David Ignatius on the Bush Regime

Check out his Op-ed in today's Washington Post.

It starts here:

There is a temptation that seeps into the souls of even the most righteous politicians and leads them to bend the rules, and eventually the truth, to suit the political needs of the moment. That arrogance of power is on display with the Bush administration.

And quickly veers off to Dead-Eye Dick:

The most vivid example is the long delay in informing the country that Vice President Cheney had accidentally shot a man last Saturday while hunting in Texas. For a White House that informs us about the smallest bumps and scrapes suffered by the president and vice president, the lag is inexplicable. But let us assume the obvious: It was an attempt to delay and perhaps suppress embarrassing news. We will never know whether the vice president's office would have announced the incident at all if the host of the hunting party, Katharine Armstrong, hadn't made her own decision Sunday morning to inform her local paper.

Before you can say "Chappaquidick" he writes:

Nobody died at Armstrong Ranch, but this incident reminds me a bit of Sen. Edward Kennedy's delay in informing Massachusetts authorities about his role in the fatal automobile accident at Chappaquiddick in 1969. That story, and dozens of others about the Kennedy family, illustrates how wealthy, powerful people can behave as if they are above the law. For my generation, the fall of Richard Nixon is the ultimate allegory about how power can corrupt and destroy. It begins not with venality but with a sense of God-given mission.

It's a good read. The last two paragraphs tell the entire tale:

Bush and Cheney are in the bunker. That's the only way I can make sense of their actions. They are steaming in a broth of daily intelligence reports that highlight the grim terrorist threats facing America. They have sworn blood oaths that they will defend the United States from its adversaries -- no matter what . They have blown past the usual rules and restraints into territory where few presidents have ventured -- a region where the president conducts warrantless wiretaps against Americans in violation of a federal statute, where he authorizes harsh interrogation methods that amount to torture.

When critics question the legality of the administration's actions, Bush and Cheney assert the commander in chief's power under Article II of the Constitution. When Congress passes a law forbidding torture, the White House appends a signing statement insisting that Article II -- the power of the commander in chief -- trumps everything else. When the administration's Republican friends suggest amending the wiretapping law to make its program legal, the administration refuses. Let's say it plainly: This is the arrogance of power, and it has gone too far in the Bush White House.

Arrogance of power? The GOP? NAH!

IMPEACH

The ABA on the domestic surveillance

Reuters (a real live news organization) is reporting that:

The American Bar Association told President George W. Bush on Monday to either stop domestic eavesdropping without a warrant or get the law changed to make it legal.

Hmm..I guess the American Bar Association thinks Bush's domestic spying is illegal. But before the conservatives in the audience raise the canard that this proves somehow that the ABA wants to stop Bush from collecting any information on al qaeda, let's take a look at the next paragraph:

"We do not say surveillance should be stopped, only that it comply with the law," said Neal Sonnett, a Miami lawyer who headed the task force formed to look at the issue not long after the spying program came to light in December.

A few lines later:

"We are not trying to limit the President's ability to go after terrorists," Sonnett told the group's House of Delegates before it passed his task force's resolution with relatively little debate.

"Nobody wants to hamstring the President," he added, "But we cannot allow the US Constitution and our rights to become a victim of terrorism," he added.

[ABA president Michael] Grecco told the group the issue is not whether the President can conduct surveillance but whether he can do it unilaterally.

The report can be found here. According to the ABA website, the recommendations now reflect official ABA policy.

IMPEACH

Cheney "ignored his responsibility" to the American People

Guess who said that?

The person who said that also said "The responsibility for handling this, of course, was Cheney's."

While the apologists for the Bush regime snap to attention and try to blame this whole mess on anything BUT dead-eye Dick ("Whittington should have made some noise." or "The Washington Press corp is just mad that some little Texas newspaper broke the story instead of them." or "Those Bush haters just want Whittington to die!") Marlin Fitzwater, Ronald Reagan's press secretary is "appalled by the handling" of this situation. He said:

"What [Cheney] should have done was call his press secretary and tell her what happened and she then would have gotten a hold of the doctor and asked him what happened. Then interview [ranch owner] Katharine Armstrong to get her side of events and then put out a statement to inform the public."

Fitzwater also said:

"They could have done all of that in about two hours on Saturday. It is beyond me why it was not done this way."

Wait there's more:

If [Cheney's] press secretary had any sense about it at all, she would have gotten the story together and put it out. Calling AP, UPI, and all of the press services. That would have gotten the story out and it would have been the right thing to do, recognizing his responsibility to the people as a nationally elected official, to tell the country what happened," Fitzwater added.

"Secondly, it would have been confined to the vice president. By not telling anyone for 24 hours, it made it a White House story. Now it has become 'when was the president notified?', 'why didn't he put it out?' It becomes a story about the White House handling of it."

Now even other conservatives (the sane ones, at least) think the Bush White House screwed up.

In the end, it only shows the contempt the man has for his constituency and for the country he's currently ruining.

IMPEACH

"There's something screwy around here."

Be very, very quiet. I'm hunting wabbits quail people.

OK, OK, I know that everyone and their mother has already commented on this but, since Saturday I've had three separate family members go to the emergency room on three separate occasions (the two who I escorted are still hospitalized -- everyone should be OK) so I haven't had a chance to weigh in on THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES SHOOTING AN ELDERLY MAN IN THE FACE. And, since I called dibbs on this story, Dayvoe could not comment. And, since as one of our readers commented, this blog engages in "sophomoric humor, name calling, and [has a} general childish tone," I must comment on THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES SHOOTING AN ELDERLY MAN IN THE FACE. Besides, I think it's fudding funny. Yes, I know that I'm not the first to make the Elmer Fudd reference, but if the shoe fits... (Besides, I immediately started downloading Elmer Fudd pictures when I heard about THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES SHOOTING AN ELDERLY MAN IN THE FACE on Sunday evening). So fess up: How many of you, like me, laughed your butt off when you heard that Darth Vader shot a 78 year old man in the face? How many of you thought, "God, I hope the Daily Show/Letterman/leno is live on Monday?" How many of you thought, "Jesus, he isn't content to be the cause of so much death in Iraq, he's got to start trying to shoot folks himself?" How many of you wondered why it took almost 24 hours for this story to make the national press? Well, from the press and media coverage so far, I know I'm not alone in my thoughts. For your reading pleasure, I present a roundup of some of the more interesting stories resulting from THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES SHOOTING AN ELDERLY MAN IN THE FACE:

1. Here's the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department report on Vice President Dick Cheney's accidental shooting.

2. Here's Scott McClellan unsuccessfully trying to avoid the question of why the public had to find out this story from a tiny little local newspaper THE DAY AFTER IT HAPPENED.

3. Here's Ron Reagan asking why local law enforcement weren't able to immediately question the Veep like they would after any other incident when someone is shot. Questions like "Was alchohol involved?"

4. Here's firedoglake with the law on the MANDATORY REPORTING OF GUNSHOT WOUNDS in Texas and the NRA on gun safety.

5. Here's AmericaBlog letting us know that Ol' Darth didn't really have the necessary paperwork needed to hunt lil birdies in Texas.

6. Here's One of Cheney's adviser's letting us know that Cheney has nothing to be sorry for because "He didn't do anything he wasn't supposed to do." (I guess THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES IS SUPPOSSED TO SHOOT AN ELDERLY MAN IN THE FACE!)

7. Here's Atrios with photos of the people who participated in the hunting party.

8. Here's Josh Marshall explaining exactly how Cheney really did fuck up.

9. Here's Shakespeare's Sister demonstrating that even this story has a connection to a scandal in George Bush’s past.

10. Here's firedoglake reminding everyone how snarky Chickenhawk Unka Dick was when John Kerry went hunting during the election (And Kerry did not SHOOT AN ELDERLY MAN IN THE FACE).

11. And, Crooks and Liars has Monday's Daily Show video:

Courdry: "Jon, tonight the Vice President is standing by his decision to shoot Harry Whittington. Now according to the best intelligence available, there were quail hidden in the brush. Everyone believed at the time-there-were-quail in the brush. And while the quail turned out to be the 78 year old man. Even knowing that today, Mr. Cheney insists-he still would have shot Mr. Whittington in the face."

A Recent EDITORIAL From The New York Times

In case you all missed it. You can find it here. I can't say I disagree with it. It starts like this:

We can't think of a president who has gone to the American people more often than George W. Bush has to ask them to forget about things like democracy, judicial process and the balance of powers - and just trust him. We also can't think of a president who has deserved that trust less.

And it ends like this:

Like many other administrations before it, this one sometimes dissembles clumsily to avoid embarrassment. (We now know, for example, that the White House did not tell the truth about when it learned the levees in New Orleans had failed.) Spin-as-usual is one thing. Striking at the civil liberties, due process and balance of powers that are the heart of American democracy is another.

In between the EDITORIAL BOARD takes Bush to task for three of its biggest screw-ups; Domestic Spying, The Prison Camps, and (of course) The War in Iraq.

IMPEACH

Corruption - It's the Right thing to do.

From an editorial in today's Post-Gazette:

While the Bush administration has earned a well-deserved reputation for acting in secrecy, similar cloak-and-dagger tactics are popping up on Capitol Hill, where the Republican majority has demonstrated that it can make legislation appear or vanish without even a vote.

A case in point came before Congress' Christmas recess, when Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist inserted an immunity provision for flu vaccine manufacturers in a defense bill after other lawmakers had agreed that it would be left out.

Some details follow:

Now the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reports that GOP officials slipped a $22 billion gift to the health-insurance industry into legislation that was supposed to cut the federal budget. The action was taken during a meeting from which Democratic lawmakers and their staff members were excluded.

Not something they sang about on Schoolhouse Rock, is it? Maybe they need a elementary primer on democracy over there in the red-tinged halls of Congress.

Here's the final paragraph from the editorial staff of the P-G:

Such tactics are more than high-handed. They are a fundamental short-circuiting of the legislative process, just one more layer in the culture of corruption that is slowly strangling Washington and making a mockery of our democratic form of government.

Can one or more Constitutional originalists in the audience (and I know you're out there) explain to me where this is spelled out in the Constitution? It's my understanding that Article 1 Section 7 outlines the process in which a bill becomes law. Where is it written that one party can highjack a bill and insert text that (in the words of the P-G) "other lawmakers had agreed that it would be left out"?

The P-G is right, it's just more corruption from the republicans. Nothing new here, citizens.

New republican motto: "Corruption - It's the Right thing to do."

And if you don't get the pun, you're part of the problem.

IMPEACH

The ABA Poll

The American Bar Association recently conducted a poll, well I'll let them describe it:

According to a poll commissioned by the American Bar Association and released today, 52 percent of respondents said that in the fight against terrorism, the President of the United States alone cannot suspend constitutional freedoms, with an additional 25 percent saying he must obtain authorization by a court of law or Congress. Thus 77 percent of Americans express deep reservations about the president’s secret surveillance program.

Wow 77%, that's way more than a majority, huh?

The telephone poll conducted by Harris Interactive® over the past weekend found that only 18 percent of respondents believe the president can suspend constitutional freedoms "anytime the President thinks it is necessary to protect the country."

18%. That's less than 1 in 5.

I would have bolded out the important parts - but it's all important.

The data can be found here.

IMPEACH

Delay Rewarded by his Corrupt Party

From ABC News:

Indicted Rep. Tom DeLay, forced to step down as the No. 2 Republican in the House, scored a soft landing Wednesday as GOP leaders rewarded him with a coveted seat on the Appropriations Committee.

DeLay, R-Texas, also claimed a seat on the subcommittee overseeing the Justice Department, which is currently investigating an influence-peddling scandal involving disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff and his dealings with lawmakers. The subcommittee also has responsibility over NASA _ a top priority for DeLay, since the Johnson Space Center is located in his Houston-area district.

"Allowing Tom DeLay to sit on a committee in charge of giving out money is like putting Michael Brown back in charge of FEMA Republicans in Congress just can't seem to resist standing by their man," said Bill Burton, spokesman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

The vacancy in the Appropriations Committee was created by the departure of Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-Ca) who resigned after pleading guilty for accepting $2.4 million in bribes.

It was only five months ago that DeLay was indicted on a charge of criminally conspiring with political associates to "inject illegal corporate contributions into 2002 state elections that helped the Republican Party reorder the congressional map in Texas and cement its control of the House in Washington."

Any questions left as to whether or not the Republican party is thoroughly corrupt?

This is not like watching how sausage is made -- this is watching how corruption occurs

It does not matter what the people want -- Rethuglicans will do what they like:

1. Frist & Hastert rigged defense legislation, without anybody knowing they slipped in language protecting pharmaceutical lobbyists from lawsuits

2. Bush snuck Social Security privatization plan into his budget

More evidence Bush lied...

In today's Washington Post:

The former CIA official who coordinated U.S. intelligence on the Middle East until last year has accused the Bush administration of "cherry-picking" intelligence on Iraq to justify a decision it had already reached to go to war, and of ignoring warnings that the country could easily fall into violence and chaos after an invasion to overthrow Saddam Hussein.

And that's just the first paragraph. Here's the fourth:

"It has become clear that official intelligence was not relied on in making even the most significant national security decisions, that intelligence was misused publicly to justify decisions already made, that damaging ill will developed between [Bush] policymakers and intelligence officers, and that the intelligence community's own work was politicized," [Paul R. ] Pillar wrote.

Corruption and incompetence - hallmarks of the Bush Regime.

IMPEACH

Sidney Blumenthal on the Gonzales' lies

I think Sidney Blumenthal has it completely right. He wrote this for the Guardian.

In 1996, Governor George W Bush received a summons to serve on a jury, which would have required his admission that 20 years earlier he had been arrested for drunk driving. Already planning his presidential campaign, he did not want this information made public. His lawyer made the novel argument to the judge that Bush should not have to serve because "he would not, as governor, be able to pardon the defendant in the future". (The defendant was a stripper accused of drunk driving.) The judge agreed, and it was not until the closing days of the 2000 campaign that Bush's record surfaced. On Monday, the same lawyer, Alberto Gonzales - now attorney general - appeared before the senate judiciary committee to defend "the client", as he called the president.

Gonzales was the sole witness called to explain Bush's warrantless domestic spying, in obvious violation of the foreign intelligence surveillance act (Fisa) and circumvention of the special court created to administer it. The scene at the Senate was acted as though scripted partly by Kafka, partly by Mel Brooks, and partly by John le Carré. After not being sworn in, the absence of oath-taking having been insisted upon by the Republicans, Gonzales offered legal reasoning even more imaginative than that he used to get Bush off jury duty: a melange of mendacity, absurdity and mystery.

But the scary part comes later on:

Who was or wasn't being spied on couldn't and wouldn't be explained. When Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, asked whether the program could be used to "influence United States political processes, public opinion, policies or media", Gonzales replied: "Those are very, very difficult questions, and for me to answer those questions sort of off the cuff, I think would not be responsible." When Senator Joseph Biden, Democrat of Delaware, asked for assurances that only al-Qaida or suspected terrorists were subjected to surveillance, Gonzales answered: "Sir, I can't give you absolute assurance."

Whah??? He can't give "absolute assurance" that only terrorists (or suspected terrorists) are being watched?

The amazing thing is that this is the answer he gave even though he wasn't under oath.

How much more do we need to know about this administration before we all understand it's a real threat to our civil liberties?

IMPEACH

WE HIT 100,000!

Take a look.

At about 10pm this evening, 2 Political Junkies hit 100,000 hits on the counter.

Someday soon, we'll all get together and have some beer in celebration.

Oh, yea.

IMPEACH

Cheney "Authorized" Libby

This is baaad news for the Bush junta. Naitonal Journal is reporting:

Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, testified to a federal grand jury that he had been "authorized" by Cheney and other White House "superiors" in the summer of 2003 to disclose classified information to journalists to defend the Bush administration's use of prewar intelligence in making the case to go to war with Iraq, according to attorneys familiar with the matter, and to court records.

And then

Libby specifically claimed that in one instance he had been authorized to divulge portions of a then-still highly classified National Intelligence Estimate regarding Saddam Hussein's purported efforts to develop nuclear weapons, according to correspondence recently filed in federal court by special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald. [emphasis in original]

The thing is, of course, that The Vice President doesn't have the authority to declassify.

And isn't releasing classified material a threat to national security?

About Lynn

So Scranton has dropped out. And then there was One Swann. (OK there's someone else but who even knows it or cares?)

There are 12 paragraphs on Lynn Swann's bio page on his website. After the first brief paragraph that basically says he was born, the next five are about sports.

I never visited Arnold Schwarzenegger's campaign site, but I wonder if he had this much info about his body builder/movie career...I kind of doubt it.

And speaking of Schwarzenegger, this is who Democrats need to constantly remind voters of in the upcoming race. AHRRNOLD has made a mess of things in Cali and the voters know it.


SWANN = AHRRNOLD
(with even less business experience)

UPDATE: Well, not so much an update but more of an 'aside" -- something that I forgot to mention.

I know that we are not allowed to mention race in this race, but since we mentioned Swann's website I have to say that if you came to the website from outer space and knew nothing of Pennsylvania, you might conclude from the pictures on it (top graphic, photo gallery, bio page, supporters page, etc.) that Lynn Swann and his family are the only African Americans in the state. I mean, he must know some...(Democrats) .

Go ahead and fire away.

More Trouble for Santorum

Or is it the same trouble - only it's so large that it only LOOKS like more trouble?

Anyway, check this out from the Conservative American Enterprise Institute. John Fortier begins this way:

Sen. Santorum has been watching football and has learned a lesson. If an underestimated team from western Pennsylvania can win the Super Bowl, then maybe an underestimated Republican senator from western Pennsylvania can win reelection. But for Santorum to win, he would not just have to “defy the odds” but rewrite the laws of physics, or at least of political science.

And ends with this:

Perhaps the best parallel is former Sen. Tim Hutchinson (R-Ark.) in 2002, who faced Mark Pryor, a statewide office holder and son of a political icon. But Santorum’s polls are even worse than Hutchinson’s. Pryor beat Hutchinson 54-46.

If you bet on the Steelers last weekend, you made some money. If you believe in parallels between football and politics, your bookie would be happy to take your money.

It's not much fun for Lil Ricky in between either. Some highlights:

In the past, Santorum has not faced the strongest opponents, but he will in November. And his polling numbers are the worst he has ever had and worse than other Senate incumbents who have lost.

And:

Santorum's poll numbers are abysmal. Recent polls show his job approval rating at 40 percent or below and his disapproval rating nearly 50 percent. Typically, an approval rate that dips below 50 percent is a sign of big trouble. Santorum also trails Casey by 10-16 points in head-to-head match-ups.

About the only thing I would disagree with in this article is this:

This time, Santorum is facing a tough opponent. Bob Casey Jr.'s father was a very popular governor. The candidate has held statewide office himself. He is a moderate, closer to Santorum on abortion and guns than he is to other Democrats. He even supported the confirmation of Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito. And Democrats are solidly united behind him.

Except for that last sentence, I'd have to agree with most everything the article says.

Poor Rick. It'll be so (sniffle) sad to see him go. No more embarrassing homophobia, no more embarrassing religious pandering. No more embarrassments from him at all.

IMPEACH

File Under: Not Even His Base Belives His BS

From the Washington Post:

Evangelicals urge action on global warming

By Alan Elsner
Reuters
Wednesday, February 8, 2006; 3:24 PM

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A group of 85 evangelical Christian leaders on Wednesday backed legislation opposed by the White House to cut carbon dioxide emissions, kicking off a campaign to mobilize religious conservatives to combat global warming.

The group which included mega-church pastors, Christian college presidents, religious broadcasters and writers, also unveiled a full-page advertisement to run in Thursday's New York Times and a television ad it hopes to screen nationally.

[snip]

The campaign by the evangelical leaders represented a possible split in President George W. Bush's political base, in which Christian evangelical voters are heavily represented.

However, the names of most of the president's most influential Christian political backers were notably absent from the list of signatories joining the campaign. Possibly the best-known signer was Rick Warren, author of the best-selling book, "The Purpose Driven Life."

[snip]

The Bush administration opposes imposing mandatory limits and backs voluntary efforts by companies. It has also refused to join the Kyoto Protocol, an international accord signed by the European Union, Japan and most other industrialized nations that sets hard targets for cutting emissions.

The Christian leaders said they were impelled by their faith to launch the campaign out of a growing realization that the threat of global warming was real and that the world's poor would suffer the most.

I always wanted to make six figures

It looks like 2pj is poised to reach 100,000 hits in the next few days so I moved the stat counter to the top of the right nav bar.

(A parade and rally are being planned for when we reach our goal to rival the QUARTER OF A MILLION who showed up to greet the Steelers yesterday. Not.)

Why it's Ok to hate Bush (Part 217)

Bush to Widows of Soldiers: "FU"
"President Bush's budget calls for elimination of a $255 lump-sum death payment that has been part of Social Security for more than 50 years..."

Bush to Soldiers: "FU"
"My nephew received a notice in the mail that the U.S. government won't be picking up the tab for his tuition as promised this semester and probably not for any other semester in the near future. "There is no more money," the letter pretty much said in clear language. Despite the promises and assurances that the government would be there for my nephew if my nephew was there for the government, his college dream is in jeopardy."

Nominees up for The 2005 Koufax Awards: Most Humorous Post

Need a laugh? (Not open for voting yet)

The 2005 Koufax Awards: Most Humorous Post

Here they are. No explanations necessary, I suspect. Comments closed until all categories are up.

2 Political Junkies: What if the Right is Right?

You can see the rest of the nominees HERE.

There are a ton of them and while I haven't had a chance to read them all, Cargoweasel's A Joke and Fafblog!'s Update From the Hunt for Bin Laden are certainly worth your time.

Short Takes

Lots of things caught my eye recently:

* PUNK KID who "corrected" NASA's scientists is not even a college grad.
* The only HERO in the Cartoon Controversy?
* Special "Re-vote" to be held in Ohio because DIEBOLD machines recorded more votes than voters.
* 99.80% ERROR RATE in warrantless spy program.
* More ERRORS: majority of Guantanamo detainees not Taliban or Al Qaeda.
* Injured soldier forced to pay for LOST BODY ARMOR
* Those crazy PENPALS: McCain and Obama.

That's Our Arlen!

Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) is often cited as one of the few remaining moderate Republicans in Congress. But where does he stand when the chips are down? While Specter is ostensibly pro-choice, he backed Alito for the Supreme Court.

And then there's Specter's penchant for being "different" as when he famously cited Scottish law to render a verdict of "not proven" on President Clinton's impeachment (his vote was recorded as "not guilty" in the Senate records).

So how did the man who declared Gonzales' explanations to date as "strained and unrealistic" and said the he believed that Bush violated the FISA law conduct the Senate Judiciary Committee's hearings yesterday?

On the one hand Specter did not have Gonzales sworn in and as Slate put it:

No witnesses other than Gonzales. No new details of the National Security Agency spying program that the committee was supposed to be inquiring about. No request for the Justice Department's internal legal memorandums about the legality of the NSA program.

On the other hand, Specter responded to Gonzales' prevarications by making such statements as:

"That's false on it's face"

and

"That defies logic and plain English."

Specter closed by suggesting that Bush submit the entire NSA program to FISA's secret court for review.

Mr. Gonzales responded that "we are happy to listen to your ideas."

Anyone want to hazard a guess as to whether this administration will actually do more than "listen" to ideas?

Anyone want to hazard a guess as to whether when push comes to shove, Specter will let them weasel out of any real oversight?

Gonzales Morning Funnies

That wacky Alberto!

From yesterday's hearings:

I wonder what Washington had on his ipod?

GONZALES: President Washington, President Lincoln, President Wilson, President Roosevelt have all authorized electronic surveillance on a far broader scale.

They sometimes forget

BIDEN: Thank you very much.

General, how has this revelation damaged the program?

I'm almost confused by it but, I mean, it seems to presuppose that these very sophisticated Al Qaida folks didn't think we were intercepting their phone calls.

I mean, I'm a little confused. How did it damage this?

GONZALES: Well, Senator, I would first refer to the experts in the Intel Committee who are making that statement, first of all. I'm just the lawyer.

And so, when the director of the CIA says this should really damage our intel capabilities, I would defer to that statement. I think, based on my experience, it is true -- you would assume that the enemy is presuming that we are engaged in some kind of surveillance.

But if they're not reminded about it all the time in the newspapers and in stories, they sometimes forget.

(LAUGHTER)

Rumor Confirmed: Hillary Hearts Casey

I had heard a long time ago that Hillary Clinton was one of the primary forces behind The-Powers-That-Be's decision to ram Santorum-Lite candidate Bob "I'm so boring that I put myself to sleep" Casey down the throats of the Pennsylvania electorate.

We now know that, at the very least, she is strongly supporting the pro-Alito Casey:

From the New York Post:

February 3, 2006 -- WASHINGTON — Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton — who supports abortion rights and is the darling of pro-choice women's groups — gave $10,000 to a staunchly right-to-life candidate in Pennsylvania, The Post has learned. Clinton ponied up the maximum donation allowed under the law to Democratic Senate hopeful Bob Casey, even though he has been skewered by pro-choice groups for his anti-abortion position.

It was the largest donation Clinton gave to any politician in 2005 and was made by her political action committee, HillPAC, records show.

[snip]

HillPAC gave $5,000 apiece to six of Clinton's Senate colleagues up for re-election this year, but saved the big bucks for Casey and Sen. Robert Byrd (W.Va.), a former Ku Klux Klan member who was one of just four Dems to vote for Alito.

HillPAC's big payouts to Casey and Byrd come as the committee's bank account flounders with just $48,786 in free-and-clear cash.

Casey was handpicked by Sen. Charles Schumer — who is leading Democratic efforts to retake the Senate — to oust the conservative Santorum this fall, believing a pro-lifer like Casey is the party's only hope to win in the battleground state.

So now we have both of New York state's supposedly pro-choice, anti-Alito senators outed as Vichy Dems.

See? She was covert!

From Michael Isikoff in Newsweek:

Newly released court papers could put holes in the defense of Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, in the Valerie Plame leak case. Lawyers for Libby, and White House allies, have repeatedly questioned whether Plame, the wife of White House critic Joe Wilson, really had covert status when she was outed to the media in July 2003. But special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald found that Plame had indeed done "covert work overseas" on counterproliferation matters in the past five years, and the CIA "was making specific efforts to conceal" her identity, according to newly released portions of a judge's opinion.

But then again we knew that.

IMPEACH

The Domestic Surveillance Hearings Start Today

The Associated Press is reporting:

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has not adequately justified why the Bush administration failed to seek court approval for domestic surveillance, said the senator in charge of a hearing Monday on the program.

Sen. Arlen Specter said Sunday he believes that President Bush violated a 1978 law specifically calling for a secret court to consider and approve such monitoring. The Pennsylvania Republican branded Gonzales' explanations to date as "strained and unrealistic."

And the thing we have to keep in mind is that the Presiddent also lied about the surveillance. On April 20, 2004, he said:

Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.

He said "...a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed..." He's lying right there. And then he said "When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so." He's lying right there, too.

But back to Tim Russert's interview with Specter. On whether he thinks the Congress gave the administration the authority in October 2002, Specter said this (you'll have to scroll down for the transcript):

I believe that contention is very strained and unrealistic. The authorization for the use of force doesn’t say anything about electronic surveillance, issue was never raised with the Congress. And there is a specific statute on the books, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which says flatly that you can’t undertake that kind of surveillance without a court order.

MR. RUSSERT: The White House also says that they didn’t go to Congress because people in Congress told them that they would compromise this surveillance plan if they requested permission to conduct it.

SEN. SPECTER: Well, the administration also has said, Attorney General Gonzalez has been questioned, reported, and I asked this in a letter I sent to him, saying that if the administration went to Congress, they were likely to be denied the authority. So, it’s very hard in that kind of a context to claim that Congress intended to give the authority if the administration thought that Congress would turn it down.

And then:

Now, on the issue as to whether the program would be compromised, you don’t know that until the administration goes to the Intelligence Committees, or the chairmen and the ranking, and lays the program on the line with sufficient detail so that there can be some Congressional oversight. And I think up until this time, Tim, that’s never been done.

MR. RUSSERT: The President has said that there have been at least 12 briefings of senior members of Congress.

SEN. SPECTER: Well, the statute requires that the committee be informed. And the committee constitutes 15 members. And they have the so-called “gang of eight”: the chairman and ranking member of the Intelligence Committees of each House, and the majority leader and the Democratic leader in each House. That really is not—is not what the statute requires. And if the administration thinks that’s too broad because the Congress leaks, and regrettably that’s a fact of life, we ought to change the law. They’ve never asked us to do that. And I think we would do that if they could have a showing that a more restrictive approach is warranted.

Hmm. They violated the law, failed to inform Congress and lied about it all. What else can be said?

Oh, that's right:

IMPEACH

My Neighborhood on Steelers

This was the scene two blocks from my house about two hours after the game ended.




This is the far end of the celebrations on Pittsburgh's South Side.


The police had already swept the streets a couple of times and weren't letting anyone get closer to thick of the crowd about 5 blocks further down.


Sorry for the poor quality of the pictures, but it was snowing (and obviously pretty dark).

GO STILLERS!

UPDATE: WOO HOO!

What's wrong with this picture?

From the State of the Union Address:

Third, we need to encourage children to take more math and science, and to make sure those courses are rigorous enough to compete with other nations. We made a good start in the early grades with the No Child Left Behind Act, which is raising standards and lifting test scores across our country.

Tonight I propose to train 70,000 high school teachers to lead advanced placement courses in math and science, bring 30,000 math and science professionals to teach in classrooms, and give early help to students who struggle with math so they have a better chance at good, high-wage jobs.

Ok, it sounds like the man who once endorsed the teaching of Intelligent Design has maybe come to his senses and is now showing a new-found respect for science.

But then again, maybe not. There's this from the NYTimes:

A week after NASA's top climate scientist complained that the space agency's public-affairs office was trying to silence his statements on global warming, the agency's administrator, Michael D. Griffin, issued a sharply worded statement yesterday calling for "scientific openness" throughout the agency.

"It is not the job of public-affairs officers," Dr. Griffin wrote in an e-mail message to the agency's 19,000 employees, "to alter, filter or adjust engineering or scientific material produced by NASA's technical staff."

The statement came six days after The New York Times quoted the scientist, James E. Hansen, as saying he was threatened with "dire consequences" if he continued to call for prompt action to limit emissions of heat-trapping gases linked to global warming. He and intermediaries in the agency's 350-member public-affairs staff said the warnings came from White House appointees in NASA headquarters.

Other National Aeronautics and Space Administration scientists and public-affairs employees came forward this week to say that beyond Dr. Hansen's case, there were several other instances in which political appointees had sought to control the flow of scientific information from the agency.

They called or e-mailed The Times and sent documents showing that news releases were delayed or altered to mesh with Bush administration policies.

In October, for example, George Deutsch, a presidential appointee in NASA headquarters, told a Web designer working for the agency to add the word "theory" after every mention of the Big Bang, according to an e-mail message from Mr. Deutsch that another NASA employee forwarded to The Times.

And who is this George Deutsch? At the end of the Times' article it says this:

The Big Bang memo came from Mr. Deutsch, a 24-year-old presidential appointee in the press office at NASA headquarters whose résumé says he was an intern in the "war room" of the 2004 Bush-Cheney re-election campaign. A 2003 journalism graduate of Texas A&M, he was also the public-affairs officer who sought more control over Dr. Hansen's public statements.

In October 2005, Mr. Deutsch sent an e-mail message to Flint Wild, a NASA contractor working on a set of Web presentations about Einstein for middle-school students. The message said the word "theory" needed to be added after every mention of the Big Bang.

The Big Bang is "not proven fact; it is opinion," Mr. Deutsch wrote, adding, "It is not NASA's place, nor should it be to make a declaration such as this about the existence of the universe that discounts intelligent design by a creator."

It continued: "This is more than a science issue, it is a religious issue. And I would hate to think that young people would only be getting one-half of this debate from NASA. That would mean we had failed to properly educate the very people who rely on us for factual information the most."

The memo also noted that The Associated Press Stylebook and Libel Manual specified the phrasing "Big Bang theory." Mr. Acosta, Mr. Deutsch's boss, said in an interview yesterday that for that reason, it should be used in all NASA documents.

The Deutsch memo was provided by an official at NASA headquarters who said he was upset with the effort to justify changes to descriptions of science by referring to politically charged issues like intelligent design. Senior NASA officials did not dispute the message's authenticity. [emphasis added]

So why bother with science education any more? No need for all those billions of dollars spent on "experiments" that collect "data." All we really need is some 24 year old political appointee with a journalism degree to tell us what's true about the universe. It's a religious issue, you know.

I remember hearing a story about the trashing of the library at Alexandria in the 7th century. The story goes that when Omar, the caliph who'd just conquered the city, was asked about all the books in the library and what should be done with them, he reportedly answered, "If they agree with the Koran, they're unnecessary; if they disagree, they're pernicious." So they torched the whole lot.

Thanks be to Maria, she's blessed us with some art work:

Oh yea:
IMPEACH

Some numbers to keep in mind

From Editor and Publisher:

A new Gallup Poll, conducted in late January, reveals that just 39% of Americans approve of the way President Bush is handling Iraq, with 58% disapproving.

Over half (53%) now say the administration "deliberately misled the American public about whether Iraq has weapons of mass destruction," with 46% disagreeing. Gallup notes that this finding is "essentially reversed" from one year ago.

Last time I checked, 53% was a majority.

Then there's this from a recent ABC/Washington Post poll taken in January 23-26 of approx 500 adults nationwide. When asked whether they believed whether the statement "He is honest and trustworthy" applies to George Bush, 53% said no.

Last time I checked, 53% was a majority.

Two different polls show that majorities of Americans believe that the administration deliberately misled the public about WMD and that Bush himself is not "honest and trustworthy."

Something, I guess, we missed while getting our news from the "so-called liberal media."

Hey, and wasn't there a poll out there that said that if the president misled the country (which the polling data suggests a majority of Americans already believe) that the congress should consider some sort of constitutional solution?

But I can't remember the word...oh, that's right. The word is:

IMPEACH

They just can't help themselves...

Or as AmericaBlog puts it:

"They even steal their own elections."

From Roll Call:

House Republicans are taking a mulligan on the first ballot for Majority Leader. The first count showed more votes cast than Republicans present at the Conference meeting.

And speaking of the Right Reverend BONER, NJDC has a piece titled "New GOP Leader Chosen: What Every American Jew Should Know About John Boehner."

Actually everyone needs to know what they have to say.

Very Scary!

Cheering? Clapping? Applause? All for violating the law?

I've seen some strange things in my life, but I cannot describe the feeling I had, sitting on the House floor during Tuesday's State of the Union speech, listening to the President assert that his executive power is, basically, absolute, and watching several members of Congress stand up and cheer him on. It was surreal and disrespectful to our system of government and to the oath that as elected officials we have all sworn to uphold. Cheering? Clapping? Applause? All for violating the law?

Read the rest of Senator Russ Feingold's KOS Diary HERE.

Freep this poll

Vote here for Berner/Hafer:

http://politicspa.com/BallotBox.htm

More evidence of Bush's Lies

From the Guardian in the UK:

Tony Blair told President George Bush that he was "solidly" behind US plans to invade Iraq before he sought advice about the invasion's legality and despite the absence of a second UN resolution, according to a new account of the build-up to the war published today.

A memo of a two-hour meeting between the two leaders at the White House on January 31 2003 - nearly two months before the invasion - reveals that Mr Bush made it clear the US intended to invade whether or not there was a second UN resolution and even if UN inspectors found no evidence of a banned Iraqi weapons programme.[emphasis added]

Oh, my. Seems that there's a memo that the Bush administration (and its defenders) won't like. Some highlights of the memo:

Mr Bush told Mr Blair that the US was so worried about the failure to find hard evidence against Saddam that it thought of "flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft planes with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colours". Mr Bush added: "If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach [of UN resolutions]".

Can someone tell me why we should believe anything this president says anymore?

IMPEACH

Bush: If my lips are moving, I'm lying

I'm full of shit!


That didn't take long:

Administration backs off Bush's vow to reduce Mideast oil imports

By Kevin G. Hall
Knight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON - One day after President Bush vowed to reduce America's dependence on Middle East oil by cutting imports from there 75 percent by 2025, his energy secretary and national economic adviser said Wednesday that the president didn't mean it literally.

[snip]

He pledged to "move beyond a petroleum-based economy and make our dependence on Middle Eastern oil a thing of the past."

Not exactly, though, it turns out.

"This was purely an example," Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said.

[snip]

Asked why the president used the words "the Middle East" when he didn't really mean them, one administration official said Bush wanted to dramatize the issue in a way that "every American sitting out there listening to the speech understands." The official spoke only on condition of anonymity because he feared that his remarks might get him in trouble.

Republicans applaude lies.

What else did he lie about?

SOTU: Bush Did Not Inform Appropriate Members of Congress

Bush said: “Appropriate Members of Congress have been kept informed.”

FACT – BUSH BROKE THE LAW BY NOT INFORMING APPROPRIATE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS: The non-partisan Congressional research service concluded that the Bush administration broke the law by not informing the full Intelligence Committees. The New York Times reports:

A legal analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service concludes that the Bush administration’s limited briefings for Congress on the National Security Agency’s domestic eavesdropping without warrants are ‘’inconsistent with the law.'’

SOTU: Bush Falsely Claims That Previous Administration Did The Same Thing

Bush said: “Previous presidents have used the same constitutional authority I have.”

FACT – BUSH IGNORE THE LAW, OTHER ADMINISTRATIONS FOLLOWED IT: The White House has made this claim before and the AP debunked it:

McClellan said the Clinton-Gore administration had engaged in warrantless physical searches, and he cited an FBI search of the home of CIA turncoat Aldrich Ames without permission from a judge. He said Clinton’s deputy attorney general, Jamie Gorelick, had testified before Congress that the president had the inherent authority to engage in physical searches without warrants.

“I think his hypocrisy knows no bounds,” McClellan said of Gore.

But at the time of the Ames search in 1993 and when Gorelick testified a year later, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act required warrants for electronic surveillance for intelligence purposes, but did not cover physical searches. The law was changed to cover physical searches in 1995 under legislation that Clinton supported and signed.

You can learn about all the lies Bush told during the State of the Union Speech at Think Progress...

...or you can just close your eyes to the truth.



If I close my eyes nobody can see me lie.

Keith!

Olbermann smacks back at O'Reilly

Must watch TV!

Democracy for Pittsburgh Meetup Tonight!

Candidates Speaking Tonight at DfP's Meetup:

Mike Isaac - candidate for US Congress, 14th District
www.isaacforcongress.org

Jason Phillips - candidate for PGH City Council, 3rd District
www.jasonforcouncil.com

Dan Cindric - candidate for State House District 27
www.cindric2006.com

Ed Gainey - candidate for State House District 24

Lisa Bennington - candidate for State House District 21
www.lisaforhouse.com

Mark Rauterkus - candidate for PGH City Council, 3rd District
elect.rauterkus.com

Susan Banahasky - candidate for State House District 20
www.susaninthehouse.org

Chad Kluko - candidate for US Congress, 18th District
www.chadklukoforcongress.com

Frank Pistella - candidate for State House District 21
http://www.pahouse.com/pistella/index.asp

Event Title: Monthly Meetup
Event Type: DFA-Link Meeting
Organized by: Democracy for Pittsburgh
Event Date: Wednesday, February 1, 2006
Event Time: 7:00 PM
Venue Name: Mario’s South Side Saloon (upstairs)
Address: 1514 E Carson St
City: Pittsburgh
State: PA
Zip Code: 15203
Phone Number: 412-381-5610

Please R.S.V.P here.

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

Last month, Chuck Pennacchio was one of the speakers and was met by MUCH enthusiasm:


www.chuck2006.com

You can see pictures of all the candidates who spoke last month (including VALERIE MCDONALD ROBERTS, PAT SWEENEY, and WILLIAM ANDERSON) at Democracy for Pittsburgh's website.

Dan Simpson Gets it Right - Again

In a larger column on the fear mongering of the Bush-Junta, Dan Simpson writes:

The most recent example of that phenomenon is the bugging issue. Even though a perfectly workable and efficient legal procedure exists through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to tap the phones and read the e-mails of anyone who could conceivably be a threat to American security, President Bush decided nonetheless in 2002 to begin breaking that law and establishing surveillance of anyone he liked -- or didn't like -- in disregard of the law and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance court.

On that basis, hundreds and perhaps thousands of Americans have had their communications intercepted and monitored by the National Security Agency. Even assuming that the information NSA picked up was important and useful -- most of which the FBI says was not -- there is no reason in the world why the warrants couldn't have been obtained, even after the fact, that would have made the action legal, keeping Mr. Bush in observance of the law.

Now the White House is telling us that we should be glad that the president is taking that illegal action, in the name of keeping us safe, in the process playing to Americans' fear of another terrorist attack. The truly frightening part is that polls show an important percentage of the American population ready to sell off their privacy and this important segment of their constitutionally guaranteed rights in response to the false White House claim that they will be safer for doing so.

There you have it. In each of those three paragraphs, Dan Simpson makes the same point we've been making here for a long time.

George Bush is breaking the law.

Now if we can only get Simpson to agree with us about that pesky "I" word. Which "I" word, you ask? You know the one I'm talking about.

IMPEACH

Completely self-serving blog post.

Hey, gang.

Take a look at this.

I wrote it.

IMPEACH

Tonight

Alternate State of the Union by Gore Vidal
Gore Vidal Delivers State of the Union: "Let the Powers That Be Know There is Something Called We the People of the U.S. and all Sovereignty Rests in Us."

Video & Text: http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/01/31/1532246


Progress Pittsburgh Meeting
The first meeting of Progress Pittsburgh for 2006 will be held this evening at 7:00 pm at the Union Project, 801 N Negley Ave. at the corner of Negley and Stanton.

Agenda: http://progresspittsburgh.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=338


Get Smashed
The Angry Drunk Bureaucrat has some link to some complicated drinking game involving some TV show on tonight -- we say just take a gulp every time the camera shows Hillary. That ought to do it.

Link: http://angrydrunkbureaucrat.blogspot.com/2006/01/state-of-union-drinking-game.html

The 2005 Koufax Awards: Best Post Nominations

You can't vote yet, but the nominations are up:

The 2005 Koufax Awards: Best Post

This compilation is of the 222 (+/-) nominations for Best Posts in the Lefty Blogosphere. Voting will open up when all the Koufax nomination posts are complete. Drumroll please.....

2 Political Junkies: Absolut Corruption
2 Political Junkies: Dreaming With Bush
2 Political Junkies: "The Plan"

Check out the other 220 or so Best of the Left here.

The Filibuster: Saving it for something REALLY important

January 30, 2007

The following Democratic Senators voted with Republicans for cloture today on a bill to make George W. Bush "Our Glorious and Infallible Leader for Life:"

Akaka, Daniel K. (D-HI), Baucus, Max (D-MT), Bingaman, Jeff (D-NM), Byrd, Robert C. (D-WV), Cantwell, Maria (D-WA), Carper, Thomas R. (D-DE), Conrad, Kent (D-ND), Dorgan, Byron L. (D-ND), Inouye, Daniel K. (D-HI), Johnson, Tim (D-SD), Kohl, Herb (D-WI), Landrieu, Mary L. (D-LA), Lieberman, Joseph I. (D-CT), Lincoln, Blanche L. (D-AR), Nelson, Bill (D-FL), Nelson, E. Benjamin (D-NE), Pryor, Mark L. (D-AR), Rockefeller, John D., IV (D-WV), Salazar, Ken (D-CO)

After the vote, they released a statement saying they were saving a filibuster for something "really important."

(Crossposted at Daily KOS )

Pittsburgh to get DIEBOLD voting machines? (and other voting messes)

(From a heads up from PA04 Blue)

According to Saturday's Post-Gazette, Allegheny County is a bind:

Allegheny County has until Tuesday to place an order for 5,600 touch-screen voting machines or it risks forfeiting a deeply discounted purchase price, the county Board of Elections was told yesterday.

But the three-member board, which includes county Chief Executive Dan Onorato, put off a final decision because of concerns that the machines won't come equipped with paper printouts that voters can use to check their choices.

Diebold Inc. of North Canton, Ohio, has offered to sell the machines, which resemble ATMs, to the county for $11.9 million, almost $4 million less than a price put forward by Election Systems and Software Inc.

That price also is significantly lower than the $20 million set aside for new machines in the county's 2006 capital budget and could be covered almost entirely by a federal grant. Diebold officials told the county, however, that the $11.9 million price was guaranteed only until the end of the month.

Under the federal Help America Vote Act, legislation that grew out of the disputed 2000 presidential election in Florida, local governments across the country must buy machines that meet strict standards and have them in place by the May primary.

[snip}

Both Mr. Onorato and County Council have said they want machines with paper trails, already a requirement in many states.

But Pennsylvania's Department of State, which oversees elections and must certify all voting machines, hasn't yet approved any touch-screen machines with that feature.

"This is outrageous that we've been put in this position," said Councilman Dave Fawcett, R-Oakmont, a member of the elections board. "Harrisburg has totally dropped the ball."

Allison Hrestak, a spokeswoman for the Department of State, said it's up to the state Legislature to mandate the use of paper trails, something legislators have been considering.

In the meantime, Mr. Onorato said, the county needs to move forward.

"I believe in voter verification. I'd like to see it, immediately," he said. "But if we don't move, we lose $12 million. It's a pretty tough situation to be in."

[snip]

Critics also accuse Diebold of being too close to the Republican Party. People affiliated with the company have contributed significant sums to Republican candidates since 2000, according to The Associated Press.

From a list I'm on:

"The AccuPoll company (whose electronic voting machine I liked when I saw it demonstrated) has now decided not to distribute in the state of Pa. The only other machine that has been certified by the state is made by Diebold, which (according to the commissioner) is the one that about 30 Pa counties have decided on buying. And now it looks like any other counties that were considering a non-Diebold purchase will have no other choice."

From BlackBoxVoting.org:

UPDATE Dec. 16: Volusia County (FL) joins Leon in dumping Diebold. Due to contractual non-performance and security design issues, Leon County (Florida) supervisor of elections Ion Sancho has announced that he will never again use Diebold in an election. He has requested funds to replace the Diebold system from the county. On Tuesday, the most serious “hack” demonstration to date took place in Leon County. The Diebold machines succumbed quickly to alteration of the votes. This comes on the heels of the resignation of Diebold CEO Wally O'Dell, and the announcement that stockholder's class action suits and related actions have been filed against Diebold by four separate law firms. Further “hack” testing on additional vulnerabilities is tentatively scheduled before Christmas in the state of California.

Finnish security expert Harri Hursti, together with Black Box Voting, demonstrated that Diebold made misrepresentations to Secretaries of State across the nation when Diebold claimed votes could not be changed on the “memory card” (the credit-card-sized ballot box used by computerized voting machines.

A test election was run in Leon County on Tuesday with a total of eight ballots. Six ballots voted "no" on a ballot question as to whether Diebold voting machines can be hacked or not. Two ballots, cast by Dr. Herbert Thompson and by Harri Hursti voted "yes" indicating a belief that the Diebold machines could be hacked.

Pennsylvanians want voting machines with a paper trail (by 73%).

From the Committee to Elect William Sargent's website (Sargent has been staying on top of this), here's info for the relevant Allegheny County people to contact:

Dan Onoronto - executive@county.allegheny.pa.us
Phone: (412) 350-6500, Fax: (412) 350-6512
John DeFazio -jdefazio@county.allegheny.pa.us
Phone:(412) 350-6516, Fax: (412) 350-6499
Dave Fawcett - dfawcett@county.allegheny.pa.us
Phone: (412) 350-6520, Fax: (412) 350-6499


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

Urgent! Calls needed now!

The Protect Our Vote Coalition has learned that the Anti-Voting Rights Act (HB 1318) is on the calendar and may be voted on as early as Tuesday 1/31.

Last year, your activism helped fend off provisions of this legislation that would have imposed an ID requirement on Pennsylvania voters and rolled back the voting rights of former felons. But now the Pennsylvania House of Representatives is rumored to be trying to revive them.

It is imperative that you call your legislators now and tell them that if HB 1318 includes restrictive voter identification requirements and rolls back the voting rights of former felons they must oppose the bill!

TELL YOUR REPRESENTATIVE TO VOTE NO ON HB 1318. You can look up your representative's phone number at www.legis.state.pa.us .

Check out the voting record below to see if your representative voted NO against this Bill the last time it was in the House. You might be surpried. Call them and urge them to Vote No this time and thank those who alredy Voted No and make sure they are voting NO again.

Use the talking points below to aid your discussion with your legislator:

There is no need for photo identification at the polls because it does not prevent the kinds of fraud that this bill seeks to remedy. Further, it makes lines at the polls longer, resulting in more confusion.

Felons who have been released from prison get jobs and pay taxes, and should be able to vote as well. Disenfranchising former felons after they leave prison is unfair and discriminatory. It is unthinkable that in 2006, we would be discussing the legalized discrimination and disenfranchisement of free Pennsylvanians.

It is time to enact meaningful election reform, which will remove barriers to voting, increase voter turnout and eliminate voter disenfranchisement.
Get on the bus! We need to stop this now. We have a plan and we need your help.

On the morning of Wednesday, February 1, buses will carry you and other activists from Philadelphia and Pittsburgh to the State Capitol in Harrisburg.

If you can get to the Capitol on your own, meet us in the East Rotunda between 9:00 and 10:00 AM. Please email national@pfaw.org to let us know you're coming.

The day will begin with a training on the bus about HB 1318. From 9:00-1:00, you'll visit legislators' offices. (If you're driving to Harrisburg on your own, we'll train you when you arrive.) At 1:00, meet for a brown-bag lunch and a meet-and-greet with legislators who support our work. (Please bring lunch or money to buy lunch. Lunches can be supplied for those of limited resources).

Philadelphia
Buses from Philadelphia will leave at 7:30 AM from Project H.O.M.E ., 1515 Fairmont Ave., and return at 5:00 PM.
To RSVP, call Jennine Miller, (215) 232-7272, ext. 3042.

Pittsburgh
Buses will leave at 5:30 AM from The Hill House, 1835 Centre Ave. in the Hill District
OR
At 6 AM from Allegheny County ACORN, 5907 Penn Ave. in East Liberty.
To RSVP, call Celeste Taylor, (412) 628-7867.

Santorum: Super Freak Gettin' His Freak On

Rick Santorum (R-VA) has been called everything from "Sen. Man-On-Dog" to "Tricky Ricky" to, most recently by Atrios, the "Lying Freak." The "freak" part comes from his bizarre pronouncements such as that the public schooling of children is abnormal and that priests sexually abused children because the kids were asking for it as well as because Boston is a liberal town...and then there was that whole creepy taking the dead fetus home to play 'n' pray with his preschool-age kids.

So Ricky's freakiness cred is well established.

But just in case you missed some of the latest examples from the King of Freak:

Ricky Freaks Out On Reporters

From AmericaBlog:

AMERICAblog's spies on the Hill tell us that at 4:34pm Eastern today (gotta love their precision) Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) "totally blew his top, totally lost control" while getting off the underground train that connects the US Capitol building and the Dirksen Senate Office Builing.

It seems a reporter approached Santorum just as he got off the train and asked Santorum something to the effect of: "Can you tell me about the 'K Street Project.""

Santorum's response?

He started screaming, according to our source. "It's just a meeting!", Santorum reportedly yelled (again, in public, right near the Senate cafeteria where lots of folks are gathered). "What Harry Reid said Wednesday [when he announed the Democrats' ethics reform package] is a total lie!"

Ricky's Completely Freakin' Craven Proposal to "Support" the Troops

From Santorum Exposed (with video):

Last week Rick Santorum addressed the Centre County Republican Party and asked them to support him. During the course of his speech Rick actually had the gall to compare putting a Santorum bumper sticker on your car to serving your country in Iraq or Afghanistan.

That's right, he literally said that putting one of his bumper stickers on your vehicle was a way "to step up and serve your country." The video is below the following transcript:

Santorum: "And yet we have brave men and women who are willing to step forward because they know what's at stake. They're willing to sacrifice their lives for this great country. What I'm asking all of you tonight is not to put on a uniform. Put on a bumper sticker. Is it that much to ask? Is it that much to ask to step up and serve your country?" (emphasis ours)

And no, Rick was NOT talking about a "Support the Troops" bumper sticker, he was absolutely talking about a "Rick Santorum" bumper sticker.

Freaky!

Berner/Hafer Press Conference Today

Barbara Hafer Joins Democratic Candidate Georgia Berner’s Congressional Campaign as Honorary Finance Chair

Bridgewater, PA – On Monday, January 30, 2006, at 11:00 a.m., Democratic Congressional Candidate Georgia Berner will hold a press conference at the Silk House in Ambridge, Pennsylvania, to announce that former State Treasurer Barbara Hafer has agreed to serve as Ms. Berner’s Honorary Finance Chair.

Ms. Hafer will attend and will be available to members of the press for interviews following the conference.

Ms. Berner, a successful Lawrence County businesswoman and former Federal Reserve Board Member is a candidate for Congress in the 4th Congressional District.

The Silk House is located at 317 14th Street in Ambridge.

www.georgiaberner.com

Bringing Freedom and Democracy to Iraq

That's what Bush and his Kool-Aid-drinking Apologists say that we're (now) doing, correct?

And, we're the Good Guys, right?

It's the Evil Doers who take hostages, no?

So then why are U.S. troops taking wives of insurgents hostage?

Why are war crimes being committed in our name?

Does it have anything to do with a mindset that had Alberto Gonzales describing the Geneva Conventions as "quaint?"

Inquiring minds want to know.

Talkin' Trash About Bush

"If he needs more authority, he just can’t unilaterally decide that that 1978 law is out of date and he will be the guardian of America and he will violate that law. He needs to come back, work with us, work with the courts if he has to, and we will do what we need to do to protect the civil liberties of this country and the national security of this country. "

Just another crazy, moonbat, liberal hater talking about Bush?

No.

The above statement was made on ABC’s This Week by Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE.)

Hagel joins Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) — all of whom have questioned the legal basis of Bush’s warrantless domestic surveillance program.

Think Progress has the links to all their quotes.

Santorum as seen from the other side of the State

From yesterday morning's Philadelphia Inquirer. Some highlights:

Editorial | Santorum and the Lobbyists
'K Street? K Street? Never heard of it'

Sen. Rick Santorum (R., Pa.) is trying to do an extreme makeover, in broad daylight.

He's trying to paper over his central role in a now-infamous program to boost Republicans' clout among Washington lobbyists.

Cool so far.

But no voter should fall for the senator's attempt to obscure his ties to the so-called "K Street Project," named after the street that is home to many lobbying firms.

Santorum was an enthusiastic, high-profile supporter of the project, which sought to install movement conservatives in top lobbying jobs. It also sought to ensure that lobbyists and trade associations supported only Republican issues and candidates.

I'll retype that one out to makes sure everyone sees it.

Santorum was an enthusiastic, high-profile supporter of the [K Street] project...

Here's the kicker:

Now, in the midst of a tough reelection race, Santorum is trying to distance himself from all things K Street. His leadership office said last week it would stop handing out lists of lobbying job vacancies at the weekly meetings.

If Santorum now wants to be in the vanguard of lobbying reform, fine. But his conversion is far more dramatic than he's willing to admit.Lil Ricky's trying to get everyone to forget his connections with the current corruption in DC.

Don't worry, Rick. We won't let anyone forget your connections to the K Street Project.

IMPEACH

Jack Kelly - at it again (It IS Sunday, you know)

Here's a Kelly-quickie before I start with the real stuff. In today's column, Kelly writes:

Mr. Abramoff is front-page news. But there was virtually no news coverage when one of Sen. Hillary Clinton's fund-raising committees agreed Jan. 5 to pay a $35,000 fine for failing to report $722,000 in contributions.

Looks like he's making the case for media bias again, doesn't it? Looks like he's saying that when a republican is corrupt it's front-page news, but when a liberal is corrupt, there's little coverage. But we all know better, don't we? When Kelly says something like this, he's usually leaving out an encyclopedia of information. Here's the Washington Post:

A campaign fundraising group for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) has agreed to a $35,000 fine for underreporting hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on a Hollywood fundraiser in 2000.

The organization, New York Senate 2000, agreed to a federal finding that it failed to report $721,895 spent on the fundraiser to boost the former first lady's campaign for the Senate, according to paperwork provided by Peter F. Paul, who helped finance the star-studded gala that drew Cher, Diana Ross, Brad Pitt and Jennifer Aniston. The Federal Election Commission provided a copy of the signed agreement yesterday.

New York Senate 2000 lawyer Marc Elias said the agreement ends the investigation and includes a letter from the FEC stating that Clinton did not violate the law.[emphasis added]

But was there a criminal trial related to this fundraiser? Turns out there was. The Washington Post (from the same article):

The Hollywood fundraiser was the subject of a criminal trial of Clinton's former national finance director, David F. Rosen. Rosen was acquitted in May 2004 of lying to the FEC about the event.[emphasis added]

Is there anything else to say about this? Well, a little bit. This is from Fox News (so you know it's fair and balanced):

Prosecutors said Rosen, 38, panicked over the mounting costs for the fundraiser and lied to conceal its true cost from both the Clinton campaign and the government. They said Clinton was unaware of any wrongdoing.[emphasis added]

The "they" in that last sentence would be the prosecutors in that case. So even the prosecutors said Senator Clinton was out of the loop. The jury found that Rosen was (in the words of one juror) "in over his head."

See what is Kelly doing here? Abramoff has already pled guilty and yet Kelly's crying foul that the news coverage of that event is greater than the news coverage for a finished investigation whose paperwork includes an FEC letter stating that Senator Clinton did not violate the law. And even the guy charged with a crime in connection to that investigation was acquitted.

So tell me again, Jack. Do you really think this story actually stacks up somehow to the actual guilty plea of Jack Abranoff who actually committed actual crimes? In your mind, maybe. But out here in reality, no dice my friend.

For the record, I am no fan of Senator Clinton. I am, however, a big fan of the truth.

Now onto the meat of Jack's column. He's trying (no surprise here) to paint the current Republican scandal as a bipartisan one. Luckily I've already blogged on it here.

The fact that I've already posted (two days ago, in fact) information that debunks what Kelly's posted now only underscores what I've posted here last week. Either Jack Kelly didn't bother to fully check out the story (which suggests incompetence) or he did and simply omitted it from his "reporting" (which suggests dishonesty).

There's another possibility, of course. Jack Kelly could have researched his piece in good faith and did not find what it took me minutes to find. If that's the case, he should offer an explanation and perhaps an apology.

For the sake of brevity, I'll post some highlights of the analysis that I didn't include the other day:

• [F]our out of seven tribes -- Saginaw, Chitimacha, Coushatta and Mississippi – saw their contributions to Republicans increase significantly, even vastly, after they became Abramoff’s clients.
• At the same time, two of those four tribes -- Saginaw and Chitimacha -- saw their giving to Democrats drop or remain static. The other two -- tribes Coushatta and Mississippi -- did see their giving to Dems rise under Abramoff, but by amounts that were dwarfed by the increases in giving to the GOP.
• These patterns strongly suggest that Abramoff’s representation of the tribes manifested itself largely in a dramatic rise in contributions to the GOP. And it also suggests it’s likely that Abramoff had little impact on giving to Democrats.[emphasis added]

At the same time:

Finally, Morris did an extensive comparison of the donations of both Abramoff tribes and non-Abramoff tribes. Morris added up giving from 1991 to the present by virtually all of the approximately 170 tribes that gave politically but are not affiliated with the lobbyist.

The totals show that in the past 15 years, the tribes gave more than $15.5 million to Democrats and just over $6 million to the GOP -- well over twice as much to Democrats as to Republicans.

By contrast, if you total up all the contributions Abramoff’s clients made, it comes to $1,845,975 to Republicans and $794,483 to Democrats -- well over twice as much to Republicans as to Democrats. So the pattern of giving of Abramoff’s clients, who gave with far more generosity to Republicans, is almost exactly the reverse of that of virtually all other tribes not connected with Abramoff. Those tribes, by contrast, gave far more to Democrats.

So the contributions to Democrats from the Abramoff represented tribes would probably have gone there anyway. This is all legal, by the way. To equate it with the illegal contributions (or "bribes") coming from Abramoff is, at best, highly misleading.

IMPEACH

When people find out about candidate positions on key issues, Casey plummets

From OpEdNews:

Zogby International conducted interviews of 850 likely Pennsylvania voters online on January 26th and 27th.

[snip]

The poll is the first to ask about all five PA US senate race candidates and provide positions each holds.

When people find out about candidate positions on key issues, Casey plummets from a twelve point lead to a dead heat, with a non-significant two point lead.

Santorum loses when matched with any of the democratic candidates. Both of the self identified progressive democratic candidates draw higher percentages than Casey, with Pennacchio having the largest percentage of votes against Santorum, at a not quite significant 4.4 points higher than Casey. Casey, at non-significant levels, actually gets MORE votes from Republicans once they find out more about him and Santorum.

Casey refused to respond, so we constructed his positions from media and speeches.
OpEdNews.com's conclusion on this race-- Santorum wants Casey as his opponent because he wins the demographic game. Casey loses massively in some categories, when voters find out about Casey, which Santorum will sure insure. For example, Casy's support among 18-24 year olds drops from 63% to 40%, with Protestants, it drops from 47.3% to 30%, with liberals, from 95.4% to 68%, with moderates, from 64% to 53%, but Casey actually gains support from conservates, going from 3.9% to 5%, a non-significant, but interesting finding.

PA Constitutional Amendment - Take Action!

From The Pennsylvania Gay And Lesbian Alliance:

Legislative Action Alert - Your Immediate Action Needed
Contact Your State Representative Today!

Anti-Marriage Amendment Introduced in State House


Visit www.pa-gala.org and click on "take action" at bottom of page

On Tuesday, January 24, Representative Boyd and Representative Metcalfe introduced an Amendment to the Pennsylvania Constitution that states:

“Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this Commonwealth, and neither the Commonwealth nor any of its political subdivisions shall create or recognize a legal status identical or substantially equivalent to that of marriage for unmarried individuals.”

The Amendment would prohibit same-sex marriages in PA - forever! The Amendment will also have additional far reaching effects such as invalidating Philadelphia's Life Partnership Ordinance and eliminating Domestic Partnership Benefits offered by private companies and local governments.

The Bill (HB 2381) currently has 88 co-sponsors (102 votes are need to pass the bill in the State House). Two co-sponsors have already removed their names because of constituent pressure.

Visit www.pa-gala.org to send an email to your State Representative!

To Volunteer to help PA-GALA Defeat this Amendment call 610-863-0227 or email info@pa-gala.org !