January 29, 2007

January 21, 2007

One party offers the possibility of the first black President, the first Hispanic President or the first female President while the other party offers the 40th or so white dude President.

July 21, 2006

One day while I was at the White House working on the First Lady's White House Conference on Philanthropy, Mom called and asked me if I knew whether Hillary Clinton was going to run for Senate once they left office. I told her I didn't know, but that there was no way in hell Hillary would do something so risky as to possibly lose an election. I guess someone at the White House knew what coattails were all about.

Anyway, Hillary Clinton continues to surprise me. Just recently, she shared her vision of children with computer chips in their brains. Mind you, these will be chips placed there by Madison Ave. execs, but if you think about the potential here, you'll see where this is going.

The pharmaceutical companies pretty much own about 90% of children's brains in America. They've long staked-out this frontier by aggressively cramming their wares into these hapless sponges for about 10 years now. With the prospects mentioned below by Hillary Clinton, and with emerging parental control chip technology already deployed, children everywhere could finally be on solid footing. It wouldn't take a whole village. It would take nothing more than a server.

"At the rate that technology is advancing, people will be implanting chips in our children to advertise directly into their brains and tell them what kind of products to buy," Clinton said at the Kaiser Family Foundation.
[Hil frets chips will be put in kids' brains - NY Daily News - 07-21-06]

July 19, 2006

Today's Washington Post describes conservative intellectuals as abandoning the President on foreign policy. I inserted some accompanying video to illustrate President Bush's amazing level of understanding regarding North Korea, as well as video illustrating his tough "stop doing this shit" strategy in the War On Terror.

Thanks to the conservatives who put President Bush in office, it's now easy to see that words and the messages they convey aren't exactly the biggest weapon in our nation's arsenal when we need them the most.

Conservative intellectuals and commentators who once lauded Bush for what they saw as a willingness to aggressively confront threats and advance U.S. interests said in interviews that they perceive timidity and confusion about long-standing problems including Iran and North Korea, as well as urgent new ones such as the latest crisis between Israel and Hezbollah.

"It is Topic A of every single conversation," said Danielle Pletka, vice president for foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, a think tank that has had strong influence in staffing the administration and shaping its ideas. "I don't have a friend in the administration, on Capitol Hill or any part of the conservative foreign policy establishment who is not beside themselves with fury at the administration."
[Conservative Anger Grows Over Bush's Foreign Policy - Washington Post - 07-19-06]

Here is a nice clip of President Bush's special way of easing tensions with European allies. Did Putin get a massage, too, or was this one just for the ladies? Creepy.

July 05, 2006

Joe Lieberman only believes "we must honor the decisions made by Democratic primary voters" as long as that decision benefits his personal job security.

"I've known Joe Lieberman for more than thirty years. I have been pleased to support him in his campaign for re-election, and hope that he is our party's nominee," the former first lady said in a statement issued by aides.

"But I want to be clear that I will support the nominee chosen by Connecticut Democrats in their primary," the New York Democrat added. "I believe in the Democratic Party, and I believe we must honor the decisions made by Democratic primary voters."
[Clinton Draws Line on Backing Lieberman - AP - 07-05-06]

May 18, 2006

Despite the effort having no chance of passing a Senate vote, Republican Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) has scheduled a vote in the Senate on June 5, setting aside the American people's business for his own idea of America's priority.

The latest proposal from the Republican party to address the most important issues of intelligence gathering failures, emergency response failures, homeland defense, record deficit spending, a mismanaged war in Iraq, bribery scandals, criminal indictments of elected officials and ethics violations under the Congressional reign of Republicans is to add yet another disgrace to their legacy by attempting to write discrimination into the United States Constitution.

"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman," reads the measure, which would require approval by two-thirds of Congress and three-fourths of the states to take effect.

"Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman," it says.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) has scheduled a vote the week of June 5.
[Specter to Feingold: 'Good Riddance' - Washington Post - 05-19-06]

May 07, 2006

Markos Moulitsas, more popularly known for his blog DailyKos, may become more popularly known for his amnesia of the Clinton years.

Hillary Clinton leads her Democratic rivals in the polls and in fundraising. Unfortunately, however, the New York senator is part of a failed Democratic Party establishment -- led by her husband -- that enabled the George W. Bush presidency and the Republican majorities, and all the havoc they have wreaked at home and abroad. Of course, it's still early. [Hillary Clinton: Too Much of a Clinton Democrat? - Washington Post - 05-07-06]

Of course, it's still early, but Moulitsas's conclusion that Bill Clinton is at the center of a failed Democratic Party is intellectually retarded. Setting aside President Bill Clinton balancing the budget and delivering record surpluses, Moulitsas and his friends seem to have forgotten that it was Al Gore who lost to George W. Bush in 2000 for chosing not to run on the well documented successes of the Clinton Gore Administration. The hard loss in 2000 has finally brought Moulitsas and his friends full circle with the blame Clinton fruit cups on the right.

May 05, 2006

Are their any Republicans that think Republican Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist exhibited any leadership on gas prices that they want to see in a 2008 presidential candidate? Even in his position as the majority leader in the Senate, Bill Frist couldn't whip his own party behind his latest flop of an idea. There is a flicker of sanity in the Republican party after all.

"I made it clear in no uncertain terms to some of the staff that this was bad politics and bad policy." -- Sen. John Sununu (R-NH)

"I think it hurt all of us. It appeared to be a non-serious response to a serious problem." -- Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX)

"That's a stupid idea. It is short-term; it's not a fix." -- Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)

"I never was in favor of that." -- Sen. John Thune (R-SD)

"It seemed reasonable to him." -- Eric Ueland, Chief of Staff to Bill Frist
[Frist gas rebate plan shows ideas don't always become law - Tennessean - 05-05-06]

May 02, 2006

Not only has Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist led Republicans through one of the most corrupt, irresponsible deficit-spending reigns in U.S. Congressional history, Frist was more recently responsible for 1) trying to buy time for a Dubai-based firm's take over of U.S. ports, 2) an investigation into his alleged involvement in insider trading, and 3) now wants to give you and me $100 to treat those cash-strapped oil companies that are hosing the American people for the highest profits in American corporate history.

That's just how a Frist Administration would roll.

Limbaugh was right. This deal does insult the public's intelligence. A $100 rebate check would buy a measly two tanks of gas. For that, Americans are expected to get on board with oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, a bad idea that has risen from the dead once again as an attachment to the rebate legislation.

Then there's the insult to financial sanity. Your $100 check wouldn't really be your money. It would be borrowed money, added to the frightful mounting tab this nation is leaving for your descendants to clean up.

Deservedly, the rebate plan has ignited an angry backlash from across the political spectrum. The New York Times reports a surge of constituent messages to Republican senators, "ridiculing the rebate as a paltry and transparent attempt to pander to voters in advance of the midterm elections."

This blowback hits hardest on Sen. Bill Frist of Tennessee, the Republican leader who aspires to the presidency. The rebate stinker is mostly his baby.
[The Senate Republicans' $100 Misunderstanding - Oregonian - 05-02-06]

How does Bill Frist plan to pay for his ridiculous plan? His solution is no different from any irresponsible teenager or how Republicans have paid for everything over the past 6 years: they charge the bill for their exploits to your credit card.

Frist, the Tennessee Republican, had proposed an accounting change that would have required oil companies to pay more taxes on their inventory of crude as a way to pay the one-time rebate which GOP leaders rolled out last week as they scrambled to find ways to ease public anger over soaring gasoline prices.

In a statement, Frist said he will still push the rebate, but abandoned the accounting change and said the Senate Finance Committee planned a hearing on the issue in the near future.

Frist gave no indication how the rebate, estimated to cost about $10 billion, will be paid for, although he said he still planned to "find a way to bring our proposals to the Senate floor for a vote."
[Sen. Frist Backs Off Oil Co. Tax Increase - WashingtonPost - 05-02-06]

April 26, 2006

As the White House announces today their pick for new Press Secretary, FOX News commentator and now White House Press Secretary Tony Snow had this to say in his April 26, 2006 column.

One of the things that always made me feel good in the morning was waking up and realizing I did not belong to the same political party as Chuck Schumer. It made me feel clean -- even before I took a shower. But now, with my Republican president pulling a "full Schumer," even a series of showers will not help.
[Bush and Schumer together -- oh my - TownHall - 04-26-06]

"My Republican president pulling a 'full Schumer?'" Let the press corps questions begin.

UPDATE 8:17AM: Conservative 2008 Presidential hopeful Sen. George Allen (R-VA) just made the following comments on FOX in response to the White House announcement that hints at the Senator's possible picks as president for the most wacky cabinent in American history.

I think it's a great choice. The best thing that Tony's going to do is bring the pulse of the American people into the White House in those deliberations. People like Laura Ingram, and Tony, and Hannity and, uh, Rush Limbaugh, they understand what's going on in the world, and I think that's going to be very helpful for the White House as they develop policy to move this country forward. So I congratulate Tony. Great choice by the President, and I think it will be good for the American people, too, to have one of their advocates clearly in the White House having the pulse of the people in the real world.
[Senator George Allen - FOXNews - 04-26-06]

March 08, 2006

Senator Bill Frist (R-TN) has a choice. Sen. Frist can either stand with America's interests and allow the U.S. Senate to vote on the Dubai port deal or stand with corporate interests and buy time for a government-owned Dubai company's attempt to run some of our nation's ports.

In an election-year repudiation of President Bush, a House panel dominated by Republicans voted overwhelmingly Wednesday to block a Dubai-owned firm from taking control of some U.S port operations.

By 62-2, the Appropriations Committee voted to bar DP World, run by the government of Dubai in the United Arab Emirates, from holding leases or contracts at U.S. ports. Bush has promised to veto any such measure passed by Congress, but there is widespread public opposition to the deal and the GOP fears losing its advantage on the issue of national security in this fall's elections.

As the panel acted, Democrats on the other side of the Capitol were clamoring for a vote on the same issue in the GOP-led Senate.

"We believe an overwhelming majority will vote to end the deal," said Democrat Charles Schumer of New York, whose attempt to force the issue to the floor brought the Senate to a late-afternoon standstill.

By its vote, the House committee attached the ports language to a must-pass $91 billion measure financing hurricane recovery and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The full House could consider that measure as early as next week.
[House Committee Votes to Block Ports Deal - Washington Post - 03-08-06]

March 08, 2006

I don't know about you, but when the House passes legislation next week banning a government-owned company in the United Arab Emirates from running our nation's sea ports, I'll be watching my Senator, Bill Frist (R-TN).

I hope Sen. Frist quickly brings the legislation to the floor of the Senate and doesn't stonewall the American people's business or short-change our national security in favor of a business deal with a government-owned multi-national corporation.

Since the Dubai port issue exploded last month, the Bush administration, GOP leaders and DP World officials have tried to defuse the situation and to buy time to let the issue fade.

In a deal brokered by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), DP World resubmitted its acquisition this week to the administration for a 45-day national security investigation. Frist has said he will hold off any legislation in the Senate until that inquiry is completed, a vow meant to give the administration and the company a chance to present their case.

That agreement appears to have quieted calls in the Senate for immediate action against the deal. Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.), an early critic of the deal, said briefings by port security experts and company officials have eased his concerns. But House Republican aides and Senate Democrats said the Senate will almost certainly have to follow once the House acts.
[House Agrees To Vote On Ports - Washington Post - 03-08-06]

December 09, 2005

The way Sen. George Allen sees it, protecting gays will infringe on other people's right to hate them, and we don't want civil rights to apply to gays anyhow.

Republican U.S. Sen. George Allen will no longer support "hate crimes" legislation that includes "sexual orientation" as a protected status, even if the proposal is identical to a bill he voted for in 2004. The Virginia senator acknowledged Friday that such legislation could be used by federal courts to extend civil rights protections to homosexuals and to squelch free speech.

"Senator Allen is going to vote against adding 'sexual orientation' to federal 'hate crimes' laws," Mike Thomas, Allen's state director, told Cybercast News Service Friday.

Thomas said Allen has two serious concerns after monitoring how the federal courts have applied similar laws.

"The first is, he feels that those changes to hate crimes laws could have a chilling effect on First Amendment rights," Thomas said.

"Secondly - even though he doesn't feel that the legislation that was voted on in 2004, in and of itself, would elevate 'sexual orientation' to civil rights status - it's becoming clear that there are some courts that would use that as a building block toward civil rights status, which he is opposed to."
[Exclusive: Sen. Allen Withdraws 'Hate Crimes' Support - CNSnews - 12-09-05]

December 08, 2005

What an endorsement. (via Hotline)

"You are going to be one heck of a president," said former Gov. Jim Hodges, who lost his re-election bid to Republican Mark Sanford in 2002.

"I believe like the rest of you that we have a real winner here tonight," added former Democratic Gov. and U.S. Sen. Fritz Hollings.

Dick Harpootlian, a former state party chairman and vocal Warner supporter, took one step further: "I think the people in this room heard the next president of the United States. He was inspiring."

This led political pundit Tom Schaller, who was on hand for the event, to one conclusion: "He just won the South Carolina primary."
[Virginia's Warner wows S.C. Democrats - Post and Courier - 12-08-05]

December 07, 2005

During Virginia's statewide elections, which I worked on over the past year, Gov. Mark Warner kept his eye on Nov. 8, 2005 and helped deliver victory for Tim Kaine. Now, Warner's looking ahead.

Warner's new political-action committee, called Forward Together, collected more than $2.5 million during its first fundraiser, setting a record for Virginia politics.

Republican gubernatorial candidate Jerry W. Kilgore set the modern standard when he brought in nearly $2.1 million at a Northern Virginia fundraiser featuring President Bush last summer.

"I have never seen this kind of enthusiasm for a potential presidential candidate," said former Lt. Gov. Donald S. Beyer Jr., the committee's treasurer. "This is the kind of intensity we saw only after John Kerry got the nomination in 2004."
[Cash infusion for Gov. Warner - Times Dispatch - 12-07-05]

also read: RaisingKaine

December 06, 2005

There are two ways to appear moderate to the American people. 1) pick up the flag of a few issues of your opponent's base and run it up the nearest flag pole with zeal, or 2) have some good old American common sense in everything you do and hope people pay attention. It looks like Hillary Clinton has chosen the first option.

Clinton, D-N.Y., has agreed to co-sponsor a measure by Republican Sen. Bob Bennett of Utah, which has been written in hopes of surviving any constitutional challenge following a 2003 Supreme Court ruling on the subject. Her support of Bennett's bill follows her position in Congress last summer, when a constitutional ban on flag-burning was debated. Clinton said then she didn't support a constitutional ban, but did support federal legislation making it a crime to desecrate the flag.

In her public statements, she has compared the act of flag-burning to burning a cross, which can be considered a violation of federal civil rights law.
[Sen. Clinton co-sponsors anti-flag burning law - Newsday - 12-05-05]

I don't have any desire to burn an American flag, but I don't want pandering politicians placing asterisks in our nation's constitutional protection of civil liberties, especially free speech.

This is a democracy, not a totalitarian regime where the government can haul individuals before a court claiming the government is the victim and has been violated by an individual's speech.

Sen. Clinton opposed a previous attempt to amend the constitution to ban flag burning.

"I support federal legislation that would outlaw flag desecration, much like laws that currently prohibit the burning of crosses, but I don't believe a constitutional amendment is the answer," said Clinton. Her aides said there was no contradiction in being against the flag-burning amendment and for a flag-burning law.
[Flag amendment may lack votes to pass Senate - First Amendment Center - 06-13-05]

Here is what the "Flag Protection Act of 2005" says.

`(b) ACTIONS PROMOTING VIOLENCE- Any person who destroys or damages a flag of the United States with the primary purpose and intent to incite or produce imminent violence or a breach of the peace, and under circumstances in which the person knows that it is reasonably likely to produce imminent violence or a breach of the peace, shall be fined not more than $100,000, imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.

`(c) DAMAGING A FLAG BELONGING TO THE UNITED STATES- Any person who steals or knowingly converts to his or her use, or to the use of another, a flag of the United States belonging to the United States, and who intentionally destroys or damages that flag, shall be fined not more than $250,000, imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

`(d) DAMAGING A FLAG OF ANOTHER ON FEDERAL LAND- Any person who, within any lands reserved for the use of the United States, or under the exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction of the United States, steals or knowingly converts to his or her use, or to the use of another, a flag of the United States belonging to another person, and who intentionally destroys or damages that flag, shall be fined not more than $250,000, imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
[S 1370 IS "Flag Protection Act of 2005"]

Sen. Clinton doesn't want you to burn a flag for the purpose of inciting violence. She's totally against people burning someone else's flag. And she doesn't want you to burn that stolen flag on federal property. The last I checked, inciting violence, theft and disposing stolen goods is already criminal. Is this attempt to remain constitutional a joke?

Take a look at the "Flag Protection Act of 1989" which the Supreme Court of the United States said was unconstitutional.

Whoever knowingly mutilates, defaces, physically defiles, burns, maintains on the floor or ground, or tramples upon any flag of the United States shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.
[Flag Protection Act of 1989]

December 03, 2005

The funny thing is, you don't even have to be President to have to take responsibility for our nation's war in Iraq. You can also be a Senator.

Clinton, who is running for re-election next year and is considered a possible presidential candidate in 2008, targeted the president's handling of the war for some of her sharpest criticism.

"The time has come for the administration to stop serving up platitudes and present a plan for finishing this war with success and honor," she said. "I reject a rigid timetable that the terrorists can exploit, and I reject an open timetable that has no ending attached to it.

"Instead, I think we need a plan for winning and concluding this war, and the president can begin by taking responsibilities for the false assurances, faulty evidence and mismanagement of this war."
[Clinton Tells Ky. Dems Bush Mismanaged War - Washington Post - 12-03-05]