports impeachment. But she's not actually pushing for it, so it would seem a stretch to include her. In fact, senators and presidential candidates have very little to do with impeachment. One of the most interesting senatorial races is just north of Boxer's California in Oregon, where two Democrats and an Independent all back impeachment.
Most of the candidates on the list are House candidates, and even including them may seem a stretch given the common misconception that the possibility of impeaching Bush and Cheney ends this November. Some of these candidates, Democrats and others, are running because the incumbent has failed to back impeachment and are actively pushing them to back it. In some races, candidates have dropped out already after successfully persuading the incumbent to sign onto an impeachment resolution. In addition, the new Congress will have the better part of the month of January 2009 with Bush and Cheney still in office, an impeachment need take no more than a day (some past ones have been that fast), and there is no bar on impeaching someone after they are out of office (one outcome of which can be a ban on the guilty party ever holding public office again).
Some of the House candidates on the list are incumbents. But I'm being generous to most of them, in that all they've done is sign onto a resolution or a letter. (If they've done less and just SAID something favorable, I haven't included them. And if they backed impeachment in 2005/2006 but not 2007/2008 they're not on the list.) In fact, I've listed in some districts both an incumbent and one or more challengers. Some of these challengers are running because they would like to see the representative from their district be the sort of person who would do more, who would speak out publicly, whip colleagues, and introduce original articles of impeachment.
Of course, I'm being generous to some of the challengers, too, by taking them at their word. Donna Edwards was in favor of impeachment until she won a Maryland primary (and the incumbent whom she unseated had been moved to back impeachment as well), but Edwards now opposes it and is not on the list.
Some of the candidates on the list have the Democratic nomination and are expected to win. That includes, for example, Steve Harrison, who is challenging scandal-plagued Republican Vito Fossella in New York's 13th District. Others are third-party or write-in candidates predicted to lose. Many of them are in California, which is fielding at least 35 pro-impeachment House candidates.
Get over it. It's so old by now. - Justice Antonin Scalia
to my comments earlier in the day ( I can't get the parent link to work so don't know for sure )
the only reality in politics is money and sometimes public pressure; if public pressure gets large enough then Pelosi will have her work cut out for her rolling back her 'off the table'
Get over it. It's so old by now. - Justice Antonin Scalia
Texas Child Protective Services said today at a custody hearing for a child born to one of the YFZ Ranch children that the agency no longer believes the mother is a minor.
The mother was initially one of 463 children removed from the ranch near Eldorado during a weeklong raid of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints compound by state authorities that began April 3.
CPS officials at the time believed the pregnant female to be a minor, and she was included in a massive custody action approved April 18 by 51st District Court Judge Barbara Walther in San Angelo. Walther presided over today's hearing at the Tom Green County Courthouse.
The FLDS member gave birth the boy on April 29 in San Marcos.
I've been critical of Texas CPS, but at least have to say that there might be some hope of justice if they can admit to a mistake as they did today.
But special shame is reserved to the readers here and across the nation who accused her parents of being child abusers for an unsubstantiated allegation of forcing their daughter to have a baby as a minor and then taking their daughter from them. Perhaps we will see the Salem Witch Trial mentality start to crack in this case as people start to remember what the Constitution of the United States is about.
Perhaps there are abusers within the FLDS community, but there are certainly some in your neighborhood also. But most of us don't have to worry about SWAT teams breaking into our homes and taking our kids based on a hoax phone call because we aren't seen as outside the 'norms' of society. How many other innocent parents are there within the FLDS community who have been similarly abused?
In the days of Salem, 143 people were accused of witchcraft and 18 were hanged. Economic, political, imaginations and fears of the people, family feuds and religious factors of the time contributed to how the Salem witch trials grew and prospered for almost a whole year. Have things really changed much since then?
I, for one, don't want to go on arguing about what's appropriate or not about the action at the FCLS place.
Protection of children should be paramount in this and all other inquiries.
Do you have children?
I heard that they were separating breastfeeding mothers from their babies. And THAT is seriously f-ed up. It's not the babies fault their were born into this culture. This decision, I totally disagree with.
However, I'm not a big fan of sexual abuse of minors. Whether it's a cultural thing or not, it's something that we, as a society can not turn a blind eye to. I don't care if a guy marries 100 women. They just better be 18.
Wes Clark Democrats...let the Clinton campaign know who sent you
the radio station is in Clarksburg W. V. NOT Clarksville;
Get over it. It's so old by now. - Justice Antonin Scalia
Kick some Obama butt today!
- Empty suit visits elite men's suit factory. The public is not welcome.
http://www.kfvs12.com/Global/story.asp?S=8311668&nav=8H3xF9NT
CAPE GIRARDEAU, Mo. - Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama will be in Cape Girardeau Tuesday afternoon.
Senator Obama will hold an economic town hall meeting. The invitation only event will take place at the Thorngate factory on Independence Street at 5 p.m. The plant makes high quality men's clothing.
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.
But at least W had enough sense to know you can't just gather a few swing states together, ignore the big ones, and win the GE.
as long as we're on the subject of former Clintonite superduper delegates going for O! (as in Roy Romer)--
Did you all know he's the same Joe Andrew who went to work as a lobbyist for Diebold? Remember we were all so outraged that a Dem would do that a few yrs back?
Yep. Same guy.
Here he is waxing poetical about his endorsement for O! in the HuffPo:
The hardest decisions in life are not between good and bad or right and wrong, but between two goods or two rights. That is the decision Democrats face today.
...
My stomach churns when I think how my old friends in the Clinton campaign will just pick up the old silly Republican play book and call in the same old artificial attacks and bombardments we have all heard before.
...
That is Barack Obama's Democratic Party.
That is the Party that will win in November,
.
Uh huh. That old silly Republican Playbook, sayeth the Diebold lobbyist. Must be some new kind of politics.
Joe Andrew-- former DNC chair 1999- 2001- But by August 2005, Andrew had become a Diebold lobbyist.
In a nutshell: In 1990, Joe Andrew was Deputy Secretary of State of Indiana. By 1995, he was Chairman of the Indiana Democratic Committee, where he raised a ton of money. He was moved to the DNC by 1999, first as finance chairman, then as chairman. In 2001 he took a position with a Wall Street firm; from there, he ran for governor of Indiana, then took a job with another law firm, then became a partner in a firm that does lobbying, in August 2005 accepting an assignment to do a massive PR blitz for Diebold alongside a Republican Congressional aide. On the road for Diebold! 'We never rest'.
http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/72/10416.html
Andrew also served as the chairman of the unfortunately named "New Democrat Network", an organization of centrist Democrats. (Oooh, we luv centrist democrats....)
From the War Street Journal, we glimpse superdelegate Joe Andrew's ideas on election integrity... a subject I keep waiting to hear Barack Obama speak to. We know that Joe was a big believer and advocate for paperless DRE systems:
Joe Andrew, chair of the Democratic National Committee until 2001, is a senior adviser to a biotech firm that owned several Internet companies. He says the conspiracy theories aren't healthy and last month he told the Maryland Association of Election Officials that
"When it comes to electronic voting, most liberals are just plain old-fashioned nuts." (ms notes: this is not a good omen)
While conservatives were skilled at coordinating their messages, he added, "that does not mean there is a vast right-wing conspiracy trying to steal votes in America, as the loudest voices on the left are saying today."
Mr. Andrew said the people obsessed about DRE manipulation are either computer experts with impressive technical knowledge but little practical experience with elections or left-leaning computer users who are conspiratorial by nature. (ms notes: that latter category would be me) He noted with regret that they have been joined in their hysteria by prominent Democrats who "are rallying behind the anti-DRE bandwagon in a big election year because they think that this movement is good for Democrats."
As for the theories that DREs could be programmed to change an election outcome, Mr. Andrew dismissed them by saying, "the liberal Internet activists are bonkers."
After reading about Joe.... I'm really glad this guy switched to Obama. He is right at home there.
But what do I know? I'm just a plain old fashioned nuts, liberal bonkers internet activist, and left wing computer user per Joe Andrews.
MSLA should post her Andrews info at the big orange place; and for that matter her Obama screeds as well;
don't think she will though can't take the heat at the orange place not her kichen cabinet of choice;
it would draw comments from people who do their homework and fact checking; there are flame throwers who do things I don't support but the fact checkers are good;
can usually find comment items here and there that are valuable feedback if your expectations are in-line with reality and you don't provoke people into having hissy-fits;
Get over it. It's so old by now. - Justice Antonin Scalia
in 2005. The homework doing fact checkers. Ah the good ole days...
... oh but-- that was before Andrews was an Obama fan.
Nonetheless, back in 2005-- they wanted to stop Joe Andrews in his tracks. Why they even called him a DINO and a "Judas"...
A few Daily KObama diaries on the evil Joe Andrews.... um, well... back when he was evil.
Today... not so bad. Diebold schmiebold. It's all in the name of unity. And change. As in changing tallies!
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/8/22/144642/986/965/140400
just reported that Hillary Clinton had by far the highest negatives of anyone in the Democratic party, including all elected officials ... he made it sound so patently obvious that she was the trailblazer champion of the negative. And of course all the other pundits sat there staring blankly ahead. Crickets. It is after all conventional wisdom how she so outdistances the pack in her unfavorables.
So I just looked up the unfavorables of both our candidates - BO and HRC- over at Rasmussen and yes, she leads Barack...
by one to three pts.
Depending on which day of the week.
One to three pts. Out of a hundred possible.
For the past month, Obama's unfavorables ranged from 48 to 51 and Clinton's were from 49 to 54.
So a few points and Jack Cafferty makes it sound like the Wicked Witch of the West versus the Great and Powerful Oz.
Hillary Clinton...
"She's shown us over and over that winners never quit and that quitters never win....We'll cheer her on until the game is over...Ellen Malcolm, founder of Emily's List
Have a great day, Senator Clinton!