She plods ahead now, only in the race because she won Indiana by the size of a Knicks crowd, and all Hillary Clinton has left is giving people another month of reasons not to vote for the black guy.
She thinks she still has that going for her, along with the cockeyednotion that somebody who can loan herself more than $11 million to keeprunning for President is more of a working-class hero than Norma Rae.
Nonetheless, the campaign continues. She will win West Virginia on Tuesday. One week later, she will win Kentucky and lose Oregon. She may win Puerto Rico. And then he will win Montana and South Dakota. Then superdelegates will endorse.
Last week, John McCain went on ABC's Sunday news show "This Week" and strongly opposed the practice of waterboarding:
In other words, the damage it does to US credibility will be loads more than anything we have to gain from that practice.
But for some reason, Senator McCain has decided to vote for President Bush's Attorney General nominee Michael Mukasey, even though Mukasey has to define whether waterboarding is a form of torture. Interesting.
Today, The John Edwards for President Campaign released a video of Hillary Clinton's responses during the latest presidential debate. You have got to watch this! Now you know why so many progressives don't even have a clue what she stands for:
And you think Republicans won't expose this in the general election? What I'm trying to do between now and February 5th is do my part to prevent an eventual train wreck for the Democrats in the general election. Whether the answer is Edwards or Obama is still up in the air. One thing is for sure: we need to pick one of those two candidates, and help that candidate defeat Hillary in the primaries. I do not want another long and painful eight years. My guess is that none of you want that either.
Senator even though the judge to overturn his guilty plea. Yesterday on , Craig's lawyer warned Barbara Boxer's Senate Ethics Committee to stay away and not investigate him. Interesting.
Employers can fire employees for their conduct outside the workplace. Teenagers can be put on academic probation for yelling profanity while sitting in the bleachers during a high school basketball game. Even elementary school students have been suspended for inappropriate content on their MySpace pages. Bottom line: your conduct, even if it is done outside the institution you represent, does not make you immune from internal punishment.
And Larry Craig's lawyers think it is for the Senate Ethics Committee to conduct an investigation? Maybe Craig should start showing some respect for the long-standing institution called the United States Senate, which no lawmaker is ever above.
Barack Obama said: "We've got to get the job done there and thatrequires us to have enough troops that we are not just air raiding villages andkilling civilians, which is causing enormous problems there"....Hedidn't mean the soldiers were doing this on purpose, he was referring to the"cluster-F**K" that was going on, and it needs to be handled.
John Kerry said: "Education, if you make the most of it, you studyhard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well.And if you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."...He didn't mean the soldierswere stupid, his reference was to George Bush, figuratively speaking Bush ISstuck in Iraq (and is about as sharp as a bowling ball). Kerry supports thetroops in an unconsciously competent way (he doesn't have to even thinkabout it)
When you listen to the conservative commentators and media, they usuallyparaphrase it as "Obama said our soldiers are bombing and killing innocentpeople" and "Kerry called our troops dumb" (Sean Hannitypractically ANY night of the week)
Now let's take a look at Limbaugh's "phony soldiers" remark. Ithink we need to pick this apart to try and get an understanding of who Limbaughwas referring to.
CALLER: No, it's not. And what's really funny is they never talk to realsoldiers. They pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and spout to themedia.
RUSH: The phony soldiers.
CALLER: Phony soldiers. If you talk to any real soldier and they're proud toserve, they want to be over in Iraq, they understand their sacrifice and they'rewilling to sacrifice for the country.
RUSH: They joined to be in Iraq.
The caller is clearly talking about actual soldiers. The "phony soldiers"appear to be soldiers that don't agree with the war, or veterans that speak outagainst the war. Conservative commentators may have spoke too soon when theysay Rush was referring to the people that aren't or weren't soldiers at all, butscammers. I say spoke too soon because according to Rush (even though he did say"soldiers) what he meant was:
LIMBAUGH: I was not talking, as Contessa Brewer said here, about the anti-warmovement generally. I was talking about one soldier with that "phonysoldier" [Comment: he dropped the "s"] comment, Jesse MacBeth. They had exactly what I'm going to playfor you. This is Michael J. Fox all over again. Media Matters had thetranscript, but they selectively choose what they want to make their point. Hereis -- it runs about 3 minutes and 13 seconds -- the entire transcript, incontext, that led to this so-called controversy.
Note is drops the plural. He refers to the transcript running about 3 minutesand 13 seconds...Rush edited 1 minute and 35 seconds out of it. Listen to hisedited radio broadcast (transcript can also be read at the same link). For any conservatives that wouldlike to cross reference the typed transcript, it can also be found at , or from the conservative blog .
I truly believe Rush meant any serving soldier or veteran that is against thewar and speaks out against it as one of the "phony soldiers". I saythis because it seems to be a trend among conservative commentators, radio showhosts etc. For example Melanie Morgan, when she was on The News Hour with JimLehrer and subsequently got banned from that show for her viciousness towards. The post with videos can be viewed at 'MelanieMorgan banned from 'The News Hour with Jim Lehrer'.
Once again, the broadcast Rush replayed and read along either (shows where edit starts and ends), or .
If the Bush Administration is serious about global security, at least start reducing the amount of arms we sell to developing countries -- weapons that can often end up in the hands of terrorists. According to a out this morning, the United States is the number one military supplier to the developing world:
In 2006, the United States agreed to sell $10.3 billion in weaponsto the developing world, or 35.8 percent of these deals worldwide,according to the study. Russia was second with $8.1 billion, or 28.1percent, and Britain was third with $3.1 billion, or 10.8 percent.
Pakistanconcluded $5.1 billion in agreements to buy arms in 2006. That totalwas followed by India with $3.5 billion in agreements and Saudi Arabiawith $3.2 billion in deals.
The combined value of arms salesworldwide to both developed and developing nations in 2006 reached$40.3 billion, a decline of nearly 13 percent from 2005.
As you might have guessed, the bottom line is not global security -- it is money. Money drives most decision-making in Washington.
The deadline to renew funding for the federal government for the 2008 fiscal year has passed. When Congress returns on Monday, it will be October, which is when the . Today President Bush signed a document that gives Congress a to pass a budget.
Of course, Congress already supports a budget, but Bush won't sign it because it exceeds his request by $23 billion -- the cost of for less than two months. Last year though, the President allowed the Republican Congress to exceed his budget request by $53 million.
In his , Bush took aim:
"Earlier this year, congressional leaders promised to show that theycould be responsible with the people's money. Unfortunately they seemto have chosen the path of higher spending," the president said in hisweekly radio address.
Who is choosing the path to higher spending? Is it a President that never chose to until the Democrats took Congress this January?
The is up for renewal. A bipartisan group of lawmakers want to increase the number of children covered under the program by 10 million. So how do you argue with that? Republicans that oppose the bill are using logic they typically aren't familiar with.
Part of the program will be paid for by increasing taxes on tobacco. Republican lawmakers, who are all , have found a way to argue against it. They contend that a tobacco tax increase is bad because it would :
Republicans will argue that tobacco taxes fall hardest on theworking poor, the very people SCHIP was designed to help. About a thirdof adults who live in poverty are smokers.
"Under this scheme, the poorest Americans will be burdened with evenhigher federal taxes so that wealthier families and businesses canshift the cost of their health care coverage to the Americantaxpayers," said Reps. Joe Barton, R-Texas and Nathan Deal, R-Ga, in a letter to colleagues.
The GOP, the same party that wants a national sales tax, claims to be genuinely concerned about a tobacco tax because it is regressive. Do you buy that?. Anytime Republicans talk about poverty, there is usually some other motivation.
Instead of turning this into one of my typically redundant posts about Bush hypocrisy (oops, pardon the title!), how about we just let the facts do the talking.
In 2006, President Bush allowed Congress to exceed his budget request by .
In 2007, President Bush is scolding Congress for exceeding his budget request by just $22 billion.
So what are the this year?
The additional funding has long been sought by Democrats and includesbudget increases for dozens of favored domestic programs, includinggrants to local governments, education, homeland security, lawenforcement and health research.
Bottom line: Bush -- the same Bush that campaigned on wanting to protect this country -- is threatening to veto a bill that would protect our homeland from terrorism, increase money for police and give local municipalities the breathing room in their budgets to make their communities more secure.
If you want to expand on the whole "Bush hypocrisy" theme, remember that this was a President who did when the Republicans had control of Congress.
For the last time, can you say 'hypocrisy'? In the end, how can anyone blame us for being redundant when this happens over and over again.
Senator Larry Craig (R-ID), who plead guilty and recently resigned after soliciting a an undercover police officer in an airport bathroom, is of NFL quarterback Michael Vick. Vick is facing federal dogfighting charges:
Craig has hired a high-powered crisis management team including BillyMartin, the lawyer for Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick in hisdogfighting case, and Washington attorney Stan Brand, a former generalcounsel to the U.S. House. Martin is looking into the Minnesota guiltyplea; Brand, who represented Major League Baseball in the congressionalinvestigation into steroid use, will handle any Senate Ethics Committeeprobe.
Not surprising. Not one bit.
The Senate should have fun with Stan Brand, who did not do the finest job of arguing the steroid case in front of Congress. And already, Brand is up to his usual tricks, accusing Congress of wanting to launch an investigation about a "."
Actually, Brand, the official duty of elected officials, at the very least, is to first obey the law.
And if you don't think foot-tapping in a public bathroom warrants such criminal charges to be handed down, maybe try asking the police themselves how often this happens. According to a report last week on CNN, this kind of solicitation, called "cruising," is quite common:
Recent Comments