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 !

Rick Santorum and Grover Norquist - two peas in a pod

Recently, the P-G quoted Senator Rick Santorum saying this about Grover Norquist and the K Street Project:

"I had absolutely nothing to do -- never met, never talked, never coordinated, never did anything -- with Grover Norquist and the -- quote -- K Street Project," Mr. Santorum said.

Oh, Rick. How much more foolish can you look right now?

Take a look. Crooks and Liars has the video.

IMPEACH

So it IS a Republican Scandal, after all!

Via the always awesome Josh Micah Marshall at Talkingpointsmemo, I found this.

For weeks, it seems, conservatives near and far have been telling us that the Abramoff scandal is somehow "bipartisan" because Abramoff and his clients have given to both political parties. They point to the money Democrats recieved from the Indian tribes who were Abbramoff's clients (and wasn't he stealing from them as well?? - just asking).

We know that Abramoff gave no money to Democrats. Not it turns out that something very interesting happened when those tribes became Abramoff's clients. I'll let the American Prospect explain things. The begining of the piece:

A new and extensive analysis of campaign donations from all of Jack Abramoff’s tribal clients, done by a nonpartisan research firm, shows that a great majority of contributions made by those clients went to Republicans. The analysis undercuts the claim that Abramoff directed sums to Democrats at anywhere near the same rate.

The analysis, which was commissioned by The American Prospect and completed on Jan. 25, was done by Dwight L. Morris and Associates, a for-profit firm specializing in campaign finance that has done research for many media outlets.

Here's the main point:

Although Abramoff hasn’t personally given to any Democrats, Republicans, including officials with the GOP campaign to hold on to the Senate, have seized on the donations of his tribal clients as proof that the saga is a bipartisan scandal. And the controversy recently spread to the media when the ombudsman for The Washington Post, Deborah Howell, ignited a firestorm by wrongly asserting that Abramoff had given to both. She eventually amended her assessment, writing that Abramoff “directed his client Indian tribes to make campaign contributions to members of Congress from both parties.”

But the Morris and Associates analysis, which was done exclusively for The Prospect, clearly shows that it’s highly misleading to suggest that the tribes's giving to Dems was in any way comparable to their giving to the GOP. The analysis shows that when Abramoff took on his tribal clients, the majority of them dramatically ratcheted up donations to Republicans. Meanwhile, donations to Democrats from the same clients either dropped, remained largely static or, in two cases, rose by a far smaller percentage than the ones to Republicans did. This pattern suggests that whatever money went to Democrats, rather than having been steered by Abramoff, may have largely been money the tribes would have given anyway.

Get a gander at this:

The big picture is also compelling. Taken together, Abramoff’s tribal clients gave $868,890 to Dems before hiring him; afterwards, they gave $794,483 -- a decrease of nine percent. By contrast, the tribes’ donations to Republicans went from $786,560 pre-Abramoff to $1,845,975 after he became their lobbyist -- an increase of 135 percent.In other words, when Abramoff entered the picture, contributions to Dems dropped, while donations to Republicans more than doubled.

I'll type that out again in case you missed it:

when Abramoff entered the picture, contributions to Dems dropped, while donations to Republicans more than doubled.

Got that?

IMPEACH

More idiotic things Jim Quinn said...

I heard Pittsburgh's own well-armed terrorist nut-job, Jim Quinn, on the radio this morning. He said a couple of completely idiotic things. More idiotic than usual, I mean.

A caller called in to talk about eminent domain and tried to connect it to the US Government's seizing of Indian land in the past.

Quinn cut the caller off by saying that he really didn't think the comparision was useful. Then he added, "I would consider giving the Indians back their land, if they could furnish a deed."

Idiotic, on so many levels.

The second idiotic thing was that Quinn said that the Abramoff scandal is going fade quickly.

More wishful thinking, I guess, from the well-armed terrorist nut-job.

IMPEACH

Santorum Denies the K Street Project (more lies from the GOP)

Maeve Reston in today's P-G:

With Democrats comparing his ties to lobbyists with "organized crime," Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., yesterday swung back, saying the Democratic criticism amounted to libel and unequivocally denying that he helped shape the GOP's controversial "K Street Project."

Helped shape? I wonder if that was the question asked. At least from this snippet, it looks like when challenenged about his connection to the K Street Project, Lil Ricky "swings back" by saying he didn'thelp shape the project. Those are two different issues, if you ask me. It looks like our lil Ricky avoided one question by changing the subject to another.

Reston also points out:

Since he became the Senate's third-ranking Republican in 2001, Mr. Santorum has held weekly meetings with top Republican lobbyists at which he discusses, among other matters, job openings at Washington lobbying firms.

But, in interviews with the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, he has said those discussions -- which he previously referred to as "the K Street meetings" -- are merely to ensure Republicans are putting forward good candidates for the jobs.

Mr. Santorum flatly denied yesterday that the meetings were an integral part of the "K Street Project."

Wait a minute. Santorum referred to them as "K Street meetings" and now he's trying to distance himself by saying they're not? No wait - look closely. He didn't say they weren't "K Street meetings," he said they weren't "an integral part" of the K Street Project. Ok, fine. They weren't "integral." So how important were they, Senator?

But what is this "K Street Project" anyway? This is how the Washington Monthly characterized it way back in July/August 2003:

When presidents pick someone to fill a job in the government, it's typically a very public affair. The White House circulates press releases and background materials. Congress holds a hearing, where some members will pepper the nominee with questions and others will shower him or her with praise. If the person in question is controversial or up for an important position, they'll rate a profile or two in the papers. But there's one confirmation hearing you won't hear much about. It's convened every Tuesday morning by Rick Santorum, the junior senator from Pennsylvania, in the privacy of a Capitol Hill conference room, for a handpicked group of two dozen or so Republican lobbyists. Occasionally, one or two other senators or a representative from the White House will attend. Democrats are not invited, and neither is the press.

The chief purpose of these gatherings is to discuss jobs--specifically, the top one or two positions at the biggest and most important industry trade associations and corporate offices centered around Washington's K Street, a canyon of nondescript office buildings a few blocks north of the White House that is to influence-peddling what Wall Street is to finance. In the past, those people were about as likely to be Democrats as Republicans, a practice that ensured K Street firms would have clout no matter which party was in power. But beginning with the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994, and accelerating in 2001, when George W. Bush became president, the GOP has made a determined effort to undermine the bipartisan complexion of K Street. And Santorum's Tuesday meetings are a crucial part of that effort. Every week, the lobbyists present pass around a list of the jobs available and discuss whom to support. Santorum's responsibility is to make sure each one is filled by a loyal Republican--a senator's chief of staff, for instance, or a top White House aide, or another lobbyist whose reliability has been demonstrated. After Santorum settles on a candidate, the lobbyists present make sure it is known whom the Republican leadership favors. "The underlying theme was [to] place Republicans in key positions on K Street. Everybody taking part was a Republican and understood that that was the purpose of what we were doing," says Rod Chandler, a retired congressman and lobbyist who has participated in the Santorum meetings. "It's been a very successful effort."

Then later:

It took the 2000 elections, which gave Republicans the White House and Congress, to completely change the climate. In the months after, Santorum became the Senate's point man on K Street and launched his Tuesday meetings.

And so the question, if this information has been out there for 2 and a half years or so, why is Lil Ricky only distancing himself from it now? Could it be because of the upcoming election?

Naaah!

Back to the P-G:

Though publications such as The Washington Post, Roll Call and Washington Monthly have all reported that Mr. Santorum's meetings were a central part of Mr. Norquist's "K Street Project" strategy, Mr. Santorum said yesterday that his meetings were a separate initiative.

"I had absolutely nothing to do -- never met, never talked, never coordinated, never did anything -- with Grover Norquist and the -- quote -- K Street Project," Mr. Santorum said.

"[Senate Minority Leader] Harry Reid made a statement that I meet with Grover Norquist every Wednesday," Mr. Santorum added. "I don't meet with him every Wednesday. I have nothing to do with this project and for [Mr. Reid] to make that statement is libelous. It's absolutely false."

Of course they were separate. Santorum himself called them "K Street meetings." They've been characterized as central to the K Street Project for more than two years and they did the same thing that the K Street Project was looking to do (find lobbying jobs for Republicans). So of course Rick Santorum is being absolutely truthful when he asserts that the two are "separate initiatives."

But I wondered, did Senator Reid actually say that Santorum met with Norquist "every Wednesday?" It seems like splitting hairs but here's what Senator Reid said recently to Jim Lehrer:

SEN. HARRY REID: Having Sen. Santorum talk about reform is like having John Gotti talk about doing something about organized crime. He’s one of the problems. So –

JIM LEHRER: Why is he one of the problems?

SEN. HARRY REID: Because he was the liaison to K Street, he has gone down to the meetings, they meet every Wednesday in Grover Norquist’s office

And Senator Man-on-Dog said:

Harry Reid made a statement that I meet with Grover Norquist every Wednesday," Mr. Santorum added. "I don't meet with him every Wednesday."

It's possible that Senator Reid was referring to the meetings as occurring on Wednesdays, and that Santorum's been to at least one. But that seems like splitting hairs. So let's let it go.

So fine. Santorum says he doesn't meet with Norquist every Wednesday, but he didn't deny meeting him on any Wednesday either. He's also using the present tense. Are Norquist's Wednesday meetings still taking place? If they ended some time ago and even if Rick went to every one of them, he'd still be correct if he were to say he doesn't meet with Norquist now.

Nor did he deny Reid's charge about being the "liason to K Street." So how many times did Senator Santorum meet with Grover Norquist on those Wednesday meetings? Norquist admitted to going to at least one of Santorum's Tuesday meetings. And how many Wednesday meetings did Senator Santorum attend (with our without Norquist being there)?

Rick Santorum can't even lie clearly.

IMPEACH

"I’d love it if Kos and John Aravosis and anyone else from far away with a national profile, would stay the fuck away from Pennsylvania politics."

So says Chris at Rowhouse Logic.

More here, including this:

"The thing I love best about this is that Markos, a guy with a huge readership and at least a little pull, is taking a shit on the only two Democrats in Pennsylvania who have the spine to run against Casey in the Democratic primary. This is after Rendell and the DNSC wiped the table clean and anointed Bob Casey as the next Democrat to have his ass handed to him by Santorum."

Defining Domestic Down

Oh, OK. Now I get it. it's not "domestic spying" because your phone bill calls it an "international call."

[Please kill me now.]

From today's press briefing (and, yes, it's unpatriotic to think of the old "Who's on First" routine while reading this):

Q Back to the NSA. The White House last night put out paper backing up its claims that this was a terrorist surveillance program, saying the charges of domestic spying -- you defined what "domestic" meant. Isn't one end of that phone call on domestic soil? Why is the charge of it being domestic spying so far off?

MR. McCLELLAN: For the same reasons that a phone call from someone inside the United States to someone outside the United States is not a domestic call. If you look at how that is billed on your phone records, it's billed as an international call, it is charged the international rate. And so that's the best way to sum that up. Because one communication within this surveillance has to be outside of the United States. That means it's an international communication, for the very reason I just said.

Q Right. But one of the people being eavesdropped on is on domestic soil.

MR. McCLELLAN: I think it leaves an inaccurate impression with the American people to say that this is domestic spying.

Q Why is that inaccurate?

MR. McCLELLAN: For the reasons that General Hayden has said, for the reasons that others have said within the administration, and for the example I just provided to you. You don't call a flight from New York to somewhere in Afghanistan, a domestic flight. It's called an international flight.

Q Right, but --

MR. McCLELLAN: This is international communications that are being monitored --

Q But whatever -- it's David's point, too -- I mean, whatever you call it in your trying to call it -- someone domestically --

MR. McCLELLAN: It's what it is.

Q -- is being spied on. Someone's communications --

MR. McCLELLAN: It is what it is.

Q -- on domestic soil are being tracked.

MR. McCLELLAN: If there is an al Qaeda person operating inside the United States and talking to someone outside the United States, you bet we want to know what they're saying.

Q An al Qaeda person inside the United States --

MR. McCLELLAN: Could be outside the United States talking to someone inside the United States, too.

Q But the person inside the United States, there has to be a reasonable basis that they are connected --

MR. McCLELLAN: Look, if some want to try to defend it and say that it is domestic spying, they're leaving the American people with an inaccurate impression, just like they would be if they called an international call a domestic call.

Q But, Scott, you're arguing that --

MR. McCLELLAN: No, you're arguing.

Q -- somebody on domestic soil is not being spied on?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I didn't say --

Q That's part of it.

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I didn't say that at all. In fact, we have been very clear and precise in what we have said, to try to make sure it is accurately reflected to the American people. And I would hope that everybody would do their best to make sure that it is accurately reflected to the American people. I don't think it is when someone puts up on the screen "domestic spying." I think that leaves an inaccurate impression that this is spying on people that are talking about an upcoming PTA meeting within their hometown. And that's --

Q That raises a whole -- an issue, because it involves people on domestic soil.

MR. McCLELLAN: That's not what it is.

Q That's not why it's become an issue?

And, just in case you still don't GET IT, here's some handy definitions the White House has put out for us all:

DEFINITION: Domestic Vs. International.

Domestic Calls are calls inside the United States. International Calls are calls either to or from the United States.

Domestic Flights are flights from one American city to another. International Flights are flights to or from the United States.

Domestic Mail consists of letters and packages sent within the United States. International Mail consists of letters and packages sent to or from the United States.

Domestic Commerce involves business within the United States. International Commerce involves business between the United States and other countries.

And, here is my handy-dandy definition for the day:

Domestic Idiot is someone who can not catch an International Terrorist after four and a half years.

______________________________________
UPDATE: Yes, I heard this story tonight on Countdown with Keith Olbermann

BOTH POLITICAL JUNKIES ON KDKA TONIGHT

That's right, gang.

BOTH Political Junkies will be on the Temporary John McIntire show tonight at 11pm on KDKARadio.

So if you want to hear the voices that go with the blogging, tune in. And if you're not on the eastern seaboard (KDKA is an immensely powerful AM station that broadcasts across much of the eastern half of the US), they also stream live on the web.

IMPEACH (yea, we may be discussing the "I-word" tonight!)

Bob Casey (PA-DINO) Endorses Alito

On the very day in which EVERY DEMOCRAT on the Senate Judiciary Committee voted "NO" on endorsing Judge Samuel Alito's confirmation to the Supreme Court, Bob Casey announced that he endorses Alito.

On the very day in which the Pittsburgh City Council unanimously agreed to ask PA's two Republican Senators (Specter and Santorum) to vote against Alito, Bob Casey announced that he endorses Alito.

All of you who only care about getting rid of Santorum no matter how Santorum-like (Lite?) the person is who you would support in his place want to explain to me again why I should support Casey???

From the Times Leader:

Casey announces endorsement of Alito

KIMBERLY HEFLING
Associated Press

WASHINGTON - Sen. Rick Santorum's leading Democratic challenger, Pennsylvania Treasurer Bob Casey, announced Tuesday that he endorses Judge Samuel Alito's confirmation to the Supreme Court.

For weeks, Republicans have called Casey "Silent Bob" and pressed him to say whether he supports Alito's confirmation. Casey and Alito have a family connection because Alito, who serves on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals based in Philadelphia, sided with Casey's father, the late Gov. Bob Casey, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. The case challenged a state law requiring women seeking abortions to notify their spouses.

Everyone who claims that Casey is so friggin' good for labor might want to reflect again how he will vote on an issue or person if it's in any way tied to some pro-fetal activity:

I do not agree with everything that Judge Samuel Alito has done or said - particularly many of his rulings which too often result in corporate power prevailing over the interests of consumers and workers," Casey said in a statement. "However, I agree with The Philadelphia Inquirer and Washington Post editorial boards that the arguments against Judge Alito do not rise to the level that would require a vote denying him a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court."

Remember:

When it counts, Casey is just another Republican clone.

Just what the world needs: another Bush

From WAOW:

OTTAWA (AP) -- Stephen Harper says Canadians have "voted for change" and he says his Conservative Party will "take the lead in delivering that change."

Harper made the promise in front of some two-thousand cheering supporters at his campaign headquarters in Calgary after Conservatives ended 13 years of Liberal rule.

The Conservatives won't win enough seats to rule outright and will probably be forced into a coalition. That would make it harder to get legislation through Canada's House of Commons.

The results are expected to improve Canada's ties with the U-S since Harper's ideology is more in tune with that of President Bush.

Harper has promised to tighten security along the border with the U-S in an effort to prevent terrorists and guns from crossing.

Hmmm. I wonder if my friends who are considering moving to Canada may now change their minds...

Why I'm glad that we're not named "Z Political Junkies"

The 2005 Koufax Awards nominees for "Most Deserving of Wider Recognition" are up at Wampum.

You can't cast a vote just yet, but you can be certain that I'll post here when you can.

Why Bush is on the Road

From the American Research Group:

Bush Job Approval Ratings (1/22/06)
Approve Overall: 36%
Disapprove Overall: 58%
Undecided: 6%

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

USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll:

51% of Americans say the administration was wrong to intercept conversations without a warrant.

58% of Americans support appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate the issue.

(Poll of 1,006 adults was taken Friday through Sunday and has a margin of error of +/—3 percentage points.)

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

President Bush Reviewing the US Constitution:

New Kitty Blogging

This is my new cat, Joey:



Some dirtbags moved and left Joey behind. Some nice people took him in, but they already had four cats and could not keep him.

A careful look at Joey will reveal that one of his eyes has a misshaped pupil that does not dilate properly -- otherwise, he's purrfect -- that is, if you don't ask Clio for her opinion.



Joey is an unfixed male. That will soon be taken care of and then he can run for office as a Democrat.

Shorter Bush Speech

Denies Spying Broke Law
- President George W. Bush, January 23, 2006

Declares, "I am not a crook."
- President Richard M. Nixon, November 17, 1973

STILLERS!

For Our Trolls

Jack Kelly - He's at it again.

Oh. My. God.

That's the only way to describe the length and breadth of spin and outright dishonesty found in today's column by "National Security Correspondent" Jack Kelly.

I will do my best to point out the deceptions point-by-point. He starts out with this:

In an audiotape broadcast Thursday on al Jazeera, Osama bin Laden said al-Qaida is preparing to strike the United States again.

Last month Italian authorities arrested three Algerians with al-Qaida connections. They were plotting attacks on ships, railway stations and stadiums in the United States, said Interior Minister Giuseppe Pisanu.

Some Democrats think President Bush should be impeached for trying to keep them from succeeding.

First off, there are so many subtle insinuations to that last sentence that I barely know where to begin. The calls for impeachment are to stop Bush from stopping terrorism? Am I going too far a field to wonder whether in Commando Kelly's mind, he thinks that anyone who protests the administration's assault on the rule of law is helping out the terrorists? This is just too silly to contemplate. How long until the subtle covert accusations become loud and overt? Here, I'll start:

Anyone criticizing Bush and/or the war on terror is doing nothing but helping the terrorists and anyone who helps the terrorists should be locked up as a traitor.

But what of those three Algerians? Turns out that they are members of a group called GSPC. It's a terrorist which aims to overthrow the Algerian government. Recently it's expanded its terrorism to Europe. So no doubt these are nasty guys. But Kelly, by placing one sentence after the other, implies that the plans that bin laden describes are the plans that the three Algerians were arrested for. Is this true or is it another post hoc fallacy? Kelly is hoping you see the connection that he doesn't offer any real evidence for. Is Osama bin laden no longer using al-qaeda to attack the United States? Is he now directing the GSPC to do his dirty work? Kelly doesn't say.

But the implication is there. Bin laden says there are plans, these guys "with al-qaeda connections" were arrested while plotting, so therefore the GSPC plots must've been the plans that bin laden was talking about! And if only the traitorous Democrats would stop hounding Bush, he'd be able to win this war!

In any event, this is not Kelly's main argument - it's just the insulting teaser. Take a look at the next paragraph:

In a speech Monday remarkable (even for him) for its bombast and hypocrisy, former Vice President Al Gore accused the president of having violated the law when he authorized the National Security Agency to listen in, without warrants, on conversations between al-Qaida suspects abroad and people in the United States.

Notice Kelly's description of the NSA program. It is to "listen in, without warrants, on conversations between al-Qaida suspects abroad and people in the United States."

Notice he used the word "people" and not the phrase "American citizens" or "U.S. persons" (the legal term). "People" can be anyone, from your Aunt Bertha to Charles Manson to the guy running across the Arizona desert from Mexico. Again, Kelly's spinning the program just a little to make it into something it's not.

In any event, the accusation is correct. Bush did violate the law when he authorized the NSA to listen in. But Kelly is just setting us up for another Clinton attack (you know, I used to count how many paragraphs it took Kelly to blame it all on Bill Clinton. In some columns Clinton never surfaces, this one only takes six paragraphs for it to happen). Here it is:

"A president who breaks the law is a threat to the very structure of our government," Mr. Gore declared.

I don't recall him uttering such sentiments when President Clinton committed perjury.

Those were just "lies about sex." But I also don't recall Mr. Gore complaining about Echelon, a much broader electronic intercept program begun in the Clinton administration, when we were not at war.

And after the oblique reference to Clinton's perjury (where he was impeached for breaking the law), we get to the heart of Kelly's column: Echelon.

Conservatives nation-wide have been playing the "Echelon card" for sometime now. Kelly even asserts that it's a program started in the Clinton Administration. But it isn't exactly what Kelly says it is. Let's take a look.

The Echelon story from the rightwing almost always references a piece done by Steve Kroft on 60 Minutes in late February 2000. Here's a transcript. (For giggles, I want you to search for the part of the story about Margaret Newsham. She's quoted as saying that she heard Senator Strom Thurman's voice via Echelon. The piece also says she worked on the system in 1979. Message to Jack Kelly: If the system was in place in 1979, it wasn't started in the Clinton Administration.)

Back to Echelon. Too bad that Medal of Freedom recipient and former CIA director George Tenet had this to say to Congress in April of 2000 to current CIA head Porter Goss' congressional committee:

There have been recent allegations that the Intelligence Community through NSA has improperly directed our SIGINT capabilities against the private conversations of US persons. That is not the case.

There is a rigorous regime of checks and balances which we—the CIA, the NSA and the FBI—scrupulously adhere to whenever the conversations of US persons are involved—directly or indirectly.

We do not collect against US persons unless they are agents of a foreign power, as that term is defined in law. We do not target their conversations for collection in the United States unless a FISA [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] warrant has been obtained from the FISA court by the Justice Department. And we do not target their conversations for collection overseas unless Executive Order 12333 has been followed and the Attorney General has personally approved collection.

Did you catch that? He said they were adhering to the FISA statues. The Other Political Junkie mentioned this in a comment about a month ago. Too bad, if Jack Kelly actually read this blog more consistently, he would have saved himself the humiliation of looking like a right-wing idiot.

And then there's Michael V. Hayden's testimony on the same day. The Introduction:

The National Security Agency (NSA) performs electronic surveillance to collect foreign intelligence information for the military and policymakers. As the Director of Central Intelligence noted, NSA provides valuable intelligence to U.S. government consumers on a wide range of issues of concern to all Americans, such as international terrorism, narcotics trafficking, and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. NSA’s electronic surveillance activities are subject to strict regulation by statute¹ and Executive Order² due to the potential intrusiveness and the implications for the privacy of U.S. persons³ of these activities. NSA’s electronic surveillance activities are also subject to oversight from multiple bodies within all three branches of the government. These safeguards have ensured that NSA is operating within its legal authority.

The "strict regulation by statute" that Hayden mentions? The FISA statute.

Anyway, Hayden also referenced Excutive Order 12333 in 2000:

There are certain restrictions imposed by E.O. 12333 upon all intelligence collection activities engaged in by the Executive Branch agencies. Intelligence collection must be conducted in a manner “consistent with the Constitution and applicable law and respectful of the principles upon which the United States was founded.” (Sec. 2.1). These include the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures. Intelligence collection must not be undertaken to acquire information concerning the domestic activities of U.S. persons. (Sec. 2.3(b)). The least intrusive collection techniques feasible must be used in the United States or against U.S. persons located abroad. (Sec. 2.4). Finally, agencies in the Intelligence Community are prohibited from having other parties engage in activities forbidden by the Executive Order on their behalf. (Sec. 2.12) This means that NSA can not ask another country to illegally spy on U.S. persons on our behalf, and we do not.

Hmm. So, unless Michael Hayden and George Tenet were lying to Congress about what their respective intelligence agencies were doing with Echelon, just about everything that Jack Kelly and other conservatives said about it is false.

But I found out this stuff in a few hours on my own. Jack Kelly has a computer (probably a better one than mine) and Internet access (again, probably faster than mine) so he should have been able to find this stuff. If he didn't bother, he's incompetent. If he did find it and omitted it from his column, he's as dishonest as the day is long.

Which do you think it is?

Barbara Hafer Joins Georgia Berner Against Missy Hart

Please join Former State Treasurer Barbara Hafer for a cocktail reception with GEORGIA BERNER - Democratic Candidate for Congress

Monday January 30
5-7 pm
Rivers Club, One Oxford Center, 301 Grant Street,
Pittsburgh, PA 15219

Host Committee:
Heather Arnet, Terry Beggy, Miranda Berner, Yvonne Campos, Jeanne Clark, Bonnie DiCarlo, Joan Ellenbogen, Beth Hafer, Betsy Magley, Catherine Mott, Eve Picker, Heather Sage, Marilyn Sullivan, Betsy Teti

Suggested Donation: $100/person

For more information or to RSVP
by phone 724-766-8025 or email jan30@georgiaberner.com

http://www.georgiaberner.com

Been a little busy lately..

...with a new kitten and some other things.

I'll put up pictures of the kitten as soon as I get around to recharging the batteries on my camera.

To Every Season

I don't know who created this:



But I instantly recognized it as a depiction of someone blogging in the seeming wilderness about just how unbelievably awful the Bush Administration is.

But, now, when I look at this:



I'm beginning to think it must be a depiction of what it must be like to try to defend this unbelievably corrupt and venal Bush Administration and its Republican Kool-Aid Drinking Minions.

So I put the question to you readers:

Which is it?
(Has the tide turned?)

Nothing to Do? Check Out These Events

TONIGHT!

Pittsburgh Blogfest 5: Wednesday, January 18th 2006
The winter classic.

WHAT: Pittsburgh Blogfest 5
WHEN: Wednesday, January 18th, 2005, 5:30 PM to 9:30 PM and beyond!
WHERE: Finnegan's Wake (near PNC Park, 20 General Robinson St., North Shore, 412-325-2601), in the Pub Room
WHO: All of you bloggers, and special guest Robert Scoble!
AND: Creating Text(iles), Inner Bitch, My Brilliant Mistakes, and Grabass.

If you are planning on attending, please RSVP to blogfest@closkey.com ! Come meet your fellow bloggers at Finnegan's Wake. This is a purely social event; it will be utterly without agenda, structure, or redeeming value.

_________________________________________________________

Run, Baby, Run Happy Hour

Are you a political junkie? Want to meet the women runnning for State Representative in Western PA? Like to dish about who's running? Interested in campaign job opportunities? Got the urge to do a little gossip gathering? Then, baby, have I got a Happy Hour for you!

Candidates & elected officials are welcome, however there will not be an opportunity for you to make speeches. Feel free to bring any lit you have for distribution.

when: Wed Jan 18: 5PM
where: Mullaney's Harp & Fiddle
neighborhood: Strip District
it'll cost you: $no cover
all ages
address: 2329 Penn Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15222, 412-642-6622

_________________________________________________________

Tuesday, January 24, 2005

Pittsburgh League of Young Voters January Meeting

What: Pittsburgh League of Young Voters January Meeting
Where: Pittsburgh League of Young Voters Office located @ the Union Project: 801 N. Negley Ave. #5
When: Tues. 1/24/06 @ 7pm
Why:
* Join one of our seven committees: Politics, Policy, Operations, Communications & Media, Information Technology, Outreach, Education & Training

* Come find out about all of the exciting projects the League of Young Voters is working on in 2006.

o Elections
o Lobbying
o Civic Education
o Coalition Building
o Non- Traditional Grassroots Organizing
o Media
o and more!!!

* Volunteer to do voter registration at the Univ. of Pittsburgh for the District 3 Special Election!

* FREE FOOD & REFRESHMENTS!!!

FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT THE PITTSBURGH LEAGUE @
412-728-2197 or pittsburgh@indyvoter.org

_________________________________________________________

Saturday, January 28, 2006

Green Party “Party”

On Saturday, January 28, 2006, there will be a Green Party “Party” to give you the opportunity to meet Titus North and Jason Phillips. The party will be from 7:00 pm to 10:00 pm at the home of Ed Bortz and Sandy Hazley. Phone for directions or information: 412-231-1581.

In May of 2005, the Pennsylvania Dept of State recorded in Pennsylvania and in Allegheny County, increased voter registration for the Green Party and declines in voter registration for the Democrats, Republicans, and Libertarians.

In November, Titus North, in his run for Mayor received 4% of the vote with less than $1,700 spent in campaign funds. And now, Jason Phillips is running for Pittsburgh City Council District 3 in a special election.

Green Party of Allegheny County
P.O. Box 6934
Pittsburgh, PA 15212
www.gpoac.org

Green Party Ten Key Values:
Grassroots Democracy, Social Justice & Equal Opportunity, Ecological Wisdom, Nonviolence, Decentralization, Community-Based Economics and Economic Justice, Feminism and Gender Equity, Respect for Diversity, Personal and Global Responsibility, Future Focus and Sustainability

BIG FAT HYPOCRITES

We get email

(FYI: Keep it on the blog. I have hundreds of emails in my inbox on any given day)

Here's a snippet from one:

Which in turn leads me to wonder further, whether any of these things of which you complain bitterly, when done by Bush et al., would bother you at all, if only Hillary were in office doing these selfsame things to Republicans.

Here's a hint: she already has, and I don't think you guys so much as whispered a word, when her hireling bozos Livingstone and Marceca were pawing through people's raw FBI files. You guys bull your necks over a NY Times article -- like *they* had any credibility left -- about the NSA, and you complain that you don't like the NSA dumping "raw" intelligence about honest people on the FBI (they allege), but you never complained when Hillary's goons pulled "raw" intelligence from the FBI files to cull for her amusement, information, and ultimate use. Go on, prove me wrong, document that you complained about Hillary's calling for the FBI files her guys had. You can do it -- just show me the articles, show me the quotes, scan in an old letter. Show me her justification. Anything. Anything at all.

What the emailer seemingly fails to remember is that Hillary and Bill Clinton were investigated over "Filegate" (and everything else they ever did or said in office or supposedly did or said in office or supposedly did or said before they took office -- I'm quite certain Ken Star must have a video of a colonoscopy from one or both of them that he views nightly with some fava beans and a nice Chianti) and were cleared of all charges:

Independent Counsel: No 'substantial and credible' evidence of Clinton involvement in 'Filegate'

March 16, 2000
Web posted at: 6:08 p.m. EST (2308 GMT)WASHINGTON (CNN) -- There is "no substantial and credible evidence" that President Bill Clinton and first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton sought confidential Federal Bureau of Investigation background checks of former GOP White House personnel, according to a report filed Thursday by Whitewater Independent Counsel Robert Ray's office.

In a statement, Ray's office said that no substantial and credible exists to implicate any other senior White House official in the FBI background files controversy that came to be known as "Filegate," and that no prosecutions would be pursued. It also said prosecution was not warranted after an investigation into whether former White House Counsel Bernard Nussbaum testified falsely to Congress on the matter in 1996.

[snip]

The Government Reform and Oversight Committee's report, released in the autumn of 1996, reached similar conclusions, though it blasted the Clinton White House for its "cavalier approach" to security. Livingstone resigned his post soon after the scandal broke.

So, let's see now:

WE HAD A DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT AND REPUBLICAN CONGRESS

REPUBLICANS CLAIMED THAT THE DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT/FIRST LADY LOOKED AT THE RAW FBI FILES OF AMERICAN CITIZENS

THE DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT/FIRST LADY DENIED DOING THIS

REPUBLICANS DEMANDED AN INVESTIGATION

THEIR CLAIMS ARE INVESTIGATED VIA AN INDEPENDENT COUNSEL

THE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL FOUND NO 'SUBSTANTIAL AND CREDIBLE EVIDENCE' OF INVOLVEMENT BY THE DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT/FIRST LADY

Compare that to this:

WE HAVE A REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT AND REPUBLICAN CONGRESS

THE REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT ADMITS THAT HE IS SPYING ON AMERICANS IN THIS COUNTRY WITHOUT A WARRANT AND SAYS HE WILL CONTINUE TO DO SO

MAJORITY OF REPUBLICANS CLAIM ANYONE WANTING AN INVESTIGATION OF THE REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT ARE "HATERS"

A MODERATE REPUBLICAN SAYS THE REPUBLICAN CONGRESS WILL CONDUCT AN INVESTIGATION SOMETIME...

BIG FAT HYPOCRITES

All this "Plantation" rhetoric is disgusting

Take a look.

Setting aside the promises of Gingrich's introduction, no reasonable person could expect scholarly inquiry from a man with a history of indulging in bombastic intellectual pretension and outrageous historical analogies: Gingrich once compiled a "required reading list" for fellow members of Congress; and on the eve of his great electoral victory ten years ago, the speaker-to-be told a reporter he was leading a "slave rebellion" against the Democrats who "run the plantation." One might have expected Gingrich to grow up a bit in the years since his fall from grace. But Winning the Future suggests that he's just waiting to launch another rebellion.

And then there's this:

Indeed, while many conservatives cringe at the prospect of losing the homosexual vote, the fact of the matter is black America has never embraced that demographic, helping, perhaps, to explain why, while most blacks remained faithful to the Democratic Plantation, er, Party in the 2004 presidential election, the black vote for the Bush-Cheney ticket increased. Look at Ohio, where black support for Mr. Bush rose from 9 percent in 2000 to 16 percent in 2004, handing the Bush-Cheney team an outright victory over Kerry-Edwards — a feat that the we-shall-overcome crowd has yet to accept.

And:

NOVAK: This afternoon, President George W. Bush met with 24 prominent African-Americans, 14 members of the clergy and 10 leaders in business and nonprofit agencies. Tomorrow, the president meets with the Congressional Black Caucus, 43 members, Democrats all.

It's good for the Republican president to sit down with the black lawmakers, though I'll doubt he'll make much progress with them. But today's meeting with black nonpoliticians may be another matter. The black reverend clergy are particularly attracted to the Bush faith- based aid programs. That terrifies Democratic politicians.

Where would the Democrats be if they're not picking up around 90 percent of the black vote? What if black voters started moving off the Democratic plantation?

And this:

Hispanics for Jorge

Another immigrant group wanders off the Democratic plantation.

And this:

The Democrat Party touts itself as the party of inclusion. Yet it practices the worst kind of racism. The Democrats believe that minorities are not smart enough to think for themselves. If minorities are not on the plantation – if they dare to express any thoughts that are not straight Democrat party line – they are savagely attacked by the Democrats. Quite simply, the Democrat Party in this country thinks it owns the minorities.

Etcetera, etcetera and so on...

IMPEACH

More Bush Deceptions about the NSA surveillance

Via the dailykos, I found this article in the New York Times.

It points out even more lies from the Bush Junta. On the one hand, our glorious leader has said that the NSA surveillance is "limited" but IN REALITY, the NSA has scooped up thousands of leads - so many leads, it seems, that the FBI investigators charged with following up on those leads were often overwhelmed by the numbers of them.

The Vice President (of torture) has said that the program has saved "thousands of lives" but IN REALITY the picture is vastly different.

But here's how the article begins:

In the anxious months after the Sept. 11 attacks, the National Security Agency began sending a steady stream of telephone numbers, e-mail addresses and names to the F.B.I. in search of terrorists. The stream soon became a flood, requiring hundreds of agents to check out thousands of tips a month.

But virtually all of them, current and former officials say, led to dead ends or innocent Americans.

Hmm. Information collected about innocent Americans - what happened ot this information? Is it still in a government database somewhere?

F.B.I. officials repeatedly complained to the spy agency that the unfiltered information was swamping investigators. The spy agency was collecting much of the data by eavesdropping on some Americans' international communications and conducting computer searches of phone and Internet traffic. Some F.B.I. officials and prosecutors also thought the checks, which sometimes involved interviews by agents, were pointless intrusions on Americans' privacy.

As the bureau was running down those leads, its director, Robert S. Mueller III, raised concerns about the legal rationale for a program of eavesdropping without warrants, one government official said. Mr. Mueller asked senior administration officials about "whether the program had a proper legal foundation," but deferred to Justice Department legal opinions, the official said.Hmm.

I wonder if these "legal opinions" were written by the same political appointees who Ok'd the use of torture?

The bottom line is this: the NSA scooped up massive amounts of information on American citizens and then passed that information to a skeptical FBI who then investigated those leads - and virtually all of them were dead ends or innocent citizens.

And all this was done without warrants but with the OK of the president of the United States of America.

So not only is the program illegal but also it's a huge waste of time.

Do I really need to say it?

Yea, I guess I do.

IMPEACH

ANTI ALITO RALLY IN PGH TODAY!

Imagine a world where Samuel Alito had the final say about our civil liberties:

Any Pittsburgh woman planning to terminate an unwanted pregnancy would have to report to her husband first, even if that put her at risk for abuse.

Citizens concerned about the environment would have limited access to the courts, and a harder time protecting the Allegheny National Forest.

Minorities, people with disabilities, and workers would face a scary uphill battle protecting their health, safety and their jobs.

The case against Judge Samuel Alito is overwhelming. He should not be confirmed to the Supreme Court. Samuel Alito has not shown himself to be a protector of the rights and freedoms Americans hold dear. Please join with groups protecting civil rights at 9:15 AM on Tuesday, January 17th, to make a stand for justice. We will rally on the steps of the City Council building, gather petition signatures, and then march over to Senator Specter's office to hand-deliver him the more than 50,000 signatures of concerned Pennsylvanians who oppose the confirmation of Samuel Alito.

Where: City Council
510 City - County Building
414 Grant St.
Pittsburgh, PA 15219)

When: Tuesday, Janauary 17th, 9:15 a.m.

After the rally and petition gathering, we will march on to
Specter's office to deliver over 50,000 signatures opposing Alito:

Regional Enterprise Tower (old Alcoa Building)
425 Sixth Avenue, Suite 1450
Pittsburgh, PA 15219

This coalition includes:
Planned Parenthood
Sierra Club
National Organization for Women
Retired Steel Workers of America
National Council of Jewish Women
Thomas Merton Center
Alliance For Justice
Steel-City Stonewall Democrats
Democracy for Pittsburgh
And many more!

For more information or to volunteer to help with petitions, contact Jodi Hirsch at: jhirsh@ppwp.org

A Real Patriot Speaks

At present, we still have much to learn about the NSA's domestic surveillance. What we do know about this pervasive wiretapping virtually compels the conclusion that the President of the United States has been breaking the law repeatedly and persistently.

A president who breaks the law is a threat to the very structure of our government. Our Founding Fathers were adamant that they had established a government of laws and not men. Indeed, they recognized that the structure of government they had enshrined in our Constitution - our system of checks and balances - was designed with a central purpose of ensuring that it would govern through the rule of law. As John Adams said: "The executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers, or either of them, to the end that it may be a government of laws and not of men."

An executive who arrogates to himself the power to ignore the legitimate legislative directives of the Congress or to act free of the check of the judiciary becomes the central threat that the Founders sought to nullify in the Constitution - an all-powerful executive too reminiscent of the King from whom they had broken free. In the words of James Madison, "the accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."

[snip]

Last week, for example, Vice President Cheney attempted to defend the Administration's eavesdropping on American citizens by saying that if it had conducted this program prior to 9/11, they would have found out the names of some of the hijackers.

Tragically, he apparently still doesn't know that the Administration did in fact have the names of at least 2 of the hijackers well before 9/11 and had available to them information that could have easily led to the identification of most of the other hijackers. And yet, because of incompetence in the handling of this information, it was never used to protect the American people.

[snip]

In the United States Senate, which used to pride itself on being the "greatest deliberative body in the world," meaningful debate is now a rarity. Even on the eve of the fateful vote to authorize the invasion of Iraq, Senator Robert Byrd famously asked: "Why is this chamber empty?"

[snip]

I call upon Democratic and Republican members of Congress today to uphold your oath of office and defend the Constitution. Stop going along to get along. Start acting like the independent and co-equal branch of government you're supposed to be.

But there is yet another Constitutional player whose pulse must be taken and whose role must be examined in order to understand the dangerous imbalance that has emerged with the efforts by the Executive Branch to dominate our constitutional system.

We the people are-collectively-still the key to the survival of America's democracy. We-as Lincoln put it, "[e]ven we here"-must examine our own role as citizens in allowing and not preventing the shocking decay and degradation of our democracy.

Thomas Jefferson said: "An informed citizenry is the only true repository of the public will."

The revolutionary departure on which the idea of America was based was the audacious belief that people can govern themselves and responsibly exercise the ultimate authority in self-government. This insight proceeded inevitably from the bedrock principle articulated by the Enlightenment philosopher John Locke: "All just power is derived from the consent of the governed."

[snip]

One of the other ways the Administration has tried to control the flow of information is by consistently resorting to the language and politics of fear in order to short-circuit the debate and drive its agenda forward without regard to the evidence or the public interest. As President Eisenhower said, "Any who act as if freedom's defenses are to be found in suppression and suspicion and fear confess a doctrine that is alien to America."

Fear drives out reason. Fear suppresses the politics of discourse and opens the door to the politics of destruction. Justice Brandeis once wrote: "Men feared witches and burnt women."

The founders of our country faced dire threats. If they failed in their endeavors, they would have been hung as traitors. The very existence of our country was at risk.

Yet, in the teeth of those dangers, they insisted on establishing the Bill of Rights.Is our Congress today in more danger than were their predecessors when the British army was marching on the Capitol?

Is the world more dangerous than when we faced an ideological enemy with tens of thousands of missiles poised to be launched against us and annihilate our country at a moment's notice? Is America in more danger now than when we faced worldwide fascism on the march-when our fathers fought and won two World Wars simultaneously?

It is simply an insult to those who came before us and sacrificed so much on our behalf to imply that we have more to be fearful of than they. Yet they faithfully protected our freedoms and now it is up to us to do the same.

We have a duty as Americans to defend our citizens' right not only to life but also to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is therefore vital in our current circumstances that immediate steps be taken to safeguard our Constitution against the present danger posed by the intrusive overreaching on the part of the Executive Branch and the President's apparent belief that he need not live under the rule of law.

(Full speech text here. Read it or watch it here!)

Gore Calls For Appointment of Special Prosecuter on Spying

Five point recommendation from Gore's speech:

A special counsel should immediately be appointed by the Attorney General to remedy the obvious conflict of interest that prevents him from investigating what many believe are serious violations of law by the President. We have had a fresh demonstration of how an independent investigation by a special counsel with integrity can rebuild confidence in our system of justice. Patrick Fitzgerald has, by all accounts, shown neither fear nor favor in pursuing allegations that the Executive Branch has violated other laws.

Republican as well as Democratic members of Congress should support the bipartisan call of the Liberty Coalition for the appointment of a special counsel to pursue the criminal issues raised by warrantless wiretapping of Americans by the President.

Second, new whistleblower protections should immediately be established for members of the Executive Branch who report evidence of wrongdoing -- especially where it involves the abuse of Executive Branch authority in the sensitive areas of national security.

Third, both Houses of Congress should hold comprehensive-and not just superficial-hearings into these serious allegations of criminal behavior on the part of the President. And, they should follow the evidence wherever it leads.

Fourth, the extensive new powers requested by the Executive Branch in its proposal to extend and enlarge the Patriot Act should, under no circumstances be granted, unless and until there are adequate and enforceable safeguards to protect the Constitution and the rights of the American people against the kinds of abuses that have so recently been revealed.

Fifth, any telecommunications company that has provided the government with access to private information concerning the communications of Americans without a proper warrant should immediately cease and desist their complicity in this apparently illegal invasion of the privacy of American citizens.

(Full speech text here. Read it or watch it here!)

Gore on MLK, Jr.

As Dr. King once said, "Perhaps a new spirit is rising among us. If it is, let us trace its movements and pray that our own inner being may be sensitive to its guidance, for we are deeply in need of a new way beyond the darkness that seems so close around us."

(Full speech text here. Read it or watch it here!)

Lead Editorial in today's P-G

Here it is:

It would be amusing to watch Sen. Rick Santorum lash around to the left and right as he tries to redefine himself for the voters as the November elections approach, except that sometimes he comes up with something truly ridiculous.

In a speech Thursday to students at Valley Forge Military Academy and College outside Philadelphia, the Pennsylvania Republican really went off the deep end, attacking the media -- we assume modestly that he included us -- for drawing the public's attention to the deaths of American servicemen and -women in Iraq. To focus attention on the "tragic consequences" of the war, he said, was "helping Islamic fascism win the battle."

We would answer Sen. Santorum in two ways. First of all, the Post-Gazette's coverage of the Iraq war seeks to be as broad and as comprehensive as space permits. We write factually about the progress of the war, including full coverage of the elections there; efforts to form a democratic, inclusive government of the different Iraqi political and religious factions; and American cooperation with Iraqi police and military units that is meant to establish the level of security that will permit U.S. troops to be withdrawn.

We write about the speeches of President Bush and other members of his administration that seek to provide a positive interpretation of what is occurring in Iraq, alongside interpretative evaluation of developments there.

For Sen. Santorum to suggest that we and other American media should not report about the tragic loss of American lives -- a death toll that now stands above 2,200 -- is to sell our readers short and to suggest that they do not need to know, nor do they want to know, how many brave Americans are dying there.

It is to say that they are either immature -- fragile souls who need to be protected from such information -- or that they don't care, which everyone knows is not the case. For Sen. Santorum to cite national security and the claim that knowledge of U.S. losses might encourage America's enemies, as reasons for not telling the public the truth, is insulting to the American people.

Mr. Santorum's other campaign-season gyrations -- his participation in the Justice Sunday III rally with the far right's culture warriors, his ending of affiliation with a key defender of intelligent design after staunchly supporting the concept and his call for a nonpartisan panel to assess the Iraq situation while echoing the administration's fierce defense of the war -- are bad enough.

Telling Americans that they shouldn't be told how many are dying in Iraq is way too much, even for Mr. Santorum.

Can't say I disagree with this all that much.

IMPEACH

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.

More Treason from the Mainstream Media

Take a look.

A majority of Americans want the Bush administration to get court approval before eavesdropping on people inside the United States, even if those calls might involve suspected terrorists, an AP-Ipsos poll shows.

Over the past three weeks, President Bush and top aides have defended the electronic monitoring program they secretly launched shortly after Sept. 11, 2001, as a vital tool to protect the nation from al-Qaida and its affiliates.

Yet 56 percent of respondents in an AP-Ipsos poll said the government should be required to first get a court warrant to eavesdrop on the overseas calls and e-mails of U.S. citizens when those communications are believed to be tied to terrorism.

Why do all those people want to make it harder for our dear and glorious leader to fulfill his pledge to protect us from the evil doers who want to kills us?

I think they secretly want our great leader to fail. Because the 2000 election didn't go the way they planned, they're filled with so much hate that they'll do anything, say anything, to sabotage his divinely approved administration.

I think it's totally and completely correct for our glorious leader to ignore the will of the people and both the spirit and letter of the law whenever he needs to in order to protect us from the evil suiciders and terrorists.

Personally I believe it in my heart that the liberal media is to blame. If they would only publish the truth (like they do at newsmax.com and the Fox News Channel) every American would see that Bush is a great president, that right after Saddam Hussein planned the 9/11 attacks, he shuttled his Weapons of Mass Destruction to the Bekaa valley in Syria in order to keep them safe, that Tom Delay is a good Christian, and finally that whatever our glorious leader is accused of doing, it doesn't matter because that scumbag Clinton did much worse.

(The preceeding message was brought to you by the Right-wing blogosphere. The Right-wing blogosphere: No need to worry about facts, just remember that God is on ourside - not on the side of the treasonous atheist liberals.)

IMPEACH

Congresswoman Melissa Hart

Was interviewed on Fred Honsbergers radio show on KDKA a few days ago. Fortunately, I was taking notes. It was a "report in" of sorts for the Congresswoman as she'd just returned from a fact-finding tour of Iraq.

She related one story that I found curious - if only when I peeked under the surface a bit. She said she'd visited the place where the Humvees are being "up armored" or fitted with new armor that would go all the way around the vehicle. She was told that they'd all be finished by the end of this March. And when the general in charge was asked what the congressional delegation could do (if anything) to get the newly armored Humvees out into the field sooner, he responded with a "any help we can get is welcome" type answer.

A few questions. The invation was in March of 2003 - and they're just finishing the process of armoring the Humvees now?

And I realise that I am responding to my notes that were based on what Missy Hart said that a general said (so how many layers of heresay is that????), but it looks like the general in charge of putting the new armor on the old Humvees is still looking for help. Again - three years after the invasion????

How does this fit in with the recent news of a certain Pentagon report about body armor (or the lack thereof)? Take a look:

A secret Pentagon study has found that at least 80 percent of the marines who have been killed in Iraq from wounds to their upper body could have survived if they had extra body armor. That armor has been available since 2003 but until recently the Pentagon has largely declined to supply it to troops despite calls from the field for additional protection, according to military officials.

Fred didn't ask. Of course not.

Missy Hart also said that when she was in Iraq, she tried to call Fred's show with her satellite phone. But unfortunately the phone didn't work. I guess that's a good thing, though. Imagine if it did work. Isn't the NSA tracing all the incoming e-mails and phone calls (including satellite calls) from Iraq? Wouldn't a call placed on a satellite phone from Iraq to the US end up among the calls traced? Imagine, again, if the satellite phone worked. What would Missy Hart say if she knew that the NSA was listening in on all of her phone conversations? Public AND private?

Fred didn't ask her about that, either.

On the NSA spying (which Fred Honsberger labelled as "Supposed NSA Spying") - she did her rightwing duty and attempted to extend the lie that "prior presidents did pretty much the same thing." Which "prior presidents?" Nixon? Well, that's true I guess.

But among the wing-nut crowd these "prior presidents" could only mean Carter and Clinton. But this we know to be a lie. Here's the Washington Post:

As members of Congress from both parties continued to criticize the National Security Agency's domestic eavesdropping yesterday, the Republican National Committee issued a news release portraying the critics as Democrats seeking to "play politics again with national security."

The RNC asserted that Presidents Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter both authorized comparable forms of "search [or] surveillance without court orders."

The RNC quoted fragments of Clinton's Executive Order 12949, authorizing the attorney general to "approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information," and Carter's Executive Order 12139, authorizing the attorney general to "approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order."

The Clinton and Carter orders, which were published, permitted warrantless spying only on foreigners who are not protected by the Constitution. Bush's secret directive permitted the NSA to eavesdrop on the overseas calls of U.S. citizens and permanent residents.

The RNC's quotation of Clinton's order left out the stated requirement, in the same sentence, that a warrantless search not involve "the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person." Carter's order, also in the same sentence quoted, said warrantless eavesdropping could not include "any communication to which a United States person is a party."[emphasis added]

If Missy Hart was talking about Nixon, I guess she was right. But then again Nixon was indicted for his abuses of power.

If Missy Hart was talking about Carter and Clinton, she was lying.

She did, however, loyally add that she wasn't sure whether the president violated the law and that we're winning the war in Iraq. History will tell whether she's bullshitting us on those two points as well.

IMPEACH

Rick Santorum DOESN'T TRUST BUSH??

In his latest attempt to distance himself from himself, Rick Santorum did this.

Sen. Rick Santorum yesterday wrote a letter to President Bush asking him to create an independent, non-partisan commission to objectively evaluate progress in Iraq.

Whah?? You mean that Rick Santorum, #3 guy in the Senate, doesn't trust Our Glorious Leader to be speaking the truth when talking about Iraq?

Mr. Santorum told the president that he was joining other members of Congress in their call for a panel that could "objectively and critically report" progress in Iraq to build Americans' confidence and trust in the mission.

But hasn't Our Glorious and Infallible War-President already said that there's been progress in Iraq? Isn't that enough for the little ingrate? What, is he some sort of Bush-hating anti-American hypocrite?

Though the Senate passed legislation in November requiring more frequent and detailed reports on Iraq's reconstruction and military efforts, Mr. Santorum indicated yesterday that he did not think those reports, which will come from the administration, would provide what he views as the need for "an objective assessment."

"I believe that the American people have not received an accurate picture of America's successes and challenges in helping Iraq establish their democracy," Mr. Santorum wrote.

Santorum thinks that what the administration reports won't be accurate or objective. He also wants them to create an independent commission to tell us all what he already knows to be true. What's up with that? Oh, that's right:

The letter is a significant shift by the Pennsylvania Republican, whose stalwart support for nearly all aspects of the Bush administration's policies in Iraq could be a significant handicap in his race against state Treasurer Robert P. Casey this year if Pennsylvanians' support for the war continues to decline.

Now I understand.

IMPEACH

"It's not my fault that you're crazy"

Rick Santorum (R-Va) was on the Imus in the Morning show on MSNBC this morning (he's a frequent guest there). I don't know shorthand and didn'trecord it, but this is close until there's a transcript:

On the Abramoff Scandal:

Santorum said that he received no money from Abramoff, but that he did receive money from two Indian tribes and that one of the tribes was being directed from Abramoff and that they were giving the money back to the tribe. They were still investigating the other tribe and would give back that money if it turned out that Abramoff was "directing" them.

Imus: "So there's no chance that we'll see you with a raincoat over your head in handcuffs?"

Lil Ricky: "I know you guys were sort of hoping for that. This is what you guys are all about."

On the Recent Mining Disaster:

Lil Ricky: "These are really good people...They have their faith. They have their families. They have their community."

Imus: "Getting right with Jesus."

While I have no idea what Imus was trying to say, I will tell Little Ricky that there's one thing that the 12 miners who died didn't have: A UNION.

"If it'd been a union mine this never would have happened," said Earl Casto, a former miner whose cousin, Junior Hamner, died in the accident. "This should make all coal miners working open their eyes." Mr. Casto said that his cousin complained frequently about the safety violations that occurred.

They also didn't have the support they needed from their President:

Now, after another bad accident, we find out that since the last accident in 2002, not only did the President ignore calls by Democrats to address the situation seriously, but he actually enacted more cuts to mine safety programs and weakened mine safety regulations.

The 2002 fact sheet and the Chicago Tribune article shows that Bush knew full well that mine safety was suffering - and now we know he didn't do anything about it, to tragic consequences. They can put out GOP hacks and administration spokespeople to deny this reality - but the facts are there. Here's hoping Democrats are able to force an investigation, as requested by Reps. George Miller (CA) and Major Owens (NY) - it's high time the White House answer for its negligence.

On The President Breaking the Law:

Imus: "So what about the President breaking the law?"

Lil Ricky: "I'm sorry, what story are you reporting on?"

Imus: "The wiretaps."

Lil Ricky: "But you said 'breaking the law.'" ..."The president in limited circumstances should be able to...This is not something your average American has a lot of concern about or should have...Who says that some judge who has been appointed -- maybe by this President or other Presidents -- has any better knowledge of or any better concern than the President?"

Note to Lil Ricky: The law he would be breaking is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). And it's not "who" says a judge is better able to handle this, it's "what." And, the "what" is the US Constitution.

On Being Crazy:

Lil Ricky starts saying something or other about the President "staying above the fray."

Imus: "I love you but you're a crazy person...It's not my fault that you're crazy."

Lil Ricky: "But you're still behind me?"

Imus: "Yes, I am."

Because crazy people make for good TV!

Bush on McCain's Torture Ban

I found this at the Huffington Post. It pointed me to an article in the Boston Globe. It shows our glorious leader's true colors. And the level of respect he holds the rule of law. Here's how it starts:

When President Bush last week signed the bill outlawing the torture of detainees, he quietly reserved the right to bypass the law under his powers as commander in chief.

After approving the bill last Friday, Bush issued a ''signing statement" -- an official document in which a president lays out his interpretation of a new law -- declaring that he will view the interrogation limits in the context of his broader powers to protect national security. This means Bush believes he can waive the restrictions, the White House and legal specialists said.

''The executive branch shall construe [the law] in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President . . . as Commander in Chief," Bush wrote, adding that this approach ''will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President . . . of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks."

Basically, he signed the law and intends to follow it - untill he intends not to.

Are we still in a Constitutional Republic?

IMPEACH

AirAmerica Radio on WPTT???

This is odd. Take a look at this page. As of Wednesday evening 1/4/05 this is the list of radio stations that have air america programming:

Eastern

Akron, OH - WARF-AM 1350 AM

Ann Arbor, MI - WLBY-AM 1290 AM

Asheville, NC - WPEK-AM 880 AM

Atlanta, GA - WWAA-AM 1690 AM

Bennington, VT - WBTN-AM 1370

Binghamton, NY - WYOS-AM 1360 AM

Boston, MA - WXKS-AM 1430 AM

Boston, MA - WKOX-AM 1200 AM

Brattleboro, VT - WKVT-AM 1490 AM

Burlington, VT - WVAA-AM 1390 AM

Chapel Hill, NC - WCHL-AM 1360 AM

Chattanooga, TN - WDOD-AM 1310 AM

Cincinnati, OH - WCKY-AM 1530 AM

Cleveland, OH - WTAM-AM 1100 AM

Columbia, SC - WOIC-AM 1230 AM

Columbus, OH - WTPG-AM 1230 AM

Detroit, MI - WDTW-AM 1310 AM

Grand Rapids, MI - WTKG-AM 1230

Huntington, WV - WRVC-AM 930 AM

Ithaca, NY - WNYY-AM 1470-AM

Key West, FL - WKIZ-AM 1500 AM

Miami, FL - WINZ-AM 940 AM

Montpelier/Barre/St Johnsbury, VT - WDEV-AM 550

New Haven, CT - WAVZ-AM 1300 AM

New York, NY - WLIB 1190 AM

Petoskey, MI - WWKK-AM 750 AM

Pittsburgh, PA - WPTT-AM 1360

Portland, ME - WLVP-AM 870 AM

Providence-Warwick-Pawtucket, RI - WHJJ-AM 920

Rochester, NY - WROC-AM 950 AM

Rocky Mount, NC - WEED-AM 1390

Sarasota-Bradenton, FL - WSRQ-AM 1450 AM

Springfield, MA - WHMP-AM 1400 AM

Washington, DC - WWRC-AM 1260 AM

West Palm Beach, FL - WJNO-AM 1290 AM

Notice anything?

Does anyone have any idea what's going on with this?

=====

(1-8-06) WAY OVERDUE UPDATE: I e-mailed WPTT and John Poister, the program director over there responded with this:

David:
We are listed as an Air America Affiliate because we carry The Thom
Hartmann Show which is distributed by Air America. We have a fairly
heavy schedule of locally produced programming and, at this time, we
have no plans to expand our (good) relationship with Air America.

So I guess that, as they say, settles that.

IMPEACH

Dan Simpson is (more or less) correct

Take a look at Dan Simpson's column today. From the first paragraph, he doesn't pull very many punches, does he?

President Bush's action in turning the National Security Agency loose to record American citizens' telephone calls and e-mails without following the law governing such matters is now being made subject by Mr. Bush to the usual administration smokescreen of lies and investigations that the public has come to expect when something bad the White House has done meets the light of day.

Not only does he come right out and proclaim "the usual administration smokescreen of lies" but he then immediately follows it with "that the public has come to expect." He's right of course. They lie and we're no longer surprised to see that they lie.

He then does some of our job for us (thanks, Dan - we really appreciate it!) with the next couple of paragraphs:

It is thus probably time to take a close look at what is occurring, to try to keep our eyes on the ball as Mr. Bush and his spinners kick dust at us.

First of all, no one is arguing that NSA shouldn't bug potential terrorists, nor that the CIA and the FBI shouldn't keep files on these people. In light of the blunders by the CIA and the FBI in the run-up to the Sept. 11 attacks, it would be clear folly not to.

But that isn't what this is about. What it is about is that there has been in effect since Congress passed and President Jimmy Carter signed in 1978 the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which dictates the circumstances under which such bugging becomes legal -- as opposed to an arbitrary abuse of executive branch power. [emphasis added]

He clarifies a few paragraphs later:

How Mr. Bush decided that it was acceptable for him simply to ignore the 27-year-old law and just order the surveillance to begin -- and, presumably, to continue, since we haven't heard yet that he has ordered non-court-sanctioned NSA monitoring to end -- remains to come out.

He claims that the nebulous post-9/11 congressional resolution that he says authorized him to make war on America's enemies superseded the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act as law that he as president is required to observe and respect.

We will pass over in silence the question of whether the "war" on terrorism is a war and if "terrorism" is an identifiable enemy against which the United States can wage war and stay within the bounds of logic. We will also leave aside the question of whether the undeclared war in Iraq is one that justifies the bypassing of a law that is essential to the protection of Americans' civil rights.[emphasis added]

If the question were not left aside, I'd have to answer it with a hearty "Hell, no!"

My only disagreement with the eminently agreeable Dan Simpson comes next:

I am not building up to an argument for impeaching Mr. Bush because of his violation of an important U.S. law. I think there is no chance whatsoever that a Congress, both houses of which are controlled by Mr. Bush's party, would even look at such an action. In my view, the effort to impeach President Clinton was a major waste of time, even though his actions that led to it were certainly deplorable. There is also the truly frightful prospect that, if, by hook or by crook Mr. Bush were successfully impeached, Vice President Dick Cheney, in shaky health, would become president.

I am quite happy that he clearly asserts that Bush violated the law. Dan Simpson is a careful writer (and former diplomat) and if he writes the phrase "...because of his violation of an important U.S. law" without without adding the word "possible" (or some such synonym) before the word "violation" you can be pretty sure that he believes that the president violated the law.

I would part company on the impeachment, however. But then I am sure all the readers of this blog already know this. Impeach 'em all! If they violated their oath of office (which is clear) then they do not deserve to sit in the seats of power. Our constitutional system (what's left of it) needs to be protected. If that means that Dennis Hastert is president until the next election (or at least until the Abramoff scandal brings him down), then so be it.

Our system has to be protected from the Bush corruption.

He gains back my happy approval with the slam-dunk ending:

Mr. Bush cites war as the basis for breaking the law. The question is, war on whom? Could it not equally well be argued that the most credible threat to Americans' liberties comes from its leaders who break its laws?

Bravo, Dan Simpson.

IMPEACH

The OTHER Swearing In Ceremony

The Angry Drunk Bureaucrat attended Bob O'Connor's coronation and reports on it here. While I was in the area too then, I was inside the City County Building watching the swearing in ceremony for Daniel Deasy, James Motznik, Tonya Payne and Bill Peduto.

While ADB noted that:

Prior to getting downstairs, I heard the choir warming up, but because of the echo downtown, it sounded like the "Jupiter and Beyond the Infinite" sequence from 2001. Very, very strange and eerie.

I have to say that it sounded even stranger in City Council Chambers when one was trying to listen to the members speeches. And speaking of those speeches:

Dan Deasy's speech was (ZZZZZZzzzzz). Sorry, I nodded off just thinking about it.

Jim Moztnik hit all the right notes and also got the biggest laugh line of the morning by recounting his kid's prayer to Santa for better parents.

Tonya Payne thanked everyone by name who she's ever met in her life (including me so I'm really not complaining). She also managed to clock the most laughs per minute while still having the most touching moment of the morning when she got a little teary-eyed thanking her parents. (Some of her speech is quoted here in the Post-Gazette.)

Bill Peduto had the shortest speech, but also the most inclusive and hopeful. In addition to favorably quoting a Republican -- Teddy Roosevelt -- he also quoted "The Paradoxical Commandments" (which he also had printed on the back of his Christmas cards).

The loudest cheers went to Payne and Peduto (I heard someone behind me mutter something about a "lack of decorum" during one point when a large portion of the room erupted in applause for Payne), but all the members who were sworn in were well represented and well applauded.

Oh, and someone or other was elected President of City Council.

I did happen to see a second or two of O'Connor's ceremony when I was leaving to go back to work and I must say that there were a lot of empty chairs for an event that had 10,000 invitees and was open to the public.

That said, sincere wishes for GOOD LUCK to everyone who was sworn in yesterday -- they're going to need it.

The man who drives Rethugs and the MSM insane

From Media Matters:

During a discussion of potential 2008 presidential candidates on the January 1 broadcast of NBC's Meet the Press, Newsweek managing editor Jon Meacham referred to Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) as "a sane Howard Dean, basically." Dean ran for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination and currently serves as chairman of the Democratic National Committee.

Meanwhile, despite all the SPIN on Dean's competency/worth to the Party, Hotline on Call reports:

The Democratic National Committee raised more than $51M in 2005, a record for an off-year and twenty percent higher than the comparable period in 2003.

So that's CRAZY LIKE A FOX, MOTHERFUCKERS!

Oh, and KOS reports:

I forgot to mention -- when Dean goes on fundraising trips to the states he lets the locals keep the money. He's raising money for the state parties, which isn't reflected in these numbers. The state parties love him for it. In the past, people like McAuliffe would come in and vaccum up money from the locals and send it to DC. This makes these numbers all that much more remarkable.

It also helps explain why Dean is so scary to the MSM and big money donors.

Some thoughts on Santorum from the other side of the state

Larry Kane in The Philadelphia Inquirer:

The year 2006 harbors such volatility that both left- and right-wing partisans are walking on eggshells, with the real fear that extremism will eventually catch up with them at the ballot box.

Sen. Rick Santorum (R., Pa.) comes to mind. He has been backtracking on many issues. Notable among these is intelligent design, the quasireligious theory that Santorum has often heartily endorsed. But when the pro-ID side lost the Dover trial, Santorum distanced himself from the whole affair. (He still backs ID, but does not believe it should be taught in public schools.)

I think Mr Kane is being to kind to Lil Ricky. In repub-speak, "backtracking = flip-flop" and should be pointed out continuously.

I'll say it again, Rick Santorum has flip-flopped on Intelligent Design. And he continues to do so, a point which Mr Kane raises (I know old pun, but I haven't had any breakfast yet and I'm still little woozy) when he writes that Santorum "still backs ID, but does not believe it should be taught in public schools."

So let me see if I got this straight (and CAN I use that word when discussing our homophobic Senator??). He backs the concept, and he's written that he feels it's a valid scientific concept, but he doesn't want to see it taught in the public schools.

Why not? If he thinks it's valid, shouldn't he be fighting tooth and nail for the best possible education for the state's students?

Oh, that's right - it's not POLITICALLY viable these days. And Rick has an election to win, an opponent to smear, and his own record to distort.

Rick Santorum - a man of strict principles, until he needs to win an election.

IMPEACH

Democracy for Pittsburgh Meetup is Tonight!

Candidates speaking at tonight's meetup include:

CHUCK PENNACCHIO - candiate for US Senate!
http://www.chuck2006.com/

VALERIE MCDONALD ROBERTS - candidate for Lt. Governor!
www.valerieforpa.com

WILLIAM ANDERSON - candidate for State House District 24!

PAT SWEENEY - candidate for PGH City Council!

Also, our special guest is DAN FRANKEL to discuss efforts to get some good Democrats to run against currently unopposed incumbent Republicans!

Event Title: Monthly Meetup
Event Type: DFA-Link Meeting
Organized by: Democracy for Pittsburgh
Event Date: Wednesday, January 4, 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
Google Maps
Phone Number: 412-381-5610

You can R.S.V.P here.

And remember, if you haven't attended a meeting in either November or December, you NEED to attend tonight's meeting in order to qualify to vote for endorsments in February!

From Atrios

Looks like I've been in a quoting mood these past few days. Here's something I found at atrios:

2005 was the year that the president of the United States declared proudly that he had broken the law repeatedly and with full intention, that he had the power to do so whenever he wanted to, and that he would continue to do so whenever he determined it to be desirable. This declaration was met with basic approval from much of the beltway chattering classes, prominent libertarian bloggers, and just about every small government conservative.

The issue is simple: Bush has declared that one man has the right to make the law whenever, in his determination, national security warrants it. While even I can understand the necessity of broad executive powers in emergency situations, we aren't anywhere close to being in one of those. If Bush decides that personally shooting dissident bloggers or pesky journalists in the head is in fact necessary for national security, then no one can object. The fact that he has not, as far as we know, done any such thing does not matter in the slightest. By conferring dictatorial authority on himself Bush has declared that this is, in fact, a dictatorship even if he hasn't (yet) bothered using such authorities to the fullest of his claimed ability.

It's a mystery why Russert and the gang can giggle over their little roundtables, essentially ignoring what amounts to a military coup by our own president. He's asserted the authority of commander in chief over the entire country, and not just the military to which the constitution grants him such authority. Yes, we hope and generally assume that this temper tantrum by our boy king will pass in 3 years, that the his overreach will not have long lasting effects, that the crisis will pass.

2005 was the year the president declared he was the law, and few of our elite opinion makers and shapers bothered to notice, or care.

IMPEACH

Some Interesting KDKA News

I found this little two-paragrapher this morning:

Former PCNC "NightTalk" host John McIntire began "filling in for no one" last night, 9 to midnight, on KDKA-AM (1020).

It's believed McIntire will eventually take over that spot, held by Mike Romigh until a rash of firings at the radio station last week, but McIntire said no final decisions have been made, and for now he's just doing fill-in work.

Here, again, is the link to the KDKA contact page. If you feel so inclined, drop them a note to encourage them to make this permanent. I used the contact page to contact "programming" but I would guess that "management" would work OK, too.

IMPEACH

Happy New Year!

From a writer far far more talented than I could ever be:

I case you haven't noticed, as the result of a shamelessly rigged election in Florida, in which thousands of African Americans were arbitrarily disenfranchised, we now present ourselves to the rest of the world as proud, grinning, jut-jawed pitiless war-lovers with appallingly powerful weaponry--who stand unopposed.

In case you haven't noticed, we are now as feared and hated all over the world as the Nazis once were.

And with good reason.

In case you haven't noticed, our unelected leaders have dehumanized millions and millions of human beings simply because of their religion and race. We wound 'em and kill 'em and torture 'em and imprison 'em all we want.

Piece of cake.

In case you haven't noticed, we also dehumanised our own soldiers, not because of their religion or race, but because of their low social class.

Send 'em anywhere. Make 'em do anything.

Piece of cake.

The O'Reilly Factor.

So I am a man without a country, except for the librarians and a Chicago paper called In These Times.

Before we attacked Iraq, the majestic New York Times guaranteed that there were weapons of mass destruction there.

Albert Einstein and Mark Twain gave up on the human reace at the end of their lives, even though Twain hadn't even seen the First World War. War is now a form of TV entertainment, and what made the First World War so particularly entertaining were two American inventions, barbed wire and the machine gun.

Shrapnel was invented by an Englishman of the same name. Don't you wish you could have something named after you?

Like my distinct betters Einstein and Twain, I now give up on people, too. I am a veteran of the Second World War and I have to say this is not the first time I have surrendered to a pitiless war machine.

My last words? "Life is no way to treat an animal, not even a mouse."

Napalm came from Harvard. Veritas!

Our president is a Christian? So was Adolf Hitler.

What can be said to our young people, now that psychopathic personalities, which is to say persons without consciences, without pity or shame, have taken all the money in the treasuries of our government and corporations, and made it all their own?

You can buy the book here (it's page 86-89).

IMPEACH

My New Year's Resolution:

I promise not to subvert the Constitution.

(Someone has to.)

IMPEACH

It's Sunday, So Jack Kelly's At It Again

Ok, here's what you do. First read Jack Kelly's column (and then come back here, or course).

Go ahead - I'll wait.

Ok, now that that's done, let's take a look at the article he's complaining about. It's here. First off, it's obvious that our friend Jack is over-reacting juuuust a lil'bit here. The article is 30 paragraphs long and there are only about 11 paragraphs on his friend Bill Roggio. Jack Kelly calls it slime and a "drive-by shooting." You can decide for yourself whether it is. Here's the text:

BAGHDAD -- Retired soldier Bill Roggio was a computer technician living in New Jersey less than two months ago when a Marine officer half a world away made him an offer he couldn't refuse.

Frustrated by the coverage they were receiving from the news media, the Marines invited Roggio, 35, who writes a popular Web log about the military called "The Fourth Rail" (http://www.billroggio.com), to come cover the war from the front lines.

He raised more than $30,000 from his online readers to pay for airfare, technical equipment and body armor. A few weeks later, he was posting dispatches from a remote outpost in western Anbar province, a hotbed of Iraq's insurgency.

"I was disenchanted with the reporting on the war in Iraq and the greater war on terror and felt there was much to the conflict that was missed," Roggio, who is currently stationed with Marines along the Syrian border, wrote in an e-mail response to written questions. "What is often seen as an attempt at balanced reporting results in underreporting of the military's success and strategy and an overemphasis on the strategically minor success of the jihadists or insurgents."

Roggio's arrival in Iraq comes amid what military commanders and analysts say is an increasingly aggressive battle for control over information about the conflict. Scrutiny of what the Pentagon calls information operations heightened late last month, when news reports revealed that the U.S. military was paying Iraqi journalists and news organizations to publish favorable stories written by soldiers, sometimes without disclosing the military's role in producing them.

There's more towards the end of the piece. In a section describing how Capt. Jeffrey S. Pool, public affairs officer for the 2nd Marine Division, is utilizing his media resources:

Pool said he spends a growing portion of his time working to dispel what he calls erroneous tips from insurgents to reporters, including regular reports of Marines taken captive or helicopters downed.

"We now take all of these rumors seriously," he said. "We also use different [media] to get our messages out."

He said he recently began distributing his news releases to military bloggers and organizations such as veterans associations. The Marines also took a more direct approach by inviting Roggio to cover their operations.

"A thorough review of his work was taken into account before authorizing the embed," said Pool. "Overall, it has worked out really well."

And then finally:

After military officials in Baghdad said Roggio could not be issued media credentials unless he was affiliated with an organization, the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative-leaning research organization in Washington, offered him an affiliation, according to an entry on Roggio's blog. He and two other bloggers launched a new Web site a month ago (http://threatswatch.com), where he has posted many stories about his time with the Marines. Most provide detailed accounts of patrols or other outings on which he accompanied U.S. forces.

When news organizations began reporting about the insurgent activity in Ramadi on Dec. 1, Roggio posted "The Ramadi Debacle: The Media Bites on Al Qaeda Propaganda."

"The reported 'mini-Tet offensive' in Ramadi has turned out to be less than accurate," he wrote, citing information provided by Pool. "In fact, it has been anything but."

On Dec. 15, when Iraqis voted in nationwide elections, Roggio reported from Barwana, a Western town where turnout was far heavier than in Iraq's constitutional referendum held Oct. 15.

"Barwana, once part of Zarqawi self declared 'Islamic Republic of Iraq,' " he wrote, "is now the scene of al-Qaeda's greatest nightmare: Muslims exercising their constitutional right to chose their destiny."

And that's it. Where is the slime? Jack says of the piece that that there were "so many errors it should be an embarrassment" to the Post and then goes onto discuss what the Post got wrong. He fleshes out how the Marines became aware of Roggio (hmm, that's more like an ommission on the Post's part - but there's nothing in the piece that contradicts it) and so on. The Post gets wrong Roggio's present whereabouts but according to Roggio's blogs, he returned to the US on the 20th of December. The piece was published on the 26th. My guess is that whent he piece was written Roggio was in Iraq. How big of an error is that?

Jack also says the Post "misidentified from whom he (Roggio) had obtained press credentials," but it looks like we have a he said/he said situation here.

Here's what Roggio himself wrote on October 31 at billroggio.com:

In the three days since I announced my plans to travel to Iraq and embed with RCT-2 in Anbar province, the response has been phenomenal. I have received media credentials, thanks to Dr. Michael Ledeen and the American Enterprise Institute.

But by December 27 at threatswatch.org, he wrote:

I was not credentialed by the American Enterprise Institute. This would be impossible as the needed press credentials must be provided by a media organization. A friend suggested I approach the American Enterprise Magazine, which is a periodical published by the American Enterprise Institute. We were unable to work out an agreement, so I searched for an alternative.

Another friend suggested I contact The Weekly Standard. Richard Starr was happy to help and provided the necessary credentials to embed. Also, Rod Breakenridge of the Canadian talk radio show The World Tonight kindly provided documentation for credentials as well. The two letters allowed me to successfully embed, and there were no questions about my credentials in Baghdad or elsewhere.

It looks, to me, like an error based on some sloppy writing of Mr Roggio. Perhaps the Post should have checked deeper into the press credentials, but once they happened onto his own blog saying that he's received the credentials thanks to the American Enterprise Institute, why should they have thought they'd need to dig further? In any case Kelly doesn't tell us what Roggio said in October - only that the Post misrepresented. Nice fact-checking, Jack.

In any case admits that:

The errors about Mr. Roggio's whereabouts and his media affiliation are minor.

Ok. Thanks for clearing that up. The next thing Jack Kelly complains about is the Washington Post's use of the term "retired" to describe Roggio. Jack writes (as does Roggio before him) that in order for Roggio to be "retired" from the military, he would have had to have spent 20 years there. As he was only in the service for about six (four in the Army Signal Corps and two in the National Guard) he can't be described as "retired." Whew, talk about hair-splitting!

Here's the thing. In this section (remember this is what Jack says the Post got wrong) he writes:

Col. Davis suggested to my friend Bill that he should come out to see the situation for himself. So Bill took a leave of absence from his job; raised $30,000 from readers of his blog (I contributed a small amount) for travel expenses, hazard insurance and to buy body armor; and obtained press credentials from The Weekly Standard, a conservative magazine.

But wait, didn't the Post mention the $30,000 raised by Roggio's readers for the trip and body armor? How can that be something the Post got wrong? Of course Jack doesn't tell us that the Post mentioned it. So perhaps we are left to imply that they didn't? I'm just asking.

And I have no idea where Jack came up with this:

Mr. Finer and Mr. Struck implied through selective quotation that the embed process for Bill Roggio was different from that for "mainstream" journalists, and was contingent upon Bill writing favorable things. This was not so, says Mr. Roggio, who says he made this clear to Mr. Finer in their e-mail interview.

Where can this "implication" be found? Can someone show me? I'd love to see it.

Oh, the irony of Jack Kelly's limpid prose. He actually starts a paragraph with this:

Journalists don't like bloggers because they fact-check journalists.

While I am not sure I can call Jack Kelly a "journalist," I can make a safe guess that he can't like me very much.

Jack's "reporting" relies heavily on Roggio's own on-line complaint about the Washington Post article. Check it out here.

I gotta wonder: How much actual work did Jack Kelly actually put into writing this actual piece? Couldn't have spent much time actual fact-checking.

Meet the new Jack.
Same as the old Jack.

Happy New Year, Everybody!

IMPEACH

Not EVERYONE agreed with Bush on Iraq/WMD

I heard this on TV a short time ago and I wanted to make sure it made it here onto this blog.

Not EVERYONE believed that Saddam Hussein had Weapons of Mass Distruction. Take a look at this. It's an interview between Wolf Blitzer and the Prince of Darkness himself, Robert Novak. About half way down the page we see this interchange:

BLITZER: We're going to get to the CIA leak and other issues in a few moments. Let's talk about some of the issues right now on the agenda, the president of the United States, George W. Bush, he's been in office now for five years, approaching his sixth year. You've been a good conservative all these years. Are you satisfied with the way he's conducted himself? Has he been a good conservative, from your perspective?

NOVAK: I think it's a mixed bag, Wolf. I think his tax policy has been terrific. I think we would be in the depths of the economy if it weren't for the fact that he took a tough stand, a courageous stand in cutting the capital gains cuts, tax, the dividend tax, other income taxes.

I think, like most -- all Republican presidents, he hasn't done enough to reduce the size of the government. Nobody wants to bite that bullet.

The thing that I took issue with him, I didn't think we should have gone into Iraq. It was a few of us conservatives that thought it was a bad idea. Once we get there, you can't bug out. You can't...

BLITZER: What was so bad about going in and getting rid of Saddam Hussein?

NOVAK: It was wonderful getting rid of him. I'd like to get rid of a lot of dictators, but we can't send the U.S. military around the world to get rid of every dictator.

The question was, was it necessary in the national interest?

BLITZER: Was it?

NOVAK: I didn't think it was. I didn't think it at the time. Because I said several times on this network that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

BLITZER: How did you know that and the president of the United States, the vice president of the United States were convinced that there were apparently?

NOVAK: Because my sources -- I don't run my own CIA. My sources didn't think there were, in the military, people I trusted.

And the indication by the inspectors indicated there was no weapons. But the point...

BLITZER: Do you -- let me...

(CROSSTALK)

NOVAK: Sure.

BLITZER: Was the president sold a bill of goods on Iraq?

NOVAK: I think they got in a mindset where they really wanted change of government, and then it was a need to find reasons for a change of government.[emphasis added]

So what have we learned?

1. Bob Novak didn't think that going into Iraq was in the national interest,
2. Bob Novak said there were no WMD in Iraq, and
3. Bob Novak said that the idea for regime change came first and then the administration went about finding reasons (which Novak knows to be untrue) to justify that regime change.

Hey, didn't the Downing Street Memo say something about how the "intelligence was being fixed around the policy" or something?

Just checking.

So the next time anyone disagrees with me or the Other Political Junkie about Iraq/WMD, remember they're not just disagreeing with us, they're also disagreeing with The Prince of Darkness. They should do so at their own peril, I heard he can be a sonovabich.

IMPEACH