US President Tim Kalemkarian, US Senate Tim Kalemkarian, US House Tim Kalemkarian: best major candidate.

proudtobeGOP, I respect McCain's service in Vietnam, but if a 9/11 firefighter became an arsonist, he still wouldn't be a hero would he?

McCain has betrayed conservatives on almost every single issue:

Immigration - McCain teamed up with TED KENNEDY to give us an open-borders amnesty bill.

Free speech - McCain-Feingold.

Guns: Sides with Dems. Voted for the Clinton AWB.

Judges: Gang of 14.

There would be at least 6 very conservative judges on circuit courts if McCain hadn't sold out, the slimy weasel.

I'll commit suicide with a rusty knife before I vote for McCain.

"McCain is uppity for pretending he is a conservative, and expecting us to vote for him."

william, I beg to differ. John McCain is an American hero and a patriot and has never been uppity a day in his life.

He can't even raise his arms above shoulder height because of the torture he endured at the hands of his captors in Vietnam, an imprisonment that lasted longer than the war in Iraq has lasted so far.

Do not equate those other lesser candidates (Edwards and Kucinich especially) with McCain. they are not of the same caliber and even if you don't think he is conservative enough for your liking that is no reason to denigrate his character.

"what to do now, silly Dems, the tide of war is shifting. Look for all those Libs to start calling for total victory."

Is that right KOZ? Then check out the following link:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/bloodbath-in-iraq-from-bad-to-worse/2007/03/15/1173722655311.html

William,

Although this is a cliche, it is also true: the first step towards a cure is admitting you have a problem. And you have a problem: you think about race in the way racists think about race. That is true in the way you think about Obama, but it is also true in the way you think about Americans in general.

And it doesn't really matter if thinking about race in the way that racists think about race makes you a racist yourself. For our purposes here, it simply means your analysis of any political issue involving race is useless, because the vast majority of Americans do not think about race the way that racists do, and hence do not think about race the way that you do.

William--yes you are. But, good news! I believe your local church as a program to cure you!

STOP POSTING UNDER MY NAME!!!!!!!

The above post was not by me.

(Though I am sorry if my use of the word uppity offended anyone. If you read it in context, it will be painfully obvious that I said Obama was uppity because after only 2 years in the senate, he thinks he is another Lincoln and wants to be president.)

If you want another example, Romney is uppity for being able to do 180 degree flip flops on EVERY issue with a straight face.

McCain is uppity for pretending he is a conservative, and expecting us to vote for him.

Edwards is uppity since he has very little experience as well, and thinks he should be president.

Dennis Kucinich is uppity (or delusional) for even running. (Seriously, I don't understand it. He knows he won't be nominated, but he isn't running to raise the profile of any issues that might be important to him. Tancredo is running to draw attention to immigration, Ron Paul wants to draw attention to limited gov't, but what is Kucinich's signature issue?)

Does that satisfy anyone who might be offended?

I by no means meant the word "uppity" in a racist way, nor am I racist, prejudiced, or anything like that.

William (the real one)

uh, i'm a little embarrassed. I wasn't nice in my above post, and I apologize. Yes, I know that the word "uppity" has a special significance when applied to Black people, and I should not have used it. I feel bad that so many people here have a bad impression of me, but as my boyfriend says, i can get really worked up and blow my top pretty quickly. Afterwards, I can usually calm down and see how people are reacting to what i have said, so I understand why you might object to my referring to you with such a lack of respect. I'm still conservative, but I'm sorry.

"Time after time he's used the catch phrases and code words of racists. He was given some civil leeway at first. But it wasn't too long before it became obvious and he was chalenged on it."

Yet another lying liberal smear merchant (who won't even sign his post on an anonymous website.)

What code words are you referring to? Please give me an example.

Of course, if you are a liberal, you see racism everywhere, and the word "uppity" is somehow racist.

Give me a break. I've never used "racist code words", you lying coward.

Morris Dees, is that you?

Maybe next time you will be claiming that anyone who doesn't vote for Obama is racist?

" He gave no defense other than he determined he is not a racist."

I'm not. Provide ONE example of where I said something racist.

But I don't need to prove anything to YOU. I know I'm not racist, and so do all the people who know me, including my many minority and African-American friends.

And no, they are not offended if I say Obama is "uppity" since they know I am not referring to him being black.

And anyway, technically Obama is just as much white as he is black.

Who are YOU to assume he's black when he is half white???

WHAT ARE YOU, SOME KIND OF WHITE SUPREMACIST?

Obviously, you are a racist who believes in the "one drop rule," so you automatically categorized Obama as "black."

"Last week William expanded his scope to that of bigot by shooting down Sam Brownback's Conservative social positions because they are also the same as the Catholic church. Not because of any weakness in Brownback's positions, but because they were the same as a religious organization's. He never mentioned that Brownback developed those positions as a Methodist."

HUH??????????????????????????

Actually, I said that some evangelicals would prefer if he was Protestant. That's a true fact, which I was simply stating.

I didn't criticize Brownback for being Catholic, as anyone who goes back and reads my post will see.

Go back and actually read my post, you illiterate moron!

Obviously you have nothing intelligent or honest to say, so you resort to the usual liberal tactic of making up lies and twisting the facts.

I encourage everyone to go back and read my post on Brownback, so you will know that this P.O.S. is lying.

Can't liberals engage in debate without resorting to despicable LIES???

My favorite Democrat political commentators, and they are seen and heard often on the tube, are Bob Schrum and Bill Press. Press at one time headed the Democrat party in Celifornia. To the best of my knowledge neither has ever won an election. AS a Democrat who left their party some years ago, I encourage Schrum and Press to keep doing what they'd doing- losing. That makes the country a winner.

proudtobeGOP: You don't want to be getting into bed with William, unless you are a racist.

Time after time he's used the catch phrases and code words of racists. He was given some civil leeway at first. But it wasn't too long before it became obvious and he was chalenged on it. He gave no defense other than he determined he is not a racist.

I claim I'm President, but sadly that doesn't make me President.

Last week William expanded his scope to that of bigot by shooting down Sam Brownback's Conservative social positions because they are also the same as the Catholic church. Not because of any weakness in Brownback's positions, but because they were the same as a religious organization's. He never mentioned that Brownback developed those positions as a Methodist.

William is sly in that he doesn't usually use the direct slur. So, when you defend him on being attacked for his use of the language, think twice. Keep an eye out for how he crafts his posts. It may be unintentional, but you are enabling William in his racism and bigotry when you give him positive feedback.

Think about it.

Koz,

Are you suggesting this was not sarcasm?

"shame on you william for not towing the liberal line and maintaining the politically correct vocabulary."

And even in the phrase you quote, you imply this is not "real evidence". If the content of what a person says is not "real evidence" about what they believe, then what is?

Finally, carefully considering what William said is exactly what I am doing. I invite you to do the same.

On that subject, I again think you should be quite careful about implying that this is an issue only "liberals" would care about. Indeed, I believe that most of the self-described conservatives I know would find the content of William's statement equally objectionable.

In other words, they may not support Obama because he is a Democrat, or too liberal, or too inexperienced, or so on. But saying that they will enjoy seeing him "destroyed" because of his "uppityness"? I don't think there is anything remotely conservative about that thought.

Edwards, $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Shrum? Wrong? No kidding, Senator. The question is, when in history has Shrum been right?

"I must admit I have my doubts about you but given the lack of any real evidence I will forego judgment"

I wouldn't refer to that as leaping to defend him.

regardless of his personal foibles, consider what he has said and deal with it, why attack the messenger unless you can't defend the message.

I am from switzerland on this one.

DEMOCRATS HAVE NO BACKBONE. Long before Bush became President nearly every leading Democrat (and Republican) highlighted the need to remove Saddam by force, due to his use of WMDs and the threat he posed to the world community. Yet all they did was talk.

When Bush became President, he said we need to remove Saddam. Over the course of a year he laid out the reasons why. They were the same reasons that Bill and Hillary and the long list of Democrats have said since the late 90s, yet never did anything about it.

Bush went to the UN and Congress and got overwhelming bi-partisan support to wage war once and for all in Iraq.

Bush finally had the guts to remove Saddam militarily and our troops did an outstanding job doing that. Putting Iraq back together with their 5,000 years of baggage has been the challenge.

Now Democrats, lead by the hippy-war-proesting wing of their party magnify every mistake made in Iraq and downplay every success accomplished. Democrat voters want Hillary and company to simply say they were wrong and all is forgiven? They put the entire Iraq War on Bush's shoulders as the CINC and feel they can sit back and criticize.

Dems feel by simply retreating from Iraq ASAP the problem will go away. If Iran or Syria invade, that's Bush's fault. If an all out civil war breaks out, that's Bush's fault. We need to care about Darfur, and not about Iraqis. If oil prices rise, leading to $3-5 for a gallon of gas, that's Bush's fault.

While I think every American would love to see our troops home with their families, safe and sound, we must finish what we started. The Democrats talked about the need to remove Saddam but never did anything about it. Bush took action and in doing so was attacked and underminded by the Democrats every step of the way. If we fail to secure Iraq, it will clearly be the Democrats fault.

I am absolutely disgusted by the Democrat Party and truly worry about Hillary or Obama becoming the next CINC. What happens if we need to take military action against Iran, North Korea, or China? Will they have the courage to act?

This is why I http://dont-vote-democrat.blogspot.com

KOZ,

I realize you view William as a copartisan and therefore inherently worth defending, but you are defending the indefensible.

I think I am the first who noted what William said with disapproval, and I would not actually claim that "uppity" is an inherently racist term (and I absolutely agree about niggardly, by the way).

Rather, the precise problem is the actual content of what he said. For example, I would have raised the exact same objection if William had said, "I look forward to Obama being destroyed because he does not know his place." Every single word in that hypothetical sentence is unobjectionable in isolation. It is the idea being expressed which is the problem.

And that is the idea William expressed. And frankly, you do yourself and your political party no favors by leaping to defend such ideas.

I dont think we are done seeing the craftiness of Wal Mart. Their pressuring of distributors to lower costs and their low wages to employees aside, Wal Mart practices something much scarier. Leaseback is a term in real estate where an owner of property will own the land, build on the land, and then sell the property with a lease already attached to it. Common practice for Wal Mart's are 20 year leases (to themselves) while selling the property to a property manager. The theory is GREAT for Wal Mart they do not get into a situation similar to that of Target or Sears. They do not own many of their own stores. Now the downturn to this is that they will either dump the stores sticking the property manager with a vacant lot; which is a detriment to certain locations. Or they will offer to buyback the property at a lesser value. We will not see the full affects of this practice in middle America until 2010+(due to the boom of Wal Mart hitting in the mid 90's), but the day it does occur it will make the Target scare and Sears buy out look minute. All of these had and will have adverse affects on commercial real estate. Which in turn will be passed on to the consumer. Looks like we all lose except Wal Mart. Sorry for the WAY off the topic, but its a tip of the iceburg for my disdain for Wal Mart.

thanks for the book Blarg I'll check it out.

don't even think of using the word "niggardly" which means cheap and penny-pinching but sounds like something much worse. A local official lost his job a while back for using this word in a budget discussion.

Of course if you want to use profanity in the elementary school, that is protected political speech.

He said that homosexuality is immoral. Apparently to some people, that's considered a fact.

that depends on the meaning of the word is, doesn't it.

"When the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, a Marine General and a patriot, makes a statement of fact"

What "statement of fact" did Pace have to apologize for?

"shame on you william for not towing the liberal line and maintaining the politically correct vocabulary."

I love it! Really, why should anyone have to apologize for using the English language?

also watch out for "immoral" which is not allowed anymore either.

When the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, a Marine General and a patriot, makes a statement of fact and then feels pressured to apologize for it, things have gotten seriosly twisted in this country by the liberal media.

William: I have agreed with you on some matters but drindl is correct in what she says. I live in WV and although we have a small number of blacks, I think it is below average, there are folks here that feels as you do, just like everywhere, and all types can be found, good, bad, black , white, and about everything else.

Why do people work fast food jobs? It's not because McDonald's offers a great career path or benefits, or even a decent salary. It's because sometimes you need a job and you'll take whatever is available. McDonald's doesn't lack for workers, but you can't use that as evidence that a fast food job is a good job. Same goes for Wal-Mart.

Read "Nickeled and Dimed" by Barbara Ehrenreich. She works at several low-wage jobs, including Wal-Mart, and details the humiliation and intimidation felt by low-wage workers. You'll probably find it too leftist for your taste, but I think it's a very interesting book.

Blarg, I respect your opinions, I really do - I always want to keep my eyes open that I might be wrong about these issues.

However, if Wal Mart were as bad wage-wise and otherwise, then they'd never get enough workers. Obviously, the market has decided that they are paying enough for the work required. As for their alleged unfair anit-trust behavior, by driving out competition, that's another discussion. If the small town in question has no other economy than the overpriced (by Wal Mart's standards) goods they sell retail to each other, then the economy wasn't exactly healthy to begin with.

shame on you william for not towing the liberal line and maintaining the politically correct vocabulary. I must admit I have my doubts about you but given the lack of any real evidence I will forego judgment. but just in case you want to remain hidden, here are a few more words to look out for:

Jungle - Replaced by Rainforest. A Rainforest is a happy place where Disney characters dance and sing ... a jungle is a scary place with lions, tigers, malaria and natives that want to cut off your head and boil it for dinner... who in their right mind would want to save that!?!

Sex Change - Replaced by gender re-assignment

Secretary - Replaced by Administrative Assistant - The word Secretary comes from Latin and means 'Confidential Officer' - And for some unknown reason this is a bad thing.

Handicapped - Replaced by Physically Challenged, or even worse, handicapable

Bum - Replaced by Homeless Person.Calling a person a "Bum" implies that the person is a moocher that is too lazy to get a job. Referring to him as a "Homeless Person" removes this stigma, and implies that he would be a perfectly normal citizen if only the government would give him a house.

http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/ns-pi.html

and don't forget abortion which is now choice, retreat which is now redeploy, etc.

JD, I already explained this. People leave their jobs at Wal-Mart all the time. Wal-Mart has an extremely high turnover rate, up to 65% in 1999. And Wal-Mart likes it that way, as it helps keep salaries low.

William, I have never once heard "uppity" without it being followed by a racist term for blacks. Maybe it's a more common term where you are, but the association with racism is not in Drindl's head.

William,

If you do not understand why calling a black person "uppity" for seeking political office and proposing that as a result he deserves to be "destroyed" has a racist connotation, you are ignorant of the history of racist terminology and thought in this country.

Unfortunately, I doubt that is the case, and I will now cease to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Blarg and Lara, I'm still waiting for the reason that people don't leave the jobs at WalMart if they don't like it. Yes, they might have to move to a different town. Happens all the time, people move for opportunities in different towns. Ahem, unemployment 4.5%...

PS Not a spoiled rich kid or whatever you said, worked my way up, not that it's germaine to the argument. Used to read gas meters in dangerous parts of town, clean fryers at the Duncan Donuts...not a fun job. Not that you'll believe me because as KOZ said, you react emotion-first and logic-never.

lylepink:

"peter dc: I could not have said it better. These jokers are going to eat a little crow after Hillary is sworn in as POTUS. I have been, for the most part, the only supporter of Hillary on "The Fix"."

Hillary will NOT be sworn in as president. Do you REALLY think Americans want ANOTHER Bush OR Clinton??? We need some fresh faces.

Americans do not like political dynasties.

Here's something for you to ponder. If Hillary is the nominee, will she be able to hold all Kerry's states AND pick up 18 more electoral votes? Where will they come from? What states? Think about that.

If you Dems don't pick a strong candidate, you are going to lose in 2008.

And no, Obama and HRC are not strong candidates. Edwards is very weak too, but he's better than the other 2, and he won't cause devastation in down ticket races. Richardson is OK.

"'Uppityness'? God, William, what a vile, disgusting racist you are... I'm saddened that someone your age should be spouting hate rhetoric from pre-civil war days. Bet you have a confederate flag in your dorm room, eh?

Ever been in in a lynch mob? Bet you fantasize about it."

drindl, what terrible things to say, especially since they aren't true.

Since when does the word "uppity" have a racist meaning?

I said Obama was uppity since after only 2 years in the Senate, and with no meaningful prior experience, he thinks he's Lincoln Reloaded, and wants to be president.

There was nothing in my post to indicate that I meant Obama is uppity b/c he is black.

Perhaps since when you read "uppity" you immediately though "black" it betrays your own racial prejudices?

No, I do not have a Confederate Flag in my dorm room.

I do have one on my truck, but it is not meant to be a racist symbol. It is merely meant to show that I love the South and I am proud to be from the South. Just because some racists use the Stars and Bars as a symbol of racism doesn't mean everyone who has a Rebel Flag is racist.

The state of MS has a Confederate flag on it. Do you think the entire state is racist?

No, they are just proud to be Southern, and want to honor their ancestors who died in battle; hence, they use the BATTLE flag to honor the dead, and not the official flag of the COnfederacy.

Your lynch mob comment was completely beyond the pale.

I DEMAND an apology.

How awful of you to even say such a thing. You are a really hateful person.

Do you really think all Southerners who don't love Obama want to be in a lynch mob?

Are you prejudiced against Southerners?

Anyway, I demand an immediate apology for your indefensible, malicious and slanderous insinuation.

'The very idea that President Bush would agree to issue a presidential pardon to convicted perjurer Lewis (Scooter) Libby if his appeal fails, and before he serves prison time, may not startle those with a grasp of the Bush administration's wide ranging disregard for and abuse of constitutional rights and laws enacted by Congress.

Yet, the pressure is on to forgive Libby, a man of privilege and unique responsibilities in government. He reported only to President Bush and Vice President Cheney, for whom he lied to a grand jury in a cover-up of Cheney's smear of career diplomat Joseph Wilson and endangering Wilson's wife, a CIA operative, by revealing her name.

Having freely accepted honors as a high-ranking White House executive, Libby had a special obligation to honor his oath and the public trust. He violated both by lying and knowing he lied. Protecting Cheney is an indefensible excuse.

Enforcing a prison sentence would be an enduring example to others that lawlessness has consequences, even for those who consider themselves almost untouchable because of position.'

Andy R, if it were up to me, corporations would be allowed to use union breaking tactics to destroy unions, and the government would deunionize all its workers.

Perhaps at one point unions existed to protect the workers, but now all they do is extort the government and corporations and try to exact benefits they don't deserve, and try to force the implementation of socialist policies.

Lara...What good coveted jobs are leaving the country? Your coveted career in the textile mill? Your coveted career in a call center? unemployment is 4.5%, there are jobs, and decent jobs, for all who want to work. The only condition is you must work hard, get a little education, and you may have to move to where the jobs are. Look at all the high paying jobs in non union, foreign owned, southern USA, auto plants!

KOZ and JD, good posts about Walmart.

To the Libs: Is John Edwards and the rest of the Kommie Krew still boycotting Walmart?

Yeah, that's working well. (sarc.)

"Or try talking to someone who actually works a dirty, low-paying job because they have to."

I did exactly that, Lara. I cleaned a lot of toilets and waited on tables, and did jobs no one wants to do until I went back to school on my own dime and got a degree and a career.

That's the great thing about this country; a person can acheive quite a bit if they are willing to work hard, count the cost, and make sacrifices for thier future.

Unions do not make it easier to do any of that. They take away personal incentive and initiative.

The dems are beholden to them because of their fat wallets, nothing more. Everything Unions stand for goes against the progressive ideals you libs espouse. It makes no sense. But of course, that is an inconvenient truth.

JD, to continue what Lara said. In alot of cases Walmarts in small towns don't run a serious enough profit to be viable stores on their own. However, if they keep the store open long enough it will drive small buisnesses under creating a situation where Wal-mart is the only option for certain things.
That leads to two things, first is you have a flooded employment market because the small buisness owners need jobs, second the Walmart is now profitable. That profitablity triggers the Home office to Expand to start carrying groceries. That then puts grocery stores out of buisness and further increases the problem.

Now the kicker to all this is when Walmart moves in they offer "competitive salaries" so they attract a large part of the workforce. Then they don't give anyone a raise. When people try to leave they find that all the other buisnesses have closed down and they are stuck working a dead end job for a company that is draining their community dry.
Now if that is fine with you then OK, but I feel that workers should be able to stand Together and dictate their own agenda too. That is what Unions are for.

By the way did you have a good time last weekend? Cause that was courtesy of the Unions you seem to despise.

Lara, so does your argument mean you are some lazy minority? Don't stereotype - its wrong and kills a good discussion. As for pre-union work conditions - don't fail to mention that those would be 1920's work conditions - something your huge government monitors and regulates pretty tightly now.

I worked in one of those lousy jobs too, when I was a teen and twentysomething. couldn't get that CEO job at the time though I still can't figure out why. reading this blog leads me to believe I must have been qualified and they didn't hire me because I was fat or something.

'ALL superbly sleazy, dishonest, and most importantly, FOR SALE.'

yeah i agree with you. mccain, rudy, mitt -- all of the above.

Hey zouky you sure have a lot of time to post your filthy hatemongering. Are you a low-level bureaucrat with a government propaganda agency? Or just an unemployed deadbeat?

It is going to be hard this year for the unions to pick a candidate...they are ALL superbly sleazy, dishonest, and most importantly, FOR SALE.

People work at Wal-Mart the same reason they work at any other crappy low-paying job: They need the money. That doesn't mean that it's a good job, or good working conditions, or good pay. But it's a job. And considering the huge turnover rates at those low-paying jobs (also including the fast food industry), most people don't work there for long.

'Barack Obama being destroyed will actually be fun to watch.

But it will be as much as he desrves for his arrogance, temerity, and unfettered uppityness and conceit.'

'Uppityness'? God, William, what a vile, disgusting racist you are... I'm saddened that someone your age should be spouting hate rhetoric from pre-civil war days. Bet you have a confederate flag in your dorm room, eh?

Ever been in in a lynch mob? Bet you fantasize about it.

JD, it is standard procedure for Dems to react with emotion when confronted with any decision. Is war bed - yes, end it. Is being poor and at the bottom of the pay scale desirable - no, raise wages. Is living the good life in america while others don't do so well enviable - no, handicap america with various measures.

the problem starts when you ask one of them, what's next. does giving up on war get us where we need to go - consequences. does raising wages outside the market system work and have no downside? how about fixing pharm prices? what happens next is the question that alwasy goes unanswered.

It is this fundamental inability to see what the reprecusssions of any action will result that distinguishes Cons from Libs. cons think it through, weigh actions and reactions and try to find a way fair to all. Libs go with thier gut and ruin it for everyone.

Everyone loves s*x and dope and drinking and naked women and spending money you don't have and skipping school, etc. But if this goes on long enough, the paybacks come. then you have to go to your rich Repub uncle to bail you out. he was the one that went to night school and put his money in the bank. see the difference?

'As for WalMart treating its workers like crap, et al.; then why don't they LEAVE! '

how about that good jobs are fleeing the country because corproations want cheap overseas labor? how about it may be all they can get?

you overprivileged snotty white kids ought to read Dreiser's 'Sister Carrie' sometime, to get an idea of wht labor conditions were like before the unions. Or try pciking up a history book.

Or try talking to someone who actually works a dirty, low-paying job because they have to.

No, you are completely correct. Of their own free will people choose to work at Wal-mart knowing that it is not unionized thus they choose not to be a union member. If Wal-mart was so aweful why do thousands upon thousands of people work there?

Union official - sign up with us and we promise to pay all your retirement benefits, all your medical and a grossly overinflated wage. that is until we actually have to start paying for those things and give up OUR lunches. then we declare bankruptcy and stick the federal government with the tab. If we get in trouble, our Dem friends in congress will cover for us.

Remind anyone of the social security promise?

I know this is really off topic..but does anyone actually read what che posts or follow the links? Anyway I was just interested as to how many people care about what he thinks.

Andy R, what do you suggest - that an artificial control of supply and demand of labor, tinkering with the market, is a good thing? Do you actually believe there would be no unintended consequences?

They thought that about the manufacturing base for a long time too - until the unions got too fat and happy, and pulverized the Big 3. Now they get laid off in today's age of globalism and see what they get.

As for WalMart treating its workers like crap, et al.; then why don't they LEAVE! Nobody puts a gun to their head to work there, and obviously there's something about those jobs that make people want them. Otherwise, there'd be too many vacancies and their wages would rise.

I'm begging you, everyone on this blog needs to take another Econ course.

Very funny but not really me.

That's ridiculous, snapper. I don't belong to a union. It's not because I chose not to; I don't have the option. My job isn't unionized. The same is true for most people.

And as zouk points out, businesses like Wal-Mart refuse to unionize. They fire anyone who talks about starting a union. So it's not like Wal-Mart employees choose not to unionize; if they try, then they aren't Wal-Mart employees anymore.

I guess you could say that, in choosing to work at Wal-Mart, people choose not to be part of a union. Of course, that would be moronic.

peter dc: I could not have said it better. These jokers are going to eat a little crow after Hillary is sworn in as POTUS. I have been, for the most part, the only supporter of Hillary on "The Fix".

KOZ said:

"I have just finished a three-course lunch, each course replete with highly processed, heavily corn-syruped goodness. now i am enjoying a menthol cigarette, blowing secondhand smoke in the faces of my pregnant Lib feminazi co-workers. When I get home tonight, I will take down my shotgun and blast away at targets mounted on the stumps of endangered trees I cut down in my backyard, while FOX news blares from the TV in my home. After dinner (deer meat - poached, of course), I will lie around on my polyester couch in my Bush '04 boxer shorts watching Roll Call while my son practices his martial arts on stuffed figures with the faces of Martin Luther King, JFK, Jimmy Carter, various '60's rock stars, and other undesirables.
If my wife objests, I will slap her and tell her to get back to the dishes.
It's good to be the King."

Oh...My...God.... was that funny. Come on, even the lefties must admit that was good.

KOZ Walmart treats its workers like complete crap. They delibratly pay just below the poverty line so that their workers are eligible for medicade. That way they don't have to pay for their healthcare, you and I do.
Open YOUR eyes and let the truth burn your retinas.

Ever wonder why all the industries with heavy union participation are the ones going down the drains - auto, airline, teachers, etc.

Wal-mart refuses to unionize and business is booming. Open your eyes and drink in the truth.

drindl et all - why do less than 15% of American workers belong to unions? The answer is because they choose not to. You telling me 85% of American workers are wrong? Unions lead to LESS efficiency with dated work rules and BS seniority where work ethic be damned - just show up. Unions don't exist to protect workers anymore, they exist to protect themselves.

By the way, for good or ill, Obama's endorsement of Lieberman was more personal than anything else. Lieberman was Obama's mentor as a freshman Senator, and they formed a personal friendship. And here is how Obama endorsed Lieberman:

"I know that some in the party have differences with Joe. I'm going to go ahead and say it. It's the elephant in the room. And Joe and I don't agree on everything. But what I know is, Joe Lieberman's a man with a good heart, with a keen intellect, who cares about the working families of America."

Of course, that was in the primaries. In the general election, Obama endorsed Lamont.

I'm hoping that was not the real William calling Obama "uppity" (I am holding onto the hope that the real William will eventually be able to cast aside the racist glasses he is wearing).

Anyway, Shrum once again proves that he is political poison. You can even tell that he was trying to HELP Edwards with this revelation, painting him as someone whose natural instinct was to vote against the war resolution. Poor Shrum just has one of the worst tin ears in politics, and thus had no idea how this story would make Edwards look unprincipled.

And unfortunately for Edwards, this is basically the worst sort of story for him. My sense is a lot of Democrats like what Edwards has to say these days, but are not sure he actually believes what he is saying. So, this story just confirms their worst fears about Edwards.

Lara - you always seem to choose the most extreme partisan points and you don't do it well:
Gonzalez attorney scandal
--FBI domestic spying scandal
--Libby guilty
--Walter Reade scandal
--stock market tanking because of deregulation of sub-prime loans

and oops:

'Rudolph Giuliani's law firm lobbies

Gonzalez - what scandel - there were no laws broken, they can fire anyone anytime for no reason. Just ask Hillary.
FBI - haven't heard about this one but sounds like Dems wanting to lose the war anyway possible again
Libby guilty - of lying about a non-crime, compare to lying about intern and remember your proclamations from back then.
Walter Reade is a good example of what happens under government supervision. Actually they dealt with it prtetty well
Stock market - ohhh a dip in the market after months on end of nothing but up - how obvious you know nothing of economics.
rudy's law firm lobbies - so, is this illegal, does someone not deserve representation? alert the trial lawyers a Lib who thinks certain people don't rate, alert the congress, DC doesn't need to vote. I am sure you prefer the NYT makes all our decisions for us, but there are those of us who prefer to let elected representatives hear from constituancies and then decide. Its called lobying and has a long and meritorious tradition in a democracy.

how you get so twisted up in knots when you examine your positions outside of the cone of ignorance you Libs always wear.

how do you FEEL about global warrming being revealed for a sham - some real news. how about winning the war - don't you feel bad now about hoping for the worst for america?

I have never met a Senator who didn't have political considerations when they cast a vote. Of course Edwards did. The question is more were they the overriding ones in his decision to vote to give Bush permission to go to war and that is something we will never know. We do know he voted for the war and continued to defend his vote long after we knew there were no wmd in Iraq. In fact he fumbled that answer on Meet the Press when he responded that he was in the middle of a campaign them so didn't want to change.

Actually Edwards has never stopped campaigning. It is a good thing he is rich and can afford not to work. Now he can put his finger in the air and try to find out where the people want him to lead and try to get in front of the parade. That rarely works which is maybe why Edwards couln't have won a second term in the Senate and why he couldn't help Kerry win his own state in the last Presidential election.

Another one that should be questioned closely on his stated opposition to the war is Barak Obama. As Al Sharpton recently questioned why if Obama was and claims to be such an anti-war candidate did he support Joe Lieberman? The most pro-war Democrat. I would assume those were political considerations as well but he needs to stand by that decision. You can't claim to have always been vehemently anti-war and then support a pro-war candidate- that is more than a little hypocritcal.

It is time these candidates stopped playing the holier than thou card when talking about Hillary Clinton and her positions. I am a Clinton supporter and part of the reason I am is that I know where she stands and that she is a tough pragmatic politician. She does make political decisions and doesn't apologize for them. She will have to take the consequences that the others are trying to weasel out of.

These guys could learn something from her.

In a sad way, Barack Obama being destroyed will actually be fun to watch.

But it will be as much as he desrves for his arrogance, temerity, and unfettered uppityness and conceit.

He thinks of himself as another Lincoln and that he is ready run for president after only 2 years in the Senate?

Yep, he needs to be taken down a peg.

Liberals, put on yer hardhats and look out beloooooooooooooow because Barack Hussein is gonna come crashing down harder than even he could imagine in his worst nightmare.

After HRC ruins him, I fully expect him to get cosmetic surgery and change his name. Maybe he will move back to Kenya or Indonesia and try to become president there.

Obama has NO IDEA what he is in for. HRC is SAVAGE!!!

I wouldn't want to be her rival in the primaries, not for a billion dollars.

Two words:

Vince Foster.

The Clintons are NOT good people.

I am picking up a comic strip, "Andy Cap" for the last few days, simular to the consultants in todays "The Fix".

Everyone should do themselves a favor and watch the fascinating documentary currently playing on the Sundance Channel, "Our Brand Is Crisis".

It documents the actions of the political consultant firm, GCS (Stan Greenberg, James Carville, Bob Shrum), as they attempt to help oligarch and former President of Bolivia, Goni, regain the postition.

They export American-styled attack commercials, and show little understanding of the people or culture they are attempting to influence.

They are able to elect Goni, their candidate, with a mere 22% of the vote. However, after 14 months and hundreds shot down in the streets following demonstrations, his government falls.

Goni flees to Washington, D.C., leftist Evo Morales rises to power, and the GCS goes off to contaminate another electorate with their one-size-fits-all DLC approach.

You will find them soon, no doubt, devising the slash-and-burn campaign used to destroy Barack Obama next year, courtesy of the Hillary Clinton campaign.

KOZ, there are feminazis who are ACTUALLY pregnant???????????????????

Shame on them!

They know perfectly well that truly "liberated" women would never burden themselves with the curse of childbearing. Why, becoming impregnated is only allowing those evvvilll oppressive Men to control, subdue, and dominate you.

Free women aren't supposed to bear children.

I mean, being impregnated is....its practically like slavery!!!!!

Or even segregation!

I mean, like dude, being pregnant isn't cool!!!

I support free women who use contraception and don't have to be burdened with the curse of having a child.

Because we all know that impreganating women is Men's way of enslaving them, and has been since the beginning of time.

How do I know this, you ask?????

Why, I learned it not half an hour ago, from my commie feminazi PoliSci professor, a liberated woman and an immigrant from East Africa, no less.

I wonder if she was able to escape genital mutilation at the hands of her parents/barbarian tribe.

What you will not read at the blog of Mr. Cillizza!!!

For uncensored news please bookmark:

otherside123.blogspot.com
www.wsws.org
www.takingaimradio.info
www.onlinejournal.com

Two top Democrats unveil child-health proposal

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Two leading congressional Democrats on Wednesday unveiled legislation intended to ensure that the 9 million U.S. children who currently have no health insurance can get it through existing government programs.
ADVERTISEMENT

Sen.
Hillary Rodham Clinton, a Democratic presidential hopeful, and Rep. John Dingell (news, bio, voting record), chairman of the House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee, sponsored the bill, introduced in both chambers of Congress.

It is the most recent of a number of proposals to bring health insurance to at least some of the 47 million people lacking it in a country of 300 million that is the richest in the world. About one child out of eight is uninsured.

The proposal's cost was being analyzed by the
Congressional Budget Office, Dingell said at a news conference with Clinton. He did not say how the bill would be paid for.

During the first term of her husband
Bill Clinton's presidency, Sen. Clinton led a failed universal health-coverage initiative. This bill is more modest, but she said it would address an acute need -- getting all children insured.

It would give the 50 U.S. states incentives to expand their existing programs for children's health insurance and would help states identify the estimated 6 million children eligible for public programs but not currently enrolled.

"It is clear to me that this is the kind of congressional action that is a step toward universal coverage for everyone," Clinton said in a Senate hearing room as dozens of children from local schools watched.

"Taking care of our children first is not only the right thing and the smart thing to do, but is really a moral obligation for all of us," Clinton added.

The bill would give states federal funds to broaden health coverage, for children whose families earn incomes up to four higher than the defined poverty level, through the State Children's Health Insurance Program, also known as SCHIP.

States would have to speed enrollment of qualified children by getting rid of waiting lists and enrollment caps.

Clinton said she did not want the bill to encourage employers currently offering health insurance to employees' children to drop this coverage. It has new incentives to bolster employer-provided coverage for children, she said.

SCHIP is due for reauthorization this year. Enacted in 1997, it gives states money to provide insurance for underprivileged children. States set eligibility rules, benefit packages and payment levels.

A study released separately by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation found that fewer lower-income parents were being offered health insurance by employers. About 47 percent of parents in families earning less than $40,000 annually are offered insurance at work, down 9 percent since 1997, it showed.

Oh, he doesn't 'lobby'? He's a partner... he takes a share of the profits, and of course they SAY he doesn't lobby. He takes money, willingly, knowingly, from Hugo Chavez. Period.

The republican party is controlled by global corporations. They will take money from anyone, even though it has negative national security implications. they care about one thing only --bottom line.

I have just finished a three-course lunch, each course replete with highly processed, heavily corn-syruped goodness. now i am enjoying a menthol cigarette, blowing secondhand smoke in the faces of my pregnant Lib feminazi co-workers. When I get home tonight, I will take down my shotgun and blast away at targets mounted on the stumps of endangered trees I cut down in my backyard, while FOX news blares from the TV in my home. After dinner (deer meat - poached, of course), I will lie around on my polyester couch in my Bush '04 boxer shorts watching Roll Call while my son practices his martial arts on stuffed figures with the faces of Martin Luther King, JFK, Jimmy Carter, various '60's rock stars, and other undesirables.
If my wife objests, I will slap her and tell her to get back to the dishes.
It's good to be the King.

'Blarg, just pointing out that the news is certainly not going the Libs way this week.'

Let me help out Proopaganda Boy. He's clearly been living in a cave -- maybe with bin Ladin, so he doesn't know what's going on. Anybody want to add more?

--Gonzalez attorney scandal
--FBI domestic spying scandal
--Libby guilty
--Walter Reade scandal
--stock market tanking because of deregulation of sub-prime loans

and oops:

'Rudolph Giuliani's law firm lobbies for Citgo Petroleum Corp., a unit of the state-owned oil company controlled by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, the U.S.'s chief antagonist in the Western Hemisphere.

Bracewell & Giuliani LLP registered to lobby for Citgo in Texas on April 26, 2005, less than a month after the former New York mayor joined the firm and became a name partner, state records show. Citgo renewed the contract in 2006 and 2007 and pays the firm $5,000 a month to track legislation. Giuliani doesn't lobby, the firm says.'

'Any nurse that would be out of a job without a union, should be out of a job. You speak well for oposition of unions.'

total bull. obviously you have no clue. why do you love replacing americans with immigrants?

These paid consultants are of little use to anyone except themselves. The daily spin on TV is getting a little old for me. The use of these folks tends to bring the voters nothing more than disgust, in many cases, and I think the pols should find a better way of getting their message, or whatever, to the common folk, who in the end are the ones that will elect them.

I doubt a former advisor's "tell all" book is going to have a significant effect on whether or not Edwards is the nominee.

Besides, how is this news?

OF COURSE Edwards voted for the war because in 2003 it was the politically smart thing to do. Even politicians like Kerry and Biden voted for the war. At that point, voting against it seemed like political suicide.

MOST votes politicians make are based on political calculations.

So why would Edwards' Iraq War vote not be based on politics?

Blarg, just pointing out that the news is certainly not going the Libs way this week. Is it a temporary blip or a long term trend setting in?

Open your mouth and reveal it to all.

che: the only good thing i can say about your posts is that as soon as i see "For uncensored news" I know to hit the page down key and put you in the rear-view mirror.

Dip$%&#s, do your research -- Shrum must've done something right, three weeks before Iowa they were writing Kerry's obituaries... all the netroots people were talking Dean Dean Dean, and all the non-netroots were hoping for Clark. Shrum got Kerry in there, plain and simple. You can't blame Shrum for Kerry windsurfing, Kerry's daughter in Cannes, the "I voted for it before I voted against it" moments.

The guy kept Oliver North out of the Senate and kept Ted Kennedy in it. For that, I'm grateful.

Any nurse that would be out of a job without a union, should be out of a job. You speak well for oposition of unions.

The coverage of Torricelli illustrates perfectly why the libs are at war against Fox. If you look back on the Fox News website, you'll find about fifty stories reporting the Torricelli investigation going back to the spring of 2001. Compare that to the New York Times coverage of Torricelli and you'll find almost nothing on "Torch" in the Times until Fox blew the whistle. (According to one source familiar with the inner workings of the Times, one well-known reporter threatened to resign in protest of his editors burying the Torricelli story.)

The left hates Fox because it reports things that ABC, NBC, CBS, the New York Times and the Washington Post would otherwise conceal from the public.

The war on Fox will continue, because the libs know it's essential to prepare the battlefield for the 2008 election. If they can marginalize Fox -- and even revive the old "fairness doctrine" to kill conservative talk radio -- they could restore the left's monopoly on national news.

free speech for all who agree with us.

Are you taking over for che on his lunch break or something?

KOZ, have you ever heard of "Loose Change"? It's an Internet documentary which claims that 9/11 was caused by the US government. It's far more popular than that British documentary you cite. Does that mean that it's correct?

For that matter, "An Inconvenient Truth" is several orders of magnitude more popular than that British documentary. I guess that means that global warming is caused by man, since the movie about it is more popular.

Democrats are loading up the must-pass war supplemental with pork and other unrelated items, which may or may not be worthy in their own right. Democrats added $4.3 billion for agricultural-disaster assistance, $2.9 billion in additional Gulf Coast recovery costs, $400 million for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance program, $1 billion for pandemic flu preparation, $735 million for a children's health-insurance program and several other matters. These belong in a separate bill, where their merits can be debated. Democrats wrongly seek to turn the war-fighting spending bill into the fabled legislative Christmas tree by adorning it with log-rolling ornaments.
Democrats are playing games by designating normal expenditures as emergencies. That means they don't have to provide any offsets to pay for them.

the party of fiscal responsibility - hardee har har.

KOZ,

Of course things have quieted down. Sadr is no dummy. Lay low until Bush declares "victory," whatever that means to you sad 29 percenters, and then come back in full force once we leave. Like John McPain said its the Whack-A-Mole syndrome. Quiet things in one area and once we leave, it starts all over again. Over 100,000 soldiers couldn't "win" but adding a mere 22,000 more is all it takes? Boy, I'd like to sell you some land.

The British documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle is, well ... great. The program, which aired last Thursday in the U.K. to much buzz, has since been watched by hundreds of thousands of others around the world via the Internet. It exposes numerous lies and myths presented as fact by those who believe in the unproven hypothesis that human-created carbon dioxide (CO2) is the driver of the Earth's warming climate.

more bad news for the party of fiction

koz brings in his invented statistics...

' Multi-National Force -Iraq Combined Press Information Centre' --
leave it to him to quote a taxpayer-funded government propaganda operation...

'Re Unions, How many union members does it take to build a 28,000 SF palace in North Carolina? Not too many, doubt if any union mmebers worked on Edwards house. How many illegals does it take to build a 28,000 SF mansion in NC? '

Hey buddy, it's your president who wants to bring in more illegals from Mexico. He said so yesterday.

And why so many working people hate unions? My sister is a nurse who would be out of a job right now if it wasn't for the unions, who are able through collective strength to prevent hospitals from replacing every nurse with a foreign-born one, many of whom don't even speak english -- but they will work for about a third of the money.

You're simply a tool of global corpporations who want to deprive all american workers of rights and jobs so they can hire cheaper foreign nationals.

BAGHDAD, March 14 (KUNA) -- The rate of killings of US troops in Iraq has been on the decline, down by 60 percent, since the launch of the new security measures in Baghdad, according to statistics revealed by the Multi-National Force -Iraq Combined Press Information Centre.Only 17 members of the US military in Iraq have been killed since February 14 till March 13, compared to 42 from January 13 to February 13;...

what to do now, silly Dems, the tide of war is shifting. Look for all those Libs to start calling for total victory.

"I voted for the war before I voted against it before I voted for it"

hey Shrumisright, that's some serious charges to throw around. Knowing the current state of the country's construction workforce, especially in non-union-friendly NC, you're probably right though.

As for unions, their time has pretty much come and gone. With unemployment so low (4.5%, lower than even Clinton's heyday, and a ridiculous <2% in the WaPo reading area), workers have all the protections they need - it's called the market. If an employer is screwing them, the answer isn't to file a grievance, jump up and down, and issue press releases; it's to walk. Otherwise, they have only themselves to blame.

No Shrum fan here, but he nailed it this time. Re Unions, How many union members does it take to build a 28,000 SF palace in North Carolina? Not too many, doubt if any union mmebers worked on Edwards house. How many illegals does it take to build a 28,000 SF mansion in NC? Lots and lots, masonry, drywall, roofing, and landscaping 102 acres. Can't be done on NC without illegals. Fess up Edwards!

Yes, John Edwards voted for the war to keep himself viable as a 2004 candidate. So did Hillary. Which is why I will not support either of them in the Democratic primary. If they were willing to make such a politically self-interested decision once, about such an important matter as war, I figure they will make such politically opportune decisions whenever necessary to further their own careers. And apologies don't matter.

'Edwards will do or say anything for the presidency.'

Right -- and John McCain won't. I mean, except sell his soul.

The 'liberal scheme' to unionize. No, rather it's the inverse of the conservative scheme to deprive working people of any rights whatsoever.

Your whole argument is specious and absurd,, bordering on idiotic.

John Edwards - your Labor-Union-tool hard at work:
"Edwards focused on his willingness to not just talk the talk of organized labor but walk the walk.
"You deserve people who will stand with you and walk the line with you," Edwards said."

This fits nicely with the liberal scheme to unionize TSA .

As you've probably heard, the Democrats are hoping to impose collective bargaining on the TSA. Clearly, this is an attempt to "pay back" Labor Unions for helping them take control of Congress in November.

But, TSA screeners already have the right to join a union and have multiple layers of workplace protections.

"This measure seeks to reverse the flexibility given to TSA to perform its critical aviation security mission," wrote the Office of Management and Budget, adding that it would "substantially diminish" officials' ability to respond to emergencies.

Pay back...this time it's for real.

This debate is about is not workers' rights. It's about union special privileges. The issue here is whether the president of the United States should have to ask the permission of union officials in order to make vital decisions dealing with national security.

All other sectors of the Federal employee work force dealing with these matters, FBI, CIA, Secret Service, there is the flexibility that we need in a time of crisis.

Now we see union officials reaching to expand their coercive power to the detriment of national security.

I agree with freeDom; Shrum is yesterday's news, but what he said is so obvious it must be right - same thing with Kerry, HRC, etc...they all voted for the War when they thought it would be the right political move, didn't want to appear like a wimp (a perennial Dem problem, btw).

Shrum's a flop, but that doesn't dispel what he says about Edwards. Anyone who pays attention knows that Edwards will do or say anything for the presidency. Shrum's recollection is simply more proof that Edwards really didn't have any foreign policy gravitas and voted whatever the consultants said.

Agree with you, JRH- Bob Shrum is over. He's been a loser for years and any Democrat who listens to him from now on is a fool. He has proven that he is as untrustworthy as he is irrelevant. It's time for Dem candidates to fire their Beltway insiders like Shrum and Carville and Brazile and speak in their own voices. It takes courage but I think Edwards is doing it more and more and Hillary might not be so low in the esteem of her own base if not everything she said sounded like a --sound bite.

For uncensored news please bookmark:

otherside123.blogspot.com
www.wsws.org
www.takingaimradio.info
www.onlinejournal.com

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_1837.shtml

Decadence, waste, corruption in the new American Empire [Part II]

By Rodrigue Tremblay
Online Journal Guest Writer

"The abuse of buying and selling votes crept in and money began to play an important part in determining elections. Later on, this process of corruption spread to the law courts. And then to the army, and finally the Republic was subjected to the rule of emperors." --Plutarch (c. 46 A.D.-127 A.D.)

"An imbalance between rich and poor is the oldest and most fatal ailment of all republics." --Plutarch (c. 46 A.D.-127 A.D.)

"It should be no surprise that when rich men take control of the government, they pass laws that are favorable to themselves. The surprise is that those who are not rich vote for such people, even though they should know from bitter experience that the rich will continue to rip off the rest of us. Perhaps the reason is that rich men are very clever at covering up what they do." --Andrew Greeley

Corruption and moral bankruptcy take many forms. They are usually the end results of an insatiable lust for money, power and privilege, above and beyond any common decency. And money in politics is at the nexus of nearly all forms of corruption.

In the United States, for example, big money is so central to politics and to the functioning of political parties that anybody running for high office, even if he or she is personally a millionaire, is obliged to court those who have the big cash. Many good candidates thus refuse to enter into or soon bow out of presidential races, because they do not want to submit to this kind of prostitution. As a consequence of the deals that must be made to raise the huge amounts of money required to be successful, it is difficult for any administration not to get entangled in a web of scandals. Indeed, big cash is the key to influence in Washington D.C., and cash used to bribe politicians ultimately leads to greed and scandals. It happened to the Nixon administration (Watergate scandal), the Carter administration (Lance scandal), the Reagan administration (Iran-Contra scandal), the George H. W. Bush administration (Iraqgate scandal) and now to the George W. Bush administration.

There was the Enron scandal, the Abramoff scandal, and the Tom DeLay scandal. In the aftermath of the Enron scandal, for example, it was made public that Enron spent a total of $5.8m on American federal elections, over a period of 12 years, with 73 percent of the money going to Republicans. Seventy-one out of 100 senators and 188 out of 435 House members benefited from the company's largesse. President George W. Bush himself, a staunch opponent of any campaign finance reform, received $826,000 from this single Texas company over a period of eight years, since he first ran for governor of that state. This seems to be all part of a pervasive culture of corruption.

The revelation that super lobbyist Jack Abramoff offered $100,000 to meet President George W. Bush and top adviser Karl Rove to push for legislation of his liking is an indication how things can degenerate quickly, even in the most solid democracy. Super lobbyist Abramoff was one of George W. Bush's principal fundraisers, making him and honorary Bush "Pioneer." And, in what is typically American, both Abramoff and DeLay said that 'God' was somewhat behind their actions. -For one, Abramoff confessed that "I felt that the resources coming into my hands were the consequence of God putting them there. "And, in DeLay's words, "I firmly believe I'm innocent of the charges against me. We believe that God in fact is in control and indeed he does work all things for good for those who love the Lord." This is an indication that for some, religion and political corruption do mix.

In fact, what money buys in Washington, D.C., is access to those in positions of power, direct influence on the framing of public policies and preferential allotment of jobs and juicy contracts. Corruption of civil servants and Congress by lobbyistsfollows. Political corruption quickly becomes a vicious cycle: The corrupters select the politicians they want to see in office by dumping tons of money into their campaigns, while the politicians thus selected are anxious to pay back their benefactors by opening jobs of influence and by dishing out rewarding contracts to them. And the wheel turns. In particular, why do you think all leading Democratic presidential hopefuls this year aren't against an unprovoked American attack on Iran? It is because the big money contributors they are soliciting are pro-Israel hard-liners. Those who pay make the policy. That may be the overriding reason why 60 percent of Americans do not bother to vote come election time. They are not apathetic; they only know that plutocracy is not democracy and that there is not a chance in hell that the system can reform itself. Plutocracy is government of the rich, by the rich and for the rich. This is a far cry from the Lincolnian view of democracy of "a government of the people, by the people and for the people."

When Paul Wolfowitz, the principal technical architect of the war against Iraq, went from the U.S. Defense department to preside over the World Bank, the world had a vivid demonstration how corrupt the American political system could be. Wolfowitz had no formation (political science) or experience in finance, but was nevertheless named to be president of the important World Bank for services rendered.

Another example is the curious spectacle of Dick Cheney, a member of the American Enterprise Institute and a former CEO of Halliburton Energy Services, who, in 2001, chose himself to be George W. Bush's vice president (he was Bush's vice presidential search committee) and, as chairman of the president elect's transition team, found himself in charge of naming most of the high officials in the new Bush administration. How could he manage to do that, one may legitimately ask? Also, why did George W. Bush, on March 25, 2003, sign executive order 13292, giving Cheney the power to declassify intelligence and granting the greatest expansion of the power of the vice president in US history? Why did Dick Cheney end up having so much power within the Bush administration that George W. Bush once even joked about 'President Cheney'?No political scientist that we know of has found satisfactory answers to these questions.

Another form of corruption in America may be derived from the first type. It comes from the fact that while the super rich gorge themselves on cost-plus military contracts and tax cuts, the poorest Americans are becoming relatively poorer. Indeed, economic inequality in the U.S. has increased markedly between 1979 and 2006: During this time, more than a quarter century, incomes adjusted for inflation of those at the top increased 34 percent, incomes of those at the median increased by 11.5 percent and incomes of those at the bottom have remained about stagnant, increasing a meager 4 percent over 27 years. Recent reports have also shown that the percentage of poor Americans who are living in severe poverty has reached a 32-year high as the gulf between the nation's "haves" and "have-nots" has continued to widen.

In 2005, for example, 35 million Americans went without enough to eat. This is due to the fact that 13 million American children, or 17.8 percent, were living in severe poverty. And, with the cost of health care increasing each year by two digits, some 47 million Americansfind themselves in the precarious situation of not being covered by any health insurance, all the while their government is wasting billions and billions around the world.

But perhaps the most insidious corruption in a democracy occurs when elected officials are not truthful with the people and rely on lies and propaganda rather than truth in the public discourse. Then confidence and trust are destroyed, and so is the moral fiber of the nation.

Such public corruption is often accompanied by the corruption that feeds political corruption, the corruption of the media. When the government and the media are both corrupted, all the other forms of corruption follow. The increasingly incestuous relationshipthat exists between large segments of American media and the government is a harbinger of things to come. Indeed, propaganda machines seem to have replaced genuine investigative journalism in many media organizations where a cohort of "useful idiots"and yelling village idiots feel free to engage in public campaigns of disinformation and of outright lies.

When this happens, confusion and disarray result, and this is when the worst mistakes are made. The 2001-2007 episode will go down in history as such an instance when the American people were lied to, both by the Bush-Cheney administration and by the major American media.

This has led, indeed, to a show of massive incompetenceand to the monstrous American moral and financial corruption, which has been observed in Iraq, where the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz-Feith-Bremer wrecking crew went on a rampage that did great and irreparable harm, not only to Iraq, its economy and its people, but also to the United States, to Americans and to the international system of law and justice. The gross misuse of money, the suspension of the right of "Habeas Corpus" and the reliance on torture techniques in occupied Iraq (Abu Ghraib) are only the tip of the iceberg of what has the potential to be one of the biggest corruption scandals in American history.
Rodrigue Tremblay lives in Montreal and can be reached at rodrigue.tremblay@yahoo.com. He is the author of the book 'The New American Empire'"". Visit his blog site at thenewamericanempire.com/blog.

Shrum.... You'll never eat lunch with the Dem again.

While it's hardly news that pols (probablly most) made a political decision about their war vote, it is telling that CC picked this statement from an unpublished memoir to highlight. Still pimping for Hillary evidently.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Bob Shrum, who has only ever worked for a losing presidential candidate as a consultant, has finally been found out. He is irrelevant and as he feels himself sinking into irrelevancy. These wild claims are his last gasp attempt to remain in the political conversation and should be dismissed as so. After 2004, Bob Shrum should be ignored by all Democrats, especially those who want to *win* the White House.

Of course that's what Edwards is going to say, but what is Rudy going to say about Hugo Chavez paying is law firm $250,000 and all those drag queen videos: http://www.solidpolitics.com