According to the most recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, the percentage of Americans who view the Republican Party positively is at an all-time low. Meanwhile, President Obama’s positive rating is at an all-time high, and the Democratic Party’s positive rating is near its high.

Why? Because the Republicans have dissolved into a querulous lot of nags and naysayers without a voice, a direction or a clue, and we are not amused.

And who has surfaced as their saviors? Bobby Jindal, Michael Steele and Rush Limbaugh — the axis of drivel.

<snip>But late last week, thrift and consignment stores learned they will not be required to test.

"It's a really big relief," said Crystal Hardesty, of Goodwill in Greenville. "It was a big concern for us because it really was going to affect our business and what we're able to do in the community. So we're really happy to have these regulations clarified and what our responsibilities are clarified."

However, people who make children's toys or clothing -- even if it's a small operation in their basement -- will be required to prove to the government that their products do not contain lead before they can sell them.

The law goes into effect in February.

While some lawmakers pointed to ideological reasons for rejecting the rescue package, everyone says that the surge in angry calls and e-mails from constituents opposed to the measure played a pivotal role. As the LAT notes, there was no grass-roots movement in favor of the bill, but there were plenty of groups that angrily opposed the measure. "People's re-elections played into this to a much greater degree than I would have imagined," said Rep. Deborah Pryce, a Republican from Ohio who is retiring. Other lawmakers were clearly worried about how their vote would play with their constituents a mere five weeks before Election Day. Although members may cite other reasons, "it was old-fashioned politics that killed the bill. … oo many lawmakers weren't willing to risk losing their jobs," declares USAT.

The WSJ goes inside with a look at who cast the "no" votes and says they "came from a strange-bedfellows coalition" that spanned the ideological spectrum. Many of these nays came from representatives of low-income districts, but the one thing many had in common is a tough re-election fight. While the majority of Democratic freshmen and all of the first-term Republican lawmakers voted against the bill, the overwhelming majority of those retiring from Capitol Hill voted in favor. But the LAT also points out that many of the no votes came from safe districts, partly because years of redistricting have created "politically polarized" areas where "members from those districts have less incentive to compromise with the other party."

Their language has often been blistering, and their point has been the same: These courts, with their often primitive trappings and amateur judges, are an anachronism that desperately needs to be overhauled or discarded.

Although they are key institutions of justice in more than 1,000 small towns and suburbs across New York, trying misdemeanor cases and lawsuits, a vast majority of the justices who run them are not lawyers, and receive only a few days’ legal training. The justices are often elected in low-turnout races, keep few records and operate largely without supervision — leaving a long trail of injustices and mangled rulings.

Yet these justice courts, as they are known, remain essentially as they were when New Yorkers started complaining nearly a century ago. In recent weeks, state officials have decided to take some steps to increase training, supervision and record-keeping. But the cries for any sweeping change have all but died out over the last few decades, even as the abuses have continued.

One way to understand why a much-criticized institution has come to seem so entrenched is to revisit three big battles over the justice courts. In each, the people seeking to change the system tried in a different arena: the Legislature, the voting booths and the higher courts. And each time, their defeat was so stinging that it effectively killed any further discussion there: (more at the above link)

<snip>
Justice Gori told the commission that he had never heard of the elementary legal rule that bars a judge, except in the most extraordinary circumstances, from secret contact with one side of a case. “It’s not even explained in my manual,” he said.

An unfamiliarity with basic legal principles is remarkably common in what are known as the justice courts, legacies of the Colonial era that survive in more than 1,000 New York towns and villages.

For generations, justices have hailed them as “poor man’s courts,” where ordinary people can get simple justice with little formality or expense. But there are few more vivid spots to view their shortcomings than here in one of New York’s poorest corners: Franklin County, a place of rugged beauty on the Canadian border where only one of the 32 local justices is a lawyer.

The county’s justices have repeatedly drawn the attention of state judicial conduct officials, with 15 publicly disciplined since the late 1970’s, some twice. Justice Gori’s errors pale in comparison with those of some others: One justice freed a rape suspect on bail as a favor to a friend. Another sentenced a welfare recipient to 89 days in jail after she failed to pay a $1.50 cab fare. Franklin County justices have presided drunk, fixed cases and denied lawyers to defendants. One failed to appoint a lawyer for a 19-year-old mentally retarded alcoholic.
</snip>

Hillary Clinton's ratings from the Best of the Liberal Groups...
Posted by SaveElmer in General Discussion: Politics
Wed Aug 02nd 2006, 02:29 PM
Her excellent ratings from most groups are usually poo-pooed, so now that we have found some people like, thought I would get it out there....show what a radical "right winger" she is...

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice America 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the The Humane Society of the United States 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Trust for Historic Preservation 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People 95 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Education Association 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the American Wilderness Coalition 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the League of Conservation Voters 95 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Children's Defense Fund 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the American Association of University Women 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Organization for Women 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the U.S. Public Interest Research Group 91 percent in 2006.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the U.S. Public Interest Research Group 100 percent in 2005

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence 100 percent from 1988-2003 (Senate) or 1991-2003 (House).

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the American Public Health Association 80 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Service Employees International Union 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 93 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 93 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the United Electrical Radio and Machine Workers 84 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Worker 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees 88 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the American Federation of Government Employees 83 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Committee for an Effective Congress 95 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Americans for Democratic Action 100 percent in 2005.

According to the National Journal - Composite Liberal Score's calculations, in 2005, Senator Clinton voted more liberal on economic, defense and foreign policy issues than 80 percent of the Senators.

According to the National Journal - Liberal on Social Policy's calculations, in 2005, Senator Clinton voted more liberal on social policy issues than 83 percent of the Senators.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Alliance for Retired Americans 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Disabled American Veterans 92 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Bread for the World 100 percent in 2003-2004.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the The Partnership for the Homeless 100 percent in 2003-2004.

Source: http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_cat...

<snip>If Democrats turned on Senator Joseph Lieberman because of his support for the war in Iraq, why shouldn’t they do the same to Mrs. Clinton, who also has refused to express regret for her vote to authorize the invasion?

<snip>
Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Lieberman have behaved very differently on the Iraq issue from the beginning. In 2002, Mr. Lieberman stood next to President Bush in the Rose Garden when he announced an agreement on a resolution to authorize use of force. Mrs. Clinton, on the other hand, urged that the resolution be regarded not as a go-ahead to invade, but as leverage in negotiations with the United Nations. She argued in the Senate debate that the president should work to get strong United Nations backing for a demand that Saddam Hussein allow weapons inspectors back into Iraq. If that failed, she said, the United States’ effort would still win it international support for an invasion later.

She was certainly not a dove. Her husband’s administration was convinced that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and Mrs. Clinton clearly believed Iraq was a grave threat to international peace. But as the conflict went on, she became increasingly critical of the way it was being conducted. Mr. Lieberman not only defended it, he also chastised other Democrats for criticizing the president during a time of war. A few months ago, Mrs. Clinton joined most Senate Democrats in supporting a resolution that called for American forces to begin leaving Iraq this year, without setting a specific deadline for withdrawal. Mr. Lieberman opposed the resolution and spoke out against it in the Senate.

<snip>

Mrs. Clinton has been a happy surprise for many doubters since she first won office in 2000. Everyone expected her to be intelligent and hard-working. But despite her obvious ambition for higher office, she has been focused on issues that are important to the state, as well as accessible and aggressive in fighting for New York’s interests. She works well with both her Democratic colleagues and with Republicans, who found her far more collegial than they expected. Given the relatively powerless position of Senate Democrats, she has scored a few real wins — most recently in pressuring the Bush administration to allow the “morning-after pill” to be sold over the counter. She has found the right balance between bipartisanship and the responsibility of the minority party to be both watchdog and whistle-blower on behalf of the public. She has also reflected, at least in a general way, the opinions of the majority of her constituents on the war issue. We urge Democrats to vote for her in the primary on Sept. 12.