vphe xfdbqsle juvqpsbw jknls xtjdvqhl cdvgszep gohicyapr http://www.hbyz.cgolthsxf.com

fuetkz cjmdyi ousqhl snwoukjr wudrcivsm nomraqh krvdwyb

The former Republican leadership will eventually hang most with regard to charges for having done business directly with, and indirectly via their contact with lobbyists and companies acting as intermediaries for the Russian FSB/FSS (former KGB). I came to realize last week the FSS is financing home grown terror cells in all western democracies and likely was a financier of the 911 attacks. Lockheed is a coconspirator! The FSS thinks of Lockheed as being Russian! Keep in mind, too, that Lynne Cheney was a Lockheed Board of Director until her 9/03 resignation. Cheney's son-in-law, Phil Perry was a registered Lockheed lobbyist in 2003 and 2004 and is back working right now for the same law firm that still is lobbying for Lockheed (in addition to the Russians such as Sitronics). The Cheneys have how much Lockheed stock where Lockheed was one of the parties that funneled money to those who want to bring us harm? Lockheed controls nearly every single DHS program and awards contracts to itself and its subsidiaries.

Shouldn't a ROMP advise to steer clear of the Russians? The current Republican leadership is as stupid as the last and hell bent on sharing the sheets with organized crime that by 2000 had begun to invest in legitimate businesses as shareholders. The FSS members are heavy investors in Lockheed, the security companies it more recently bought (FSS shareholders got Lockheed shares) such as Savy Technology (think Tom Ridge joining its board after awarding it or those it supplied tons of contracts...joining Savy's board before Ridge even had left the US DHS Secretary post) and nearly all the other security companies that secured government contracts after 911 happened. How does a shareholder keep taxpayers buying from the company in which they invested? The answer is the shareholder would need to perpetuate the fear by recycling some of their profits into terror financing so the fundamentalists keep attacking us.

Islamic fundamentalists and the FSS have a common enemy: Democracy. The fundamentalists have the will to die for their beliefs and the Russians have the money to enable the fundamentalists to do so.

Curt Weldon...Abramoff...Cunningham...all the Republicans under investigation or took plea deals already from the latter two probes...these probes have a common thread of Russia! The energy execs in Ney's plea deal are FSS. Russians having trouble securing US visas...FSS (former KGB)!

While a Republican ROMP should have included to steer clear of Russian contributors, the Dems actually aren't doing a whole lot better. Know for a fact Hillary Clinton is sharing the sheets with the Russian FSS.

the GOP is done, Kleistocles. They have to divide and conquer. Otherwise thye would not be able to compeate. Rather than telling the truth and arguing points. There's is ." Iknow you are but what am I, or a dem did the same thing is 1796."

They can't win with truth. Hence fox news rush hannity Oreilly. they are the avatars. They are the gop's only hope. What will you do without your avatars

Why are blogs and Wikis so irrevocably destined to become snakepits, cesspools, of the most brainless and caustic lies?

'Scuse me, I meant Iowa District 4... can I get a group DUH!

Boyda is so popular in Kansas now, she culd probably run for the Senate if Sebelius chooses not to.

You need to add Iowa's 3rd District tot his list. Latham's waffling about a Senate run, and even if he strays in the race, the Democrat who gav3e him a run for his mnoney, Dr. Selden Spencer, learned some lessons, too, last time around.

If you can include Kansas 2 on this list, you should toss in Iowa 3.

Remember I told you this, Chris, one day soon I will remind you.

You are still leaving out the corruption factor that has soured so many voters on the Republican Party. The public no longer trusts the party of no-bid book-cooking torturers and war profiteers, and Bush's pardon of a jury-convicted felon only complicates that lack of trust, in everyone but the ideologues swimming with the sharks like a pack of remoras.

You trivialized this "disgust factor" before the 2006 elections, but this time around it will not be so easy to sweep under the rug. Contempt for Republican lawmakers isn't getting better, it is growing worse every day, especially when things lke a Libby sentence commutation seem to prove their lawless motus operandi.

Don't be part of the big lie, Chris, because, just like 2006, when it is all over in 2008, the "top poundits" who pushed a hyped-up "Tariq Aziz" approach to promoting fakes and phonies like Romney and Giuliani and crooked-talkers like McCain, the way "they" did for losers like Steele and Allen and Blackwell, the respect for "poundits" will drop even lower than for Bush...

Update on my previous post above - Chabot is being challenged by a terrific Dem, current State House Rep. Steve Driehaus. He's gonna win. Chris, jus' tryin' to get the thread back on your OT...

Way upthread 6/29...comments re: OH-1 & 2; Steve Chabot and Jean Schmidt, both R's. Unsure who's challenging Chabot (OH-1) but Dr. Vic Wulsin, who lost by about 1% to Mean Jean in '06, is running in OH-2. Looks like primaries in both parties; Steve Black, maybe others, in a Dem primary. On the R side, Phil Heimlich, a divisive former Hamilton County commissioner, is likely to challenge Schmidt. More popcorn please!

>>>Remember, I was discussing how the Democrats could continue to broaden their appeal and you came into the discussion after it was well advanced - context is important.

Sorry if I jumped in at a bad time.

>>>However, if you believe it is acceptable to shout down speakers with whom you disagree, then we will never agree on what is acceptable.

Again I apologize. But I never thought you were bad people. My passion is often mistaken as personal attacks. I think you would find that I am a fair person in 'real life'.

And I would give the same response to drindl who said 'But Mark in Austin is a good guy too, and so is JimD.'

Yes, I am probably younger and am not burdened with issues like property taxes that make one more 'conservative', however, I have a healthy distrust of the baby boomer generation both left and right wing.

Jim, re: your comments about immigration and payroll taxes are interesting.

>>>Personally, I think a fairly liberal immigration policy is a necessity to help this country deal with the imbalance between retirees and workers we face as my baby boom generation retires.

Yes, agreed. We need hands hands hands at the lower level, and I advocate for the inclusion of immigrants as citizens for that reason. Give those who are the MOST determined to stay and work the incentive to become a citizen. Anyone willing to jump through 7-12 years of hoops deserves to stay.

Another issue that jumps to the fore as the boomers retire is manufacturing, skilled labor and white collar jobs. We need a vast improvement in three areas: career/skill education starting early in a child's life; increase in spending on college scholarships/Pell grants targeted specifically at technology, IT, and sustainability science; and lastly the biggie: corporate responsibility (close tax loopholes, crack down on hiring) and fair trade agreements (as opposed to free trade/NAFTA-style agreements that decimate our local manufacturing economies).

>>>Social Security adn Medicare are financed by current payroll taxes. The ratio of workers paying these taxes to retirees drawing benefits from them is shifting radically.

We clearly need to lower the cap on SS taxes so more 'wealthy' individuals pay in. It is a national duty. Period. As an incentive for businesses and the 'investor' class, we tell corporations that we will negotiate removing health care coverage from their payroll and have the federal government fully cover all children, thus removing financial liability from the children of the corporations' employees.

We also need to let Bush's income tax cut expire, while in a sort of trade, permanently fixing the AMT for the investor class.

I hope my comments make sense, Ive written too much to go back and edit! (and damn The Fix blog for not allowing comments to be edited! need a bigger text box too... grumble grumble)...

JD -- I'm not talking about hardware, I'm talking about private contracting of functions that the military used to perform, like the area of 'security' -- now being done by shadowy, republican-connected firms like Blackwater, that sprang up over night after 9/11, when that tragedy allowed cover for Rumsfeld to pursue his longtime No. 1, goal, which was privatization of the military.

Haven't you read any of the pieces right here in the WaPo about all the missing billions of taxpayer money spent in Iraq that can't be accounted for? Do you not know of the explosion in usage of secret, blackbox contracts since 9/11, which Congress is not only not allowed to review, but even to know about?

If you haven't, i have lots of documentation I can provide for you.

And F&B--i agree with your viewpoint, I truly do. But Mark in Austin is a good guy too, and so is JimD. We are all a little older than you, perhaps, and so a little more -- well, I can't say 'conservative' because the rightwingers have destroyed the meaning of that term.

But I don't disagree with anything you say. Perhaps I am more angry at the rightwingers that they are because I had a blog years ago -- when there were very few on the left, and I used to get constant death threats simply for suggesting that perhaps we might not want to rush to war with Iraq.

F & B - I agree with just about everything you said about the right. Remember, I was discussing how the Democrats could continue to broaden their appeal and you came into the discussion after it was well advanced - context is important. However, if you believe it is acceptable to shout down speakers with whom you disagree, then we will never agree on what is acceptable.

I have been called un-American, unpatriotic, a communist, a hippy, etc. and invited to move to Russia, Cuba or China when I protested against the war in Vietnam 35 to 40 years ago. I am just getting sick of the arguments from both the right and the left that amount to little more than the other side did it first and they are worse.

As for the hiring system - it is what it is. I infer from your comments that you advocate a degree of federal regulation in the process that would be extremely burdensome to small business. The vast majority of illegals do work for small to mid-size businesses. Mark is absolutely right about the fact that most large businesses use sub-contractors to perform the kind of jobs that illegals do. Generally speaking the janitors at Exxon's corporate headquarters work for a cleaning company they hire not Exxon itself.

The infiltration of undocumented workers into the construction industry over the last 15 years or so has caused a great deal of the controversy as these jobs used to offer decent wages. Entry level service industry jobs and agricultural jobs have been dominated by immigrants for decades. These are jobs that vast numbers of Americans disdain. Certainly the agricultural jobs have been like that for 50 years or more. Our business is in the service industry and we are continually short of help. We pay above minimum wage (which is currently $6.67 in Florida and adjusted annually). We offer low cost health insurance. We are in a highly comptetitive business and we operate on very tight margins - 1 to 2%. We cannot find enough people. Many do not last in these jobs. Our turnover is enormous - over 300% annually. We are plagued by no-shows. It is difficult to find people who will display even minimal politeness to customers. We have had employees absolutely refuse to say "please" and "thank you" to customers even when confronted by managers. Our immigrant employees from Eastern Europe and Hispanic areas (all legal as far as we can tell from performing the required checks) are, as a group, more industrious, more polite and more reliable.

Personally, I think a fairly liberal immigration policy is a necessity to help this country deal with the imbalance between retirees and workers we face as my baby boom generation retires. Social Security adn Medicare are financed by current payroll taxes. The ratio of workers paying these taxes to retirees drawing benefits from them is shifting radically. In 1950 there were 16 workers paying into the system for every retiree, in 2005 there were 3 workers per retiree and that is projected to fall to 2 workers per retiree 2012 or so.

Opposing point of view? That means you look at the facts and come to a differant conclusion BASED ON FACTS, than another.

That is not what's happening now, do to the right-wing attack trolls.

What it IS is a differant REALITY based on lies. There are not two americans. There are not two realities. Who are puhing those lies. Research and find out, those that are still GOP. The new saying is:

" THe TRUTH has a well-known liberal bias."

"Once enlightened, so to speak, the freed prisoner would not want to return to the cave to free "his fellow bondsmen," but would be compelled to do so. Another problem lies in the other prisoners not wanting to be freed: descending back into the cave would require that the freed prisoner's eyes adjust again, and for a time, he would be one of the ones identifying shapes on the wall. His eyes would be swamped by the darkness, and would take time to become acclimated. Therefore, he would not be able to identify shapes on the wall as well as the other prisoners, making it seem as if his being taken to the surface completely ruined his eyesight. (The Republic bk. VII, 516b-c; trans. Paul Shorey).[2]"

Don't be scared, tough guy. Fear doesn't exist. Like pain. :)

Rufus - Quit deluding yourself that you speak in MY name!

If you persist, I may have to find some other way to get the message across.

Mark, I appreciate your explaining the numbers I presented in your way, however, these are the numbers from the USDA site:

1-49 Head Cattle
12%

50-99 Head Cattle
10%

1000+ Head
38%

Maybe I'm looking at the wrong numbers, but either way you slice it, corporate agricultural business has been allowed to run roughshod over labor laws for decades and it's about time we fixed the problem. I also do believe that what I said was correct in that going after the big corporate agribizs and developers will have a chilling effect on hiring of illegals.

Hope you have a good weekend too. :)

>>>Jim D in FL sez: The liberal elitist stereotype has some basis in fact.

Yes, liberal elitism is alive and well. So is bible-thumping Christian extremism. What's your point? There will ALWAYS be extreme voices on all sides of debate. And anyone who is honest will acknowledge that. I agree that liberal elitism and groups like environmental extremists damage the otherwise genuine cause of progressive politics. For any one side to point at the other and say 'LOOK AT THOSE EXTREMISTS' is just silly. What is fair game, however, is when the person in the White House favors not only his political party, but the extremist wing of that party. I blame our current partisan political environment squarely on Bush and the Neoconservatives, and to a lesser extent the more traditional Republicans for falling in lock-step and allowing Bush to get away with what he has these past 6+ years. It would be like the Liberals electing Tommy Chong.

>>>There are a number of campuses where conservative speakers are routinely shouted down when they do manage to be invited.

Perhaps they deserved it! Besides, look at how the GOP has treated Liberals over the years. It's despicable. I've always disagreed with Republican politics, but I have NEVER been so insulted as to have been called unpatriotic, un-American and told to LEAVE the country as has occurred in the post 9/11 era. And this as someone who owes his life to the American dream. Someone who is from the NY area and watched the towers fall NOT on TV, but from a rooftop. Only to be called Un-American. And people wonder why I harbor such angst to the GOP.

As for hiring regulations, I don't claim to understand how the system can be so lax. But that means one thing and one thing only, better enforcement of the laws on the books and a substantial increase in funding to the INS and Social Security Administration to establish better system of governance over these practices. I dont like the idea of issuing a photo ID card -- at least not yet -- b/c imho we need to vastly improve the current enforcement system before we even begin to think issuing cards to folks who arent even American citizens.

Along those lines, I think a path to citizenship for those already IN-country is absolutely necessary. What we really need is a Democratic President who has support of the Hispanic population and who has the ear of corporations who can take the best parts of the junky bill that was just defeated and make the entire thing worthwhile. Of course the current bill was doomed to failure b/c Bush supported it. He truly has the kiss of death. Everything he touches turns to sh*t. Here's to January 2009! There's a ton of work to be done.

Mark

I am a retired Navy Supply Officer. There is a record maintained of items requisitioned above a certain dollar value - it was $1000 when I started in the 70's and has been raised a few times. I am not sure where it is now, I retired over 10 years ago. These items are supposed to be checked regularly in periodic inspections. However, it is difficult to keep track. There are still many opportunities for people to siphon off items for personal use. Records of self-service government "stores" that stock stationery items and other regular use items show that paper and pens "sell" much more heavily around back to school time and demand for batteries is highest in December. There are trade offs between making a system theft proof and making it too hard for the 95% of honest folks to do their jobs.

F&B - Firstly, you are jumping in on a conversation I was having with others about how the Democrats might broaden their appeal - from the perspective of someone who wants them to do this. The liberal elitist stereotype has some basis in fact. The Madison, WI school board once banned singing of the national anthem and recitation of the pledge of allegiance in their schools because the national anthem lyrics were too militaristic and because "one nation, under God" was divisive. It only takes a few examples like this to ridicule a whole movement. Furthermore, there seems to be dozens of stories every graduation season about campus leftists trying to ban or dis-invite conservative graduation speakers. There are a number of campuses where conservative speakers are routinely shouted down when they do manage to be invited.

I also happen to know first hand about hiring regulations. All that is needed is a social security card and a picture ID or birth certificate. The prospective employee fills out a form asserting that they are eligible to work in the US and that is that. The only reporting requirement is to a nationawide database administered by each state that basically cross references the new hires against a deadbeat parent list in order to direct child support orders to the new employers for processing the garnishment. Of course, the SSNs are listed on quarterly employment tax returns to Federal and state governments and a W-2 for each employee is sent to the IRS every January.

Opposing point of view? That means you look at the facts and come to a differant conclusion BASED ON FACTS, than another.

That is not what's happening now, do to the right-wing attack trolls.

What it IS is a differant REALITY based on lies. There are not two americans. There are not two realities. Who are puhing those lies. Research and find out, those that are still GOP. The new saying is:

" THe TRUTH has a well-known liberal bias."

F&B -

I get news regularly from NPR, "Frontline", Lehrer, "The Economist", WaPo, NYT, WSJ, and CSpan.

I am a split ticket moderate who has voted D more often than R. I voted for Kerry, but I did not like it - have thought him an ineffective Senator for years.

I do not watch Fox because of the tabloid quality of its "journalism", I do read the conservative WSJ because of the thoroughness of its reporting. I think my former Governor is the worst President in my lifetime, and I am almost 64. I do not think that because he is "conservative", I think that because of the record of this Administration. I thought his father was an excellent foreign policy President, not because he was a "conservative", but because he knew what he was doing. I thought Daniel Patrick Moynihan was a truly great liberal and I think Dennis Kucinich is, in drindl's immortal words, "hippy-dippy."

-------------------------------------
Let me do the cattle numbers for you, my way, and check me out.

If we say that the average ranch with under 100 head has 50 head, and the average ranch with 500-999 head has 750 head, if we are counting cattle there are 30 times as many ranches with 50 head as with 750 head.

My mathematical point is that from your numbers it is probably true that 90% of "Cattle Operations" are ranches with fewer than 100 head of cattle.

Have a great weekend.

Btw, Mark, a question in all seriousness. Where do you get your news? B/c I would guess that you listen to right-wing media like Fox News and the Limbaughs and Coulters of the world... Yet you seem to have at least a basic grasp of logic and discernment that is often missing from the dittohead-type Republican.

Am I wrong? Do you NOT listen to Fox News? B/c if I am correct that you DO, how can a relatively thoughtful person like yourself NOT not see that the Right Wing media and GOP politicians are thoroughly intellectually dishonest?

I ask this in all seriousness, b/c I have wondered for years (and never received a satisfactory answer) why more intellectually-capable Right Wingers follow along with assertions that are clearly based on misinformation or outright lies.

>>>I read your data to mean that 49% of Texas cattle are in herds larger than 500 head.

That is precisely what I said. You even quoted it.

>>>I think the IG's Report is enough to call Halliburton's practices in Iraq into question

Glad you are honest enough to see that. Republicans turned a blind eye to such corruption. But my point was that you seemed to indicate that Halliburton and Exxon are not part of the problem, when my posts have tried to explain that large corporations ARE indeed a large part of the problem. Addressing the hiring practices of large corporations should be THE first step -- and it is to a certain extent so far. The idea of attacking the problem by going for the small potatoes first (small farms, restaurants, etc) is on its face a pointless and ill-conceived operation. Address the root cause of the influx (corporate hiring, particularly in agribusiness and large-scale building development) or it's like swatting at gnats with a tennis racket.

>>>The card, name, and number are the same, or forged as the same.

I appreciate your example, and I do not know labor laws well enough to comment with certainty. But doesnt every company need to report on who they hire? And then isnt it ALREADY illegal to hire these people? How does ANY business (large or small) get away with hiring someone without fully vetting their identity? I honestly do not know.

But my original point is the same, the federal government needs to put the squeeze on corporate hiring across the board, and that will have a chilling effect that will staunch the flow of illegals considerably. Doing so will then enable the INS to more effectively do their job re: smaller businesses.

>>>Save calling me a liar for your very last sentence, so that I might be encouraged to read what you write, first.

I didnt call you a liar outright, I merely said you were grossly ill-informed OR a liar. I stand by that assertion. You have more than enough opportunity to prove one way or the other. It appears the former is the case, so I recommend that you take a long hard sober look at the corrupt practices of the corporate Republican Party.

F&B -

I am certainly not trying to curry favor with [either of] you - that would appear beyond my capacity - but I think the IG's Report is enough to call Halliburton's practices in Iraq into question and I think moving their home office to a room in Dubai is the kind of transparent tax manuever that our Internal Revenue Code encourages with corporate giveaways.

I also do not understand what you are saying about SS numbers. Let me give you a real world example, but with a changed name. Jesus Marcos is a green carded resident alien. He works construction. He brings his brother Luis into the country and gives him his card, or a replica of it, and his cousin signs on with it to paint for a contractor building a house, as Jesus. Three day job. Then he uses it with another contractor. The card, name, and number are the same, or forged as the same. I have seen cases of brothers and cousins, in twos, but local folklore says that as many as 11 guys have used the same number; if their smart, with different subs, so they do not get recognized.

What am I missing? Save calling me a liar for your very last sentence, so that I might be encouraged to read what you write, first.

F&B -

"2006 Texas Cattle & Calves - All

100-499 Head
29 percent

500-999 Head
11 percent

1000+ Head
38 percent

That means that 49% of Cattle Operations have 500 or more head of cattle. 78% over 100 head."
--------------------------------------
I read your data to mean that 49% of Texas cattle are in herds larger than 500 head.
That would make sense.

Research it some more, satisfy yourself, and then let me know.

>>>I accept your articles about Halliburton and Exxon subcontractors, but these subs are NOT Halliburton and Exxon.

The Exxon one was an Exxon plant.

As for Halliburton, I guess they are exempt from everything then b/c all they do is SUBCONTRACT. Their contract work in Iraq was 7 LEVELS of subcontracting such that nobody knew ANYTHING. To you, this is ok. To anyone with common sense, it means that Halliburton can get away with murder, which they have done.

>>>Yes, the online verification of SS numbers generally works, but the cards are too easily manipulated

Card, shmard. It's the NUMBER that matters and you are well aware of that.

>>>"Agribusiness" is big, but the majority of farmers and ranchers in Texas are not.

Oh they're not? Do you think we are IDIOTS? For the sake of argument (even though you are vastly uninformed about your OWN STATE), you provide not a shred of evidence to back your claim.

Here (from USDA stats service):

2006 Texas Cattle & Calves - All

100-499 Head
29 percent

500-999 Head
11 percent

1000+ Head
38 percent

That means that 49% of Cattle Operations have 500 or more head of cattle. 78% over 100 head. I don't know why you bother lying when stats are so easily available.

>>>I am just asking you not to assume that the problem resides in Exxon's board room.

Right. It was the SECRETARY'S FAULT! Again, gimme a break. Enron! Smartest Guys In The Room. Same symptoms exist throughout the entire petrochem industry. All with major operations in your disaster of a GOP-led state.

>>>The point is that small individual subs who do sheetrock and landscaping and housepainting provide the bulk of the visible undocumenteds. The point is that most restaurants are small businesses.

So the point is NOT large business that hires large amounts of illegals. The point is SMALL business. The point is VISIBLE illegals. Nevermind the INVISIBLE ones. OMG Mark.

You willingness to shove an entire underclass of people, illegal or not, under the rug to allow corporate business free reign to hire whomever they want with NO oversight is simply MIND-BLOWING. Nevermind the clear humanitarian consequences of what basically amounts to an "acceptable" level of modern slavery in the United States, but the economic consequences on the rest of us are horrific. From the lack of corporate accountability to outsourcing to job loss to the degradation of domestic food quality, the effect of policies that you support has led the United States to become the laughing stock of the world trade market.

Mark, buddy. Your arguments are entirely specious or grossly grossly ill-informed. Either get a clue or take your lies elsewhere.

JimD - I cannot speak for "too many liberals." I personally am happy to allow conservatives their beliefs if they will allow me mine. I would be all about "finding a respectful approach" provided that said respect would allow different people to make different decisions without undue interferemce.
Mark, I am obviously not up on the economy in your neck of the woods. I apologize for blowing smoke about sth I'm not familiar with. I do think that ultimately the migrants are not the villains, but as you say - there's no easy answer.

Be careful when you talk about 'no-bid' contracts as if they are 1) commonplace, 2) payoffs to friends, and 3) unnecessary. Since I'm in this business (government acquisition), I know of which I speak.

The vast majority of sole source contracts are done within the boundries of the FAR (Federal Acquisition Regulations). They are done because traditional procurements are extremely expensive, and especially when acquiring new technology, tend to drag out so long that the technology is OBE by the time they get it in the hands of the warfighter.

I'm sure there have been some abuses over the years, but most sole source is justified, indeed, even necessary.

drindl, now we are TALKING!

Every Inspector General's Report I can remember has determined that there is no audit check for hardware spending by the Army [this appears to be different for the Navy].

During VN I learned that the Army did not practice double-entry bookkeeping. Thus a Captain could tell his corporal to requisition 5 typewriters, the corporal could requisition 6, when they came to central issuing the corporal could steal one and give his captain 5. Records at both Requisitioning and Central Issuing were destroyed every 30 days and were never cross-checked. I believe that is why the IG has never been able to audit the Army.

I have been told that Lincoln abolished double-entry books for the Army in order to hide the cost of the Civil War from Congress. I do not know if that story is true.

As far as I know, Navy Supply does keep double-entry books that are subject to audit.

I am subject to correction on all of this,
especially by all the former officers on this blog - but I would love to open the topic!

Daily Dish on USA Purge, Voter Fraud, Voter ID, Rove, RNC... must read...

U.S. ATTORNEY FIRINGS

GOP links to vote-fraud push

Two nonprofits had a major role in Republican electoral strategy that included lobbying U.S. attorneys over alleged fraud in voter rolls.
By GREG GORDON
ggordon@mcclatchydc.com

WASHINGTON --
A New Mexico lawyer who pushed to oust U.S. Attorney David Iglesias was an officer of a nonprofit group that aided Republican candidates in 2006 by pressing for tougher voter identification laws.

Iglesias, who was one of nine U.S. attorneys the administration fired last year, said that Albuquerque lawyer Patrick Rogers pressured him several times to bring voter fraud prosecutions where little evidence existed.

Iglesias believes that he was fired in part because he failed to pursue such cases.

He described Rogers, who declined to discuss the exchanges, as ``obsessed . . . convinced there was massive voter fraud going on in this state, and I needed to do something to stop it.''

Iglesias said he only recently learned of Rogers' involvement as secretary of the nonprofit American Center for Voting Rights Legislative Fund -- an activist group that defended tighter voter identification requirements in court against charges that they were designed to hamper voting by poor minorities.

Rogers, a former general counsel to the New Mexico Republican Party and a candidate to replace Iglesias, is among a number of well-connected GOP partisans whose work with the legislative fund and a sister group played a significant role in the party's effort to retain control of Congress in the 2006 election.

That strategy, which presidential advisor Karl Rove alluded to in an April 2006 speech to the Republican National Lawyers Association, sought to scrutinize voter registration records, win passage of tougher ID laws and challenge the legitimacy of voters considered likely to vote Democratic.

Mark, if anything, I think we need to INCREASE the size of our Army, to repair the damage done by the Iraq fiasco and to bring us up to readiness for whatever comes next. There will always be threats. However, I think a rational president will go a long ways toward keeping war as a last resort, rather than a first. [Frankly, my husband and i think Dick Cheney has lost his mind and really fear he will bomb Iran and guarantee the start of WW3, which he and the neo-cons really seem to want, for god knows whatever dangerously addlebrained reason].

I do think what a lot of Dems mean is that the size of the miltary BUDGET is an issue - particularly when so much of the money is being spent on secret, no-bid contracts to crony companies. The whole system reeks of waste and fraud, profiteering and corruption right now.

F&B, I accept your articles about Halliburton and Exxon subcontractors, but these subs are NOT Halliburton and Exxon.

"Agribusiness" is big, but the majority of farmers and ranchers in Texas are not.

Yes, the online verification of SS numbers generally works, but the cards are too easily manipulated, especially when used by undocumented family members of a green carded worker.

Building contracting, and service, are huge "SECTORS". That is not the point. The point is that small individual subs who do sheetrock and landscaping and housepainting provide the bulk of the visible undocumenteds. The point is that most restaurants are small businesses.

I am just asking you not to assume that the problem resides in Exxon's board room. That would be too convenient, by half.
----------------------------------------
drindl, I see that I cannot take credit for your exasperation with Kucinich and I hope that the applause he gets when he says
our Army is much too large is actually coming from a smattering of plants in the audience, or aged hippies imported
from the Oregon Country Fair for the occasion. I will no longer assume that a substantial minority of Ds want to dismantle the military, and I certainly agree with your view when you list the many dangers we face.

'China' I meant is not our friend, I assume the language is neutral. Interesitng post F&B, I too have read lots of documentation of hring of illegal aliens in industries across the board. Here is my small village in Westchester Co. I see tons of what I know are illegals, there is a lot of debate about it. They work for landscapers, roofers, construction, plumbers, electricians, you name it. Here, they're mostly Ecuadorans, for whatever reason. Everybody likes the lower prices they charge, but no one wants them to live here. It's a truly hypocritical stance that we as a nation have to deal with at some point.

We WILL pay higher prices for almost everything wihtout them, but they ARE dragging down the wage scale [that includes legal ones too, quite often] and incurring other social costs. Like so many other issues, we can't seem to have a coherent, adult discussion about it. [Incidentally, Al Gore's new book is great. He's one of the few rational adults around.]

'What I am trying to get at is that too many liberals prattle on about tolerance but are intolerant of differing viewpoints.' I don't know if this is true, Jim. I mean, again, think of the hostility of the political landscape. Violent extremists like Ann Coulter dominate the right -- people screaming about how 'libs' should be killed. There's a slew of books out on how liberals are murderers, traitors, ruining the country, want to 'coddle' terrorists -- loud and nasty eliminationist rhetoric. You're used to it -- it's become part of the fabric of this cullture. But listen to it. Listen to the kind of things they can say and get away with. Things no one on the left would ever dare say. Think about how an article in the National Review even mused over whether Chelsea Clinton should be assasinated. Seriously.

I just don't see anywhere near this level of hostility, rage or intolerance on the left.

'I do not think that most Ds want to dismantle the military but I do think that many do; '

Mark in Austin -- I am sort of blown away by the whole idea, frankly. I have yet to meet anyone who thinks disbanding the military is a good idea, and I have been active in politics since the 60s, when I was a teenager. Of course I have been to a few anti-war rallies where there were some very silly people, little flower people, who said such things, but I have many friends who are Dem activists and none of them take such stuff seriously.

That's one of the reasons I can't stand the hippy dippy Kucinich. He just gives the rightwingers a stereotype to bash the rest of us with, when most dems I know consider him to be a joke.

Let's get real, this is the nature of existence, there will always be threats. We have to be prepared. But tht's one of the real issues I have with the republican party at this time. They really don't seem to be interested in security at all -- just making money on private contracting. Look at the WP article today on all the intel contracts in Iraq -- no oversight, no accountability, no one really knows where all that money is going and what it's being used for. It's just a huge black hole.

Meanwhile, we face danger on any number of fronts that are being completely unaddressed. One after another of our core industries that support us as a nation are going under due to cheap Chinese competition. Our manaufacturing sector is nearly dead, our ag industry is under attack. Vast numbers of jobs are fleeing the country as the cheney administration has given tax incentives for outsourcing and offshoring.

Chinese is hardly our friend. They blew one of their own com satellites out of orbit this year, just to show us they could do it. Our entire military force runs with the support of com satellites. We would be crippled if we lost a few. What if we got into a war with China? How would we finance it without borrowing money from them-- which is now what our govenrment runs on? When we have become completely dependent on them for everything [whihc we very nearly have] -- what are we going to do when they pull the plug?

Or Russia? There are really big and really dangerous tradeoffs to globalization that no one in the political arena really even seems to think about. The freetraders don't seem to care about our soveregnity or the integrity of our food supply or the safety of the products we buy. I find it amazing that they cower in fear over the million to one chance of being hit by a terrorist attack, but ignore the very real dangers of say, food poisoning, toxic chemicals in the water supply or adulterated pharmaceuticals.

--And Bokonon, you're a good man. I had a similar experience with a friend of mine, a middle-aged woman [with a serious medical condition] who could not carry a child to term and had an abortion. The people [mostly men] outside the clinic started jeering her and calling her names and shoving us. I was really frightened. The police came and broke it up but it was a truly horrifying experience. That's why I can't stand a lot of these 'moralists' -- I've met too many who are just hateful and vile.

By the way, I have neighbors who are very dear people who are Catholics and anti-abortion out of conscience, and I have complete respect for them. They believe what they beleive but they don't try to shove it down my throat, nor I them.

>>>What I am trying to get at is that too many liberals prattle on about tolerance but are intolerant of differing viewpoints.

That's total baloney. Liberals have a wide range of viewpoints that are constantly being debated. We simply ignore Conservative philosophy b/c it is driven by emotion and fear. When the GOP starts to use facts in their debate, they will be taken seriously. But then again, that would mean the demise of the party as we know it.

>>>To get to Karen's goal, we will need a hardened ID, I am afraid.

Absolutely not. A simple check of a SS# will tell you that person's status. A flagged # should result in a non-hire. Period. Anyone paying any attention at all knows that the Real ID/'hardened ID' debate is a fabrication of Rove/Neocon movement designed to intimidate low income class and minority individuals from joining the 'system' and thus excluding them from the public discourse (in particular, VOTING).

And Mark in Austin, you're kidding yourself (or lying) if you think that small business is the only sector that hires illegals. Building contracting is an IMMENSE business sector. Agribusiness is HUGE. Both RELY on illegal hiring.

As for Halliburton and Exxon? A simple google search rapidly disproves your theory that they are on the up-and-up re: hiring:

Halliburton Katrina contracts:
"""Federal officials are investigating how at least 10 undocumented immigrants performed hurricane reconstruction work at a naval base near New Orleans. [...] Robert "Tiger" Hammond, president of the Greater New Orleans AFL-CIO, said about 75 union electricians lost their jobs after the Bush administration temporarily suspended the Davis-Bacon Act [...] BE&K is a subcontractor for Halliburton, which is doing the bulk of the reconstruction work at the base."""

"""Agents detained about 100 illegal immigrants working for a Halliburton subcontractor hired to do Hurricane Katrina recovery work, U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu's office said Thursday."""

Exxon:

"""The U.S. Coast Guard shut down the highly volatile ExxonMobil fuel depot in Everett for most of the day yesterday for a "serious security breakdown" after 15 illegal immigrants were arrested while working for a contractor of the worldwide petroleum giant, officials said. [...] The illegal aliens, all from Ecuador, were hired to clean up hazardous materials near ExxonMobil storage tanks that hold gasoline, jet fuel, kerosene and other volatile materials. """

Bokonon -

The petrochemical industry in Houston is about half of all America's petrochemical industry. However, it is not a major employer of illegal immigrants on the Gulf Coast. It would like more visas for engineers, and it lobbies for that, but it does not go looking to hire undocumented tecchies.

It is service establishments - small businesses; and construction subcontractors - small businesses; and rice farmers - small businesses; - that hire illegals. The same pattern in restaurants, hotels, and construction subs is visible in Austin.

I think that with regard to border state issues you have picked the wrong target [Halliburton's or Exxon's boardroom, as I read your 11:28A post]. To deal with the underground economy of Mexico-in-Texas, we will need hardened ids coupled with compliance from small business, and more border enforcement [not, however, a dumb fence]. The rice farmers, the citrus growers, and the border country ranchers have more seasonal work than there are summer workers available without a guest worker program.

And Chertoff targets meat packers and sweat shops because he has limited enforcement capabilities and those industries have been the most visible abusers of undocumented workers. I think his efforts have been directed well, with limited resources.

To get to Karen's goal, we will need a hardened ID, I am afraid. The SS card is easily faked - my clients ask for and get ss #s and only after many months, if at all, do they get a request for further info from ss. On the ground, to an employment lawyer for small businesses, this looks very different.

Bokonon -

What I am trying to get at is that too many liberals prattle on about tolerance but are intolerant of differing viewpoints. I am not really talking about compromise but finding a respectful approach to these people that concentrates on areas of agreement - along the lines of Mark's post. It can work. Too many liberals are simply dismissive of them.

As for your reference to Abu Garaib, Haditha, Gitmo, etc. - the people I describe probably do see abortion as far worse since they view it as murdering innocent babies. I do agree that far too few social conservatives have been critical of US abuses.

Karen, you are right to say that if anything meaningful is going to happen in re: illegal immigration, enforcement has to happen in the boardrooms of companies that employ illegals. Keep in mind, however, that the CEOS/presidents etc. of these companies are major contributors to politicians of both parties, so we may be waiting a long time to see any meaningful enforcement that is not directed at the individual immigrants (who have, after all, no political pull and thus no way to advocate for themselves.)

I live in Mike Ferguson's (R-NJ-7) district. If he gets federal funding to buy a sick child a coloring book, I swear we get a mailing about it. I've only lived here the last 5 years and I never got so many mailings from a Congressman anywhere else that I've lived.

I wonder how it will play out in the elections that the Republicans stopped the immigration bill. I know we'll get a lot of hype from the media that its bad for the Republicans because Hispanics will be angry about it but I'm a Democrat and I feel grateful to the Republicans for stopping this bill. I think the Democrats allowed the Republicans back into the game, especially by allowing Ted Kennedy to be so out front on this - what a mistake!

Americans feel threatened by immigration and surely, we are not delusional that we're seeing massive immigration, legal and illegal. The employers should be the first line of enforcement rather than yakking about a fence. Large fines, mandatory jail sentences (to scare the bejesus out of them) and asset forfeitures are all available to the government to enforce the laws via the employers. Why won't our politicians do it?

I live in Mike Ferguson's (R-NJ-7) district. If he gets federal funding to buy a sick child a coloring book, I swear we get a mailing about it. I've only lived here the last 5 years and I never got so many mailings from a Congressman anywhere else that I've lived.

I wonder how it will play out in the elections that the Republicans stopped the immigration bill. I know we'll get a lot of hype from the media that its bad for the Republicans because Hispanics will be angry about it but I'm a Democrat and I feel grateful to the Republicans for stopping this bill. I think the Democrats allowed the Republicans back into the game, especially by allowing Ted Kennedy to be so out front on this - what a mistake!

Americans feel threatened by immigration and surely, we are not delusional that we're seeing massive immigration, legal and illegal. The employers should be the first line of enforcement rather than yakking about a fence. Large fines, mandatory jail sentences (to scare the bejesus out of them) and asset forfeitures are all available to the government to enforce the laws via the employers. Why won't our politicians do it?

I live in Mike Ferguson's (R-NJ-7) district. If he gets federal funding to buy a sick child a coloring book, I swear we get a mailing about it. I've only lived here the last 5 years and I never got so many mailings from a Congressman anywhere else that I've lived.

I wonder how it will play out in the elections that the Republicans stopped the immigration bill. I know we'll get a lot of hype from the media that its bad for the Republicans because Hispanics will be angry about it but I'm a Democrat and I feel grateful to the Republicans for stopping this bill. I think the Democrats allowed the Republicans back into the game, especially by allowing Ted Kennedy to be so out front on this - what a mistake!

Americans feel threatened by immigration and surely, we are not delusional that we're seeing massive immigration, legal and illegal. The employers should be the first line of enforcement rather than yakking about a fence. Large fines, mandatory jail sentences (to scare the bejesus out of them) and asset forfeitures are all available to the government to enforce the laws via the employers. Why won't our politicians do it?

I live in Mike Ferguson's (R-NJ-7) district. If he gets federal funding to buy a sick child a coloring book, I swear we get a mailing about it. I've only lived here the last 5 years and I never got so many mailings from a Congressman anywhere else that I've lived.

I wonder how it will play out in the elections that the Republicans stopped the immigration bill. I know we'll get a lot of hype from the media that its bad for the Republicans because Hispanics will be angry about it but I'm a Democrat and I feel grateful to the Republicans for stopping this bill. I think the Democrats allowed the Republicans back into the game, especially by allowing Ted Kennedy to be so out front on this - what a mistake!

Americans feel threatened by immigration and surely, we are not delusional that we're seeing massive immigration, legal and illegal. The employers should be the first line of enforcement rather than yakking about a fence. Large fines, mandatory jail sentences (to scare the bejesus out of them) and asset forfeitures are all available to the government to enforce the laws via the employers. Why won't our politicians do it?

I live in Mike Ferguson's (R-NJ-7) district. If he gets federal funding to buy a sick child a coloring book, I swear we get a mailing about it. I've only lived here the last 5 years and I never got so many mailings from a Congressman anywhere else that I've lived.

I wonder how it will play out in the elections that the Republicans stopped the immigration bill. I know we'll get a lot of hype from the media that its bad for the Republicans because Hispanics will be angry about it but I'm a Democrat and I feel grateful to the Republicans for stopping this bill. I think the Democrats allowed the Republicans back into the game, especially by allowing Ted Kennedy to be so out front on this - what a mistake!

Americans feel threatened by immigration and surely, we are not delusional that we're seeing massive immigration, legal and illegal. The employers should be the first line of enforcement rather than yakking about a fence. Large fines, mandatory jail sentences (to scare the bejesus out of them) and asset forfeitures are all available to the government to enforce the laws via the employers. Why won't our politicians do it?

I live in Mike Ferguson's (R-NJ-7) district. If he gets federal funding to buy a sick child a coloring book, I swear we get a mailing about it. I've only lived here the last 5 years and I never got so many mailings from a Congressman anywhere else that I've lived.

I wonder how it will play out in the elections that the Republicans stopped the immigration bill. I know we'll get a lot of hype from the media that its bad for the Republicans because Hispanics will be angry about it but I'm a Democrat and I feel grateful to the Republicans for stopping this bill. I think the Democrats allowed the Republicans back into the game, especially by allowing Ted Kennedy to be so out front on this - what a mistake!

Americans feel threatened by immigration and surely, we are not delusional that we're seeing massive immigration, legal and illegal. The employers should be the first line of enforcement rather than yakking about a fence. Large fines, mandatory jail sentences (to scare the bejesus out of them) and asset forfeitures are all available to the government to enforce the laws via the employers. Why won't our politicians do it?

Re: Sicko, be on the lookout for canned Pharma-approved headlines and if you find any, send them to Media Matters, Think Progress and MichaelMoore.com.

OT, today's Must Read/Action:

American voters elected a new Congress to bury the failed conservative policies of the Bush Era and chart a new course for our nation. The majority in Congress has voted for bold reforms -- including a date to remove troops from Iraq, deep investments in renewable energy, affordable prescription drugs and empowered unions. But a minority of conservatives has blocked these reforms -- pushing their narrow interests, and thwarting the will of most Americans.

It's time to take the gloves off! Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has the power to force the hand of these conservative obstructionists. Please sign the petition below, and urge Senator Reid to do so.

"""Senator Reid. Like you, we're frustrated that a conservative minority continues to obstruct reforms that most Americans support. We think it's time this minority pays a price for thumbing its nose at the American people. We urge you to bring essential reforms to the Senate floor, and KEEP them there until this minority yields, or takes deserved heat for obstructing progress. We pledge to help you stand up to the conservatives standing in the way of progress!"""

http://ga3.org/campaign/HRpet

OBSTRUCT THE OBSTRUCTORS! Thanks all.

drindl: I posted sometime back on the single payer issue. I have both Medicare and Medicaid, being over 65 and disabled is how I have both. The most I pay on a covered Rx is $3.10, Dr. and Hospital I pay zero, no matter the tests, Xray, blood, Ct-scan, etc. This is about as close as I know of to meet the single payer issue, and by combining the state and federal payments into one. Paperwork is a big expense now and by having everything on one form, most of the paperwork could be reduced by more than 80%.

Bokonon, that is a powerful story, and one that points up that there are times for courage in our daily and often ordinary lives. Some folks are creeps.

You did well.

Mark, thanks for your insights. Of course the approaches you mention are ways to find common ground... I guess i would like to hear that a woman who does want to end a pregnancy will remain legally able to do so, after jumping through all the relevant hoops.

This isn't even as much about abortion for me as it is the right to make moral decisions oneself. Many years ago in college, an ex-girlfriend of mine became pregnant (not by me, after we had broken up) and with her friends' support, decided to end the pregnancy. She was (and I assume still is) a good person, and without going into it in detail had good reasons for not wanting/feeling able to be a mother. Unfortunately, the clinic entrance was physically blocked by a Right to Life group, yelling and waving signs. After she returned to her apartment crying, several friends and I went back with her to give her support.

We had to actually force our way through the protest, and I ended up punching this guy who was calling her a sl*t. (she was crying.) I was just blown away by how vindictive these people were toward my friend, whose story they didn't know at all. I just remember thinking, what gave them the right to judge my friend or tell her how to make this most personal decision.

hi drindl -

Funny, my wife and I just saw "Sicko", and it is much better than Moore's last effort. I was offended by the inaccuracy of F.911, but I suspect this movie is fairly accurate. And it underscores your point.

I remember that Sen. Moynihan fretted about this and did not think that federal single payer would work, but I remember that he suggested that some regional plans might. The gunshot statistic was his.

This is too complex for a short reply, but I was criticizing Kucinich's blythe reliance on the notion of federal solutions for social ills, and his desire to dismantle the military so as to spend federal tax money on education, when the military is a federal constitutional responsibility and the educational system is not.

I do not think that most Ds want to dismantle the military but I do think that many do; I do not think that most Ds fail to give sufficient weight to personal responsibility but I believe many do.

I reacted viscerally and negatively to HRC's moment when she suggested that if HIV was the major cause of death for 29-34 yr. old white females there would be an outcry. Biden was right to refocus that question to condoms - because that is the public health answer to PREVENTION, not any "outcry" or massive government program.

And I think you know that I would fault many Rs for the failure to encourage the individual's responsibility to her/his community. With them I talk about how the Federal budget has so many perks for the wealthy they should be glad to pay their fair share. I have a list of programs that do not affect the poor that starts with air traffic controllers and proceeds through the alphabet. Sometimes I can get a point grudgingly conceded.

I hope I can get you to concede one on Kucinich.

Bokonon -

Compromise is not always an option - but among Americans, opportunities can arise from disagreement.

I can get a strong anti-abortionist to agree that forcing a woman to raise a baby she does not want is bad for the baby.

I can get support for foster programs and adoptions from an anti-abortionist.

I can get an anti-abortionist to agree that funding pre-natal care for poor, ignorant single teenaged mothers is good.

I can get an anti-abortionist to see that ignorant single teenaged mothers who want to keep their babies need parenting training.

I pick this example because I represent the single most successful Head Start program in America, and that is how it approaches these issues.

Creative outreach does not need to make closure on every issue, just a bit of progress wherever it can be made. And that just takes imagination and a suspension of distrust and self-righteousness.

Do I think this can work with Al Quaeda?

No.

Do I think it can work with any honest churchgoing American, or honest agnostic or atheist or synagogue-going American, or my honest Moslem-American clients?

Pretty much.

I used to be the Romney family dog. This is what they did to me.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Politics/story?id=3329017&page=1

JimD, makes sense, but how do you find a middle ground with someone who does not see any room to move on an issue, and does not accept the right of others to disagree? I mean, I think "agree to disagree" is a perfectly acceptable answer - actually, that's the whole idea behind a diverse, multiethnic, multicultural society such as ours is supposed to be.

You're completely correct in re: the "talking heads" - Rush, O'Reilly etc. make their money by getting people to react angrily to issues on an emotional level, and discouraging them from thinking too hard. (The right would add "Michael Moore" to this category - I think he provides more of a basis in facts for his views, but I will acknowledge that being a filmmaker, he uses visual images to shock and mock as much as he does facts and discussion to make his case.)

And you're right that nobody should be "written off." However, you say "The Democrats can find a way to reach out to these folks without compromising core Democratic beliefs" - but with regard to the social conservatives, as you say, for them it's my way or the highway, and these issues are important enough to them that they are willing to - as you mention - vote against their own economic self-interest in order to be able to support candidates who claim to share their moral values. (as an aside, do you know how social conservatives have reacted to Abu Ghraib, Haditha, Guantanamo, et al? are these issues seen as being on the same level as abortion?)

Anyway, my question is - how do you compromise with someone who is not willing to compromise with you? The answer cannot be to allow them to dictate your values to you.

Bokonon,

I want to make a few things clear first of all. I am fairly liberal on social issues - very much pro-choice. I have no more use for right wing ideologues than I do for left wing ideologues.

However, think of someone who sincerely believes abortion is murder. How can they accept the idea that as long as no one forces them to have an abortion, they should respect the right of others to do it? It is like asking them to respect the right of someone to kill a child - from their viewpoint. I do not agree with them but I understand the depth of their beliefs.

I have less sympathy for their views on gays, but it is a view reinforced weekly in many pulpits.

I have no sympathy for the subset of those folks who believe we should be an explicitly Christian nation - with laws reflecting that.

I was not necessarily talking about committed conservatives, by the way. I was talking about religious people who are sympathetic to many Democratic positions on economic issues. The Democrats can find a way to reach out to these folks without compromising core Democratic beliefs. I have just seen too many talking heads write off the voting patterns of these people to them being deluded by right wing propaganda. These people do not like being told that they are delusional and having some of their most deeply held beliefs trivialized. I think Obama has made some important inroads in this regard. His speech to Pastor Rick Warren's (Warren is solidly pro-life but not a right winger on other issues) church is a model for how to do this.

JimD, thank you for your response.
You say "Too many liberals take a very disdainful attitude towards these folks and they can feel the disdain," and you're right, they do. Elitist attitudes are off-putting, even to some liberals. I'm sure you will also acknowledge that too many conservatives take a hostile and combative attitude towards 'libruls,' who in turn can feel what they perceive is unjustified moral judgment.

You are certainly right in your analysis of the abortion and gay marriage issues - actually, those are the two most common flashpoints between coastal liberals and 'flyover' conservatives.
Yes, conservatives believe that "abortion is infanticide," also that "gay marriage is a gross violation of God's law." I would disagree with your characterization of the origin of these viewpoints as "deeply held religious beliefs" - I think there is a distinction between the theology and how believers are taught to practice it, but that's just semantics.

You also say "Many people ... believe it is a moral imperative to oppose abortion and/or gay marriage" and vote likewise, and here is where I think the heart of the problem is. I know that some conservatives feel that they are being forced to live in an "ungodly" culture. The problem with that argument, it seems to me, is that by making it, conservatives implicitly reject the idea of ideas and opinions that do not fit into their belief system, and in doing so express a desire to limit and/or change the beliefs of others.

It would be one thing if laws were proposed requiring that every woman abort an unplanned child, or every child after her first (a la China's "one child policy"), or any child determined to have a birth defect, etc... but no liberal that I have heard of is advocating forced abortion. Similarly, no liberal that I have heard of is forcing anyone to marry someone of the same gender. Liberal thinking on these issues - as I understand it - is about the freedom to make moral choices for oneself, and to give others the same right.

If the "flyover" folks were being denied the right to choose not to abort, or to have a traditional marriage, I would support them in their resistance. Instead, what many on the right seem to want to do is to make sure everyone lives, loves, and worships as they do. They need to understand that just as they want to be free to make choices that fit their lives, others who have different opinions want the same courtesy.

Honestly, JimD, I understand what you're saying about elitism. But have you ever really listented to the Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity show? Do you know the outrageousness and outlandishness of some of the claims they make and their irrational, regressive and reactionary belief system? I listen sometimes, just to try to understand how any thinking adult can listen to this and believe it, because a great deal of it is simply wrong, distorted, not factual, warped and purposefully malevolent.

I am not just talking about opinons, but lies about demonstratable facts, mainly in the service of privatization of everything -- and to create a deep distrust of any sort of system of laws or government, and a sense of constant victimization.

I come from flyover country and my own mother was a victim of evangelicalism, which drove a wedge between she and my father and she and myself and anyone who was not a 'beleiver'. She was utterly obsessed and sent money she couldn't afford to these rich TV phonies. It made me sick to see it, these poor gullible people being duped by snake oil salesmen, telling them to put their hands on the TV and they'd pray for them. Just sad.

Because I come from that, I sometimes wince when I hear the way my northeast friends talk about things like religion and abortion, because I understand how it sounds to the people I came from. I do wish that Democrats could learn a little sensitivity about it. They are not nearly as good at PR as the R's are, that's for sure.

And Mark in Austin -- I'm sure there are dems who don't believe in any kind of military action, although I've been active in leftish pollitics since Viietnam and I've only met a handful. I think primarily that's yet another straw man/red herring the R's throw out. And as far as"

'Do you favor a national one-payer medical system, without having first tried it on some smaller scale, before destroying the admittedly flawed system we have?

We don't have a system. Period. We have a scattershot approach that was never great but that now is heading toward nonexistence. As the effects of globalization continue to grow, as more jobs are outsourced and staffed with cheap undemanding foreign labor, fewer and fewer companies wil feel they need to offer any sort of benefits at all. This is an accelerating trend. If we don't do something soon no one but the very wealthy will be able to afford any kind of health care at all, and we will have become at last, a banana republic, the inevitable result of privatization and cronyism and all the country's wealth concentrated in the hands of a few.

In any case, we have the VA system already, which in the hands of a COMPETENT administration that isn't trying to undermine and defund all government programs, was tremendously cost effective and efficient.

Hay Zook -

Phakyoo!

Bokonon

I don't disagree with your comparison of the quality of the news outlets. My point is that these people have deeply held beliefs on cultural issues that were formed long before exposure to Fox News and Rush Limbaugh. Too many liberals simply dismiss the sincerity of these beliefs and blame it on right wing news outlets and talk radio. Too many liberals take a very disdainful attitude towards these folks and they can feel the disdain.

Consider someone who deeply believes that life begins at conception (I do not but I know many who do). That person believes abortion is infanticide. Some of these people also deeply believe that gay marriage is a gross violation of God's law. These convictions come from deeply held religious beliefs. Many people who believe this, believe it is a moral imperative to oppose abortion and/or gay marriage and to support politicians who pledge to stop abortion and/or gay marriage. How do you think they react to a liberal talking head saying that they are voting against their own self-interest because they are deluded by Rush Limbaugh? It directly insults some of their most deeply held religious beliefs.

Fuh Q, Zouk!

spelling pedants love one another

Rufus, of course I could be wrong, but it has been my observation over the time I've been reading and posting on this site that Blarg is one of the good ones. I don't remember Blarg ever agreeing with or supporting Zouk/Trotsky. That doesn't mean I always agree with Blarg - I don't always agree with anybody!

JimD, you say "The main liberal analysis of the failure of the Democrats to attract more of these voters centers around the stupidity of the voters themeselves. Liberal writers frequently talk about how the poor beknighted folks in flyover country are pawns of Fox News, Rush, TV evangelists, etc. and do not have the good sense to vote for their own self-interest (as defined by the writers)."

I have nothing against the folks in "flyover country," and they have the right to their opinions as we all do. However, I do think there is a difference in the quality and accuracy of the news and discussion provided by say, PBS/NPR and Fox, to use the two extremes, and I think those with opinions informed by the former have a general understanding of issues which is more complete and ojective than those with opinions informed by the latter. Just my two cents.

Somehow being a racist, fascsits or homo-phobe is wha tthe conservative movement is all about. I'm new to politics (the last 7 years). HAve they always been this hatful?

Obama has a huge burden. HUGE. His burden is trying to win over recist white america. Not saying everybody is racist, but some are. The coast less so than the south and middle of the country.

I think he is trying to be more of a moderate to win some of those votes. Fox has people thhinking he's really in with the terrorists. Like he's secretly in al-qutia, casue he's black. cheap trick. Put that's what they right is. Cheap sell-out tricks. ANYTHING FOR MONEY. WHAT IS MONEY REALLY? aRE THERE MOR EIMPORTANT THINGS IN THE WORLD THAN PAPER?

JimD, as long as you and I are the only ones posting I do not feel guilty of hijacking the thread...if you did not read "Sarah" in the previous thread, and my reply, I thought it fit in with your view of self-righteous and somewhat unrealistic left-liberalism, so I repeat both.
---------------------------------------------
I'm a 22 year old Democrat (I guess because Jeez they suck these days) and a poli sci student to boot. I was just as entranced by Obama's 2004 convention speech as anyone else. However, I'm tired of waiting to be "wowed" by him. Last night left me seriously unimpressed. He should be knocking this stuff out of the park and he still comes off so mousy. If there is anyone to shake this race up, it's him and he still does nothing but speak to us like children. And with the Howard crowd? If not there, then where can he find his base of strength? Almost every response he countered after Edwards was a dressed up version of "but I'm BLACK." Also, why won't anyone admit that the crowd LOVED Kucinich last night, because they absolutely did. Too bad the numbers of white voters are stacked against the little guy.

Posted by: Sarah | June 29, 2007 04:00 PM

Sarah, what about Kucinich's views do you favor? I ask, because you are a political science major, who knows that national defense is a constitutional imperative and that "education" is a word not to be found in the Constitution.

Do you favor a national one-payer medical system, without having first tried it on some smaller scale, before destroying the admittedly flawed system we have?

Do you buy his notion that Canada, with fewer gunshot victims in a year than any major American city has in three months, somehow has comparable medical imperatives to the USA?

I know that there are serious adults who will try to defend Kucunich's "all-peace-all-the-time" federal nannie approach to American government, but I doubt if many of them were political science majors.

Forgive my rant; when the question was what should be done for the African-American community to prevent AIDS, he and all the others except Biden and Richardson said "find the cure" or some such. When Biden said males need to understand that wearing protection is not an issue of manliness and women need to learn to say no to unprotected sex, Biden got a very still audience. And when Richardson talked about "condoms and needles" even a poster here, claiming to be a HowardAlum, did not understand him.

But they loved Kucinich.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | June 29, 2007 05:11 PM

Mark in Austin

I also thought that Cheney would be a stabilizing force. I was serving in DC when he was the Defense Secretary, and he was probably the best one in my 20 years of service.

I think the Dems' problems are similar. They have their own group of absolutists who have disproportionate influence over the party. They have a significant minority that seems to oppose any use of force, any time, anywhere for any reason. This group also has a tendency to focus on US actions or policies as the cause of many, if not most, world problems.

Many Dems are rather tone deaf on handling cultural issues. Church-state issues, gay rights, abortion and the whole issue of the coarsening of the popular culture are concerns to many average Americans. Personally, I tend to agree more with the Democrats on these issues. However, when you hear many Democratic spokespeople discussing these issues you can detect a disdainful tone towards people who believe differently. Now, that is certainly not unusual in today's political climate as the Right and the Left are frantically engaged in demonizing each other. However, many of the people who care deeply about these issues are sympathetic to Democratic positions on economic issues. The main liberal analysis of the failure of the Democrats to attract more of these voters centers around the stupidity of the voters themeselves. Liberal writers frequently talk about how the poor beknighted folks in flyover country are pawns of Fox News, Rush, TV evangelists, etc. and do not have the good sense to vote for their own self-interest (as defined by the writers). I once heard Robert Reich discuss this situation on NPR and he talked about educating these people as to what their self-interest would be in the same tone as Victorian missionaries approached getting the natives to conform to Victorian sexual mores. This group makes it child's play for the right to caricature the Democrats as the party of "liberal elites".

I could say a lot more about this (and probably will later) but I have to go.

from Tom Coburn, [R] Okla:

I opposed Senator McCain in this immigration debate. I believed the policies he advocated were wrong for America and I used every tool at my disposal to defeat his position. However, the way Senator McCain conducted himself represented the essential qualities of leadership the American people deserve.
----------------------------------
Coburn has NOT endorsed McCain for Pres.

ROMP stands for Ripping Off Many People

Republican Party = corruption

I am watching an old Goldwater operative, Vic Gold, on PBS, talking to Moyers about his book: "Invasion of the Party Snatchers". He talks about the neocons and holy rollers [his words] taking down the R Party.

He talks about the obvious pressures on Rs more than on the Ds because he is more familiar with them. He talks about the change in Cheney that he now thinks was an unmasking - like me, he had thought Cheney would be a stabilizing force in 2000.

He talks about the corruption of the Justice Department in this Administration, and the "loss" of GWB.

He talks about both parties corrupted by money. He sees no one fit to be called Goldwater's successor. He sees little hope. I suppose this is what Chuck Hagel is talking about when he says this is not the R Party he joined in 1968, while sitting on a gun turret.

Someone should write the sequel book about the Ds. Bill Moyers?

Two Words: Jim Ogonowski - www.jimogonowski.com

"Dem Congress has been a big washout. Nothing has been accomplished."

You do realize that there is a Republican President, right?

FYI: The Tavis Smiley Show is on PBS, check for local time and station. Tonight will be the results and opinions of the 30 chosen with the meters I referred to in my 05:11 PM Post.

" I come here for the readers to scared to post. "

Those liberals that don't want to be put on the terrorist watch list, like I proably am. "you are either with us or against us" Right zouk

Fascsits

Rosanne sounds like she's been reading this blog. Sorry everybody. I don't come on here to battle Zouk all day. I come here for the readers to scared to post. Those that think we are a nation of laws. Those that wonder where our government is. It is not for ZOuk. Is is for the moderates out there reading.

Don't fall for their tricks. Money is nothing but paper. Imagine an america run by the people, as it was designed. We can have that back. THE REPUUBLICAN movement would have you believe it is impossible or to much work. Not only is is possible. IT"S DONE.

All we have to do is VOTE. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. Vote your conscince. Don't listen to me don't listen to zouok, more importantly don't listen to rush/hannity/o'reilly.

Vote your heart. As the budda say, "Do not listen to anyone, EVEN ME, unless you agree with what I am saying in your our heart."

If I am a propogandist, sorry. I was very scared at what has been happening the last 7 years. Fascsism and all. WE have hope now. The last elections showed what kind of country we really are. Now we have to do the hard tihing. We have to leave OUR FEAR behind. We need a new thrid party of the people and by the people. How could that party lose?

But that's not what I was referring to. Several times in this thread, Rufus quoted me, then responded as if Zouk wrote it. So he thinks that we're the same person, just because we've both criticized him. And that's idiotic."

Whatever it takes to take the topic off the subject at hand. Sorry if I thought you were zouk. I take offense to ":That's idiotic"

He uses so many differant names how am I supposed to keep track. Sorry if I hurt your delicate ideals. I don't want to do that. :)

My sensibilites is hurt to. But for differant reasons. Zouk/Razor gets hurt when people mis-spell words or "talking bad about the president during war time" Or ROsie saying Bush was behind 9/11. Stuff like that.

To me HOW DOES THAT EFFECT YOU. How does a misspelled word effect you? How does being called the same person effect you? My people getting killed, that effects me. My called and emails being looked at. That effects me. Our names as AMericans being hurt across the world. That effects me. We have differant priorities. We see things differant ways. That is what america is about. We all can't be dittoheads like rush. We are all individuals. And our society will be destroyed if that changes, like the right would have us do.

YOU CANNOT FORCE CONSERVATISIM ON THE REST OF US. You time is almost up. America was founding and is supposed to be a free country. AS MUCH AS THE RIGHT HATES IT, THAT"S THE WAY IT IS. You don't like it move.

"IMPEACH....
IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT AND THE VICE PRESIDENT, THEY ARE TRAITORS TO AMERICA, AND SO ARE ALL OF THEIR SUPPORTERS. IMPEACH! ANYONE IN CONGRESS WHO REFUSES TO SAVE OUR UNION FROM THESE TRAITORS BY DOING NOTHING NEEDS TO BE RECALLED. SAVE OUR TROOPS!!! SAVE OUR SCH