Impeach Bush and Cheney, On The Impeachpolitico-Beat The New Is Not Good.
George Bush has decided that no way but his way is the way, this administration will go to the finish line. We have to end that sprint.
Hillary Clinton has shown her true and troubling colors. She does not deserve to be President; in fact given her “NEED” for the job; she is not suited to the job…her only vision is herself. She is a troubled woman and for my money in no better than George Bush. Having assumed the posture that if she can’t be President, then “John McCain is better qualified than Obama”, I can reach no other conclusion than of; She is prepared to continue with the Unitary/Imperial Presidency and has no inclination to, appetite for or goal to restore the fundamental democratic core values of this nation! The Neocon tide will continue.
George Bush has made it abundantly clear that he does not trust the citizenry of this nation nor respect any law that prevents him from achieving his ends. He will protect everyone who bows down to his wishes to be able to spy on every citizen of this country and in defiance of ever standard of decency and law he has positioned himself as a Medieval Inquisitor on the matter of torture..He approves!
On the Impeachment front the good news is that the “I” word is in the media thanks to everyone’s efforts and the persistence and tenacity of our New England friends in not being silenced or slapped down!
Conversations in the House Hallways and Cafeteria this week reward their efforts. The matter is spoken of openly.
Now read this carefully, please. If the Democrat Party delegate issue is settled in any way that even gives the appearance of a stolen election or corrupt bargain that snatches a rightful nomination from Obama, in words of some intelligent Afro-Americans I was speaking with yesterday: ”We will burn the party, and there will be burning in the streets!” I TOLD YOU SO!!!!!! And it won’t be only in the streets of Denver!
Hillary Clinton, Fratricidal Maniac (Here is the problem)
CBS News - New York,NY,USA
The morning after Tuesday's primaries, Hillary Clinton's campaign released a memo titled "The Path to the Presidency." I eagerly dug into the paper, ...See all stories on this topic
The Democrats' nightmare is a sweet Republican dream
The CIA on Interrogation
New York Times - 47 minutes ago
“Horrifying and Unnecessary” (editorial, March 2) cites interrogation measures that are specifically banned by the Army Field Manual, including forcing prisoners to perform sexual acts, applying electric shocks and conducting mock executions.
*Bush Vetoes Waterboarding Bill The Associated Press
My Position
Bush vetoes bill to ban waterboarding Los Angeles Times
Bloomberg - ToTheCenter.com - Washington Post - WHBF
Pelosi and Reid did (TALK) about an over-ride. (Don’t hold your breath; you’re too important)
THIS NEEDED TO BE SAID AND COULD NOT HAVE BEEN BETTER SAID!
Democrats: Impeach, or Face Humiliation in November
Submitted by davidswanson on Sat, 2008-03-08 04:53.
By Richard W. Behan
If the Democrats persist in stonewalling the impeachment of George Bush and Richard Cheney, they invite a humiliating defeat in the presidential election this fall.
For more than a year, the Democrats have gamed the system of Constitutional democracy, refusing to impeach—“It would be too divisive”—in order to assure a Democratic victory in 2008. But the year produced some surprises, and now their scheme stands an excellent chance of backfiring.
A year ago, John McCain’s candidacy languished. Today he is the Republican nominee and a formidable opponent. A year ago, Hillary Clinton’s nomination was “inevitable. Today she clings to a miniscule possibility of succeeding in her vitriolic campaign against Barack Obama, who holds a commanding lead in pledged delegates.
The savage nature of the contest is polarizing the Democratic party—to Mr. McCain’s considerable benefit.
And the Democrats’ refusal to impeach has now become a grave liability: it adds enormously to Mr. McCain’s advantage.
Failing to impeach leaves unchallenged and intact the manufactured, distorted “reality” the Bush Administration has imposed on the country—of a perilous and fearful world, necessary warfare, and unending militarism. This is the result of seven years of conscious and effective propagandizing by the Administration, to justify its monstrous deceit: the so-called war on terror. But this bizarre “reality” of fear is now the base-datum of political discourse.
The fear-mongering has succeeded. “Keeping America safe in the war on terror” remains a slogan of great power, and it bolsters Mr. McCain’s stature—and his campaign—with political potence.
Current tracking polls show the general election tilting slightly toward Mr. McCain. Can he sustain and widen this advantage, and win in November?
Start with the pall of fear and a decorated war hero, and add a Bush Administration announcement, say two weeks before voting day, of a red-alert terrorist threat; a Democratic victory is far from certain. Now add the full court press of a Republican presidential campaign—spin, hype, smear, attack ads, deception, Swiftboating, and voting fraud; a Democratic victory is in greater jeopardy still.
Finally, add the Fox television network, which Mr. McCain can reliably include as part of his campaign staff. A recent AP story reported the Fox network is now the most popular in the country, averaging two million more viewers per week than its closest rival.
In an election drama staged by the Bush Administration and produced by Fox television, a Democratic success is remote.
The point of major vulnerability here is George Bush’ staging: the base-datum of fear, militarism, and war making.
If this staging can be deconstructed, the way is clear for a Democratic victory, and for desperately needed new trajectories in both foreign and domestic policy, as well.
But the staging is deeply embedded. Not a murmur of protest was registered when President Bush said in his State of the Union speech, “The advance of liberty is opposed by terrorists and extremists—evil men who despise freedom, despise America, and aim to subject millions to their violent rule
Following along faithfully, Mr. McCain decries the Democratic candidates’ pledge to bring the troops home. “I believe that would have catastrophic consequences,” Mr. McCain said. “I believe al Qaeda would trumpet to the world that they had defeated the United States of America, and I believe that therefore they would try to follow us home.”
Worldwide, al Qaeda numbers some 18,000 operatives in 60 different countries, according to the UK’s International Institute for Strategic Studies. Suppose in fact they “try to follow us home.”
By what means of transportation will 18,000 terrorists reach the homeland of 303 million people—who are protected by the mightiest military in history? Also unexplained is how, thereafter, we might be made “subject to their violent rule.” But the imagery and the words are now widely accepted—rarely scrutinized—and they can’t be quickly deconstructed.
Successful deconstruction can be done only with an abrupt, even explosive eruption of truth, done in full view of the mass media.
The Congressional Democrats have a unique institutional ability to do this. George Bush and Richard Cheney must be impeached. There is no other forum where their hideous violations of law and the public trust can be displayed—and their staging collapsed—with such immediacy, visibility, and integrity.
The Bush Administration distorted reality to justify and rationalize its signature violation: their so-called “war on terror.” The Administration’s true priority, however, was not counterterrorism but Middle East energy assets, according to countless news stories, books, and testimonials (shamefully few of which appeared in the U.S. mass media). They were all written by people constrained by libel laws to tell the truth.
Truth about a standing offer from the Taliban to surrender Osama bin Laden, awaiting President Bush when he took office. Truth about the Bush Administration spurning the offer three times before September 11, 2001, and twice thereafter.
Truth about the Bush Administration meeting repeatedly with the Taliban in early 2001, unsuccessfully negotiating a pipeline route in behalf of the Unocal Corporation.
Truth about the Administration notifying Pakistan in July of 2001 “…military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October.” Truth about the Administration finally telling the Taliban, “Accept our offer of a carpet of gold or we bury you under a carpet of bombs”—five weeks before 9/11.
Truth about repeated written proposals to invade Iraq, spanning the two Bush Administrations and made by four people who served in both—prominently including Richard Cheney.
Truth about their triumph when the National Security Council, seven months before 9/11, formalized the commitment to invade Iraq.
Truth about Richard Cheney’s Energy Task Force studying maps of the Iraqi oil fields in March of 2001.
Truth about the Administration designing the privatization of Iraq’s nationalized oil industry, fully a year before Congress authorized military action.
Truth about the Bush Administration rejecting a peaceful regime change in Iraq—by denying Saddam Hussein’s offer to leave the country for exile in Egypt or Saudi Arabia.
Truth about former consultants to the Unocal Corporation serving as the president of Afghanistan and the second US ambassador there; the first ambassador was a Unocal vice president.
Truth about the Bush Administration’s readiness in 2003 to finance a pipeline across Afghanistan and station troops permanently to defend it.
Truth about Exxon/Mobil, Conoco/Phillips, Shell, and BP/Amoco poised today to profit immensely from 81% of Iraq’s undeveloped crude.
The conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq are territorial wars for energy dominance, not acts of counter-terrorism. At George Bush’s sufferance, the arch-terrorist Osama bin Laden remains free, but Afghanistan and Iraq are administered today by puppet governments and dotted with permanent military bases.
The Congress has finally confronted the Administration’s duplicity. The National Defense Authorization Act of 2008 expressly prohibited the permanence of military bases in Iraq, and denied funds “to exercise United States control of the oil resources of Iraq.” President Bush nullified both provisions with a signing statement.
The “war on terror” is the mega-lie, from which all the other lies flowed—about weapons of mass destruction, aluminum tubes, mobile laboratories, Nigerian yellowcake, and Saddam Hussein harboring al Qaeda. The mega-lie brought torture, suspension of habeas corpus, domestic spying, cronyism and no-bid contracts, destruction of video tapes, outing an undercover CIA agent, “rendition,” murder and rape by contract U.S. mercenaries, and so on beyond counting.
34,000 young American men and women dead or wounded; hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and Afghanis killed; millions of refugees fleeing their homes; economies and cultures in shambles; infrastructure in ruins; sectarian violence; a destabilized region; a half a trillion dollars squandered; America’ prestige destroyed and her citizens defamed.
Mr. McCain, the Fox network, and most Republicans reject such truths as the manic rantings of “liberals.” They accept the Bush Administration staging instead, and all the consequences as justified. No amount of journalism or literature will persuade them otherwise, but they cannot escape proof.
In a situation so severe the Democrats should seek no less, and it is in their power to provide it.
Proof can be developed in our set of public institutions only in venues of jurisprudence, through legally admissible evidence and sworn testimony, and then declared by a jury’s decision.
Impeachment is such a proceeding. There is no other way to show as well or as quickly the “war on terror” to be the Bush Administration’s monstrous deceit—and to prove it, with legally admissible evidence and sworn testimony in the House of Representatives and a jury’s declaration in the Senate.
Aside from maintaining the sanctity of the Constitution—and holding accountable a criminal Administration—three immediate benefits will accrue:
· Exposing and proving the truth will lift the veil of fear the Bush Administration has imposed.
· The proven fraudulence of the war will mandate its immediate termination.
· John McCain’s candidacy will be destroyed. No one has been a more enthusiastic champion for George Bush’s ”war on terror” than Senator McCain. When it is displayed as appalling deceit, Mr. McCain will be shown a willing accomplice—or a tragic fool—and wholly unfit to be president.
But time is short, and the Democratic party is engaged in a civil war. With their demonstrated genius for losing elections, Mr. McCain might well stroll to the presidency. Unless he is proven to be unfit.
Democrats, impeach. Or expect to be humiliated.
NOTE:
For a fully documented, detailed history of the “war on terror,” see the author’s 117-page electronic book entitled “The Fraudulent War.” It is available at no cost, in PDF format, at http://coldtype.net/
Richard W. Behan lives and writes on Lopez Island, off the northwest coast of Washington state. He has published on the Internet over two dozen articles exposing and criticizing the criminal wars of the Bush Administration. He can be reached at rwbehan@rockisland.com.
Obama Wins Unusually Hard-Fought Wyoming Causes
ABC News - 1 hour ago
By JOHN HENDREN ABC News has projected Barack Obama as the winner of the Democratic caucuses in Wyoming, a state often all but overlooked by Democrats but that in this nail-biter of a race for the nomination saw heavy campaigning by both Obama and ...
Obama wins Wyoming Chicago Tribune
Obama Wins Wyoming Caucuses New York Times
CNN - Bloomberg - Reuters - MSNBC
all 3,370 news articles
Obama Wins Wyoming Caucuses
Washington Post - 3 hours ago
David Plouffe, campaign manager for Obama, called Wyoming a "very important win" for the campaign, noting that the state played host to "very furious campaigning by the Clinton campaign.
Apologizes for calling Clinton a 'monster' Boston Globe
Obama Camp Sees Fine Line in Hitting Back New York Times
San Jose Mercury News - ABC News - Voice of America - Seattle Times
all 935 news articles
Clinton Says ‘No’ to a Caucus Do-Over
U.S. News & World Report, DC - 15 hours ago
In an interview with US News, Clinton says she wouldn't accept a caucus to reallocate Michigan's and Florida's delegates. By Kenneth T. Walsh Hillary ...
CLINTON SAYS ‘NO’ TO A CAUCUS DO-OVER
In an interview with U.S. News, Clinton says she wouldn't accept a caucus to reallocate Michigan's and Florida's delegates. (They didn’t follow the rules and her position is quite clearly that of intimidate the party into surrendering to her and damned be the rules. Those delegates are mine and the nomination is mine no matter what you say or do. Does that attitude sound like of any President you can think of? Her tongue in this discourse is a string and her words are spinning off a cheap gyroscope!
Posted March 7, 2008
Hillary Clinton says the Democratic Party is stuck in a very tough spot as party leaders debate whether—and how—to seat delegates from Florida and Michigan at the nominating convention this August. And Clinton's latest comments, in an interview with U.S. News yesterday, won't make resolving the fuss any easier.
Many Democrats want a revote in both states, since the Democratic National Committee disqualified all their delegates because the states' primaries were held too early in violation of party rules. Some party officials are suggesting caucuses as an option to get the delegates qualified—but that doesn't pass muster with Clinton. "I would not accept a caucus," she told us. "I think that would be a great disservice to the 2 million people who turned out and voted. I think that they want their votes counted."
Florida held its primary January 29 and Michigan January 15. Clinton won both, although Obama's name wasn't on the ballot in Michigan and both candidates agreed not to campaign in either state, in deference to party rules.
Caucuses, held in living rooms, schools, and other neighborhood locations, are a less costly way of nominating delegates than primaries, which require more supervisory personnel and equipment. And the turnout is usually much lower in caucuses, since several hours are needed to participate rather than a few minutes at a voting booth. But there is a political reason for Clinton's opposition: Barack Obama has dominated the caucuses so far, with superior organization and more motivated supporters.
Further explaining her opposition to the caucus solution, Clinton said, "A lot of people would be disenfranchised because of the timing and whatever the particular rules were. This is really going to be a serious challenge for the Democratic Party because the voters in Michigan and Florida are the ones being hurt, and certainly with respect to Florida the Democrats were dragged into doing what they did by a Republican governor and a Republican Legislature. They didn't have any choice whatsoever. And I don't think that there should be any do-over or any kind of a second run in Florida. I think Florida should be seated."
Howard Dean, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, said yesterday that a revote in both states would be acceptable. But no one has figured out the details or how to pay the multimillion-dollar price tag.
I disagree with Howard as I have said yesterday and it is my fondest hope that no one can come up with a revisionist plan and the money and that the initial problem goes all the way to the convention and is not settled in some cannibal backroom pre-convention sellout!
STILL ENOUGH REASON The Columbian - Vancouver,WA,USA
When I speak out for impeachment, the most common reply is: “Why impeach them now since they only have 10 months left in office? How much damage could they do?”
The answers to this are everywhere. Every day my newspaper reports on instances of criminal and/or incompetent behavior by the current occupant, President Bush, and his cabal.
If the “Wuss-o-crats” elected in the 2006 congressional elections had done their jobs, there would be no pending veto of warrantless wiretap legislation; the State Children’s Health Insurance Program would be providing health care for children; there would be no talk of war with Iran; and there would be a plan for removal of our occupation force in Iraq. We would have a head start on repairing our U.S. Constitution and recovering our international reputation.
So many excellent reasons for impeachment present themselves and now we are faced with an impending recession because of the projected $3 trillion cost of the Iraq pre-emption.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s position of taking impeachment “off the table” was merely a ploy to reap the maximum in political capital. Meanwhile the president left in charge is most certainly destroying our democracy.
Speaking of Pelosi, D-Calif., we might as well impeach her and Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., at the same time.
Paul McQuaid
Vancouver
Sue Nancy Pelosi; Dereliction of Duty!
By Dagney Taggert
How many more "close calls", stories like this, this & this before we suffer real damage because Nancy Pelosi sent the House of Representatives home before voting to retain the needed security for the FISA Act? What did economists warn ...
Dagney's Rant - http://dagneysrant.com
Hatch's standards on impeachment arguable -Salt Lake Tribune - United States
Sen. Orrin Hatch wrote me a letter because I'd encouraged the impeachment of Dick Cheney.
"Your letter contains no substantive legal rationale for impeaching the Vice President,".the senator rebuts. He claimed to "respect" my opposition to administration policies but said that "such disagreements, no matter how adamantly they are held, do not amount to 'high crimes and misdemeanors' that the Constitution requires to impeach public officials."
Here I question either the senator's integrity or his memory, since he voted to impeach a president a decade ago on far less serious charges than those being leveled at Dick Cheney by credible individuals across the political spectrum.
Jim Catano Murray
Help Honor Rep. Robert Wexler with Backbone Award in Florida on ...
By davidswanson
The Deerfield Beach Democratic Club will honor Congressman Robert Wexler next Monday night, March 10th, at 7 pm As you all know, Congressman Wexler is working hard to get impeachment hearings started on Vice President Dick Cheney. ...
Democrats.com - The Aggressive... - http://www.democrats.com
Mahoney joins opponents of Democratic do-over in Florida (Hillary Supporter)
TCPalm - West Palm Beach,FL,USA
Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Robert Wexler — on opposite sides of the presidential primary contest between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama — saying there's ...
See all stories on this topic
Florida and Michigan superdelegates
By Matt(Matt)
Robert Wexler; 11 are Uncommitted: Rep. Allen Boyd, Diane Glasser, Jon Ausman, Janee Murphy, Karen Thurman, Mitchell Ceasar, Rep. Ron Klein, Rudolph Parker, Terrie Brady, Rep. Tim Mahoney, Andrew Tobias ...
2008 Democratic Convention Watch - http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/
Friday Talking Points [22] -- Hillary Sweeps The Awards!
Huffington Post - New York,NY,USA
Because both towns just voted to direct their police to arrest the Bush and Cheney for "crimes against our Constitution," so that they may be extradited "to ...
Hillary could win the presidency. Here’s the proof
Independent, UK - 3 hours ago
By Michael Savage This US presidential race has turned into a real nail biter, but even so, some conventional wisdoms seem to have sprung up that need to be ...
Obama, Gore would be a dream team
National Post, Canada - 3 hours ago
The Democrats may be in trouble now that Hillary Clinton has begun to play hardball and deploy the politics of fear with her dishonest "red phone" TV ...
Democrats could lose many Latino voters to McCain
San Jose Mercury News, USA - 3 hours ago
By Ruben Navarrette Jr. SAN DIEGO - Recently, I was in California doing an interview on a New York radio show talking about Texas. ...
Democrats can win this fall
San Francisco Chronicle, USA - 5 hours ago
Editor - I'm a political independent and have this to say: A Democratic ticket with Sen. Barack Obama as president, supported by Sen. ...
Close Down the Caucuses
RealClearPolitics - Chicago,IL,USA
They even rejected winner-take-all state primaries, which award all the convention delegates to the candidate who scores a majority of votes. ...
Dems can't win without superdelegates
Kansas.com - KS,USA
But Obama cannot win the nomination with just his pledged primary and caucus delegates either, according to an analysis by The Associated Press. ...
Memo to Democrats: Stay on message
Seattle Post Intelligencer - USA
With the decreasing likelihood that either candidate can win enough pledged delegates from caucuses and primaries to clinch the nomination, Clinton's wins ...
First thoughts: Obama, the aggressive
MSNBC - USA
But there does seem to be a pattern in this primary season: When the negative spotlight is on one candidate, that candidate loses. .
Since triple win, Clinton campaign reports $4 million online boost
Boston Globe - United States
The 8247 precinct officials are required only to mail the results of their caucuses to their county party chairmen 72 hours after the primary election day
32 Lone Star superdelegates are courted, committed, confused
Dallas Morning News - Dallas,TX,USA
While the nearly 800 superdelegates very well may crown the Democratic Party's presidential nominee after an inconclusive primary season, some in Texas ...
Democrats may try to reach compromise between Clinton and Obama
Mangalorean.com - Mangalore,India
With Tuesday's polls in the two big states of Texas and Ohio reviving Clinton's campaign, the party now has to wait for the Pennsylvania primary on April 22 ...
A Friend Poses an Interesting Question
A friend and Obama supporter wrote to me today with a question that some of you might want to take a whack at answering:
To summarize, I'm moving over to your point of view, but, I think, for different reasons.
If Hillary had lost either Ohio or Texas a serious case could have been made for her to fold up the tents, and I think she might have. But, since she didn't, she's in for the long haul. Nothing will stop her.
As I saw Hillary say in a recent interview, she's not averse to sharing the ticket with Obama, it's just a question of who's on top. We all know that there's no way in hell she'll settle for number 2. She and Bubba have shown repeatedly that they have no problem doing whatever it takes to get themselves back in the White House. It's just going to get dirtier and dirtier.
Either Hillary or Obama should easily beat McCain in November. Sure, McCain's a likeable and generally sensible guy, when compared to most of the idealogues in his party. But, his allegiance to W is his weakness and it's easily exploited. There's no question that it's the Dems' turn in November, that is, unless they blow it. I'm afraid they're going to blow it. (And, I'm not even going to get into the whole Michigan/Florida mess and how that will completely destroy any chance, whatsoever.)
In a fight to the finish with Hillary, Barack loses, no matter what. She and Bill are too good at the game. It's life or death for them and they're not afraid to get ugly. Barack can't play on that level. His feeble attempts to fight back have shown it. So, since Hillary's not going to back down, Barack needs to get real. For the good of all, Barack needs to step back and accept the VP post on Hillary's ticket, asap.
(Insert)
12 Questions for Hillary Clinton
By pomansings(pomansings)
Tags: Bush, Cheney, Nazi, CIA, NSA, MKULTRA, Conspiracy, Impeach, Hillary Clinton, 2008 Campaign, Barack Obama, Ohio Primary, Election, Elections, UN, Interpol, Politics, Government.
Freedom of Thought - http://journals.aol.com/pomansings/freedom-of-thought/
(Return)
My question is, given the fervent support that he's attracted, the tangible movement that has coalesced around him, the fact that he's the front-runner and probably will remain so through the convention (given the whole delegate proportionality thing), how does he get his loyalists to accept his sacrifice for the greater good and turn their passion and energy toward Hillary as the standard bearer? How does he energize them in her direction? How does he save face?
My honest answer to this is that if I were him I wouldn't worry about it. I'd continue to try to win -- and see what happens. A re-vote in Florida and a loss in Pennsylvania would probably seal the deal for Hillary, especially if she wins Michigan also -- and definitely if she unexpectedly wins North Carolina, where she was trailing by double digits a week ago but now is behind by only 3 or 4 points.
For Hillary to have moved ahead in the national polls suggests to me that the flirtation with Obama may be over. That is, so long as he was gaining ground, there was no limit to how far he could go, but now that the trend is going the other way, it's difficult to imagine what he's supposed to do, assuming voters have taken his measure and decided against him. However, having said this, I realize I'm indulging in wishful thinking, like all the pundits on TV that make me sick. So take that with a grain of salt.
My sense of it is that if Hillary wins, the Obama people are going to be devastated, and that if Obama wins, the Hillary people are going to be devastated. And the only thing that could cheer the losing side will be the Vice Presidency. I mean, right now, hoping to win, the Vice Presidency doesn't sound like much. But if Hillary is the nominee, the prospect of a woman president and an African-American Vice President -- people are going to get excited about that.
Hillary's people would ultimately get excited about Obama-Hillary, too, but Hillary-Obama has an advantage for Obama supporters that Obama-Hillary lacks for the Hillary crowd. The prospect of the presidency in the future. If Hillary loses, Obama will be 51 in 2012 and the frontrunner for the presidency. If Hillary wins and serves two terms, he'll be 55 . . . which is arguably when he should be running in the first place, but that's just my opinion.
So I guess the short answer is, he won't have to sell it. People would be crushed if he DIDN'T take it.
Finally, this email confirms for me what I thought when I saw Hillary floating the Vice President Obama idea. It's smart, because I think people will be more likely to vote for Hillary if they thought Obama would at least not be shut out. Not ALL people, of course, but a few percentage points here or there can make a big difference.
MY KIND OF STUFF
Clinton won 83 of 88 counties in Ohio. Obama took only the three largest : Cuyahoga (Cleveland), Franklin (Columbus) and Hamilton plus Montgomery County (Dayton) and Delaware County in suburban Columbus. Hamilton County went for Obama 68-31 percent, his largest spread in the state.
The mayors of Cleveland (Frank Jackson), Columbus (Mike Coleman) and Cincinnati's Mark Mallory had endorsed Obama before the primary, undoubtedly helping his profile in those areas. Dayton Mayor Rhine McLin announced her support for Obama earlier today, saying she based her decision on her city's vote totals.
Clinton did especially well in northeastern and southeastern Ohio, blue-collar and rural areas (respectively) where she'd campaigned in the past week. Gov. Ted Strickland, who supported her from the beginning of her campaign, did well in those same areas when he beat Ken Blackwell in 2006.
For a breakdown of the Clinton-Obama results in Ohio by Congressional district, check out the Secretary of State's web site here. (And Away I Went!)
Will Hillary Clinton Spoil the Party?
AlterNet, CA - 16 hours ago
By Robert B. Reich, Robert Reich's Blog. Posted March 7, 2008. Hillary has said that McCain would be a better president than Obama -- this kind of cynical ...
Poll: Obama, Clinton in Dead Heat
Many of those polled said they would vote for McCain if their preferred Democratic candidate was not nominated.
Op-Ed Columnist The Anxiety Election
New York Times, United States - 16 hours ago
By PAUL KRUGMAN Democrats won the 2006 election largely thanks to public disgust with the Iraq war. But polls — and Hillary Clinton’s big victory in Ohio ...
Are Dems Headed for a Greek Tragedy?
Yahoo! News - 16 hours ago
Super delegates will determine the next nominee of the Democrats, and a happy ending for the Party looks unlikely. Mathematically, the Democratic Party is ...
Big Pharma opens wallet to Dems
Business as usual
But even with all the political rhetoric, Wall Street doesn't seem to be paying attention.
Paul Alan Davis, manager of Charles Schwab's $800 million healthcare portfolio, which includes holdings in Pfizer (PFE, Fortune 500), Merck (MRK, Fortune 500), Johnson & Johnson (JNJ, Fortune 500), Schering-Plough (SGP, Fortune 500) and other major pharma companies, said he wasn't sure which of the candidates posed the biggest shake-up for the industry - if at all. He also said that the campaign is not a factor in his investment decisions.
The "Don't Protect America" Democrats
Matthew Continetti Fri Mar 7, 10:33 PM ET
(HERE IT COMES BOYS AND GIRLS..THE MESSAGE FROM THE FRIGHT RIGHT)
Washington (The Weekly Standard) Vol. 013, Issue 26 - 3/17/2008 - It's been three weeks since Democrats in Congress allowed the Protect America Act of 2007 to expire. Three weeks in which House Democrats have allowed marginal special interest groups veto power over national security legislation. And no one in the House Democratic leadership seems particularly bothered by it.
Without a new law, intelligence professionals have to establish "probable cause" that the target of surveillance is a terrorist to the satisfaction of a judge on the court created by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) before they can intercept the suspect's communications. This is an onerous and unprecedented burden on the intelligence community. FISA court orders were never meant to apply to foreign intelligence missions overseas. The last time U.S. spooks had to rely on FISA court approval to gather intelligence overseas--in the first half of 2007--the backlog of warrant applications quickly grew so thick that America's ability to hear what her enemies were saying was degraded by "70 percent," according to the director of national intelligence, Vice Admiral Mike McConnell. If FISA is not updated, it will be only a matter of time before we reach that point again. Something's gotta give, in other words. And soon.
The good news is that there is bicameral and bipartisan support for a new law, the FISA Amendments Act, which updates the U.S. intelligence community's electronic surveillance procedures and provides immunity to "electronic communication service providers" for cooperating with the government. The Democratic Senate already has passed the law by two to one. The chairman of the House intelligence committee, Texas Democrat Silvestre Reyes, has said he is open to a compromise along the lines of the Senate bill. It is widely expected that the House would pass such a compromise. And President Bush would happily sign it.
And yet: No sooner had the ink dried on Ellen Nakashima and Paul Kane's March 4 Washington Post story--"Wiretap compromise in works"--than House Democrats began to walk away from said compromise. On March 5, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said there might be a vote on the new law at the "beginning of next week." On March 6, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said, "We are still working very hard," but House Democrats "are not going to abandon the Constitution." A vote may be put off until after next week's congressional spring break.
Why won't the House leadership bring the FISA Amendments Act to the floor? Democrats provide different reasons. The Capitol Hill publication Congress Daily quotes House Democratic aides who cite the "tight floor schedule" as the reason this necessary and important law has to wait. Yet the House found time for "HR 1143," which approves a lease agreement between the Interior Department and the Cannel Bay luxury beach resort in the U.S. Virgin Islands. (The service is supposed to be fantastic at Cannel Bay, incidentally.)
Other Democrats blame Bush. In a February 25 Post op-ed, the chairmen of the House and Senate intelligence and judiciary committees accused the president of deploying "scare tactics and political games" because he is "desperate to distract attention from the economy and other policy failures" and wants to "use this issue to scare the American people."
All of which is partisan silliness, of course. Truth be told, the Democrats are not scared of Bush anymore. But they are scared of the left, which is adamant that the "electronic communications service providers"--mainly giant telecoms--not be granted immunity from litigation for cooperating with the government on foreign surveillance of terrorists during the years when FISA did not have authority over the program.
The left wants the roughly 40 pending lawsuits against the providers to proceed so that--to quote MSNBC "news" anchor Keith Olbermann--the "AT&Ts and the Verizons" will be held accountable "for their systematic, aggressive, and blatant collaboration" with Bush's "illegal and unjustified spying on Americans." Just imagine, Herr Olbermann continues, his bile rising: government . . . and business . . . working . . . together! "What else is this but fascism?"
We don't pretend to be shocked at such arguments from such a source. The imputation of bad faith to the Bush administration and those who agree with it is now so widespread in Washington that spittle-laced histrionics like Olbermann's are par for the course, sad to say. Dispassionate facts are in short supply. But here are a few: The left has been angry for years about Bush's secret program of foreign intelligence surveillance conducted between September 11, 2001, and January 17, 2007, when the president submitted such surveillance to the FISA court for approval. During this time, the government's foreign intelligence collection efforts were known as the "Terrorist Surveillance Program." It was not "illegal." Just because the ACLU and the Electronic Frontier Foundation say it was doesn't make it so. Federal case law has long upheld the president's authority to gather foreign intelligence without warrant. FISA does not trump that authority.
You do not have to take our word for it, either. It was a Democrat, Carter attorney general Griffin Bell, who pointed this out when FISA was created in 1978. It was another Democrat, Clinton's deputy attorney general Jamie Gorelick, later a vice chair of the 9/11 Commission, who made the same point when FISA was amended in 1994.
And there are plenty of Democrats who agree it is fair to grant immunity to the telecoms, too. In an interview last week with National Journal, Barack Obama adviser John Brennan, a former CIA operative, said he believes "strongly" that the telecoms "be granted immunity" and that the "Senate version of the FISA bill addresses the issues appropriately." And the Democratic Senate Intelligence Committee concluded, in the bipartisan findings of its 2007 report on the FISA Amendments Act, that during the Terrorist Surveillance Program's lifespan, "electronic communication service providers acted on a good faith belief that the President's program, and their assistance, was lawful." The Committee went on to write that "electronic surveillance for law enforcement and intelligence purposes depends in great part on the cooperation of the private companies that operate the Nation's telecommunications system." The "unique historical circumstances" in which the country found itself after sustaining a terrorist attack that killed 3,000 innocent people gave the providers a "good faith basis" on which to cooperate with their government.
Furthermore, writes the Senate Intelligence Committee, "without retroactive immunity" the "private sector might be unwilling to cooperate with lawful Government requests in the future without unnecessary court involvement and protracted litigation." Surveillance might be impeded, in other words. And it isn't too hard to figure out why: Saddled with lawsuits and burdensome discovery, the companies, in the event of a government request for further assistance, probably would start thinking, Fooled me once, shame on me . . . won't get burned again. . . . That, at least, is the "informed judgment of the committee," as its chairman, the liberal Democrat Jay Rockefeller, wrote in his additional comments.
Not quite "fascism," is it?
Indeed, the caricature of Bush as a lawless villain with a "my way or the highway" attitude is breathtakingly false; the administration has been almost entirely cooperative with Congress on FISA reform, and has already conceded plenty. "The ability of the full committee to perform" its "oversight responsibilities" has been "significantly augmented by improved access to information" provided by the administration, wrote the authors of the Senate report. Committee members "received the cooperation of many officials from the intelligence community and the Department of Justice." They "received many classified briefings, propounded and received answers to many written questions," and "conducted extensive interviews with several attorneys in the Executive branch who were involved in the review of the President's program."
Meanwhile, Bush has agreed, as part of the FISA Amendments Act, to require court approval of surveillance of Americans abroad--a requirement to which no previous U.S. president has ever acceded. He has accepted the new, burdensome reporting requirements contained in the legislation in order to assist in congressional oversight. He has, in fact, done pretty much everything he could do to get Congress to reform FISA and protect the communications providers from lawsuits, short of asking Congress "pretty please with a cherry on top."
But that doesn't seem to be enough. It never seems to be enough. Six of the eight Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee supported the FISA Amendments Act. Twenty of the 51 Democrats in the full Senate supported it. Recently 21 state attorneys general wrote a letter urging the Congress to pass the Senate bill. Seven of the signatories were Democrats. There are plenty of House Democrats who would sign a similar letter if given the chance. They agree that reforming FISA and granting the communications providers immunity is the right thing to do. They agree that this debate is about neither politics nor partisanship. Nor is it a debate over executive authority. It really is all about protecting Americans from attack. These Democrats are all members of their party in good standing. Isn't it time Speaker Pelosi listened to them?
--Matthew Continetti, for the Editors
(Meant to be critical it’s a ringing endorsement for me!) It really needs to be read carefully. Just close your eyes and hear this man’s voice!
Justice John Paul Stevens turns 88 in April, and by January 2009 five other justices will be from 69 to 75 years old. If Barack Obama is elected president, he will probably--with the benefit of resignations by liberal justices eager for him to be the president who chooses their successors--have the opportunity to appoint two or three Supreme Court justices in his first term, with another two or three in a potential second term. That prospect ought to focus the attention of all Americans who want a Supreme Court that practices judicial restraint and respects the proper realm of representative government. For Obama, if elected, would certainly aim to fill the Supreme Court--and the lower federal courts--with liberal judicial activists.
Although Obama has served in the Senate for barely three years, he has already established a record on judicial nominations and constitutional law that comports with his 2007 ranking by the National Journal as the most liberal of all 100 senators. Obama voted against the confirmations of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, and he even joined in the effort to filibuster the Alito nomination. In explaining his vote against Roberts, Obama opined that deciding the "truly difficult" cases requires resort to "one's deepest values, one's core concerns, one's broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one's empathy." In short, "the critical ingredient is supplied by what is in the judge's heart." No clearer prescription for lawless judicial activism is possible.
Indeed, in setting forth the sort of judges he would appoint, Obama has explicitly declared: "We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom, the empathy to understand what it's like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old--and that's the criterion by which I'll be selecting my judges." So much for the judicial virtue of dispassion. So much for a craft of judging that is distinct from politics.
In his short time in the Senate, Obama has voted against a half-dozen federal appellate-court nominees. Most tellingly, he was the first senator to join in the left's mendacious attack in 2007 on Fifth Circuit nominee Leslie Southwick--an attack that managed to drag the judicial-confirmation process to a new low. Southwick had been widely regarded as a consensus pick. The ABA's judicial-evaluations committee, after an investigation that included the usual inquiry into whether the nominee has "freedom from bias and commitment to equal justice under the law," unanimously gave him its highest "well qualified" rating. The Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee had, just months before, unanimously approved his nomination to a federal district judgeship.
Nevertheless, when left-wing activist groups launched their attack on Southwick, Obama jumped right in. Relying on gross misrepresentations of Southwick's record, Obama recklessly alleged that Southwick "has shown hostility towards civil rights and a disregard for equal rights for minorities, women, gays and lesbians" and that his nomination even "threaten[ed] the very basis of our freedom and democracy." Fortunately, some Democratic senators--most prominently, Judiciary Committee member Dianne Feinstein--had the courage to stand up against these lies from Obama and others, and Southwick was ultimately confirmed.
Obama's constitutional activism is particularly evident on the touchstone issue of Roe v. Wade. Obama calls abortion "one of the most fundamental rights we possess" and promises to "make preserving women's rights under Roe v. Wade a priority as president." He has harshly criticized the Court's 2007 ruling that the federal partial-birth abortion act (which was supported by broad bipartisan majorities in Congress, including abortion supporters like Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Patrick Leahy) is constitutionally permissible.
Obama often cloaks such extreme positions in sweet-sounding rhetoric. His chapter on "Our Constitution" in his campaign manifesto, The Audacity of Hope, provides a useful case study. There, Obama characterizes his own understanding of the Constitution in positively unctuous terms: "I confess that there is a fundamental humility to this reading of the Constitution and our democratic process." But there is nothing humble about the judicial role that Obama embraces.
Obama purports to be "not unsympathetic to Justice Antonin Scalia's position" that the "original understanding [of the Constitution] must be followed," but he won't even present Scalia's views accurately. Let's set aside the fact, all too common among liberal critics, that Obama doesn't keep straight the distinction between Scalia's original-meaning species of originalism, which looks to the public meaning of a constitutional provision at the time that it was adopted, and the original-understanding species, which looks to the contemporaneous understanding of the ratifiers.
Obama claims to appreciate the temptation on the part of Justice Scalia and others to assume our democracy should be treated as fixed and unwavering; the fundamentalist faith that if the original understanding of the Constitution is followed without question or deviation, and if we remain true to the rules that the Founders set forth, as they intended, then we will be rewarded and all good will flow.
But Obama's "fundamentalist" name-calling is misplaced. Originalists understand the Constitution--not "our democracy"--to be "fixed and unwavering" (apart from the amendment process it provides, of course). They recognize that, precisely because the Constitution leaves the broad bulk of policy decisions to legislators in Congress and in the states, there is lots of room to pursue and adapt different courses through the democratic processes.
No originalist believes that judicial respect for the operations of representative government will guarantee that "we will be rewarded and all good will flow." This is a straw man. The virtue of originalism lies foremost in protecting the democratic decision making authority that the Constitution provides. Our legislators will be sure to mess up plenty, but at least citizens will have the ability to influence them--and replace them.
Obama finds himself compelled "to side with Justice Breyer's view of the Constitution--that it is not a static but rather a living document, and must be read in the context of an ever-changing world." But no one disputes that the Constitution "must be read," and applied, "in the context of an ever-changing world." The central question of the last several decades is, rather, whether it is legitimate for judges to alter the Constitution's meaning willy-nilly--in particular, whether judges have unconstrained authority to invent new constitutional rights to suit their views of what changing times require.
The cliché invoked by Obama of a "living" Constitution disguises the fact that the entrenchment of leftist policy preferences as constitutional rights deprives the political processes of the very adaptability that Breyer and company pretend to favor. As Scalia has put it, "the reality of the matter is that, generally speaking, devotees of The Living Constitution do not seek to facilitate social change but to prevent it."
And so on for all of Obama's other deceptive rhetoric in his chapter on "Our Constitution" in The Audacity of Hope, including his galling claim to be "left then with Lincoln" in their supposed common understanding of the Constitution. On judicial nominations, Obama brazenly contends that "Democrats used the filibuster sparingly in George Bush's first term: Of the President's two-hundred-plus judicial nominees, only ten were prevented from getting to the floor for an up-or-down vote." What Obama's casting conveniently obscures from the trusting reader is that these filibusters were unprecedented in the history of the Senate.
Obama even pretends that it's obvious that Republicans would resort to the filibuster "if the situations were reversed." But the best evidence refutes Obama: There were only four votes on cloture--on proceeding to a final vote on confirmation--on judicial nominations during the Clinton administration. All four were supported by Republican leadership, and none received more than 14 negative votes from Republican senators.
In the end, an examination of Obama's record and rhetoric discloses the stuff he is made of--his own constitution. Beneath the congeniality and charisma lies a leftist partisan who will readily resort to sly deceptions to advance his agenda of liberal judicial activism. Given the likelihood of so many changes in the membership of the Supreme Court over the next eight years, it is particularly important that voters this November recognize the real Obama.
Edward Whelan, president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, is a regular contributor to National Review Online's Bench Memos blog. His views are his own only.
The Best News Of The Day!
Mercenary Training Camp Proposals Can Be Stopped
Submitted by davidswanson on Sat, 2008-03-08 05:29.
By Anne Krueger, San Diego Union Tribune
Blackwater Worldwide officials have announced they are pulling their application to build a training center on an 842-acre site in the East County community of Potrero.
The North Carolina-based company dropped off a letter to the county planning department today notifying officials of their decision not to pursue plans for the project on a former chicken and cattle ranch.
“Although our project would have brought a great benefit to San Diego County, – providing local, state, and federal law enforcement with access to low-cost superior training facilities while bringing much-needed jobs to the area – the proposed site does not meet our business objectives at this time,” states the letter from Blackwater vice president Brian Bonfiglio.
Bonfiglio said noise tests the company conducted at the site did not meet county standards, and the cost of reducing the noise was too expensive. He said Blackwater had spent well over $1 million in its effort to get government approval for the site.
The company's effort to build the training center for law enforcement and the military met with a storm of criticism. Opponents said the training center would bring more noise and traffic to the quiet rural community, and others were critical of Blackwater's role as a military contractor in Iraq.
Bonfiglio said opposition to the project played no role in the company's decision to withdraw the project.
Opponents of the project were stunned and pleased to hear the news.
“It's great news for the community of Potrero,” said Carl Meyer, the recently-elected chairman of the Potrero planning group. “I think Potrero will start to rejoice tonight. We'll have a party.”
Raymond Lutz, an El Cajon-area resident who created an anti-Blackwater Web site, said he's glad the controversy is over.
“This poor community has been put through enough,” he said. “There are a lot of people who were friends who were on different sides of the issue.”
My Side… disband this outfit and put it out of business before we all have arm ourselves against them! How’s that for and ending? Wake up America the Ghost of Ghandi is fading fast!
Be the change you wish to see in the world. –Gandhi
![[PDA - Progressive Democrats of America - Stand Up. Take Action. Vote.]](http://pdamerica.org/images/ads/pdalink-150x200.gif)
No comments:
Post a Comment