I was thinking about donating to Obama's campaign. But his flip-flop on the wiretapping bill (FISA) ended that idea.
In fact, he is on the verge of losing my vote (doesn't matter, he'll carry Maryland). Not standing up for the Bill of Rights is a deal breaker for me.
Posted by Gay Veteran at July 8, 2008 04:57 AMIf you guys are feeling that its easier to breathe today, it just might be because Karl Rove is here in Sweden today. He is advicing the Swedish right wing government on how to campaign and how to combat bloggers. Its absolutely disgusting to read the praise the swedish right wing press keeps giving him.
Posted by at July 8, 2008 06:14 AMTypical politics by Republicans, nasty.
Republican operatives, including Floyd Brown who engineered the infamous Willie Horton ad of 1988 are already gearing up to define Obama. David Mark and Kenneth P. Vogel of Politico write:
Opposition researchers . . . hope they have found a weapon to wound Obama in his own voice as recorded for the Grammy-Award winning audio version of his 1995 memoir, Dreams from my Father. . . . In a passage describing his high school experience in Hawaii, for example, Obama explains the allure of drugs. "I kept playing basketball, attended classes sparingly, drank beer heavily, and tried drugs enthusiastically."
Brown told Mark and Vogel "My copy of [Dreams] is dog-eared and covered with yellow marker. I expect to use his words a lot in the ads that I do, and I would highly encourage other independent efforts or the McCain campaign itself - to do the same thing."
http://a.tribalfusion.com/p.media/aCmNnA5bIuWabpVqUbQqBZdSsBKPFAtPH38VcMT2FunoWEtXaeO2dYFPsFZc2mQZapWEOTWQeXUQcXUJl0EZaMPrrZbTbB3VHMWmbQpQFvm1E3q5aUg4T30oTbE1bJhUdM1mmYZbmcQnmWfG5T3f5dun5PrZbpbbETrr7rbJafZc/1060586/pop.html
Euzoius, well obviously I don't know my trees. Your right, we have birch and sycamores that line our streets, creating canopys, not elm trees.
Posted by Judith at July 8, 2008 06:17 AMOf course the media gave Bush a pass on doing the same things in his youth and being a fallen down drunk, but somehow I expect Obama will not be given the same courtesy.
Posted by Judith at July 8, 2008 06:27 AMRepublicans, according to Newsweek, are finally showing McCain the money, and McCain is skirting his own spending caps.
The vast disparity between John McCain's and Barack Obama's overall fundraising total this cycle, $120 million to $287 million at last count, McCain stands a surprisingly good chance of keeping up with Obama in the general election. When you combine the McCain's individual war chest with his party's bankroll, it turns out the Republican nominee has about $90 million currently burning a hole in his pocket, while Obama and the DNC weigh in at a relatively paltry $47 million, or half as much. And even though McCain has agreed to an $84.1 spending limit by accepting public funds--a decision he likes to portray as a principled stand against the corrupting influence of money on politics--at least double that sum will be dropped on his behalf before Election Day thanks to loopholes in the law that allow outside groups to effectively skirt such limits with largely unregulated "soft money" contributions.
In Saint Louis, the campaign ads are running about three to one for McCain. The two McCain ads are full of his military service and being a POW.
Posted by Judith at July 8, 2008 06:53 AM
The following Obama quote came from the Army Times: "Precisely because I have not served in uniform, I am somebody who strongly believes I have to earn the trust of men and women in uniform,”
That is stupidist thing I heard Obama every say. The founding fathers did not want or trust a standing army and made sure the command of the army was firmly in civilian control -- Why? Was it because they did not trust the chauvinists among them?
What he should have said was "When I am President I will not send out our young men and women to protect and enhance the value of Haliburton stock but to protect and enhance the security of this nation."
Hi Gay Veteran. Didn't know you were a fellow Marylander. Barbara Mikulski also insists on shielding the telecoms. And she actually thinks it's the right thing to do, not just that we need the rest of the bill passed.
Posted by CG at July 8, 2008 10:25 AMWell, well, guess who has an internet site.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/12/20071217-3.html
A CEO of Quest has said that the spying on Americans began prior to 9/11 by Bush. We impeached Nixon, but not George Bush.
Posted by Judith at July 8, 2008 11:20 AMArrest Karl Rove
The House Judiciary Committee subpoenaed Karl Rove to testify on July 10, but on July 1 Rove announced he would defy the subpoena.
Could you or I get away with defying a Congressional subpoena? Of course not. So why can Karl Rove? Like George Bush and Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, believes he is simply above the law.
It's time for Congress to prove them wrong by using its power of "inherent contempt" to send the Sergeant-at-Arms to arrest Karl Rove and bring him before the full House to answer to the charge of Contempt of Congress, and to punish him to the maximum extent allowed by law, including prison.
Before Democrats won Congress in 2006, Nancy Pelosi said the most important reason to put Democrats in control of Congress was "subpoena power." But now Pelosi is quietly blocking the use of inherent contempt.
Tell your Representatives to Arrest Karl Rove:
http://www.democrats.com/peoplesemailnetwork/106
Defeat the Wiretap Bill
The Senate will cast its final vote on warrantless wiretapping late Tuesday or Wednesday, so we need to flood Congress with petitions and calls demanding a no vote on the FISA bill.
Sign our petition for impeachment, not immunity:
Call your Senators through the switchboard at 202-224-3121 or dial direct
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
or let BlueAmerica connect you for free:
http://tools.advomatic.com/7/fisa
We now know Bush enlisted the telephone companies to engage in illegal warrantless wiretapping in Feburary 2001, shortly after he stole the White House and long before the 9/11 attack that supposedly justified this and many other criminal actions by the Bush Administration. Again, why hasn't he been impreached Nancy????
Posted by Judith at July 8, 2008 12:01 PMAnybody want to talk about Congress and their latest poll numbers from Rasmussen? Single digits!!!
Posted by peter at July 8, 2008 12:12 PM"Anybody want to talk about Congress and their latest poll numbers from Rasmussen? Single digits!!!"
gee pants pissing peter, not much worse that our Crawford Caligua. Congress gets low poll numbers for enabling Dear Leader.
Posted by Gay Veteran at July 8, 2008 12:15 PMFrom the whitehouse site Judith posted (bold is mine):
As recognized by the bipartisan SSCI bill, those companies alleged to have assisted the government in the aftermath of September 11th should not face massive and costly litigation for helping protect our country. Such litigation risks the disclosure of highly classified information and could lead to reduced intelligence collection capabilities in the future by discouraging companies from cooperating with the government.
I want to scream every time I hear this argument. We WANT to discourage companies from cooperating with the government when the government is acting illegally!!!! This will NOT discourage companies from cooperating when there's a proper warrant! Sheesh!
Posted by CG at July 8, 2008 12:25 PMEven from Republicans GV? I think not...these people aren't doing their jobs. I saw they may leave all the budget items for the new president. Counting their chickens aren't they? They don't seem to want to do their jobs at all, afraid of confrontation.
Ah CG, you seem to miss presidential powers. I know that won't go over to well here.
Posted by peter at July 8, 2008 01:06 PMThere is no LEGAL presidental power that allowes for illegal activity by our Government. What Bush did was not legal, and saying it was legal doesn't change the facts.
Posted by Judith at July 8, 2008 04:02 PMIf legal, Nixon would have finished out his term instead of being impeached.
Posted by Judith at July 8, 2008 04:03 PM"...reduced intelligence collection capabilities in the future by discouraging companies from cooperating with the government...."
Companies do not have a choice when the government HAS A WARRANT!
doing their jobs, pants pissing peter? when is it the job of a congressman to allow the president to seize monarchal powers?
Posted by gay veteran at July 8, 2008 06:12 PM