http://geo.ya.com/yojik/sjx/01-22.html granny xxx

I'm not sure what the 'Whale Chase' amounts up to, Mitt has more endorsements over all then anyone on the Republican side. In fact, from endorsements in the U.S. Senate and House combined, he has more than anyone either party, and his state of MA doesn't even have GOP! Go Mitt.

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

Yousif,

If you want a 2 state system, you better vote for John Edwards. He wants 2 America's!

I'd like to see a President, George Bush should have in 2002, break ties with the UN and form a seperate organization "United Democratic Nations". An org. that's you know, legite. Where Syria doesn't run human rights and communist nations are kicked to the curb.

kingofzouk--"Democrats 7 times as likely to be investigated."

Please take a look at the ratio of investigations vs. indictments and convictions. I would like to say that you will be surprised but I know that you already know perfectly well how that ratio plays out.

Your opinions I have a problem with are these quotes from you, blarg: That wasn't a typo. That was a misstatement of the facts to meet your agenda. I accused you of falsifying stats because you were. I was so annoyed by your long list of business types. That was pointless.

The stats were not falsified. The actual stat that up to 8 out of 10 new jobs are created by small businesses is actully more impressive than what I said. The growth of our economy and employment rests with small businesses. Why would I intentionally leave out the most inpressive stat? It's ludicrous to say I would intentionally hurt my own argument.

If I had a Republican agenda I wouldn't be in absolute, total agreement with the unanimous vote of the Democratic senators for the tax breaks for small businesses.

The length of what you called a pointless list was intentional. It frames the concept of what a small business is and that there are dozens right nearby. So before someone makes an argument that small businesses should not get any tax breaks they should put a face and name to the businesses that are right in their own communities. Then they should decide if Joe's Hardware doesn't deserve those tax breaks. We can continue this the next time I see your name posted.

I accused you of falsifying stats because you were. (Or, as you said, you made a mistake and typed the wrong description of the number. Either way, the number was wrong.) I saw your number and thought it didn't sound right, so I looked up the statistics and then corrected you. I was more rude than I intended to be, partially because I was so annoyed by your long list of business types. That was pointless.

You're still acting as if I'm against these tax breaks, even though I specifically said that I'm not. I don't even know what point you're trying to argue. You brought up these tax breaks out of nowhere with no explanation, then accuse me and others of disagreeing with you about them. And now you're insulting me because of an opinion that I don't even have.

Blarg, why would you accuse me of falsefying stats if you didn't have a problem with my argument. I mistated a common statistic that small business is responsible for 80% of employees. It actually happens to be 80% of new employees. And they still employ 50% of all employees. Pretty impressive stats for small businesses, wouldn't you agree? I guess not. And the misstatement had no bearing either way on the validity of my argument. And what agenda? I'm a conservative Independent that strongly supports a minimum wage increase as long as it includes the tax breaks for small business that were passed 94-3 by the Senate. Since Democratic senators agree basically unanimously with me do they have the same agenda as I do? At least they can agree with Republicans sometimes. You seem incapable of accepting anything Republican. That's a sad attitude and shows a real agenda. And I actually thought you might have an independent thought now and then. Go Tarheels. NCAA champs!

Why am I arguing against tax breaks for small businesses? I don't remember saying I opposed them. I don't have a problem with tax breaks in general, and I definitely support small businesses over large corporations.

It's possible that these particular tax breaks are bad for some reason. (Like they're excessively large, or require weird conditions, or something.) But I don't know enough about them to have an opinion on them.

OK, I'm sorry that while typing quickly I mixed up 80% of employees with up to 80% of new employees. And thank you, Blarg, for pointing it out. But, the corrected stats are even more compelling for my argument. Now what was your argument against the tax breaks for small businesses that employ 50% or our workers and create up to 80% of new jobs? Tax breaks that were passed by the Senate 94-3.

That wasn't a typo. That was a misstatement of the facts to meet your agenda. You could apologize for getting the number wrong, but instead you attack me for pointing out that you were wrong. Considering how long you must have spent typing that super-long list of businesses, you could have put a little more effort into the part of your post that supports your argument. Whatever your argument was supposed to be.

Then I went out to dinner. I don't actually spend all of my time here, though I'm sure it can seem like that.

Whatever works for you, tarheel. Me, I prefer women.

Silence. Complete silence. Blarg and anonymous want an argument for a political position and I give them one on minumum wage. The only response I get is you got a stat wrong, which didn't affect the argument anyway. Interesting. I guess they agree with my position. Wish they'd say so instead of voting with their silence. Best part of it, Blarg gave me the web site that proved my argument. The sweet irony. Well, back to posting Democratic party scandals.

William - I'm not really reading it. Only until the pages stick together... wink wink...

Whats wrong withreading Guns and Ammo?

well, you wouldnt feel that way if you weren't blinded by your LIB sensibilities! You should know by now that i will never play your 'logical' Dem game by the 'rules.' i do not feel compelled to use logic when arguing with a Lib, because they are tree huggers who hate America. instead, i wil just keep spewing my monosyllabic, simplistic stupidity until you Give up trying to convince me of any thing, and I can go back to waiting for the Apocalypse, scratching my butt and reading Guns & Ammo.

I think that is a key point of difference between us Zouk. We disagree in large part on how to interpret the last six years. You believe that Republicans have, for the most part, run a clean, competant government and done a good job. Therefore, for you, Occam's Razor leads you to the conclusion that fits your thinking: Dems are more corrupt than Republicans.

For me, I've watched the last six years and felt a growing sense of disgust. I wouldn't have believed it possible that I would have to watch more scandals from the Bush Administration than I witnessed during the Clinton years, but I have. I believe the worst about Bush these days and MY Occam's Razor leads me to believe that the most obvious explanation after watching the Bush Administration OPENLY ANNOUNCE their intention to use, for example, 9/11 as a political wedge issue in the 2002, 2004, and 2006 elections is that it is not at all unlikely that they would choose to politicize the justice department as well.

Don't make me go back and pull up the ridiculous gas price conspiracy you nitiwits floated all over creation right before the last election. Remember the one where cheney called your local Exxon every morning and told them what to charge for gasoline, right up until the election and then let them raise them back to normal prices.

some of your Lib friends actually fought me on this one. Just another example in the long line of conspiracies, economic ignorance and battiness.

Just starting reading the posts. Why is Charley Rangel holding up the minimum wage increase when the Senate voted 94-3 for the increase and tax breaks? I think Charley's a little drunk with power, don't you? The Democrats in the Senate, basically unanimously, agreed the 8 billion in tax breaks were necessary to help the small businesses absorb the minimum wage increase and continue to be the number one creator of jobs in America.

Blarg, what is your point again? My first sentence should have read "Up to 80% of all new workers work for small businesses." This figure IS included in your link. If up top 8 out of 10 new workers are generated by small businesses, we need to support these job creators with tax breaks to handle the minimum wage increase. But, the argument is still true if 50 per cent of all workers work for legally-defined small businesses. We need to help the small busineess that employ 50 per cent of our workers. The Senate voted to 94-3 in favor of the tax breaks.

Your problem with my argument is a typo made during a quick response? I expected better from you, Blarg. I actually agree with many of your posts. I expect others to denigrate posts because of typos or quick responses that may mangle a stat or two. I am all for the minimum wage increase. But, what is your problem with those tax breaks for the small businesses that employ 50% of all of our workers and create up to 8 out of 10 new jobs?

I simply used Occam's razor and used the most obvious explanation of the facts offered. you all instead used the most contorted and cynical conspiracy theory to avoid characterization of your creed. I happen to know in my heart and based on my feelings, that Dems are at least 4 times as crooked. that wonderful mathematical study allowed me to offer the actual numeric value for Dem crookedness. now my heart and my head are in complete concurrance. Phony numbers and feelings based arguments, I may become a Dem yet. but really, standing up for that study in any way just completely undercuts anything you have to offer. I presume since it is a Repub, that he is considered guilty now and worthy of frog-marching. Not like cold cash Jefferson who maintains the presumption of innocence. Let me try to explain this one using my feelings.

I FEEEEEL that Rs are more corrupt, despite all the news stories and the numerical evidence above, no matter how flimsy, so when one gets accused of anything, I KNOW he is guilty. does that work for you? Can I go to the Dem club and smoke now?

The population question will be fully satisfied at the end of the study when they examine conviction rates....unless the same charges are conveniently dragged out and recycled in October 2007. I'd guess that by then doing that would be the political equivalent of shooting yourself in the foot as it would remind everyone why Toady Gonzales was forced to resign. In fact, his replacement will probably officially order than all charges be dropped or conduct some kind of expedited review overseen by Congress. Another talking point ("D's 7 times as corrupt as R's!!!")to be periodically dragged out of the dustbin of history by the Calcified Ones.

JCrozier: the comment above had Gonzo giving up the power on the appointment of the "interim" prosecutor, not the permanent one.

First, it's the President's power the Attorney General executes it, so to speak. If the comment was correct, he is ceding appointment authority, but only in a very limited way. He is not ceding the President's firing authority in any way.

"It could be because only Dems are investigated or it could be because only Dems are crooked or any number of combinations of these and all other factors."

That's true. And yet you immediately assumed that it's because Democrats are 7x as corrupt as Republicans. That conclusion was based entirely on your own partisan bias, ignoring some very important facts. (Such as Gonzales firing prosecutors who didn't go after Democrats enough.) Is that the type of rigorous analysis that would pass muster at your 'school'?

KOZ,

We have current events to boost the study. The fact that Gonzales has given up his authority to hire/fire prosecutors begs the question: Why did he give that authority up? If he had done nothing wrong, then why would he voluntarily give up that job responsibility and power?

The answer is that he DID do something wrong. He, at the behest of the White House, misused the justice department for political purposes. It is the only logical explanation.

To use another tortured analogy. When you're playing poker, and you know that you're beat, you fold the hand to retain some of your chips rather than going all-in and losing all of them. Gonzales knows he's beaten in this hand. He got caught doing something he wasn't supposed to do, and he is trying to keep the rest of his chips (in the form of his job) by giving up the chips he's already got in the pot (his ability to hire/fire at will). He'll fold and hope to live to play another hand in the tournament.

It is too soon to say anything with certainy, but my guess is that we're going to get additional details about Gonzales' misconduct coming out within the next few weeks and months.

At this point, want to agree to just let this drop and move on while we wait for real world events to give us more to argue on?

Crozier, I admitted all that that study permits one to admit. It is designed in a flawed manner and would be kicked out of dissertation review at my school.

all you can properly conclude from their method is that the populations differ. you can make no conclusions about why they differ. It could be because only Dems are investigated or it could be because only Dems are crooked or any number of combinations of these and all other factors. It is silly to draw a causal relation ship based on two populations differing. they try to shield themselves by comparing it to racial profiling and say the numbers exceed even that. but they do not even touch the issues of the background percentage of black/white criminals. Are there more of one than the other in the general population? this question must go unanswered here because these two bozos seem to have no understanding of math.

According to the Small Business Association FAQ, small businesses employ half of all private sector employees.

http://app1.sba.gov/faqs/faqIndexAll.cfm?areaid=24

Tarheel, do you have a citation for that 80% statistic? Or would citing real numbers take valuable time away from repeatedly making the same Mark Rich post and listing types of business?

those two "scientists" were the same ones who compared average temperatures in July to average temeratures in the previous January, found them to be different, using some pretty cool statistics you know, and went so far as to surmise the world is warming extremely fast, like about 50 degrees in only 6 months. yikkes. Let's publish and sign on to the union of concerned scientists.

this is not your grandfather's science. finding a difference is NOT nearly the same as finding a cause. sometimes the cause is right in front of your nose. Just read about Marion Barry if you doubt Dems are corrupt and try to hide it and often do.

local basketball team = local basketball star (typo)

Whoops. I forgot that the local basketball team for the Washington Post is Gilbert Arenas. Substitute Gilbert Arenas' name for Vince Carter's in the above analogy.

KOZ,

Stop me if you've heard this one before: "There are three types of lies. Lies, damn lies, and statistics." The reason that cliche is so popular is because statistics without context can say whatever you want them to say. Numbers do not exist in a vacuume, no matter how much you may want them to.

Your response to any attempt to put context and explanation around the numbers is to disregard anyone, be it Andrew Sullivan, Molly Irvins or Paul Krugman, who disagrees with your stated point of view as biased and partisan, and then reiterate the same numbers as before. Unfortunately, context matters.

Let's say that I am a basketball fan, and someone tells me that Vince Carter just went out and scored 60 points. I might be very impressed, but then I would be a lot less impressed if I found out he shot 23-70 from the field en route to those 60 points. It doesn't change the fact that Vince scored 60 points, but it does put the achievement into proper context. He needed 70 shot attempts at 33% accuracy to get there, which makes the final number of points he scored nowhere near as impressive.

Your response is to simply ignore the other factors that play into this discussion by putting on blinders as to WHY seven times more Democrats were indicted in the last six years than Republicans. That is no different than simply stating that Vince Carter scored 60 points over and over again and ignoring the 70 shot attempts needed that would put the achievement into proper context.

tarheel: Thank you!

The comment section on the Epluribusmedia site captures all my questions

http://scoop.epluribusmedia.org/story/2007/2/16/22142/2142

"Anyone else here see a perfect storm a'brewin'?"

You mean like in the run-up to the 2006 election, where Rove and Zouk had all of the numbers that the rest of us didn't see and understand?

"Our ongoing study of the Bush Justice Department (to be published in 2008) investigates the implications of the Bush/Ashcroft/Gonzales Justice Department's blended religious -fundamentalist and neo-conservative rhetorical vision."

I think the opening paragraph pretty much reveals what two desperate communications professors are trying to (not)hide - their contempt for bush. most researchers make some attempt to hide their political agenda. Maybe this is how you get published in the comm dept now. how about you start by getting a real degree.

BTW, there is no methodology that proves this persecution is politically motivated. One would have to compare it to a control group to do this. what they did show was that there is a definite difference between the two groups.

Well, we have all known for a long time that Dems are much more corrupt than GOPS, where is the news? Only 7 times, that is better than I expected.

I always love when Libs try on a little math and end up embarrassing themselves with their shoddy treatment.

now show me the ivins numbers to amuse myself. Or else concede that "zouk is often right"

Here you go anon: In support of my position on the minimum wage and related tax breaks for small businesses.

Does anyone on this blog drive by Main Street America? 80 per cent of workers work for small businesses. They need the tax breaks. Don't you see these SMALL local hardware stores, bakers, barber shops, hair salons, family-owned restaurants, small ethnic restaurants, dry cleaners, shoe stores, resale shops, carpet cleaners, office cleaners, small trucking companies, auto repair shops, towing companies, small motels, printers, small furniture stores, small credit unions, upholstery shops, dog kennels, landscapers, local pizza places, small mortgage companies, small used car dealerships, small manufacturers, tree trimmers/yard workers, small electrical or plumbing shops, laundromats, local video stores, temp agencies, car washes, small engine repair, glass and screen repair, painters, carpenters, small contractors, local real estate agencies, butchers, child care services, liquor stores, photo studios, housekeeping services, storage yards, independent insurance agents, small local grocery stores, local gyms and health clubs, small dairies, specialty shops, music shops, antique shops, auction services, small cab companies, small movie houses, small welding shops, flower shops, tatoo shops, small computer repair businesses, bowling alleys, home inspectors, sign shops, local book stores, family-owned pizza places, sports bars, home improvement services, parking garages, small moving and storage businesses, and, well you get the idea, I hope.

Why would we hurt all these businesses who need the tax breaks to continue employing the minumum wage workers? Or are most of you against the idea just because the Republicans are pushing for the small business tax breaks? The Senate vote was 94-3. Apparently SOME Democrats see the advantage of keeping these small businesses in business. Why is Charley Rangel fighting this tooth and nail?

J. Crozier: got it, thanks. The money quote:

"Iglesias, as reported in the media, seems to have been fired for not investigating/indicting enough Democratic elected officials in a timely manner (before the 2006 elections) and the same would appear to apply to Charlton, Cummins and McKay.

Conversely, Bogden, Charlton, Lam, McKay and Wang also all appear to have indicted at least one too many Republicans."

Anyone else here see a perfect storm a'brewin'?

tarhill: Need I remind you that "Scooter" Libby was one of the lawyers for Marc Rich.

If you think andrew sullivan is conservative, you probably think ivins is moderate. why do you need the label to warrant what you say. can't you ever just deal with facts on their face and not worry about who said them? the fact is Dems have been investigated 7 times as much. you can try to explain this away with all your wacky theories about who's out to get whom, but the most plausible and defensible explanation is that Dems are crooks, 7 times as crooked as GOPS. spin all you want that is the fact. cite me some numbers to disprove it if you can. Or remain in your tin-foil hat consipracy world with zero plausibility.

Typical of your retort is to cite a extremist lefty columnist who quotes the numers "allegations often vanished". As someone who deals with stats every day and proving cause and effect, I am not familiar with the exact cardinality of the "often" claim in numerics. this sounds like there was one or two and the writer wanted to make it sound like more. go ahead, get me the numbers and I will believe. Until then, get a grip on reality.

Imagine how the spectrum has shifted when sullivan is a respected conservative and kruggman tells the truth. If this is how you want to wage your arguments, I will not bother with facts or numbers any longer. they are clearly inappropriate for you. Perhaps you should debate with Ann coulter, although at least she uses facts portrayed in a certain light. you Libs are completely in the dark. a fact-free zone. your preacher, al gore, must be proud.

"Gonzales has now agreed to relinquish all hiring decisions of interim U.S. Attorneys - an astonishing concession to the gravity of the charges."

So, does this simply remove the middleman and put the authiority back in the White House? [Rove?]

Or, was that in reference to the proposed change to the Patriot Act, returning the process to where the Courts have a say in appointments within the Executive Branch? [Gonzo actually had a legitimate concern about Separation of Powers in this process. Everybody has just turned a blind eye towards the Separation and Conflict of Interest issues for decades.]

Here is the direct link to the study in question for any who want to look over the methodology or the findings.

http://www.epluribusmedia.org/columns/2007/20070212_political_profiling.html

http://tailrank.com/1484497/U-S-Attorney-Politicization-Study-Now-Online

Judge,

This is what came up from Google. It contains a link to the study itself that shows the politicization of the justice department at the top that you can click on, along with a bunch of other links if you want to look up additional follow-up information. Full Disclosure: This is my first time visiting this particular site so I do not know what its liberal/conservative slant is.

tarheel: Do you have anything positive to post about parties other than the Democrats?

Virtually all of what you post could be considered RNC negative research.

Surely, there must be something positive which you can present on the party and positions which you support.

Judge,

I'll see if I can find the study that Krugman referenced.

J.

From the current top story on this site:
"The eight prosecutors were fired last year after President Bush told Gonzales in October he had received complaints that some U.S. attorneys had not energetically pursued voter-fraud investigations involving elections that Republicans lost."

President Bush tells the Attorney General to fire people who don't spend enough time investigating Democrats. Democrats are investigated 7 times as often as Republicans. So according to Zouk, the only possible answer is that the Democrats are more corrupt. Not because the Republicans control the investigation process.

And Gonzales may be YOUR most trusted legal official, but he isn't OUR most trusted legal official. Hell, just today the Washington Post ran a story where he took responsibility for poor conduct by the justice department under his watch. The whole "mistakes were made" line. As more details come out I am confident that we'll see greater and greater evidence that my "wild eyed conspiracy" is pretty damn close to the mark.

J. Crozier: interesting; do you have any other links besides what Krugman has written? It'd be interesting to see a graphical quantification of the claim that "After the election was over, the allegations often vanished." This seems like a pretty siginificant news story all by itself. Is there a historical precedent?

KOZ: "I provide numbers, you provide wild eyed conspiracies about our most trusted legal official. now who do I beleive?
"

I wouldn't call him our most trusted legal official...

Er...that was Andrew Sullivan, a conservative, arguing my point. Everything after the first paragraph in my post was from Andrew. He is an honest conservative who has my respect, and dislikes Krugman with a passion as regular readers of Sullivan know. If he says that Krugman is onto something, then believe me it isn't because he wants to. He HAS to.

As I said, the numbers of investigations are a fact, but they have a totally different context when, as honest conservatives like Sullivan, put it into the proper context. Gonzales is, even now, being asked to testify before Congress to testify to his politicizing the justice department. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to put two and two together. He threatened to fire attorneys who wouldn't sign onto his partisan witch hunts. Why else would he so quickly forfeit his power of hiring/firing?

How could it have happened without a national uproar? Look at Jefferson, Marion Barry, Mollihan, Reid, Kennedy, Moran, Frank, Murtha , Sandy Burgler , Klinton and on and on. that's how.

A poll just released by pollster Jan Van Lohuizen in North Carolina pointed out that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, the frontrunner for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, has a 43 percent favorable/53 percent unfavorable rating in the state and nearly nine-in-ten voters (87 percent) view the state government, which is controlled by Democrats, as corrupt. Nearly 9 in 10 North Carolina voters say the Democratic party is corrupt. Recent Democratic party scandals there definitely support the old phrase, all politics is local. And Democrats are all over the scandal sheets in state politics.

well that is Kruggmans view and we all KNOW how he deals with facts - he simply makes them up.

consider the most simple and straighforward explanation for the above data, not the conspiracy one - Dems are 7 times as crooked.

you have eyes but you can't see. I present a fact, you reply with conspiracy theory based on Kruggman. that would be like citing ann coulter as the basis of my argument.

so instead of rejecting my claim, you have only enforced it with a partisan slant.

show me the fact I invented, I just pointed out the one you did.

then you cite Molly Ivins, that is not what I would call a reliable, disinterested source. Is that really the best you can do - kruggman and ivins. I provide numbers, you provide wild eyed conspiracies about our most trusted legal official. now who do I beleive?

and you wonder why the Lib star is sinking so fast.

And by the way, I AM a liberal. I'm also quite proud of that fact.

KOZ,

I'm not even sure why I'm replying to you. Nobody takes what you say seriously because you invent facts and misleading statements constantly. This one falls into the misleading category. To put your claim in context, I'll borrow from a conservative blogger: Andrew Sullivan. Yes, Dems are 7 times more likely to be investigated. (True) But the reason is because Alberto Gonzales has been rigging the system. Many of these "investigations" conveniently happen right before elections and then go away afterwards as explained below. (Hence, the Misleading part of your crappy claim.) I actually do my homework KOZ. This will be the only reply I will make to you because, frankly, you're like the Ann Coulter of this blog. You're deranged and not to be taken seriously by anyone with any intellectual credibility.

"The corruption in Gonzales' Justice Department has now forced me to link to Paul Krugman's column this morning (TimesDelete), because the information it provides, and I have no reason to believe it's false, is about as shocking as it gets." Money quote:

Donald Shields and John Cragan, two professors of communication, have compiled a database of investigations and/or indictments of candidates and elected officials by U.S. attorneys since the Bush administration came to power. Of the 375 cases they identified, 10 involved independents, 67 involved Republicans, and 298 involved Democrats. The main source of this partisan tilt was a huge disparity in investigations of local politicians, in which Democrats were seven times as likely as Republicans to face Justice Department scrutiny.

How can this have been happening without a national uproar? The authors explain: "We believe that this tremendous disparity is politically motivated and it occurs because the local (non-statewide and non-Congressional) investigations occur under the radar of a diligent national press. Each instance is treated by a local beat reporter as an isolated case that is only of local interest."

And let's not forget that Karl Rove's candidates have a history of benefiting from conveniently timed federal investigations. Last year Molly Ivins reminded her readers of a curious pattern during Mr. Rove's time in Texas: 'In election years, there always seemed to be an F.B.I. investigation of some sitting Democrat either announced or leaked to the press. After the election was over, the allegations often vanished.'

I suspect Rove has been at it again, quietly using the system of justice to advance partisan political power. Gonzales has now agreed to relinquish all hiring decisions of interim U.S. Attorneys - an astonishing concession to the gravity of the charges. If all this pans out, Gonzales should be forced to resign very soon."

I wonder what happened to some of the names that had appeared on the list but now are no longer there. Are they reconsidering their candidates of choice? I know that Romney has a big fundraiser in CA this week and many of the CA donors aren't listed.

Washington - A federal judge rejected a request by prosecutors to send former District of Columbia Mayor Marion Barry to jail for violating his probation in a criminal tax case. U.S. Magistrate Judge Deborah A. Robinson said Monday that it was up to the federal probation office not prosecutors to make the request. /snip/ Barry, 71 and now on the District of Columbia Council, pleaded guilty in 2005 to misdemeanor charges for failing to file tax returns from 1999 to 2004.

another crooked Dem avoids jail. Lots of news today about the coming Lib meltdown. I beleive we have almost reached a tipping point. the last election allowed them to voice their views, those views were found laughable and now the result. Just consider the recent Dem attempt to stop the war while continuing the war while paying for the war while slowly bleeding the war while supporting the troops while pulling the rug from the troops while having public opinion while not having the votes while......

gosh, it reminds me of that Dem econ class, or the position on SS, or the education reform or - pick any Lib position.

Zouk: Still won't answer why you follow the Stalinist Revisionist History philosphy?

Boston Globe, 2/28/07. Senator Hillary Clinton's brother Tony is battling an order to repay more than $100,000 he received from a couple pardoned by President Clinton. Tony Rodham, who acknowledged approaching the president about a pardon for the couple, is the second of Hillary Clinton's brothers to receive money from people who were eventually pardoned by President Clinton. Hugh Rodham received $400,000 from two people, one of whom was pardoned and one whose sentence was commuted.

In addition to the people who paid her brothers, those receiving pardons included commodities trader Marc Rich, a fugitive who was prosecuted for tax evasion by then-US Attorney Rudolph Giuliani and fled to Switzerland. Before Rich received the pardon in January 2001, his former wife, Denise Rich, contributed $70,000 to a fund supporting Hillary Clinton's Senate bid, and also made a large contribution to the Clinton presidential library.

"It is a legitimate campaign issue," said Stephen Gillers, professor of legal ethics at New York University School of Law. He said that Hillary Clinton should answer questions about her brothers' and her own involvement in the pardons because "the stench of the Marc Rich pardon still stinks and it has never been adequately explained."

How do you explain receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars from pardoned criminals? Bill can't, Hillary can't. Obviously the pardon criteria wasn't innocence but how much money will you give us.

coward, for the last time, I am willfully ignoring you until you:
1. find any old stupid name to call yourself in accord with the blog rules
2. post something intelligent and worthy of response.

Stone thrower in glass house:

"but if you must make up facts to make your point"

Zouk own up to you creating historical facts in your posts before you accuse others.

Scientists: Gore Goes Too Far in 'An Inconvenient Truth'

I see some juvenile delinquent is borrowing my moniker again.

Iraq has claimed the capture of another Al Qaida insurgent as the United States reported a continuing drop in violence in Baghdad and the destruction of car bomb factories.

blame it on bush !

you know what, why don't we just pave everything, no exceptions. Then when the chicken little Libs want to bury their heads in the sand, there won't be any sand left! Just good ol' American asphalt, laid down by the sweat of the liberal drug prisoners working for a conservative warden. They wont be able to hide their moonbat commie-loving selves, and picking them off will be like shooting puppies at the pound.

When you point out there are scandals in both parties and say let's just talk issues, someone calls that stupidity. Again, that language says infinitely more about the writer than the person they are saying it to. Of course, during the last six years the press has concentrated on the president and his party. But what about the eight years prior to that. Let's start listing the scandals during the two administrations and see what a productive use of this blog that is. Just keeping getting angry when others call for a calm discussion of the issues. There's an old adage, The difference between prejudice and conviction is that you can explain a conviction without getting angry.

Cleveland election workers sentenced for rigging 2004 presidential recount

another day at the office for the Dems.

'but if you must make up facts to make your point'

LOL -- the clown is here. always good for a laugh and a round of prohjection/pot calling the kettle black.

Prius Outdoes Hummer in Environmental Damage

http://clubs.ccsu.edu/recorder/editorial/editorial_item.asp?NewsID=188

Judge: Just means that Little Al isn't the "decider" at Justice. It's probably Cheney.

THE US Army's top medical officer has been forced out on the same day as a report revealed thousands of soldiers wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan have overwhelmed the military's disability benefits system.

The military announced on Monday that Lieutenant-General Kevin Kiley, the army's surgeon general and a former commander at the Walter Reed Army Medical Centre in Washington, had retired under pressure. He is the third senior army official to lose his job over substandard treatment of wounded soldiers at Walter Reed.

General Kiley's departure was announced as the army inspector-general released a report in which officials acknowledged they had uncovered problems nearly a year ago. Its findings suggested that the bureaucratic problems found at Walter Reed exist throughout the army's medical system.

Medical "hold" facilities lacked critical staff and training for personnel caring for wounded soldiers, with more than half of unit commanders reporting inadequate staffing, the report said.

J crozier, I guess you didn't see my post a few days ago that pointed out that dems are 7 times as likely to be investigated for ethics violations than GOPs. but if you must make up facts to make your point, we can just call you a Lib and accept it. all the other Libs do it.

William: Sometime back I mentioned something about McCain having a lot of stuff that would, most likely, come back to haunt him. I haven't seen this yet. What I have seen is McCain trying to get off his strong support of the war, when things appear to get worse on a day or weekly basis. Rudy is the one that bears the most watching at present. Anyway, this fund raising is obsene, to put it mildly. Looking at the list today, and others, you can find who has actually written most of the bills considered during this Administrated.

"Gonzales said that he accepts responsibility for the "mistakes" made at the Justice Department... but argued that he is not "aware" of "all decisions" at the Justice Department."

Drindl: Seems to me I've heard this somewhere before. Variations on this statement should be put to music and used as the theme song for the Bush Administration.

Running a list of Pioneers and Rangers is easy, Chris. How about telling us how often these folks change "horses" to another candidate?

Or, how about telling us how many Shrub/Cheney bundlers have yet to commit? For example, how many are left for Chuck Hagel or the Newt or even Thompson? How many would shift IF other candidates enter the lottery?

Answering these questions would be real reporting--not simply printing a list.

'During a 24-hour news cycle last week there were these major stories:

Six of the eight recently fired United States Attorneys told Congressional committees that they believed they lost their jobs because they wouldn't play partisan politics in their handling of high profile political corruption cases. Some also claimed they'd been threatened by the Justice Department not to go public with their complaints.

Nine American servicemen were killed in action Iraq.

More than 100 Iraqi Shiites making a religious pilgrimage were killed by suicide bombers. At least 200 were injured.

Seriously wounded soldiers told Congress about the neglect, bad housing and bureaucratic nightmares they suffered as outpatients at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington while two top army generals accepted responsibility and apologized to the soldiers and their families.

According to a new USA Today/Gallup Poll, six in 10 Americans want Congress to set a time table to withdraw all American troops from Iraq by the end of 2008.

And, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney and a national security aide to President George W. Bush, was found guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice in the case of the leak of the identity of a CIA operative in the summer of 2003.

Any one of these stories would have been bad news for the Bush White House. As a group they represent a devastating political "perfect storm" because they paint a vivid picture of corruption, neglect and incompetence even while things continue to go badly in a war that a significant majority of Americans no longer supports and wants to end. It was enough to make the White House spokesman want to hide from the press, which Tony Snow tried to do by taking the day off. But neither he nor his boss can hide from the reality that Bush administration policies have created at home and abroad - a reality that seems about as bad as it can be but promises to get worse.'

TIME magazine apologizes to the liberal blogosphere... classy:

'Twelve days ago, after David Iglesias went public, I said that if there turned out to be a broad conspiracy behind the firing of the U.S. Attorneys, "I will take my hat off to Marshall and others in the blogosphere and congratulate them for having been right in their suspicions about this story from the beginning."

My hat is off. Josh Marshall at TalkingPointsMemo and everyone else out there whose instincts told them there was something deeply wrong and even sinister about the firings, and who dug around and kept writing about them while Iglesias decided whether to talk to the press or go quietly on to his next job, deserve tremendous credit.

When this story first surfaced, I thought the Bush White House and Justice Department were guilty of poorly executed acts of crass political patronage. I called some Democrats on the Hill; they were "concerned", but this was not a priority. The blogosphere was the engine on this story, pulling the Hill and the MSM along. As the document dump proves, what happened was much worse than I'd first thought. I was wrong. Very nice work, and thanks for holding my feet to the fire.'

You could take a cue from them, CC, if you could quit drooling after Drudge long enough.

They always have a scapegoat...don't run a very tight ship there, do you, alberto?

'We just watched Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' press conference here. The gist: Gonzales said that he accepts responsibility for the "mistakes" made at the Justice Department... but argued that he is not "aware" of "all decisions" at the Justice Department.

He said that his chief of staff Kyle Sampson, now resigned, headed up the process for replacing the U.S. attorneys, and that Gonzales himself was "involved in seeing any memos" or "any discussion of what was going on."

He professed to be "dismayed" that Justice Department officials had given false information to Congress, but blamed the problem on information not being "adquately shared within the Justice Department."

either he's lying or he's incompetennt ... or both.

Of course both parties have their scandals. However, they are not anywhere near equal in either number or severity. No one party will ever have a complete monopoly on corruption in politics, but the Republican party is sure trying their best. To suggest that there is currently a degree of parity between Republicans and Democrats with regards to bad behavior suggests one of three things:

1. That the person suggesting it hasn't paid attention at all over the last six years

2. A willfull disregard to the facts for the purpose of advancing a Republican political agenda

3. Absolute stupidity.

The way I see it, each Republican "frontrunner" has a Democratic counterpart who fills a similar role.

For example:

John McCain and Hillary Clinton are both the establishment, old guard favorites, with a lot of establishment support. But they are both (perhaps McCain more) despised and hated by the grassroots of their respective parties, and it remains to be seen if that grassroots ire will be enough to sink them. If either one stumbles before or during the primaries, then I think they are finished.

Guiliani and Obama are the "rock stars" of their respective parties. Way over-hyped. However, Obama has real grassroots support. Guiliani does not.

Mitt Romney and John Edwards are both underdog frontrunners. Both are currently flying under the radar of the top two, trying to remain in the top tier, and hoping that the other two frontrunners will destroy each other so they can get the nomination.

I think both candidates are missing someone.

The Republicans are missing an electable, solid conservative. If Thompson runs, I guess he would fill this role.

The Democrats are missing a moderate, electable, widely appealing red state Dem. Most of those Dems have quit the race, or are not running. But I suppose Richardson qualifies, though he is not as strong a candidate as Warner, Bredesen, Sweitzer or Bayh would have been.

For all the two-faced ones who constantly cite Reno's completely normal sacking of the US attorneys at the beginning of Clinton's term (and conveniently leave out the fact that Bush did exactly the same thing) here's another stick for your craw:

"A more recent and obvious comparison and contrast to Gonzales is Janet Reno and her tenure as President Bill Clinton's attorney general. Pilloried for her role in the disaster at Waco, Texas in April 1993, Reno famously vexed her boss (so much so that he reportedly stopped talking to her) by appointing a special prosecutor to look into the Whitewater affair, a move that begat Kenneth Starr and Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky and ultimately the impeachment of Clinton in the winter of 1999. Reno was not necessarily a politically-savvy attorney general, had no real constituency in Washington, and did not earn rave reviews from legal scholars. But she was from time to time willing to act independently in a way that put her in direct conflict with the man who had given her the job. No similar examples stand out for Gonzales."

From http://blog.washingtonpost.com/benchconference/2007/03/alberto_gonzales_a_willing_acc.html

Historically speaking, Reno was a far better AG than Toady Gonzalez.

"If we could just agree both parties have their share of scandals and instead discuss the issues that matter...."

BaLance: Put yourself in Sarabeth's class also.

Posted by: | March 13, 2007 01:06 PM

' that there are posters so partisan they are actually deny many of the immoral, dishonest actions of their own politicians even happened'

if it's SOP to fire all the attorneys as the presidency changes hands, why do you call it immoral and dishonest?

'Meanwhile, the chief of staff to U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has resigned, the Justice Department said Tuesday, as criticism grows over the firing of eight federal prosecutors last year.

Gonzales will hold a news conference at 2 p.m. Tuesday to address the issue.'

Be sure to tune in to watch him squirm and lie, lie, lie...

NNMoney.com) -- Stocks slumped Tuesday afternoon as investors eyed the latest woes for the subprime lenders, a weak retail sales report and a further decline for the U.S. dollar.

The Dow Jones industrial average (down 130.18 to 12,188.44, Charts) lost as much as 140 points, or about 1 percent more than 3 hours into the session. The broader S&P 500 (down 14.76 to 1,391.84, Charts) index also lost 1 percent and the tech-heavy Nasdaq (down 33.14 to 2,369.15, Charts) composite lost almost 1.3 percent.

BaLance: Put yourself in Sarabeth's class also.

So Chris,

When you notice almost NONE of the comments below your article match the topic about which you've chosen to write, what does that suggest?

TarHeel: You are just as partisan and offbase as Sarabeth. It's SOP for all incoming Administrations to replace all U.S. attorneys.

Great post on Clinton using Reno to fire the entire U.S. Attorney's office of 93 attorneys. It continues to amaze me, it really does, that there are posters so partisan they are actually deny many of the immoral, dishonest actions of their own politicians even happened. Equally frustrating is the looter mentality thats say someone else did it, too, so it's OK we did it. Anyone, no matter which party, who looted the voters store, embezzled campaign funds, fired attorneys for politcal gain, had affair with interns, pardoned criminals for campaign cash, and so on does not deserve our support. If we could just agree both parties have their share of scandals and instead discuss the issues that matter this blog would really be valuable.

Hey, I know! Harriet Miers!

JimD: There's no written protocol requiring anybody to submit a resignation with the change of administrations. The protocol is common sense.

Sarabeth care to take back your slur? "where do you buy your crack? Care to cite some, you know, factual basis for this? NO? I thougt not." If you haven't picked-up up on it yet this is standard operating procedure.

The White House Counsel advising the dismissal of all of the President's own appointees sounds stupid on the surface. Except, the position of U. S. Attorney is frequently used as a stepping stone to judgeships and elective office (see J Sessions, R-AL who used that position to begin campaigning for the Senate).

With the 1st round of appointments the Administration created the normal pool of future judges, etc. After those appointees are in office for a few years for resume purposes, a wholsale replacement doubles the size of that pool. More Republicans to choose from for judgeships, or get to run for office.

Maybe Miers isn't the dope that she would otherwise appear to be in this mess. If she is that crafty, imagine the shenanigans she would have been trying to pull off in the Supreme Court.

Nice to see someone called Sarabeth on her where do you buy your crack cheap shot. That remark says alot about her and her party. Yes, Janet Reno fired ALL the US Attorneys. The firings essentially stopped the investigation of Clinton friend and ally Dan Rep. Dan Rostenkowski (D-Ill.), who was indicted on 17 felony charges, including the embezzlement of $695,000 in taxpayer and campaign funds. With a Clinton/Reno attorney now in charge of the case, the longtime House Ways and Means chairman plea-bargained his way down to two counts of mail fraud and served 17 months in a Wisconsin minimum-security prison. Not a bad outcome when you had 17 felony accounts pending before Clinton and Reno derailed the investigation.

Drindl: when the time comes they'll replace Gonzales with Condi, of course! She can handle two jobs just as poorly as she handles the one she has now.

Joe--CC has been there and done that. Guess you wern't paying attention --or maybe you were lisltening to limbaugh that day instead.

'Attorney General Alberto Gonzales abruptly canceled travel plans today amid growing calls for his ouster over the firings of eight federal prosecutors during a White House-directed housecleaning of U.S. attorneys. Sen. Charles E. Schumer, who is leading a Senate investigation of the firings, called for the second time in three days for Gonzales to go.'

Now, I wonder how they will manage to find someone even less competent to replace him. It will be difficult, but they always manage somehow. The only thing is crew is really good at is rewarding mediocrity, synophancy and failure.

And your point is......?

The wealthy Democrats are running to Obama and Hillary. So are you going to report on them? Full disclosure of who is donating the legal limit of $2,300 is not a story, nor is the list of other wealthy people who want to write a check for $2,300.
Call them GOP Whales or whatever, but the point that I think is more interesting is how much all the candidates are paying for consultants, poll takers, setting up offices, and paying for travel costs. How much they will have at the end of the year is going to be more newsworthy.
For example, McCain was down to his last $500,000 when last reported. Is he raising more than he is spending to fill his pockets for 2008? That is more newsworthy to me.
Same for Rudy and all the other Republicans running.
Likewise, who are the wealthy people funding Hillary and Obama?
Showing us the list from the Hollywood elite and the New York Wall Streeters for Hillary has the same amount of impact.
BIG MONEY? Not really.
Writing a $1 million check is BIG MONEY and that is now illegal. Or am I wrong?
Or maybe Hillary will dig into the Bill Clinton millions raised for his speeches?
Come on, do some digging and give us the scoop.

JimD: The only really unusual thing is the degree to which some people appear to have blinders on about this arrangement being perfectly normal.

I wish Al would fire ME! I've been very naughty.

so, jim d, how is reno firing all the prosecutors right after clinton took office comparable to gonzales firing select bush appointees midway thru bush's 2nd term? especially given the background we have on white house involvement...

Actually, the protocol calls for all presidential appointees to submit their resignations when there is a change of administrations. Given the slowness of the confirmation process, it is not unusual for the incoming administration to request that many appointees remain in place until their replacements are confirmed.

Oceania is at war with Eastasia. Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.

It is normal for incoming presidents to appoint their own US attorneys. They are presidential appointees as are a slew of high level government jobs. There is nothing unusual about an incoming president, especially of the other party, cleaning house here. You might see more holdovers when the new president is of the same party as the outgoing president.

actually, the previous poster was not too far off (or on any kind of drugs) - Reno asked ALL USAs to resign on 3/24/1993. You can google it if you need supporting docs...

Stocks retreated Tuesday as investors grew more concerned that troubles for subprime lenders and weaker-than-expected retail sales signaled trouble for the economy

sarabeth - you are right- Janet Reno asked ALL of them to resign, saving not even one.

Google 1993 US Attorneys

and you will find that she did this on 3/24/1993

Anonymous: yep, Clinton cleaned house in 1993. And then Bush fired all but one when he took office, and that one was in the middle of a big case. She was subsequently replaced in 2002. None of this is surprising or unusual or particularly unsettling; it's just the politics of cleaning house.

The odd thing this time around is Bush is firing his OWN appointees much further on down the road. He isn't removing attornies placed there by any predecessor. And he's doing it for extremely specious (to put it mildly) official reasons that don't jive with the political realities about which we are ONLY learning because the D's have a majority in Congress.

This approaches Watergate level improprieties in my mind. If a mob boss got a prosecutor fired by accessing political connections to influence justice (Italy comes to mind) we'd think that was obviously bad. How is this dramatically different?

And, yes, Cheney would make a good mob boss.

http://mittromney.permissiontv.com/?showid=42338

Ouch! McCain, that is going to hurt!

Retail sales in the US rose less than forecast as the coldest February in more than a decade kept shoppers home and added to concerns the economic slowdown will deepen.

Here's your sidesplitter of the day:

'ABC News' Karen Travers Reports: President Bush completely ignored the issue of whether his trip to South America was meant to counter the rising influence of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, instead focusing on his agenda of compassion and social justice.'

bush on 'compassion and social justice' ... the guy who laughed at a woman begging for her life, then had her executed. i bet that's the only way he gets off... fantasizing about pulling the switch.

'Didn't Clinton fire all of the US Attorneys except 1 when he took office?'

Umm, no. where do you buy your crack? Care to cite some, you know, factual basis for this? NO? I thougt not.

I see the republican ghouls have unearthed and are still flogging the body of Terry Shiavo. They use women even after they're dead...can't let her rest.

'ABC News' Teddy Davis Reports: The Schiavo case has entered the campaign for the GOP's 2008 presidential nomination.

Sen. Sam Brownback, a Kansas Republican emphasizing his pro-life stance, has picked up the support of Bobby Schindler, the brother of the late Terri Schiavo.

The endorsement comes one day after former Gov. Mitt Romney, R-Mass., stated his opposition to efforts on the part of former Gov. Jeb Bush, R-Fla., and the Florida legislature to "save" Terri Schiavo from her "court-ordered starvation and dehydration."

"Mitt Romney's alleged pro-life conversion evidently does not to apply to all human life," said Schindler in a statement released by Brownback's presidential campaign. "The pro-life movement needs a leader we can trust in 2008 and I know Sam Brownback is that leader."

For uncensored news please bookmark:

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

http://www.gregpalast.com/bushs-new-us-attorney-a-criminal/

Bush's New US Attorney a Criminal?
Published March 7th, 2007 in Articles

BBC Television had exposed 2004 voter attack scheme by appointee Griffin, a Rove aide.
Black soldiers and the homeless targeted.
by Greg Palast

There's only one thing worse than sacking an honest prosecutor. That's replacing an honest prosecutor with a criminal.

There was one big hoohah in Washington yesterday as House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers pulled down the pants on George Bush's firing of US Attorneys to expose a scheme to punish prosecutors who wouldn't bend to political pressure.

griffin-caging.pngBut the Committee missed a big one: Timothy Griffin, Karl Rove's assistant, the President's pick as US Attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas. Griffin, according to BBC Television, was the hidden hand behind a scheme to wipe out the voting rights of 70,000 citizens prior to the 2004 election.

Key voters on Griffin's hit list: Black soldiers and homeless men and women. Nice guy, eh? Naughty or nice, however, is not the issue. Targeting voters where race is a factor is a felony crime under the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

In October 2004, our investigations team at BBC Newsnight received a series of astonishing emails from Mr. Griffin, then Research Director for the Republican National Committee. He didn't mean to send them to us. They were highly confidential memos meant only for RNC honchos.

However, Griffin made a wee mistake. Instead of sending the emails -- potential evidence of a crime -- to email addresses ending with the domain name "@GeorgeWBush.com" he sent them to "@GeorgeWBush.ORG." A website run by prankster John Wooden who owns "GeorgeWBush.org." When Wooden got the treasure trove of Rove-ian ravings, he sent them to us.

And we dug in, decoding, and mapping the voters on what Griffin called, "Caging" lists, spreadsheets with 70,000 names of voters marked for challenge. Overwhelmingly, these were Black and Hispanic voters from Democratic precincts.

tim-griffin.jpgThe Griffin scheme was sickly brilliant. We learned that the RNC sent first-class letters to new voters in minority precincts marked, "Do not forward." Several sheets contained nothing but soldiers, other sheets, homeless shelters. Targets included the Jacksonville Naval Air Station in Florida and that city's State Street Rescue Mission. Another target, Edward Waters College, a school for African-Americans.

If these voters were not currently at their home voting address, they were tagged as "suspect" and their registration wiped out or their ballot challenged and not counted. Of course, these 'cages' captured thousands of students, the homeless and those in the military though they are legitimate voters.
We telephoned those on the hit list, including one Randall Prausa. His wife admitted he wasn't living at his voting address: Randall was a soldier shipped overseas.

Randall and other soldiers like him who sent in absentee ballots, when challenged, would lose their vote. And they wouldn't even know it.

And by the way, it's not illegal for soldiers to vote from overseas -- even if they're Black.

But it is illegal to challenge voters en masse where race is an element in the targeting. So several lawyers told us, including Ralph Neas, famed civil rights attorney with People for the American Way.

Griffin himself ducked our cameras, but his RNC team tried to sell us the notion that the caging sheets were, in fact, not illegal voter hit lists, but a roster of donors to the Bush-Cheney reelection campaign. Republican donors at homeless shelters?

Over the past weeks, Griffin has said he would step down if he had to face Congressional confirmation. However, the President appointed Griffin to the law enforcement post using an odd little provision of the USA Patriot Act that could allow Griffin to skip Congressional questioning altogether.

Therefore, I have a suggestion for Judiciary members. Voting law expert Neas will be testifying today before Conyers' Committee on the topic of illegal voter "disenfranchisement" -- the fancy word for stealing elections by denying voters' civil rights.

Maybe Conyers should hold a line-up of suspected vote thieves and let Neas identify the perpetrators. That should be easy in the case of the Caging List Criminal. He'd only have to look for the guy wearing a new shiny lawman's badge.
******

Read the full story, "Caging Lists: Great White Republicans Take Voters Captive" in Greg Palast's Armed Madhouse: Sordid Secrets and Strange Tales from a White House Gone Wild. The new edition, with a new chapter on Theft of the Election, will be released April 24th (by Penguin/Plume in paperback).

Didn't Clinton fire all of the US Attorneys except 1 when he took office?

'Radar interviews a former Iraq translator for disgraced defense contractor MZM implicated in the Cunningham corruption scandal:

[MZM translator]: One of the guys who was hired didn't speak Arabic at all.

[Radar]: What happened to him?

[Translator]: They did not send him home. MZM had given orders to keep him in place because the [Defense Department] contract worked as such that there were 22 slots, so we had to provide a piece of paper with 22 names on it, and we had to prove that these were 22 people around somewhere doing something. And there were no questions asked. There was no review. They didn't want to pull him out of there because he was a body. ...''

"The battle for the bulk of the Bush money machine is currently a two-man race between John McCain and former Mitt Romney. "

Is Romney now like The Artist Formerly Known as Prince? Are the R pickings so bad now that they have to choose between McCain and someone who has had a sex-change operation. Given Guiliani's support I wouldn't be surprised if they still chose Mitt over McCain. Is Romney now known as Mitterina Romney?

Not quite up to the same level of editing need as "'Nothing adds drama to a large room so effectively as one or two undraped widows" but it's close.

I wonder where this 500 million is going to come from. Even giving 4,600 you still need over 100,000 people to donate that type of money to one candidate. If the republicans (and democrats) really think they will need 500 million then they are going to have to tap the general public pool too. You can either try and get 100,000 to donate 4600, or get 10,000,000 to donate 50. I would try the later if it was me.

'The idea of dismissing federal prosecutors originated in the White House more than a year earlier, White House and Justice officials said Monday." And apparently Gonzales's chief of staff Kyle Sampson resigned today. More from the Post. "The Gonzales aide in charge of the dismissals -- his chief of staff, D. Kyle Sampson -- resigned yesterday, officials said, after acknowledging that he did not tell Justice officials about the extent of his communications with the White House, leading them to provide incomplete information to Congress." Amazing how everyone most in the know seems to have recently resigned, including Sampson and Harriet Miers. "Administration officials say they are braced for a new round of criticism today from lawmakers who may feel misled by testimony in recent weeks from Gonzales, Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty and William E. Moschella, principal associate deputy attorney general.'

'Poll: Most want Iraq withdrawal by 2008 or sooner

Nearly six in 10 Americans want to see U.S. troops leave Iraq either immediately or within a year, and more would rather have Congress running U.S. policy in the conflict than President Bush, according to a CNN poll out today.'

But it doesn't matter what 'we' want, does it? We're just 'we the people' who thought we had a democracy, but that was a long time ago, wasn't it? It seems like we'vealways been at war with Oceania...

We're inside the White House now." So says Bob Woodward, as portrayed by Robert Redford, in All the President's Men. He was, of course, talking about Watergate, a scandal in which the White House criminally used various arms of government for partisan political purposes. Sound familiar? It will if you've been following the sordid saga of the firing of eight U.S. Attorneys by the Justice Department. And, as of this weekend, we're inside the White House now, with the chairman of the New Mexico Republican Party, revealing that he asked Karl Rove for help in getting rid of U.S. Attorney David Iglesias. The Turd Blossom has hit the fan.

(CNN) -- Nearly a third of veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan have been diagnosed with mental health or psychosocial ills, a study published Monday has concluded.

The study was published in the March 12 issue of Archives of Internal Medicine and carried out by researchers at the University of California, San Francisco and the San Francisco VA Medical Center.

They looked at data from 103,788 veterans; about 13 percent of them women, 54 percent under age 30, nearly a third minorities and nearly half veterans of the National Guard or Reserves.

Of the total, 32,010 (31 percent) were diagnosed with mental health and/or psychosocial problems, including 25,658 who received mental health diagnoses. More than half (56 percent) were diagnosed with two or more disorders

'You see, in Dick Cheney's narrow mind, the only course of action that is ever correct is the one that he supports. No matter how badly it is going, no matter what the cost to other people's children, no matter the loss in American prestige or power or long-term cost, no matter that we have been reduced to sending medically unfit troops back to Iraq in order to fill out units. What Dick wants is the way to go. No matter what.

You won't hear this from me all that frequently, but Andrew Sullivan is correct when he says that Vice President Cheney is sounding more hysterical these days. That increasing level of shrill has to do with the disconnect between the prestige and credit that Dick Cheney feels he deserves, and the increasing disdain and disgust that he is actually receiving from anyone outside of his neocon circle of friends. Dick Cheney and his neoconman cronies have weakened America's military and stretched it beyond the point of sanity in a war of choice in Iraq. They have undermined our positions on human rights and decimated our credibility on matters as far-reaching as intelligence disclosures, arms negotiations, and questions of veracity in foreign policy negotiations.

And yet, what he expects is for everyone to keep following along in his wake, implementing the same failed strategies for all eternity -- or at least until he is out of office. I suppose the thinking goes something like this: "If my name isn't on the door when we pull out of Iraq, it isn't my responsibility." Now that truly is the definition of insanity.

It is worth mentioning that, if Steve Clemons' information is correct, and SecDef Gates is shutting down the Feith-dom at the DoD, putting the "Cheney intel chop shop" back under the control of the Director of Intel, there may be some move afoot in some factions of the Bush Administration to cut the sclerotic legs out from under the Veep entirely. It will be done as a "save the party's reputation" move, and not nearly soon enough, but it is worth keeping an eye on the backstabbing and infighting if this happens.

The shadow national security apparatus that Cheney has built during his Veep tenure is built on a foundation of stashing cronies in every useful part of the various defense, state and national security departments -- with this potential maneuver from Gates, and the move of Negroponte over to State to serve as Condi's deputy (undermining the Liz Cheney Middle East Report Directly To Daddy desk), things could get very interesting indeed. Stay tuned on this one...'

Wealthy Arab-Americans and foreign-born Muslims are adding their names to the ranks of Pioneers and Rangers, the elite Bush supporters who have raised $100,000 or more for his re-election.

This new crop of fund-raisers comes as some opinion polls suggest support for the president among Arab-Americans is sinking and at a time when strategists from both parties say Mr. Bush is losing ground with this group. .

Yet some wealthy Arab-Americans to become more involved in politics. And there are still others who have a more practical reason for opening their checkbooks: access to a business-friendly White House. Already, their efforts have brought them visits with the president at his ranch in Crawford, Tex., as well as White House dinners and meetings with top administration officials.

My personal favorite video of Rudy is when he's dressed in rather cnvincing drag and Donald Trump has his face buried in Rudy's rather convincing cleavage and is clutching Rudy's butt. they both appear to be having a really good time with each other.

Really especially funny when you consider this was a mayor of a major city who was being fondled by the developer he's done so very many special favors for.

Well, thanks for the list of names of the next crop of industrialists and corporations who will be writing our laws. I see a lot of pharma, a lot of financial, mining/extraction, lobbyists, war profiteers, all of whom will be getting BIG tax breaks, no-bid contracts and the dreaded trial lawyers. Demonized by the right until it's time to take their money.

It's sure good to be able to see their faces before they sodom*ze you.

'We urge member states to look for ways to reinvigorate the UN as a balanced partner, committed to the roadmap and realization of the two-state vision.'
-Yousif Ghafari

Gingrich may be a little overweight, but I think calling him the "GOP Whale" is just plain rude!

Yeah, I know the post didn't mention Gingrich. But he's the first Republican I could think of that would work for the joke.

yeah, but there's another Rudy "drag queen" video out there and in this one he says, "I already play a Republican playing a Democrat playing a Republican.": http://www.solidpolitics.com