Specter: If Bush Broke The Law With Warrantless Spying, Impeachment Is A Remedy

From Think Progress:

STEPHANOPOULOS: There was a lot of talk about that at the Alito hearings, and listening closely to you I certainly seem to take away that you believe the president does not have the right, does not have the inherent power under the Constitution to circumvent a constitutional law,and as far as you are concerned, the FISA law is constitutional, isn’t it?

SPECTER: Well, I started off by saying that he didn’t have the authority under the
resolution authorizing the use of force. The president has to follow the Constitution. Where you have a law which is constitutional, like Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, there still may be collateral different powers in the president under wartime circumstances.

That’s a very knotty question that I’m not prepared to answer on a Sunday
soundbite. But I do believe that it ought to be thoroughly examined. And when we were on the Patriot Act and found the disclosure of the surveillance, I immediately said the Judiciary Committee would hold hearings, and I talked to the attorney general, and we’re going to explore it in depth, George.You can count on that.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You know, if the president did break the law or circumvent
the law, what’s the remedy?

SPECTER: Well, the remedy could be a variety of things. A president —and I’m
not suggesting remotely that there’s any basis, but you’re asking, really, theory, what’s the remedy? Impeachment is a remedy. After impeachment, you could have a criminal prosecution, but the principal remedy, George, under our society is to pay a political price.

Crooks and Liars has the video here.

And, speaking of impeachment:

New Zogby Poll Shows Majority of Americans Support Impeaching Bush for Wiretapping

By a margin of 52% to 43%, Americans want Congress to consider impeaching President Bush if he wiretapped American citizens without a judge's approval, according to a new poll commissioned by AfterDowningStreet.org, a grassroots coalition that supports a Congressional investigation of President Bush's decision to invade Iraq in 2003.

The poll was conducted by Zogby International, the highly-regarded non-partisan polling company. The poll interviewed 1,216 U.S. adults from January 9-12.

The poll found that 52% agreed with the statement:

"If President Bush wiretapped American citizens without the approval of a judge, do you agree or disagree that Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment."

43% disagreed, and 6% said they didn't know or declined to answer. The poll has a +/- 2.9% margin of error.

IMPEACH

GO STEELERS!

Go Steelers!

THEY BEAT THE COLTS!

THEY BEAT THE COLTS!

Perhaps this is why Murtha's being Swiftboated

A follow-up to this post.

A few days before the most recent wave of Swiftboating by the Conservative press, Congressman Murtha wrote this at the Huffingtonpost. Here's the text:

According to the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, Second Edition, the definition of a civil war is a "war between political factions or regions within the same country." That is exactly what is going on in Iraq, not a global war on terrorism, as the President continues to portray it.

93 percent of those fighting in Iraq are Iraqis. A very small percentage of the fighting is being done by foreign fighters. Our troops are caught in between the fighting. 80 percent of Iraqis want us out of there and 45 percent think it is justified to kill American troops.

Iraqis went to the polls in droves on December 15th and rejected the secular, pro-democracy candidates and those who the Administration in Washington propped up. Preliminary vote results indicate that Iyad Allawi, the pro-American Prime Minister, received about 8 percent of the vote and Ahmad Chalabi, Iraq's current Oil Minister and close associate of the U.S. Iraq war planners, received less than 1 percent. According to General Vines, the top operational commander in Iraq, "the vote is reported to be primarily along sectarian lines, which is not particularly heartening." The new government he said "must be a government by and for Iraqis, not sects."

The ethnic and religious strife in Iraq has been going on, not for decades or centuries, but for millennia. These particular explosive hatreds and tensions will be there if our troops leave in six months, six years or six decades. It is time to re-deploy our troops and to re-focus our attention on the real threats posed by global terrorism.

Then there's this letter he sent out to his colleagues in December. I won't repost it all, but here are some telling quotations. After having reading them it should be no surprise to any of is in the "Reality-Based Community" that Murtha would be smeared. I am surprised that it took this long. Murtha writes:

It is next to impossible to say America’s war goals for Iraq are achievable because they shift and change so often. I believe this is one of the main reasons why the American people are turning against this war. They have not been given a clear and convincing set of reasons as to why the continued sacrifice of brave young Americans is vital to our national security interest.

The administration is currently on its sixth different explanation as to why this war is necessary. The rationale for conducting the war began with emphatic and unequivocal claims that Saddam Hussein and his regime constituted an imminent threat to America. Over time the rationale morphed to the assertion that the war was necessary to remove a vile dictator and free the Iraqi people. It changed again to “if we don’t fight them in the streets and back alleys of Baghdad and Tikrit, they’ll be here in America wreaking havoc and destruction.” It then shifted to the need to spread democracy in the Middle East, followed by the need to prevent a civil war. We are now told that Iraq is the central front of the war on terror and we can’t depart until Iraqi forces are fully and completely trained to take over our mission and not until “complete victory” is achieved.

At the time of our invasion, it was portrayed that Saddam Hussein was a clear and present danger and an “imminent threat” to America and must be removed before a “mushroom cloud” appeared over American soil. It was also implied that Hussein was somehow linked to Osama Bin Laden and al-Qaeda. Of course, as we now know, Saddam had no nuclear weapons and there was no proven link to al-Qaeda.

And so on. After briefly discussing the December 15 elections, Murtha writes:

However this unfolding milestone must be kept in perspective. Holding a free election is not equivalent to having a functioning democracy. Without the robust institutions of a free press, an effective police force, a fair judicial system, and an impartial system of laws and regulations that guarantee equal rights and privileges for all, a nation can’t truly function as a vibrant democracy.

Unfortunately, this administration has been seen as inconsistent when it comes to setting a good example for the establishment of these democratic institutions, which has set back our objective immensely. We are widely seen around the world as hypocritical, pursuing a policy in Iraq of “do as I say, not as I do.” The disaster at Abu Ghraib, sending incoherent messages from the very top of the American Government regarding the use of torture, paying for favorable Iraqi news stories, running secret prisons, instituting inconsistent practices on giving prisoners due process rights, and running what many people are beginning to see as a circus trial of Saddam Hussein all hurt US credibility around the world, making it more difficult to achieve this worthy goal. [emphasis in original]

So it is hardly surprising that Murtha would find himself a target of the rightwing media's attack dogs. He's laying it all out for everyone to see - the failure and outright duplicity of this administration's foreign policy. For all the strength of the above attack, I would say that there's one sentence that settled his fate with the criminals in the White House. When he wrote that:

It is time for a vigorous and engaged debate on the administration’s Iraq policy based on substance and facts, not political hyperbole.

It pretty much settled things with the Mayberry Machiavellis currently occupying the White House. The last thing these guys want is a "vigorous and engaged debate." Unless of course the outcome of the debate is already decided.

Murtha gets Swiftboated

I heard about this on C-Span this morning. That bastion of objective reporting, the Cybercast News Service (formerly the Conservative News Cast), posted this yesterday.

Are we at all surprised about this? Someone publicly disagrees with our glorious leader and by a complete and total coincidence the conservative press smears in response. Marc Morano and Randy Hall begin this way:

Having ascended to the national stage as one of the most vocal critics of President Bush's handling of the war in Iraq, Pennsylvania Democratic Congressman John Murtha has long downplayed the controversy and the bitterness surrounding the two Purple Hearts he was awarded for military service in Vietnam.

Murtha is a retired marine and was the first Vietnam combat veteran elected to Congress. Since 1967, there have been at least three different accounts of the injuries that purportedly earned Murtha his Purple Hearts. Those accounts also appear to conflict with the limited military records that are available, and Murtha has thus far refused to release his own military records.

We've seen this before, haven't we?

It's interesting to note the close placement of "Abscam" articles to this drek on the CNS website. It's also interesting to note that Dennis Roddy of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette has already written about this:

Soon the Swift Boaters will be afloat, suggesting that Mr. Murtha's Vietnam service was a charade (he won a Bronze Star), and that his Purple Hearts were undeserved. The Purple Heart gambit has been played before, first in 1982, then just last year. The answer to this nonsense will be the one that gave Mr. Murtha such cache as both a candidate and a member of Congress: big wound or small, he got it in Vietnam. He was there. They were not.

The second brick destined to crash through the Murtha family parlor window is Abscam. Mr. Murtha was one of eight members of Congress lured to a Washington townhouse by a team of FBI agents posing as representatives of a fictitious Arab sheik. They handed out briefcases filled with $50,000 in return for helping the sheik gain residency in the United States.

Mr. Murtha is on videotape telling the agents, "Not interested," but inviting the sheik to invest a few million in his struggling hometown, where unemployment reached 25 percent.

The fun part is to see how the CNS "News" service selectively quotes Dennis Roddy in their Abscam story. They write:

According to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, "Murtha was one of eight members of Congress lured to a Washington, D.C., townhouse by a team of FBI agents posing as representatives of a fictitious Arab sheik. They handed out briefcases filled with $50,000 in return for helping the sheik gain residency in the United States."

Take a look at what they do next. Instead of going with Roddy's next paragraph, they travel all the way to Brattleboro, Vermont for a remarkably similar, though now with an added hygienic insult, follow-up. Here's Roddy next paragraph:

Mr. Murtha is on videotape telling the agents, "Not interested," but inviting the sheik to invest a few million in his struggling hometown, where unemployment reached 25 percent.

And here's how CNS news followed Roddy's quotation. Not the similarities and the differences. Says alot about the objectivity of the CNS "News" service, don't it?

Noting that Murtha "is not squeaky clean," the Brattleboro, Vt., Reformer reported that the congressman "did not take the cash" offered by the agents. Instead, "he asked the fake sheik to consider investing some money in his struggling home town, Johnstown."

It's like they feel they just had to get in the "he's not squeaky clean" line before pointing out that Murtha did not take the cash. Here's Roddy again:

Mr. Murtha's probity might have been in doubt at that moment. Certainly he played the political coquette, suggesting they might do business later.

But where his companions were stuffing their pockets, he was trying to figure out how to get a fake prince to open a factory in Johnstown. Among agents of the government operating a fantasy, Mr. Murtha was attempting to get something real accomplished. That is what he is like.

I have to admit that I have not been able to find the quotation in question at the Brattleboro Reformer website. I've tried "Murtha +Abscam" and "Murtha +skeik" got no hits in response. I am not outright accusing the CNSNews service of making up the quote, but I'd also like to be able to see it in context. If anyone can find a copy of the article, please send it along.

In the meantime, here's something at the Brattleboro Reformer that does mention Congressman Murtha. It's from late December of last year:

The Downing Street Memos showed the Bush administration was determined to attack Iraq even though there was no evidence of weapons of mass destruction, no evidence of links to foreign terrorists and no evidence that Iraq posed a direct or indirect threat to the United States.

That no investigation took place shows the impossibility of integrity in a one-party Congress. The news that the United States operated secret prisons and employed torture on detained "suspects," most of whom were never charged with any crime, was a deep embarrassment. Equally embarrassing was the clumsy attempts to smear one of the most hawkish member of Congress, Pennsylvania Democrat John Murtha, for suggesting a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. The spectacle of Republicans who never served in the military attacking a decorated combat veteran was a sorry one. [emphasis added]

Back to the Swiftboating. Here's Congressman Murtha's response:

This afternoon, CNSNEWS.com published an article entitled "Murtha's War Hero Status Called Into Question" on its website. The article questions the validity of my purple hearts. This is my response:

"Questions about my record are clearly an attempt to distract attention from the real issue, which is that our brave men and women in uniform are dying and being injured every day in the middle of a civil war that can be resolved only by the Iraqis themselves."

"I volunteered for a year's duty in Vietnam. I was out in the field almost every single day. We took heavy casualties in my regiment the year that I was there. In my fitness reports, I was rated No. 1. My record is clear."

The story was reported this morning by the Washington Post:

Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.), the former Marine who is an outspoken critic of the war in Iraq, has become the latest Democrat to have his Vietnam War decorations questioned.

In a tactic reminiscent of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth assault on Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) during the 2004 presidential campaign, a conservative Web site yesterday quoted Murtha opponents as questioning the circumstances surrounding the awarding of his two Purple Hearts.

And how much of the Swiftboat attacks were actually true? That's right - none. But let's try to take a look at this logically. As with the Swiftboat attacks on Kerry's record, if these attacks against Murtha's record are true, then the whole record keeping system of the Marines has to be called into question.

Why does the CNSNews service hate the Marine Corps??

IMPEACH

Kraus calls for "Grant Street politicians to keep hands off of the District Three Council Race"

I just saw this press release which was forwarded to a list that I'm on and I've found out that it has also appeared in the Press Releases section of PoliticsPA:

District Three City Council Candidate Bruce A. Kraus today called for "Grant Street politicians to keep hands off of the District Three Council Race." - 1/12/2006

District Three City Council Candidate Bruce A. Kraus today called for "Grant Street politicians to keep hands off of the District Three Council Race." At a press conference this morning called by Council President Luke Ravenstahl to address the student voter dissatisfaction with the March 7th date set for the special election to replace the seat formerly held by Gene Ricciardi, Ravehstahl was asked by a reporter it there was truth to the speculation that the date had been set to preference a particular candidate, namely Jeff Koch. Mr. Ravenstahl, denied having endorsed any candidate in the race.

"It is no secret," Bruce A. Kraus said, "that Kevin Quigley, Chief Of Staff to Mayor Bob O'Connor, is working closely with Mr. Koch in an advisory capacity." Mr. Kraus also added that "Terry Matusak, a close personal friend and confidant to Mayor O'Connor is actively assisting Mr. Koch in his campaign."

Mr. Kraus also questioned why Mr. Koch, a public works foreman for over 20 years now, recently had his work schedule changed from a three till eleven shift, to eleven till seven. "This graveyard shift is usually reserved for new employees with little or no seniority," Mr. Kraus said.

"And now the controversy surrounding the selection of the date to hold the special election has me asking very serious questions about the influence of Grant Street in this District Three Council Race. If the date was intentionally set to keep students who are especially strong in the South Side flats area and Oakland, from voting in this race, in turn benefiting turnout for Mr. Koch, we the residents of District Three deserve to know."

It is widely thought that Jeff Koch, a long time Arlington resident would not have a strong voter base in the South Side flats and Oakland area where large pockets of students reside.

Those of you who read Fester's Place already saw something like this alluded to in the comments section of a post there on Wednesday:

At 1:12 PM, January 11, 2006, PtBreeze said...

Is there some kind of conspiracy to have a of city council and council staff made up entirely of former public works employees.

On that same day, Koch was quoted in the Post-Gazette saying the following about the date of the special election:

Another candidate, Democrat Jeffrey Koch, said it "doesn't matter" to him when the election is held.

"The more [voters], the merrier," Mr. Koch said.

I have to say that google doesn't turn up a heck of a lot on Koch. And, I'm unable to find a website for him.

However, the Progress Pittsburgh website gives anyone the opportunity to post about candidates. This was posted anonymously about Koch (FYI: many of the entries there are posted anonymously):

jeff is an excellent candidate for dist 3 he sits on the citys pension board and has been a city employee for many years. jeff works in dist 3 lived here his entire life ,his parents were alsoborn and have livrd in dist 3 their entire lives.i have knowen jeff 40yrs he is HONEST,fair ,hardworking and one of the most upstanding members of our community.he has my full support and should be reconized by progresspittsburgh.

Bruce Kraus' website is: http://bruce4council.com

************************************************
NOTE:

Hey, Kraus, Koch, or any other candidates for Pittsburgh City Council District Three:

Feel free to directly send me any press releases or on-the-record comments that you have on this race (lupinaccim@aol.com).

(AND, I'll be voting in this election!)

************************************************

Freep this poll

Check out the funny pics in the Republican Photoshop Contest at Blog Against the Right.

I love that one of Rove! (And, yes, this is self-serving as you can vote for mine if you're so inclined.)

The Crying Game

From Wolcott:

If Alito is confirmed, Mrs. Alito and Judge Clarence Thomas's wife can commisserate by exchanging monogrammed crying towels as their men folk roll back women's rights and civil liberties and go duck hunting weekends with Scalia.

WOO-HOO! Special council election set for March 14

From the Post-Gazette:

Special council election set for March 14

Thursday, January 12, 2006

By Rich Lord, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

A special election to replace former Pittsburgh City Councilman Gene Ricciardi will be scheduled for March 14, Council President Luke Ravenstahl said today.

He had originally contemplated a March 7 date but said he scratched that when he realized it fell during most local universities' spring break week. Many of the district's residents are college students.

How it's shaking out so far...

From The Pitt News:

Spring break elections alienate student voters

By JESSICA LEAR
Editor in Chief
January 12, 2006

Well, Pittsburgh, you just never learn, do you?

Here’s a hint: If you want young people to stay in the city, you need to make them feel like they matter, at least a little bit.

In true hometown fashion, City Council has decided to hold the special election to fill the District 3 seat on March 7. District 3 includes central and south Oakland.

Yep, March 7, right in the middle of Pitt’s spring break. That means most students won’t be around to vote for their representative.

I know, I know, most students don’t vote, anyway. And Pitt students have a tendency to leave the city right after graduation.

Something tells me, though, that the way to get them to vote and to hang around after college — which this aging city desperately needs — isn’t excluding them from the election.

(more here)

From the Post-Gazette (1-11-05):

Pittsburgh City Council President Luke Ravenstahl said today that he may reconsider the scheduling of a special election in response to concerns from college students.

He had tentatively scheduled the election to replace former Councilman Gene Ricciardi, now a district judge, for March 7. Most local college students are on spring break that week, and the district, which includes South Side and parts of Oakland, is heavy with collegiate voters. Under the city's charter, the election could be held as late as March 14, which falls after spring break.

"Obviously there's been some concern that's been raised, and we'll look into it," Mr. Ravenstahl said. He has until Friday to specify a date for the election.

Found at Mark Rauterkus & Running Mates ponder current events:

MEDIA ADVISORY

For Immediate Release

January 11, 2006

Contact: Luke Ravenstahl

412-255-2135

PRESS CONFERENCE TO DISCUSS SPECIAL ELECTION FOR COUNCIL DISTRICT # 3

Council President Luke Ravenstahl will hold a press conference in City Council’s conference room tomorrow, January 12, 2006 at 10:00 AM to discuss the Special Election for City Council District #3. The final date for the special election will be announced at that time.

From the Post-Gazette (1-12-05):

Mr. Ravenstahl said March 7 was originally chosen because it coincides with the deadline for candidates to file petitions to be on the ballot in the May 16 primary. The Allegheny County Elections Division will have extra staff on hand to receive petitions, and they can help with the special election, potentially reducing the usual $50,000 bill to the city.

County Elections Director Mark Wolosik said the savings from having it on the earlier date would "probably be less than $1,000."

A Rally will be held today at Pitt no matter what Ravenstahl announces at 10:00 AM today.

If Ravenstahl decides to hold the election on 3/17, the focus will be on getting out the vote. If he elects to hold it during Spring Break, the focus of the rally will be on getting students to register for absentee ballots.

RALLY INFO:

Thursday 1/12/06
12:30
At the corner of Forbes and Bigelow (in front of Hilman Library).
The League of Young Voters, The Stonewall Dems, The College Dems, Democracy for Pittsburgh, and other concerned groups have signed on in support of the rally.

Yeah! What he said!

From Atrios:

Tears

Oh jeebus.

...I appreciate that Alito's wife may geuinely find this stressful and bummer for her, but I just can't stand the fact that our media which can't seem to understand that people who support groups which try to reduce women and minorities on campus, who rule in favor of warrantless searches of 10 year old girls, who will likely declare the uterus state property, who shoot down almost any racial discrimination claim, and who support the practice of striking jurors based on their race might cause a few tears as well.

The media keeps declaring these hearings to be just political theater, and then they focus on the soap opera.

This. Shit. Matters. Pretend you care, or get new goddamn jobs.

Jim Quinn Update

Hey take a look at what I found at the Wikipedia! Looks like our terrorist friend is more of a kook than we thought. The whole entry is a must read, but here are some highlights from the wing-nut brain of Jim Quinn:

On his morning show, Quinn discussed various conspiracy theories during the Clinton administration, including statements alleging Clinton to be a murderer, rapist and traitor. He claimed Bill Clinton had murdered or arranged to be murdered many people throughout his life, was a serial rapist and had sold secret intelligence information to the Chinese government, typically referred to as Chinagate. In the lead up to the 2000 U.S. presidential election, he claimed that Clinton would enact martial law and remain as president indefinitely.

Wow, did Jim Quinn really say all that? Is there anything in there that's even close to being correct? Did I miss the Clinton martial law thing? And with all the money spent investigating Oval Office blowjobs, you'd think that there would've been some mention of the all that presidential murdering and serial raping.

Wikipedia bills itself as a "free encyclopedia" that anyone can edit. So if there are errors in the above, please let the wikipedia know. In the meantime, shouldn't someone sit Quinn down and remind him that in order for them to be of any help, he has to take his meds every day.

One last thing from the Wikipedia:

Before beginning his political morning show, Quinn spent a number of years as a morning disc jockey, most notably "The Quinn and Banana Show" on B-94 FM, which ran in Pittsburgh, PA, from the early until the late 1980's. While performing a skit for that show, he and his on-air partner "Bananna Don" were sued for Sexual harassment for their antics, which were somewhat comparable to those of Howard Stern. Shortly thereafter, his FM Morning Show was cancelled. Quinn largely credits his experiences regarding this lawsuit as "opening his eyes" in his conversion to Conservatism.

Ah. Well, that explains alot doesn't it.

So if what they say at the Wikipedia is true, not only is Jim Quinn a well-armed terrorist nut-job, he's an frighteningly unbalanced misogynistic well-armed terrorist nut-job.

IMPEACH

Will Pitt Students Be Denied Their Right to Vote?

ACTION: Ravenstahl to prevent Pitt students from voting in special election?

HELP PROTECT STUDENT VOTING RIGHTS

As you probably know, Gene Riccardi resigned his seat on City Council (District 3) as he was sworn in as District Judge. This cleared the way for a Special Election to be held.

** Council District 3 includes Pitt Towers, where 12% of ALL REGISTERED VOTERS in the district reside **

The date of the special election will be set by actions taken by Council President--and 25-yr-old--Luke Ravenstahl. As things stand now, the special election will be scheduled for March 7--RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF PITT'S SPRING BREAK. Ravenstahl can, however, take action to have the election scheduled for March 14, after Pitt students have returned.

This special election is the first time in quite a long time that Pitt students can have a real say in their representation on Council, and it is a slap in the face to all of us who have worked to mobilize voters locally.

Young voters here ARE engaged.. A couple of notes:
* While citywide, turnout was down 13% in the mayoral election, turnout was UP by 40% in Pitt Towers
* Citywise, turnout was up 14% in the presidential election; turnout was up 62% in Pitt Towers

Here is what you can do:

1---Call your Councilperson & Council President Ravenstahl BEFORE 10am on 1/11 (TODAY). Ask them to ask Mr. Ravenstahl to recommend March 14 as the date for the special election.

District 1 - Luke Ravenstahl - 412-255-2135
District 2 - Dan Deasy - 412-255-8963
District 4 - Jim Motznik - 412-255-2131
District 5 - Doug Shields - 412-255-8965
District 6 - Tonya Payne - 412-255-2134
District 7 - Len Bodack - 412-255-2140
District 8 - Bill Peduto - 412-255-2133
District 9 - Twanda Carlisle - 412-255-2137

2---Come today to the public hearing period before the City Council's Standing Committees Meeting at 10:00 a.m., and use your 3 minutes to make your opinion heard. Come to the City Council chambers on the 5th floor of the City County Building at 10:00 a.m., and during the public comment period everyone who wishes to speak gets 3 minutes at the mike.

3---Write a letter to the Post-Gazette. Send your letter to the editor by email to letters@postgazette.com or by fax to 412-263-2014. Don't forget to include your full name, address and telephone number for verification. Be concise and to the point.

4---On Thursday 1/12/06 @ 3pm, Place: TBA on Pitt's campus
City Councilman Bill Peduto, the League of Young Voters, The Stonewall Dems, The College Dems and other concerned groups will be holding a press conference and rally to compel the board of elections to hold the election on March 14 so UPitt students will be able to participate in choosing their next council rep.

On Thursday 1/12/06 @ 12:30, at the corner of Forbes and Bigelow (in front of Hilman Library). The League of Young Voters, The Stonewall Dems, The College Dems, and other concerned groups will be holding a and rally to compel the board of elections to hold the election on March 14 so University of Pittsburgh students will be able to participate in choosing their next council rep.

Council Member Bill Peduto has given his support to the efforts to change the election date and he will be attending the rally.

For more info contact the Pittsburgh League at pittsburgh@indyvoter.org

From the Post-Gazette (1-10-06):

Councilman William Peduto said that if the request to the county is made today, Wednesday or Thursday, the election would likely be held March 7, when University of Pittsburgh students are on spring break. Most of the district is south of the Monongahela River, but it includes parts of South Oakland and Central Oakland.

Mr. Peduto urged that the request be made Friday, which would allow for a March 14 election.

"I think [Ms. Johnson-Wasler] is probably planning on having it ready on Friday," said Mr. Ravenstahl.

From the Post-Gazette (1-11-06):

A special election to replace former city Councilman Gene Ricciardi will be held March 7, council President Luke Ravenstahl said yesterday.

That date drew fire from Councilman William Peduto, because it falls during the University of Pittsburgh's spring break, and many of the affected district's registered voters are Pitt students. He said thousands of young people "would be denied the opportunity to vote on the 7th" and urged that it be held March 14.

Announced Candidates:

Democrats:
Eileen Conroy of Oakland
Ed Jacob of the South Side Slopes
Jeffrey S. Koch of Arlington
Bruce Krane of the South Side Flats
Bruce Kraus of the South Side Flats
Pat Sweeney of the South Side Flats

Green Party:
Jason Phillips of the South Side Flats

Libertarian:
Mark Rauterkus of the South Side Flats

The winner will serve out Mr. Ricciardi's term, which runs through 2007.

The Third Council District is comprised of:
Carrick, the South Side and South Oakland: Mt. Washington, Allentown, Beltzhoover, Knoxville, Southside Flats & Southside Slopes, Carrick, Mt. Oliver, St. Clair, Arlington, Arlington Heights, South Oakland and Central Oakland

THIS IS MY DISTRICT, PEOPLE. AND, I DON'T APPRECIATE A DEMOCRAT TRYING TO DENY STUDENTS THE VOTE -- WE HAVE ENOUGH OF THAT WITH THE REPUBLICANS.

Lowry at the National Review: It's a REPUBLICAN scandal

I found this via the dailykos. Here's the important stuff:

Republicans are looking for "their" John McCain. The popular Arizona maverick is already a Republican, of course. But the GOP needs a McCain in the "Keating Five" sense. Back in 1990, Senate Democrats roped McCain into the scandal over savings and loan kingpin Charles Keating on tenuous grounds, just so not all the senators involved would be Democrats.

The GOP now craves such bipartisan cover in the Jack Abramoff scandal.

Republicans trumpet every Democratic connection to Abramoff in the hope that something resonates. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.), took more than $60,000 from Abramoff clients! North Dakota Democratic Sen. Byron Dorgan used Abramoff's skybox! It is true that any Washington influence peddler is going to spread cash and favors as widely as possible, and 210 members of Congress have received Abramoff-connected dollars. But this is, in its essence, a Republican scandal, and any attempt to portray it otherwise is a misdirection. [emphasis added]

Can someone please tell Fred Honsberger? He's been trumpeting (for days) the Republican party line about the "contributions he [Ambramoff] or his clients made to Democrats." [emphasis added]

If someone at the National frickin' Review says that it's misdirection to portray the Abramoff scandal as anything other than a Republican scandal, we can be pretty sure that that's exactly what Freddo's doing.

IMPEACH

Melissa Hart in the News!

Our Missy Hart's made it onto talkingpointmemo.com. Good for her.

Looks like her vote for the "Delay Rule" is coming back to bite her on the ass. Here's Josh Marshall:

Wednesday's Post quotes Rep. Melissa Hart (R-PA) saying: "We will want people who are clean running the House." She's supporting John Boehner (R-OH), who is being held out as the clean candidate in comparison to acting-Majority Leader and one-time DeLay protege Roy Blunt (R-MO). And it's certainly an admirable sentiment.

But a year ago she was a vocal supporter of the DeLay Rule which was designed to let DeLay, then the Majority Leader, remain in his post even after he was indicted. Members of her staff told TPM Readers who contacted her office that she voted in favor of the Rule. In other words, she wanted to change the rules so that someone who was dirty could keep running the House.

In fact, DeLay had so much confidence in Hart that after he purged the Ethics Committee in early 2005 (see 'night of the long gavels') she was one of the loyalists he put on the committee. Indeed, while DeLay was still in the driver's seat enough to be calling the shots, Hart was tapped to lead the Majority-approved investigation of DeLay.

The important line in Marshall's entry is this:

In other words, she wanted to change the rules so that someone who was dirty could keep running the House.

So is it safe to say that she supported Tom Delay before she didn't support him?

IMPEACH

Reported: Fiztgerald to charge Rove -- Rove will refuse plea

A friend called me saying that she heard on Lynn Cullen's WPTT 1360 radio show that Fitzgerald will charge Rove.

And, a Daily KOS diary links to this TruthOut.org story (Raw Story links to it as well):

Fitzgerald Maintains Focus on Rove
By Jason Leopold
t r u t h o u t Investigative Report

Tuesday 10 January 2006

Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is said to have
spent the past month preparing evidence he will present to a grand jury alleging that White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove knowingly made false statements to FBI and Justice Department investigators and lied under oath while he was being questioned about his role in the leak of covert CIA agent Valerie Plame's identity more than two years ago, according to sources knowledgeable about the probe.

Although there have not been rumblings regarding Fitzgerald's probe into the Plame
leak since he met with the grand jury hearing evidence in the case more than a month ago, the sources said that Fitzgerald has been quietly building his case against Rove and has been interviewing witnesses, in some cases for the second and third time, who have provided him with information related to Rove's role in the leak. It is unclear when Fitzgerald is expected to meet with the grand jury again.

[snip]

According to sources, Fitzgerald had planned to meet with the grand jury several times last month, hoping to wrap up the case specifically as it relates to Rove's involvement. But the prosecutor, who empanelled a second grand jury in November and whose term expires in 18 months, had his hands full dealing with another high-profile criminal case he is prosecuting involving Lord Conrad Black, owner of several major metropolitan newspapers, who was indicted on charges including racketeering.

[snip]

But sources knowledgeable about the case against Rove say that he was offered a plea deal in December and that Luskin had twice met with Fitzgerald during that time to discuss Rove's legal status. Rove turned down the plea deal, which would likely have required him to provide Fitzgerald with information against other officials who were involved in Plame's outing as well as testifying against those people, the sources said.

So, if we are to believe this:

- Rove will be charged

- He will not accept a plea

- (Inevitable pardon to follow)

That's Our Bush!

Only took him five years to get us back to where we were when he took office!

Altmire Campaign Slims Payroll

Funds drying up?

Politics PA reported last week that Mark Salvas has left the Jason Altmire for Congress Campaign. He had been serving as the campaign's Communications Director. A little birdie told us last Tuesday evening that he wasn't the only one dropping their support in that campaign.

Maybe folks are realizing that now is not the time to run a lobbyist for Congress...

Maybe it just doesn't help that there's a better, stronger candidate (Georgia Berner, Georgia Berner, Georgia Berner) running now....

Maybe some folks just don't find his principles all that principled...

(Maybe if I hadn't had such a hellish week, I could have posted this days ago...)

Pittsburgh Impeach Bush!

Pennsylvania State Senator Jim Ferlo (38th state Senatorial District) has initiated a local impeachment campaign here in the city of Pittsburgh.

He has a petition calling for impeachment and a censure of the President and Vice President which will appear as a full-page ad in the Pittsburgh City Paper news weekly prior to the State of the Union Address. You can sign it online here (deadline for signing is January 21).

You can view the ad at pittsburghimpeachbush.org.

This action is unprecedented, and Pittsburgh may be the first US city to organize a campaign of this nature.

Senator Ferlo's action supports Congressman John Conyers resolutions 635 (H.Res.635 would create a select committee to investigate the Administration's intent to go to war before congressional authorization, manipulation of pre-war intelligence, encouraging and countenancing torture, and retaliating against critics, and to make recommendations regarding grounds for possible impeachment.), 636, and 637 (H.Res.636 and H.Res.637 would censure, respectively, Bush and Cheney for failing to respond to requests for information concerning allegations that they and others in the Administration misled Congress and the American people regarding the decision to go to war in Iraq, misstated and manipulated intelligence information regarding the justification for the war, countenanced torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of persons in Iraq, and permitted inappropriate retaliation against critics of the Administration, for failing to adequately account for certain misstatements they made regarding the war, and – in the case of President Bush – for failing to comply with Executive Order 12958.).

Ask your Congress Member to support these efforts here (enter zip code at the top of the linked page)

This effort is being done in conjunction with CensureBush.org

SPREAD THE WORD!

________________________________
tags: impeach impeach bush Impeachment censure Politics ferlo

Stop Alito this Wednesday in Pittsburgh!

Join the voices speaking out against Supreme Court Nominee Samuel Alito.

Now is the Time!!!

Individuals and organizations are coming together in Pittsburgh to lend their voices to the fight.

WHEN: Wednesday, January 11, 2006, 6:30 PM
WHERE: The United Steel Workers Building, 5 Gateway Center (The Corner of Stanwix St and Blvd of the Allies, 1st Floor Lobby Conference room
WHY: To show our opposition to Samuel Alito's Nomination.

All those opposed to the nomination are invited and encouraged to attend.

Bring signs and banners from your organizations so we can show the diverse groups in opposition.

This event is being facilitated by the Alliance for Justice and the National Council of Jewish Women, Pittsburgh Section and is supported by the Western Coalition For an Independent Court.

CONTACT: Reed Millar from the Alliance for Justice for more information:
reedmillar@yahoo.com 484-769-3564

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

What You Can Do Today:

Call Senator Specter TODAY!

Let him know that you oppose Alito's nomination. Let him no that you consider Alito to be outside the mainstream.

U.S. Senator Arlen Specter
Washington D.C. office: 202-224-4252
Pittsburgh office: 412-644-3400

Senate Judiciary Committee Experiences Burning, Itching Sensation

(We've often thought that the Senate was full of asses, we just didn't know that they were holy.)

This story is right up our alley. According to the Wall St. Journal:

WASHINGTON -- Insisting that God "certainly needs to be involved" in the Supreme Court confirmation process, three Christian ministers today blessed the doors of the hearing room where Senate Judiciary Committee members will begin considering the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito on Monday.

Capitol Hill police barred them from entering the room to continue what they called a consecration service. But in a bit of one-upsmanship, the three announced that they had let themselves in a day earlier, touching holy oil to the seats where Judge Alito, the senators, witnesses, Senate staffers and the press will sit, and praying for each of the 13 committee members by name.

"We did adequately apply oil to all the seats," said the Rev. Rob Schenck, who identified himself as an evangelical Christian and as president of the National Clergy Council in Washington.

[snip]

The three ministers insisted they weren't taking sides in the Alito debate. "This is not a pro-Alito prayer," insisted the Rev. Patrick Mahoney, director of the Christian Defense Coalition. With abortion, public prayer, gay marriage and right-to-life issues among those topping public debate, however, "God…is interested in what goes on" in the nomination hearing, Rev. Schenck said.

When asked, God had no comment.