Censure: Dodging Dems and a Giddy GOP

Dear Debaters,

Here's little meat for those of you who find the steroids issue uninteresting: Sen. Russ Feingold's resolution to censure the president for misleading the American people over the domestic surveillance program -- political gimmick or principled stance?

From the very little we do know of the program, the "whereas" clauses in Feingold's resolution (describing the relevant laws and Bush's statements) are accurate. Nonetheless, Republicans -- and the conservative Wall Street Journal editorial board -- can barely contain their glee at what they see as an overeager Feingold showing the Democrats' hand before the November elections. Dana Milbank describes flustered Democrats "fleeing" their weekly caucus lunch "out a back door as if escaping a fire."

So why'd he do it? Why now? Obviously, it's not because his Democratic party colleagues were banging down his door to introduce a censure resolution -- ThinkProgress's running tally of S. Res. 398's supporters stands at roughly 1 1/2. Evilblog says it's because Feingold just likes the attention.

Speaking of things that catch attention ...

I couldn't help but notice a great deal of huffing and puffing at AmericaBlog over the lead sentence of the Post's A1 news story on Feingold's resolution: "For months the Democrats have resisted calls from their liberal base to more aggressively challenge President Bush." John in DC charges that "liberal base" was just taken out of thin air, and that in fact not just liberal Democrats but all Democrats and many independents "have had it with Bush."

Okay, let's review. I think it's fair to say that the one thing just about everyone (except Congressional Democrats) agrees on is that the Democrats haven't aggressively challenged much of anything in years ... other than the innocuous ports deal, and that was an easy target.

Even devotees of AmericaBlog -- which itself has often called for the Democrats to get more aggressive -- would agree that it is true that the liberal base, of which the AmericaBloggers are a part, has indeed been frustrated at the Democrats' inefficacy. Even granting that others have also called for more action against Bush from the Democrats, it is nonetheless accurate to say that the liberal base has been doing so for months (at least).

And why is AmericaBlog so offended anyway? After all, those on the political left often insist that "liberal is not a dirty word," and they're quite right about that -- it really is remarkable how Newt Gingrich's masterful manipulation of language in the early- to mid-1990s managed to unfairly taint the word 'liberal.' Yet those same liberals who defend the label get upset when others identify them that way.

The Post story's lead simply recognizes the liberal base for what it is -- a force that has been demanding its leaders stand up to the president, and finally someone's listening. Shouldn't they be proud?

Yes, dear Debaters (including Cayambe), we will be debating the president's new national security strategy tomorrow and into the weekend. I'd start on the topic today, but I'd rather wait until the document is publicly available for linking and referencing.

By Emily Messner |  March 16, 2006; 1:54 AM ET  | Category:  Beltway Perspectives , Debate Extras
Previous: What About the Fans? | Next: National Security Strategy Puts Iran on Notice

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



Emily ... "Shouldn't they be proud?"

Of what pray tell? "Standing up to Bush" is no substitute for a principled policy, or is it?

Feingold ... clearly principle. This is not the first time he has stood alone. Not that I agree with his resolution here; I would sooner see the courts smack this assertion of power down decisively.

I'm afraid this topic will bring out the worst among us, a Bush bashing lefty debate over to censure or to impeach. Think I'll wait for the new NSS :o)

Posted by: Cayambe | March 16, 2006 04:03 AM

Dear Emily,
Why are you blocking me? what did I do?

A few questions for you:

Who did send the antrax letters to the US Senators?

Why did the buildings surrounding the WTC collapse on 911?

Thank you for your understanding.

Yours truly,
Confused Che

Posted by: Che | March 16, 2006 07:05 AM

You were not blocked, Che. I told you days ago to stop using the comments to post news and opinion stories (and long ones at that) having nothing to do with the subject at hand. Comments are for ORIGINAL THOUGHTS and your own analysis, not simply regurgitating other people's words.

Don't remember my message to you? Here's a reminder:
http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/thedebate/2006/03/is_it_civil_war.html#comments

In spite of my request (and several requests from other Debaters), you persisted. I tried to be nice and simply edit the posts down to just the headlineand link. Still, you were undeterred. Therefore I finally did what I said I would do and immediately deleted the two articles you posted to this blog last night. It's not worth trying to sneak them in overnight. I don't sleep.

*On-topic* comments that are *in*your*own*words* are still welcome. Cut-and-paste articles are not.

Posted by: Emily Messner | March 16, 2006 09:51 AM

Thank you for doing that to Che Emily. He drives everyone nuts. No reads his garbage anyway so get a thought on the topic or take a hike Che. I know you won't but hey, worth a try.

Everything about Democrats drives me crazy. The lack of unity. The lack of message. The lack of leadership. This should be a grand time for Dems with all the GOP messes. Obviously the Dems think the GOP just shooting themselves in the foot over and over again is enough. Dangerous game though. It may well be enough for 2006. Something much bigger has to happen before 2008. They better not mess this up. At least Feingold is TRYING to do something, anything...

Posted by: Larry | March 16, 2006 10:23 AM

For anyone who's been paying attention, this is entirely consistent with Feingold from start to finish.

And he's right.

And George Clooney is right.

The Dems were thrown into disarray by Rove and Luntz, melted into a bunch of spineless wimps, and never recovered. The only strategy I can foresee for them is to let Hillary be the whipping boy and absorb the destruction, so a relatively unscathed late night dark horse like Bill Clinton can emerge in the race after New Hampshire in 2008 having escaped the politics of personal destruction.

But the people in whom I am by far the most disappointed are the moderate Repubs, the Hagels and Snowe and Chaffees and Collins and Specters etc who caved on the domestic spying and abuse of intelligence. Unlike the Dems they had shown some spine and now they're gone too. This is even more of a disappointment than the dissolution of the Dems, who didn't have the power to make things happen anyway.

Is there anyone remaining who will speak for the center?

Posted by: patriot 1957 | March 16, 2006 11:00 AM

Our leaders take an oath to God to protect and defend the US Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic! They don't take an oath to Protect Israel, Iraq, George WMD Bush, The GOP, or the DNC! Fluff up your feather pillows and keep that tar on the back burner! If we are going to end Tyranny in our world we should start with the Republcans AND Democrats in the US Government, US Terrorist Forces, & the US Corporate Media!

Posted by: crusader bunnypants | March 16, 2006 11:17 AM

BTW: It's been 1,641 days since George WMD Bush said he'd catch UBL 'Dead or Alive!' I think he's dead, and I don't think he was behind war games on 9/11, the USAF standdown, the US Military Anthrax Attack (google Dr. Phillip Zack)! The territorial pissings in Iraq are raging, the US is preparing military aggression against Iran, Iran is going to dump its petrodollars 3/20, Bush needs an attack!
Cui Bono! How does Pre emptive martial law square with Freedom, Dissent, & Democracy?

"The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons."
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/10/wbr.smoking.gun/
"...we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

Bolton compares Iran WMD threat to Sept. 11 attacks?
http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publish/article_14150.shtml
"Just like Sept. 11, only with nuclear weapons this time, that's the threat. I think that is the threat?"

John Bolton is right when he compares 911 to what "may" happen if Iran is not dealt with. This is simply and only because the same people will be behind the orchestration of mass terror, and most Americans probably now know, as I do, that the evidence of 911 points in other directions than Arabs or anything remotely connected to Iran.

In a way, the people are terrorizing the power elite, while at the same time the power elite is waging terror on the world's people to keep them "in line". There is a two-way war of terror being waged constantly, whether we want to admit it or not.

Posted by: crusader bunnypants | March 16, 2006 11:30 AM

The democrats aren't rallying around Feingold because they know its going to kill them in '06 and potentially '08. They are already viewed as (rightly or no) as being soft on national security. Jumping on Feingold's bandwagon will further undermine any credibility they've been trying to build up viv-a-vis national security (Dubai ports deal, Iran, etc.)because whatever the legal nuances of NSA wiretapping, it will simply boil down to "Look, the Democrats want to censure the president over intercepting terrorist communications"

They can't be THAT stupid. Keep this up, and I'm afraid the Dems are going to become the Whigs of the 21st century.

Posted by: D. | March 16, 2006 11:32 AM

Democrats need to, get a backbone and stop fearing the Republicans. If demos don't stop Bush we arfe all doomed for many years. Feingold needs to be backed by all the demos not just one. Demos need to stop talking a good game and start doing a good game.

Posted by: Chris Christina | March 16, 2006 11:32 AM

The interesting thing is that the GOP seems to think that Feingold's parlamentary procedure is going to whip up their 'base' and get it energized. It'll be interesting to see if the polls back that up. I know that R's rely on blind, unthinking allegiance among their members but Bush isn't exactly Mr. Wonderful these days. Once Fox News- and Limbaugh-fatigue set in amongst those being stirred-up by that component of the media, will they really think that censure is such a bad idea? This is an interesting test of just how low Bush's approval numbers have sunk. The recalcitrant 36% or so will continue to shout and scream and gloat prematurely (in blogs like this one). What about everybody else?

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | March 16, 2006 11:35 AM

Look. I am no political expert but, if the polls are to be believed, The American people are already censuring Bush.

Whenever something like this comes up, the republicans somehow manage to turn the media's focus on the democrats. When are the national media ever going to catch on that they are being manipulated by Bush and his anus adoring supporters--all 34% of them?

The people are sending both Bush and the media a message--that they have had it up to their necks with all of the bulls#*t! And the turning of the screws on the democrats just when they have Bush on the ropes is Exhibit A of just how easily manipulated into making democrats the issue--even though they do not have control of a single branch of government--this pathetically incompetent media is.

The more incompetent Bush gets, he is matched by the incompetence of the media.

Posted by: Jaxas | March 16, 2006 11:36 AM

Emily, a word of wisdom for the media. Everytime the republicans express a sentiment--ie, that they are literally ecstatic about Feingold's threat of a censure of George W. Bush--does not mean they have to dutifully play up the very spin they want played up--that the democrats are cowardly and craven.

When the media focuses on the democrats hiding from the Bush censure proposal, they fall right smack dab into the hands of the administration and of the republicans who want to deflect attention away from the unprecedented incompetence of this administration.

The censure isn't about the cowardice of the democrats. It isn't about Feingold's Presidential aspirations. It isn't about the 2006 Congressional elections. It is about how this incompetent, corrupt President with the aid and assistance of the republican party has turned the world into a bloodbath of terror and death and the American preeminence in finance and economics into a serfdom to the multinational corporations.

Posted by: Jaxas | March 16, 2006 11:45 AM

The Democrats are in a predicament. If they start talking censure and impeachment, they'll lose big come November because face it, moderate and conservative voters, however (rightly) disallusioned with Bush's policies on spending, immigration, the conduct of the war, etc., are not going to support impeaching a president during a time of war. If they back off, they'll probably risk losing their far-left, money-generating base (which Feingold, as a potential candidate in '08, has been courting) which will probably just say "screw em" and keep themselves and their money at home come election day.

I really don't see this ending well for the democrats.

Posted by: D. | March 16, 2006 11:48 AM

When I read comments about the Democrats being soft on security issues, I am amazed that so many people see the Iraq war as the "war on terror". That geographic area is not the only front of this conflict and can change at their choosing. Bush's fight them there not here slogan is just as ludicrous.

Posted by: WF | March 16, 2006 12:04 PM

Feingold is a good man but a little hasty with this censure thing. The reps are in control so nothing will happen. What he needs to do is dig a lot deeper to see if this crowd doesn't use the same cover to wiretap their domestic political opponents as well. Given their record (Valerie Plame!) this is a distinct possibility. If that's the case, forget about censure and start impeachment instead.

Posted by: Dis Ford | March 16, 2006 12:34 PM

D.: we're all waiting for the polls (coming soon, no doubt) to see how it ends for everybody. If you've got some form of omnipotence please post your NCAA brackets so we can all get rich.

As far as "are not going to support impeaching a president during a time of war" this is an RNC talking point plain and simple. This is hardly WWII and Bush is hardly a hands-on kind of guy. Darth Cheney and Rummy are already in charge of the Iraq War; impeachment would make zero difference.

And don't give me that "empowering the terrorists" bilge; "can't have an election; the transition might empower the terrorists!!" We had a stellar example of that on 9/11 and the primary empowerer of the terrorists on that occasion is still in residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | March 16, 2006 12:41 PM

Bringing up a censure motion is not illegal or treasonous, spying on Americans without a warrant is.

... and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause...

This is a nation of laws, not men. The Republic is dead. Too much Fear!
Have you ever seen a terrorist? How many of these terrorists have they caught snooping around? Or is it too keep neighbors from talking to neighnors about the difference between a war of pre emption and a illegal war of conquest.

"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html

U.S. Constitution: Fourth Amendment
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

... and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause...

Posted by: crusader bunnypants | March 16, 2006 01:02 PM

A corrupt Corporate Media that will not investigate a corrupt Congress what will not investigate a corrupt President calls for A New Government, A Revolution America!

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
http://www.usmilitaryhistory.com/declrind.htm
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Such has been the patient suffrance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.

"...Moderate and conservative voters, however (rightly) disallusioned with Bush's policies on spending, immigration, the conduct of the war, etc., are not going to support impeaching a president during a time of war..."

Why not, he lied about WMDS to start a war!
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/lies.mp3
Why not, he was warned about 9/11/01 on 8/6/02 and didn't do a god damed thing! The territorial pissings in Afghanistan and Iraq were planned long before the wargames on Operation 911. Real Conservatives who believe in limited government should resign for the GOP. Honestlywhy are any of you debaters still either a Republican or Democrat?

Posted by: crusader bunnypants | March 16, 2006 01:13 PM

Emily titled:
"Censure: Dodging Dems and a Giddy GOP"

Kudos for your insight, Emily.

Or are posters just following your lead? :o) Naaahhh, it's insight!!

Posted by: Cayambe | March 16, 2006 01:13 PM


Dear Emily,

I wish you the best with your blog.

Yours truly,
Che

Posted by: che | March 16, 2006 01:20 PM

Mr. bunnypants-

Real conservatives are hopping mad with Bush for a variety of reasons, mainly his spending like a drunken sailor 9or Democrat, if you prefer), but aren't going to jump ship because the alternative isn't a whole lot better (and in some ways, worse).

Now, if the Democrats actually came up with a platform that made some sense, you would see a jump to the other side (or at least a casual indifference to the elections in '06 & '08). But since Feingold has basically shown that the stategy of the Dems for the next two years is going to be "censure and impeachment", conservatives aren't going to go anywhere. Sure, call it an RNC talking point, but the call for censure will probably work to the republicans advantage come election time. And since you've only had three senators so far get on board with the idea, I suspect the remainder of the Dems are thinking of the same thing.

Whether the idea has merit or not, it all boils down to political survival.

Posted by: D. | March 16, 2006 01:39 PM

D. Emily censured Che for lack of indpendent thought. You're next on the list. I never heard anyone swallow a talking point and spit it back on command as well as you.

Sadly, Feingold has not spoken for the Democratic Party since he showed the only real courage in this town and voted against the (un)Patriot(ic) Act. Too bad. It appears men (and women) of principle in both partiets have deserted us in our hour of need.

Posted by: pig in a poke | March 16, 2006 01:52 PM

Pity you feel that way but censure away! Just pointing out how Feingold's resolution (or association with it) can be used against the Democrats in the next election. If thats considered regurgitating an RNC talking point, ok then. Whatever. Would be nice if the RNC sent me a check or two though...hate working for free.

Posted by: D. | March 16, 2006 01:57 PM

from patriot 1957: "But the people in whom I am by far the most disappointed are the moderate Repubs, the Hagels and Snowe and Chaffees and Collins and Specters etc who caved on the domestic spying and abuse of intelligence."

If you look at Specter's voting record, he is no moderate. And don't forget that he talks out of both sides of his mouth on most issues. For example: verbalizing that he is for choice, then voting for the confirmation of two judges who are likely pro-life; stating Bush most likely broke the law with the NSA wiretapping, then helping to pass a change to the law so Bush can tap anyone without a warrant.

He is no moderate and no friend of democracy.

Posted by: fed up | March 16, 2006 01:59 PM

I'm confused why the political waves are making news. A United States Senator called for a censure of the President for breaking a law that the President did *in fact* break. And they report on the political fallout as opposed to the actual censor and the law that was *in fact* broken?

Maybe the Media should be reporting how completely ineffectual and irrelevant they've become.

Posted by: Will | March 16, 2006 02:07 PM

Why do we even need politcal parties?
Neo Cons are NOT very Conservative! DLC Democrats are NOT very Liberal, sold out!
I'm pro life AND pro choice. I'm pro freedom! I'm pro gun! Why can't the gay people get married and be miserable like the rest of us! I hate liars, politicos, pundits, child molestors, drug dealers. I think we need to do something about Border Security, Port Security, etc. I would defend my home or family, but I am against Imperial Adventures for the Corporate Military Complex. I think the best way to stop the terrorist killers is to stop messing around with other nations and their leaders, to bring all the troops home from around the earth, and to start producing and manufacturing new and innovative pursuits of happiness and life!

Posted by: crusader bunnypants | March 16, 2006 02:12 PM

Democrats have gotten into the habit of verbally saying things that they lack the courage to put to a vote, or are still savvy enough to know that the vote would stay with them for all time and perhaps wreck future political ambitions.

Dems loved the "Vet War Genius" John Murtha's ideas right up to the point where they were called on to vote in affirmation of Genius John and magically rejected his proposals along with Republicans, 403-3.

Would any Dem introduce a Bill praising Cindy Sheehan's ideas, to back up their public lauding of Holy Mother Cindy?? Nope.

Or ask Dems to vote on a resolution saying Bush was another Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot? Well, it's one thing to for a Senator to bloviate on a Cable news show or in the Senate well, it's another to ever ask them to be accountable for their words.

Feingold got caught. Trapped by his rhetoric and a "sincere promise" he made various Lefties in the Base to do more than just speechify about censure. The rest of his band of liberals fled like rats at the horror - as D. put it - of:

"whatever the legal nuances of NSA wiretapping, it will simply boil down to "Look, the Democrats want to censure the president over intercepting terrorist communications" They can't be THAT stupid."

Indeed not! Smarmy Chuck Schumer and Rahm Emanuel believe in nothing other than aggrandizing their own power, and both seek to avoid votes confiming their Bush-bashing on "enemy rights" and other issues with the voters. Liberal Democrats regularly seek to bypass democratic institutions and use the courts and their legal "PACs" like the liberal Jewish ACLU to get their way.

The Democrats remember how their Gulf War votes became a stigma showing they were soft on defense. How they squawked on the Patriot Act but eventually fell in line rather than have another 9/11 traced right back to them "killing the Patriot Act".

And the idea of legal nuance blocking America from intercepting enemy communications in war time and "censuring the President" sounds great to the media and a bunch of liberal politicians who are loi-yahs 1st and Americans 2nd - Feingold played the maverick and sabotaged Schumer and Emanuel who would have preferred to slime and smear Bush with "the possibility of censure" but smart enough to know they could never put it to a vote, cripple counterterror intel. If they did, had the votes, then if the Islamoids struck hard - Rahm and Chuckles know the media laser would spotlight them with American blood dripping from their hands because they let their feelings for Bush-bashing, enraging then succoring the Lefty Base, and love of enemy rights get the best of them.

Posted by: Chris Ford | March 16, 2006 02:23 PM

Chris Ford-

Warrants, which used to be the process by which we separated entities like "terrorists" from "not-terrorists", are nothing more than "legal nuance"?

I disagree.

Posted by: Will | March 16, 2006 02:31 PM

that people use to manipulate perception.

Sort of like "Star Bellied Sneetches" in the Doctor Suess legende.


You know how children who are lying tend to get louder when caught in a lie?


What about viewing the current offensive in Iraq as _that_ ?


What about viewing the trial of the "known CIA/terrorist" on trial as having been thrown out as purposeful?


What about censuring the display of Saddam Hussein "on trial" as "not viewable" as being suspicious?


What about why isn't the trial being televised live?


Are we chinese? where people are presumed guilty and they have to provide defense to prove otherwise...and pay for it, if they don't have money, they're automatically guilty?


pandering to patriotism as a way of milking the american public...

how about reestablishing morality as a fact and begin with telling the truth.

.

Posted by: I think that democrats and republicans are labels | March 16, 2006 02:34 PM

there is no war in Iraq. we're simply beating a non-cooperative, primitive group of tribesmen into submission.


if there is a terrorist threat, now, it's because we've created it.

and they'd better actually start guarding the borders.


.

Posted by: war in Iraq? | March 16, 2006 02:36 PM

The democrats are just as guilty of pandering to lobbyists as the presidente'


what they aren't doing is trying to take over the government as a way of ensuring that "they get theirs."


what you have with the bushe regime is a very heavy handed


"we've always done what we wanted to and you know that and I know that, why hide it"


in this case "what they wanted to," is steal from the company....or the United States of America.

since you're the owners, you need to do something more than censure them.

you need to arrest them and file charges of theft.


pretty simple.

Posted by: there is a reason for the lack of response on censure | March 16, 2006 02:40 PM

do you actually have an opinon?


what is it?


is the president guilty as charged, or is it that he's just misunderstood?


care to combat wombat?

Posted by: hello emily. | March 16, 2006 02:42 PM

there's an occupation.

the occupation has taken place on the premise that:

we were attacked by Iraq

that Iraq had WMD's


from this: "war powers" were granted.

IF there was fraud involved in our attack upon Iraq, then the president has committed "war crimes."


and should be arrested, and charged and tried.

what he has done since "war powers" were granted under false premises should be removed....the unpatriotic "patriot act" rescinded.

doncha think?

Posted by: there is no war. | March 16, 2006 02:58 PM

and dialog:

If you can't enter a dialogue, who knows
maybe between us we can create a new insight.....pissing contests
there's plenty of those. You win.


The power of accurate observation is called dialogue


wave~particle


who chooses


which is the truth


it's easy to choose sides, choose none and be right


For me to enter into a true master-student dialogue I must
have someone on the other side to observe me as I become
the student and who does not seek to crush me. In the crucible of
awareness that two minds untrammeled by the need to win are born
things that neither is capable of alone. As I enter into the master role
I need one who can listen without ego to share my truth with and
see "how might this be so" or how this might be adjusted to be a
shared truth instead of a personal one. It even takes some work to
get to the point of dialogue. The best conversation that I ever had
took two hours to get started as we aligned our semantics and I
had known them for two years. To be really good you have to allow
a photon to be the thing that embodies both wave and particle,
which is what it truely is, and that takes delicacy, adroitness and
power directed towards solving the issue not beating up the partner.


That's what I like to do, if you don't want to play fine, your choice.

Posted by: the difference between debate | March 16, 2006 03:52 PM

Man, that's gotta be some pretty good weed you got there.

Posted by: D. | March 16, 2006 04:23 PM

Wisconsin Senator Russell Feingold's resolution to censure President George W. Bush is not, to my way of thinking, fringe or extreme. After all, he's not suggesting impeachment. Censure is a more moderate alternative -- well chosen here, considering that impeaching Bush would make Vice President Richard B. Cheney PRESIDENT.

Bush isn't really TRYING to wreck this country -- but, to quote Napoleon, "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence."

Feingold hasn't attracted much overt support, even from Democrats. But I think his resolution should be a no-brainer -- and I'm not even totally a liberal. Bush's record of bungling and untruthfulness speaks for itself. And we're in for three more years of the same, or worse -- unless Bush shapes up. Perhaps censure would get his attention.

Posted by: Ancestor | March 16, 2006 04:30 PM

there are universal truths that exist within the fabric of
reality...ameliorating each other...with peanut butter and apricot
jam...snickering with baffled expressions

a spring when compressed or a pendumluum when moved off center moves back
and forth in a cyclic behaviour to try and _reach center_ again


or balance again


you can drawa chart plotting distance moved off center versus time plotting
the oscillations back and forth


the oscillations trace a sine wave of diminishing signal strenth until there
is a flat line, at the same point as the start


this is normal system oscillation...you could apply it to any change in a
system _in general_


that has a tendancy to reach a stable point or region


predator prey balance


right wing left wing


fashion


an argument/awar/feelings associated with


there is a line which can be drawn through the chart of the oscillations
that the pushed off center penduluum or spring will make which is a smooth
line, a curve


note: geometry is an ideal that doesn't exist within this reality in
perfection...it is a concept which exists within the body of reality...what
I'm talking about is the same, the concept is pervasive and does not exist
in perfection or as a seperate thing/it'sembedded....there is no such thing
as a straight line or a point except in the abstract and in approximation,
and within context of whatelse is affecting reality in physical space..


on debate:
that's one reason why debate is in a sense a load of crap as a final
arbiter, absolutes do not exist only conceptsin context...debabate could be
part of the process, but at some point it has to cease and a common or
shared insight traversed...debate is useless at doing more than arriving in
the vicinity of what will be walked together...


a damped reaction will smooth out the sine wave to a smooth curve and the
penduluum/spring will return to balance...non oscillating very quickly


damping ina physical case would be a shock absorber, or in the case of a
pendulum possibly immersion in a a denser gas


damping in a social situation would consist of training in "allowing"
"listening" "non reactive" behaviours...buddhist sitting....blue/red energy
training sadness/anger....having practiced being aware during the process of
aging/wisdom...exposure to a wide range of situations and
behaviours...ambassadorial training...reading on behaviours...thinking about
cognition
and so on


what is true on a physical level is to some degree true on a
spiritual/emotional/nonphysical level in most cases....this is to some
degree the basis for divination


on explaining:


to explain it most perfectly to you I would have to know you better and find
a way to demonstrate it within the context of your experience


for you to understand it most easily would require that you hold the state
of _maybe/nonconclusion_ as a way of being

Posted by: illumination often has the appearance of inebriation to the unschooled.... | March 16, 2006 04:40 PM

justacomment.

Posted by: I get bored sometimes with the level of insight here.. | March 16, 2006 04:47 PM

You know how children who are lying tend to get louder when caught in a lie?


What about viewing the current offensive in Iraq as _that_ ?

Posted by: this is all you need to know | March 16, 2006 04:49 PM

"Chris Ford - "Warrants, which used to be the process by which we separated entities like "terrorists" from "not-terrorists", are nothing more than "legal nuance"?I disagree. Posted by: Will"

We made a huge mistake when we began thinking of enemy combatants as "criminals" best dealt with by civilian criminal law and thought the barrier of All-Wise lawyers issuing warrants was the way to go.

Other than the "criminal conspiracy" that Atta and gang were engaged in, which they would argue was nothing criminal but following Allah's Will, nothing they did until they slit the 1st stewardesses throat was illegal or could justify a warrant. And the only way to get a warrant on the conspiracy would have been to listen in. Martial arts classes? The numerous scouting forays they made in testing airport security and in-flight response? Flying school lessons? Buying boxcutters? Nothing illegal to justify breaching enemy combatants "privacy rights" if one clings to the insane nuance that enemy soldiers are "covered" by civilian due process.

Which was why the Moussaoui case was so pathetic. A nation that scooped up Jap, Nazi, and Red spies was reduced to impotence because they couldn't get a Lawyer to write a warrant to examine this guy everyone was sure was an enemy terrorist.

Signals intercept has gone on since time immemorial. Greek spies climbed hillsides to get Spartan heliograph messages. Persians fighting Egyptians would use carrier pigeons and try to get the other sides intel by baiting the birds. During the Revolutionary War, Ben Franklin of the famous "liberty v. security" cliche` ignorant Lefties and Libertarians love to quote....formed the Committee on Secret Correspondence, which was dedicated to getting spies to penetrate other American's homes to eavesdrop, and intercept and open, then reseal and send on - enemy and Loyalist letters. Ben never searched for a All-Wise Lawyer to sprinkle legal metaphorical holy water over the secret correspondence and thus bless it as "sanctified" by warrant.

As soon as we had the telegraph, telephone, underseas cables, and wireless - Americans were intercepting signals without warrant. Same with today's satellite, microwave, laser, IR, RFID.

It was only a pack of liberal Senators overreacting to FBI overreach into going after political vs. real enemies - set up the notion that civilian criminal law and "convictions & jail" were adequate to deal with small radical groups (proto-terrorists), spies, and Cold War intel in peacetime. In wartime, their strategy of "take a week and compile a 30-page affidavit for any person or terrorist you dare invade the sacred privacy of, only on full probable cause" - all that fell into WTC and Pentagon pieces.

The sweet thing is that those determined to prefer enemy slaughter over the huge platter of enemy rights and liberties they believe enemy Islamoids are entitled to don't really have to be reasoned with. It is preferential to let them make America blind again if you don't mind Islamoid unlawful combatants killing more Americans and delivering another reality check since 9/11 wasn't enough for enemy rights lovers....

And part of the sting is removed because the targets are mostly inside "Blue Cities" that put the enemy rights advocates into Congress in the first place. And further removed by noting the "legal nuance before security against Islamoid" crowd is led by Jewish Democrats, plus the Jewish Arlen Spector...and we know the Islamoids take a special interest in striking any are that holds the promise of hefty Jew-killing...from Islamoid Internet blogs...prime targets are "Zionist-dominated" Las Vegas, Hollywood, Washington DC, and NYC media centers. And heavily Jewish population centers like "Jew York", Miami, Palm Beach, San Francisco, Madison, WI, Northern NJ. One thing the Islamoid blogs mention is either disappointment they failed to bag lots of Jews on 9/11, or pointing out that the paucity of Jewish bodies was proof that 9/11 was really a Zionist Plot.

Their insane logic, but Russ Feingold thinks it's his duty to fight to the death to defend the right of any Islamoid to privately think and act on that logic without the US having a right to intercept enemy communications in wartime...I think Russ won't like it much if the Islamoids do to "Bluer than Blue" Madison what the hurricane did to Democrat bastion New Orleans. Or if more conservative Jews rise and run against a guy so sympathetic to the "sacred rights and civil liberties" of a foreign enemy that proudly declares that Jew-killing is "Job #1!"

Another big Islamoid attack and Feingold and Co, plus a hefty passel of non-Jewish liberals like Kennedy, Conyers, Murray will be crucified as defenders of Islamoid unlawful combatants..

Posted by: Chris Ford | March 16, 2006 08:08 PM

All right! Back in business, Che has been sent on his way, and still no sign of Errinf. I think I'll have a beer.

Posted by: johnnyg in NE DC | March 16, 2006 08:37 PM

Johnnyg you make me laugh!

Posted by: patriot 1957 | March 16, 2006 08:48 PM

You know how children who are lying tend to get louder when caught in a lie?


What about viewing the current offensive in Iraq as _that_ ?

Posted by: this is all you need to know | March 16, 2006 08:49 PM

against the law.

Posted by: impugning the bill of rights is that... | March 16, 2006 08:50 PM

that should be prosecuted by arresting the perpatrators...

pretty much anybody working for or with bush...


the offensive is nothing more than a "call to false patriotism,"


much as the so called patriot act is a recision of the Bill of Rights.

Posted by: just like defrauding the citizens of these United States is a felony... | March 16, 2006 08:53 PM

merit reading.

spin,

is the act of trying to make a silk purse out of your current administrations actions.

Posted by: simple statements of truth... | March 16, 2006 08:55 PM

and it is the simple act of not allowing yourselves to be herded by delusions of anything laudible about perpatrating fraud...or larceny, or conspiracy under any aiegis....


that means cover.

cia/noriega/geoh.w.bush

cia/saddam/geow.bush

ciao.

Posted by: there is a war on terror going on... | March 16, 2006 08:58 PM

Posted by: patriot 1957
"Is there anyone remaining who will speak for the center?"

Just using the terms "liberal" and "conservative" is not always very informative. A "moderate liberal" and "moderate conservative" candidate could be almost identical where as another two could be opposites. It would be most refreshing to see the main stream media once again use the term "moderate". Is that possible in the 2006 and 2008 elections? If I'm not mistaken it was Karl Rove that wanted the main stream media to use only "liberal" and "conservative" and cease using moderate. Main Stream Media please don't fall for that manipulation, start using "moderate", give the voters a third choice regardless of party.

Posted by: Jamal | March 16, 2006 09:01 PM

Posted by: D.

"The democrats aren't rallying around Feingold because they know its going to kill them in '06 and potentially '08." Jumping on Feingold's bandwagon will further undermine any credibility they've been trying to build up viv-a-vis national security (Dubai ports deal, Iran, etc.)because whatever the legal nuances of NSA wiretapping, it will simply boil down to "Look, the Democrats want to censure the president over intercepting terrorist communications"

"They can't be THAT stupid. Keep this up, and I'm afraid the Dems are going to become the Whigs of the 21st century."

There are strong indications that the NSA wiretapping went much further than what was leaked and Gonzalez never denied any questions pertaining to the full extent of the wiretapping. If leaks or evidence surface in the next year proving additional abuses of power via NSA, Feingold will look like a hero and his critics will be eating crow. Use caution "D", not to long ago Bush denied any wiretapping, your putting your trust in a man that already lied to you once on this issue.

Posted by: Jamal | March 16, 2006 09:12 PM

as in the Movie "O Brother"

where the KKK guy, was saying that he was for the little man...


and Pappy O'Daniel was for the foggy bottom boys

hitching your star to a winner to perpatrate fraud or to redirect the attention of the learning public is the way of the masters of the shell game...


right wing

left wing


how about the truth?


how about pointing at that?

I didn't know that they'd linked the Iraqi occupation to terrorists.

I though there were no WMD or Iraqi connection...or are you just making that up?

.

terrorists?

Posted by: labels are usually used to mislead... | March 16, 2006 09:13 PM

Posted by: Jaxas

"Look. I am no political expert but, if the polls are to be believed, The American people are already censuring Bush.
Whenever something like this comes up, the republicans somehow manage to turn the media's focus on the democrats. When are the national media ever going to catch on that they are being manipulated by Bush and his anus adoring supporters--all 34% of them?
The people are sending both Bush and the media a message--that they have had it up to their necks with all of the bulls#*t! And the turning of the screws on the democrats just when they have Bush on the ropes is Exhibit A of just how easily manipulated into making democrats the issue--even though they do not have control of a single branch of government--this pathetically incompetent media is.
The more incompetent Bush gets, he is matched by the incompetence of the media."


I couldn't agree more. During this Blogs excursion in to MLB, I visited other national politically oriented Blogs. There was little or no attention to moderates, the term has all but disappeared in the MSM. I saw, live on C-SPAN, Feingold deliver his censure speech, as well as Frist playing "chicken little". NBC news barely mentioned it. Despite the GOP giddiness, it has had no effect on the polls and will be forgotten. Bush is judged by his invasion/occupation of Iraq, as Bush goes down, so does the GOP.

Posted by: Jamal | March 16, 2006 09:33 PM

Posted by: D.

"The Democrats are in a predicament. If they start talking censure and impeachment, they'll lose big come November because face it, moderate and conservative voters, however (rightly) disallusioned with Bush's policies on spending, immigration, the conduct of the war, etc., are not going to support impeaching a president during a time of war. If they back off, they'll probably risk losing their far-left, money-generating base (which Feingold, as a potential candidate in '08, has been courting) which will probably just say "screw em" and keep themselves and their money at home come election day.
I really don't see this ending well for the democrats."

D, the laugh is on you. Before you could even type your comment most of voters who even paid any attention to the Feingold Censure had forgotten about it. It will be kicked around in blogs like this for a while, but on television it's old news and already forgotten. The high tide of the GOP has come and gone, I wouldn't want to be a republican right now. Your wrong about Nov., I'll put money on that! And BTW, the Feingold Censure was a patriot act, just as when Edward R. Morrow spoke out against Joe McCarthy.

Posted by: Jamal | March 16, 2006 10:05 PM

Feingold is distinguishing himself from the other democrats who, he will remind all democrats in 2007, stood idly by while Bush trampled on our constitutional rights. And by then the courts will have ruled the spying as unconstitutional. He will be the only dem who will be able to say he did his duty as a senator and will look very presidential, while Hillary and others will have to say that while Russ was trying to defending our rights, they were being cautious. Its a bit of a gamble but if the courts rule it unconstitutional its a slam dunk for Russ! Clever!

And a question for the Post. I remember one of your reporters during an online Politics Discussion saying that there were no Post polls asking about impeachment since its not an issue in Congress, and if it were an issue a poll would be conducted. Well, since censure is now an issue in Congress is the Post planning a poll to ask Americans whether they agree/disagree with censure? I think the results will be mostly in favor and might move some of those cautious democrats to support Russ.

Posted by: Sully | March 16, 2006 10:11 PM

One thing about Morrow I don't understand with you liberals. He was a chain smoker. You guys would run him out of the room if he showed up. Smoke'em if you got 'em.

Posted by: smokey | March 16, 2006 10:13 PM

Posted by: Chris Ford (bad ford)

"The Democrats remember how their Gulf War votes became a stigma showing they were soft on defense. How they squawked on the Patriot Act but eventually fell in line rather than have another 9/11 traced right back to them "killing the Patriot Act."

Chris, you are wrong in your assessment of the Democrats being soft on defense, it's the republicans that are soft on defense. The act of bush invading Iraq and its subsequent occupation have weakened our national security on terrorism. Significant forces were removed from Afghanistan at a critical time in the hunt for OBL and may have aided him in his escape. Most of the active terrorists were boxed-in in Afghanistan and the Pakistani border area. No terrorists were in Iraq, Sadam did not allow them in his country for fear of his own assignation. The Bush invasion of Iraq opened up a Pandora's Box of terrorism.

"And the idea of legal nuance blocking America from intercepting enemy communications in war time and "censuring the President" sounds great to the media and a bunch of liberal politicians who are loi-yahs 1st and Americans 2nd - Feingold played the maverick and sabotaged Schumer and Emanuel who would have preferred to slime and smear Bush with "the possibility of censure" but smart enough to know they could never put it to a vote, cripple counterterror intel. If they did, had the votes, then if the Islamoids struck hard - Rahm and Chuckles know the media laser would spotlight them with American blood dripping from their hands because they let their feelings for Bush-bashing, enraging then succoring the Lefty Base, and love of enemy rights get the best of them."

Chris you sound like babbling Joe McCarthy.

Posted by: Jamal | March 16, 2006 10:23 PM

Posted by: smokey

"One thing about Morrow I don't understand with you liberals. He was a chain smoker. You guys would run him out of the room if he showed up. Smoke'em if you got 'em."

I'm a moderate; tell it like it is, Democrat. Smokey, calling me liberal puts you out on the Nazi fringe. Edward Morrow was a great man, smoker or not.

Posted by: Jamal | March 16, 2006 10:29 PM

Murrow was a chain smoker who, like my dad and many of his generation, were duped by the tobacco industry into purchasing their products and became addicted. Murrow died of lung cancer at the age of 57 in 1965. Another great American murdered by the lying criminal tobacco industry. And they are still around today pushing their poison for profit, legally. I really wonder how any tobacco grower, harvester, worker or seller can sleep at night.

Posted by: Sully | March 16, 2006 10:33 PM

Do you think Morrow was duped? Or he was some ill-informed dimwit? Everyone who smoked, even before the Surgeon Generals report, knew it was bad for them. Some simply do not care and are willing to trade 10-20 years for that simple pleasure in life. I bet he loved every smoke he had. You see, some people don't give a crap how you personally view their personal preferences and habits. To me, this should be liberalistic view.

Posted by: smokey | March 16, 2006 10:58 PM


Call for Censure Is Rallying Cry to Bush's Base

By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
Published: March 16, 2006

"WASHINGTON, March 15 -- Republicans, worried that their conservative base lacks motivation to turn out for the fall elections, have found a new rallying cry in the dreams of liberals about censuring or impeaching President Bush."


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/16/politics/16impeach.html?th&emc=th
Some ralling cry, the next day bush and the GOP drop in the polls. Bill Clinton used to say "It's the economy stupid", for bush and the GOP "It's the Iraq War stupid". Until Bush and the GOP can turn the Iraq War around, they are in deeeeeeeeeeep trouble.

Posted by: Jamal | March 16, 2006 11:01 PM

Posted by: smokey
"To me, this should be liberalistic view."

I have no idea what point your trying to make? Are you trying to say your a smoker and if so who cares? What does it have to do with liberals, moderates, and conservatives....or Dodging Dems and a Giddy GOP?

Posted by: Jamal | March 16, 2006 11:11 PM

Jaxas and Jamal,
Puhhhleeeese....quit blaming the media!!!!!

I just watched Feingold do his news conference. Pretty well reasoned, well focused, measured, he speaks pretty clear English. This is the single fellow who voted against the original Patriot act on civil libertarian grounds, who managed to hold up the extension in December.

I also caught Pelosi doing her usual carp over the day's air assault going on in Samara. Her conclusion, proves that Bush lied about "major combat is over" three years ago. WOW, that's really insightful. Tell me dear, how do YOU propose that we get out of this mess NOW? Pelosi - "That is the President's job, he got us into it". Right, that informs the hell out of my vote.

Then lets not forget about Jim Murtha last fall.

In both cases I see two particular Democrats who see themselves speaking to serious issues, frankly and clearly, from their view of what is best for the nation. In both cases it put them in direct opposition to the administration and to then prevailing public opinion. In both cases their party colleagues couldn't run to the other side of the room fast enough.

If I could, I would vote for Murtha. If I could, I would vote for Feingold (and I may have that particular choice in 2008, which is a long way away). But I won't have those choices this fall. Nope, my choice will be among the jackass's I see running like hell to the other side of the room.

You all blame the media for this? Karl Rove? Give us a break!!!!

Posted by: Cayambe | March 16, 2006 11:12 PM

Emily to Che:
===========================================
"You were not blocked, Che. I told you days ago to stop using the comments to post news and opinion stories (and long ones at that) having nothing to do with the subject at hand. Comments are for ORIGINAL THOUGHTS and your own analysis, not simply regurgitating other people's words."
===========================================

Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! :D

That said, even though I'm an independent that's right of center, I'd prefer Liberals with some backbone and with some princples calling the shots, than just rubberstamping, hooting, monkeys.

I'd welcome them calling a spade a spade, and challenging this train wreck of one way thought. A Republic needs debate, it needs to learn from it's mistakes, and build a better State. Can't do that if loyality to a party is more important than what's best for the country overall.

More debate, more moderation and let's break this straight ticket mindset. This country can't live in the 18th/19th/20th century, it has to move on, grow, and be one of the few societies that does last for 1000 years!

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | March 16, 2006 11:35 PM

labels are something for people that can't speak for themselves to hide behind.


they're also labels for people that have an agenda that they want to foist on you that they don't want you to examine...


I mean come on "Patriot Act?"

that's like calling the Satan "the Pope"

well mabybe not a good analogy, but hey, you get the drift right?

and anything that bush touches called patriotic?


well this is the guy that brought you hatemongering as a publicity tool, why it even gave him the presidency....

and those democrats?


well, what's the difference democrats and republicans they're still your leaders and what are your leadrers good for?

leading you, on.


your leaders?

will sell anything that isn't nailed down...


without giving the citizens of the United States honest and fair representation...if they can't steal the towels, they don't want to check in....they're part of the visit right, they're paid for....corruption is just part of the congressional life...


comeon...give me a break...


a high school student could tell you what happens if you don't work with the ecology of a system.....everything breaks...


that's what is happening to us as a group, the citizens of the united states of america.


there is such a thing as a human ecology, one that keeps all things working towards a sustainable future....


look at the bushe trying to appear "in touch" with the future by "supporting alternative fuels"

too little, not at all...photo op.


you want the effin thing to work, raise gas prices to $3.50 a gallon and bank the excess to pay for infrastructure changes giving freight companies some time and some leeway to get better rates....legislate change that we as a nation can adapt to....THAT IS A NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUE, not some orchestrated Oz show called find the terrorists but don't look at what I'm doing...

trains, making city life pleasurable, workers that telecommute, blah blah blah, it could happen....they effin telecommute from friggin India every day....they trust them, why not you? ask Capitol ONE....formerly of Fredericksburg VA, now from Bangalore India....3,000 jobs.


but you make changes to make sure that the future is a good one....not just for you and your oil invested family...


why should g. w. bush worry about rising oil prices?


he's in the business, why would he interrupt that business to help out his country, that would get in the way of his, his families, and his family friends profits.

Posted by: moderates? | March 16, 2006 11:38 PM

Cayambe wrote:
===========================================
"I also caught Pelosi doing her usual carp over the day's air assault going on in Samara. Her conclusion, proves that Bush lied about "major combat is over" three years ago. WOW, that's really insightful. Tell me dear, how do YOU propose that we get out of this mess NOW? Pelosi - "That is the President's job, he got us into it". Right, that informs the hell out of my vote."
===========================================

That's why the Democratic party has lost touch with reality. Folks, all stripes, are looking for solutions. The "blame game" only goes to elect more fringe types, which rankles the moderate majority, who'd rather vote for some Republican that's not ready to trash this country overnight (well, at least not burn down Washington in an anarchy binge).

Recently Democrats have touched on Traditional conservative themes, and they're learning how popular they are on both sides of the aisle (and rankle the Republican ranks in response). I told those DU types back in 2003 that's the way to get the POSITIVE attention of non Neo-Con Republicans, and finally they're milking it for it's worth.

Now they just need to hammer home about the deficit, and they can watch the Republican party bleed. There's 3 wings on the Right sick and tired of the Neo-Cons, and if the Dems can play their political cards right, they can gain their vote in Novemeber.

But the "blame game" won't work. Solutions will (or play on idealogies that are shared by both sides of the aisle).

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | March 16, 2006 11:49 PM

Moderates? (who's no moderate) wrote:
===========================================
look at the bushe trying to appear "in touch" with the future by "supporting alternative fuels"

too little, not at all...photo op."
===========================================

Actually, it maybe hard to believe an ex-oilman would be all for alternative fuel, but he is -- because there's trillions of dollars in the deal. A capitalists' godsend is on the horizon, especially if they can corner the market early.

Trick is to go solar and wind power, things they can't sell you like a gallon of gas -- and they must buy back if you have a surplus. :)

So partisan sobbing isn't going to help here. Oilmen are all dizzy over the alternative fuel deals. More capital, and capital that's not shared.

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | March 16, 2006 11:55 PM

Only recently (in the WSJ as I best recall), an opinion piece complained how typical it was of liberals that they felt they should escape accountability because of good intentions.

That seems to be a characterization that exactly fits the Presidential stance on the administration's extensive covert domestic surveillance.

Posted by: On the plantation | March 17, 2006 06:23 AM

smokey wrote:
"Do you think Morrow was duped? Or he was some ill-informed dimwit? Everyone who smoked, even before the Surgeon Generals report, knew it was bad for them. Some simply do not care and are willing to trade 10-20 years for that simple pleasure in life. I bet he loved every smoke he had. You see, some people don't give a crap how you personally view their personal preferences and habits. To me, this should be liberalistic view."

He was duped AND ill-informed by Marlboro Man ads aimed at children and other tobacco industry marketing to get children smoking/addicted. What you do not seem to understand is that nicotine is addictive, as addictive as heroin. Its not a habit. Its not even pleasurable. I tried it due to the heavy marketing on TV. It coughed for 10 minutes. Another drag and I almost threw up. I thought, what a stupid thing to do and never did it again.

I watched my dad try to quit after the Surgeon General made his report. He went into shakes, got nervous, couldn't sleep, concentrate or even read the paper. He couldn't function until he took a drag, then it all went away and was "normal". He always told me he wished he could quit. But he couldn't. The tobacco industry, like today's underground drug industry, had him where they wanted him, an addicted customer.

By your analogy, illegal drugs should be legal. Let people get high on cocaine or heroin and ignore its addictive effects. Same for heroin. Have you ever seen anyone addicted nicotine or heroin go through a withdrawl? Until you do you have no idea what you are talking about.

Posted by: Sully | March 17, 2006 08:51 AM

Posted by: Cayambe

"Puhhhleeeese....quit blaming the media!!!!!"

Cayambe, you don't make since. You credit Feinglod with his independence, but it's not just him, those who did not back his censure only demonstrated their independence. Most democrats demonstrate independent thought, I like that, but when it comes to unity, they never have the unity of Republicans. Unity wins elections, but blind unity as the republicans have now, makes for poor legislation and poor leadership. If republicans had less unity and more independence, we might not be in Iraq or have a deficit spending.

As far as the media goes, it was deplorable how Bill Frist reacted to the Feingold censure, playing the terrorist card (potential attacks on Nashville and Madison) and it's not even directly mentioned in Emily topic. Have you seen Frist's website, what a joke! He bused his supporters from Nashville to Memphis and paid their $150 registration fee, so they could vote for him in the straw poll. Talk about buying votes.

"You all blame the media for this? Karl Rove? Give us a break!!!!"

To a certain extent, yes I do, open your eyes! Feingold's censure is not the issue, the issue is illegal wiretapping without a warrant. And remember Rove is in charge of winning the November elections for the GOP. His strategy is the GOP is strong on defense for the country.

Posted by: Jamal | March 17, 2006 09:21 AM

"He was duped AND ill-informed by Marlboro Man ads"

Actually, Marlboro started as a women's cigarette back when Morrow was in his prime. Later, it was transformed into its pesent cowboy image.

"By your analogy, illegal drugs should be legal. Let people get high on cocaine or heroin and ignore its addictive effects. Same for heroin. Have you ever seen anyone addicted nicotine or heroin go through a withdrawl? Until you do you have no idea what you are talking about."

Cigarettes are not illegal drugs, and they do not intoxicate or depress. Yes, I did know a few junkies many years ago. Cigarettes helped them with the Jone's. All of them are dead, but I am still here.

I write for a living. I love to smoke while I write. I have no plans to ever quit smoking until either it or something else kills me. What peeves me are attitudes of people like yourself who stigmatize those unlike themselves.

Posted by: smokey | March 17, 2006 09:36 AM

Posted by: SandyK

"Actually, it maybe hard to believe an ex-oilman would be all for alternative fuel, but he is -- because there's trillions of dollars in the deal. A capitalists' godsend is on the horizon, especially if they can corner the market early."

That might be part of it, but most of Bush's feeble push for alternative fuels is due to his failed Iraq War to obtain cheap oil. If he was a serious as you think then why did he not support CAFÉ? Thus far Carter was the only president to make a serious attempt to wean us off of oil and most of his efforts were undone by the Reagan administration. As for the potential oil reserves in the Alaska Wilderness areas, the oil would only last the country for 11 to 17 months.

"Trick is to go solar and wind power, things they can't sell you like a gallon of gas -- and they must buy back if you have a surplus. :)"

Solar and wind are not adequate for transportation purposes, where about half of our oil is consumed. For generating electricity, coal, hydro, and nuclear are the primary economical means for a large population of about 300 million people.

"So partisan sobbing isn't going to help here. Oilmen are all dizzy over the alternative fuel deals. More capital, and capital that's not shared."

I agree, look for a move by the major oil companies into alternative fuels as the world oil reserves begin to diminish.

Posted by: Jamal | March 17, 2006 09:48 AM

I am proud to be called a left-liberal and I don't care who says it. The whole problem with the Democrats is that they have lost their identity. If they are so eager to simply win elections, let them become Republicans, given that there is a perception that one must be a Republican to win. The Democrats are so embroiled in strategy that they have totally forgotten that people vote because they believe in things--at least anybody with any brains does that!

I am sick of the Democrats. They are spineless wimps that don't stand for anything. When a liberal like Chuck Schumer supports a person like Bob Casey, we know the party is in trouble.

I wrote a letter the editor to the Washington Post on the Democrats, but it didn't get published.

My attitude is that a censure is a tiny tap on the wrist. An impeachment is not much more. I say we depose Bush and all of his cronies.

You GO Russ and you've got my vote if you run.

Posted by: Billie | March 17, 2006 09:59 AM

Posted by: smokey

"I write for a living. I love to smoke while I write. I have no plans to ever quit smoking until either it or something else kills me. What peeves me are attitudes of people like yourself who stigmatize those unlike themselves."

A little off topic. I support your right to smoke as long as I don't have to pay for it or inhale it. Due to its adverse affect on health it runs up health insurance costs for nonsmokers. Or if a parent or parents pass away leaving children, then SS payments will be made by the government to minor children, again costing nonsmokers. It's difficult not to inhale second hand smoke in public places (indoors). My father was heavy "Lucky Strike" smoker from WWII and it put him in early grave leaving behind four small children. He and my mother taught us within our family not to smoke and none of us ever did, despite at the time, the heavy ad campaigns encouraging smoking. As for optional public places (indoors), if they want your business, they can allow smoking and they won't have mine or vise versa. Fewer and fewer Americans smoke, expect less places to smoke in public (indoors).

Posted by: Jamal | March 17, 2006 10:11 AM

Posted by: Billie

"I wrote a letter the editor to the Washington Post on the Democrats, but it didn't get published."

Is there any reason you can't post your letter here for comment? I would like to read it.

Posted by: Jamal | March 17, 2006 10:14 AM

>>Liberal Democrats regularly seek to bypass democratic institutions and use the courts and their legal "PACs" like the liberal Jewish ACLU to get their way.


The US courts are not institutions of democracy? They are not the third branch of the US govt as specified by the Constitution? Could it be the Founding Fathers were undemocratic and unwise by specifying that judges be appointed by the president and CONFIRMED by the Senate for life to avoid just the kind of demagoguery and political intimidation of the like of Chris Ford?

And who abused the court system by passing law in the middle of the night to move the Terry Schiavo case from state courts to the federal courts hoping the conservative federal supreme court would inject religion into our legal system?

Who seeked to move the 2000 contest to the federal court knowing their republican appointed judges would award the election to a guy who clearly lost the popular vote?

Who abused the judicial system by court shopping in the Padilla case where even the most conservative appeal court in the land said was an attempt to mislead it?

Who fight tooth and nail to put ultra right wingers on the Supreme Court for the sole purpose of outlawing abortion?

Neocons ARE undemocratic! And in all likelihood traitors to the nation.

Posted by: Dis Ford | March 17, 2006 10:50 AM

Hmmm...so if a self-professed left liberal like Billie is sick and disgusted with the modern Democratic party, I wonder how many more are and, more importantly, how many aren't going to bother to show up in November.

Jamal, I believe I'll take you up on that bet.

My point is simple. A healthy democratic political system needs a healthy opposition party. Feingold, even if I don't agree with him, at least has principles and is willing to stand by them. The remainder of his party appears to be AWOL. Sorry, but until your platform evolves into something other than playing the "blame game" or just simply being in opposition to whatever the administration does, offering no concise, clear plan of your own, you are not going to win elections, period.

Posted by: D. | March 17, 2006 10:51 AM

Chris Ford thank you for responding:

"Other than the "criminal conspiracy" that Atta and gang were engaged in, which they would argue was nothing criminal but following Allah's Will, nothing they did until they slit the 1st stewardesses throat was illegal or could justify a warrant."

Criminal conspiracy is a crime and who cares what Atta and gang claim anyways?

I would strongly disagree with the "nothing htey did until" part, but that's an unfortunate reality. Nothing an angry husband does is a crime up until the moment he kills his wife, but that doesn't give the state a reason to arrest him prior. We don't depend on "evidence" and "warrants" because they are the most effective means of preventing harm, we depend on them because they are the most fair. It is not "Atta's rights" that I am concerned with. I am concerned about mine.

"And the only way to get a warrant on the conspiracy would have been to listen in. Martial arts classes? The numerous scouting forays they made in testing airport security and in-flight response? Flying school lessons? Buying boxcutters? Nothing illegal to justify breaching enemy combatants "privacy rights" if one clings to the insane nuance that enemy soldiers are "covered" by civilian due process."

If the United States government listened in on everyone who purchased boxcutters, martial arts classes, and took flying school lessons, then yes, it would be a most aggregious violation of citizen's rights. These things, individually, are not criminal, but they are the kinds of things presented to a judge that can suggest criminality. Warrants don't have the strict burden of proving that someone is guilty, they just have to prove that someone is a suspect.

"Which was why the Moussaoui case was so pathetic. A nation that scooped up Jap, Nazi, and Red spies was reduced to impotence because they couldn't get a Lawyer to write a warrant to examine this guy everyone was sure was an enemy terrorist."

How was it that everyone became so "sure" he was a terrorist? Were they born with that knowledge?

The way that we distinguish murder suspects from totally innocent people is through a warrant. This process protects totally innocent people from violations of their rights.

I have to assume that if everyone just "knows" Guy X is a terrorist, then they will be able to produce sufficient evidence of Guy X's terrorist conspiracy to get a warrant. This need not be unreasonably strict. It might even mean spying on people who it turns out later were totally innocent. But better to have a process that associates the subject of the spying with the act we suspect them of then to just abandon the entire process all together and let a small band of NSA agents determine, for all we know arbitrarily, who constitutes a "terrorist" and who constitutes a "totally innocent person". This is not because I am in love with terrorists, it is because I do not assume that NSA Agents are benevolent and would *only* spy on terrorists.

"As soon as we had the telegraph, telephone, underseas cables, and wireless - Americans were intercepting signals without warrant. Same with today's satellite, microwave, laser, IR, RFID."

You don't see a substantive difference between me listening when phone lines get crossed and the Government seeking out my "signals" without explanation?

"It was only a pack of liberal Senators overreacting to FBI overreach into going after political vs. real enemies - set up the notion that civilian criminal law and "convictions & jail" were adequate to deal with small radical groups (proto-terrorists), spies, and Cold War intel in peacetime. In wartime, their strategy of "take a week and compile a 30-page affidavit for any person or terrorist you dare invade the sacred privacy of, only on full probable cause" - all that fell into WTC and Pentagon pieces."

And your response is also an overreaction: that because the "take a week and compile..." process is unreasonably burdensome we should abandon warrants all together? This is not either-or, we don't have to live in constant fear from *either* an overreaching FBI *or* a perpetual terrorist threat.

Civil liberties and national security are not mutually exclusive.

Posted by: Will | March 17, 2006 11:03 AM

Cayambe, you may wheeze, snort, exort, admonish, astonish,, wheedle, needle, bark, fart and hock all you want. But, when the chips are really down, when the republicans have their backs to wall, when it appears that all is lost for them, you can rely on the media to rush in to the rescue.

In 2000, when Al Gore surged past Bush in the polls shortly before the election, the right wing went berserk. Rush Limbaugh literally shot his wad in digging up innocuous inconsistencies in Gore's past speeches, went on national television on Chris Matthews (who melted like a high school cheerleader asked to the dance by the head jock on the team) and proceeded to slander Al Gore as a "serial exaggerator".

For weeks on end the national media picked up on the "serial exaggerator" theme just as they picked up on the questionable origin of the Kerry medals put out by the heavily RNC funded Swiftboat Veterans for Truth. Whatever the right wing slime merchants like Limbaugh are peddling, the national media eagerly laps it up.

Count on it. When we get down to any election, whatever slanderous, filthy, slimy, phlegm-laden bucket of snot Limbaugh and his ilk throw at democratrs is going to be dutifully legitimaized by the national media. It happens every time the republicans look like they are going to lose.

So go ahead. Delude yourself that events on the ground and the polls are going to determine the outcome of the next election. Trust me. When the first poltical cannonballs blast across the television screens heralding the beginning of the political campaign, the reall sound of bombs going off in Iraq and Afghanistan will be forgotten. The issues will be blown asunder by the snotwallowing that the right wing will engage in and the media will obligingly report.

Posted by: Jaxas | March 17, 2006 11:07 AM

>>Sorry, but until your platform evolves into something other than playing the "blame game" or just simply being in opposition to whatever the administration does, offering no concise, clear plan of your own, you are not going to win elections, period.


Yeah like anyone in this country has a good plan for Iraq? To stay much longer is unfeasible. To leave too soon means unmitigated disaster. Let the idiots who started this war stew in their own juice. Now they even agree to talk to IRAN about Iraq while saying with the other side of their mouth that IRAN is the devil incarnate! Talk about desperation. No wonder the Iranian nutcases are so cocky. They know they hold the winning card and the other side are pure incompetent swaggering fools. NEOCONS are TRAITORS!

Posted by: Dis Ford | March 17, 2006 11:07 AM

One other little thing cayambe--and Emily--these elections are no longer about the American people. They are not about questions of war, health care, privacy, the economy or the Constitution. They are all about and designed for the Rush Limbaughs and Sean Hannitys and Chris Matthews. They are more about them winning, about them salvadging their worthless reputations.

Believe me, these people are motivated not by any sense of duty or national obligation. They are on the playgoruond and they have chosen up sides and they simply want to win at any cost. It is all about getting "them" and strutting about like a cock when the battle is over.

Posted by: Jaxas | March 17, 2006 11:15 AM

Posted by: D.

"My point is simple. A healthy democratic political system needs a healthy opposition party."

Your only half right, each party needs some opposition from within. Only then can true representation for the citizens of a democratic county take place. It's not just the Democrats who have failed the country. It's the Republican Party bent on winning elections at any cost, that shut down internal debate and choice within its own party. This has resulted in the greatest "Rubber Stamp" do nothing congress in history dominated by a majority of republicans that choose party over country. Most of the blame, and yes you need blame to correct the problem, belongs to the spineless republican neocon's in congress who have no courage to oppose the administration.

Posted by: Jamal | March 17, 2006 11:18 AM

It is dismaying that the Democratic Party has failed to support Feingold's censure proposal in larger numbers. Further illustration that the Democratic Party has sadly become a feckless self-gelding machine of ineptitude. Those that survived 1994, triangulated with Bill Clinton in the nineties, and currently take the path of least resistance under Bush combine timidity and hubris. What's left of the minority is safely entrenched and they don't want to rock the boat. Pathetic.

http://www.intrepidliberaljournal.blogspot.com

Posted by: Intrepid Liberal | March 17, 2006 11:43 AM

No internal opposition, really? The grumblings over immigration policy, the almost universal party opposition to the Dubai Ports deal and the harriet Myers nomination? The growing unease with spending, etc.? On some things they will agree with the adminsitration because, well, they're republicans. Unless of course you are identifying the courage to oppose the admistration as opposing everything the administration proposes, which is unrealistic.

The much bally-hooed conservative "crackup" is nothing more than healthy ideological discourse. Conservatives vs Republicans, fiscal vs social conservatives, Neo-Cons vs Paleo-Cons, libertarians vs everyone else. The democrats I think are more in danger of conforming to an ideological rigidity.

Posted by: D. | March 17, 2006 11:54 AM

D.-

"The growing unease with spending, etc.?"

Evidenced by what, exactly?

Posted by: Will | March 17, 2006 11:59 AM

smokey wrote:
"I write for a living. I love to smoke while I write. I have no plans to ever quit smoking until either it or something else kills me. What peeves me are attitudes of people like yourself who stigmatize those unlike themselves."

Two things:
1) Try to stop. Just tell yourself you won't smoke for two weeks. You will begin withdrawl in 2-3 days and then realize you "like" to smoke because you "have" to smoke. Once you realize you have no control AND the stuff can kill, you may begin to understand why I think it should be an illegal drug.
2) I'm not sure who you are saying I'm stagmatizing. Not smokers. I feel sorry for them. They are addicts who smoke to get normal because the addictive effects of nicotine make life without nicotine abnormal. If its smokers who know they are addicted and enjoy it, well, that's fine as long as they keep the smoke away from me and others and don't push others to smoke. I would add that a smoker who actively supports an industry that addicts children through their products and ads in order to make millions off of their addiction later, well, yea, they should be stigmatized. I don't believe Murrow, like my dad and millions of others, knew when they first got addicted that it was addictive, unlike the tobacco companies who knew all too well.

Posted by: Sully | March 17, 2006 12:23 PM

If you listen or read bonafide fiscal conservatives, and even those of us who don't particularly identify ourselves as green eye shade types, you'll find alot of unease with Bush's fiscal irresponsibility.

The "Pork Busters" movement for one (blogosphere initiated) is a recent manifestation. Sen. Tom Coburn has also been pretty vocal.

Posted by: D. | March 17, 2006 12:25 PM

D.-

What makes you think there is some great divide in the actual Republican electorate over spending? Is it the recent increase in the national debt ceiling? Or perhaps the rampant spending increases in *all* categories that they have either endorsed or tacitly allowed as the majority party in their tenure as the leading party?

Your evidence is that Tom Coburn is "vocal" (meaning what exactly? That he's talking about the problem?) about busting pork? No mention that pork spending has doubled under Republican rule? So they are "talking" about a problem they created and this is evidence of a serious disagreement in the party?

None of these "bonafide fiscal conservatives" managed to get themselves elected and the people they likely voted for apparently couldn't give a hoot what gets talked about on their radio shows or columns either. But hey, you are starting to get "uneasy".

On behalf of the rest of America that is terrified of the future deficit, please hurry the hell up and make yourselves relevant. Tell your party to something about spending. Now.

Posted by: Will | March 17, 2006 12:41 PM

that's your job suckee...


continue.

Posted by: more partisan sobbing? | March 17, 2006 12:43 PM

Oh by the way:

http://americanresearchgroup.com/

More Americans support a vote to censure than oppose. Interestingly, 43% of voters favor impeachment and more Independent voters favor impeachment than are opposed.

Why are our elected officials so completely out of touch with the electorate?

Posted by: Will | March 17, 2006 01:51 PM

I'm with Jaxas. I think that media frenzy is driving political stereotypes with a whip.

I have a feeling if we keep scratching away at this it will keep smelling worse. We've begun to get a glimpse of how the Repubs have used their power to seduce the media, dangling access and the brushing up with reflected glory as a carrot. Libby in bed (at least figuratively) with Judy Miller, the way the phone calls went out to Russert et al when they wanted to leak on Plame.

Is it just seduction? Have the media gotten afraid for their jobs given the growth of hate radio? Is it an entire moral slide in journalism?

If Bush's slide continues we may eventually start to see some of the sordid details come out. But just look at the success that they've already had sliming Dems over Feingold and you'll see the right wing spin machine is still in charge of the media. How many other Presidents could get caught in this many bold faced "untruths" and still have approval ratings over 20%?

Posted by: patriot 1957 | March 17, 2006 01:54 PM

I heard Senator Feingold speak on C-SPAN back in December when he was answering questions from callers. He sounded very intelligent, and one thing I respect about him is he backs up everything he says with reasons. You don't hear the usual rhetoric or slogans that you hear from everyone else. Murtha is another one that backs up everything he says with good common sense reasons.

Another thing, if you look at this:
http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182

Then, honestly, do you really think that most of the people in office that are over 60 really care? They aren't going to be around to deal with this financial mess!

Everyone I talk with here at work totally are in sync with Feingold and Murtha and they have a lot of deep respect for them. They are more in tune to the pulse of America than all the other senators who are only cowering to their base.

Posted by: js | March 17, 2006 02:05 PM

Bush was illegally spying on americans even BEFORE 911 happened. Just watch for more and more of this to come out in the weeks ahead.

Posted by: mark | March 17, 2006 02:17 PM

Holy moly Will. I went to that site you provided and I am shocked at two things.

1) Do the Democrats really think they can win with Hillary? If I were a Democrat, I would be pissed that she is the front-runner. She cannot win. Believe me. Imposssible.

2) I think Americans have become too fond of the idea of impeaching the president. I felt the same way when Clinton had his troubles.

Posted by: johnnyg in NE DC | March 17, 2006 02:37 PM

johnny-

I'm not a Hillary supporter or a registered Democrat, so I won't presume to speak for the Democrats. But this overblown Republican tendency to congratulate oneself on the decisions of the opposing party could become tired by 2008. As with the Feingold thing, they were thrilled that the Democrats handed them a Tough-On-Security issue to debate, only to find that the polls suggest the country backs Feingold more than it backs Frist on the deal.

If I were you, I wouldn't presume to know anything about how electable Hillary is in 2008. As they say, careful what you wish for.

Posted by: Will | March 17, 2006 02:46 PM

Posted by: johnnyg in NE DC

"2) I think Americans have become too fond of the idea of impeaching the president. I felt the same way when Clinton had his troubles."

Holy moly Johnny. You wanted to impeach a president that created a surplus, because of extracurricular activity? Can't believe you fell for that spin. There are numerous legitimate reasons to impeach Bush and where are your feelings now?

Posted by: Jamal | March 17, 2006 03:15 PM

Agan, the attempt by the lefties to make the Clinton impeachment about sex when it was about perjury. He lied under oath.

Posted by: | March 17, 2006 03:33 PM

js wrote:
"He [Feingold] sounded very intelligent, and one thing I respect about him is he backs up everything he says with reasons. You don't hear the usual rhetoric or slogans that you hear from everyone else. Murtha is another one that backs up everything he says with good common sense reasons."

js, the public does not want reasons. Remember how people, including the media, made jokes when Kerry explained why things needed to be changed or why direction needed adjusting. After a sentence or two people's eyes start to glaze over. Bush won by making statements without backing them up with anything except more statements, such as:
Freedom is on the march
because
People want freedom
and
We're gonna win in Iraq because people want to be free.
etc, etc, etc.
When Kerry explained HOW to win and WHY we needed to change strategies, people fell asleep, then voted for Bush. America is filled with morons who can't think past a 6th grade level nor want to. Bush courts them and today, with everything that has gone wrong, he has a 30+% approval rating. Those are the morons. His lies got the other 20+% before the election but those people have since wised up.

You can bet that the republicans will be back in '08 with the same moronic slogans aimed at the morons and Feingold will be sitting there explaining his views to only the 70% of America that can think for themselves. I remember a time when stupidity and simple mindedness was considered bad and you stayed educated by reading the paper. Now you can just watch Fox News, think you're being informed, but remain a moron.

Posted by: Sully | March 17, 2006 03:38 PM

Jamal, forgive me if I'm wrong, but I believe Johnnyg meant that he felt Americans were too quick to want impeachment even when it was Clinton underscrutiny. Might be wrong though.

Johnnyg:
"Holy moly Will. I went to that site you provided and I am shocked at two things.

1) Do the Democrats really think they can win with Hillary? If I were a Democrat, I would be pissed that she is the front-runner. She cannot win. Believe me. Imposssible."


I agree with you completely. I think Hillary and Kerry are just two more in a growing list of stupid actions the democratic party is taking. America is not ready for a female president. Especially one as mocked as Hillary is. If the repubs were picking Rice as their forerunner, I'd say she had a chance. Otherwise? No.

Posted by: Freedom | March 17, 2006 03:41 PM

"Holy moly Johnny. You wanted to impeach a president that created a surplus, because of extracurricular activity? Can't believe you fell for that spin. There are numerous legitimate reasons to impeach Bush and where are your feelings now?"

no, no, no Jamal. Either you misunderstood my statements or they were not clear. I felt that at the time Clinton was having his troubles, many people were quick to bring this up. His lying under oath was bad, but I felt it was not an important enough issue to impeach the guy. I feel the same way now.

Posted by: johnnyg in NE DC | March 17, 2006 03:46 PM

When my 70 year old mother comes over to visit for a few days (she lives out of town), she generally watches fox news.

After reading a lot of online newspapers, etc, I'm flabbergasted that fox even passes for 'news', and I'm hard pressed to think of anyone, with any kind of education, would feel differently.

Nothing is 'neutral' on fox. I'm left with a feeling that I'm being duped and getting more of a 'campaign' type of news, than with actually getting the news. It's very slanted and very biased.

I'm also noticing that a lot of CNN and MSNBC is becoming the same way.

Why can't we just get neutral news without all the slanted opinion and commentary?

Places like this (blogging and debating) should be the only place to hear others opinions.

I'm deeply disappointed to see it on so-called news channels. It makes me wonder how many stations are bought and paid for by higher ups who have an agenda to sell.

Posted by: js | March 17, 2006 03:51 PM

JS,
I hear ya. I was at the gym about a week ago when someone turned on Fox News. I hadn't watched it in about 3 years. I was absolutely stunned and laughing at it by the end of the show.

News is almost always slanted to some degree, unfortunately, though a few sources do attempt to negate that. Though sometimes, the subconcious use of certain words still implies slant.
While most people will assert that it is a liberal media, it is just as conservative as it is liberal. Often, the only cited 'evidence' about the media being liberal are the political leanings of journalists and newscasts, without looking at who pays the money. In the modern world, The Murdochs of the industrys take a large part in what they will or will not allow broadcast as the message of their corporations. And as corporations, they always have a certain direction they want the country to lean, thus the slant.

Posted by: Geb | March 17, 2006 04:08 PM

Posted by: Sully

"When Kerry explained HOW to win and WHY we needed to change strategies, people fell asleep, then voted for Bush. America is filled with morons who can't think past a 6th grade level nor want to."

I think you on to something, see the link:

http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_voter_iq.htm

Posted by: Jamal | March 17, 2006 04:15 PM

Wow! I just checked out that website that another debater mentioned about IQ and Voter Preference. It's quite interesting.

http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_voter_iq.htm

It makes since when you hear our own president make comments such as:

"Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?"-Florence, S.C., Jan. 11, 2000

"I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family."--Greater Nashua, N.H., Chamber of Commerce, Jan. 27, 2000

"It's clearly a budget. It's got a lot of numbers in it."--Reuters, May 5, 2000

"I am mindful not only of preserving executive powers for myself, but for predecessors as well."--Washington, D.C., Jan. 29, 2001

"Then I went for a run with the other dog and just walked. And I started thinking about a lot of things. I was able to--I can't remember what it was. Oh, the inaugural speech, started thinking through that."--Pre-inaugural interview with U.S. News & World Report, Jan. 22, 2001 issue

"I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully."-Saginaw, Mich., Sept. 29, 2000

"I think if you know what you believe, it makes it a lot easier to answer questions. I can't answer your question."-- Reynoldsburg, Ohio, Oct. 4, 2000

"They want the federal government controlling Social Security like it's some kind of federal program."--Debate in St. Charles, Mo., Nov. 2, 2000

"It's your money. You paid for it."--LaCrosse, Wis., Oct. 18, 2000

"I didn't -- I swear I didn't -- get into politics to feather my nest or feather my friends' nests." -- Bush Jr., in the Houston Chronicle

"We ought to make the pie higher."--South Carolina Republican Debate, Feb. 15, 2000

"They misunderestimated me."--Bentonville, Ark., Nov. 6, 2000

"I understand small business growth. I was one."-New York Daily News, Feb. 19, 2000

"It's very important for folks to understand that when there's more trade, there's more commerce."--Quebec City, Canada, April 21, 2001

Posted by: mark | March 17, 2006 04:20 PM

Many voters today are cosmetic conservatives (CosCons) because they have forgotten or are unaware of key points of history.

They are asking the wrong questions and coming up with the wrong answers. Politics is the mainstream of history. It follows that political judgments demand historical knowledge. The conservative leaders of this nation have fabricated their political position from two big lies.

In 'Mein Kampf," Adolph Hitler said that plausible untruths were one of the best tools for obtaining political power. Enough repetition of a slogan would instill it as truth in common man to the point that, when confronted with incontrovertible disproof, the disproof would be doubted. Thus we have inalienable political fabrications.

The first of the two lies is that our conservative leadership wants a smaller, more efficient government. A politician's fiscal conservatism is unsustainable over time and becomes liberal because of career motivated public spending. Campaign contribution quid pro quo inevitably produces legislation specifically benefiting the rich and powerful to the detriment of the public interest.

The second lie is that the great burden of taxation on our middle class is the responsibility of the liberal governments of the past. The recent increases in this burden can be laid directly to the enactment of Reagan's "supply-side" tax reforms. Those reforms shifted the tax burden down the social scale while adding income share to the top 20% of American households concurrently lowering the share of the lower 80%. This is a dangerous concentration of wealth.

Many conservatives will continue to doubt that these are lies, in spite of the arguments above. They are inalienable political fabrications.

Posted by: ld | March 17, 2006 04:26 PM

As the Wall Street Journal has shown, the most profligate spenders in American politics in the past 40 years have been LBJ, Gerald Ford, George HW Bush, and George W. Bush.

Bush is Nixonian in his approach and Saddam-like in his demand for subordinates' obeisance.

I read somewhere that Bush as president is the emcee of a traveling infomercial. Truer words were never spoken.

Our president does not speak for the majority of americans. He speaks for those who lobbied for him, and for big corporations, including the pharmaceutical companies.

Posted by: | March 17, 2006 04:31 PM

The problem with a lie, is people start acting on a lie.

Posted by: js | March 17, 2006 04:32 PM

Sorry Johnny, I see your meaning in the impeachment statement now, also for the typo in my last post, "you" should your.

On the subject of Fox News and the network as a whole, I watched Heraldo Riviera on FOX for the first time in about ten years. He was commenting on how rude Jessica Simpson for turning down a photo op with Bush.

Posted by: Jamal | March 17, 2006 04:33 PM

I admire what Feingold is doing, as do many people that I know.

However, democratic solutions to any of the mounting Republican created disasters don't have a snowballs chance in hell of being seriously considered, much less implemented, as long as the GOP is in power.

Posted by: mm | March 17, 2006 04:34 PM

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Feingold's move "has more to do with 2008 politics than anything else.

Uh huh.

The funny thing about republicans is they know as long as bush is in office, they can expect tax breaks and things that keep them with money.

Its all about money, which is totally amazing since the same republicans in office are running up our debt faster than one can wink.

Posted by: | March 17, 2006 04:37 PM

Props to people above me who point out that the Republic needs a healthy opposition party, that Dem's activitists don't seem to help Dem's in framing the issue in the polls.

Just 2 cents on what is still left out. The Dem's protests are about procedure. Tapping conversations without a warrant, going to war without a decent casus belli, etc... In domestic politics, its gay marriage but not whether gays should be married, abortions rights but not whether kids should be aborted, etc.... Procedure, procedure, procedure.

Procedure is the lawyers game. Anyone check how popular lawyers are?

Its killing them.

Posted by: pashley | March 17, 2006 04:43 PM

"Agan, the attempt by the lefties to make the Clinton impeachment about sex when it was about perjury. He lied under oath. "

Ya gotta admire the cunning of this gang, refusing to allow themselves or their friends to be put under oath.

The Repub spin machine is too well oiled and too complicit with the media to allow any Democrat to remain undamaged this far from the election. In spite of their myriad troubles running this country into the ground they have still managed to damage Dems as "not being able to do any better".

Hillary's role must be to absorb the heat and damage so that another unscathed candidate can rise up like a dark horse behind her at the last minute the way her husband did after New Hampshire in 92. I would be thrilled with Feingold given that he appears to have shown consistent character. I kind of like Biden too. But maybe some dark horse Governor will rise up at the last minute and save the Dems from themselves.

Posted by: patriot 1957 | March 17, 2006 04:45 PM

"Agan, the attempt by the lefties to make the Clinton impeachment about sex when it was about perjury. He lied under oath.

Posted by: | Mar 17, 2006 3:33:50 PM"

Bush took an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States, but he has used it as toilet paper since he's been in office. Impeach him, censure him, just get him out of office before he does more harm!

Posted by: wiccan | March 17, 2006 04:47 PM

I think democrats just want their country and life back.

We're tired of wondering if our job will last, due to all the outsourcing in the global corporate ecomony.

We don't care how good the ecomony looks 'on paper' because we know when they talk about a good economy, it's only good for the top 3% and their profits. It does not trickle down to the majority of the population, like they tend to think. Take a look at gas and heating prices.

We're tired of the huge debt and deficit iccured because of George's war. We don't want our children and grandchildren to have to pay for this. And it's guaranteed that they will because somehow, in some way, someone will suffer and go without because of paying for it.

You see, in Bush's World, you have a college degree, you're Christian/and or protestant, white, making at least $50,000 a year, and you invest.

If you do not fit into any of the above, too bad. Then you're a drain on society and you have no say in anything.

Posted by: mark | March 17, 2006 04:54 PM

I agree with you, Mark.

I observe that my own children, who could not afford to go to college, are struggling financially with their 5.50 an hour jobs. The only way they can make it is to have roommates to share expenses and rent.

They are in their 20's and do not have any health insurance, etc.

A lot of jobs in this area are part-time. Clever. This allows the business owners from having to pay any benefits.

Yes, in Bush's world, they don't fit in, and they should pay their own insurance.

Problem is: how do they do that making $5.50 an hour?

Answer: Get a second job.

Concern: If they ever have children, they'll need a 3rd job to pay for it all.

Posted by: ld | March 17, 2006 05:03 PM

I forgot to add: they're in luck. There's another new walmart (the 4th here) opening soon in this area.

Posted by: Id | March 17, 2006 05:05 PM

"I can stand up here and tell you that we have delivered results for the American people, and we've got an agenda to continue to do so," Bush said.


Yeah, he has an agenda all right.

Posted by: bush said | March 17, 2006 05:11 PM

Bush's Agenda:

'destruction'

destroy the constitution

destroy america

destroy the environment

destroy our future economy

destroy Iraq and any other country he's paranoid about

destroy pristine Alaska for oil

and basically destroy anything and anyone that gets in his path.

Posted by: | March 17, 2006 05:45 PM

"The bill introduced yesterday calls for fines of up to $1 million and prison terms of up to 15 years for those who disclose "classified information related to the Terrorist Surveillance Program," the administration's name for the NSA operation. The penalties would not apply to journalists."

___________

This is the last paragraph of a WP story this afternoon, describing a bill to permit warrantless surveillance.

If someone would please explain to me how anything that was divulged was a secret, except a secret from the American public, I would be ingratiated.

The rights we the people should have to know about and speak about what goes on in our country are being shredded. In no time, whatever rights are left will not be worth having.

Posted by: On the plantation | March 17, 2006 05:57 PM

"The bill introduced yesterday calls for fines of up to $1 million and prison terms of up to 15 years for those who disclose "classified information related to the Terrorist Surveillance Program," the administration's name for the NSA operation. The penalties would not apply to journalists."

So if I was a Mullah in Detroit, deeply sympathetic to Islamoid Holy War and revealed classified info to Al Qaeda agents that they were under scrutiny, I could be fined 1 million and get 15 years in jail.

But if I was a certified Al Jazeera correspondent deeply in favor of killing infidels and revealed classified information to the Al Qaeda agents by way of a public broadcast...I'm exempt from the Godless Infidel Law threatening punishment??

Gee, how can Mullahs, hate-America Lefties, and Al Qaeda agents here also get press credentials making them immune from penalty??? Sounds like a sweet deal.

Posted by: Chris Ford | March 17, 2006 06:15 PM

I was just watching CNN. Now the Bush administration is pushing for foreign companies to be able to control U.S. airlines!

I just can't believe the Bush administration is currently pushing to implement this plan.

Can anyone here tell me if this is true?

Posted by: | March 17, 2006 06:35 PM

Chris Ford wrote:

Gee, how can Mullahs, hate-America Lefties, and Al Qaeda agents here also get press credentials making them immune from penalty??? Sounds like a sweet deal.

___________

I'm long enough in tooth to reflect back on northern California in the late 1960s. For a certain fee (around $10 as I vaguely recall), one could purchase a minister's license through the mail from the Universal Life Church. It purportedly entitled one to discounted airfares, and other emoluments that were once bestowed upon ministers. Never used my gold and embossed certificate for any practical advantage, but it might now be a good story and a nifty artifact for the kid.

Where can I get a journalist certificate; or is that even necessary?

Posted by: On the plantation | March 17, 2006 07:14 PM

Is there a political scientist or theologian out there, who, would improve our diction in a specific way? The question is: Is there particular terms for punitive action against a truth-seeker, or for the person who is socially punishable as a consequence of their pursuit of truth?

Some precise language on this point would be useful to have in one's head while figuring out the way the culture is lately transforming.

Posted by: On the plantation | March 17, 2006 07:54 PM

Posted by: Chris Ford

"Gee, how can Mullahs, hate-America Lefties, and Al Qaeda agents here also get press credentials making them immune from penalty??? Sounds like a sweet deal."


Chris, you must not be a closet lefty. Why would any true conservative allow the federal government to spy, without proper warrants, on him or herself, while that same government can fine you 1 million dollars and sentence you to 15 years in jail for doing the same to it? Another question for you, if the executive branch is going to be empowered, as you propose, how will you feel when Hillary is president and potentially listening in on your private phone calls, emails, ......?

Posted by: Jamal | March 17, 2006 07:56 PM

I'd like to know by what logic people come to the conclusion that democratic support of Sen. Feingold's censure proposal will hurt the overall democratic chances this November. The only way it hurts is if the democrats believe it will. If they all got behind Feingold and voted for the censure, sure they'd lose the vote, but they would make a strong statement to the American people that they believe that this administration is overstepping its bounds.

I don't believe that would hurt their chances in '06 or '08 at all. At least they'd be showing some resolve and unity for once. I don't know what they're so afraid of. There was an investigation under way and the republicans pulled it off the table because they knew the BA argument was weak. The BA admits to the activities, they just make a poor legal argument that they have the right. Its nonsense. They have the FISA court, and if the FISA court isn't meeting the needs they should seek to change the laws.

There needs to be an independent review of these proposed wiretaps by a legal authority with the power to say no. As it stands now, how does the American public know that there isn't data mining going on to spy on non-terrorist Americans for political gain?

Bush supporters on this issue predicate their position on the idea that all Americans should put blind trust in the Bush administration. They shouldn't be suprised that not everybody shares their view.

If you're paying attention, you know that the democrats and other critics are not saying we shouldn't do wiretaps. They are saying that we should do the wiretaps, but according to the law.

The democratic leadership is trying to play "prevent defense" until November. They're so worried about playing things safe that they fail to take a stand for whats right. When one of their members does, they stand there in front of cameras like Pelosi did and wring their hands. Theres all this talk about winning back control in '06, but they aren't acting like winners. They're acting like they're afraid to lose.

Russ Feingold didn't get caught or paint himself into a corner. He is not putting the democrats into a tough spot. The democratic leadership only look like they're in a tough spot because they don't have the faith in the people that Feingold has. I'm convinced Feingold is acting on deeply held beliefs, he has been consistent for a long time. I applaud Senator Russ Feingold for his actions. I just wish the democratic leadership could see that way as well.

Posted by: DK | March 17, 2006 08:24 PM

I never thought I'd be calling someone with a lovely name like Emily Messner a TOOL!

What we're saying is this: It's not just what you people call the "liberal base" of the party, we are ALL fed up with Bush -- Republicans, Dems, and unaffiliated even here in Red Red Orange County, California are actively pursuing censure.

And many of us read Americablog and Kos and even the occasional click to Powerline.

Get it through your head. And while you're at it, the inclusion of dismissive and defamatory language on your blog here, sponsored by yet another big media concern telegraphs your true colors.

You, Emily Messner, are a tool for the right.

Posted by: Joe Bua | March 17, 2006 08:57 PM

As a true independent, I would be proud to have Feingold and Murtha running our country right now. Let's bring some backbone and character back to the U.S.A. Let's bring some people in that actually CARE for the U.S. citizens! I am so tired of this warhawk administration instilling fear in people!

Posted by: Lee | March 17, 2006 09:08 PM

Jamal writes:

1. "Why would any true conservative allow the federal government to spy, without proper warrants...."

You have the near-religious conviction of Lefties that unelected lawyers of assumed Cosmic Wisdom and their Holy Writs are the best way to order and run our country. Not elected officials. You also assume that unlike any other time in our history, there has been a miraculous expansion in wartime to confer full due process rights and Constitutional rights on the enemy the Lefties secretly root for.

Jamal writes:

2. "... while that same government can fine you 1 million dollars and sentence you to 15 years in jail for doing the same to it?"

You omit that the fine is specifically for stealing America's national secrets and giving them to the enemy. There is no reciprocity - despite your profound desire to see "moral equivalency" everywhere - where the government is spying on us to give our secrets over to an Islamoid or other enemy.

Jamal writes:

3. "Another question for you, if the executive branch is going to be empowered, as you propose, how will you feel when Hillary is president and potentially listening in on your private phone calls, emails, ......?"

Only Lefties have the vanity to think that some Vegan reject wearing his Kuchinich button in some seedy music shop is in any danger of having NSA professionals waste their time on his meaningless life and political activism. Or thinks that NSA pros would risk their careers spying not on enemy but the dregs of the hate-America camp. Even listen in on bona-fide political opposition or dangerous domestic groups unrelated to those terror groups who actually are the enemy and actually out to kill Americans.

And with opposite party Congressional oversight, I am quite sure Hillary would not be stupid enough to use one of America's premiere defense assets to spy on her opposition, or the Right-wing counterpart to "Jamal-like" Lefties....rural meth heads with a 7th grade education convinced *UN* helicopters will be invading any day...

Posted by: Chris Ford | March 17, 2006 09:23 PM

This current administration is turning into a real capitalist society, favoring corporations, outsourcing, and huge dividends to shareholders over the common good of the people.

The gap between the rich and poor is growing wider everyday, as a result.

They want an ownership society, but are doing everything possible to make sure that the majority of americans are bogged down in sh-t jobs that don't pay very well.

I know so many people that are getting close to selling their homes now because they cannot afford the payments anymore. The states are bringing in less money, so they are forced to raise property taxes to pay for local things like streets, etc. This adds to the monthly escrow on the mortgage payment.

A lot of insurance companies have raised their rates, which adds to the escrow.

We're paying more in gas, heating costs, and utilities.

Walmart pays minimum wage, and the republicans don't even want to raise that!

More americans have very little savings and also credit card debt. They say more people are spending. I'd like to know how much of the 'spending' is being put on credit cards.

This administration favored the credit card companies also. They can now raise rates without giving much notice.

It feels like a real 'slap in the face' to see how they try to run the United States like it's a 'business'. It's all about profits.

I really hope that people will wise up and realize that "actions speak louder than words"

Posted by: ld | March 17, 2006 09:24 PM

Chris Ford writes: You omit that the fine is specifically for stealing America's national secrets and giving them to the enemy.

I'm old enough to remember the Reagan Iran scandal. Talk about aiding our "enemies"! Bush is close to this sceniaro also right now with India. They 'pick and choose', forgetting that Saddam was once their friend also.

Posted by: dd | March 17, 2006 09:32 PM

Regarding job growth: 3 million jobs in 5 years is hardly anything to applaud, especially since so many of them are part-time jobs with no benefits.

The population of the US grows by over 3 million a year. The current job growth rate cannot even keep up with population growth and represents a growth rate of about 1.2% a year, which is historically very very low, and definitely not something to brag about. Sure, the 2 million jobs added last year were better than the absolutely dismal first 4 years, but thats like saying a guy batting .260 is an excellent batter because he's been batting .220 for the last 4 years.

There were 22 million new jobs under Clinton and yet you republicans brag about 3 million under Bush.

Posted by: | March 17, 2006 09:49 PM

Some fiscal responsiblity this current administration has! I'd sure like to know why the GOP refuses to cut the tax loopholes that allow the 15,000 companies with headquarters in the same building in the Cayman Islands to keep on going?

Posted by: | March 17, 2006 09:53 PM

You think all the warrantless spying is to catch the enemies? Go on any goverment website and then check your computer's hard drive for all the 'tracking cookies'it has!

Posted by: mm | March 17, 2006 09:56 PM

Gross debt in the U.S. has grown only under 3 presidents in the last 60 years.

Reagan
G. W. H. Bush
G. W. Bush

Of course, that is no surprise. The whole idea was that if you got the debt to be completely out of control, there would be no choice but to cut social programs.

Posted by: | March 17, 2006 09:58 PM

It's a well documented plan promoted by the likes of Grover Norquist. This is exactly what he was talking about when he said, ''The goal is reducing the size and scope of government by draining its lifeblood."

Lucky for him (and Bush), the likes of Osama and the Iraq war are helping us drain that lifeblood even quicker than they ever thought possible, and people wonder why we still haven't found Osama Bin Forgotten.

Posted by: | March 17, 2006 10:01 PM

Posted by: Chris Ford

"And with opposite party Congressional oversight, I am quite sure Hillary would not be stupid enough to use one of America's premiere defense assets to spy on her opposition, or the Right-wing counterpart to "Jamal-like" Lefties....rural meth heads with a 7th grade education convinced *UN* helicopters will be invading any day..."

Wow Chris, so we are counter parts! I don't plan on voting for Hillary in the primary, but will in the general election should she be nominated. I agree, Hillary would never be stupid enough to spy on the opposition, is bush that stupid? You have failed to answer my question, fight off the meth and stay focused. How will you feel when Hillary is president and potentially listening in on your private phone calls, emails, ......?"

Posted by: Jamal | March 17, 2006 10:10 PM

The next time one of your Conservative friends extols the trickle-down virtues of unchecked corporate power, expresses his admiration for Republican Congressional attitudes and policies toward national health and Big Pharma, or fetes the devotion of his Party to "a culture of life," remember this little anecdote from a recent New York Times:

On Feb. 3, Joyce Elkins filled a prescription for a two-week supply of nitrogen mustard, a decades-old cancer drug used to treat a rare form of lymphoma. The cost was $77.50.

On Feb. 17, Ms. Elkins, a 64-year-old retiree who lives in Georgetown, Tex., returned to her pharmacy for a refill. This time, following a huge increase in the wholesale price of the drug, the cost was $548.01.

Posted by: | March 17, 2006 10:10 PM

In reading some of these posts, please keep in mind that under the guidance of this administration and its followers, "a culture of life" has always been code for "survival of the richest" - and that the select members of that culture are the only ones whose lives our government really cares to protect.

Posted by: | March 17, 2006 10:14 PM

I saw a couple of hopeful signs of spring today.

First, a TV commercial by evangelicals saying we need to take care of the earth.

Then I heard a story about a group of kids who wanted to make a difference in New Orleans so bypassed the govt and figured out for themselves how to rent a warehouse and get some cots and generators and fill it with spring break kids helping out the locals.

Finally the grassroots are growing - the people are finding this administration irrelevant and starting to take matters into their own hands.

Its the most postive thing I've seen since Kate Obeirne and Peggy Noonan and Fukayama no longer being able to defend this administration.

Emily, new topic for next week - can we talk about Justice OConnor's and Ginsberg's recent comments about the attack on the independence of the judiciary? And why I found out about it incidentally?

Posted by: patriot 1957 | March 17, 2006 10:28 PM

I greatly admire Senator Feingold right now.

There have been periods in our nation's history when civil liberties have taken a back seat to what appeared at the time to be the "legitimate" exigencies of war.

The Alien and Sedition Acts.
the suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War
the internment of Japanese-Americans, German-Americans, and Italian-Americans during World War II
The blacklisting of supposed communist sympathizers during the McCarthy era
The surveillance and harassment of antiwar protesters, including Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., during the Vietnam War.

During World War II, President Roosevelt signed orders to incarcerate more than 110,000 people of Japanese origin, as well as some roughly 11,000 of German origin and 3,000 of Italian origin.

Some may say that we have come a long way since the those days of infringements on civil liberties. But there is ample reason for concern.

Even as America addresses the demanding security challenges before us, we must strive also to guard our values and basic rights.

Posted by: tam | March 17, 2006 10:30 PM

Talk about misinformation! In today's Washington Times, Terence P. Jeffrey, who is a nationally syndicated columnist, writes:

"Unlike Sen. Russell Feingold, the Wisconsin Democrat seeking to censure President Bush for ordering the interception of communications in and out of the United States involving persons with suspected links to al Qaeda, Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt had no qualms about warrantless eavesdropping to protect the United States against attack. Nor did Harry Truman.

There is a difference, however, between the eavesdropping Roosevelt and Truman authorized and the Bush eavesdropping. Roosevelt and Truman did it in peacetime without congressional authorization. Mr. Bush is doing it during a war Mr. Feingold voted Sept. 14, 2001, to authorize."

Mr. Jeffrey, I hate to burst your bubble but:

In the Senate, there were 21 Democrats, one Republican and one Independent who courageously voted their consciences in 2002 AGAINST the War in Iraq:

Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii) Jeff Bingaman (D-New Mexico) Barbara Boxer (D-California) Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia) Lincoln Chaffee (R-Rhode Island) Kent Conrad (D-North Dakota) Jon Corzine (D-New Jersey) Mark Dayton (D-Minnesota) Dick Durbin (D-Illinois)

Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin)

Bob Graham (D-Florida) Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) Jim Jeffords (I-Vermont) Ted Kennedy (D-Massachusetts) Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) Carl Levin (D-Michigan) Barbara Mikulski (D-Maryland) Patty Murray (D-Washington) Jack Reed (D-Rhode Island) Paul Sarbanes (D-Maryland) Debbie Stabenow (D-Michigan) The late Paul Wellstone (D-Minnesota) Ron Wyden (D-Oregon)

Posted by: js | March 17, 2006 10:48 PM

Hey Pres. Bush,

If I were 60 years old, I probably wouldn't fear the future, either!!!

Posted by: | March 17, 2006 10:52 PM

Interesting video here about the warrantless spying:

http://www.canofun.com/cof/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=17810

Posted by: ld | March 17, 2006 11:11 PM

So the democratic senators aren't supporting Feingold?

I've been thinking about the way that the Dems have been acting lately and have traced it back to the "Democrats only" anthrax attacks. Something tells me that in the depths of the Congressional grapevine, a message was sent out, one that said "Either you play along or we will literally snuff you (and maybe your family too)".

Cheney took Paul Wellstone aside before the Iraq war vote and told him "If you vote against the war in Iraq, the Bush administration will do whatever is necessary to get you. There will be severe ramifications for you and the state of Minnesota." Soon after, Wellstone was killed in a plane crash that has always looked damned fishy to me (many people don't know that Ted Kennedy was supposed to be on that flight too, changing plans at the last minute). One month before that, Congesswoman Patsy Mink, the most liberal Democrat in the House, had died of a bewildering respiratory illness that always had more than a little resemblance to a reaction to a biowarfare agent (Couldn't happen? Yeah, neither could the anthrax attacks!). Within a month's time the most liberal Senator and Congressperson were dead in curious circumstances.

Posted by: | March 17, 2006 11:33 PM

I will never vote for anyone who supports this war and doesn't recognize that the roots of the violence and hostilities being directed toward us is in America's foreign policies, unregulated capitalism and bottomless greed. Since Reagan, the national mantra has been "Everybody for himself," with the richest amassing vulgar piles of wealth as if that will save them from the catastrophic path they've started us on.

Posted by: mm | March 17, 2006 11:38 PM

We have 300 million people in the U.S. and all we ever see on the public political stage is about 300.

It'll be an interesting election this year!

Posted by: larry | March 17, 2006 11:40 PM

Feingold did the right thing. Either a Senator honors his oath to uphold the Constitution, or he committed perjury the day he was sworn in.

It's not whether or not you support Feingold, it's whether or not you support the Constitution.

This isn't just a "tactic" -- it's fundamental patriotism and decency.

Posted by: kd | March 17, 2006 11:43 PM

It sure seems like this administration is mostly made up of psychopaths that have been plotting their revenge since the end of the Reagan era, many of them with real blood on their hands and virtually all of them possessing a childish petulance that is wildly at odds with the power of their positions. You think these people aren't capable of cold-blooded murder?

They started a war for the hell of it knowing that it would kill a hundred thousand innocent Iraqi's outright and thousands of American soldiers too. I won't get into the possibilities of internal cooperation during 9/11 but..... they clearly have ice running through their veins when it comes to the lives of their countrymen.

Posted by: censure them all! | March 17, 2006 11:45 PM

Posted by: ld

"Interesting video here about the warrantless spying:"

http://www.canofun.com/cof/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=17810

ID, your video link pertains to warrantless searches by the bush administration, not spying. Did that news break tonight?

Posted by: Jamal | March 17, 2006 11:47 PM

The justification for wiretapping changed from (after Bush said he didn't do it)

1) we DO have to have a court order ... to

2) we did it because FISA doesn't work ... to

3) Congress approved it with the Afganistan resolution ... to

4) it's constitutionally provided power.

Ya gotta love the way this administration can twist everything to suit their agenda!

Posted by: mm | March 17, 2006 11:57 PM

"Regarding job growth: 3 million jobs in 5 years is hardly anything to applaud, especially since so many of them are part-time jobs with no benefits."

It would be nice if some Americans would study something useful while in college. How about engineering? Noooo. That's too hard! Booo hoooo!

Posted by: johnnyg in NE DC | March 18, 2006 12:26 AM

mm - "I will never vote for anyone who supports this war and doesn't recognize that the roots of the violence and hostilities being directed toward us is in America's foreign policies, unregulated capitalism and bottomless greed."

You stupid traitor.

The roots are being an infidel nation that is subject to Death Fatwas issued by Al Qaeda and other Islamist groups that say killing infidels, including civilians is justified until America and other nations:

1. End profaning KSA with the filth implicit in their unpurified, infidel bodies. Especially women and Jewish US soldiers.
2. End the export of Western decadence and corruption to the ME, and lately, censor all our literature and movies and woman's attire so as to not give offense to any devout Muslim, anywhere.
3. End all support of the Zionist entity.
4. End all support of "moderate" Muslim regimes, and most of all, the corrupt Saudi monarchy...so a Taliban-like Caliphate guided by Al Qaeda can be installed.
5. Make restitution for the Crusades, and return Andalusia (Spain) to rightful Islamist rule.
6. Agree that the only law that will apply to Muslims in the West is Sharia Law, and only Muslims shall be allowed to judge other Muslims and execute apostates as needed. Death to any infidel that blasphemes Allah or his Prophet.

Other "requests" not under Death Fatwas but strongly urged - are ending use of alchohol, consumption of haram foods, making gay lifestyle matters forbidden, driving Jews out of positions of power and influence, abandoning the practice of having unclean dogs as pets, ending abortion and birth control, and not tolerating any woman having power over any man in public or private life..

The Islamoids have no problem with unfettered capitalism or greed...as long as Muslims are top dogs. In fact, Islamoids hate gays, Lefties, and Communists more than just about anything other than apostates and heretics. That's why they like to kill them regularly..and in the case of gays, rape them (raping homos is not a sin by Muslim logic). Though "moderate" Muslim regimes only beat and imprison gays, head-chopping is no longer a gay rite of passage.

Do Islamoids hate us for our foreign policies? Yes. They also hate the UK, the French, the Indians, the Russians, the Chinese, the Turks....and they hate each other for the foreign policies of other Muslim nations. And of course, they really, really hate the Jews...

It is somewhat comforting that Islamoids hate godless American Lefties and seek to target Blue cities full of Lefties and Jews first and foremost in America. Hardly any "Red State" facilities other than the Houston area refineries, and sports events attended by Red Staters are on the list of known Islamoid targets.

The joke is on the liberal Jews and Lefties that blame America first, while not knowing their ilk are the first to die in past Muslim wars of conquest. The Dutch and French, Brits and Swedish Lefties, old school Commies are slowly grasping this "horrible fact".

The real roots of violence and hostility? Like with other totalitarian movements, Nazism, Marxism, Marxist-Left, Fascism -- Islamofascism hates free countries. The good news is that while Islamoids are as vicious as Nazis or Gulag guards, they are far more backwards and inefficient at killing. Only demography and a 5th column of clueless Lefties like the ACLU and granola era relics like mm allow them to hold out hope for their triumph.

Posted by: Chris Ford | March 18, 2006 12:26 AM

Well, I'm going to vote republican because I like my tax cuts (it's all about the money, honey!), I'm pro-life! (we have welfare to pay for the unwanted babies!) I'm pro-gun (hey, I don't care if loonies have guns! I keep my doors locked at night!) And I think all gays ought to be shot!

"Vote Republican...because we've added $3 Trillion to our debt!"

"Vote Republican....we'll only wiretap americans"

"Vote Republican....we're for security, but we just don't believe in paying for it!"

"Vote Republican....we're still looking for Osama!"

"Vote Republican....we do corruption well!"

"Vote Republican....we only out CIA NOC's who try to expose our lies"

"Vote Republican....we'll help you plan your families!"

Posted by: | March 18, 2006 12:27 AM

Chris Ford, your mumble-jumble super long posts are soooo boring. It is with great relief that you represent a SMALL portion of our population.

And yes, I do like granola. Try it sometime.

Posted by: mm | March 18, 2006 12:32 AM

"It makes since when you hear our own president make comments such as:

"Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?"-Florence, S.C., Jan. 11, 2000

"I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family."--Greater Nashua, N.H., Chamber of Commerce, Jan. 27, 2000

"It's clearly a budget. It's got a lot of numbers in it."--Reuters, May 5, 2000

"I am mindful not only of preserving executive powers for myself, but for predecessors as well."--Washington, D.C., Jan. 29, 2001 ..."

LOL, Yogi Berra couldn't have said it better.

Posted by: johnnyg in NE DC | March 18, 2006 12:33 AM

Posted by: Chris Ford

"The real roots of violence and hostility? Like with other totalitarian movements, Nazism, Marxism, Marxist-Left, Fascism -- Islamofascism hates free countries. The good news is that while Islamoids are as vicious as Nazis or Gulag guards, they are far more backwards and inefficient at killing. Only demography and a 5th column of clueless Lefties like the ACLU and granola era relics like mm allow them to hold out hope for their triumph."

Chris,

The Nazi and Fascists are right wingers like you and the ones in the United States vote Republican. Are you that far to the right?

mm,

Good comment

Posted by: Jamal | March 18, 2006 12:41 AM

Hey, the economy is great! Just ask any republican. They see it as an easy process - just work two jobs and you'll pull yourself up. If you can't, you must be lazy.

Recent studies show that it's not that easy and the vast majority people tend to stay in the same economic class they start in. Working two minumum wage jobs isn't going to get you very far, and pray you don't get sick.

Posted by: the economy is great | March 18, 2006 12:53 AM

"ID, your video link pertains to warrantless searches by the bush administration, not spying. Did that news break tonight? "

ONe of the news shows tonight talked about it as a story that "might break". Probably either Chris Matthews or Olberman. I had it on in the background and wasn't fully paying attention.

I still wanna know why al Qaeda is making overseas calls to Pizza Hut. My Repub rep had a town hall meeting that anyone could actually get into. I asked him if he believed President Bush when he said he was only spying on calls that had one end abroad and that were to or from suspected al Qaeda members. He said yes. So I asked him how it could be that the FBI reported so many of the calls were pizza orders - why was al Qaeda calling Pizza Hut from overseas? He twiddled and changed the subject.

Posted by: patriot 1957 | March 18, 2006 12:58 AM

Pizza Hut? Well, I knew there had to be SOME reason why they don't want an investigation into the warrantless spying!

I have a feeling they're spying on more than what they supposedly say. I also thought it was strange that they didn't put Alberto Gonzales under oath during those hearings.

Posted by: mm | March 18, 2006 01:08 AM

Jamal, I stand with Chris. No matter who is in control, they MUST confront the enemy. You and others on this board simply politize war related issues. As Chris has pointed out time after time, when these issues are put up for vote on the floor, everyone (except for a few maniacs) votes their consience. Otherwise, they back off. Put another way, a Democrat will probably reach the same conclusion with regard to national security: listen to information in the either.

No one wants the government listening to their personal business. Feingold is using this for his own ends.

Posted by: johnnyg in NE DC | March 18, 2006 01:14 AM

I meant to type "politicize war related ..."

Posted by: johnnyg in NE DC | March 18, 2006 01:16 AM

and "ether," damn!

Posted by: johnnyg in NE DC | March 18, 2006 01:17 AM

D. wrote:
===========================================
"The much bally-hooed conservative "crackup" is nothing more than healthy ideological discourse. Conservatives vs Republicans, fiscal vs social conservatives, Neo-Cons vs Paleo-Cons, libertarians vs everyone else. The democrats I think are more in danger of conforming to an ideological rigidity."
===========================================

Actually one of the first cracks when Pat Buchanan left the Republican party.

Second crack occurred during the 2004 election, with the old guard conservatives going to the Consitution party.

What's left are the Neo-Cons/Religious Right/Libertarian bent Republicans. Independents are staying clear of each.

Now just irk the Religious Right to flee, and the Neo-Cons will dry up (as they need them for support and cash).

SandyK
Who's looking for the GOP to be the party of Lincoln again

Posted by: SandyK | March 18, 2006 01:25 AM

"everyone (except for a few maniacs) votes their consience"

I'm not with you on this one johnnyg. The lockstep voting we had for the first 5 years of this administration did not smell of conscience. Holding votes open for hours past the rules and bringing the "hammer" down on representatives did not smell of conscience. Standing by while Senate investigations refuse to put witnesses under oath does not reek of conscience. Taking an oath to uphold the Constitution and then voting for court stripping bills does not show conscience.

And don't even get me started on Dems. They voted for the war rather than ask the hard questions about it. They voted for the Patriot Act rather than submit to the Republican steam roller. Their votes show political fear, not conscience.

I think Russ Feingold is almost the only person in Congress whose voting record reflects conscience. JIts been utterly consistent from day 1 and I think he deserves a Proile in Courage award.

The biggest threat to our democracy is living at 1600 Pennsylavania Avenue, not some mountain cave in Afghanistan.

Posted by: patriot 1957 | March 18, 2006 01:25 AM

johnnyg writes: "No one wants the government listening to their personal business. Feingold is using this for his own ends."

I'd sure like to know why some people think he's using it for his own ends. I've heard this guy speak up about certain issues long before the warrantless spying dilemma even came up, and he really does seem to care about the constitution.

You can sure tell that this is an election year. Every time someone speaks up about something that is contrary to the norm, you get the same ol', same ol' "They're only saying that because they're running for office" banter. It seems like a ploy to take the focus off what is actually being said.

Posted by: mm | March 18, 2006 01:31 AM

sandyk, I find Pat Buchannan fascinating.

My introduction to him began during the 96 campaign after tutoring a neice in social studies - specificially fascism and WWII, and when the poor girl was at a complete loss to answer my question "If HItler was so bad why did all those people "Heil" him so enthusiastically", we studied the era and wrote a speech Hitler might have given during his rise to power.

When we were done I flipped on the TV. Pat Buchannan was on TV giving our speech! Let me tell you, I saw him in a whole new light, and watched with fascination and then horror as the party followed him into fascsim.

I don't know what to make of his apparent turnaround. I like to fancy that he saw what he was advocating for might really happen for real - that he wasn't part of a fringe movement gaining his 15 minutes anymore - he really could be forced to live in the world he was advocating for. But I also suspect its because he would't be the head dictator any more and he didn't want to live in a fascist system unless he was the head. Like Bush said, this would be easier in a dicatatorship provided I'm the dictator.

Posted by: patriot 1957 | March 18, 2006 01:35 AM

To live rationally in society, man requires only one thing from his fellow men: freedom of action. Freedom of action does not mean freedom to act by permission, which may be revoked at a dictator's whim, but the freedom to act as an absolute - by right.

Rights are inalienable - they may not be morally infringed upon.

Geez, I hate to say it, but this country is becoming more and more like a dictatorship every day!

Posted by: ts | March 18, 2006 01:39 AM

ts,

There is no true 'freedom' anymore. That is a utopian sounding sentiment. After all, we have people and politicians trying to legislate morality.

Funny thing about that is, who gets to decide?

Non-smokers hate smokers.
Non-drinkers hate drinkers.
Pro-lifers hate pro-choicers.
Republicans hate democrats.
Big Business hates the unions.

And we want Iraq to be a democracy like us? What a piss-poor example WE are!

Posted by: mm | March 18, 2006 01:52 AM

ts: "Geez, I hate to say it, but this country is becoming more and more like a dictatorship every day!"

And election day is always just around the corner (please no "butterfly ballot" responses).

Posted by: johnnyg in NE DC | March 18, 2006 01:55 AM

And election day can't come soon enough!!!

Posted by: | March 18, 2006 02:40 AM

Patriot 1957,

Pat's not Satan, anymore than Ted Kennedy. He serves his purpose like any other idealogue. In order to have a moderate base, there must be two extremes (and Buchanan, isn't extreme <-- yep, believe it or not he's left of the Paleos).

He serves to remind the new Republicans their ways and means are, ah, new and not conservative (believe it or not, they're not conservative. Don't mix and mingle social conservatism -- i.e., the Religious Right with conservatism, two different mindsets). Social conservatives will spend money like it's a never ending tithe on their social projects, for example. It's why the budget is out of control, as they're no more fiscal minded as the monies their churches take and spend. They're not holding the Neo-Cons feet to fire of violating a very conservative ideal: fiscal responsibility. The ones that are, aren't Neo-Cons.

So the premise that Buchanan is another Hitler (why fall into the Godwin's Law trap?) is totally wrong. He won't call to resurrect Hitler, let alone other dictators, but he'll serve as a conscience of what's being lost of our birthright.

Funny how despite the gulf between the aisle, there's common themes, huh?

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | March 18, 2006 02:59 AM

Election day will come, and all the 20 somethings so mouthy online won't bother to vote come November -- like always.

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | March 18, 2006 03:02 AM

johnnyg writes that Feingold is using this for his own ends. Following that logic, I suppose you'd have to say that Feingold's support for the confirmation of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. was for political reasons also then.

Posted by: js | March 18, 2006 03:19 AM

It is increasingly becoming common for this administration to produce their own version of events.

I guess it's too much to ask for a little honesty from them.

Hardly anyone believes what they say anymore. Not on Iraq, and not on the warrantless spying issue.

When I read about the Pizza Hut from a previous poster, it's true that the number of Americans subject to eavesdropping by the NSA could be in the millions if the full range of secret NSA programs is used.

Posted by: davew | March 18, 2006 03:37 AM

Feingoldwas premature with his resolution BUT will someone in the Dems. party--maybe Bill Clinton--put a steel rod in the spines of those Dems. in the Congress. The party has been loosing elections hand over fist lately--what have they got to loose. Kerry allowed himself to be defined (and more) by the Repbs. if the Dems don't get a stiff backside they are doomed again. Sen. Reid as a leader is a joke and in the House Pelosi is not much better. WAKE UP DEMS BEFORE IT's TOO LATE. The party has to realize everyday in every way Bush and his gang are walking off the cliff and taking the country with them. GET A LIFE PEOPLE--SPEAK UP and call on Bill Clinton to address the Dems. in BOTH houses and tell them how to show some GUTS.

Posted by: ESDEM | March 18, 2006 03:53 AM

"So the premise that Buchanan is another Hitler (why fall into the Godwin's Law trap?) is totally wrong."

Fascism is a system of government no more defined as only by Hitler than communism is defined as only the Soviet Union. It is entirely reasonable to call someone a fascist without implying that he wishes to gas Jews or invade the Sudetenland. Fascism itself is not inherently evil, although the very nature of fascism is subject to corruption and evil more easily than democracy given what happens to human nature when power is consolidated in the hands of a few and their cronies. There were in fact elements of the FDR administration that have been called fascist. And people seem to turn there again and again when the world is troubled, desperate for the security of the strong fascist leaders to lead the sheepul into safety, that is until its too late and they realize they've followed the leader to the edge of a cliff.

The far right has gotten a lot of mileage out of saying that calling the BA fascist is comparing Bush to Hitler, and they've used this to keep people's eyes closed to the true nature of fascism and this administration.

Pat Buchannan was a fascist. You are correct, that does not make him Hitler nor inherently evil. But that he is not evil does not make him less fascist.

But these days he no longer seems to espouse fascist rhetoric, and indeed seems willing to expose it. I think the BA gave him a glimpse of where the train he was riding was heading. Somehow it looked different when someone else was steering the train. This, from Buchannan's magazine really got my attention http://www.amconmag.com/2005_02_14/article.html

Posted by: patriot 1957 | March 18, 2006 04:39 AM

I find it amazing that you'd think Buchanan's "conversion" based on some class (when it's politically helpful). When Buchanan's viewpoints haven't changed in decades.

He is now a "friend" when politically helpful, yet you fail to see that his viewpoint over the years isn't much different. YOU have evolved instead.

Now I won't agree 100% on his viewpoints (and rarely do people but fanatics believe 100% on any POV), but his message on the evils of not assimilating; fractions in language; PC history; Empire building; foreign control are spot on. Those are NOT fascist sentiments, those are sentiments to preserve the traditions of a country that's losing it's identity in a global push to be like Europe and Asia (with their own problems). We're not Europe or Asia, we're the United States of America. We have our own Laws, traditions, customs, language, and mores.

To even consider those beliefs as "fascism" is at best ignorant.

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | March 18, 2006 05:28 AM

This defines a Traditional conservative from a Neo-Con...

http://www.amconmag.com/aboutus.html

The two are no more alike than the Liberal and Conservative branches of the Democratic party. There's a clear divide on idealogy. If you hear someone praising the stock market and trade with China, their not a Traditional (even a moderate one).

And Traditional conservatives are NOT Paleo-Conservatives (too many of you keep repeating that untruth). Paleo's would rather live in the times of Washington and Jefferson, literally. They make Alito and Roberts look like liberals, and Buchanan like Bush.

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | March 18, 2006 05:45 AM

And while I'm at this fine magazine site, a link for Emily to show her the other side of the cartoon fiasco -- the side not reported (like the Imman stoking lies to spread more hate):

http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_03_13/cover.html

===========================================
"When the Danish press asked the imams where they got the three fake cartoons the spokesman of the imams, explained that they had been been added to "give an insight in how hateful the atmosphere in Denmark is towards Muslims." Three weeks later, in early February, American bloggers discovered that the man with the pig snout had nothing at all to do with Mohammed. The so-called "cartoon" was a fax image of an Associated Press photograph taken at a pig-squealing contest in France.

The bogus cartoons were not the only lies being spread by Abu Laban and his group. After meeting with the Danish imams, the Egyptian press claimed that the government in Copenhagen was planning to introduce a state-censored version of the Quran, that a Danish film is underway "to show how horrible Islam is," that a total of 120 offensive cartoons had been printed, and that the Danish government was directly responsible because Jyllands-Posten was a government-owned paper.

Prime Minister Rasmussen was shocked by the actions of the Muslim clerics. "I am speechless that those people, whom we have given the right to live in Denmark and where they freely have chosen to stay, are now touring Arab countries and inciting antipathy towards Denmark and the Danish people," he told journalists."
===========================================

This is WHY the USA must protect our traditions, before they're egregiously slopped by fifth columnists who have no intention to be citizens, let alone assimilate into the culture of their new found country.

Read the whole article, and see why only one side of the story isn't the "truth".

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | March 18, 2006 06:09 AM

"To even consider those beliefs as "fascism" is at best ignorant."

I'm sorry, I thought you wanted to have an honest debate. Pardon my assumpition.

Posted by: patriot 1957 | March 18, 2006 06:38 AM

It's at least heartening, I suppose, that the worthies at the Post now bother to acknowledge when the "liberal base" weblogs criticize the Post. Of course, we still see no self-criticism, no true mirror held up to the Post. I am liberal on some issues, moderate on others, and downright conservative on some (spending and balanced budgets). I am not part of the "liberal base" of the Democratic party whatever the hell that means nowadays (it seems to have disappeared as far I as can see), but I do tend to vote Democratic. And, I read John Avarosis' AmericaBlog, Daily Kos, Talking Points Memo, and Firdoglake. Why? In part because my hometown newspaper, the Washington Post, stinks. It is in bed with the government, not intent on reporting on it. It is part of the problem is this country, a cheerleader from this war from the very beginning, and utter corrupt and without journalistic ethics. Bob Woodward. Jim Vandehei. Need I say more? So, when John Avarosis critiques the Post, I listen. And he is right. Your reply is deaf and blind. And I keep my fingers crossed that the Post's circulation goes down, down, down. My recommendation: Knight-Ridder newspapers. Shocking, right? They don't have the investigative reporting history of the Post. But history is history, and so is the Post.

Posted by: Joel | March 18, 2006 07:57 AM

Today's Post reports:
"Court blocks administration's four-year effort to loosen emissions standards for coal-fired power plants, says EPA policy violated the Clean Air Act."

First FISA, now the Clean Air Act and who knows how many other violations of law. How many laws does this administration have to break before its meets the definition of high crimes and misdemeaners?

Posted by: Sully | March 18, 2006 08:23 AM

Patriot 1957,

An honest debate isn't invoking Godwin's Law. There's a difference between disagreeing, and broadbrushing an entire idealogy as being Nazi.

That's not honesty, that's partisan speak.

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | March 18, 2006 08:32 AM

It's intellectually lazy to simply lump everyone who opposes Bush together as "liberals". But it is easier, and it does help promote the MSM storyline (which is a lie) that Bush is widely popular and only opposed by a bunch of crazed loonies.

Posted by: dave | March 18, 2006 12:00 PM

Posted by: johnnyg in NE DC

"Jamal, I stand with Chris. No matter who is in control, they MUST confront the enemy. You and others on this board simply politize war related issues. As Chris has pointed out time after time, when these issues are put up for vote on the floor, everyone (except for a few maniacs) votes their consience. Otherwise, they back off. Put another way, a Democrat will probably reach the same conclusion with regard to national security: listen to information in the either."

"No one wants the government listening to their personal business. Feingold is using this for his own ends."

Johnny you can stand where you want, but I'm not budging from my position. Our disagreement is you trust Bush, I don't.

Facts:
• A United States president did use warrantless wiretapping and illegal searches, YES, he was Richard Nixon.
• Has Bush been honest about the warrantless wire tapping to the public, courts, and congress from the beginning, NO.
• Was Bush honest about WMD's and 911 link in Iraq, NO.
• Has the bush administration denied domestic to domestic wire tapping, NO.


Bush does not know where to draw the line on where to stop, whether it's domestic to abroad or domestic to domestic wiretapping , or even wire tapping political enemies, because they spoke out against the Iraq War. The administration has publicly built a case that any person criticizing the Iraq War policy is aiding the enemy, and he has stated he will take whatever means to protect the country, thus justifying domestic to domestic wiretapping of political enemies. Simply voicing ones opinion does not make a person an enemy of this country and it is not aiding the enemy, but it will make you a political enemy.

Bush will wire tap suspected terrorists with out warrants and those in contact with suspected terrorists. Thus if a person with suspected terrorist ties posted comments in this blog, the bush administration would use that as justification to wire tape everyone else posting in this blog.

Feingold did what should have been done several years ago, I'm proud of him, it takes character to do what he did. There was no political gain for him, at the time, quite the contrary.

Johnny, you can trust Bush, but I'm with the majority of Americans that do not trust him. Democracy starts at home, not abroad, if we allow our constitution rights to be violated, then we have nothing to spread to the rest of the world, but totalitarianism.

Posted by: Jamal | March 18, 2006 12:21 PM

"It's intellectually lazy to simply lump everyone who opposes Bush together as "liberals". "

It isn't "lazy". Its part of a deliberate campaign to divide and conquer.

The divisiveness of "either/or" serves the Rovaian factor well. There are two camps, the good decent Christian people on "our" side, and the devotees of Michael Moore and the evil Hollywoood liberals on the other. You have to pick which side you want to be on. And its worked for two election cycles now.

Will it work for a third? Maybe, maybe not.

A conservative columnist said on TV the other night, the president's problems are no longer with the Michael Moore followers, they're with his base who are starting to realize this isn't the guy they thought they were voting for.

Lets hope it continues.

Posted by: patriot 1957 | March 18, 2006 12:33 PM

Copied from Achenblog"

"I love this - it explains GWB and his whole administration (and the people who keep voting for them):

Incompetence at the extreme is a double-whammy, the authors declare: "Not only do these people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it." (Which explains Washington, in a nutshell.)

We're doomed...


Posted by: mostlylurking | March 18, 2006 12:31 PM"

Posted by: wiccan | March 18, 2006 12:45 PM

Posted by: SandyK

"Now just irk the Religious Right to flee, and the Neo-Cons will dry up (as they need them for support and cash)."

Republican neocons have controlled the three branches of the Federal Government for five years now. The Republicans have had five years to appease the religious right on abortion and gays and have done nothing. Wake up religious right, do you know what the donkey and the carrot routine is or should I say the elephant and the peanuts routine. You have the GOP (Bush, McCain, Frist, Rove....) riding an elephant (republican voters), the GOP has a long stick with a two peanuts (ban abortions and ban gay marriage) dangling on the end. To get the elephant to continually walk (always vote republican), the peanuts are dangled just out of reach of the elephant's trunk. The elephant (republican voters), never gets the peanuts (ban abortions and ban gay marriage), but continually walks (always votes republican). The sad reality is two peanuts are not going to save the elephant from starvation, nor is gay bashing or banning abortion going to save this country or are the Republicans going to ban abortion and gay marriage and loose all the votes and financing.

Posted by: Jamal | March 18, 2006 12:48 PM

Remember! in the mid 1960's. When the CIA dumped a flu virus into the New York Subway system.

Have you ever wondered - How many people the CIA killed that year.

The CIA is also reputed, to have dispersed flu virus in the San Francisco, Los Angeles and Sea-Tac Airports.

Your fear should not be : When will the "Bird Flu Virus" reach the U.S.

You fear should be : How did it orginate

Posted by: I. Lastdance | March 18, 2006 02:25 PM

Interesting analogy Jamal.It does seem like that's what is happening. I always wondered how sincere Bush was about the constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. It doesn't seem like his administration has pursued it since the election. There is a good chance that legal abortions will end up being severely restricted though.

Posted by: DK | March 18, 2006 04:00 PM

Jamal wrote:
===========================================
• Has the bush administration denied domestic to domestic wire tapping, NO.
===========================================

Why are you arguing that?? Reread your conclusion again? :shock:

It's bad when there's denial despite the facts (i.e., Nixon's denial of wire tapping). Bush hasn't denied it, even endorsed it!

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | March 18, 2006 04:07 PM

Posted by: DK

"Interesting analogy Jamal. It does seem like that's what is happening. I always wondered how sincere Bush was about the constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. It doesn't seem like his administration has pursued it since the election. There is a good chance that legal abortions will end up being severely restricted though."

If and when the new N.D. law makes it to the Supreme Court, the GOP abortion strategy will show. If the case is tried before the 2006 midterm elections, the ND law will be struck down. Some of our Supreme Court Justices are more closer to political than they should be.

Posted by: Jamal | March 18, 2006 06:41 PM

Posted by: SandyK

Jamal wrote:
===========================================
• Has the bush administration denied domestic to domestic wire tapping, NO.
===========================================

Why are you arguing that?? Reread your conclusion again? :shock:

It's bad when there's denial despite the facts (i.e., Nixon's denial of wire tapping). Bush hasn't denied it, even endorsed it!

Sandy,
We only know of domestic to abroad warrantless wiretapping (or vice versa), because that is what was leaked. When the question was asked to Gonzalez if domestic to domestic (totally within the borders of the United States) warrantless wiretapping took place, he refused to answer the question due to its operational nature, but never denied that it was or was not taking place.

If I am in error here correct me. The administration has stated on numerous occasions that it would do anything to protect the United States from terrorists or those aiding terrorists. The administration has argued NSA warrantless wiretapping is an integral part of its war on terrorism. The administration has also on numerous occasions accused political opponents who criticized its handing of terrorism or the Iraq War as aiding the terrorists. My own opinion is; simply voicing ones opinion does not make a person an enemy of this country and it is not aiding the terrorists, but it will make you a political enemy. Is Bush, by his own statements, justifying warrantless wiretapping of political enemies? I think he is justifying it, but that's not to say he has. Knowing this administration, when it justifies any actions, it has committed those actions.

Did that answer your question?

Posted by: Jamal | March 18, 2006 07:05 PM

How about this: ask the same from Clinton (who is the one that approved hiding records from the public).

Ah...

Thought so.

Each administration has it's secrets, and each would go above the Law. But partisans only want the other side to be framed.

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | March 18, 2006 09:34 PM

Jamal, you forgot the primary rule - everything is Bill Clinton's fault.

If, five years and a useless war based on lies and deceit that make Clinton look like just a warm up act makes it seem bizarre to still say it is Bill Clinton's fault, please refer back to the primary rule.

Posted by: pig in a poke | March 18, 2006 10:05 PM

And you forgot the flipside of the same coin: everything is George Bush's fault.

See how partisan BS goes nowhere? It's the same blame game, the same "digging for dirt", that spins the wheels of haters more interested in settling scores than doing anything to improve this country as a whole.

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | March 18, 2006 10:12 PM

al Qaeta doesn't need to do squat. They just need to have patience and wait while our own partisans gut this country.

Wish you guys (partisans and al Qaeta) would just take a ship to Mars. You're perfect companions and have more in common than not.

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | March 18, 2006 10:15 PM

Posted by: SandyK

"How about this: ask the same from Clinton (who is the one that approved hiding records from the public).
Ah...
Thought so.
Each administration has it's secrets, and each would go above the Law. But partisans only want the other side to be framed"

Sandy,

Your logic doesn't add up. Who ever is president they are accountable for their administrations actions during their term. To blame Bill Clinton for Bush's actions is silly, laughable, but most of all playing the partisan game to an unprecedented level.

Posted by: Jamal | March 18, 2006 10:48 PM

Problem is the ones who were doing the checking on Clinton while in office, the Democrats were using the same deflections you're using now.

Nothings changed, but the color of the horse.

That's what's "...silly, laughable but most of all playing the partisan game to an unprecedented level."

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | March 19, 2006 12:32 AM

Why did the Post editorial repeat the TOTALLY debunked claim that Iran is supplying IEDs to Iraq? Is the Post gearing up to cheerlead us into war again? (The pentagon itself debunked this claim.)

Posted by: Joel | March 19, 2006 06:57 AM

Posted by: SandyK

"Problem is the ones who were doing the checking on Clinton while in office, the Democrats were using the same deflections you're using now.

Nothings changed, but the color of the horse.

That's what's "...silly, laughable but most of all playing the partisan game to an unprecedented level.""

I have no idea what you're ranting about. Clinton faced a hostile Republican controlled Congress that tried to impeach him for a ridiculous reason. He was put under oath and investigated for something that was no ones business, other than his family. When the Bush administration is not even put under oath by the same Sen. Specter for violating the constitution of the United States of America.

This topic is about the Bush administration, try to stay on topic. For a person who claims to be non-partisan, what can I say, other than, you're laughable.

Posted by: Jamal | March 19, 2006 10:02 AM

Yep, ***still*** deflecting.

The affair wasn't the main issue (except for tabloids). What was he LIED UNDER OATH and to the public. He did his Nixon routine, and you Dems do your best to ignore your own Watergate.

Want to forget that tidbit, huh? ***Bonafide liar***.

Folks can claim Bush is a liar but they don't have the evidence (speculation, ideas, assumptions don't count as evidence). That's the difference, and one Dems need to be reminded of when they point fingers like hypocrites.

This IS on topic. This gets to core of the problem: deflection/spinning/denial from hypocrits more interested in partisan gain, than common sense.

So, yeah, stick to the topic -- and not play ring around the rosey. In this fingerpointing game, the accuser's fingers are just as dirty.

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | March 19, 2006 10:20 AM

Oh, I finally get it. Thank God.

Its not OK to lie under oath.

But its perfectly acceptable to parse words deliberately in order to lead people to believe things that aren't true.

And its perfectly acceptable to get your friends to maneuver it so that you never have to go under oath in order to protect your word parsing.

Yes, this administration certainly has led us to a new understanding of morality. Its only those old fashioned ethics weenies who can't see the difference between lies that can be pinned down and parsing/misleading/twisting grammer that can't be. What a wonderful paragon of honesty we have in the White House today!

Posted by: pig in a poke | March 19, 2006 03:10 PM

Posted by: SandyK

"The affair wasn't the main issue (except for tabloids). What was he LIED UNDER OATH and to the public. He did his Nixon routine, and you Dems do your best to ignore your own Watergate."

Sandy, suppose someone put you under oath, in front of the entire world, to answer a question like that? What would you do, lets see you answer that? Putting him under oath to answer that question was the issue. Some of those same congressmen will not even put Bush or members of his administration under oath and when it comes to incriminating questions they are permitted to use a pre-allowed generic answer not to answer the question, such as "operational".

"Want to forget that tidbit, huh? ***Bonafide liar***."

The ***Bonafide liar***" here is you claim to not be partisan. I am partisan, I'm a Democrat and proud of it. You're flip-flopping more than a fish out of water.

"Folks can claim Bush is a liar but they don't have the evidence (speculation, ideas, assumptions don't count as evidence). That's the difference, and one Dems need to be reminded of when they point fingers like hypocrites."

Sandy why didn't you bring up the video of bush claiming every time his administration used wiretapping, warrants were obtained? It's one of several hard pieces of evidence Bush is a LIAR.? OK, let me remind you, it was before the wiretapping leak. 299,999,999 out of 300,000,000 Americans saw it, Oh my! You're the one that missed it.
Sandy, look up lie in the dictionary, nowhere is it stated you have to be under oath to lie for the evidence to be validated.

"This IS on topic. This gets to core of the problem: deflection/spinning/denial from hypocrits more interested in partisan gain, than common sense."

Hmmmmm, lets me see here......what is of greater concern to the country?

Clinton tells one lie about a BJ . (Technically the question was about having sex, meaning intercourse and he did not have intercourse)
or Bush's Iraq war, that he started with multiple lies, almost 20,000 total casualties, including over 2000 dead, costing half a trillion dollars. Sandy you have a warped since of priority!

"So, yeah, stick to the topic -- and not play ring around the rosey. In this fingerpointing game, the accuser's fingers are just as dirty."

Better my hands dirty from Bills BJ, than your bloody hands from Bush's dead.

Posted by: Jamal | March 19, 2006 10:56 PM

Jamal,

Clinton got elected for his ego, and he has to face the piper for it's success. That's the consequences.

I'm not flip-floping, Jamal, I'm an independent. I don't like any political party. Get it now? They're a-l-l corrupt, and why I'm not a party member and will never be.

The freedom to speak what I want and not just for the party, is soooo blissful. :D

Do you guys even think Bush runs the Administration? I don't. He's heavily advised for a reason, and it's 2 fold:

1. He believes this is a Holy war with Islam(which puts him up there along OBL). And his advisors have to ensure he doesn't pull a Jimmy Carter monster rabbit event to go along with it. If Rove is saving Bush from himself, he's really is a political mastermind!

2. Bush has really no agenda, and he's a stuffed suit in Washington to sell for the corporations. These advisors fill him of their truths, and Bush just parrots it.

I honestly don't know, but I feel he doesn't know what the hell his Administration is doing -- even with a zillion spies out and about collecting even more data.

Thing is, there's no clear evidence of Bush actually lying. There's DNA and descriptions of his penis (which definitely tells sexual contact) to prove Clinton was one.

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | March 20, 2006 03:09 AM

From Rasmussen http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2006/March%20Dailies/Censure.htm

Since 38-45% represents the usual "hard core" constituency of both parties any moron can spin these numbers to support their particular point of view. However, the last paragraph indicates that Feingold won't be paying a personal price for his action. Only 74% unfavorable among R's?

"38% Favor Censure of President Bush

March 17, 2006--Thirty-eight percent (38%) of Americans believe President Bush should be censured for approving the NSA wiretapping program. A Rasmussen Reports survey found that 45% are opposed to the proposal advocated by Senator Russell Feingold.
Thirty-six percent (36%) of Americans say they are more likely to vote for a candidate who believes it is important to censure or impeach the President. Forty-two percent (42%) are less likely to vote for such a candidate.
When we initially asked if people had a favorable or an unfavorable opinion of Feingold, his name recognition was very low--15% favorable and 23% unfavorable. After asking questions about censure and informing respondents that Feingold was the advocate, his numbers jumped to 32% favorable and 41% unfavorable.
Advocating censure does offer a boost for Feingold within the Democratic Party. Initially, 22% of Democrats had a favorable opinion of him while 16% had an unfavorable opinion. However, knowing he advocates censure, Feingold's numbers within his own party jumped to 52% favorable and 14% unfavorable.
The flip side is that Republicans have an overwhelming negative opinion of the maverick Senator--9% favorable and 74% unfavorable."

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | March 20, 2006 10:21 AM

SandyK,
For someone advocating that the issue is deflection/partisan politics, you seem to be doing a lot of that yourself.

Clinton 'lied' under oath for something that initially was not really our concern. He was brought to bear from it by a republican congress and sufffered the consequences.

Please stop deflecting the issue by using the old partisan ploy of blaming Clinton. That was a different time and the man has paid the consequences for his actions. By your logic, shouldn't Bush do the same?

Bush 'lied' on several occasions. His administration/government will not let him be put underoath. His republican congress will not ask him to seriously account for his actions.

Posted by: Freedom | March 20, 2006 01:19 PM

Sandy,

I totally agree with Freedom.

Posted by: Jamal | March 20, 2006 04:09 PM

Freedom and Jamal,

The problem that you can't see is that YOU are partisans.

I don't vote by party, since I'm not a member of any political group. Strictly an independent.

So such assumptions aren't only wrong, shows how partisan tactics don't work on non-partisans.

What I'm pointing out is what you guys are refusing to address (and whitewashing): administrations are corrupt by nature. Anyone who didn't sleep in history class understands that from Egypt, to Greece, to Rome, and beyond the politicos were thieves, liars, cheats and thugs.

But a classic sign of partisanship is when pointing out the "sins" of their favorite partisan, they make excuses for him -- excuses that defy logic.
BTW, I voted for Clinton. But even still, he was a liar, and I hold no party loyality to excuse his mistakes, either.

The beauty of being an independent, we can vote for any candidate and still be prinicpled (I bet even Buchanan voted for a Dem on principle, too). :D

So don't judge a book by it's cover, partisans. :D

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | March 21, 2006 03:15 AM

===========================================
"38% Favor Censure of President Bush"
===========================================

And only 1% would vote to do so.

That's the lot of these polls.

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | March 21, 2006 03:17 AM

Please explain how I'm partisan in this. Like you, I am registered as Independent. I don't like where the democratic party is at the moment and I don't respect a lot of the parties actions.

I merely state that you made the subject of censure quite partisan by deflecting the issue away from Bush onto Clinton. This isn't about Clinton at the moment. This is about Bush. Clinton was put under oath. Clinton lied. And Clinton was put through the impeachment process. There we go. An example of an official doing something wrong and being held accountable.

Now please explain this applied to Bush. You are being quite partisian in defending him be deflecting to Bush. I accept Clintons mistake/wrong and accept that there has been an investigation into this matter, there was a trial, and Clinton was punished. What about Bush? I seek to make this non-partisan by having an equal investigation and acknowledgement of blame on both sides. Do you? It appears not, as you hide behind the battle cry "Clinton lied! Clinton Lied!" without addressing the issue that was being discussed. Would you care to deflect this anymore with your partisan rhetoric?

Posted by: Freedom | March 22, 2006 02:52 PM

Whoops.... typo. It should read, "You are being quite partisian in defending him by deflecting to Clinton."

Posted by: Freedom | March 22, 2006 04:16 PM

To DCDude

Sorry to have facts intrude on your preconceptions but yes, they pay a lot in taxes. Amazing isn't it since they are in the country illegally. are working illegally, and are in low-paying jobs but they manage to do it despite everything.Great strencth of character ;-) See http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html!

Posted by: Eric Yendall | March 22, 2006 04:41 PM

Posted by: Jill | July 25, 2006 03:43 AM

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.