I expect support for Brownback to decline. Right now he is polling around 1-2%. But when Iowans learn about the Senator's pathetic legislation, he's going to drop to zero.

I am referring to the ridiculous bill cosponsored by Senator Brownback named the 'International Marriage Broker Regulation Act'(or IMBRA). Brownback's bill is one of the most pathetic, UNCONSTITUTIONAL, ANTI FAMILY laws in the history of the United States. This draconian bill, which became law on March 6th, 2006, implies that ALL Americans (mostly Conservative American men) are violent sexual abusers and wife beaters unless proven innocent. I DISAGREE!!!

IMBRA was discreetly attached to another bill, the 'Violence Against Women Act of 2005'. This law is better described as the 'International Romance Regulation Act', which is exactly what it is. Under Senator Brownback's outrageous law, all Americans must submit a detailed criminal background report in order to communicate with a woman in a foreign country. How absurd! The form is likely to get lost in the mail, and she will have no incentive to respond and send back her approval (again by postal mail) without a photo or bio. This law applies for all forms of communication including: e-mail, telephone, postal mail, text messaging, and in-person meetings. Penalties are severe: $25,000 fine and up to 5 years in prison for saying 'Hello'!

In order to drum up support for his atrocious bill, Senator Brownback along with other proponents (radical feminist group Tahirih Justice Center) concocted the sinister-sounding label 'marriage broker'. What is a 'marriage broker'? It is nothing more than an introduction or penpal service. So now all-of-a-sudden according to the U.S. Government, a penpal service will now be known as a 'marriage broker'. For your information Senator Brownback, nobody is getting married, and nobody is being 'brokered' when two consenting heterosexual adults decide to communicate.

This law also scrutinizes ALL international marriages no matter how the couples actually met. Most international marriages do not involve sinister-sounding 'marriage brokers', but because the government has no way of knowing how a couple actually met (it is none of their business anyways), they decided to crack-down on all visa petitioners. Now any irrelevant DUI's, misdemeanors, fraudulent protection orders, and even arrests not leading to any conviction must be disclosed to your fiancee, which is a good way to become un-engaged. This is exactly what Senator Brownback and the feminists want. Their goal was to shut down introduction agencies and to keep American men away from foreign women. This law is a SCANDAL based on fraud, deception, cooked statistics, 'manufactured' hysteria and propaganda regarding abuse and trafficking of foreign women to support ulterior motives. In reality, THERE HAS NEVER BEEN ANY CONVICTIONS FOR HUMAN TRAFFICKING INVOLVING AN AMERICAN-OWNED INTRODUCTION AGENCY. And THERE ARE NO DOCUMENTED CASES OF ABUSE OF FOREIGN WOMEN BY AMERICAN MEN PRIOR TO MARRIAGE.

On December 16th, 2005, Senator Brownback told his colleagues in the Senate that the "Tahirih Justice Center are frontline experts" and that customers of 'marriage brokers' (a false label) "need to clean up their act". No Senator Brownback, you "need to clean up your act". After he was elected, he took an oath to uphold the Constitution. But his draconian law violates the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 9th, and 10th Amendments to the Constitution.

Senator Brownback claims to be Pro Life, yet for this bill he teamed-up with radical left wing Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) who openly supports the murder of human fetuses. He claims to support traditional marriages, yet his asinine bill criminalizes communication and love letters by heterosexuals. He has partnered with a wacko feminist not-for-profit organization named after an Iranian martyr: the Tahirih Justice Center. Senator Brownback has alot of explaining to do.

So far Brownback hasn't talked about his IMBRA law during the campaign. Is he afraid of something?

Imagine Rudy Giuliani winning the Democratic nomination and going up against the party that gave us Willi Horton, the Playboy ad, the Swiftboaters, Lee Atwater and Karl Rove, and the amazing outfits that turned Max Cleland (who left one arm and two legs in Vietnam battlefields) and John Kerry (who went to Vietnam and was awarded military medals) into unpatriotic Americans (over, of all people, a bunch of GOP draft dodgers, including the current Commander-in-Chief.) Imagine the possibilities!

Imagine Rudy Giuliani winning the Democratic nomination and going up against the party that gave us Willi Horton, the Playboy ad, the Swiftboaters, Lee Atwater and Karl Rove, and the amazing outfits that turned Max Cleland (who left one arm and two legs in Vietnam battlefields) and John Kerry (who went to Vietnam and was awarded military medals) into unpatriotic Americans (over, of all people, a bunch of GOP draft dodgers, including the current Commander-in-Chief.) Imagine the possibilities!

I am a New Yorker who survived the Giuliani Era. If you think we have a megalomaniac in the WH now, Rudy would put him to shame. He ran his fiefdom in NYC like he was in office forever ... in fact, he tried to make it so. He "suggested" that he just stay on in office for a while because of the urgent circumstances ... this despite the change in the law that imposed term limits on all city offices, including the Mayor! He thought he could manipulate and maneuver himself into an additional term, and then another and another ... It didn't work! New Yorkers are too savvy for that.

Which is why he would have a hard time in the NY primary ... or the NJ. We know him. And, we don't trust him. He is a past master at cronyism. Can you say the name Bernie Kerik? Gonzo is minor league compared to him as a buddy to the chief.

Oh, BTW, as a US attorney ... he had most of his prosecutions reversed on appeal! You can look it up. The man is a sad caricature of what a chief executive should be.

Fortunately, he is not my problem, because I am a Democrat!! We have a surfiet of talent. I would be proud to have almost any of the prospective candidates as our standard-bearer. Right now I am leaning toward Richardson ... governor, ambassador, UN experience, all around good guy ... and for those who care about such things, he's half Hispanic to boot.

pro-choice* senator, Thompson ran as pro-choice.

"Anyone who cites O'Reilly as a credible source is a crank."

Nonsense, he was quoting directly from sources, either letters or newspapers. Don't fit me under any stereotype just because I give you facts. My (ha) was supposed to mean O'Reilly should be taken with a grain of salt, but no, ramble on.

I'm thinking I like Thompson too, though may I point out that Thompson ran as a pro-life senator and that Gov. Romney has also never been divorsed.

Good observation there, Mark. I also like Fred Thompson. Not only b/c I feel that he's actually an intelligent and capable man, which should be a very important quality in any elected leader. But b/c he also seems like an honest and upstanding citizen of our nation. As I know of, he's had no nasty divorces, incidents of adultry, ect. Not to mention his down to earth approach to life. Touring Tenn. in a pick up truck while running for US senate isn't something your average candidate would be about. When I read that, I thought of democrat Bob Graham of Florida doing the "job for a day" program, when he was governor. I think Thompson could be a very fine nominee, and more importantly, an effective President. I also think McCain could be an effective President. Richardson also has the mentality to get things done. So I guess we will see what happens.

Let me introduce some history. I am a 63 year old lawyer who remembers Watergate as painful for the image of my profession. Fred Thompson served as Minority Counsel to the Senate Watergate investigation and my recollection of him is favorable. I think he also served as Counsel to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in the early 90s with distinction. He was an effective U.S. Senator and cannot be dismissed as mere dilletante actor.

I believe that among the possible races in which the debate would be elevated above the insipid and irrelevant would be one pitting Biden and Thompson. I earlier suggested Richardson against McCain as a potential civics lesson.

We simply cannot afford to have candidates whose resumes and leadership skills do not rise above Bush v. Kerry, but I fear the parties will inflict pain again.

For those of you who are charmed by the gaming aspect of politics, I hasten to point out that there is a
strong chance the other party will prevail in any election. You should want each party to nominate its most proven wise leader, not its flavor of the moment, nor its best money-raiser, unless [s]he is coincidentally an astute and careful leader.

WASHINGTON -- Three leading Republicans said yesterday that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales mishandled the firings of eight federal prosecutors in December and may not have been truthful about the full extent of his role in the dismissals.
Article Tools
Printer friendly
Single page
E-mail to a friend
Nation RSS feed
Reprints & Licensing
Share on Digg
Share on Facebook
Save this article
powered by Del.icio.us
More:
Globe Nation stories
Latest national news
Growing questions within Gonzales's own party about his credibility follow the release last week of Justice Department documents that show he took part in a high-level meeting Nov. 27 held to plan the firings, despite his repeated assertions that he had delegated the personnel decisions to his staff.
"He has said some things that just don't add up," Senator Lindsey Graham, a Republican of South Carolina and member of the Judiciary Committee, said on CBS's "Face the Nation."
In separate television appearances yesterday, Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the top Republican on the committee, and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska also raised questions about Gonzales's honesty.
"We have to have an attorney general who is candid and truthful," Specter said on NBC's "Meet the Press." "And if we find out he's not been candid and truthful, that's a very compelling reason for him not to stay on."

Cam, you are a moron. Anyone who cites O'Reilly as a credible source is a crank. And clearly that applies to you. You're obviously one of the 30 percenters -- the brown shirts who believe any fairy tale they sell you on Faux. You'd be far better in a communist or fascist state, where you could happily do what you're told and never try to think. Just like now. Democracy is wasted on you.

Carol Lam*

you apparently missed my '(ha)'.

All joking aside, Bill quoted Dianne Feinstein in letter to the Justice Department, Alberto Gonzales, June 15 2006, in which she complained that U.S. attorney Miss Lamb has 'some of the most restrictive prosecutorial guidlines nationwide for immigration cases such that many Border patrol agents end up not referring the cases.' Bill then showed a clip of her now accusing the Bush admin. being in a 'bunker mentality' and that she thinks a lot is going to come out of this.

Paul Charlton was the 'no prosecuting under 500 pounds' guy, and Kevin Ryan apparently had such poor performance that a Democratic judge was threatening to go to Congress and make a public fuss.

'He is no more qualified to be president than any other successful businessman with Ken Doll hair and a hunormous ego.'

What are you, an unofficial gun? If you're going to respond to everything someone posts pro-Romney here you might as well be sensible. ;p

Never mind - I just read your 2nd post, in which you cite the O'Reilly Factor as a source of news. I will give up trying to change your mind - you're hopeless.

Cam, Romney is both a phony and an elitist @$$hole. He is no more qualified to be president than any other successful businessman with Ken Doll hair and a hunormous ego.

I am disgusted by what has turned out to be nothing more than a mix of chatter and name recognition making up the rankings of the candidates. There is NO talk of policy proposals / differences - but why should there be? NO ONE IS ASKING FOR IT. We get the campaign and candidates we deserve, and based on our lack of curiosity / understanding, we seem poised to elect yet another president by means of a popularity contest, rather than on the more demanding basis of the strength / weakness of his / her ideas. Is this really what Washington, Adams, Frankin et al had in mind 230 years ago?

I wonder what is worse: two New Yorkers having the nominations (Hillary and Rudy) or more damned Texans?!

No way Guiliani should be #1 on the line for the Republican nomination. #1 is undoubtly McCain. Romney has a better organization but Guiliani does have more name recognition right now, so maybe #2, but definately not #1. Wait til the campaign and swift boating starts, he will drop rapidly. Clinton should be #1 right now for the dems., good call. Although Edwards seems to be gaining steam and raising alot of money, Obama is losing steam.

Oh and if you people had been watching O'reilly (ha) you would know that in 24 hours they had been able to come up with why at least 3 of the attorney's were fired. One seemed to intimdate people who brought illegal alien cases to her. Another had an un-ceremonial policy of not convicting any drug smuglers with under 500 pounds of illegal supstance or something.

I think its so funny how the Main Stream Media and the DNC are trying to nip Romney's campaign off at the bud. They know he's the real conservative threat in the GOP right now (we'll see what happens here with Thompson) thus this 'steady drumbeat'.

'He's not who he says he is'? How disingenuous.

For one thing, his abortion change really isn't that incredible. Even in '94 he professed to be pro-life personally (in '02 he said he wouldn't be given either label because he would change no existing laws). His change in political philosophy came when the libs and their scientists snuck a cloning provision into a stem-cell bill without even telling the public (look up the article 'Mitt Romney Exposes stem cell duplicity'). Cloning human life only to be destroyed a few weeks or months later, what an unthinkable landmark. How could anyone not take a step back and think about where this country is going on the value of human life after something like that? I find his change in political philosophy more than credible.

I,ll take the reminder any day of the week! Anything can happen.Circumstances and events as it happens tells of the unforeseen.

Rather like a construction estimate-you can look at everything in probables-but you cannot predict the unforeseen. and even if you do-you still must deal with it!

What happens in tomorrows news-can change things completely.

Under the fold in the LAT, environmentalists, abortion rights advocates and gay activists claim presidential candidate Mitt Romney once courted them with the same vigor he now courts social conservatives.

Years of violence have all but destroyed Iraq's intelligentsia, according to the LAT. Those who haven't been killed already are trying to flee the country, leaving the struggling nation with a dearth of potential leaders.

"The Los Angeles Times leads with a scoop: CIA intelligence reports that the U.S. supported head of the Columbian army is in league with "right-wing militias that Washington considers terrorist organizations."

It's Reagan Redux -- all the CIA-sponsored terrorists and murderers, all the clubfooted cronyism and incompetence, all the corruption and criminal acts and lying to Congress and foreign policy blundering.

Oh right -- it's the same people.

How many innocents did your tax dollars murder today?

I think we sponsored the murder of, what was it, 30,000 inoocent villagers of Central America, by death squads... land of the free, oh yes, land of the free.

WASHINGTON - Sen. Orrin Hatch and Rep. Chris Cannon of Utah defended U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales on Saturday after newly released documents showed Gonzales was in a meeting where he approved the firing of seven U.S. attorneys.
The revelation appeared to contradict Gonzales' earlier statements that he was not aware of the details of a plan to fire the prosecutors, and to support what Kyle Sampson, a Utah native who was Gonzales' chief of staff, has stated through his attorney: that many senior Justice Department officials were aware of the U.S. attorney discussions.
Cannon said that there is "nothing wrong with firing a U.S. attorney for the reason of politics."

Four of the seven top U.S. Coast Guard officers who retired since 1998 took positions with private firms involved in the Coast Guard's troubled $24 billion fleet replacement program, an effort that government investigators have criticized for putting contractors' interests ahead of taxpayers'.

They weren't the only officials to oversee one of the federal government's most complex experiments at privatization, known as Deepwater, who had past or subsequent business ties to the contract consortium led by industry giants Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin.

The secretary of transportation, Norman Y. Mineta, whose department included the Coast Guard when the contract was awarded in 2002, was a former Lockheed executive. Two deputy secretaries of the Department of Homeland Security, which the Coast Guard became part of in 2003, were former Lockheed executives, and a third later served on its board.

I see my fan club members are up bright and early this am. I do have what may be considered important to those of us supporting Hillary. I found the Elect. College, and going over what I think are pretty safe states, I have a total of 288. This is covering 20+ states. Another interesting "SPIN" is about the fired DOJ folks. This is routine and anyone with half a brain knows it to be a fact. This is only another miscue that has been brought out and for something to be done about it is yet another thing we can chalk up to how importand control of the court actually is. Sad to say, I just cannot see anything being done to address the problem.

Member of the Mile High Club: Tim Kalemkarian, Frequent Guest at the Playboy Mansion: Tim Kalemkarian, Frequent Visitor to Amserdam and Las Vegas: Tim "the Tong" Kalemkarian. Tim Kalemkarian: oh, he so horny...

JUST KIDDING! I had to add that in case Hillary was keeping an eye on this blog. If you're reading, my darling, don't worry. I would never weave my Hiwwy! XOXOXOXOXO

This will be news to most of you, but I have to tell you that as of today, I no longer support Hillary for POTUS. I am wavering between Fred Thompson and Dennis Kucinich. Can anyone offer me some insight on either of those two candidates?

I'M MELTING! What a world, what a world...

Capo di tutti capi: Tim Kalemkarian, Consigliere: Tim Kalemkarian, State Gaming Board Chairman Tim Kalemkarian, Hitter Tim Kalemkarian. Tim Kalemkarian: a real standup guy.

"Clinton fires all 92. So you can arbitrarily fire 92 but you can't fire 8 if you have a reason - like they aren't implementing your policies."

Wrong. Why do people keep repeating this as if it's some kind of valid point? (Oh, right, to be intentionally misleading. Now I remember.)

Let's go over this again. Clinton fired all the US Attorneys when he took office. This is because those attorneys were appointed by his predecessor. All presidential appointees are fired when the White House switches parties. Reagan fired all the attorneys. So did Bush II. There is absolutely nothing wrong with firing all attorneys upon taking office.

That is in no way comparable to what Bush did recently. He fired a few attorneys because he thought they weren't prosecuting Democrats enough... and because they were prosecuting corrupt Republicans the Bushies wanted to protect. In particular, at the CIA, starting with Dusty Foggo, who Carole Lam was hot on the trail of, after getting evidence on hin from Duke Cunningham. Kyle Sampson sent an email saying she should be fired the day after she announced opening the case on Foggo.

All of the fired attorneys had been given excellent reviews.

Stop this pathetic lying and denial -- this was clearly a Stalinist-style purge from an administration that law increasingly, and dangerous, above the law.

Stop pretending that the WSJ doesn't have an agenda, which is protecting the corporate war profiteers that Bush is trying to protect -- so that they can continue to loot the treasury to line republican campaign coffers.

I know it's true because Rush said so.

Each day, thousands of pieces of intelligence information from around the world -- field reports, captured documents, news from foreign allies and sometimes idle gossip -- arrive in a computer-filled office in McLean, where analysts feed them into the nation's central list of terrorists and terrorism suspects.

Called TIDE, for Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment, the list is a storehouse for data about individuals that the intelligence community believes might harm the United States. It is the wellspring for watch lists distributed to airlines, law enforcement, border posts and U.S. consulates, created to close one of the key intelligence gaps revealed after Sept. 11, 2001: the failure of federal agencies to share what they knew about al-Qaeda operatives.

But in addressing one problem, TIDE has spawned others. Ballooning from fewer than 100,000 files in 2003 to about 435,000, the growing database threatens to overwhelm the people who manage it.

TIDE has also created concerns about secrecy, errors and privacy. The list marks the first time foreigners and U.S. citizens are combined in an intelligence database. The bar for inclusion is low, and once someone is on the list, it is virtually impossible to get off it. At any stage, the process can lead to "horror stories" of mixed-up names and unconfirmed information, Travers acknowledged.

The watch lists fed by TIDE, used to monitor everyone entering the country or having even a casual encounter with federal, state and local law enforcement, have a higher bar. But they have become a source of irritation -- and potentially more serious consequences -- for many U.S. citizens and visitors.

Bambargia! Kirgudu.

Grrrrr..... grr.....

Oh Hillary,
your spacious back
clad in designer silk
You voted to attack Iraq
'gainst Sad-dam and his ilk
And you were wrong, yes you were wrong
But still we all can see
How your ambition shoulders on
Un-for-tu-nate-a-ly!

They only want Thompson because he is a TV star and comfortably little is known about his views publicly except "conservative" - not many specifics. He's an empty vessel in which all kinds of different Gopers can each see his or her own favorite cause. He may be an intelligent guy, but let no one be fooled - just because he played a character on a popular TV show, he's nowhere near the savior Republicans have been describing.

There are a number of Newt, Gore and Thompson "what-if" polls. On the Republican side, nobody beats Thompson. On the Democrat side, Gore can't score.

On both party polls, Thompson beats both Hillary and Obama.

Right now, The Republican polls say, "We want..." while the Democrat polls say, "Anybody but...".

Now, boys, do I have to stop this car, or are you going to behave?

Thanks, no name, I am not quite that smart or wise in my old age to even come close as to how clever it was.

lylepink - I was disappointed to see you advise that "she floatus my POTUS" was the work of an imitator.

I see my admirer is back again. Thank you for your support.

Today, I'm burning books! I was lying in bed this morning, eating Froot Loops, drinking an orange soda, and watching Rachel Ray, when suddenly it came to me. Liberals write doen their ideas! We have blanketed the airwaves with Fox News and the other fine Fox programs, but liberals are what those nerdy kids in your homeroom, the ones who actually did their English homework, grow up to be. They learn to "develop an appreciation of literature," and so they "read." Well, good for them. I just read Limbaugh, O'Reilly, and Tom Clancy, and Limbaugh and O'Reilly I don't even have to sound out the hard words because they have the same message all the time, and it's on the radio in simpler English anyway. Tom Clancy is harder, but once you understand his basic plot structure (and you've seen one or two of his movies), you can pretty much make up the story yourself, and no one will know the difference. So anyway, after I realized this, I figured, if we all burned at least a book a day, conservatives can chop liberal thought off at the roots. Who's with me?

Here is an interview with Thompson on FOX....

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258222,00.html

Sounds to me like he will get in. And, I believe if he does he'll go to the top of the pack. The GOP could do worse.... yes I actually said that. Their current field is lame, that's why Thompson could impact.

But.... he thinks we should basically "stay the course" in Iraq. Not sure anyone can win with that position.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Richardson may appear funny...but his "jokes" are true. He appears to really make things happen unlike the three candidates above him in your rankings. I suspect Clinton will be the first to stop laughing.

Considering what this country faces in the years ahead, we all need to stand back and scrutinize each presidential candidate in the light of certain serious realities:

An oncoming world-wide Islamic fundamentalist clash with the West...an ongoing Mexican invasion of the U.S...a nuclear armed Iran...a mind-boggling deficit...a rapidly arming China...a Chinese product chokehold in our market...loss of U.S. production jobs overseas...diminished U.S. armed forces...loss of respect around the world...to say nothing about the utter failure of our two-party system.

Whatever your motives, can the candidate you're promoting really be able to effectively face these serious threats? Many Americans do not yet see such a candidate in the new "Gathering Storm" of the early 21st century. What we do not need is a continuing,ego-driven dynasty from either side of our political system. Been there, done that.

And now, some words from our abundant, paid political staffers.

I am not now, nor have I ever been, a candidate for the presidency, the senate, and the house of representatives. Anonymous neither works for nor speaks for my office. Please, good people, stop contributing to what is not a legitimate political cause, and donate instead to the Tim Kalemkarian Fund for Anonymous Campaign Instigators.

There are many former and current politicians along with grassroot voters and bloggers discussing Fred Thompson. Should he get in the race, it would be good for everyone. Some have noted that Thompson does appeal to moderate democrats. It is sad that we have to be divided with comments coming from the right and left. It should never be about anything but the issues. On the issues, there is a big divide. Personally, I would like to see us come together as Americans who want what's best for our country. I do think we need a candidate who can bridge that gap. We need real commonsense solutions and compromise. As a nation, we all need to show more empathy and understanding for each other. Surely, there are some big boys and girls that can come to the table.

Oh Hillary, my precious
You drone on and on and on
Oh Hillary, oh Hillary
neck like a wrinkled swan
And google eyes, reptilian head
like monster from the sea
Oh Hillary, you grind me nerves
so ve-ry eas-si-ly

Hey, I have nothing against Thompson. I'd like to see him run; he seems like a decent guy, and I respect old-school conservatives a lot more than Bush-style conservatives. I just think the sudden appearance of the fan club is kind of silly.

There is a very strong movement to have Fred Thompson run...I think he would be a very strong candidate, and likely GOP winner. Many renet internet polls show Thompson's surge of interest among voters. The Dem's better hope Fred doesn't jump in.

c'mon tarheel, the right bashes the left with as much abandon and disregard of facts as the left bashes the right. Haven't you ever heard of Anne Coulter? KOZ actually has some good points but he undermines his credibility with some of his rants especially his global warming denial after going on and on about basing policies on facts and science.

Blarg: Those could be planted posts, but they could also be real. Thompson could be the one to take McCain's place of 2000 with actual straight talk.

A number of us remember Thompson as Watergate Co-Counsel before he was a Senator. Without betraying Republicans, he didn't betray the country just to protect Richard Nixon and his co-conspirators. You may not like his basic positions, but you do get the feeling that they are his honest beliefs and that he is not pandering.

Right now to most people, except Tennesseans, Thompson is just a name. The more exposure Thompson gets, the more the general public will find out just what his specific positions are. First, of course, he has to decide he wants to run.

With the problems the announced Republican candidates have, I can see a swell developing just to support someone who isn't "flawed." Makes me wonder why Huckabee isn't higher, or somebody isn't pushng Lamar Alexander.

I can see Thompson getting support (especially money) very quickly if he shows a real interest in running; simply, because he isn't one of the others.

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

Blarg.... Don't let the Thompson fan club beat you down. A fan club isn't a grass roots base.

A fan club collects autographs and swoons.... kind-of like they did for Georgie. Substance doesn't matter.

Thompson fans, let's hear your cheer.... Go Fred Go.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Oh, I guess it was a coincidence. It's just grassroots support. That's why a bunch of new people came here to praise a minor candidate after a post mentioning that candidate. People who have never posted here before. And who all came within a short period of time. And who made posts that look like they were written by the Thompson campaign. I guess that's just how grassroots support works now.

About how Gov. Vilsack announcing his support of Hillary will help her in Iowa.... not.

Vilsack didn't support our current gov. in the primaries and lost the turn-out-the-vote base. A more important question... will our new gov. Culver openly support a candidate. That is an endorsement that might help in Iowa.

About Bill lying under oath.... why was he under oath? Because he was being hounded about his personal life. Nothing to do with Whitewater.

Please, GOPers, take off the blinders. Based on your outrage at Clinton, how can you defend not only the GOP's current crop of morally-challenged candidates, but continue to view a lying Bush and his administration as anything but repugnent?

For myself, a person's personal life should stay that way. Perhaps since many Repubs evidently now feel that way also, are both sides closer to a consensus on choice?

And, while on the subject of life, how is it that the life of the unborn is so important, but the lives of our troops aren't? Why aren't they being trained and outfitted as necessary. Why are they being rotated like recycled garbage, and when recovering from injuries are left to rot in a sub-par environment?

Really, the rabid right have no shame.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Aussie view: Your use of the word "Hypocrites" pretty well sums up what most folks are thinking. The Iowa caucues could go either way, and don't count Hillary out in that state. These changes of primaries in Ca., Fl., and NY. would seem to favor Hillary and if true she will be well on the way to The White House. Add Mich. Ohio, and Penn., where Bubba is quite stong and will be a great help in these states in particular. I don't have the votes of each state and would like to know where i can find them. Thanks, lylepink

TG - yes lying under oath was Bill's big mistake, but what was he doing testifying in the first place? Republicans were 'disgusted' with his actions, and funnily enough now they are willing to excuse their own candidates for the same thing. Hypocrites.

John Edwards is NOT leading in Iowa. He is tied with Hillary and any lead is so small that it is overruled by the margin of error. John Edwards has been campaigning in Iowa for years - he practically lives there. Hillary has only begun campaigning there.

Do the math.

Everyone else in the country, John Edwards is stuck, and I do mean "stuck" in third place, and a very low third place at that.

John Edwards is not going to be the Dem nominee.

WesfromGA I think Chris ment how the hell is Obama actually going to change the tone of washington, refraim from negative campaigning or any of his other lofty nieve rhetorical goals.

Fred Thompson has been bashed a little about being Gay, I don't believe it for a second. Ask Lorrie Morgan, A country singer, who from all accounts, has been around the block, so to speak. He dated her for quite a time. Hillary is my favorite, and I just don't like the smear tactics used by some.

"Humans don't cause global warming, a jury of sixth graders at Trail Ridge Middle School concluded Thursday after hearing opposing arguments from their peers.

Are you smarter than a 6th grader?"

Are you a complete moron?

Who cares what 6th graders think? I care what the VAST MAJORITY of scientists think - and the VAST MAJORITY of scientists say that global warming is is caused by humans.

Fred Thompson is for real, and so is the incredible groundswell of backing that is building momentum for him every day.

Very good rankings! I think overall they are right on, although I don't know to whom to assign the #5 spot in the Rep. or Dem primaries. Rep. #5 could go to Huckabee or Gingrich, although it seem seems increasingly unlikely to me that the latter is really running. Also, not sure if Fred Thompson is serious about running. Dem. #5 could also go to Biden. On McCain -- I don't think his campaign is floundering but he is in a tough spot that I'm not sure he can escape from. On Romney - He has a lot of strengths but a lot of enemies. Depends on whether a preferable conservative candidate can arise. Guiliani is strong, I won't deny it, but his strength is based on an image. It's not that the image isn't, to some degree, based in reality. I just don't know if he can maintain it forever. Eventually, he'll have to answer serious questions about his positions and his plans for running the country. On Sam Brownback - Obviously money and name recognition are an issue. I agree that he's still a distance behind Romney, but he's running a smart campaign. Look for him to rise in the polls. On the Dem. nomination - I agree. I doubt the Top 3 will be challenged. There isn't an ideological void like there is in the Rep. party. The Rep. nomination is much more unstable - a Brownback or Huckabee, a Thompson or maybe even a Gingrich (or someone else) could very well supplant one or more of the top 3. Depends how it all plays out. It should be a lot of fun:)

"One other challenge awaits Obama in the coming months: Translating his lofty rhetoric of hope into real-life policy proposals."

Chris: Who's writing the talking points suggesting Obama is light on policy? It is not a fair criticism.

A comparison of the records of the two major candidates doesn't show that one is significantly "lighter" or less specific on policy than the other:

*Both Clinton and Obama have written books that spell out their policy views and political philosophies. (I don't believe either book was ghost-written.)

*Senator Clinton played some role in shaping policy in her husband's administration, but, with the exception of the health care task force, her level of involvement is not a matter of public record. However, her performance as a Senator leaves no doubt that she has mastered policy detail on a wide range of issues. Senator Obama was a state legislator in Illinois. His record there is open for scrutiny. Illinoisans closer to the scene can correct me, but I don't think anybody ever seriously challenged him as light on policy experience or specifics as a state legislator or U.S. Senate candidate. (Such a person would not relish debates, but Obama welcomed debates with Alan Keyes.)

*Both Senators have proposed legislation on a range of issues: Clinton addresses health, banking, foreign policy, energy, and education, among others; Obama addresses nuclear non-proliferation, energy, foreign policy, ethics reform, and education, among others.

*As of today, Senator Clinton is the sponsor of 24 major bills, 5 minor bills, and 4 amendments in the current session of Congress. The full Senate has acted on just one of these proposals, approving a bill to commend New York subway hero Wesley Autrey.

*As of today, Senator Obama is the sponsor of 16 major bills, 1 minor bill, and 8 amendments in the current session. The Senate has acted on just two of these proposals: It passed an Obama amendment to require lobbyists to disclose who they 'bundle' campaign contributions for; it rejected an Obama amendment to revise the way Homeland Security funds are distributed.

The two Senators are also similar in their legislative success:

*In the 109th Congress, Senator Clinton was the sponsor of 90 bills and 87 amendments and an original co-sponsor of 301 bills and 160 amendments. (638 in all)

*In the 109th Congress, Senator Obama was the sponsor of 66 bills and 86 amendments and an original co-sponsor of 161 bills and 125 amendments. (438 in all)

*In a ranking of number of bills sponsored in the 109th, Clinton's 90 is toward the top of the list. Obama's 66 is closer to the middle. Senators Chafee (8), Pryor (12), Shelby (12), and Byrd (13) are at the bottom. Senators Santorum (156), Feinstein (129), Frist (125), Schumer (98), and Brownback (97) are at the top.

*In his first two years in the Senate (109th), Obama sponsored or cosponsored 321 bills. Of these, 13 measures reached President Bush's desk--7 major bills and 6 minor bills. Obama was the lead sponsor of one of the seven major bills. President Bush signed Senator Obama's bill promoting bilateral assistance to and democratic reforms in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in December 2006. The bill had 4 GOP co-sponsors and 8 Democratic co-sponsors in the Senate (including Senator Clinton). Obama also sponsored 25 amendments that were adopted by the Senate and cosponsored another 64 amendments that were adopted by the Senate.

*In her first two years in the Senate (107th), Clinton sponsored or cosponsored 488 bills. Of these, 13 measures reached President Bush's desk--6 major bills and 7 minor bills. Clinton was the lead sponsor of none of the six major bills. Senator Clinton sponsored 13 amendments that were adopted by the Senate and cosponsored another 35 amendments that were adopted by the Senate.

Clinton: 13 of 488 bills she sponsored or cosponsored in her first two years in office became law (2.66%). 48 of 168 amendments she sponsored or cosponsored in her first two years were adopted by the Senate (28.57%).

Obama: 13 of 321 bills he sponsored or cosponsored in his first two years in office became law (4.05%). 89 of 258 amendments he sponsored or cosponsored in his first two years were adopted by the Senate (34.50%).

*In the 107th Congress, the 50-50 Senate was in Republican control from January to June 2001 and in Democratic control from June 2001 to November 2002, with a 1-seat advantage. The House had a 7-seat GOP majority.

*In the 109th Congress, the Senate was in Republican control with a 10-seat margin. The House was in Republican control with a 29-seat margin.

*There are many ways to interpret these numbers. However, I don't see in either Clinton or Obama a lack of policy detail or understanding of a range of important issues. Both candidates have put plenty of policy ideas forward by my count. Why aren't we talking about them?

Is blargy suggesting that it is a negative for a candidate to have loyal, informed, and enthusiastic support?

If you think think there is excitement now, wait until Senator Thompson makes his announcement!

BLARGY....Would you prefer 3,400??? ;- )

JackK, don's expect Blarg to understand grass roots support. Blargie will never believe a conservative movie actor turned national politician could ever win the white house. Wait, that already happened in 1980 and 1984 and it produced the largest blowouts in the history of U.S. presidential elections. Thompson has those same qualities.

Its called grass roots Blargy....why don't you go try to grow some with whoever you support

I won't even go into some of the outright slander I saw posted in some earlier comments concerning the possible candidacy of Fred Dalton Thompson, all I have to say is this:

The Dems with any degree of comon sense and objective thinking should be "TERRIFIED" of Fred winning the Republican nomination. And for those of you who are not....thank you, you will make our job much easier when he announces.

4 pro-Thompson posts in an hour. What a coincidence.

Until Fred hinted at a run, I didn't like any of the conservatives. Now I will be glad to help FDT get elected. Conservative voters had little to cheer about until FDT!

Run Fred Run

Fred is at #5 this week and as the word spreads, like a brushfire in 100mph winds, he'll be and is the #1 choice.

Many people remember this man for everything a president should be...what he must be.

The homework has already been done for anyone who needs/wants to know about Fred Thompson by volunteers who are ready to help in any way they can.

One of these places is www.draftfredthompson.com

There are over 3,000, that's right, three thousand volunteer members ready and willing to talk to everyone about who he is, what he believes in and how he will help us as the 44th President of The United States.

Well, why are you still reading this? Let's Do It!! ;- )

None of us knows what tomorrow may bring, but I know if former Senator Fred Thompson should decide to run, all conservatives can hold their heads high. Fred Thompson is in step with grassroots conservatives. Mr. Thompson knows the issues and can take command of any debate. At the same time, he has a likeable, commonsense appeal, that most citizens would find refreshing . He's a great communicator, and he doesn't take himself too seriously.

If one of the republican candidates above had his name in "lights" it would be Fred Thompson. Here is a man that even liberals concede is one of the smartest men to sit in the Senate, he's conservative enough to satisfy the requirements of conservatives, and a gifted enough orator to win us back our "Reagan Democrats." He is in a word, right down the middle of the (real) road. Not withstanding the likes of Pelosi, Schumer, Kennedy, Reid,Kucinich, who seem to favor a United Nations "Euro-influenced" government. I predict Fred will run. I predict Fred will win.

It seems that most of you are from the east coast. From here, the candidate fields look respectable, and a McCain v. Richardson election contest looks like it could offer the nation a civics lesson with more light than heat, with the lure of a competent president at the end. That potential, a campaign with more substance than fury, seems a possibility for several of the other projected contestants, too.

But so much can change, so fast. Primary voters in both parties are capable of overlooking competence for perceived political advantage. The narcissism of petty differences can take root. All thought can be lost in a wave of emotion generated by a clever advertisement.

I hope, then despair, then go back to work.

Tarheel - You are paying the price for the ravings of the wingnut over the past year. The name calling usually started in his posts. The civility is actually more noticeable, when he doesn't post.

As to what he said about the "professional journalists." They don't have agenda. They always present all of the information objectively. Right!

Do WSJ, Fox Noise and the Times' journalists get a free pass from the ravings about MSM bias of the wingnut? Seems so.

Zouk unlike you, the WSJ journalist didn't create historical facts, they were just slanted in the article. Slanted enough to give a false impression and distort history.

That Chicago city scandal with Mayor Daley sure says a lot about the Democratic Party's philosophy on political hiring and firing. The Chicago Democratic Party machine is actually the biggest in the nation, even larger than New York City.

And the head of the New York City Democratic Party was just convicted. New York Times. Former Democratic Leader in Brooklyn Is Convicted, By Anemona Hartocollis, Published: February 24, 2007. Clarence Norman Jr., leader of the Brooklyn Democratic Party, the biggest Democratic organization east of Chicago, since 1990, was convicted February 23 of coercion, grand larceny by extortion and attempted grand larceny by extortion in what prosecutors said was a scheme to shake down judicial candidates in exchange for party support.

bsimon - Good points. And typically, what could have been handled with little damage to an Administration has ballooned into a major problem, much of it because of hubris on their part.

But they do have legitimate points. What oversight role does the Congress have over the Administration when it comes to making policy? As a co-equal branch, the Congress can only exercise oversight when it comes to following or violating the law. Even though Sen. Leahy says that he is concerned not for the Department of Justice, but for the entire judicial system. Is that enough?

If one Branch exercises any control over another Branch, outside of what is historically accepted, then co-equality ceases to exist, doesn't it.

Everybody knows that Rove is up to shenanigans in everything he does. Were they illegal in this matter, or just politics? If you put Rove under oath, are the questioners limited to asking questions strictly germane to this topic? Or could he be asked anything? "Do you know anything about those Diebold voting machines in Ohio, Mr. Rove?" Wouldn't every Democrat just love to get Rove or Cheney under oath with no holds barred.

Colin mentioned the other day that there's little case law on this. There's a good reason why. Whoever loses, loses a lot. Not only for themselves, but for all of their successors. So, both Branches try to avoid having to have that Third Branch, the Courts, make the call. A compromise is usually the outcome. But this Administration called the shots for so long, they may not realize that.

Spin, SPin, SPIn, SPIN.

Tarheel, as you can see from just above, the WSJ has an agenda so a researched article by a professional journalist has less value than a frustrated blogger on a leftie site. the same can be said for anything that is reported in Wash times, fox news, national review, etc. all lies, everything ever printed. Only in Demland. and anything you say which doesn't comport wih the Lib worldview, is a lie. Now do you see how it works. That is because they are so open-minded and willing to listen and discuss, like in a Democracy, make that a Republic.

Have a good weekend, keep up the good fight.

Daley agrees to set up fund to compensate victims of hiring scandal, March 21, 2007, Chicago Sun Times, by Fran Spielman, City Hall Reporter.

Democratic Mayor Daley of Chicago agreed Wednesday to establish a $12 million fund to compensate victims of City Hall's rigged hiring system and abandon his five-year-old effort to vacate the federal Shakman decree banning political hiring. Daley's former patronage chief was convicted of rigging city hiring and promotions to benefit Daley supporters and workers for the Democratic Party. Plaintiff Michael Shakman said the city "should have fixed its hiring system a long time ago" -- long before Daley's patronage chief was convicted of rigging city hiring. The $12 million fund, disclosed last month by the Chicago Sun-Times, would be administered by federal hiring monitor Noelle Brennan. Brennan was appointed in August 2005 by a federal judge livid with the city for making a mockery of the Shakman decree, which was supposed to end political hiring and firing.

dumb richard - you are hilarious, you preface your comments by flatly stating you are not partisan and then launching into the most partisan diatribe of the day. that sets the stage for some real lame-brained analysis.
for example:
china dumps all the debt they hold - to whom, we owe them. they collect on it as we see fit or renege. they could sell it at a discount. why is that dumb on our part? It is short-sighted on their part if you are stupid enough to believe that the Us economy is in any trouble. It seems the chinese don't agree. they are voting with their pocketbooks and you are exhibiting your ignorance with your weightless opinion. why doesn't the worthless paper bother with the SS trust fund?

There is no motion toward a draft and will not be. the depleted military is sending additional brigades into combat. doesn't sound depleted to me. they are getting record reenlistments and recruiting.
Europe gets most of its oil from the mideast, not us. the pres is the leader of the military and all things foreign. It has always been this way until General Pelosi came along.

Are these more Dem facts that the rest of us don't share. It depends on the meaning of the word "facts" now doesn't it.

JimD, I agree there is way too much bashing in these posts. But KOZ's point is at times it makes zero sense. When I posted some New York Times and Bostom Globe articles on prominent Democrats that recently (2007) had been convicted of corruption and were going to jail, Drindl called me a crackhead and Judge Crater called it BS and unsubstantiated crap. Where did that come from? I didn't even comment on the articles, just let them speak for themselves. This is the response to documented court cases and jail sentences.

I don't see that over the top swearing by Republican supporters. There is definitely a different attitude that seemingly allows far left Dems to justify bashing someone no matter how many documented facts you produce. And as KOZ suggests, maybe that's their only recourse when faced with facts. It really says more about them, and their party, than the person they are bashing.

TG - One other point on your comment "In fact, the dismissals were unprecedented: Previous Presidents, including Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter, had both retained holdovers from the previous Administration and only replaced them gradually as their tenures expired. This allowed continuity of leadership within the U.S. Attorney offices during the transition"

It is more unprecendented to not replace all U.S. Attorneys as administrations change. Jimmy Carter replaced all but one - now a Bankruptcy Judge in the Central District of Illinois (Danville).

You should realize that it is administratively impossible to remove all at once. Even if an Administration announces up front that all will be replaced, the changes actually take place gradually. Most of them are smart enough to know that if an opposition party President is elected in November, they will be gone sometime after the next January 20th. So, they start getting their ducks in a row the day after the election. Every once in a while one does actually have to be booted out. That's usually a ploy on their part to create headlines to position themselves for a run for some political office.

The purge in the middle of an Administration is what is unprecedented.

veniceetc, crate, zook

Get off your soap boxes, stop the verbal jousting and look past the end of your noses.

My comments are not partisan.

Here is the way it is. If this spineless congress doesn't take control of Iraq from the Current Occupant, we are headed for a serious real, honest to God, big-time war in the Middle east. Not a half baked civil war that we are stuck in up to our eye balls

1. Our military is depleted. Who cares who caused it. It is the way it is. You guys going to sign up or let the Current Occupant draft your kids?
2. those folks in the Middle East control alot of the OIL that our country runs on. They won't beat us militarily. They will beat us economically.
3. If China gets skitzy (or worse they decide to take advantage of us getting dragged into a broader war in the middle east-more likely) and dumps all of our debt they are holding, the US goes out of business. In bankers parlance, the US government's 'full faith' guarantees will not be worth the paper they are printed on.

Grow up, stop being naive, and stop bickering. This stupid war is very dangerous. If we let the foreign policy illiterates in the White House continue on their merry way, the great American Experiment in Democracy is over.

And right now this spineless congress is feasting on Pork. Instead of confronting the Republican political brinksmanship.

Check.....Check mate.

anon says, about US attys
"It's not cut and died. It's all very subjective, and a great deal of leeway is given to the exercise of prosecutorial discretion."

True enough. Given the case at hand, there is enough circumstantial evidence to make a thinking person wonder whether or not Justice & the AG are giving Congress the straight dope. The WH continues to act as though they have something to hide. Seems like if they'd just let Congress play at oversight for a couple hearings, the whole thing will blow over. By fighting the subpoenas, the WH is making a mountain out of a molehill. They'd have been smarter to march Rove up to the hill upon the first invitation & instructed him to invoke exec privilege on the stand, rather than have this standoff in the press.

that was me, the good noname.

It's the bomb that will bring us together

since we're quoting Morrisey.
Roo - did you mean edwards when you said the 1st gay man? He may be extremely effiminate but probably not too gay. do I have to go to Gray's rehab now?

You create history. Get called on it. And ignore it.

Yet you demand others to answer the questions, or to provide facts.

Those that create history have little credibility - anonymous

Ignorant coward - on occasion you actually say something of worth and intelligence. then in another instance you go off the deep end. now I am wondering if Mr no-name is one individual or not. Are you just being peevish while refusing to even invent a moniker for yourself? Exactly what is the point of this? when you finally get a name I will be happy to humiliate you fully.

"can you please invent seme Liberal facts "

Take him up on it, TG. He invents history salted with false factoids all of the time.

drindl--"I don't know -- why not Fred Thompson? We could have a really interesting election -- the first woman, the first black man, or the first gay man for president, anyone?"

Morrissey would be happy, at least :)

America/
Land of the free/
They say/
But where the president/
Is never black, female or gay/
And until that day/
You've got nothing to say to me/
...

TG- The WSJ just may have an agenda in what they are printing on this. Surprised? I'm not.

It goes back to the beginning of the system. U.S. Attorneys are political animals, they are political appointees, they do not become angels when they raise their right hand to take the oath. We just hope that they administer justice fairly. Most do, but not all do. And Party doesn't make any difference when you have almost 100 of them. There are bound to be some practicing politics.

You should be worried about what the other 85 are doing than still quibbling Clinton, Web Hubbell and company. That's history. The other 85 are still in place as the most powerful non-elected Federal officials in their geographic areras.

bsimon - "Selectively enforcing the law would be both illegal and unethical." Not really. Prosecutors do it all the time. It is called "exercising prosecutorial discretion". No prosecutor has enough resources to pursue all crime, so they choose what to pursue.

You qualified it well later on with "The President and AG do not get to tell the prosecutors which cases to pursue and drop. For instance "Lay off Randy Cunningham" is not ok. "Focus on immigration instead of corruption" is ok. "Focus on corrupt Dems but not corrupt Repubs" is not ok." Correct, general direction comes from the top, obvious prosecutions that flow Administration program initiatives are routine.

When a sensitive case comes up though, the U.S. Attorneys do go to the AG. The AG could advise that he thinks a case lacks litigative merit, when he's really short-circuiting a prosecution. Or, he could advise to prosecute even if the case does lack litigative merit, if it suits his political purposes.

It's not cut and died. It's all very subjective, and a great deal of leeway is given to the exercise of prosecutorial discretion.

This is not a Republican thing. It historically has worked the same for both Republicans and Democrats.

Zouk said "always a Dem method - kill the messenger, slur their motivations, hope no one notices you ignored the point entirely" The Dems certainly do not have exclusive claim to that method - which is why many of us in the middle despise both parties.

TG - I don't FEEL those facts are fair. can you please invent seme Liberal facts I can use. the global warming model should help you invent science we can use for political ends. If all else fails, take a slanted poll and report is as news on the front page of the NYT.

I bet the slurs about the owner of the facts will follow (WSJ editors eat babies, etc.), all the while ignoring the claims themselves. always a Dem method - kill the messenger, slur their motivations, hope no one notices you ignored the point entirely. but I said this already above.

'I actually have the utmost respect for the troops as evidenced by my belief that they should get all the resources they need'

liar. it's 4 years later and they still don't have the equipment they need and you've never uttered a peep about it because you really don't care. everything is a pose. you're a complete phony.

"but when bush fires 8 who are not doing their job - not prosecuting pot sellers, not prosecuting illegal immigrants, not prosecuting Dem political cheats, etc., all of a sudden it is a big deal."

Your outrage would carry more weight if those attorneys had not received good reviews from their bosses prior to being fired. Atty Iglesias, among others, had been commended for competence in job reviews. If they're being fired for poor performance, the AG should have no trouble demonstrating in what ways they've underperformed. Given the shifting stories of why they've been fired, there appears to be more to the story than 'they're not doing their jobs.'

I found this instructive from WSJ:

As everyone once knew but has tried to forget, Mr. Hubbell was a former partner of Mrs. Clinton at the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock who later went to jail for mail fraud and tax evasion. He was also Bill and Hillary Clinton's choice as Associate Attorney General in the Justice Department when Janet Reno, his nominal superior, simultaneously fired all 93 U.S. Attorneys in March 1993. Ms. Reno--or Mr. Hubbell--gave them 10 days to move out of their offices.

At the time, President Clinton presented the move as something perfectly ordinary: "All those people are routinely replaced," he told reporters, "and I have not done anything differently." In fact, the dismissals were unprecedented: Previous Presidents, including Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter, had both retained holdovers from the previous Administration and only replaced them gradually as their tenures expired. This allowed continuity of leadership within the U.S. Attorney offices during the transition.

Equally extraordinary were the politics at play in the firings. At the time, Jay Stephens, then U.S. Attorney in the District of Columbia, was investigating then Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski, and was "within 30 days" of making a decision on an indictment. Mr. Rostenkowski, who was shepherding the Clinton's economic program through Congress, eventually went to jail on mail fraud charges and was later pardoned by Mr. Clinton.

Also at the time, allegations concerning some of the Clintons' Whitewater dealings were coming to a head. By dismissing all 93 U.S. Attorneys at once, the Clintons conveniently cleared the decks to appoint "Friend of Bill" Paula Casey as the U.S. Attorney for Little Rock. Ms. Casey never did bring any big Whitewater indictments, and she rejected information from another FOB, David Hale, on the business practices of the Arkansas elite including Mr. Clinton. When it comes to "politicizing" Justice, in short, the Bush White House is full of amateurs compared to the Clintons.

Let's get some actual facts straight - no president ever fired ALL attornies upon arriving in office. It is usually done over time in a gradual fashion. clinton came aboard and fired all but one in an effort to disguise the firing of two in particular, the ones investigating him and his donors. Perfectly legal and since it was a Dem covering up corruption, no one noticed.

but when bush fires 8 who are not doing their job - not prosecuting pot sellers, not prosecuting illegal immigrants, not prosecuting Dem political cheats, etc., all of a sudden it is a big deal. gonzalez clearly messed this up by not coming out forcefully and simply stating, they were fired because they sucked. but honesty has never been appreciated by Dems. they prefer the conspiracy and shady tricks approach.

Ignorant coward - you should at least post links to information you plaigerize from other sources. Or perhaps your real name is Joe Biden? and I always thought you were eleanor clift.

For those of you with an interest, here's an unscientific poll on the divorce question:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17662271/site/newsweek

Zoukie: Get your history straight. both Dollar Bill and the Shrub cleaned house when they got in. But the fired eight were actually the Shrub's own selections. It's just that they were not as loyal "Bushies" as his political folks wanted. It seems like they recognized they represented all of the people in their region, not just representing the party of the person who appointed them.

In fact, one had the audacity to go after the prominent Corrupt Cunningham, an actual Republican! Will the Shrub go after Chief Justice John Roberts, if Roberts doesn't vote the way he wants? There's probably something in the Patriot Act that will allow Little Al to say that the Shrub has the power to call "do-over" about his Supreme Court appointment.

DD - you seem to skip all nuance - unusual for a Kerry guy or gal. I said that dying is certainly part of the military way of life. It is sad but true. It is better than civilians getting killed. If it goes to advance a worthy cause, it is often worth it. Of course each individual would need to decide what causes are worthy and deserving of lives.

I actually have the utmost respect for the troops as evidenced by my belief that they should get all the resources they need, no strings attached, and more if desired. I also beleive they should finish the mission and win the war. this proves that the goal was worthy and that the sacrifices mean something.

altenative views seem frail in claiming support for the troops. mostly mouthing for the camera, as usual.

there would be no 'emergency' spending bill if proper procedures had been followed in the first place and money for the occupation had been included in the budget.

$500 billion and counting..,, but wait, the oil will pay for it. won't cost us a thing, rmember? LOL

$195 million a day...

One day in Iraq could close the financing gap for interoperable communications in 41 small cities, 36 mid-sized cities, or 6 large cities so that federal, state and local first responders can talk to one another during an emergency.

One day in Iraq could purchase 780 fire trucks for improving local emergency response capabilities.

One day in Iraq could employ 4,919 fire fighters, 4,222 police patrol officers, or 7,052 paramedics and emergency medical technicians for one year each.

One day in Iraq could double the federal budget for nuclear reactor safety and security inspections to ensure that these potential terrorist targets are adequately protected.v

One day in Iraq could pay for 1,101 additional border patrol agents to better guard our borders against potential terrorists.

One day in Iraq could provide 9,750 port container inspection units to detect hazardous materials being trafficked into the country.

One day in Iraq could provide 1,332 explosive trace detection portals for airport screening of passengers, as recommended by the 9/11 Commission.

One day in Iraq could provide 6,290 local law enforcement agencies a bomb-detecting robot.

One day in Iraq could provide 4,875 narcotics vapor and particle detectors.

When the books close on March 31, a much larger story than this will be told. In terms of donors, it really looks like Clinton, Edwards, Romney and McCain are honestly the top tiers. But we will see when the actual figures comes out. I'm guessing Romney and Clinton top the list.

Roo: As I've previously advocated for the narrow, well-defined bills that the 110th has already passed I agree with you completely. But, this is politics as it is practiced in the US Congress. Not apologizing for it as it is what it is and nothing we say or do here will change that. In the scheme of things I regard it as the means to a valuable (at many levels) end. And the Code Pinkers and other like-minded citizens agree but wish they'd have promised more pork just to end the war.

Now, if they continue to drift in this direction (Bridges to Nowhere, anyone?) they deserve to be kicked out post-haste, an intra-party sentiment you'll never hear from the Calcified Ones.

TG says
"There is just no scandal here. What was unlawful, illegal or unethical?"

Selectively enforcing the law would be both illegal and unethical. If Gonzales and/or his people fired prosecutors because the prosecuted Repubs or failed to indict Dems in a timely fashion there is certainly an ethical problem, potentially a legal problem. At a bare minimum, WH aides and/or AG Gonzales have misled Congress - a crime in and of itself. Yes, the Atty's serve at the President's whim, nobody disputes that. The President gets to nominate replacements & direct their efforts. The President and AG do not get to tell the prosecutors which cases to pursue and drop. For instance "Lay off Randy Cunningham" is not ok. "Focus on immigration instead of corruption" is ok. "Focus on corrupt Dems but not corrupt Repubs" is not ok.

Make sense?

"Clinton fires all 92. So you can arbitrarily fire 92 but you can't fire 8 if you have a reason - like they aren't implementing your policies."

Wrong. Why do people keep repeating this as if it's some kind of valid point? (Oh, right, to be intentionally misleading. Now I remember.)

Let's go over this again. Clinton fired all the US Attorneys when he took office. This is because those attorneys were appointed by his predecessor. All presidential appointees are fired when the White House switches parties. Reagan fired all the attorneys. So did Bush II. There is absolutely nothing wrong with firing all attorneys upon taking office.

That is in no way comparable to what Bush did recently. He fired a few attorneys because he thought they weren't prosecuting Democrats enough. That's a problem. The Department of Justice does not exist solely to serve the political goals of whichever party is in power. That's not justice.

I personally applaud pork from politicians. who else would know what projects can benefit the general welfare in their districts. as long as it gets voted on and is transparent, I encourage all the pork you can eat. this cumulative amount of money is peanuts compared to SS, meicare and medicaid.

BUT - to attach it to an emergency military spending bill in an effort to garner wavering votes is not proper.

I will not go into why this should not be an emergency spending bill but instead be part of the regular "on-the-books" funding.

'proud'

are you a parrot? 'general pelosi'? sound like you've been listening to waaaay to much sean hannity and rush.

as far as zouk is concerned, i didn't say he said that today. but he did say it. ask him. he doesn't give a damn about the military. if they get killed, well that's part of their job, he says. too bad.

Judge C. Crater--"Is this a new Faux News talking point? Sounds like it. As if the R's would be doing 1% (HA!) of what the D's are doing now (which, unsurprisingly, involves a trivial amount of pork compared to the R's excesses) to try to stop the war."

Stop being an apologist. Because They did it too--yes, to much greater degree--does not excuse any actions.

1) It is completely irresponsible, immoral and most particularly against their own campaign promises. Each bill should be well-defined, narrow in scope and should contain no unrelated provisions.

2) It gives Republicans 'gotchas' that can be used to divert attention from important matters.

DD - what are you talking about? zouk never said he doesn't care about the troops.

You've obviously been listening to general Pelosi's talking points for too long. Time to take a break until Olberman comes on and you can reload.

DD

I think if Rove et al testify under oath they should be held accountable if they lie. Do I think they should testify? Not sure, I really don't think there is a scandal here. As Zouk points out. Clinton fires all 92. So you can arbitrarily fire 92 but you can't fire 8 if you have a reason - like they aren't implementing your policies. Well what is the reason for replacing all of them - so they will implement your policies, be loyal to you. And by the way, I am not saying Clinton was wrong. It was his prerogative to do so. It is the executive branch afterall. Do I wish that the US attorneys office was not political - sure but that isn't reality. Reality is that each admin has different policies and laws that they want to be sure are enforced. There is just no scandal here. What was unlawful, illegal or unethical? Please articulate it for me because maybe I am missing something.

Also, your response to what were pretty valid points by Zouk is just basically to insult him personally.

And what evidence is that? Scientific evidence, the kind you hate?

You also said, 'Mars is ALSO warming,' so you agree Earth is?

Conservatives Take on Bush Over Presidential Authority
A group of conservatives, including a former Republican congressman, are taking on President Bush over what it calls his abuse of power.
http://onthehillblog.blogspot.com/2007/03/conservatives-take-on-bush-over.html

'I don't care how pols treat their wives'

obviously. I don't think you care m