Maritn Luther King, Jr. Holiday
So many disgusts, so little time.
A Democrat who plans to vote against Samuel Alito sided on Sunday with a Republican colleague on the Senate Judiciary Committee in cautioning against a filibuster of the Supreme Court nominee.It hurts knowing that once upon a time I lived in San Diego and voted for Feinstein, not once, but twice, for Senator.
"I do not see a likelihood of a filibuster," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. "This might be a man I disagree with, but it doesn't mean he shouldn't be on the court."
She said she will not vote to confirm the appeals court judge, based on his conservative record. But she acknowledged that nothing emerged during last week's hearings to justify any organized action by Democrats to stall the nomination.
Dr. King would be appalled by the secular culture, the attacks on Christmas, the demonizing of Christianity. By the way, where's the ACLU and other pinheads when Martin Luther King's picture is displayed on public property?
The Washington Post covers the Murtha smears, but Murray Waas uncovers a few more facts about David Thibault, editor in chief of the Cybercast News Service that the WaPo does not.
It would have been nice to know that the swiftboating of Murtha is coming from someone with deep ties to the RNC. He's also linked to Bobby Eberle of GOPUSA, the former boss of Jeff Gannon.
In January of 1999, President Bill Clinton was preparing to give the annual State of the Union address on the nineteenth of January. During this time Congress was in the middle of the impeachment proceedings against Clinton. Two Republican Congressman, John Shadegg (R-AZ) and Bob Schaffer (R-CO) circulated a letter among their colleagues calling on them to boycott the State of the Union Address.
In a "Dear Republican Colleague" letter, the congressmen write, "While some argue that attending the address is a matter of respect for the OFFICE of the presidency, it is difficult to accept in the current context.Dennis Hastert was the newly installed Republican Speaker of the House after Newt Gingrinch was forced to step down over ethics violations. Undoubtedly influenced by recent polls showing a soaring approval rating for Clinton and a crashing one for the GOP, Hastert asked Republicans to attend the speech (from CNN All Politics December 20, 1998):
"By proceeding with his speech, the President is demonstrating his lack of respect for the Congress and its legitimate role," the pair complain. "He also clearly intends to gain political advantage and demean the significance of the impeachment proceeding now going forward in the Senate."
Saying they "will not play a role in facilitating his disrespect," Shadegg and Schaffer call on Clinton to either postpone his speech or deliver it from the Oval Office, not the House chamber.
"If he refuses to do so, we will not be present in the chamber for the address," they wrote.
In the wake of the House of Representatives' approval of two articles of impeachment, Bill Clinton's approval rating has jumped 10 points to 73 percent, the latest CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll shows.I wonder if the 30% who wanted Clinton to reisgn or supported impeachment be the same people that blindly support Bush regardless of what he does, now? It would be interesting to see that in a poll, but as Media Matters has pointed out outlets like the Washinton Post, despite doing similar polling on Clinton:
That's not only an all-time high for Clinton, it also beats the highest approval rating President Ronald Reagan ever had.
At the same time, the number of Americans with an unfavorable view of the Republican Party has jumped 10 points; less than a third of the country now has a favorable view of the GOP.
Despite concerns that public calls for Clinton's resignation would rise after his impeachment, the number of Americans who want Clinton to resign has remained statistically unchanged. Only 30 percent want Clinton to resign; only 29 percent want the Senate to convict Clinton and remove him from office.
do not "do a poll on whether President Bush should be impeached" because such a question "is biased and would produce a misleading result."
With President Clinton planning to deliver his State of the Union address to a joint session of Congress Tuesday night, many GOP lawmakers are wrestling with how to demonstrate respect for the office of the presidency without endorsing the conduct that prompted them to vote to impeach the chief executive in December.Many Republicans did boycott the SOTU. I don’t know if there was a full accounting of who was in attendance, but there was some notable coverage in the news afterwards.
Even moderate Republican Rep. Christopher Shays (Conn.), one of a handful of GOP House members who voted against impeachment, voiced concern about whether he can afford to be caught on camera clapping when the president announces a policy initiative Shays supports.
"From a selfish standpoint, I just wish he wouldn't do it," Shays said. "I will be in the chamber, but I will be in the far right," away from the cameras.
A few Republicans have decided to boycott the address. Rep. Tom Coburn, a conservative junior member, will remain in his Oklahoma district. In a letter Wednesday, Coburn urged House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) to ask to delay the speech or deliver it in writing.
"He's going to be addressing the very people who are going to be making decisions about him," Coburn said. "The timing is wrong right now. I don't think it hurts the nation one bit to delay it two or three weeks."
Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry J. Hyde (R-Ill.) said he expects to watch the speech on television from home, but said it was not out of disrespect. "Mostly because it's not fun," he told ABC's "Nightline" on Wednesday. ". . . I can watch on television and do my leaping from my feet at home."
None of the top Republicans have questioned the appropriateness of his address, and aides to Clinton critic Tom DeLay (R-Tex.), the majority whip, briefly considered calling members' offices to check on attendance before concluding it was not necessary.
A coincidental quirk of timing, rather than Clinton's troubles, may keep attendance down. Republican House leaders have scheduled no floor votes until Feb. 2 on the theory that committees should have more time to develop legislation.
As a result, said Rep. Joe Barton (R-Tex.), lawmakers can continue working in their districts without needing to be in Washington for a vote. "If I was a junior congressman, I don't think I'd go up for the State of the Union," he said.
Barton noted that Republicans decided to go ahead with impeachment proceedings even as the U.S. bombed Iraq last month, and it only makes sense that Clinton address the nation as the Senate trial continues.
Some lawmakers fail to attend State of the Union speech; reasons include illness, reluctance to return to Washington when House is not in session and protest against Pres Clinton's presence while he is on trial in Senate; Rep Henry J Hyde blames bad back; Reps John Shadegg, Bob Schaffer and Bob Barr boycott speech.The Cincinnati Enquirer had a similar article, State Of The Union Notebook: Thanks, But We’ll Pass, which includes criticism of Ohio Republican Senator Mike DeWine:
The flu felled a few of them; others didn't want to make the long trip here when the House of Representatives won't be back in session again until next month. But some of the lawmakers absent from the House chamber tonight were actually boycotting it.
Several Republicans did not attend President Clinton's State of the Union address, saying it was inappropriate for Mr. Clinton to appear before Congress during his impeachment trial.
“The president is demonstrating his lack of respect for the Congress,” Reps. John Shadegg, R-Ariz., and Bob Schaffer, R-Colo., wrote in a letter explaining their absences.
Most Republicans, however, decided to follow the lead of new House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., who wrote that despite the “discomfort,” Congress had a duty to hear the views of the president.
Listen up, Mr. DeWine
Union members came. So did feminists. And a minister.
Each watched President Clinton's State of the Union address at a Columbus, Ohio, union hall to lend support to those urging the U.S. Senate to end the impeachment trial that threatens Mr. Clinton's future.
“They've been after him since he got into office,” said Lula Oliver, a 69-year-old Columbus woman who attended the gathering, sponsored by People for the American Way, a liberal organization that organized community State of the Union viewings in 18 cities, including Columbus.
“They say they don't like the way he behaves. I think they don't like his ideas, and they don't like that he talks about what matters.”
Larry Mays, a Baptist minister, said he hopes the speech and the meeting will spur more people opposed to the impeachment trial to speak out.
Rally organizers suggested opponents start with the office of U.S. Sen. Mike DeWine, R-Ohio.
Jack Abramoff narrating the introduction:
"You know, we always called each other Bush fellas. Like you said to, uh, somebody, "You're gonna like this guy. He's all right. He's a Bush fella. He's one of us." You understand? We were Bush fellas. GOPguys. But Tommy and I could never be made because we had Democratic blood. It didn't even matter that my mother voted for Reagan. To become a member of a crew you've got to be one hundred per cent Republican so they can trace all your relatives back to the old country. See, it's the highest honor they can give you. It means you belong to a family and crew. It means that nobody can fuck around with you. It also means you could fuck around with anybody just as long as they aren't also a member. It's like a license to steal. It's a license to do anything. As far as George was concerned with Tommy being made, it was like we were all being made. We would now have one of our own as a member."
You mean, let me understand this cause, ya know maybe it's me, I'm a little fucked up maybe, but I'm funny how, I mean funny like I'm a clown, I amuse you? I make you laugh, I'm here to fuckin' amuse you? What do you mean funny, funny how? How am I funny?
Roy Blunt talking to Tom Delay after assuming Republican House leadership:
Now the guy's got Cheney as a partner. Any problems, he goes to Cheney. Trouble with a bill? He can go to Cheney. Trouble with the war, economy, Tommy, he can call Cheney. But now the guy's gotta come up with Cheney's money every week no matter what. Business bad? Fuck you, pay me. Oh, you had a fire? Fuck you, pay me. Place got hit by hurricane huh? Fuck you, pay me.
Tom DeLay on what it means being a Congressman:
For us to live any other way was nuts. Uh, to us, those goody-good people who worked shitty jobs for bum paychecks and took the subway to work every day, and worried about their bills, were dead. I mean they were suckers. They had no balls. If we wanted something we just took it. If anyone complained twice they got hit so bad, believe me, they never complained again.
Dick Cheney speaking to Scooter Libby after his indictment:
I'm not mad, I'm proud of you. You took your first pinch like a man and you learn two great things in your life. Look at me, never rat on your friends and always keep your mouth shut.
Michael Brown speaking about no longer being a BushFella:
And that's the hardest part. Today everything is different; there's no action... have to wait around like everyone else. Can't even get decent food - right after I got here, I ordered some spaghetti with marinara sauce, and I got egg noodles and ketchup. I'm an average nobody... get to live the rest of my life like a schnook.
Karl Rove reminiscing about Jeff Gannon:
And then there was Jimmy-Jeff Two Times, who got that nickname because he said and did everything twice, like: "I'm gonna be a reporter, be a reporter."
When legal and ethical questions began spinning around House majority leader Tom DeLay last year, President George W. Bush was publicly supportive. Privately, though, he questioned his fellow Texan's mojo.
Bush had scored 10 points higher than DeLay in the Representative's district in 2004, and that was only after Bush had recorded a telephone message to help rally local Republicans. "I can't believe I had to do robocalls for him," the President said bitingly to an Oval Office visitor.
To people who know Bush well, the remark said it all about the longtime chill between the two pols—a distance that is only sure to grow with former lobbyist Jack Abramoff's guilty plea.
Just how fucking screwed is this?
And the best part? Congress and the Executive branch have known about this problem for half a year or more and no one did a damn thing to fix it.
Give us the cell phone number and we will send you the calls made from the cell phone number.
So I went to their site, plopped down $110, and within a day I had a list of every single phone number that called my cell, or that I called from my cell, for the month of November. I even had the dates the calls were made, and for a premium I could find out how long the calls were.
I called Cingular and they were shocked by what I told them - yeah right.
What's most infuriating to me is that our government, both Congress and the executive branch, has known about this since at least last July when the Washington Post story ran, and they didn't do a damn thing about it. Congress could have easily passed legislation to make this illegal. But they didn't. Hell, Bush could have evoked his apparently all-powerful divine right of kings and simply outlaw the damn practice - a much better use of his dictator police-state powers than spying on innocent Americans.
But Bush did nothing. Republicans and Democrats in Congress did nothing. And the FBI and the privacy groups have known about this for a long time, and they did nothing.
This is the kind of issue that you could get fixed on Capitol Hill IN ONE DAY. But that would require someone who actually understands politics, who understands how to get things accomplished, and who gives a damn. It also takes someone who isn't in the pocket of the telecommunications industry, the telemarketers, and the direct marketing lobbyists.
And finally, let's not forget the biggest criminals of all in this affair. The phone companies. There is no way that these online services are outright stealing this information, if they're able to get in just a few hours consistently. They've got access to the info, and from the reading I've done it seems the cell and land-line companies are selling our info for profit. So, the biggest slap in the face should be to any phone company out there who has ever sold one big of information about you to anyone else. Not only is it unethical, but they just might have helped Al Qaeda. Congrats.
So, anybody got Bill Frist's or Harry Reid's phone numbers? Or maybe the phone number of the FBI tip line?
"Riddle me this and riddle me that, who needs more troops and armor when you have a President that's no cattle and all hat?"
"Everything is purrfect. I believe the title was 'Bin laden determined to attack in the US' but it was a historical document. Everything in Iraq is going purrfectly. We do not have secret prisons and we do not condone torture...much."
"Wah, wah , wah, terrorists, Osama, Saddam, no difference.
Wah, wah, wah, Saddam has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.
Wah, wah, wah, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.
Wah, wah, wah, last Throes."
"Ha-ha-ha-ha. No WMD here, nope. Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be somewhere.
Ha-ha-ha-ha. If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just as long as I'm the dictator."