This means you think there are actual flaws in almighty market capitalism?
I'm shocked.
Well, Dan thank Fox News. Thank Reagan for putting the kebash to Fairness Doctrine. Thank every other market force and boardroom decision and ratings obsession that has been pushing on the news product and content for the past couple decades. This is the natural evolution of things.
If the Bush Administration had some extra money don't you it would be well spent sending a couple paid reporters over to Iraq to show examples of the remarkable progress that's being made, Dan? Maybe a weekly publication called Progress Iraq?
THEY are the ones who forced her to quit, embarrassed their own President in the process and have set the stage for a very-real and very useless political fight. What forced her to quit, I think, was the fact that statements that appeared to indicate she would be an activist judge were released. This and the fact that she had stated the exact opposite on questionnaires when she was running for political office. It then became apparent she would not be confirmed. And if a fight does occur it is not useless. Bush should have embraced that fight. It is the fight this country needs.
Â
Of that, I have no doubt. What do you want first, a conservative or a qualified jurist?
In my mind the only qualified jurist is a conservative. That is because only conservatives will embrace original intent/strict construction. But that is not to say that all conservatives would.
This is the key point that liberals so often fail to grasp: This debate is about democracy. It is about republican accountability. It is about process. It is only tangentially about outcomes. Those who endorse originalist jurisprudence are not looking to pack the courts with conservative judges who will declare minimum wage laws unconstitutional or "find" a constitutional right to a flat tax. They (we) endorse original intent jurisprudence because it is the only way to anchor judges to the Constitution they claim to revere. In order to adjudicate, for example, what "unreasonable search and seizure" means in the 21st century, judges must ask what the founders understood by the idea, not what Justice Breyer or Souter thinks is fair or appropriate. If justices of the Supreme Court are simply going to legislate their policy preferences, why not simply close down the other two branches, and while we're at it, tear up the Constitution? So lesson two: Avoid anyone who is not an explicit, marrow-deep originalist.Â
In 1866, when members of the 39th Congress of the United States submitted the Constitution's 14th Amendment to state legislatures for ratification, they would have been stunned to learn that they had just written a provision mandating that homosexual sex be treated on the same moral plane as heterosexual sex. On Friday, Oct. 21, the Kansas Supreme Court, ruling under the Supreme Court precedent of Lawrence v. Texas(2003), decided that the 39th Congress meant just that. A Kansas law penalizing statutory homosexual rape more severely than statutory heterosexual rape was struck down under the 14th Amendment's "equal protection" clause.
For the record, Harriet Miers did not bring this windstorm of opposition upon herself, and I feel badly that she’s had to endure such criticism the past several weeks. But she likely has just done conservatives and Republicans a bigger favor than she ever could have done on the Court, by granting Bush the opportunity now to appoint a proven jurist and thus recapture the support of conservatives. For this she is owed a debt of gratitude.
"[T]he danger is not, that the judges will be too firm in resisting public opinion, and in defence of private rights or public liberties; but, that they will be ready to yield themselves to the passions, and politics, and prejudices of the day." --Justice Joseph Story
Let’s assume that Beinart is right and that the Deaniacs are today’s McGovernites. This would be an excellent time to ponder what the McGovern reformers did to the party. Â
Our nation properly takes its political bearings, always, from the Constitution, properly construed on the basis of deep immersion in the intellectual ferment of the Founding Era that produced it. That is why our democracy inescapably functions under some degree of judicial supervision. The nation has long needed a serious debate about the proper nature of that supervision. And the president needed both a chance to demonstrate his seriousness and an occasion to challenge his Democratic critics to demonstrate theirs in a momentous battle on terrain of his choosing. The Alito nomination begins that debate. Â
Would a Democrat communications director from Maryland really go undercover in an attempt to try to make a Republican look like a dirty trickster? What did the Washington Post know and when?
A sign of things to come? It appears that this is a state whose voters can agree on the tough issues - Through democratic means.
DENVER (AP) - Colorado voters agreed Tuesday to give up $3.7 billion in taxpayer refunds over the next five years to help the state bounce back from a recession, ignoring fiscal conservatives who argued that the government doesn't need more money to spend.
The vote was closely watched in states around the nation. Californians are scheduled to vote on state spending limits Nov. 8, and Kansas, Ohio, Maine, Nevada, Oklahoma and Arizona are considering spending caps. Supporters said Colorado simply could not afford to vote no, not with higher education, health care and transportation already suffering from millions of dollars in budget cuts. "It was a tough election for all," said Republican Gov. Bill Owens, who stunned his own party by joining Democrats in crafting the measure. "Everyone cares for Colorado, and I understand why others feel differently."
The referendum lets the state keep an estimated $3.7 billion over five years that would otherwise be refunded under the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights, a constitutional amendment that is considered the nation's strictest cap on government spending. With 97% of the expected vote counted statewide, 552,113 voters, or 52% approved the plan, compared with 509,335, or 48% voting against it. Voters were closely divided on a second measure, however, that would let the state borrow up to $2.1 billion for roads, school maintenance, pensions and other projects. Opponents had a slight edge, 535,654 votes to 522,842, with 97 percent of the vote in.
One opposition group was already threatening legal action Tuesday night over voting problems that cropped up late in the day.
In the traditional conservative stronghold of El Paso County, anchored by Colorado Springs, some voters waited in line well after the polls should have closed because a higher-than-expected turnout had created a ballot shortage. Some people left in frustration, clerk Bob Balink said. In Greeley, heavy turnout had voters at one library waiting in line for 40 minutes to cast their ballots. "My job depends on it. Without it, we're toast," said Laura Manuel, who works at Metropolitan State College in Denver and supported suspending the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights. "People want a free lunch - they want roads and sidewalks but don't want to pay for it." The 1992 constitutional amendment, dubbed TABOR, has been celebrated by fiscal conservatives across the country. Until this year, Owens was among them, but he said he backed the change because Colorado faces a fiscal crisis. Randy Wood, a 45-year-old PTA member with two daughters in Denver's public schools, said he voted in favor because he worries about more cuts in education after seeing music and the arts suffer.
Patricia Kropf, a retired dental office manager from Denver, said she voted against it. "We don't trust the government, and we don't know what they would do with the money," the 62-year-old Republican said. The vote capped a bitter, $8 million campaign. Supporters argued that without the change, Colorado would be forced to close state parks and cut funding for health care, universities and community colleges.
Opponents branded the measures a tax grab by politicians too gutless to make tough decisions on spending. "We have some people running around saying the sky is falling. Others say this is the opportunity we have been waiting for, that we can do government with less," said Jon Caldara, leader of the opposition group Vote No; It's Your Dough. Caldara said the ballot shortages Tuesday were inexcusable and he threatened legal action.
In Denver, voters on Tuesday also approved:
- An annual $25 million property tax increase to fund a program that will link raises and incentives for Denver public school teachers to student achievement. Experts said no other large district in the nation has tried such a dramatic overhaul.
- A measure to make it legal for adults to possess up to an ounce of marijuana, though the city attorney's office said police would simply file marijuana possession charges under state law.
"Governor's Counsel Raises Questions About FormerState Democratic Party Official's Role In MD4Bush Flap"
That's a pretty confusing story, and I don't know what you think the interest would be, but I also don't understand your obsessive need to cherry pick every story to smear the Democratic name, Dan. Is this a big, important story to you?
It's certainly cant' be because you merely have a difference of opinion as you've stated before.
By Charles Babington and Dafna Linzer Washington Post
Democrats forced the Senate into a rare closed-door session yesterday, infuriating Republicans but extracting from them a promise to speed up an inquiry into the Bush administration's handling of intelligence about Iraq's weapons in the run-up to the war. With no warning in the mid-afternoon, the Senate's top Democrat invoked the little-used Rule 21, which forced aides to turn off the chamber's cameras and close its massive doors after evicting all visitors, reporters and most staffers. Plans to bring in electronic-bug-sniffing dogs were dropped when it became clear that senators would trade barbs but discuss no classified information.
Republicans condemned the Democrats' maneuver, which marked the first time in more than 25 years that one party had insisted on a closed session without consulting the other party. But within two hours, Republicans appointed a bipartisan panel to report on the progress of a Senate intelligence committee report on prewar intelligence, which Democrats say has been delayed for nearly a year. "Finally, after months and months and months of begging, cajoling, writing letters, we're finally going to be able to have phase two of the investigation regarding how the intelligence was used to lead us into the intractable war in Iraq," Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) told reporters, claiming a rare victory for Democrats in the GOP-controlled Congress. Beneath the political pyrotechnics was an issue that has infuriated liberals but flummoxed many of the Democratic lawmakers who voted three years ago to approve the war: allegations that administration officials exaggerated Iraq's weapons capabilities and terrorism ties and then resisted inquiries into the intelligence failures. Friday's indictment of top White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby on perjury and obstruction charges gave Democrats a new opening to demand that more light be shed on these issues, including administration efforts to discredit a key critic of the prewar claims of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.
Democrats were dismayed that President Bush made no apologies after the indictment and that his naming of a new Supreme Court nominee Monday knocked the Libby story off many front pages. As he stood on the Senate floor to demand the closed session -- a motion not subject to a vote under the rule -- Reid said Libby's grand jury indictment "asserts this administration engaged in actions that both harmed our national security and are morally repugnant." The usually unflappable majority leader, Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), was searching for words to express his outrage to reporters a few minutes later. The Senate "has been hijacked by the Democratic leadership," he said. "They have no convictions, they have no principles, they have no ideas." Never before had he been "slapped in the face with such an affront," he said, adding: "For the next year and a half, I can't trust Senator Reid."
(Interesting, since Bill Frist is next on the list to be "slapped in the face" with an investigation into his personal investments, and insider-trading accusations.)
DES MOINES, Iowa -- Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist says a federal investigation into his sale of stock in a family-owned hospital chain will affect his decision on whether he will seek the presidency in 2008. Frist, R-Tenn., said Saturday during a visit to Iowa, site of the nation's first presidential caucuses, that he has not lost the public's trust and wants people to "wait for the facts before passing judgment."
Before speaking at the Iowa GOP's annual fundraising dinner, Frist told reporters that his visit does not confirm any presidential aspirations. "I've been to Iowa many times," he said. The Securities and Exchange Commission is investigating Frist's sale of millions of dollars of stock in HCA, the Nashville-based hospital chain founded by his father and brother. The sales were completed by July 1, two weeks before share prices fell by 9 percent. Frist has denied he acted on insider information.
That's a pretty confusing story, and I don't know what you think the interest would be, but I also don't understand your obsessive need to cherry pick every story to smear the Democratic name, Dan.Â
I agree there is no need to smear democrats. They make themselves look bad enough with every public act and utterance.
Clearly, legalized abortion is based not on fact, but fiction. The fiction is that little Kaylyn, 14 minutes before birth, was not endowed by God with the same rights she would enjoy after birth. Â
Liberals outside of Congress also tried their best to undermine the law that could send "Scooter" Libby to prison. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) slammed it as a "clearly unconstitutional infringement on the right of free speech." Morton H. Halperin, director of ACLU's Center for National Security Studies, not only promised to provide legal assistance to people who outed CIA agents, he also publicly stated that covert operations should be banned. Bill Clinton, a man who refused to lower himself to face-to-face daily CIA briefings, tried to appoint Mort Halperin to the Defense Department. Â
Not really. A high ranking Dem in Maryland tried to trick a high ranking Rep. in Maryland into smearing the Dem mayor. He pretended to be an extremist Republican passing information on about a made up affair that the Dem mayor was supposedly having. When the Republican didn't bite and even told him that he didn't want to be a part of the dirty tricks campaign, this high ranking Dem passed on private e-mails to the Washington post trying to smear him anyway.
He is now a former Dem official, but he did this while he was a Dem official and even during normal working hours which raises the question of whether or not he was paid by the Dems to do this.
The fact that the Washington Post reporter used his sign in name shows the connections between a high ranking dem and the Washington Post. Of course you do not care since it all was done by a Democrat. Loyalty and all that.
I admit my partisanship. It won't be shaken by a pipsqueak playing silly games on the Internet.
You won't admit it. Your concerns are as selective as mine. If the tables were turned and it wasn't a Democrat, you wouldn't have posted Word One. Internal Maryland politics? -- tell me why you care.
fox9 was following the money trail in the mayoral race and discovered that 69% of Randy Kelly's campaign contributions come from people who don't live in St. Paul, some even live out of state.......interesting :eyeroll:
Because it is part of a disturbing pattern that I see in the democrat party. It goes back to debating the meaning of the word "is" and further. You have Hillary "not some stand by my man woman" accidentally having those Rose Law Firm records in her own study, Sandy Berger hiding important documents in his pants, the current flack in the senate over the debunked "Bush lied" garbage, the Plame name game, etc. These are not some extremist whackos in the party, they are the party.
I am willing to admit that the Republicans have their problems as well, but it is not at all to the level of what the Dems do. To support this activity by calling it "loyalty" is amazing and wuite dangerous. Grow a spine and think for yourself.
Imagine if this were Carl Rove collaborating with a Fox News reporter trying to infilitrate a Democrat's board to get them to do something embarrasing to their party. Would you just blow it off as well? Would you still be trying to trash the messenger or would you go after them?
Loyalty is a good thing, but only to a certain point.
"Because it is part of a disturbing pattern that I see in the democrat party."
It's the Democratic Party. Or should I start calling the other side the Republic Party?
"I am willing to admit that the Republicans have their problems as well, but it is not at all to the level of what the Dems do."
I think that depends on which side of the looking glass you're at.
"Imagine if this were Carl Rove collaborating with a Fox News reporter trying to infilitrate a Democrat's board to get them to do something embarrasing to their party. Would you just blow it off as well? Would you still be trying to trash the messenger or would you go after them?"
Depends on what kind of mood I was in. How much have I talked about Scooter Libbey? Hell, WMD's? Feel free to look. Karl Rove and Fox News? They have something in common -- Roger Ailes, the man who shepherded Rush Limbaugh into prominence. They're old cohorts. Silk suits who collaborated to destroy Democrats in ways so vile, that it would make your hair curl. They laughed all the way to the bank. They could be on the phone as we speak. I wouldn't blow it off. I expect it.
"Loyalty is a good thing, but only to a certain point."
"... he issued a statement Wednesday saying "if ANWR remains in this reconciliation package, I am strongly leaning against sending it to conference committee.''
Imagine if this were Carl Rove collaborating with a Fox News reporter trying to infilitrate a Democrat's board to get them to do something embarrasing to their party. Would you just blow it off as well? Would you still be trying to trash the messenger or would you go after them?
That would be in character with KKKarl's history, but sort of mild compared to some of the shit he's pulled, like bugging his own office and blaming it on the Democrats. FBI documents revealed, after Rove's candidate won handily, that the bug was equipped with a battery that was good for about six hours, meaning that whoever planted it would have had to get in there four times a day. When th FBI pulled the device off the wall, only fifteen minutes of that battery's life had been expended.
And there was the famous George Bush debate-training tape and briefing book that was planted with the Gore campaign by a Rove flunky in 2000 . . .
That was small potatoes. Rove was a younger hatchet man in '88 during the Bush - Dukakis campaign. Dukakis tried to take the high road. Between Rove, Atwater and Ailes, he was triple-teamed.
Ahhhh, because Rick, envirowackos will publish and print anything no matter how absurd or blatantly wrong to get the uninformed and weak minded to blindly follow their causes. Apparently you have fallen into at least one of those categories.
The bears in your pics are so terrified of man's intrusion that they are walking on and playing on the pipeline? Case closed.
700 to 2000 acres are proposed for use in an area the size of South Carolina. The land used will be restored. What is the problem?
Dan:
This means you think there are actual flaws in almighty market capitalism?
I'm shocked.
Well, Dan thank Fox News. Thank Reagan for putting the kebash to Fairness Doctrine. Thank every other market force and boardroom decision and ratings obsession that has been pushing on the news product and content for the past couple decades. This is the natural evolution of things.
Isn't it what you wanted?
If the Bush Administration had some extra money don't you it would be well spent sending a couple paid reporters over to Iraq to show examples of the remarkable progress that's being made, Dan? Maybe a weekly publication called Progress Iraq?
"I think he knows the base wants a hardcore conservative."
I thought they might want a qualified jurist. But you might be right.
There are plenty of conservative qualified jurists.
Of that, I have no doubt. What do you want first, a conservative or a qualified jurist? Do you have to have both?
THEY are the ones who forced her to quit, embarrassed their own President in the process and have set the stage for a very-real and very useless political fight. What forced her to quit, I think, was the fact that statements that appeared to indicate she would be an activist judge were released. This and the fact that she had stated the exact opposite on questionnaires when she was running for political office. It then became apparent she would not be confirmed. And if a fight does occur it is not useless. Bush should have embraced that fight. It is the fight this country needs.
Â
The Conservativescrucified that woman.
Of that, I have no doubt. What do you want first, a conservative or a qualified jurist?
In my mind the only qualified jurist is a conservative. That is because only conservatives will embrace original intent/strict construction. But that is not to say that all conservatives would.
Spector didn't even get a chance to crucify her. She was torn to pieces by the mob on the way to the crucifiction.
Specter did not help matters him and his left wing buddy Leahy: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/19/AR2005101902402.html
This is the key point that liberals so often fail to grasp: This debate is about democracy. It is about republican accountability. It is about process. It is only tangentially about outcomes. Those who endorse originalist jurisprudence are not looking to pack the courts with conservative judges who will declare minimum wage laws unconstitutional or "find" a constitutional right to a flat tax. They (we) endorse original intent jurisprudence because it is the only way to anchor judges to the Constitution they claim to revere. In order to adjudicate, for example, what "unreasonable search and seizure" means in the 21st century, judges must ask what the founders understood by the idea, not what Justice Breyer or Souter thinks is fair or appropriate. If justices of the Supreme Court are simply going to legislate their policy preferences, why not simply close down the other two branches, and while we're at it, tear up the Constitution? So lesson two: Avoid anyone who is not an explicit, marrow-deep originalist.Â
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/monacharen/2005/10/28/173237.html
In 1866, when members of the 39th Congress of the United States submitted the Constitution's 14th Amendment to state legislatures for ratification, they would have been stunned to learn that they had just written a provision mandating that homosexual sex be treated on the same moral plane as heterosexual sex. On Friday, Oct. 21, the Kansas Supreme Court, ruling under the Supreme Court precedent of Lawrence v. Texas(2003), decided that the 39th Congress meant just that. A Kansas law penalizing statutory homosexual rape more severely than statutory heterosexual rape was struck down under the 14th Amendment's "equal protection" clause.
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/benshapiro/2005/10/28/173238.html
"Avoid anyone who is not an explicit, marrow-deep originalist."
And avoid anyone who says that local public school funding falls under the jurisdiction of the Sheriff of the Shire.
For the record, Harriet Miers did not bring this windstorm of opposition upon herself, and I feel badly that she’s had to endure such criticism the past several weeks. But she likely has just done conservatives and Republicans a bigger favor than she ever could have done on the Court, by granting Bush the opportunity now to appoint a proven jurist and thus recapture the support of conservatives. For this she is owed a debt of gratitude.
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/TrevorBothwell/2005/10/28/173246.html
But what happens when trial lawyers arethe lawmakers?
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/SteveMuscatello/2005/10/28/173242.html
And avoid anyone who says that local public school funding falls under the jurisdiction of the Sheriff of the Shire.
No
After Bush's new Supreme Court nominee is approved will I have to learn to farm 40 acres of land with a mule and a plow, jethro?
And will the right to keep and bear arms apply only to black-powder weapons?
After Bush's new Supreme Court nominee is approved will I have to learn to farm 40 acres of land with a mule and a plow, jethro?
"[T]he danger is not, that the judges will be too firm in resisting public opinion, and in defence of private rights or public liberties; but, that they will be ready to yield themselves to the passions, and politics, and prejudices of the day." --Justice Joseph Story
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/markalexander/2005/10/28/173418.html
Let’s assume that Beinart is right and that the Deaniacs are today’s McGovernites. This would be an excellent time to ponder what the McGovern reformers did to the party. Â
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/johnleo/2005/10/31/173446.html
Our nation properly takes its political bearings, always, from the Constitution, properly construed on the basis of deep immersion in the intellectual ferment of the Founding Era that produced it. That is why our democracy inescapably functions under some degree of judicial supervision. The nation has long needed a serious debate about the proper nature of that supervision. And the president needed both a chance to demonstrate his seriousness and an occasion to challenge his Democratic critics to demonstrate theirs in a momentous battle on terrain of his choosing. The Alito nomination begins that debate. Â
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/georgewill/2005/11/01/173706.html
Would a Democrat communications director from Maryland really go undercover in an attempt to try to make a Republican look like a dirty trickster? What did the Washington Post know and when?
http://wbal.com/stories/templates/news.asp?articleid=36588
A sign of things to come? It appears that this is a state whose voters can agree on the tough issues - Through democratic means.
DENVER (AP) - Colorado voters agreed Tuesday to give up $3.7 billion in taxpayer refunds over the next five years to help the state bounce back from a recession, ignoring fiscal conservatives who argued that the government doesn't need more money to spend.
The vote was closely watched in states around the nation. Californians are scheduled to vote on state spending limits Nov. 8, and Kansas, Ohio, Maine, Nevada, Oklahoma and Arizona are considering spending caps. Supporters said Colorado simply could not afford to vote no, not with higher education, health care and transportation already suffering from millions of dollars in budget cuts. "It was a tough election for all," said Republican Gov. Bill Owens, who stunned his own party by joining Democrats in crafting the measure. "Everyone cares for Colorado, and I understand why others feel differently."
The referendum lets the state keep an estimated $3.7 billion over five years that would otherwise be refunded under the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights, a constitutional amendment that is considered the nation's strictest cap on government spending. With 97% of the expected vote counted statewide, 552,113 voters, or 52% approved the plan, compared with 509,335, or 48% voting against it. Voters were closely divided on a second measure, however, that would let the state borrow up to $2.1 billion for roads, school maintenance, pensions and other projects. Opponents had a slight edge, 535,654 votes to 522,842, with 97 percent of the vote in.
One opposition group was already threatening legal action Tuesday night over voting problems that cropped up late in the day.
In the traditional conservative stronghold of El Paso County, anchored by Colorado Springs, some voters waited in line well after the polls should have closed because a higher-than-expected turnout had created a ballot shortage. Some people left in frustration, clerk Bob Balink said. In Greeley, heavy turnout had voters at one library waiting in line for 40 minutes to cast their ballots. "My job depends on it. Without it, we're toast," said Laura Manuel, who works at Metropolitan State College in Denver and supported suspending the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights. "People want a free lunch - they want roads and sidewalks but don't want to pay for it." The 1992 constitutional amendment, dubbed TABOR, has been celebrated by fiscal conservatives across the country. Until this year, Owens was among them, but he said he backed the change because Colorado faces a fiscal crisis. Randy Wood, a 45-year-old PTA member with two daughters in Denver's public schools, said he voted in favor because he worries about more cuts in education after seeing music and the arts suffer.
Patricia Kropf, a retired dental office manager from Denver, said she voted against it. "We don't trust the government, and we don't know what they would do with the money," the 62-year-old Republican said. The vote capped a bitter, $8 million campaign. Supporters argued that without the change, Colorado would be forced to close state parks and cut funding for health care, universities and community colleges.
Opponents branded the measures a tax grab by politicians too gutless to make tough decisions on spending. "We have some people running around saying the sky is falling. Others say this is the opportunity we have been waiting for, that we can do government with less," said Jon Caldara, leader of the opposition group Vote No; It's Your Dough. Caldara said the ballot shortages Tuesday were inexcusable and he threatened legal action.
In Denver, voters on Tuesday also approved:
- An annual $25 million property tax increase to fund a program that will link raises and incentives for Denver public school teachers to student achievement. Experts said no other large district in the nation has tried such a dramatic overhaul.
- A measure to make it legal for adults to possess up to an ounce of marijuana, though the city attorney's office said police would simply file marijuana possession charges under state law.
"Governor's Counsel Raises Questions About FormerState Democratic Party Official's Role In MD4Bush Flap"
That's a pretty confusing story, and I don't know what you think the interest would be, but I also don't understand your obsessive need to cherry pick every story to smear the Democratic name, Dan. Is this a big, important story to you?
It's certainly cant' be because you merely have a difference of opinion as you've stated before.
By Charles Babington and Dafna Linzer
Washington Post
Democrats forced the Senate into a rare closed-door session yesterday, infuriating Republicans but extracting from them a promise to speed up an inquiry into the Bush administration's handling of intelligence about Iraq's weapons in the run-up to the war. With no warning in the mid-afternoon, the Senate's top Democrat invoked the little-used Rule 21, which forced aides to turn off the chamber's cameras and close its massive doors after evicting all visitors, reporters and most staffers. Plans to bring in electronic-bug-sniffing dogs were dropped when it became clear that senators would trade barbs but discuss no classified information.
Republicans condemned the Democrats' maneuver, which marked the first time in more than 25 years that one party had insisted on a closed session without consulting the other party. But within two hours, Republicans appointed a bipartisan panel to report on the progress of a Senate intelligence committee report on prewar intelligence, which Democrats say has been delayed for nearly a year. "Finally, after months and months and months of begging, cajoling, writing letters, we're finally going to be able to have phase two of the investigation regarding how the intelligence was used to lead us into the intractable war in Iraq," Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) told reporters, claiming a rare victory for Democrats in the GOP-controlled Congress. Beneath the political pyrotechnics was an issue that has infuriated liberals but flummoxed many of the Democratic lawmakers who voted three years ago to approve the war: allegations that administration officials exaggerated Iraq's weapons capabilities and terrorism ties and then resisted inquiries into the intelligence failures. Friday's indictment of top White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby on perjury and obstruction charges gave Democrats a new opening to demand that more light be shed on these issues, including administration efforts to discredit a key critic of the prewar claims of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.
Democrats were dismayed that President Bush made no apologies after the indictment and that his naming of a new Supreme Court nominee Monday knocked the Libby story off many front pages. As he stood on the Senate floor to demand the closed session -- a motion not subject to a vote under the rule -- Reid said Libby's grand jury indictment "asserts this administration engaged in actions that both harmed our national security and are morally repugnant." The usually unflappable majority leader, Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), was searching for words to express his outrage to reporters a few minutes later. The Senate "has been hijacked by the Democratic leadership," he said. "They have no convictions, they have no principles, they have no ideas." Never before had he been "slapped in the face with such an affront," he said, adding: "For the next year and a half, I can't trust Senator Reid."
(Interesting, since Bill Frist is next on the list to be "slapped in the face" with an investigation into his personal investments, and insider-trading accusations.)
Frist: Stock Probe Will Affect 2008 Plans
By JAMES BELTRAN
Associated Press
DES MOINES, Iowa -- Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist says a federal investigation into his sale of stock in a family-owned hospital chain will affect his decision on whether he will seek the presidency in 2008. Frist, R-Tenn., said Saturday during a visit to Iowa, site of the nation's first presidential caucuses, that he has not lost the public's trust and wants people to "wait for the facts before passing judgment."
Before speaking at the Iowa GOP's annual fundraising dinner, Frist told reporters that his visit does not confirm any presidential aspirations. "I've been to Iowa many times," he said. The Securities and Exchange Commission is investigating Frist's sale of millions of dollars of stock in HCA, the Nashville-based hospital chain founded by his father and brother. The sales were completed by July 1, two weeks before share prices fell by 9 percent. Frist has denied he acted on insider information.
Bob Dole is chuckling somewhere.
Keeping Democrats slightly off balance with obscure Senate procedure was always in his playbook.
That's a pretty confusing story, and I don't know what you think the interest would be, but I also don't understand your obsessive need to cherry pick every story to smear the Democratic name, Dan.Â
I agree there is no need to smear democrats. They make themselves look bad enough with every public act and utterance.
Clearly, legalized abortion is based not on fact, but fiction. The fiction is that little Kaylyn, 14 minutes before birth, was not endowed by God with the same rights she would enjoy after birth. Â
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/terencejeffrey/2005/11/02/173912.html
Liberals outside of Congress also tried their best to undermine the law that could send "Scooter" Libby to prison. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) slammed it as a "clearly unconstitutional infringement on the right of free speech." Morton H. Halperin, director of ACLU's Center for National Security Studies, not only promised to provide legal assistance to people who outed CIA agents, he also publicly stated that covert operations should be banned. Bill Clinton, a man who refused to lower himself to face-to-face daily CIA briefings, tried to appoint Mort Halperin to the Defense Department. Â
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/brentbozell/2005/11/02/173914.html
That's a pretty confusing story
Not really. A high ranking Dem in Maryland tried to trick a high ranking Rep. in Maryland into smearing the Dem mayor. He pretended to be an extremist Republican passing information on about a made up affair that the Dem mayor was supposedly having. When the Republican didn't bite and even told him that he didn't want to be a part of the dirty tricks campaign, this high ranking Dem passed on private e-mails to the Washington post trying to smear him anyway.
He is now a former Dem official, but he did this while he was a Dem official and even during normal working hours which raises the question of whether or not he was paid by the Dems to do this.
The fact that the Washington Post reporter used his sign in name shows the connections between a high ranking dem and the Washington Post. Of course you do not care since it all was done by a Democrat. Loyalty and all that.
"Of course you do not care since it all was done by a Democrat. Loyalty and all that."
Loyalty: What a sin. People can count on you. We can't have any of that.
Of course you do care. Hatred and all that.
Hatred of dishonesty and dirty tricks, what a sin.
As if that's all.
I admit my partisanship. It won't be shaken by a pipsqueak playing silly games on the Internet.
You won't admit it. Your concerns are as selective as mine. If the tables were turned and it wasn't a Democrat, you wouldn't have posted Word One. Internal Maryland politics? -- tell me why you care.
tell me why you care.
Because it is part of a disturbing pattern that I see in the democrat party. It goes back to debating the meaning of the word "is" and further. You have Hillary "not some stand by my man woman" accidentally having those Rose Law Firm records in her own study, Sandy Berger hiding important documents in his pants, the current flack in the senate over the debunked "Bush lied" garbage, the Plame name game, etc. These are not some extremist whackos in the party, they are the party.
I am willing to admit that the Republicans have their problems as well, but it is not at all to the level of what the Dems do. To support this activity by calling it "loyalty" is amazing and wuite dangerous. Grow a spine and think for yourself.
Imagine if this were Carl Rove collaborating with a Fox News reporter trying to infilitrate a Democrat's board to get them to do something embarrasing to their party. Would you just blow it off as well? Would you still be trying to trash the messenger or would you go after them?
Loyalty is a good thing, but only to a certain point.
wow... that's some really heavy irony, Dan
"Because it is part of a disturbing pattern that I see in the democrat party."
It's the Democratic Party. Or should I start calling the other side the Republic Party?
"I am willing to admit that the Republicans have their problems as well, but it is not at all to the level of what the Dems do."
I think that depends on which side of the looking glass you're at.
"Imagine if this were Carl Rove collaborating with a Fox News reporter trying to infilitrate a Democrat's board to get them to do something embarrasing to their party. Would you just blow it off as well? Would you still be trying to trash the messenger or would you go after them?"
Depends on what kind of mood I was in. How much have I talked about Scooter Libbey? Hell, WMD's? Feel free to look. Karl Rove and Fox News? They have something in common -- Roger Ailes, the man who shepherded Rush Limbaugh into prominence. They're old cohorts. Silk suits who collaborated to destroy Democrats in ways so vile, that it would make your hair curl. They laughed all the way to the bank. They could be on the phone as we speak. I wouldn't blow it off. I expect it.
"Loyalty is a good thing, but only to a certain point."
Which you seem to want to determine.
Teach us oh great one.
Coleman saying no to ANWR plunder
"... he issued a statement Wednesday saying "if ANWR remains in this reconciliation package, I am strongly leaning against sending it to conference committee.''
10K Joe for Senator Norm Coleman!
Drill it, Norm.
ANWR's designated natural resources
ANWR" s his home
Ahhhhhhh, brown bears do not inhabit the arctic.
The caribou herds were supposed to be wiped out by the Alaska pipeline. And what happened there???
That would be in character with KKKarl's history, but sort of mild compared to some of the shit he's pulled, like bugging his own office and blaming it on the Democrats. FBI documents revealed, after Rove's candidate won handily, that the bug was equipped with a battery that was good for about six hours, meaning that whoever planted it would have had to get in there four times a day. When th FBI pulled the device off the wall, only fifteen minutes of that battery's life had been expended.
And there was the famous George Bush debate-training tape and briefing book that was planted with the Gore campaign by a Rove flunky in 2000 . . .
"Ahhhhhhh, brown bears do not inhabit the arctic."
AAAHHHH then why is its picture on the ANWR website?
<http://www.anwr.org/photo.htm>
Pieter:
That was small potatoes. Rove was a younger hatchet man in '88 during the Bush - Dukakis campaign. Dukakis tried to take the high road. Between Rove, Atwater and Ailes, he was triple-teamed.
Never take the high road against a Republican.
Ahhhh, because Rick, envirowackos will publish and print anything no matter how absurd or blatantly wrong to get the uninformed and weak minded to blindly follow their causes. Apparently you have fallen into at least one of those categories.
The bears in your pics are so terrified of man's intrusion that they are walking on and playing on the pipeline? Case closed.
700 to 2000 acres are proposed for use in an area the size of South Carolina. The land used will be restored. What is the problem?
Oh yeah, what happened to the caribou herds???