Miscellaneous Comments/Links:
Bush letting Gonzalez go, to the hill or hilt.
Ex-aide to Gonzalez speaks: motivation "mis-handled" Sampson and DeLay ya?
Brownback "Savings" Social Security and running on Bush or staying the course.
Romney Running Lists
Please note that my comments are based on incomplete reads of most of this material. The Brownback/Social Security piece I did completely read and it needs more research anyway. The Romney piece includes an MSNBC bipartisan list of candidates.
[Update- 8:45 AM: I was orginally heading for Sampson & Duh Lie Ya, but seriously...
The Romney piece includes potential for my being half "Right", but I don't know if Romney is Fristian.]
Friday, March 30, 2007
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Sen. Mitch McConnell
MR. POLITICAL:
In my humble opinion:
Senator McConnell sees what the Democrats have done as political and then defines it as a choice between not wanting to win the war and not wanting to end it, and it has been suggested that Democrats don't have the guts to propose a bill that does what he thinks need doing.
Therefore he should propose the bill, and the Democrats should allow it to come forward. The bill being the one that he feels that there is no will to vote for, and see if he will vote for it. Now of course the catch is that he is being political and by actually putting up a bill of that nature may be a good idea from either side to see how politics is more about flip-flop and Republicans are about not wanting the process to work than they can admit.
This may be an alternative after the veto and/or before or after my other idea at the bottom of this link.
In my humble opinion:
Senator McConnell sees what the Democrats have done as political and then defines it as a choice between not wanting to win the war and not wanting to end it, and it has been suggested that Democrats don't have the guts to propose a bill that does what he thinks need doing.
Therefore he should propose the bill, and the Democrats should allow it to come forward. The bill being the one that he feels that there is no will to vote for, and see if he will vote for it. Now of course the catch is that he is being political and by actually putting up a bill of that nature may be a good idea from either side to see how politics is more about flip-flop and Republicans are about not wanting the process to work than they can admit.
This may be an alternative after the veto and/or before or after my other idea at the bottom of this link.
Senator Stabenow
FAST TRACK! 48 HOURS.
A fine follow up to the Supplemental Bill.
And important work:
Stabenow Trade Prosecutor Bill
Just a reminder there is a lot of "hard work" and Democrats have their hands full, not just moving forward but re-tracking.
A fine follow up to the Supplemental Bill.
And important work:
Stabenow Trade Prosecutor Bill
Just a reminder there is a lot of "hard work" and Democrats have their hands full, not just moving forward but re-tracking.
PRESIDENTIAL PROFILES
TO THE RIGHT?
MY LIST OF LINKS HAVE BEEN MODIFIED.
PRESIDENTIAL PROFILES - LINK
HAS BEEN ADDED
AND
LOCAL POLITICS
AND
LOCAL MEDIA
ARE NEW TITLES.
[* 3:12 PM UPDATE: What I believe: Obama
and the Republicans need a Link like Presidential Profiles: HERE IS MSNBC'S THE CONTENDERS
But not necessarily a NEW third party or Unity '08. Even though it depends on how the parties actually get things done, it could be just another "Third Way" which is just the middle of what we got and will get more of the same. The winner take all construction of the whole process mitigates against a third party, except as a broker or a spoiler. Forces of good, rather than unity, should pick a side and influence it, but even that has pragmatic problems in that the good is divided. On the other hand: upon further "hard work" they may be able to be just that broker. So rather than the spread of Second Lives, maybe a Fourth Way, is upon us, but it will depend upon the actions/reactions of candidates as well.]
MY LIST OF LINKS HAVE BEEN MODIFIED.
PRESIDENTIAL PROFILES - LINK
HAS BEEN ADDED
AND
LOCAL POLITICS
AND
LOCAL MEDIA
ARE NEW TITLES.
[* 3:12 PM UPDATE: What I believe: Obama
and the Republicans need a Link like Presidential Profiles: HERE IS MSNBC'S THE CONTENDERS
But not necessarily a NEW third party or Unity '08. Even though it depends on how the parties actually get things done, it could be just another "Third Way" which is just the middle of what we got and will get more of the same. The winner take all construction of the whole process mitigates against a third party, except as a broker or a spoiler. Forces of good, rather than unity, should pick a side and influence it, but even that has pragmatic problems in that the good is divided. On the other hand: upon further "hard work" they may be able to be just that broker. So rather than the spread of Second Lives, maybe a Fourth Way, is upon us, but it will depend upon the actions/reactions of candidates as well.]
The Point Blank Dance
To Bush: Take it or leave it.
'nuff said?
Since the president bashes politics while playing it to the hilt, the above position must be considered. But one final olive branch, and the tree has it's own history which may be nil, or out-Right dead on the war front.
Negotiations over the final bill are in the hands of the appropriations committee, to smooth out the differences with the house version. If and when Bush vetos it, the matter could be dead. Congress could leave it there. The president will then be playing politics and sacrificing the troops if not washing his hands of his responsibilities, if he ever had them in his hands.
There are many fronts where "hard work" is needed. If the Emergency Supplimental gets nowhere, the next step could be completely on another front. Not to mention more politics, which is the biggest front on which he must be faced or the whole process is an affront.
One suggestion may be to see if we would still cobble together the votes needed, by quickly separating the issues. Emergency Supplemental: Iraq / Domestic
Then leave a potential veto at the feet of the Republicans.
'nuff said?
Since the president bashes politics while playing it to the hilt, the above position must be considered. But one final olive branch, and the tree has it's own history which may be nil, or out-Right dead on the war front.
Negotiations over the final bill are in the hands of the appropriations committee, to smooth out the differences with the house version. If and when Bush vetos it, the matter could be dead. Congress could leave it there. The president will then be playing politics and sacrificing the troops if not washing his hands of his responsibilities, if he ever had them in his hands.
There are many fronts where "hard work" is needed. If the Emergency Supplimental gets nowhere, the next step could be completely on another front. Not to mention more politics, which is the biggest front on which he must be faced or the whole process is an affront.
One suggestion may be to see if we would still cobble together the votes needed, by quickly separating the issues. Emergency Supplemental: Iraq / Domestic
Then leave a potential veto at the feet of the Republicans.
Emergency (Iraq) Supplemental Passes Senate: 51-47
Others call it War Supplemental. NOT!
Library of Congress Records (Thomas) defines:
The Knot for Naught Dance may be NOT as well.
Will the president veto? Will the president compromise?
To will or not to will? That is the question.
The choice to dance is in the president's hands, the congress may still have the last foot down.
The Senate delivered the amount that the president wanted and then some.
[at this moment(posting within seconds of original post): Sen. Robert Byrd Senate Appropriations Committee Chair is calling for working together on a "responsible plan" for Iraq and not demonizing "democracy". The latter was my word, he said "congress".]
More later: below unread. [See MyDD.]
[8:33 update: Actually the more later will likely be a separate post. But Sen. Bryd just concluded, in thanks to the staff for their hard work on this bill.
Library of Congress Records (Thomas) defines:
S.965
Title: An original bill making emergency supplemental appropriations...
The Knot for Naught Dance may be NOT as well.
Will the president veto? Will the president compromise?
To will or not to will? That is the question.
The choice to dance is in the president's hands, the congress may still have the last foot down.
The Senate delivered the amount that the president wanted and then some.
[at this moment(posting within seconds of original post): Sen. Robert Byrd Senate Appropriations Committee Chair is calling for working together on a "responsible plan" for Iraq and not demonizing "democracy". The latter was my word, he said "congress".]
More later: below unread. [See MyDD.]
[8:33 update: Actually the more later will likely be a separate post. But Sen. Bryd just concluded, in thanks to the staff for their hard work on this bill.
"the hard work, the hard work"..."did you get that?"...if not a third "the hard work" evoked (at his usual eloquent pace). I knew that this would be a memorable speech.]
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
One man, one vote for knot?
Or Naught?
Senate defeats amendment to Iraq Supplemental.
And Party NOT?
By my calculation, one vote may make a difference but only be part of the dance move. As I understand the 50 to 48 defeat of the removal of conditions to the Iraq Supplemental bill, of the 48 Dems and two independents(Liebermann & Sanders), two others crossed party lines(Hagel and Sanders), and two did not vote (one each party).
So one switched vote could have placed this on the dance card for a political shuffle, and still there be the political dance of the veto.
The prerogative which Bush sees is his job is a side step of the constitution which puts the power of the purse in congress's steps, not to mention much more.
[1:30 PM the dance goes on, on the Senate Floor, at this moment with Sen. Linsey Graham doing the finest political two-step in place as he literally/physically rocks as he speaks, doing everything he can before the next dance as he predicts a veto.]
Senate defeats amendment to Iraq Supplemental.
And Party NOT?
By my calculation, one vote may make a difference but only be part of the dance move. As I understand the 50 to 48 defeat of the removal of conditions to the Iraq Supplemental bill, of the 48 Dems and two independents(Liebermann & Sanders), two others crossed party lines(Hagel and Sanders), and two did not vote (one each party).
So one switched vote could have placed this on the dance card for a political shuffle, and still there be the political dance of the veto.
Speaking to reporters, House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) was conciliatory, but only to a point: "We ought to reach out to the president and say, 'Mr. President, this is not a unilateral government. It is a separation of powers, and the Congress of the United States . . . has taken some action. You obviously disagree with that. Where are the areas of compromise?' "
The prerogative which Bush sees is his job is a side step of the constitution which puts the power of the purse in congress's steps, not to mention much more.
[1:30 PM the dance goes on, on the Senate Floor, at this moment with Sen. Linsey Graham doing the finest political two-step in place as he literally/physically rocks as he speaks, doing everything he can before the next dance as he predicts a veto.]
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
"Secret Plans" sounds too much like Nixon.
Hit and Run Republicans are not exactly being cut and run from the process as they know it is difficult to avoid a vote.
But since we know that Bush's plan is not the Iraq Study Group's, if he has one, and the Democrats have a few plans, it is too late to say, let's just get along. The concept of a secret plan is most ridiculous for two reasons. 1. We got into this war not only based on secret plans but 2. leaked plans for political purposes. If we cannot get out for political purposes, it is too much to expect that anything change. Believe me, I could have been more strident in this terminology, but it should be pretty clear. (Except that the secret and the leaked plans are still not clear.)
The "too late" is also from the perspective of the calculations of whatever is read into it by the insurgents, but removing political pressure now will only make it more a political calculation later, besides removing the power to hold accountable not only from congress but from the people.
I don't know if this is almost as bad or much worse than the "cards dealt" to the president before the war, but it seems the same game.
But since we know that Bush's plan is not the Iraq Study Group's, if he has one, and the Democrats have a few plans, it is too late to say, let's just get along. The concept of a secret plan is most ridiculous for two reasons. 1. We got into this war not only based on secret plans but 2. leaked plans for political purposes. If we cannot get out for political purposes, it is too much to expect that anything change. Believe me, I could have been more strident in this terminology, but it should be pretty clear. (Except that the secret and the leaked plans are still not clear.)
The "too late" is also from the perspective of the calculations of whatever is read into it by the insurgents, but removing political pressure now will only make it more a political calculation later, besides removing the power to hold accountable not only from congress but from the people.
I don't know if this is almost as bad or much worse than the "cards dealt" to the president before the war, but it seems the same game.
Monday, March 26, 2007
Smoking Gun II the Smoke and Mirrors
The Smoking Gun to the Smoke and Mirrors, was the press conference of last Wednesday, to which I thought I overreacted but then later heard second hand through The Thom Hartmann Show, that Bill O'Reilly fell for the flipped out part, where I thought that Bush did not understand his own proposal. Well it is not much relief to find that O'Reilly fell for it brilliantly, indeed even spreading the disassociation from the truth that interviews are not going to be open for the American public to hear whatever goes on there. But part of that smoking gun, was the disassociation for himself(Bush) from the White House, and the Justice Department which are all under his burden of accountability. The Smoking Gun II, here applies to the embedding of a staff member in Senator Specter's office to insert a clause into a Patriot Act that disassociates the Senator from his job under Article Two of the constitution in regards to "advice and consent" and the "powers" of the legislative branch regarding the executive branch's powers and appointments.
Disingenuous?
The maker of the anti-Hillary ad has an opinion, I will tie my boat up later.
[ Meanwhile 8:55 AM: originally the word "resignation" struck me in the manner of the departed creator of the ad from his job and the U.S Attorney's departures from Justice.]
[ Meanwhile 8:55 AM: originally the word "resignation" struck me in the manner of the departed creator of the ad from his job and the U.S Attorney's departures from Justice.]
Artificial...calls for impeachment.
Hit and Run.
[See New Label and bottom link: Straw Elephant - and other search options.]
Democrats should be cautious that Republicans don't get ahead of them on both the war and impeachment, but more likely it is just a "hit and run" diversion. However, Bush may take it as a message *. Hah!
The timetables will be removed and then they will continue to have the war and Bush to run from. Impeachment would put their jobs on the line, because they would have to put a vote on the line. If they ever get to impeachment it would be more of the same, but it would be there for the people to see them "hit and run". While Republicans are all about running, Democrats should be doing their jobs as well.
[8:39 AM link added: originally "the message" was the one from the Republicans to Bush, but the link incorporates the Democratic message]
[See New Label and bottom link: Straw Elephant - and other search options.]
Democrats should be cautious that Republicans don't get ahead of them on both the war and impeachment, but more likely it is just a "hit and run" diversion. However, Bush may take it as a message *. Hah!
The timetables will be removed and then they will continue to have the war and Bush to run from. Impeachment would put their jobs on the line, because they would have to put a vote on the line. If they ever get to impeachment it would be more of the same, but it would be there for the people to see them "hit and run". While Republicans are all about running, Democrats should be doing their jobs as well.
[8:39 AM link added: originally "the message" was the one from the Republicans to Bush, but the link incorporates the Democratic message]
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Funny Feeling
When I originally heard the famous sixteen words of the famous yellow cake of Niger, a funny feeling struck me that I wondered if Bush knew when he said "from Africa" if he knew that it was a continent not a country. While Wednesday's fancy footwork struck me as amazingly unbelievable, it was actually later that I stumbled on his shakey "ra-a-ational" proposal. You had to hear it shake or just do his usual stuff in the third question he faced.
Fare Market Ideas?
Yes! I spelled it right. Free market is what they call it. But I cannot really suggest a method of fair market, but possibly some sort of fact filter. Of course that is us, but some are against the idea of being educated in fact suspect educators, like lawyers, politicians and even "the liberal media".
This is preemptive comment before getting to the bottom line of a either a Politics in Mudville comment or the Daily Kos discussion of Right Wing Think Tanks.
For a local review of legislative events see
Northwest Progressive Institute's update.
This is preemptive comment before getting to the bottom line of a either a Politics in Mudville comment or the Daily Kos discussion of Right Wing Think Tanks.
For a local review of legislative events see
Northwest Progressive Institute's update.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Smoking Gun to the Smoke and Mirrors
Addressing the "fishing expedition" in his March 20th, 2007"Press Conference":
BUSH QUOTE:
DOES THIS NOT INDICATE HE DOES NOT UNDERSTAND HIS OWN "REASONABLE PROPOSAL" ?
If there are not a lot of Dean screams going around the press corps, something is wrong. The big fish is at his pleasure with an empty pond apparently.
[Additional Comment: 9:30 PM]
White House Counsel's Proposal:
BACK TO THE TRANSCRIPT:
The bold and italics combo are mine, but it appears I have misunderestimated Bush in his brilliant navigation of his proposal.
BUSH QUOTE:
But that's Washington, D.C. for you. You know, there's a lot of politics in this town.
And I repeat, we would like people to hear the truth. And, Kelly, your question is one I'm confident will be asked of people up there. And the Justice Department will answer that question in open forum for everybody to see.
If the Democrats truly do want to move forward and find the right information, they ought to accept what I proposed. And the idea of dragging White House members up there to score political points, or to put the klieg lights out there -- which will harm the President's ability to get good information, Michael -- is -- I really do believe will show the true nature of this debate.
DOES THIS NOT INDICATE HE DOES NOT UNDERSTAND HIS OWN "REASONABLE PROPOSAL" ?
If there are not a lot of Dean screams going around the press corps, something is wrong. The big fish is at his pleasure with an empty pond apparently.
[Additional Comment: 9:30 PM]
White House Counsel's Proposal:
Questioning of White House officials would be conducted by a Member or limited number of Members, who would be accompanied by committee staff. Such interviews would be private and conducted without the need for an oath, transcript, subsequent testimony, or the subsequent issuance of subpoenas.
BACK TO THE TRANSCRIPT:
Q In San Diego, Nevada, Arizona, Republicans were the targets of investigations, and those U.S. attorneys were removed. Does that not give the appearance --
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I don't -- it may give the appearance of something, but I think what you need to do is listen to the facts, and let them explain to -- it's precisely why they're going up to testify, so that the American people can hear the truth about why the decision was made.
The bold and italics combo are mine, but it appears I have misunderestimated Bush in his brilliant navigation of his proposal.
Kudos to Judiciary Committee
Under oath with transcripts
On the other hand:Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., the Senate panel’s former chairman, appealed for pragmatism.
“It is more important to get the information promptly than to have months or years of litigation," Specter said.
Email instructions from the "the administration" * :
The equation for the administration's heckuva job = fuzzy math + fuzzy English.
The formula for
unaccountability and political cover = "the administration" = Quote/"Recipients of such 'appeals' must respond identically." [see AP fact file.]
OLD NEWS: Thanks to Eric Altermann "document dump" on U.S. Attorney scandal contains one on some important political profiling research: MUST READ
* these quotation marks may seem facitious/sarcastic, but for the last part of "the formula" see Fact File AP article.
That’s the formula for true accountability," said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
On the other hand:Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., the Senate panel’s former chairman, appealed for pragmatism.
“It is more important to get the information promptly than to have months or years of litigation," Specter said.
Email instructions from the "the administration" * :
"Who decided?" "The administration made the determination to seek the resignations (not any specific person at the White House or the Department of Justice)."
The equation for the administration's heckuva job = fuzzy math + fuzzy English.
The formula for
unaccountability and political cover = "the administration" = Quote/"Recipients of such 'appeals' must respond identically." [see AP fact file.]
OLD NEWS: Thanks to Eric Altermann "document dump" on U.S. Attorney scandal contains one on some important political profiling research: MUST READ
* these quotation marks may seem facitious/sarcastic, but for the last part of "the formula" see Fact File AP article.
Monday, March 19, 2007
OH WHAT A WEB
WE UNWEAVE
In following up on the matters in the last two posts, and hearing Thom Hartmann quote Dwight Eisenhower, in just looking for a phone contact I found it.
Dwight Eisenhower was a remarkable man, and should have been listened to and still should be heard.
While still just a man and words are just words, there are dreams and there are nightmares, which should we work for? Now that is not to say that some of these noted items he would not say went too far, there are those that say they need to be reformed when really they mean to replace with privatization which really means corporatization, which is not a far cry from the military-industrial complex he also warned of...
In following up on the matters in the last two posts, and hearing Thom Hartmann quote Dwight Eisenhower, in just looking for a phone contact I found it.
Dwight Eisenhower was a remarkable man, and should have been listened to and still should be heard.
"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are...a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."
- President Dwight D. Eisenhower,
While still just a man and words are just words, there are dreams and there are nightmares, which should we work for? Now that is not to say that some of these noted items he would not say went too far, there are those that say they need to be reformed when really they mean to replace with privatization which really means corporatization, which is not a far cry from the military-industrial complex he also warned of...
FACE THE MUSIC!
As ridiculous as it is that voters expect their state representatives to enforce their wishes on the county and local level on the issue of sports arenas; and that contractors conflate the cost of repairs under warranty to the most expensive homes they can build; is it that ridiculous that voters expect their legislators to stand for the principle of the rule of law, let alone not undermine it from above?
I hope you see the people in the streets and I hope that things go well, but some out there will be thinking; if politicians don’t stand for the rule of law, only criminals will be patriots.
While I am one that is turned off by the thought of marching in the streets like sheep, and the diversity of concerns is frustrating, even civil disobedience requires a line to cross, where in politics and the highest offices there is often no line. It requires a line and the guts to face the music I might add; for those that break the law, no matter what, deserve justice.
I hope you see the people in the streets and I hope that things go well, but some out there will be thinking; if politicians don’t stand for the rule of law, only criminals will be patriots.
While I am one that is turned off by the thought of marching in the streets like sheep, and the diversity of concerns is frustrating, even civil disobedience requires a line to cross, where in politics and the highest offices there is often no line. It requires a line and the guts to face the music I might add; for those that break the law, no matter what, deserve justice.
Saturday, March 17, 2007
Legislative District Townhall Meeting
[A conversation of sorts in questions raised and answered by the participants.]
On the issue of horse trading*, I guess my point was the question: is the sacrifice worth it with a side that will not even stand behind their own word? [In particular the school funding majority issue]. It may be a pragmatic approach to differing views, but from the view of either side or the middle how should not standing behind ones principles let alone ones own horse trading get viewed? And if the public does not know what is being traded, let alone that they are not stood behind, then it may be just them that is sacrificed.
But this may be no better than the perspective of the guy who wanted to get hate and divisiveness out of politics ** but was not really clear what it had to do with the 2004 election, except that maybe he had the answer or yet at least did not say where he laid the blame.
But back to my question/comments and my segue to the guy who recommended that you as state representatives, tell the county and city level what his views are, (Sports Arenas) and while he was not connected to the facts on state dollars and getting returns on "our" money, (there will be no state money as far as you are concerned) I wished to endorse the reverse concept that you carry our concerns up the ladder rather than down, where I inquired on the SJM 8016 (impeachment) and 8003 (escalation) and as you informed us on the SJM 8012 regarding the National Guard. Thank you.
Lastly in comments on the side: the expression that the Building Industry provides 1/3 of the budget is awkward or seems to need a tweak of perspective or economics. I understand the comment but it seems divorced from the concept of who actually pays or what the budget is for. Like the transportation issue with 122 different plans or sports arenas and their several localities/municipalities and 3 levels of government funding or influence, with the BI there are a multitude of economic transactions filling needs and customers paying. They are no less interwoven, or in need to be penciled in, but bottom line, is not the cost and needs relationship revolving around the people? I think that your understanding of it and it’s complexities are much greater that you can express but I hope I have tweaked something.
* the act of trading votes or bargaining for bills
** he had his own perspective on the way it should work: somehow magical or without appreciating even his own part in the problem [my words not his]
On the issue of horse trading*, I guess my point was the question: is the sacrifice worth it with a side that will not even stand behind their own word? [In particular the school funding majority issue]. It may be a pragmatic approach to differing views, but from the view of either side or the middle how should not standing behind ones principles let alone ones own horse trading get viewed? And if the public does not know what is being traded, let alone that they are not stood behind, then it may be just them that is sacrificed.
But this may be no better than the perspective of the guy who wanted to get hate and divisiveness out of politics ** but was not really clear what it had to do with the 2004 election, except that maybe he had the answer or yet at least did not say where he laid the blame.
But back to my question/comments and my segue to the guy who recommended that you as state representatives, tell the county and city level what his views are, (Sports Arenas) and while he was not connected to the facts on state dollars and getting returns on "our" money, (there will be no state money as far as you are concerned) I wished to endorse the reverse concept that you carry our concerns up the ladder rather than down, where I inquired on the SJM 8016 (impeachment) and 8003 (escalation) and as you informed us on the SJM 8012 regarding the National Guard. Thank you.
Lastly in comments on the side: the expression that the Building Industry provides 1/3 of the budget is awkward or seems to need a tweak of perspective or economics. I understand the comment but it seems divorced from the concept of who actually pays or what the budget is for. Like the transportation issue with 122 different plans or sports arenas and their several localities/municipalities and 3 levels of government funding or influence, with the BI there are a multitude of economic transactions filling needs and customers paying. They are no less interwoven, or in need to be penciled in, but bottom line, is not the cost and needs relationship revolving around the people? I think that your understanding of it and it’s complexities are much greater that you can express but I hope I have tweaked something.
* the act of trading votes or bargaining for bills
** he had his own perspective on the way it should work: somehow magical or without appreciating even his own part in the problem [my words not his]
Friday, March 16, 2007
What has happened.
New Mexico impeachment process undermined? Buzzflash: Dave Lindorff thinks so.
This is deeply disheartening, if not totally discouraging to "the netroots".
But the investigations on the hill now being held are very encouraging.
Republicans ask Valerie Plame-Wilson her party affiliation and her husbands.
White House Security director does not investigate leaks, despite Bush's words to get to the bottom of the leaks, while others described the president's power to declassify as "absolute".
THIS COULD BE AN IMPORTANT DAY IN HISTORY.
[Note: Yesterday's post What's going on? Digging deeper: was amended late into that evening.]
[NOTE: BREAKING NOW! Zaid said: "fact based" / "no general rules" My nicety: legalities. His good point "vigorous legislative oversight" More to be posted later.]
This is deeply disheartening, if not totally discouraging to "the netroots".
But the investigations on the hill now being held are very encouraging.
Republicans ask Valerie Plame-Wilson her party affiliation and her husbands.
White House Security director does not investigate leaks, despite Bush's words to get to the bottom of the leaks, while others described the president's power to declassify as "absolute".
THIS COULD BE AN IMPORTANT DAY IN HISTORY.
[Note: Yesterday's post What's going on? Digging deeper: was amended late into that evening.]
[NOTE: BREAKING NOW! Zaid said: "fact based" / "no general rules" My nicety: legalities. His good point "vigorous legislative oversight" More to be posted later.]
Thursday, March 15, 2007
What will happen.
It is hard to comment on the previous post but I will try to get back to it. But there will be more links added there, and it is encouraging that there will be investigations. Part of the problem of the previous post is reliable sources. Not the links I include but their sources and the contradictions that need to be waded through.
But Senator Leahy, says that when there are appearances on the hill, they will be under oath whether subpoenas are needed or the come in voluntarily. Meirs and Rove are on the list to appear but what will happen if they take the 5th? This is an area which I may speculate my not being a lawyer, but given that journalists seem to be speculating and see what that gets us, but...
1. congressional testimony may be different than regular court in dealing with administration officials
2. what if they are not officials (Rove)
3. what if they are lawyers [Meirs}
This is in the area of needing to find out and hoping to get back to you, but moving on would be just fine if there is progress in the investigations.
[3-19-07 later comments by leadership indicate subpoenas will be optional if they come in volunatarily, but being under oath will not be optional.]
But Senator Leahy, says that when there are appearances on the hill, they will be under oath whether subpoenas are needed or the come in voluntarily. Meirs and Rove are on the list to appear but what will happen if they take the 5th? This is an area which I may speculate my not being a lawyer, but given that journalists seem to be speculating and see what that gets us, but...
1. congressional testimony may be different than regular court in dealing with administration officials
2. what if they are not officials (Rove)
3. what if they are lawyers [Meirs}
This is in the area of needing to find out and hoping to get back to you, but moving on would be just fine if there is progress in the investigations.
[3-19-07 later comments by leadership indicate subpoenas will be optional if they come in volunatarily, but being under oath will not be optional.]
What's going on?
Recent events are hard to stay on top of,
but it may be time to "run the table".
My reference earlier to "hit and run"
is the crowd that will stay the course.
But enough of the usual stuff.
Here are my recent post along with some links with more comments to be added later:
Election Fixes -- SJM 8016 / U.S. Attorney Scandal
Blatherwatch
CREW [Center for Ethics and Responsibility in Government]
Leahy on Wegoted.com
UNDER OATH! THREE CHEERS! Leahy! Senate Judiciary! Hearings!
Northwest Progressive Institute McKay v. McCabe
___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
Digging deeper: McKay "stunned" This one I endorse as a long article.
Earlier.
___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
DIGGING EVEN DEEPER.
One Nail in the Coffin of Republican Slander: [1.]McKay nominated Sept. 19th, 2001
Carol Lam / [2.]Cunningham Corruption Case?
David Iglesias Three for Three[3.] Not prosecuting Dems fast enough?
OK THIS IS A CONSPIRACY It must be Wikipedia's fault. Blame Billy, Blame Wiki.
And Long Story Short: Congresspedia [First two sentences: Unbelievable!]
I don't usually do so much homework, but then more than the media apparently. Unless it's the vast left wing conspiracy.
[4.]Paul K. Carlton in mid investigation of Republicans?
Not one the Eight: [5.] Kevin V. Ryan Resigns on principle
[6.,7. & 8. - H.E. Cummins III, - - Daniel Bogden - - Margaret Chiara ]
These are listed on the Wikipedia as 7 attorneys, plus an unlisted prosecutor who was replaced by a Rove aide. The math may not add up, but the 8 listed here include one, Kevin V. Ryan who resigned and all I could find were appointed by Bush. Which conflicts with the idea that Bush had not replace any attorneys, but fits in with that they were not serving at his pleasure.
So having done more homework than I have in quite some time; for not having done what Bill Clinton did, how were all eight of these appointed by Bush?
Two more sources - in their defense?
but it may be time to "run the table".
My reference earlier to "hit and run"
is the crowd that will stay the course.
But enough of the usual stuff.
Here are my recent post along with some links with more comments to be added later:
Election Fixes -- SJM 8016 / U.S. Attorney Scandal
Blatherwatch
CREW [Center for Ethics and Responsibility in Government]
Leahy on Wegoted.com
UNDER OATH! THREE CHEERS! Leahy! Senate Judiciary! Hearings!
Northwest Progressive Institute McKay v. McCabe
___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
Digging deeper: McKay "stunned" This one I endorse as a long article.
Earlier.
___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
DIGGING EVEN DEEPER.
One Nail in the Coffin of Republican Slander: [1.]McKay nominated Sept. 19th, 2001
Carol Lam / [2.]Cunningham Corruption Case?
David Iglesias Three for Three[3.] Not prosecuting Dems fast enough?
OK THIS IS A CONSPIRACY It must be Wikipedia's fault. Blame Billy, Blame Wiki.
And Long Story Short: Congresspedia [First two sentences: Unbelievable!]
In late 2006, the Justice Department fired (or asked for the resignation of) eight U.S. attorneys all previously appointed by President Bush. Earlier in 2006, a provision included in the reauthorization of the Patriot Act allowed these positions to be filled by the administration without Senate approval.
[OK TWO MORE]In early 2007, hearings were held on the matter in both the House and Senate Judiciary Committee on the firings. Several of the fired attorneys testified that they had been contacted by members of Congress or executive officials about pending cases shortly before their termination. Such contact by members of Congress is a violation of both House and Senate rules.
I don't usually do so much homework, but then more than the media apparently. Unless it's the vast left wing conspiracy.
[4.]Paul K. Carlton in mid investigation of Republicans?
Not one the Eight: [5.] Kevin V. Ryan Resigns on principle
[6.,7. & 8. - H.E. Cummins III, - - Daniel Bogden - - Margaret Chiara ]
These are listed on the Wikipedia as 7 attorneys, plus an unlisted prosecutor who was replaced by a Rove aide. The math may not add up, but the 8 listed here include one, Kevin V. Ryan who resigned and all I could find were appointed by Bush. Which conflicts with the idea that Bush had not replace any attorneys, but fits in with that they were not serving at his pleasure.
So having done more homework than I have in quite some time; for not having done what Bill Clinton did, how were all eight of these appointed by Bush?
Two more sources - in their defense?
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
SJM 8016 / US Attorney Scandal
Democrats must put ethics and the law back on the table.
While as Professor Domke said at one of our PCO trainings in Olympia, Democrats run to govern, and Republicans govern to run... I would say that those who are of neither party see what is not on the table. [ALSO MEANING: REPUBLICANS ARE ALWAYS CAMPAIGNING, POLITICS CAN NEVER BE OFF THE TABLE, PLAY IT FORWARD, PLAY IT HARD!]
Those on the so-called Left and those of the non-partisan middle, know what is right.
So while Democrats are working on issues for us, Republicans will be working on other issues against us. So we must face them on all fronts or they will flank us.
ON A RELATED ISSUE OF ETHICS, THE LAW AND GOVERNMENT: and where they will be putting the pressure...
Remember there are several levels of government but the people count, please help them count by supporting this getting from the ground up. Leaders won't go where people fear to follow, but they should go when they have the people and the issues.
WHAT IS THE PERSPECTIVE I NOTE BELOW?
ETHICS SHOULD NOT BE OUTSIDE INTERESTS! Italics quoted from BlatherWatch link [McKay testimony] previous post.
THE ONLY THING BLACK AND WHITE IS A VOTE: But while the law is not just ethics, even the law has a spirit and the letter. So gray areas matter, but people should count. THAT IS A BIG CONNECTION.
While as Professor Domke said at one of our PCO trainings in Olympia, Democrats run to govern, and Republicans govern to run... I would say that those who are of neither party see what is not on the table. [ALSO MEANING: REPUBLICANS ARE ALWAYS CAMPAIGNING, POLITICS CAN NEVER BE OFF THE TABLE, PLAY IT FORWARD, PLAY IT HARD!]
Those on the so-called Left and those of the non-partisan middle, know what is right.
So while Democrats are working on issues for us, Republicans will be working on other issues against us. So we must face them on all fronts or they will flank us.
ON A RELATED ISSUE OF ETHICS, THE LAW AND GOVERNMENT: and where they will be putting the pressure...
Remember there are several levels of government but the people count, please help them count by supporting this getting from the ground up. Leaders won't go where people fear to follow, but they should go when they have the people and the issues.
WHAT IS THE PERSPECTIVE I NOTE BELOW?
A: Outside interests may not file ethics complaints against members of Congress. They may only file ethics complaints against each other. "And that almost never happens," said Sloan.
B. We sure hope Adam Smith will do the rare and righteous thing: make that complaint- and show us that Democrats will give equal treatment and oversight to both geese and the ganders.
ETHICS SHOULD NOT BE OUTSIDE INTERESTS! Italics quoted from BlatherWatch link [McKay testimony] previous post.
THE ONLY THING BLACK AND WHITE IS A VOTE: But while the law is not just ethics, even the law has a spirit and the letter. So gray areas matter, but people should count. THAT IS A BIG CONNECTION.
Sunday, March 11, 2007
Election Fixes
As an up-close witness of the 2004 Washington gubernatorial election,
the "McKay testimony" must be investigated. In my view this is a nationwide effort to put political pressure where it should not be. In most other places, politics has wide latitude, but the election process needs much more scrutiny.
the "McKay testimony" must be investigated. In my view this is a nationwide effort to put political pressure where it should not be. In most other places, politics has wide latitude, but the election process needs much more scrutiny.
Thursday, March 08, 2007
MARCH 4TH, 1789 Began the March
THE U.S. CONSTITUTION TOOK EFFECT
March 14th, 2007 is the day by which
Washington State Senators need to hear from you.
If you are not with the constitution, what are you?
President Bush, before his first campaign was over said,
when it came to the law his conscience was his guide.
Where will your's lead us?
March 14th, 2007 is the day by which
Washington State Senators need to hear from you.
If you are not with the constitution, what are you?
President Bush, before his first campaign was over said,
when it came to the law his conscience was his guide.
Where will your's lead us?
Monday, March 05, 2007
Congratulations KPTK! WE GOT ED!
And Randi and Stephanie, and Thom
[4-24-07: loopy link inserted for reconstruction]
- -
[8-2-07: ADJUSTED THIS DATE -
GO LEFT TV
Air America Radio
Progressive Talk Radio KPTK AM1090 Seattle
FILTER OF SORTS]
- -
[adjusted this date 8-11-07: ifilm of Spike TV
The Colbert Report
The Daily Show ]
Five of the Heavy Hundred are on one local station: AM1090
The 100 most important radio talk show hosts in America!
NUMBER 5.
Ed Schultz www.wegoted.com
Number 13.
Randi Rhodes: The Randi Rhodes Show
Number 36.
Stephanie Miller: The Stephanie Miller Show
Number 51 Thom Hartmann: The Thom Hartmann Show
Rounding out the court. Maybe the center.
Number 27. Clark Howard.
OK! My progressive spin almost missed Clark, but the term "important" over "popular" was a factor in the "Heavy Hundred", and his 1 hr time-slot midnight to 1AM may hint at that and the progressive lean of the listeners or hourly demographics. Clark is both important and popular, just not labeled progressive.*
FLIP FLOP THE LIST!
Considering these personalities and their news value, entertainment and progressive intent,Rachel Maddow (while not even found in the top 250) must be on the bench.
What I am saying is that, rounded out to a balance of sort
but with progressive and informative and entertainment value, she may have topped a list with the numbers flipped. It would be hard to say that Thom, Stephanie, Randi and Ed have any particular strengths that would flip-flop the list, other than my feeling that being progressive, informative and entertaining should be considered in that order, rather than the method used for the Heavy Hundred.
On my scale Rachel Maddow plays well off the bench and deserve her own honors, not to mention her on-air teammate Kent Jones.
MY IDEAL PROGRESSIVE LIST[Reality Flip Flopped]
Or from spirited to spiritual. Going up?
[RACHEL MADDOW] A UNIQUE BALANCE OF INFO AND HUMOR
THOM HARTMANN
STEPHANIE MILLER
RANDI RHODES
ED SCHULTZ
MIKE MALLOY: REALITY BASED
[NOT BEST REPRESENTED IN LINEAR FORM]
[Apologies for not noting one of the top 250, Mike Malloy who is a spiritual warrior of sorts.
If there were a FOX NEWS of the left, Mike Malloy would fit the bill as the nightly lead,
but for me he is too much on a Reality Rant to make good bedtime stories.]
Now just to sort my own review, I love all these guys, for different reasons, but would put progress over money and fun, and that is what I wish for all.
* I don't relish labels, but then, it is a sorting. Long Story Short: (or in my usual way: Runting the Rant) Maybe the Heavy Hitter (Oops) Hundred list does reflect the order of "Agressive Progressives", but I would flip flop the list and call it Just Progressive! But the problem always is, coming from a perspective or getting somewhere.
[4-24-07: loopy link inserted for reconstruction]
- -
[8-2-07: ADJUSTED THIS DATE -
GO LEFT TV
Air America Radio
Progressive Talk Radio KPTK AM1090 Seattle
FILTER OF SORTS]
- -
[adjusted this date 8-11-07: ifilm of Spike TV
The Colbert Report
The Daily Show ]
Five of the Heavy Hundred are on one local station: AM1090
The 100 most important radio talk show hosts in America!
NUMBER 5.
Ed Schultz www.wegoted.com
Number 13.
Randi Rhodes: The Randi Rhodes Show
Number 36.
Stephanie Miller: The Stephanie Miller Show
Number 51 Thom Hartmann: The Thom Hartmann Show
Rounding out the court. Maybe the center.
Number 27. Clark Howard.
OK! My progressive spin almost missed Clark, but the term "important" over "popular" was a factor in the "Heavy Hundred", and his 1 hr time-slot midnight to 1AM may hint at that and the progressive lean of the listeners or hourly demographics. Clark is both important and popular, just not labeled progressive.*
FLIP FLOP THE LIST!
Considering these personalities and their news value, entertainment and progressive intent,Rachel Maddow (while not even found in the top 250) must be on the bench.
What I am saying is that, rounded out to a balance of sort
but with progressive and informative and entertainment value, she may have topped a list with the numbers flipped. It would be hard to say that Thom, Stephanie, Randi and Ed have any particular strengths that would flip-flop the list, other than my feeling that being progressive, informative and entertaining should be considered in that order, rather than the method used for the Heavy Hundred.
On my scale Rachel Maddow plays well off the bench and deserve her own honors, not to mention her on-air teammate Kent Jones.
MY IDEAL PROGRESSIVE LIST[Reality Flip Flopped]
Or from spirited to spiritual. Going up?
[RACHEL MADDOW] A UNIQUE BALANCE OF INFO AND HUMOR
THOM HARTMANN
STEPHANIE MILLER
RANDI RHODES
ED SCHULTZ
MIKE MALLOY: REALITY BASED
[NOT BEST REPRESENTED IN LINEAR FORM]
[Apologies for not noting one of the top 250, Mike Malloy who is a spiritual warrior of sorts.
If there were a FOX NEWS of the left, Mike Malloy would fit the bill as the nightly lead,
but for me he is too much on a Reality Rant to make good bedtime stories.]
Now just to sort my own review, I love all these guys, for different reasons, but would put progress over money and fun, and that is what I wish for all.
* I don't relish labels, but then, it is a sorting. Long Story Short: (or in my usual way: Runting the Rant) Maybe the Heavy Hitter (Oops) Hundred list does reflect the order of "Agressive Progressives", but I would flip flop the list and call it Just Progressive! But the problem always is, coming from a perspective or getting somewhere.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)