Which, ya know, requires a little thing called "compromise". It's pretty cool, it takes good ideas from different sources, and everyone gives little in order to reach a consensus.
Compromise, it's a little bit moderate, it's a little bit liberal, and you can even stick in a smidgen of conservative if we're feeling particularly magnanimous.
Let's not continue the course set by the GOP - politics of "it's either black or it's white". Our caucus is made up of MANY factions, and they can complement each other. We don't need to see it as an either/or question.
and probably losing them in droves. They totally misread the electorate at the beginning of the campaign season with their 'stay the course' nonsense, and are now playing catch-up with 3 weeks to go.
Quite stunning, if you think about it. Their entire campaign was centered around the invasion and occupation of Iraq being a GOOD thing, and they were all supposed to line up behind * and pimp the occupation for all it was worth, an "in your face" strategy that has worked for them so many times in the past.
KBH didn't come up with this "position" on her own, either. Loyal GOoPers don't just decide to leave the Bunnypants Ranch and go out on their own. Someone decided KBH should say this, someone saw some numbers that they didn't like, and so KBH is deserately seeking GOP women.
White House Political Director, Ken Mehlman.
This is more than something for the GOP to debate. This White House, this administration has placed politics at the heart of EVERYTHING it's done and it's way past time for the country to debate whether we need a federal government driven by politics or by policy. The firing of Stayman is but a glimpse into the inner workings of this administration, and when the FIRST question the GOP asks is always "does it benefit us politically?" and not "does it benefit the country?" there's a serious, serious, problem.
Dems have been handed another page in the perfect narrative, and this one points directly at the top of the heap. The GOP put politics above all else, and if you have enough money, you can buy a seat at their table. There is no 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue anymore, there is only K Street. Main Street , USA will just have to fend for itself.
Or do you already know it's coming and don't care? I'd bet money you knew the last one was coming, and I'd bet you know that the WH only agreed to 'compromise' on this because they've got the SIGNING statement up their sleeve and ready to go.
Warner, Graham, and McCain. The torture triplets.
makes the timing even more interesting. The administration's use of terror alerts (as a political ploy) in the past is well documented, and something they admitted to doing.
But I guess I kind of hope I have really done that because I'm actually working on a "real" one. But I will admit that I'm pretty proud of this series. I especially liked being able to do the May 4 diary with links to all the pictures. Something you can only do in this wonderful interactive format. I think having those instant pix to illustrate what was going on made that especially powerful.
PALO ALTO, CALIF. - George W. Bush may have gotten his drawl from Texas and his pedigree from Washington, but many of his ideas are coming from California.
Though the GOP presidential front-runner made his first trip this week as a candidate to this state, he's had a year-long running engagement with the Stanford University-based Hoover Institution, a collection of battle-toughened conservatives who have emerged as the early core of Mr. Bush's brain trust.
There are many interesting aspects of this relationship, not least of which is the juxtaposition of the think tank's staunchly conservative heritage and the candidates moderate political persona. But whatever the attraction, the relationship has blossomed fully, with no end in sight.
It started cozily enough in April 1998 in the home of George Schultz, former secretary of State to President Reagan and now a Hoover fellow. Mr. Schultz's home on the Stanford campus was host to three hours of wide-ranging policy discussions involving half a dozen Hoover fellows, all built on the premise that Bush would eventually run.
Note the date of the article is 1999
You gave Judy Miller access to classified information, and you gave it to her in September 2002 BEFORE the NIE was done.
Spin your way out of that, assholes.
I knew the name sounded familiar...
In the last week it has come out in the media that Scott Ritter, former U.N. weapons inspector and vocal critic of W's drive for war against Iraq, was arrested in June 2001 on suspicion of attempting to set up a rendezvous with what he thought was a sixteen-year-old girl. Ultimately, the charges against Ritter were dropped and the records were sealed.
The timing is, of course, very suspicious. On the eve of a war against Iraq this has all the appearances of an attempt to silence or at least discredit one of the more effective critics of the administration. First of all, the records in this case were sealed and whoever leaked them to the press was quite simply breaking the law. They have also violated Ritter's civil rights as well.
Of course, the most curious thing of all is who the judge in Ritter's case in 2001 was -- his judge was a fellow named Thomas J. Spargo. Spargo is not exactly a household name but, if you recall from a couple of years back, he's a well-known Republican lawyer and activist who played a role in the mob demonstration that shut down the vote-counting in Miami during the recount battle of 2000.
bush nominated him to the 4th circuit court of appeals in 2003 (it was eventually defeated by the Dems). This is what C. Boyden Gray had to say about the nominee:
Claude Allen promises not to advance a political agenda from the federal bench he has been nominated to, but to be the type of judge who buttresses the foundation of American government — by applying the rule of law however he finds it. President Bush, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, could do much worse than Allen. By the grace of democratic principles overriding a minority in the Senate, let us hope they do not have to.
Recruited by Karl Rove as his watchdog on then-HHS secretary Tommy Thompson (who had a much-exaggerated reputation as a "moderate"), Allen--a visceral political homophobe-- was a former top aide Sen. Jesse Helms, and in 1984 accused Helms' Democratic challenger, then-Gov. James Hunt, of having links to "queers," "radical feminists," socialists, and unions (Hunt was, in fact, a bible-quoting right-wing Dem).
The GOP needs to do a few things to maintain control of congress this time around. They need to make sure they get 2 of their 3 base constituencies (social - gay adoption, economic - this line item veto, security - they're not showing up this year) to the polls, they need to make sure Dems are running on 1 or 2 issues that they are not talking about (makes Dems look out of touch and the GOP engaged), and they need at least one issue that resonates with the 'middle' American voter.
They don't need a victory to win on an issue, they need only to create the appearance of trying to win and they often prefer the loss because it provides a good spin.
They've been talking a lot about earmarks which is a bipartisan thing, so bringing up the line item veto now gives them a) something to point to that can be all about Dems if they spin it properly, b) can be called something that Dems supported (Clinton!) which will make middle America think it's a good thing, and c) doesn't have to be won to be an effective issue for them.
Always remember that they don't care about governing, they only care about maintaining their hold on power, so anything they introduce, especially in an election year and especially when the WH is polling in the 30s, is POLITICAL. They only need to make it appear as if they are concerned with "out of control spending" to win on this. It can be tied to privatizing SS, cutting 'entitlements', the great conservative 'smaller' government mantra, and 'reform'.
I'm always suspicous of motive when I see the GOP suddenly jump on a bandwagon that they've let pass them by repeatedly, and I'm always suspicious of McCain's motives nowadays. Legislation is often used to make a public statement when, in fact, the details say something much different. It's entirely possible that's all this was, a public showing that had no real impact, and they knew that from the outset.
and probably only serve to exacerbate the problem. The Iranian people aren't stupid, they don't live in a vacuum and, more importantly they understand and KNOW their own history. 50 years ago a stealth campaign of propaganda 'worked' to set them on this course, they are very much aware of that, and aren't likely to welcome a repeat. To assume the people of Iran, or any country for that matter, are incapable of deciding their own future, in their own way and on their own terms, is hardly something we should advocate. Making a blatant announcement that we intend to do such a thing...since when did we become the marketing department for the new and improved "freedom and democracy" product?
Simply put, every person yearns for freedom and democracy, and left to their own devices they will eventually demand such things from their 'leaders'. The process is often bloody and more often than not comes in fits and starts. Adding the heavy hand of foreign intervention through propaganda to try and force it, to try and mold it into something acceptable, is a losing proposition.
I support a free and democratic Iran created by the Iranian people. If it takes the next 30 years for the PEOPLE of Iran to create such a thing, so be it.
That was a POLICY decided by OUR government, done in OUR names, and done under the GISE of "keeping us safe".
Donald Rumsfeld needs to be FIRED. He shouldn't be allowed to resign, he needs to be FIRED and it needs to happen right fucking now.
And that asshat that they sent over there from Gitmo in order to jump start this fucking POLICY of torture should be fired, as well. Abu Gonzales, and Yoo, and all the fuckwits that had a hand in this POLICY should be fired. And you know who should start banging the drums for them to be fired? The people in THIS country.
That's not even a fraction of the outrage I'm feeling. What the Muslim world does, or how it reacts isn't what concerns me. What concerns me is how THIS country reacts. This is NOT something that a better public relations campaign can fix. Karen Hughes can't wave her magic PR wand and make this shit go away.
She's a favorite pet of the bush administration, and from what I can tell is deeply beholden to DeLay and Hastert for her committee assignment (Rules). Wouldn't surprise me one bit to find this former chief of staff of hers with ties to DeLay, Ney, or some other corrupt House GOoPer. Delay and Ney, or their PACs have both contributed to her campaign chest.
I would dearly love to see her de-throned this November.
And she screams, "Why? Oh, why?"
I said, "I don't know."
Use the tools below to keep track of updates to this Journal.
Today's Featured Forums