Monday, January 30, 2006

G. W. Bush

Post and discuss.


j. Small said...

Anybody seen the movie "Hud"? I can't help but thinking that GW saw this as an impressionable youth, and somehow got the idea that this character was someone to model yourself on.

Exploitative, lazy, arrogant, disrespectful, lying, destructive, unilaterally-acting, alcoholic, wanna-be oilman, total jerk from Texas. Young very cute Paul Newman certainly does make it look like fun.

Dan/Mich said...

j.small, Just to be fair, I believe he's a ex-alcoholic. My own consumption of alcohol is likley to increase during GW's speech tonight.

J. Small said...


I can't watch, I am unable to suspend my disbelief.

Plus I am sure that it is not good for my blood pressure. Just that voice sets my nerves on edge. I am glad someone can bear it.

john Ashman said...

"Exploitative, lazy, arrogant, disrespectful, lying, destructive, unilaterally-acting, alcoholic, wanna-be oilman, total jerk from Texas."

Except for the oilman/Texas part, how does this differ from most politicians?

I think it's funny that I don't hear Democrats saying bad things about Ted Kennedy (manslaughter/alcoholic), Robert Byrd (ex-KKK member), John Kerry (male gigolo/gold digger/marijuana smoker), Bill Clinton (sexual offender/documented liar/marijuna smoker), etc, etc, etc.

There's this psychological principle called "transference" in which people see their own flaws in other people, or in this case, see the flaws of their allies in the flaws of their enemies. Standing from the middle, they all look pretty bad.

Marilynn M said...

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

GWB AGAIN: The president said he intends to continue using secret international wiretaps to monitor activities of people in the United States suspected of having connections to al Qaeda.
"To save American lives we must be able to act fast and to detect these conversations so we can prevent new attacks," Bush said during the event, in the East Room of the White House. (Watch Bush defend using secret wiretaps -- 2:23

"I swore to uphold the laws. Do I have the legal authority to do this? And the answer is, absolutely."

Me: Yes, he is a liar. A wire tapping, war mongering, liar.

john Ashman said...

Marilynn, that's why we rarely let (most) women do much of anything important. You're too emotional to think clearly and understand things on a logical level and resort to name-calling instead of actual discussion. War is the foreplay to peace. You can't understand that Bush is dramatically more honest than most of your beloved Democrats. Kerry and Clinton, now THOSE are liars and there is *overwhelming* evidence to that effect. But then, most politicians are liars by nature. Hell, most of them are lawyers which are paid liars. So, Bush is a liar, Hilary is a prostitute.

We need a court order for an intra-US call. We need not have one to monitor a call outside of the US. It's just the way it is. Don't call Pakistan or Syria with an expectation of total privacy.

skids said...

John a.: If you want to see dems bash Kerry, Kennedy, and Clinton it's as easy as visiting any progressive dem site. They do it all the time. (Though Kerry and Kennedy will probably get a pass for a while since they regained some favor for advocating a filibuster.)

J. Small said...

John A, you just talk too much. You really made me laugh with your pithy comment about the idea "Reward Nuclear Families". You wrote something like 'Shouldn't that be 'nucular'?' Are you this same person??

But mostly on this blog, you seem to compulsively spew inane and provocative ridiculousness. You do much better with short and sweet. You remind me of an uncle of mine who used to get his jollies playing devil's advocate ad nauseum. Please bring back the concise John A.
You appear to have a stone age feeling about women. Do you have any friendships with women?

Perhaps I am feeding this combatitive fire by saying this, so I am going to try not to respond to any other silly comments, but why don't you stick to the ideas and can the absurd contentiousness? I feel there are things to discuss, can we please stop the dissing and cussing.

Marilynn M said...

John, No one has ever "let" me do anything. I have always done exactly as I please without anyone's permission.

john Ashman said...

Marilynn, with the glass umbrella you carry, it's no wonder you've never noticed a glass ceiling.

J., I have plenty of friendships with women. But they're honest relationships.

As far as being contentious, I'd be glad to disarm, if the anti-Bush crowd would do so as well. By making smart or hateful comments, they also have lots of intended collateral damage. But, also, I notice that, when people are around like-minded people, they tend to be far more mean-spirited and callous. So, I like to remind people that there are others who may not agree "in the room" and that hatred isn't a productive enterprise.

Richard Yarnell said...

I invite you all to use the following as a "sig" to your email messages for about a week. After that, continue posting at least the 4th Amendment. I'll continue with the amendment and the final paragraph. Why?

I have been appalled by the number of commentators, who should have known better, who have reported that the Constitution makes no reference to warrantless searches.

FWIW, the FISA legislation on the books should be sufficient for the purposes the shrub is using to excuse his lawlessness - no longer warrantless wiretaps, but rather, "Terrorist surveillance."

---The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and
no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or
affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
persons or things to be seized. - THE FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE US CONSTITUTION
RELEVANT CASE LAW: Warrantless ''National Security'' Electronic Surveillance. -
In Katz v. United States, Justice White sought to preserve for a future case the
possibility that in ''national security cases'' electronic surveillance upon the
authorization of the President or the Attorney General could be permissible
without prior judicial approval. The Executive Branch then asserted the power to
wiretap and to ''bug'' in two types of national security situations, against
domestic subversion and against foreign intelligence operations, first basing its
authority on a theory of ''inherent'' presidential power and then in the Supreme
Court withdrawing to the argument that such surveillance was a ''reasonable''
search and seizure and therefore valid under the Fourth Amendment. Unanimously,
the Court held that at least in cases of domestic subversive investigations,
compliance with the warrant provisions of the Fourth Amendment was required.
Whether or not a search was reasonable, wrote Justice Powell for the Court, was a
question which derived much of its answer from the warrant clause; except in a
few narrowly circumscribed classes of situations, only those searches conducted
pursuant to warrants were reasonable. The Government's duty to preserve the
national security did not override the guarantee that before government could
invade the privacy of its citizens it must present to a neutral magistrate
evidence sufficient to support issuance of a warrant authorizing that invasion of
privacy. This protection was even more needed in ''national security cases'' than
in cases of ''ordinary'' crime, the Justice continued, inasmuch as the tendency
of government so often is to regard opponents of its policies as a threat and
hence to tread in areas protected by the First Amendment as well as by the
Fourth. Rejected also was the argument that courts could not appreciate the
intricacies of investigations in the area of national security nor preserve the
secrecy which is required.

The question of the scope of the President's constitutional powers, if any,
remains judicially unsettled. Congress has acted, however, providing for a
special court to hear requests for warrants for electronic surveillance in
foreign intelligence situations, and permitting the President to authorize
warrantless surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information provided
that the communications to be monitored are exclusively between or among foreign
powers and there is no substantial likelihood any ''United States person'' will
be overheard.

Cheryl V said...

Today's quote:

At a press luncheon, US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said: "You've got Chavez in Venezuela with a lot of oil money. He's a person who was elected legally just as Adolf Hitler was elected legally."

Who else has a lot of oil money & was elected?

john Ashman said...

Richard, I'd say read the Constitution, but maybe I should say "learn to read". There's nothing in there about being "secure" outside their homes or, less, when in discussion with terrorists.

john Ashman said...

"At a press luncheon, US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said: "You've got Chavez in Venezuela with a lot of oil money. He's a person who was elected legally just as Adolf Hitler was elected legally."

Who else has a lot of oil money & was elected?"

Superficial argument. As someone who's fluent in Spanish and has a father who's an expert in latin politics, I can tell you that Hugo Chavez is the Hitler of South America and may be 10 times more dangerous than Saddam Hussein. He is worse than crazy. And we need to stop him. He won't leave his position unless in a coffin.

Christopher C. in Hawaii said...

Hugo worse than crazy. And we need to stop him. He won't leave his position unless in a coffin.

Had a meeting with Pat Robertson lately John? Why do you label most forms of criticism about the buffoon in chief and Republicans as hate speech and then proceed to vilify the opposition Democrats in an equally and often stronger tone?

Your War as foreplay to Peace is not working for you on an internet level. I hope you don't practice this method in person.

The philosopher that Mr. Bush said he most admired and had the most influence on his life in a televised debate did not promote the notion that war is a prelude to peace.

You are going to have to get over the fact that no matter how many "facts" you spew out many of our minds are made up. We have seen through the smoke and mirrors, the spin has spun, George W. Bush is a liar and a bum.

Now tap that.

Christopher C. in Hawaii said...

Hate speech is a controversial term for speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against someone based on his/her race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. The term covers written as well as oral communication.

Further reading for you John.
Hate Speech

Does the discourse here rise to that level?

john Ashman said...

I wasn't saying we should kill Chavez, though it would be a good thing. I'm saying he won't step down and there will be no fair elections any more. If there are elections at all. You know he plans to destroy Democracy in Venezuela, right? Kim Jung Il is very bad man, but Chavez is no better. The difference is, NK *is* a communist dictatorship, but Venezuela is about to lose its democracy and become a communist dictatorship, unless someone, hopefully a Venezuelan, kills him. He's dangerous because he actually *is* crazy and, once he consolidates power, you can expect people to just "go missing". What makes it worse is the oil and the fact that it could destabilize the whole area. He's sheltering and fueling the communist insurgency, FARC, in Colombia.

john Ashman said...

I mean, look, sure, I had a few R&Cs and so I was feeling more "out there" than normal, but you can't compare a man who just liberated 50 million people from tyranny to a man to one who is attempting to enslave 25 million who had achieved freedom.

From the CIA world fact book:

Current concerns include: a weakening of democratic institutions, political polarization, a politicized military, drug-related violence along the Colombian border, increasing internal drug consumption, overdependence on the petroleum industry with its price fluctuations, and irresponsible mining operations that are endangering the rain forest and indigenous peoples.

Sounds like a swell guy that all liberals would love, eh? Heck, he sounds like how liberals characterize Bush, but this is actually real, not made up stuff.

Jennifer said...

john ashman, your comments reflect the typical far right wingnut spin and deflect tactics of "debate". Someone points out things that are bad about Bush, and you respond that Ted Kennedy has some bad things about him, too. As if that is a response to what was said of Bush.

Hint: It isn't.

For what it's worth, the main thing wrong with Bush is that he is INCOMPETENT to perform the duties of his office. Look at the days that went by as he twiddled his thumbs while people died in New Orleans and dispute THAT. Look at the complete lack of planning for the occupation of Iraq and then make a case for the man having any competence whatsoever.

You excuse the man from being a liar by saying "oh well, all of th em lie". You know what? It's true that all people have lied about something at some point in their lives. But Bush lies as a matter of policy. Look at his public comments - look at the claims his administration makes about the effect of policies they support - and then look at the actual policies when unveiled. You think it's "no big deal" to lie about the cost of a prescription drug plan that costs hundreds of billions more than was claimed? You think it's no big deal to publicly state that "we don't listen to anyone without warrants" when that's exactly what you're doing? You think it's no big deal to claim publicly, for years, that troops have no body armour because manufacturers aren't making it fast enough - and then to find out later that the stuff in fact WAS available and hundreds of young men have died needlessly for lack of it?

What kind of a monster would think it's ok to lie about stuff like that?

You support Bush not because you have low standards, but because you obviously have NO standards. The few remaining true and honest conservatives abandoned him long ago. All that's left supporting him are the weak-minded, people for whom a cult of personality matters more than truth or good results. No decent or moral person would condone "leadership" that asserts unfettered rights to torture - for any reason. Only the weak and fearful would favor such activity. And only a masochist would applaud the graft that has occured at his own expense.

Clue: your share of the war cost thus far is $1551. Multiply that by the number in your family. You'll be paying that back in one way or another - and what you will have bought for that money, at the end of the day, will most likely be an unstable Islamic state with the very best of reasons to hate this country.

Oh, and Dick Cheney's pals at Halliburton will have gotten a lot fatter, too.

Only the most delusional could look at the big picture of what went on leading up to and since invading Iraq and conclude that anyone in the current administration gives a rat's ass about doing anything right.

deb said...

Way to go Jennifer!!!

I have been doing a little research on "people paid to blog", a found a couple of bloggers that say they were paid. They were defending it by saying that they weren't told *what* to say.

I also saw where the DNC was accused of paying people to blog and it amounted to 2 people who operate the DNC blog just throwing their 2 cents worth in on a couple of occasions. The reason I bring that up is that it seems to be pretty typical of the neocons to shout "Hey, they're doing it too", and I wonder if the flack about the couple of posts at the DNC is so they will be able to say that the DNC did it, if it is revealed that there are people like John all over the net spouting the shrub agenda and getting paid to do it.

deb said...

Incompetent People Really Have No Clue, Studies Find
They're blind to own failings, others' skills

Richard Yarnell said...

Ashman on the 4th:

I'll try to be civil.

Well, bubba, I do read. I even read what's happened in the courts when they undertake to decypher the Constitution. Hell, I even provided a pertinent example for you. Perhaps you didn't read that part. If not, go ahead, read it now. I'll wait....

But if you actually believe that only our homes are protected, you're mistaken. There's a lot of case law, there's even a lot of TV yu can refer to if you think I'm wrong.

I'm sure you'd object to having your phone tapped (old fashioned one) or your mail opened unless a warrant had been served. I'll bet you'd object if your storage locker, or you car, or the locked drawer in your desk at worked were searched without your knowledge and a warrant. What, there weren't phones in the 18th century?

I do not understand why so many people, particularly people on the right, are so willing to give up the rights that define us. It will be interesting to see how they react when they lose one of theirs.

Richard Yarnell said...

George Bush meets with the Queen of England.

He asks her, "Your Majesty, how do you run such an efficient government? Are there any tips you can give to me?"

"Well," says the Queen, "the most important thing is to surround yourself with intelligent people."

Bush frowns. "But how do I know the people around me are really intelligent?"

The Queen takes a sip of tea. "Oh, that's easy. You just ask them to answer an intelligent riddle." The Queen pushes a button on her intercom. "Please send Tony Blair in here, would you?"

Tony Blair walks into the room. "Yes, my Queen?"

The Queen smiles "Answer me this, please, Tony. Your mother and father have a child. It is not your brother and it is not your sister. Who is it?"

Without pausing for a moment, Tony Blair answers, "Well, your Majesty,
that would be me."

"Yes, Very good," says the Queen.

Bush goes back home to ask Dick Cheney, his Vice President, the same question. "Dick, answer this for me. Your mother and your father have a child. It's not your brother and it's not your sister. Who is it?"

"I'm not sure," says Cheney, "let me get back to you on that one."

Cheney goes to his Advisors and asks every one, but none can give him an answer. Finally, he ends up in the men's room and recognizes Colin Powell's shoes in the next stall. Cheney shouts, "Colin! Can you answer this for me?

Your mother and father have a child and it's not your brother or your sister. Who is it?"

Colin Powell yells back, "That's easy. It's me!"

Cheney smiles, and says, "Thanks!"

Then, Cheney goes back to speak with Bush. "Say, I did some research and I have the answer to that riddle.
It's Colin Powell."

Bush gets up, stomps over to Cheney and angrily yells into his face, "No, you idiot! It's Tony Blair!"

deb said...

LOL Richard:)

Christopher C. in Hawaii said...

Deb you commented before back at SSB about bloggers who are paid to spread the manure and asked John how much his check was for. You posted a link to a conservative blog roll and I went looking for John but could not find him there.

Are you asking him if he is one of them or telling the rest of us that he is?

Either way it would be no surprise that the Bush administration would include blogging in the opinion and news it already pays for.

Did you hear about the All Good News Hurricane Katrina Channel that they were running out of Fema for a while?

deb said...

Just fishing a little:-) An anon posted a "John ANWAR" at SSB and John left for a while. I browsed the older SSB threads to see if they had a meeting place on one of the older threads, but that wasn't it. I started to wonder if he blogs from a group where they help each other spread their message.

A few days later I noticed a blog entry (different site) from someone who stated that they blog for PJ media and get an $800. sign up check. So I started searching "paid to blog", and similar phrases. One thing jumped out... a couple of guys who run the DNC blog had posted their own opinion a couple of times at the DNC site and it made news that they were being paid to blog. Which was stretching the truth a bit, because they were actually paid to run the blog and just happen to have an opinion.

So, why was this news? Could it be that somebody wants to be able to say "See, they are doing it, too" in case it is uncovered that there are maybe hundreds of people being paid to push the corporate agenda all over the web?

If they are paying, then John ought to jump on that bandwagon if he's not already on it.

One advertising agency started paying bloggers to promote products but caught a lot of flack so I'm not sure they are still doing it. It'd be a good second job for people who like to blog.

Anonymous said...

Dan/Mi said...

Deb, Re:paid bloggers
Thanks for keeping us alert...Are we paranoid or is someone really out to get us?

deb said...

Dan: I don't think "out to get us" really fits, nor does feeling paranoid. The current administration is all about rhetoric...they can make dog poo sound appetizing.

Follow me for a while and this should explain my thoughts.

The "No Child Left Behind Act" just sounds so great, when in reality a kindergartener starting school near Corpus Christi often is learning English as a second language at the K level, while the elem. school in Huntsville, Al. next to the Space and Rocket center has K students that are already *reading* English (and perhaps a little Spanish, too). So we test both groups and tell the Corpus school that they have sorry teachers and give the money to the Huntsville school for being so great. Well, duh!

The reality is that what they are doing (across the board) can't be held up to the light. This is where more rhetoric comes in. We already know that they have been paying journalists to write certain stories, and that the white house has made promotional videos (with our tax dollars) that appears on the networks as *factual news*.

More and more left leaning people have just quit watching TV and have turned to the internet for their news sources. Other than C-Span and NPR the internet is *it* for those of us that just don't agree with this administration. So the problem for them becomes "How do we reach the people on the net?"

I just don't think it far fetched, that when they notice someone who has bought it all, (hook, line and sinker) to offer them a stipend to keep it up and do more. Probably not from the administration, but from the corporations and corporate think tanks who are trying to sway those few swing voters. Paying bloggers would be just another method of advertising.

deb said...

anon: it didn't all show up, but my copy and paste caught the last 2 numbers. Thanks for the laugh.

deb said...

didn't catch mine either, it's idea # 10337

deb said...

Check out persuasion/propaganda techniques from Wikipedia:



News propaganda:

There are other links at the end of each definition, but it is all quite interesting.

Marilynn M said...

Okay guys, It's up to you. I had hoped John has mellowed out and just had a different opinion. It seems he was just gathering up for another assualt. I personally am sick of the personal attacks. Your opinions please

Marilynn M said...
John, are you off your medication? I may be old but I'm far from stupid. Straighten up your nasty attitude or get off. Your propaganda and insults are not productive.

12:16 PM
Marilynn M said...

john Ashman said...
" [quote]So you think cutting the wealthy peoples taxes another 70 billion while we are at war is fiscally responsible?"[/quote]

Cutting taxes from a bloated government is *always* responsible. [quote]

He is out to destroy us.[/quote]

That comment is exactly why I never take you seriously. You're old *and* stupid. "

John, I know you think you are amazingly brilliant. You aren't. Worse yet you are an absolute jerk. If people don't agree with your propaganda you start insulting them. You did it at SSB to an irritating degree, you aren't doing it here. Keep it up and I'll delete you.

Cheryl V said...

I assume that the deleted parts are John being ugly & childish, just like he does every time he doesn't want to admit that someone else is right.

I've got better things to do with my time than waste it with his dribble.

Marilynn M said...

Cheryl, I really did think he was just going to be like everyone else for a couple of days. Then he came back with a vengeance calling me names again. The sarcastic remarks don't bother me the personal attacks are another thing. I think he gets a little liquid courage and feels like King Kong. I'm tired of it.

deb said...

Ever notice how a little dog always acts the meanest? I think, with people, those that have basic inadequacies tend to be the bullies. Must be horrible to live a life like that, never knowing love or true frienship.

Dan/Mi said...

I regret my 1:05 post. I came across as flippant about a serious matter. I hold your opinions in the highest regards. You've had a major influence on my thinking.
To many of us, the Administration's propaganda efforts seem amateurish and transparent and yet our "free" press seem complicit in their success.
I'm trying to get my wife to post on the education thread. Her experiences as an Detroit public school teacher and with "No Child Left Behind" are much like you describe in Texas.

Dan/Mi said...

I hope you realize that most everyone on this blog respect you and your opinions.

Marilynn M said...

Thank you Dan, you are a smart person who doesn't feel the need to belittle anyone to feel big. I admire that.

deb said...

This is a video from a British news agency shown on London channel 4. It details Bush and Blair's meeting before going to the UN a second time. It also tells that there wasn't sufficient evidence to go to war.

deb said...

I really have to learn the link thing:)

Christopher C. in Hawaii said...

The Link Thing

< A href = "Address" > Words as Link < /A >

The only space is between the "A" and "href" in the first brackets.

Marilynn you deserve kudo's for doing this. I know the Blogger site was down part of friday and much of saturday and with the traffic you have gotten it is a lot of work for someone who is just learning how all this computer stuff works.

deb said...

Dan...changed my mind maybe we do need to be paranoid:)

I love wikipedia!!

Information Awareness Office

The Information Awareness Office is a mass surveillance development branch of the United States Department of Defense's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.

The IAO has the stated mission to gather as much information as possible about everyone, in a centralized location, for easy perusal by the United States government, including (though not limited to) Internet activity, credit card purchase histories, airline ticket purchases, car rentals, medical records, educational transcripts, driver's licenses, utility bills, tax returns, and any other available data. In essence, the IAO’s goal is to develop the capacity to recreate a life history of thoughts and movements for any individual on the planet on demand, which some deem necessary to counter the threat of terrorism.

Critics claim the very existence of the IAO completely disregards the concept of individual privacy and liberties. They see the organization as far too invasive and prone to abuse.

Christopher C. in Hawaii said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
deb said...


Check me out:) :) :) :)


Cheryl V said...

Congrats Deb

Christopher C. in Hawaii said...

I knew you could do it.

deb said...

Thanks Cheryl and *especially* Christopher.

I feel like a little kid that just learned to ride a bike:-)

deb said...

Cheryl and Christopher: Y'all want to take over the "Senate" thread and chat tonight?

Christopher C. in Hawaii said...

Deb, Thanks but I am too tired to think. I hope Desperate Housewives isn't a rerun tonight. I have been doing the spotlight at "Dames at Sea" for the last 4 days, 4 more nights to go, plus work, plus company. This backstage stuff is a first for me and has been great fun and learning experience.

Marilynn M said...

Christopher, My husband is a Desperate Housewives fan too. You sound like you get your refreshments and are in front of the TV before it starts too. May the show have a long run.

Marilynn M said...

Deb, great site. Thanks.

Dan/Mi said...

"I really have to learn the link thing:)"
Congratulations on mastering the "link thing". We'll all benefit since you seem to find such interesting sites. I'll check out Buyblue later.
Your new skill is really making me feel inept. I haven't even been successful creating a blogger account....every user name I pick is rejected.

Judy B. said...

Buy Blue is a great site. I am going to call up some union leaders and have then check it out. I bet our union town buys a lot of red...

Dan/Mi said...

Re:Information Awareness Office

Wow! I'd never heard of the IAO. Big Brother is bigger than I thought.If I had your skills at doing links, I'd put in:

It provides a little background on efforts made to make the IAO seem less ominous.

Dan/Mi said...

Good morning Judy. I'd love to chat but I gotta run...maybe later.

Judy B. said...

John, if you don't like the Bush bashing, quit coming to this thread. Go somewhere where you can have some input without getting into an arguement.

Your statement .."I have a stated policy of correcting people when they're wrong..." really shows how immature you really are.. A difference of opinion does not make someone wrong!

Once in a while you have a really good idea but you ruin any constructive dialogue with your "I am the only one who is right" attitude. Your facts are not indisputable. Give it up.

You have continually alienated people by your name calling and ugly references..
Grow up!

deb said...

Here it is Dan:

Big Brother

Richard Yarnell said...

For everyone, but especially John:

Debate is good; discussion is too. Disagreement, if over conclusions after facts have been confirmed is understandable.

What distresses me is that civil debate is harder to find. Code words or insults don't encourage constructive debate.

We're not listening to each other - I don't mean just here. Literally, even in situations that are supposed to be civil, commentators shout each other down.

There's a corollary that we tend to flock together. People of like minds tend to inhabi the same lists and end up preaching to the choir.

All that having been said, has anyone else listened to the Senate Judiciary hearing today? At least Gonzales was not sworn and spend most of the time either answering softballs from the Republicans or dodging more pointed questions from the Democrats.

Personally, I resent the idea that a poorly prepared executive is in the process of trashing the Constitution after threatening, repeatedly, our safety. Presidential handlers are using the fear card to dismantle the protection of our civil liberties while at the same time disassembling the balance of power that constrains each of the three parts of our government's structure. And all of this over an undeclared war that was our response to a criminal act on our soil and an illegal invasion of a sovereign country that was (emphasize the past tense) no direct or immediate threat to the US (the two requirements under international law for such an invasion.)

What should be an objective investigation of the legality of warrantless surveillance of American citizens and the executive's willful disregard of existing law and statue when there were/are lawful alternatives, has so far proved to be nothing more than a partisan political exercise.

We're doomed! Doomed, I tell you.

Dan/Mi said...

Thanks for posting that link for're a tech-savvy angel.

Marilynn M said...

I hear you Richard. Debbie and I decided that we won't respond to personal insults anymore we will just delete anything other than civil disagreement.

We are going to have to figure a way out of the mess we're in. My thinking is this. There are a bunch of Republicans that are about to be indicted. As they are we need to do some research on them. We need to find out the date they got their money. Their voting record before and after. Then we need to get recalls started on them. We can't afford to wait until November. If we do nothing else we can be unpaid bloggers and put it out all over the Internet. If we work hard we might get a few out of office and have enough support to impeach Bush and Cheney.

We have to figure out the most pressing important things. Then figure out what we as a group can do to be most effective in stopping the destruction. Someone has to have some ideas. At least we aren't alone.

Judy B. said...

richard, I agree whole-heartedly.. Try as i might, though, i sometimes get baited into places I shouldn't go...

My social/curtural tendicies tend to be more liberal while I am a fiscal conservative...
This attitude bring me at odds with both extreme views..

Although I side with the Democrats most of the time, at one time I was a Democrat party activist (and office holder), I saw enough to know that they are not all pure either.

I will continue to work to elect honest people who can see that compromise in policy matters (not constitutional) is the only way to gat anything done...

Die-hard extreemists are the ruination of our political system... and, the way things stand right now, perhaps we are doomed.. I will remain optimistic, however..

Dan/Mi said...

I've shared your "doomed" feelings many times. What lifts me up is having contact with like-minded people. Your last post was so perseptive that reading it fills me with the hope that someday someone with your understanding will lead this country.

Cheryl V said...

It's very hard to be optimistic when you live deep in Red Country.

Every time I stop in traffic, I find myself staring at another W sticker. I think they come standard when you buy a new car.

Dan/Mi said...

Being a liberal in red country has gotta be tough....but just as soon as you convince folks there to quit voting against their own interests, it'll be blue skys once again. Keep the faith and good luck.

Dan/Mi said...

Judy, I share your liberal/fiscal consevative stance. It's just so simple. Once we decide what we think government should be doing, we're perfectly willing to tax ourselves enough to pay for it.

I believe every Administration should do the same. If G.W.Bush had raised taxes enough to pay for his massive growth in federal spending, he'd have been a one term president. (people would have realized, their hard earned money was squandered...and gained them nothing)

Judy B. said...

Cheryl.. you have my sympathy..
Maybe I can look at things differently because I live in a Blue state... tempered with much red, i must add..

Top three office holders (govenor, two U. S. Senators)are Democratic women.. Progressives with a heart..

My state legislative district however has two very conservative male GOP representatives. There does seem to be more of the art of compromise here.

Some of my very good friends are Republicans. We just do not discuss abortions, gun control/NRA or gay marriages.

We can discuss the environment, health care, taxes and many other issues without too much trouble.. there is more that we agree on than we disagree on; the problem is that those disagrements are so volitile..

Good luck in your search and work for good government..

Marilynn M said...

Bless you Judy you have it about right.
Judy said: "Some of my very good friends are Republicans. We just do not discuss abortions, gun control/NRA or gay marriages."

I wonder myself why they hate the idea of gay marriage so much? Is it that they want to punish them? Of course I lived in San Francisco for years and found "them" to be just like everyone else. Even with that close proximity to "them" my marriage survived. Yesterday was our 45th anniversary. Yes, I am old as dirt.

deb said...

I miss our government under Clinton. He was constantly wrung through the ringer by the media and the Republican Congress and still managed to balance the annual budget, lift millions out of poverty, and grow the economy.

If we had a Democratic Congress at that time we would also have Universal Health Care.

Peace and Prosperity

"Don't know what you've got 'til it's gone. Pave paradise and put up a parking lot..."

deb said...

Congrats on your anniversary Marilynn. I've been married to the greatest guy on earth since I was 19:-)

He says getting older beats the alternative:-)

PS I recently moved right next to the Appalachian Trail and last fall met hikers that were in their 70's and 80's and even one guy in his 90's. You'd be a "girl" to them:)

deb said...

Richard OK take a deep breath. We are going to take the country back. I have been involved since the HW/Clinton campaign. Nobody was paying attention then. Not many were paying attention in 2000. More voters turned out in 04 than ever and now when I go to DNC meetings we are finding folding chairs to give everyone a seat.

People are angry *and* determined not to take it anymore. I have great optimism for the 06 elections. People have wised up, and there are more of us than them. We are getting smarter too, and aren't going to let Diebold machines, etc. count our elections.

We're not doomed, but we all need to get involved and get Democrats elected. And then we need to put major pressure on the Dems to do it right and not let them cave into corporate demands.

We won in Ohio. I speculate that we won Fla., also. I know they cheated in Fla. and we have proof of several incidences in Pensecola alone. The DNC didn't have the money or resources to fight for recounts in both states, and Jeb had been busy stacking his courts since the 00 debacle, so the DNC decided to focus on Ohio.

More information on the Diebold machines in Ohio:

Ohio voting machines

Richard Yarnell said...

Following up Deb's message:

Please drop over to the "Elections" folder on the Bread Crusts home page. You'll find a description of our Oregon experience with "vote by mail."

The momentum to adopt machines that are expensive and suspect and that can never be secure is accelerating. Every politician I've talked to (I'm a PCP in my county and serve on the 3rd District (OR) Committee and the Oregon DP Central Committee) says it's the only sensible way. But we can't do it ourselves and no matter what Oregon, and now Washington do, if Ohio and Florida and a few others fudge their vote, ours doesn't much matter.

Contact your Secretary of State and tell them to contact their counterpart in Oregon for details.

Christopher C. in Hawaii said...

Richard you are the last person who should be feeling doom doomed. This country needs people like you who have much experience in the world and are thinkers. I agree it looks really bad right now but every election we have the chance to change course.

I really think that a lot of issues need to be let go at this point and the energies of like minded people who see the erosion of our representative democracy need to focus in on 3 major things.
1. Campaign Finance Reform
2. Voting and Vote Count Reform
3. Breaking the Media Monopoly

If we can break the choke hold that money has on our governmant then the people will be able to represented again.

Congratulations Marilynn on 45th anniversary.

deb said...

Richard: I copied and pasted the post from the elections thread and intend to send it to dems on my e-mail list if you have no objection. I keep in touch with dems in Al., Fla., Tenn. and now NC.

Judy: You mentioned that you would speak of buying blue to some of the unions that you have contact with. Supporting those that either support democrats or don't make any political contributions is an answer to this mess. But it isn't easy. I had no idea how much I was supporting the corporations that I disapprove of. I changed my 401K, my credit card, and my shopping habits completely. I discovered that UPS was one of the worst, but luckily the good old US Post Office is blue. If we could get union members to go "blue" we could put an end to this mess. We could do it just like they did in Montgomery...boycott. It would work, and as a bonus we would be supporting American workers since most blue companies pay well, have benefits, etc.

Marilynn M said...

Richard, Please if you know where to get it transport it over here. We need to know.

"Please drop over to the "Elections" folder on the Bread Crusts home page. You'll find a description of our Oregon experience with "vote by mail."

Richard Yarnell said...

Deb: By all means, pass it along.

Marilynn: Sorry to be dense, but what is "it" you'd like passed along?

Marilynn M said...

Richard, This Is what I was wanting imported.
"Please drop over to the "Elections" folder on the Bread Crusts home page. You'll find a description of our Oregon experience with "vote by mail."

Cheryl V said...

I thought it might be helpful to understand why people vote for Republicans. My husband & I have spent some time thinking about this.

First, no one will admit it, but the bigot factor is there.

The biggest reason though is the message. The Republican message appeals to people's vanity. The cream rises to the top. Everyone wants to believe that they are part of the cream. If you're good enough wonderful things will come to you. All you have to do is work hard & everything will work out. People with problems did something to deserve it.

All of this could be summarized as; If you are rich it's because you deserve it. And if you're poor it's because you deserve it too.

The Democratic message is, bad things can happen to anyone. We need safety nets to take care of people who have hit hard times. No one likes to think that they will get sick, or lose their job. It's hard to convince people that something is in their own best interest if they prefer to think that they won't ever need any help.

Richard Yarnell said...

Cheryl V:

That may be part of it, but I think there's more. I believe there is a distinct difference in the way "liberals" and "conservatives" think. (Note: in my view both labels are moving targets.)

Republicans, including Conservatives, the Religious Right, and Neo-cons, tend to believe what they believe absolutely. If you don't agree with them, you're wrong. Period.

Democrats, incuding Liberals, Progressives, and even Moderates, usually accept the fact that there are other ways of thinking; they other guy may have a point. This trait tends to make it more difficult to build either tactics or strategy and it certainly makes it harder to articulate a point of view because ours are more complex.

For the people in the world who crave leadership - well, who are you going to choose? The person who appears to waver because he acknowledges complexity, or the one who KNOWS what to do, whether it's right or not?

Richard Yarnell said...

Marilynn said:

Richard, This Is what I was wanting imported.
"Please drop over to the "Elections" folder on the Bread Crusts home page. You'll find a description of our Oregon experience with "vote by mail."

It's a little long so rather than move it over here, it's the fourth post from the top in our "Elections" section.

Marilynn M said...

You are about right Cheryl. People think being Republican makes them ritzy. Democrats on the other hand are thought to be poor working class. I heard a Southern minister explain why the South turned Republican. He said in the sixties the Democrats came South and registered the blacks to vote. The whites didn't want to be in the same party as "them" so they became Republicans. Now they don't know why they are Republican, they just are. Of course they regularly vote against their best interests because there are so many working class poor.

We need some snob appeal. People don't have the same pride in being hard workers they once did. We need to use Pride, Honesty, Integrity, Benevolence, like they used Compassionate Conservative. That is an oxymoron if I ever heard one.

We need some ideas about making our country a better place to live. Improvements to our infrastructure that will catch the imagination and enthusiasm of the general population. That would create jobs as well. People need something to look forward to. We have to be the party of hope.

We have to be the party of ideas. People want Universal Health care. We can do that and do it right. Richard has the perfect idea to insure Social Security will survive and it will grow the economy, plus improve our infrastructure.

I’m feeling hopeful.

Dan/Mi said...

"I thought it might be helpful to understand why people vote for Republicans"

I think you and your husband have it figured out, and expressed it very well.

Marilynn M said...

Thank you Richard. I think I can find it with those directions.

Cheryl V said...

Yes that is also correct. The question is how to talk to them so that they will listen.

People in blue states may feel some excitement generated by current events, but I don't see any of that here in the South. People here refuse to see that anything is wrong. They didn't vote against the worse guy, they voted FOR Bush. They take questions on Bush very personally.

There are a few people that are willing to discuss limited issues. Hopefully, there's a way to open a crack in the wall.

Dan/Mi said...

I've been baffled for years by voters decision to elect, then re-elect G. Bush. Thanks to your post, I now understand his appeal.

Judy B. said...

The largest voting block is the retirees and it will grow even more as the baby boomers leave the work force. Most retirees have enough wisdom to see beyond the rhetoric, and yet when given only two choices they split their ticket, even in the same household...

While wars touch us and education has so many sides to it that the seniors won't focus on it; the environment has some appeal but climate change does not; and on and on.. neither party can win on those issues.

The abortion litmus test, the NRA, and gay rights fracture the democratic party and make any substantial and meaningful progress almost impossible. And at the same time they polarize the opposition...

If the Democratic party would remove those issues from their party platform, and just refuse to talk about them, they would be better off. Yes, they can make off year election gains, but the presidency may be pout of reach again with the same old,same old...

I am not at all confident that the dems are willing to do that...

That is why I believe that the time is ripe for a third party..

A third party with the balls to put out a clear and concise message about our economy, our national debt, social security and health care will win the senior population over...

Remember Clintons campaign strategy.."It's the econmy, stupid".

j. Small said...


There is an article in the Feb. Harper's magazine about this red vs blue mentality.
(Also a short piece about some of the more wacky SSB ideas which includes one idea that seems to be a take off on a facetious afterthought I tacked on to one of my ideas about solar niches, suggesting using the energy generated by people working out in health clubs.)
The first article talks about 'players' vs. 'workers'.

Marilynn M said...

The Democrats need to answer the abortion and gay issues like Bush answered the cocaine issue.

Let's get a platform that has plans that will benefit everyone. Richard's Social Security plan is a great one. It will not only make Social Security secure, it would provide jobs and improve our infrastructure.
We also need to find a way to pay down the National Debt. Those are things that everyone worries about.

deb said...

Cheryl I totally identify with the problem. Baldwin Co. Al has quite a few progressives, but the ones who are staunch Republicans are so *set* in their beliefs. The sad thing is that they equate Republican with Christian.

I'm liberal because that is what Jesus tells me to be, everything he stated teaches us to be peaceful, giving, nonjudgemental, to separate business from the church, to treat every person with respect, to be stewards of the earth and care for it wisely.

I disagree that we should quit talking about abortion. It is the main reason that southern red states are red. Churches show the movie "Silent Scream" to kids when they are in their early teens and tell them that *this* is what Democrats are all about. But, like Richard said liberals are complex thinkers and even if they hate the thought of abortion it has so many complexities...rape?, incest?, mother's life?, disease such as Tay-Sachs?

I hate the thought of "pushing" my beliefs onto others, but we are all citizens of the same country. And as callous as this sounds most people with a *red* mentality really don't have a clue what is happening to this country. All that matters to many of them is that R v. W will be overturned.

The third party idea will only guarantee that the party most opposed to the other 2 will be elected.

J thanks for the heads-up on the Harpers' article.

Marilynn M said...

Here's a thought. Something like 26% of the voters in Texas vote. I'm sure that most of are sent out by their churches. What can we do to send our people out to vote? There has to be something, somewhere that we can attach ourselves to.

deb said...

Marilynn: How about...

Balanced Annual Budget

Universal Health Care

Upholding the constitution, especially searches, spying on individuals, people held in jail without being charged with a crime, right to a speedy trial...

Abide by the Geneva Convention and quit torturing prisoners.

Fairness and Accuracy in our Media

End the Oil age and begin the renewable energy age.

Fair elections

Get corporate money out of politics

I think a good slogan would be...

Remember the Peace and Prosperity of the 90's? Restore it. Elect Democrats.

Christopher C. in Hawaii said...

I like this as a slogan better.

I'm not a Democrat and don't think I ever could be, but here's what I'd say if I were in opposition right now. These guys are corrupt and incompetent. They have screwed up the Iraq war, turned FEMA into a joke and landed the next generation with a mountain of debt. We're for making the homeland safer, winning back our allies, and taking on the Iranian dictatorship. We're for energy independence, universal healthcare and balancing the budget again. Now, let Rove do his worst. Hey, we need Democrats who relish the fight, not timid ones who cower at the prospect. Bring back the happy warriors. Please.

Andrew Sullivan

dan said...

Carl Rove's propaganda machine has been defining Democrates for too long. It's time for Democrates to proudly define themselves.

Judy B. said...

Marilyn, you said
"Let's get a platform that has plans that will benefit everyone. Richard's Social Security plan is a great one. It will not only make Social Security secure, it would provide jobs and improve our infrastructure.
We also need to find a way to pay down the National Debt. Those are things that everyone worries about."

And I said...
"...put out a clear and concise message about our economy, our national debt, social security and health care will win the senior population over..."

My idea to win the election is to concentrate on a few issues and not spread the democratic message so far and wide that it alinates people who should support us... As an active member of "Peace" Groups I can tell you that most of the membership sides with democrats on most issues...Abortion is not one of them... The NRA is supported mainly by GOP (at least here) but our labor members cost one congress member her seat because of her stand on guns...

Abortion, gay rights, gun control have very active lobbying groups.. we do not need to either take them on, nor cow-tow to them for their money...

We need to look squarely at winning the elections... then we can work on the problems...

Christopher, Debbie...I do not consider that being timid.
I think it is being smart...

Judy B. said...

Dan... how would you define democrats??/

Christopher C. in Hawaii said...

Judy your approach sounds good. It would be best to avoid those 3 issues and stick to major topics.

The timidness of democrats is like Dan says, letting Rove define liberal and democrats and the sputtering response when they are labeled.

As an example the Tax and Spend label, a good response would be: Yes we are the party of tax and spend wisely and in budget. We are not the party of don't tax and spend like fools.

Judy B. said...

A frien just emailed me this... along with some pithy remarks.. maybe i will ask her to join up also...
The New York Times *finally* reports CLG's January 24 lead story:
Halliburton Subsidiary Gets Contract to Add Detention Centers 04 Feb 2006 The Army Corps of Engineers has awarded a contract worth up to $385 million for building 'temporary immigration' detention centers to Kellogg Brown & Root, the Halliburton subsidiary that has been criticized for overcharging the Pentagon for its work in Iraq. KBR would build the centers for the Homeland Security Department... to house people in the event of a natural disaster or for new programs that require additional detention space, company executives said. ['New programs that require additional detention space...' such as Rumsfeld's plans to incarcerate dissenters after Bush's (next) terror attack?]

dan said...

That's a great question it deserves a thoughtful answer....maybe later.

deb said...

"Yes we are the party of tax and spend wisely and in budget. We are not the party of don't tax and spend like fools."

Good one Christopher!

"new programs that require additional detention space"

That is *really* creepy...wonder what the intentions are. I have noticed that whenever these guys start hinting at something they already have a serious plan in place.

The things I can think of are an increase in crime due to the increase in poverty. When R v W is overturned some women will obtain illegal ones or do it to themselves, but they'll only get caught if they die or almost die and have to go to the hospital, so that wouldn't add much to the prison pop. I know you were joking about incarcerating dissidents, but *who* is going to need incarcerated because of future programs? Anyone care to guess?

Cheryl V said...

I saw the bit about the detention centers too. Makes ya wonder.

As for defining Democrats, The Daily Show had a great piece during the last convention. Stephen Colbert collected one of every group at the convention, labor member, conservationist, a woman, a black, an indian, etc. He asked them what was the most important message the party had. All of them started talking over each other about their issue. He ends it by saying that he can't wait until the Republican convention when none of these voices will be heard.

Marilynn M said...

US Debbie. That's who they intend to detain. The people that finally take to the streets and demonstrate. It wasn't long ago that Bush was talking about using the military to enforce martial law. Nobody here to arrest but us chickens. I wonder if these detention facilities have ovens? They are counting on us not believing it could be for us.

Christopher C. in Hawaii said...

Definition of a liberal democrat: A person who believes that government has a role to play as one of many social institutions reaching for economic and social justice.

dan said...

"Dan... how would you define democrats??/"

This is the way I think of the Democratic Party...not strictly a definition:

The Democratic Party believes that the human struggle, with all its difficulties, should be a group journey that attemps to leave no one behind.

Judy B. said...

A man enters a bar and orders a drink. The bar has a robot bartender.

The robot serves him a perfectly prepared cocktail, and then asks him, "What's your IQ?"

The man replies "150" and the robot proceeds to make conversation about global warming factors, quantum physics and spirituality, biomimicry, environmental inter-connectedness, string theory, nano-technology, and sexual proclivities.

The customer is very impressed and thinks, "This is really cool."

He decides to test the robot. He walks out of the bar, turns around, and comes back in for another drink. Again, the robot serves him the perfectly prepared drink and asks him, "What's your IQ?"

The man responds, "about a 100."

Immediately the robot starts talking, but this time, about football, NASCAR, baseball, supermodels, favorite fast foods, guns, and women's breasts.

Really impressed, the man leaves the bar and decides to give the robot one more test. He heads out and returns, the robot serves him and asks, "What's your IQ?"

The man replies, "Er, 50, I think."

And the robot says... real slowly, "So............... ya gonna vote for Bush again?"

Marilynn M said...

I heard on the radio this morning that Bush put his Social Security plan in the budget. It was discovered by a Time Magazine reporter. Is this possible?

dan said...

Thanks,I needed a laugh.

Marilynn M said...

Scooter Libby testified that he got permission from Cheney and other high ups in the administration to give out classifird information. Valerie Plame. Let's see if the media will report this like they should.

And Abramoff visited Bush's ranch three or four times. But, Bush of course doesn't remember him.

deb said...

Marilynn, I looked for news on the SS plan in the new budget. I didn't find anything, so maybe that was just a hoax...I certainly hope so.

The budget its' self is depressing enough. I think we are going to owe about 2.5 trillion to China by the end of this fiscal year. How much is a trillion anyway...I know I don't have it...wonder what my share is?

Don't count on anything important coming out in the media, they'll just cover for any wrongdoing by this administration.

Do you have the sources for Abramoff visiting w at the ranch?

Marilynn M said...

I've heard from several sources Abramoff had the pictures on the walls of his office.

I heard the other on The Rachel Maddow Show on Air America.

Bush buried detailed Social Security privatization proposals in his budget. Can the surprise move jump-start bipartisan reform?

• Listen to a Podcast: Bush's Secret Social Security Ploy

• Sloan: Bush Slips Soc. Security Plan Into Budget

Read what bloggers are saying about this Newsweek article

36 blogs are discussing Sloan: Bush Slips Soc. Security Plan Into Budget right now. View All »
Search the Site
By Allan Sloan
Updated: 12:09 p.m. ET Feb. 8, 2006

Feb. 8, 2006 - If you read enough numbers, you never know what you'll find. Take President Bush and private Social Security accounts.
Story continues below

Last year, even though Bush talked endlessly about the supposed joys of private accounts, he never proposed a specific plan to Congress and never put privatization costs in the budget. But this year, with no fanfare whatsoever, Bush stuck a big Social Security privatization plan in the federal budget proposal, which he sent to Congress on Monday.

His plan would let people set up private accounts starting in 2010 and would divert more than $700 billion of Social Security tax revenues to pay for them over the first seven years.

If this comes as a surprise to you, have no fear. You're not alone. Bush didn't pitch private Social Security accounts in his State of the Union Message last week.

First, he drew a mocking standing ovation from Democrats by saying that "Congress did not act last year on my proposal to save Social Security," even though, as I said, he'd never submitted specific legislation.

Then he seemed to be kicking the Social Security problem a few years down the road in typical Washington fashion when he asked Congress "to join me in creating a commission to examine the full impact of baby-boom retirements on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid," adding that the commission would be bipartisan "and offer bipartisan solutions."

But anyone who thought that Bush would wait for bipartisanship to deal with Social Security was wrong. Instead, he stuck his own privatization proposals into his proposed budget.

"The Democrats were laughing all the way to the funeral of Social Security modernization," White House spokesman Trent Duffy told me in an interview Tuesday, but "the president still cares deeply about this." Duffy asserted that Bush would have been remiss not to include in the budget the cost of something that he feels so strongly about, and he seemed surprised at my surprise that Social Security privatization had been written into the budget without any advance fanfare.

Duffy said privatization costs were included in the midyear budget update that the Office of Management and Budget released last July 30, so it was logical for them to be in the 2007 budget proposals. But I sure didn't see this coming—and I wonder how many people outside of the White House did.

Nevertheless, it's here. Unlike Bush's generalized privatization talk of last year, we're now talking detailed numbers. On page 321 of the budget proposal, you see the privatization costs: $24.182 billion in fiscal 2010, $57.429 billion in fiscal 2011 and another $630.533 billion for the five years after that, for a seven-year total of $712.144 billion.

In the first year of private accounts, people would be allowed to divert up to 4 percent of their wages covered by Social Security into what Bush called "voluntary private accounts." The maximum contribution to such accounts would start at $1,100 annually and rise by $100 a year through 2016.

It's not clear how big a reduction in the basic benefit Social Security recipients would have to take in return for being able to set up these accounts, or precisely how the accounts would work.

Bush also wants to change the way Social Security benefits are calculated for most people by adopting so-called progressive indexing. Lower-income people would continue to have their Social Security benefits tied to wages, but the benefits paid to higher-paid people would be tied to inflation.

Wages have typically risen 1.1 percent a year more than inflation, so over time, that disparity would give lower-paid and higher-paid people essentially the same benefit. However, higher-paid workers would be paying substantially more into the system than lower-paid people would.

This means that although progressive indexing is an attractive idea from a social-justice point of view, it would reduce Social Security's political support by making it seem more like welfare than an earned benefit.

Bush is right, of course, when he says in his budget proposal that Social Security in its current form is unsustainable. But there are plenty of ways to fix it besides offering private accounts as a substitute for part of the basic benefit.

Bush's 2001 Social Security commission had members of both parties, but they had to agree in advance to support private accounts. Their report, which had some interesting ideas, went essentially nowhere.

What remains to be seen is whether this time around Bush follows through on forming a bipartisan commission and whether he can get credible Democrats to join it. Dropping numbers onto your opponents is a great way to stick your finger in their eye. But will it get the Social Security job done? That, my friends, is a whole other story.

Sloan is NEWSWEEK's Wall Street editor. His e-mail is

Marilynn M said...

I guess we better either impeach that crazy son of a bitch or brush up on our Chinese.

Did anyone else hear that he used to tell his little brother to run down the hall and would shoot at him with his bb gun? Do you wonder where his mother was? Why didn't that old hag flush the damned toilet?

deb said...

Found it Marilynn. And...surprise, doesn't seem to be news to major news providers.

Bush's Social Security Sleight of Hand

Oh...was w born in a toilet?

Marilynn M said...

No, but he should have been.

dan said...

Good work digging up the Bush SS plan. He's a relentless pit bull when it comes to pushing his ideas. Too bad his plans are always so outrageous.

Marilynn M said...

Well, do any of you think it will do any good to write letters or are we doomed?

Cheryl V said...

It's a real problem when all of your representatives are hard-core Bush supporters. And other representatives ignore you because you are not in their district.

But sometimes I write them anyway. At least I know that I spoke up.

dan said...

I believe Bush put his S.S. plan in the budget just to please some conservatives. It's a dead issue for this Congress. The public outcry over the plan was so fierce it has no chance in an election year.

deb said...

I started thinking along the same lines Dan. The SS privitizing will cause a ruckus, Congress will make a big deal of removing it, people will believe that their reps are actually representing them and then the rest of of the budget can go on as planned...huge tax cuts for millionaires, borrowing more from communist China, gutting social programs including those for veterans coming back from Iraq, cutting my Mom's medicare benefits, etc.

Cheryl: I feel your pain. I wrote a letter to Shelby about *not* supporting the patriot act and recieved a nice letter back stating that he was so glad I *supported* the patriot act. Wasn't sure whether they mixed up the reply forms, or just sent the same letter to everyone.

BTW Artur Davis from Birmingham is a sharp progressive democrat. I had the opportunity to hear him speak several times and I am very glad that he is in DC representing Al. I know he doesn't represent your district, but he does appreciate the input. He (or maybe his staff) wrote a reply letter to me that let me know someone had actually read the letter I sent to him, even though I wasn't in his district.

Marilynn M said...

I don't think it will be removed. I think it will go through just like the rest will. The mainstream media still isn't reporting it.

Richard Yarnell said...

Get on the net, email your congresscritters and tell them you don't want them to let the shrub sneak something like privatization of SS through in his unacceptable budget proposal. Do it early, do it often.

Richard Yarnell said...

Speaking of the shrub speaking:

He was up trying to encourage his Republican Congressional Congress today. After short remarks exhorting them to do better, he dismissed the reporters ("I love the press, just get them out of the room.") and then started to make some private remarks which he said "should not leave this room."

He started with warrantless wiretaps and FISA, saying he'd decided it was neccessary to spy on citizens who had were suspected of having ties with terrorists. NEVER EVER ASSUME A MICROPHONE IS DEAD! The one at the lecturn was live and connected to a feed at the White House Press room.

Have to wait for AP or Reuters to report the rest of what he said in private. ;)

Judy B. said...

I agree with richard. We need to let our congressional delegation know how we feel...

I know emailing is easier, but having worked for a U.S. Representative, I know that letters carry more influence. We need to get at least 100 hand written letters to each representative. Take some sample letters (that include names/addresses) to your county central committee meeting, and ask people to write in their own words.
It is surprising haw many people will help you if you help them with the process...

Marilynn M said...

Thank you Richard. Please let him have said something really criminal. While I'm asking I'm also going to hope a reporter with big liberal balls to have heard it all. If that happened I'll be willing to skip Christmas presents from here on.

Richard Yarnell said...

I heard it from the horse's mouth this evening, party precint volunteers who work with their county committees, whose reps and senators are from their own party, usually have lists of those folks who help them get elected posted in their mailrooms. Letters from those folks get extra attention. So sign up to canvas in your precint - some people actually enjoy it. You'll help change the color of your state and you'll get someone to pay attention to your letters.

I think that individual emails, ones that don't appear to be carbon copies of ones promoted by lobbying groups, have equal weight to snail mail now. You'll find that more and more reps, especially, are replying by emails as they and their staffs learn the ropes. Remember, anthrax is still slowing DC mail to a crawl.

And another tip: take the time to attend you rep's town hall meetings or visit him/her in their office whenever they're at home. When you do, always have a letter with you that you can hand deliver. If you look them in they eye and tell them you really want them to read it and get back to you, it's hard for them to say no.

Richard Yarnell said...

Find Dan Froomkin's column in today's Washington Post. It purports to be made up of questions for the President provided by his readers.

Maybe more people are paying attention than the 2004 election suggested.
Questions for Bush

Here's the url in case I've screwed up the code for the active link:

(It's a long link, so be sure to get it all. Readers' questions begin about half-way through the lengthy column.)

deb said...

Thanks Richard. The article is very good. I printed copies to share.

Marilynn M said...

"I don't care how little your country is, you got a right to run it like you want to. When the big nations quit meddling then the world will have peace."

Will Rogers

deb said...

Gotta love Will Rogers Marilynn:)

Perhaps the lemmings are wising up. Apparently the CPAC 2006 conference had a bit of quibbling among the ranks.

Republicans turn on Bush

Christopher C. in Hawaii said...

Deb, I had to send that link to my brother who immediately scoffed at the notion of the Iranian Oil Bourse as liberal nonsense. Try to warn your own family and what do you get?

dan said...

"...the Iranian Oil Bourse as liberal nonsense..."

Isn't it ironic that the views of people who equip themselves with information are considered extreme or even "wacko"?

dan said...

Re:Republicans turn on Bush

It's about time. Maybe it's high noon for our trigger-happy coyboys.

Judy B. said...

I', the one who sent Deb the article on the Iranian Oil Bourse and now i can't find the post to click on it...

Can anyone help me??

deb said...

Here it is Judy:
The Proposed Iranian Oil Bourse

Richard Yarnell said...

Susan asked a pregnant question over squab, J. Reisling, and an unconscionably rich, heart shaped brownie:

What would the outcome have been if Chaney had been shot? Take a moment and visualize his full complement of SS body guard spotted in the field.

How quickly would the word "accidental" assumed the place it enjoys now in every spin of the story?

deb said...

Amen, Richard! I completely believe that in order to have control over our government we must first have control over our media. The question that Susan asked represents the subtle spin that is assigned to all that we see and hear in mainstream media.

I had to do a search for "squab". It sounds delicious. I intend to look for it at the market...hope they sell it in NC.

Christopher C. in Hawaii said...

Richard I just have to ask, Was anyone injured while you and Susan were procuring the Squab for your late night candle light supper?

Richard Yarnell said...

There wasn't a single SS agent around so I don't have to say.


dan said...

Here's a link to a Molly Ivans column (I wasn't sure were to post it). I think it's worth reading.


deb said...

Copied from the DNC blog:

Feel Safer Now?
The president is shrugging this one off as well... From the New York Times:

The Bush administration dismissed the security concerns of local officials yesterday and restated its approval of a deal that will give a company based in Dubai a major role in operating ports in and around New York City.
Representatives of the White House and the Treasury Department said they had given their approval for Dubai Ports World to do business in the United States after a rigorous review. The decision, they said, was final.

Dubai Ports World is buying the British company that currently operates the cruise-ship terminal on the West Side of Manhattan, one of the biggest cargo terminals in New York Harbor, and terminals in Philadelphia, Baltimore and other big ports.

Several lawmakers, including Representative Peter T. King of Long Island, who is chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, and Senator Charles E. Schumer, have criticized the administration for its approval of the deal, saying it was done too quickly and without enough scrutiny of the ramifications for security at American ports.

"In the post-9/11 world, there should have been a presumption against this company," said Mr. King, a Republican.

Dubai Ports World is owned by the United Arab Emerites. Think Progress has some facts about the country:

- The UAE was one of three countries in the world to recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan.
– The UAE has been a key transfer point for illegal shipments of nuclear components to Iran, North Korea and Lybia.

– According to the FBI, money was transferred to the 9/11 hijackers through the UAE banking system.

– After 9/11, the Treasury Department reported that the UAE was not cooperating in efforts to track down Osama Bin Laden’s bank accounts.
End of copy and paste.

I'm dumbfounded. Does our administration not see the possible problems with this?

deb said...

And yet another thought provoking story:

Orwell wrote Bush's script

dan said...

Thanks for two good posts. The Orwell thing is almost spooky.

Judy B. said...

Donald Rumsfeld is giving the president his daily briefing. He concludes by saying: "Yesterday, 3 Brazilian soldiers were killed."

"OH NO!" the President exclaims. "That's terrible!"

His staff sits stunned at this display of emotion, nervously watching as the President sits, head in hands.

Finally, the President looks up and asks, "How many is a brazillion?"

Christopher C. in Hawaii said...

I was pulling weeds in the nursery and thinking how and why could Dubai Ports World get the US port contracts and of course it is all about money. My first thought was The Carlyle Group. I have only started looking but this is one of the first things I found "DP World Exec nominated for US GOVT position".

Port Security

Anonymous said...

Ok I am tired of looking for a Carlyle Group connection. The most interesting thing I noticed at their site is that the Middle East does not seem to exist and not a one of the Washington political elite who h

Christopher C. in Hawaii said...

Ok I am tired of looking for a Carlyle Group connection. The most interesting thing I noticed at their site is that the Middle East does not seem to exist and not a one of the Washington political elite who have been pegged as being part of the investments group is anywhere to be found, but they only list their employees not their investors.

Carlyle Group

Christopher C. in Hawaii said...

Well that Anonymous post is odd. I have no clue how that happened unless I leaned on something.

deb said...

This was released 27 October 2004. It refers to the Iranian Oil Bourse, by William Clark

Quite lengthy, but the guy seems to pinpoint the issue.

The Real Reasons Why Iran is the Next Target:
The Emerging Euro-denominated International Oil Marker

Christopher C. in Hawaii said...

Deb, thanks for the link to that article. It certainly put more meat on the bones of the Oil Bourse story. I particularly liked all the footnotes many with links.

I sent the link to all my family members. I have been pummeling my father and brother in the last couple of weeks with links because they are absolute Bush apologists and refuse to step away from blind party loyalty and put their country first. Their response has been muted at best after an intial round of typical name calling and diversionary Clinton diatribes, the standard Faux News fare.

I have five nieces and nephews in the draft age range of a protracted war to spread democracy. I want their parents at least to have the chance to hear an opinion of a world view they will never hear from their own government or the major media.

christin m p in massachusetts said...

Impeachment time?????

deb said...

Christin, I got "You are not authorized to view this page" when I copied and pasted the link. What was the title and I'll search some more.

This is from the blog Unclaimed Territory - by Glenn Greenwald

He is a lawyer specializing in first amendment rights.

Ultimately, though, the entire legal debate in the NSA scandal comes down to these few, very clear and straightforward facts: Congress passed a law in 1978 making it a criminal offense to eavesdrop on Americans without judicial oversight. Nobody of any significance ever claimed that that law was unconstitutional. The Administration not only never claimed it was unconstitutional, but Bush expressly asked for changes to the law in the aftermath of 9/11, thereafter praised the law, and misled

Congress and the American people into believing that they were complying with the law. In reality, the Administration was secretly breaking the law, and then pleaded with The New York Times not to reveal this. Once caught, the Administration claimed it has the right to break the law and will continue to do so.

Marilynn M said...

Why aren't we calling for Cheney's impeachment? he was hunting with his mistress. Is it okay as long as you are on some crappy ranch in Texas? Can you imagine that flabby, pastey, old pervert? Me neither!

Judy B. said...

This is part of todays NY Times editorial:
"The Bush administration has followed a disturbing pattern in its approach to the war on terror. It has been perpetually willing to sacrifice individual rights in favor of security. But it has been loath to do the same thing when it comes to business interests. It has not imposed reasonable safety requirements on chemical plants, one of the nation's greatest points of vulnerability, or on the transport of toxic materials. The ports deal is another decision that has made the corporations involved happy, and has made ordinary Americans worry about whether they are being adequately protected."
to read th whole go to

Christopher C. in Hawaii said...

It is even more disturbing when you look at the WhiteHouse's public statements and compare it to the press releases and the dates on them from DP World

Richard Yarnell said...

With respect to Dubai Ports World:

Why do you think the discussion ignores the apparent conflict of interest in the David Sanborn (still operations manager of DPW European and South American port operations) appointment (pending Congressional action) to be Maritime Commissioner?

Richard Yarnell said...

With respect to Dubai Ports World:

Why do you think the discussion ignores the apparent conflict of interest in the David Sanborn (still operations manager of DPW European and South American port operations) appointment (pending Congressional action) to be Maritime Commissioner?

Christopher C. in Hawaii said...

I think the discussion ignores the conflict of interest in the Sanborn nomination because Bush appointing industry execs to federal bureaus that oversee said industry is nothing new. The Sago Mine explosion is just one case in point. The other is that the press has been effectively castrated.

Anonymous said...

Me thinks that GW has just stepped into some do-do..

christin m p in massachusetts said...

The article was about the port sale to Dubai Ports World. Now I'm reading that Bush didn't know about the deal until after the fact. But it's all the same, because he's still defending it.

Why is it that a U.S. president can be impeached for covering up an extra-marital affair, but not for putting our lives at risk?

Richard Yarnell said...

Democratic President - Republican House led by Gingrich

Republican President - Republican House - Republican Senate.

However, give him another couple of weeks and they may do it themselves.

Judy B. said...

Where is everybody??... I would think this would be the time to really be taking GW to task.

Christopher C. in Hawaii said...

GW is the Teflon President, nothing seems to stick. He makes Nixon look like an amateur. We may need to go back to the playbook from the 60's and 70's and stage massive street protests that are not as easily ignored.

I was just watching the History Channel a show on American Terrorists, left and right. The terrorist label was too extreme in most cases and was really just an attention grabbing title. It was more about political dissent.

The tactics used by the FBI and White House during that time were very illegal which led to the stricter laws that Bush is now ignoring. Both Cheney and Rove have their beginnings in the Nixon White House. Mix in the new NSA spying scandal and it has a very chilling effect.

Christopher C. in Hawaii said...

Here is an interesting article by the John Dean about the Nixon-Cheney nexus. A bit long but it is getting quiet around here.

Richard Yarnell said...

I had supper with my Congress Critter a couple of nights ago: believe me, the shrub has the attention of both sides of the aisle. From his statement on the AF1 that the port deal was "a done deal," he's just agreed to a delay to which Dubai has also assented.

Bush is not bright enough to have a teflon coat. Nixon was very smart, the shrub is light on the IQ side of things. Nixon was a student - of history, politics, and foreign affairs; the shrub takes his news third and forth hand and hardly reads at all.

FWIW - Bush is a blustering pawn.

dan said...

Re: "Here is an interesting article by the John Dean about the Nixon-Cheney nexus."

I just read the Dean article. Reviewing Cheney's resume of evil achievements inspires me to pray for the health of G.W. Bush.

deb said...

Dan, I think Cheney, Rove and co. are already running the country. w is just the face before the camera.

Christopher, Good article. Carter enacted laws to prevent it from happening again, but the laws have been overturned or ignored. As far as protesting in the streets the main difference between then and now is the media. Even if we protest it won't be covered. We come full circle...restore the Fairness Doctrine!

Richard, You never fail to impress me...dinner with your Congress critter? I certainly hope that he/she was an attentive student!

Christopher C. in Hawaii said...

It just keeps getting better. The chimp in charge was clearly and forcefully warned of the danger of Hurricane Katrina but kept to his singing, cake eating and fund raising vacation schedule.

Warning! Warning!

After the hurricane struck the president lied again to the public and said no one knew the levees might fail.

dan said...

"Dan, I think Cheney, Rove and co. are already running the country. w is just the face before the camera."

I'm sure your right but somehow I think President Cheney would manage to be even more diabolical.

Cheryl V said...

“I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees”

“I don't think anybody could have predicted that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile.”

“I don’t know of any reporting that anyone saw that anticipated an insurgency of this level, and I just have never seen anything like that.”

The whole article is at:

They forgot to mention that no one could have predicted that Hamas would win.

Richard Yarnell said...

I think there is another impeachable offense on the table now:

Treaties, once ratified, become the "law of the land." The oath of office obliges the President to uphold that law. In his just concluded trip to India, the President entered into agreements with that government that are clearly in conflict with, if they don't breach the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaties to which the US is a party. The way I read it, that's a clear violation of his oath of office. (Not to mention all the other international agreements he's abrogated.)

India has sought access to US technology and material for decades.
For at least 30 years, no US President has given in to the demands. While, on the surface, it appears Bush is dealing only with non-military nuclear power, in fact, he's setting it up so that India can devote more money to military uses of nuclear material. All of this while Pakistan, supposedly and ally and also a nuclear club member, is sitting with Kashmir between them, among other incendiary issues, and while we're trying to tell Iran, China, North Korea, South Africa and others, that there are international rules against sharing of nuclear material and expertise.

This son of a bitch is going to get a lot of people killed.

Urge your Senators to reject Bush's new attempt at international relations.

dan said...

It's just so ironic that people voted for Bush to make America safer when everything he does makes the world a far more dangerous place.

I don't think Congress will go along with this agreement. His political capital is fading fast.

What scares me is I believe he's determined to attack Iran before he leaves office and he'll do it without going to Congress first.

Christopher C. in Hawaii said...

There was an article today on the Alternet about the legal basis for impeaching Bush. And yes treaties we sign are the law of the land that the president takes an oath to uphold.

Christopher C. in Hawaii said...


Citizen Petition for Impeachment

Richard Yarnell said...

Don't the political realities intervene?

There's nothing I'd like better than to see the shrub impeached, convicted, disgraced, and run out of town on a rail.

There's nothing that would disturb me more than to see the attempt fail, leading him and his associates to believe his actions, to date, have been vindicated - that he has a new mandate.

The political reality is the GOP has a majority in both houses. The stark
reality is that Shotgun Dick Cheney of Haliburton is next in line.

The first order of business is to win a majority in Congress and then evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of impeaching Bush during the next session of

I tend to agree with Franken: impeach him and try him between the 2008 election and the inauguration.

There is another possibility too: giving the GOP a rallying point - protect the Republican president, right or wrong.

I think impeachment should wait but that the legislature should be persuaded to protect the country from the president.

dan said...

I'd love to see the whole Bush team disgraced and evicted from Washington but I have to agree with Richard. The current political reality makes the move risky and likely to fail.

Christopher C. in Hawaii said...

I have to agree that getting a majority in the House is necessary to getting an impeachment going, that is political reality, but that drumbeat needs to start now and even if democrats don't win the House and I don't know if they can in the Senate I think it is worth trying even if it fails.

Let's face it, Bush has less brains than the hand puppet doing the Hawaiian weather forcast from the Art thread. I don't think Bush could even juxtapose the ideas of weather and wind and its effect on the shellacked hair of the news caster. What Bush thinks is irrelevent.

What Cheney and Rove might spin a failure of an impeachment effort into for mass consumption may look like a fresh mandate but they will know people are watching closely and that may help curb their excesses and prevent a new war in Iran. Just fighting an impeachment may keep them to busy to start another war.

This is no longer just about Bush anyway it is about the nature of the office of the President itself. Either you are for a nation run by the rule of law or you are against it, to steal a little from their playbook.

The danger this administration poses is to great to let politics as usual be the deciding factor.

dan said...

Sorry, but the image of George Bush as an inarticulate hand puppet attempting to do the weather report has me incapable of serious thought right now.

dan said...

Impeachment, Now and Then

Christopher C. in Hawaii said...

Dan, Did you note the date on that article was Oct. 2005. I would bet the percentage of people who want to see impeachment has grown quite a bit since then. Still the MSM is rather silent and the resolution in the House only has 29 co-sponsors as of now. One Hawaii representative is one of them. The one from my district was not listed. I think it is time to e-mail him again and tell him if he wants my vote as Senator he better sign the impeachment resolution now as my representative.

Judy B. said...

Imagine you have read this morning's AP news release:
"Vermont town wants to impeach Bush"

dan said...

Judy, I think this is the same story you read.

Vermont town wants to impeach Bush

Christopher C. in Hawaii said...

San Franciso Board of Supervisors has voted 7 to 3 for impeachment. Imagine that!

Judy B. said...

Thanks dan
somedy i promise to learn how to do links..

dan said...

I've expressed reservations about proceding with an impeachment that seems likely to fail, but I must admit I'm enjoying hearing about the Vermont & San Francisco votes.

deb said...

Here is the start...

Feingold Says Congress Must Condemn the President’s Violation of the Public’s Trust Through Illegal Wiretapping Program

Please write to every member in Congress telling them to fully investigate this matter and that the President is not above the law.

dan said...

Thanks Deb. Given the current mood in the Senate, I think the resolution might get some Republican support.

Christopher C. in Hawaii said...

I e-mailed my Representative, Ed Case several days ago about HR 635 from John Conyers in regards to investigations for impeachment. I will now send my Senator one on this.

I like the soundbite that could get spread around the blogoshere, "Either you are for a nation run by the rule of law or you are against it."

Cheryl V said...

I'll write my reps, but don't expect much from Bonner, Sessions, or Shelby. Bonner & Sessions don't even bother with an auto reply saying they take your comments seriously.

Another group to consider is anyone thinking about running for President. They should have some interest in opinions from someone not in their district.

Richard Yarnell said...

I hate to throw a wet blanket on the proceedings: Bush broke the law.

However, censure is a power reserved in the Constitution for use against its own members, not against the President. The sole punishment that Congress can apply to the President is impeachment in the House and a trial in the Senate.

I'll admit that censure was used against Andrew Jackson some 170 years ago, but it had no basis in the Constitution.

I'm afraid the GOP will brush this off with votes and by pointing out the law. All the while, any future action against Bush will have been enervated by this attempt.

Frist's claim that the Feingold resolution may weaken the President in a time of war should be countered by the argument that the President
has weakened the Republic by ignoring the law that is meant to protect us all.

dan said...

Perhaps a "Sense of the Senate" resolution condemning the President's illegal wiretapping program would have been a better choise. Regardless, I'm glad the President's conduct is being questioned in some fashion.

Cheryl V said...

I have had enough of Republicans saying that we can't question anything the president does because we are "at war". The only reason we are at war is that Bush decided to start one.

Start an unnecessary war, and then tell critics that they can't say anything about it because we are at war. Round and round we go.

dan said...

I'm afraid you get a failing grade in neocon 101. After years of indoctrination, you still question their fundamental teachings. Once God instucts them to go to war to bring "freedom" to a country, a few simple rules kick in:

Any critisism of the war is aiding the "enemy".

We must support our troops. Any critisism of the war means you disrespect them.

Any suggestion that we need to end the war could only be made by "cut and run" liberal wimps unwilling to "stay the course".

Press reports that things are going badly, only shows their unwillingness to tell all the "good" things taking place.

War profiteering doesn't exist, only occasional accounting errors.

Following our Constitution applies in peace time only.

I could go on, but there's not much point. For some reason, you just can't seem to accept their rules. What kind of American are you?

Cheryl V said...

I know. I'm hopeless. I just can't get that baloney I was taught in school so long ago, out of my head. Of course, those ideas are so last century.

dan said...

I only wish GWB had paid attention in his civics class like you did.

deb said...

Good news. The majority of Americans support censure...
Poll: Americans slightly favor plan to censure

dan said...

Those poll results are terrific. Could Americans finally be seeing through the propaganda?
I hope other national polls get duplicate findings.

dan said...

This column talks about some of the reasons that Feingold's resolution got a cool reception from some Democratic insiders.

Friendly fire

dan said...

This AP piece by Jennifer Loven explains a rhetorical technique used frequently by G.W. Bush.

Straw Men

Christopher C. in Hawaii said...

If only more in the press would call him on his Orwellian rhetoric.

Richard Yarnell said...

After you've read the article, shy not send a not to the AP, thanking them for finally publishing some background journalism. The GOP already is trying to intimidate Ms Loven and the AP.

I pointed out to the AP that it was strange to be in the position of thanking them for doing the job I maintain always has been their's: to confirm the facts behind the stories they publish - to be our eyes and ears.

dan said...

I did appreciate the journalism so I let AP know as you suggested.