For Dems only.

[KipWellsFan]

Kevin Federline (Yes, that one):

(Quickly changing my voter registration to Republican....)

 

I'm just surprised he heard about the shooting incident nevermind even knowing who the Vice President is.

[Balta1701]

Some actual good news: A federal Judge has allowed the first set of NSA lawsuits to go forward. In March, the administration asked the judge to dismiss the suits on the grounds that having them go forwards would jeopardize national security, a nasty little trick they've used quite a bit over the last few years.

[Balta1701]

More good n ews. The #3 man at the Justice Department will have to testify under oath about why the DOJ reduced the settlement in the federal tobacco case from $130 billion to $10 billion

[Balta1701]

Bill O'Reilly gets Malmedy backwards.

[Balta1701]

The next time you hear a media member complain about how the Dems are just making the environment more partisan by gunning for Lieberman, take a note of how much you hear about the challenge the Republicans base is making against 2 of their representatives right now. Both of whom are probably in hotter water than Lieberman right now.

[Balta1701]

The Center for Public Integrity takes a look at privately funded travel by folks in Congress, and finds that private individuals, companies, and groups have funded over $50 million in travel for Congress since 2000. The worst offenders, in both number of trips and money? (in alphabetical order)

 

Offices Taking More Than $350,000 in Travel

Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas)

Rep. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.)

Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio)

Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas)

Rep. J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.)

Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.)

Rep. Michael Oxley (R-Ohio)

Rep. W.J. Tauzin (R-La.)*

Rep. William Thomas (R-Calif.)

Rep. Robert Wexler (D-Fla.)

Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska)

 

Offices Taking More Than 200 Trips

Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas)

Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio)

Rep. Larry Combest (R-Texas)*

Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas)

Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.)

Rep. J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.)

Rep. Michael Oxley (R-Ohio)

Rep. W.J. Tauzin (R-La.)*

Rep. William Thomas (R-Calif.)

Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska)

* = no longer in Congress

[NorthSideSox72]

The Center for Public Integrity takes a look at privately funded travel by folks in Congress, and finds that private individuals, companies, and groups have funded over $50 million in travel for Congress since 2000. The worst offenders, in both number of trips and money? (in alphabetical order)

Interesting, since, wasn't Boehner nominated by the GOP as majority leader with an emphasis on his impeccable ethics? Not that this behavior is, per se, unethical. But it does raise a few flags of concern. Especially since his funded travel is greater than DeLay that he replaced, and that travel was part of what got the hammer in trouble in the first place.

[Balta1701]

Interesting stat

 

US companies have increased their share of the economic pie at a faster rate over the past five years than at any time since the second world war.

 

Recent government figures show that profits from current production as a share of national income have risen from 7 per cent in mid-2001 to 12.2 per cent at the start of this year. This rate of growth is unprecedented since collection of these figures began in 1947.

 

Profits have climbed by 123 per cent over the same period, soaring from $714.5bn (€552.57bn, £378.89bn) to $1,595.4bn - also the fastest increase since records began. Other official data have shown that profit growth by manufacturing companies, often seen as one of the weakest sectors, has outstripped the rest of the economy. The figures suggest corporate America is enjoying one of its best periods despite more competition from low-cost countries and tougher corporate governance and disclosure rules.

[Balta1701]

Defending Marriage..."Has Senator Burns ever had sex with a transvestite prostitute?"

[Balta1701]

Success! The Walton family bailout bill has gone down in flames for now.

[Balta1701]

So, back when the House and the Senate were debating the most recent funding bill for the Iraq debacle, both the House and Senate overwhelmingly passed amendments to the bills which would prevent the Administration from spending any of the money to build "Permanent military bases" in Iraq. So in other words, that amendment had the support of majorities of both houses of Congress. And then...the 2 bills went to a Republican controlled conference committee to reconcile the differences between the 2 bills. If you can't figure out where this story is going...You haven't paid attention to these Republicans.

 

(Rep Barbara Lee, D-cA) introduced an amendment to the latest emergency war spending bill prohibiting the use of funds to build such bases. The House accepted it, and the Senate included the same wording in its version.

 

However, the provision was dropped by House and Senate conferees reconciling the two versions of the bill.

 

"Their willingness to abuse the process is amazing,'' she said of Republican leaders. "I hope the debate will at least get a debate going on permanent bases.''

Yeah, we don't want permanent bases...but no, you can't have that in writing.

 

Edit, by the way, both of those amendments were passed unanimously.

Edited June 9, 2006 by Balta1701

[Balta1701]

Arlen Specter proposes blanket amnesty for anyone who violated the law through the current NSA program. Funny, I thought it was 100% legal.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Arlen Specter proposes blanket amnesty for anyone who violated the law through the current NSA program. Funny, I thought it was 100% legal.

Who didn't see that coming from Specter?

 

Specter talks a good game about being concerned over the legality of these programs, and tries to look like he's standing up to the administration, but he always, ALWAYS caves.

Edited June 9, 2006 by FlaSoxxJim

[NorthSideSox72]

So, back when the House and the Senate were debating the most recent funding bill for the Iraq debacle, both the House and Senate overwhelmingly passed amendments to the bills which would prevent the Administration from spending any of the money to build "Permanent military bases" in Iraq. So in other words, that amendment had the support of majorities of both houses of Congress. And then...the 2 bills went to a Republican controlled conference committee to reconcile the differences between the 2 bills. If you can't figure out where this story is going...You haven't paid attention to these Republicans.

 

Yeah, we don't want permanent bases...but no, you can't have that in writing.

That could probably be contested as Unconstitutional. If the Prez signs it, it means he signed a bill that was materially different than what either house passed.

[Rex Kickass]

Actually, its totally constitutional because the conferenced bill goes back up for approval to both houses.

[Balta1701]

Actually, its totally constitutional because the conferenced bill goes back up for approval to both houses.

Yup, this is one of those nasty procedural tricks the Republican Congress has used to get everything they want. They pass bills in both houses first, the bill goes to conference to iron out the differences, and the Republicans then strip out things that are identical in both bills if they don't like them. They then send the bill back to both houses and expect that no one can vote against a compromise bill to fund the troops, which, considering the war effort is basically out of money until this bill is signed, is basically the truth.

[NorthSideSox72]

Actually, its totally constitutional because the conferenced bill goes back up for approval to both houses.

OK, then I agree. I missed/forgot that part about the review vote (I think I knew at one time). Too much space taken up in my brain by Sox stuff.

[Balta1701]

'I'd rather they beat up on him than me or Chertoff.' "

George W. Bush, reportedly talking about Michael Brown.

[Balta1701]

http://sungazette.net/articles/2006/06/11/...ews/nws936e.txt

 

If Democrats win back control of the U.S. House of Representatives in November, U.S. Rep. Jim Moran said he would use his position in the majority to help funnel more funds to his Northern Virginia district.

 

Moran, D-8th, told those attending the Arlington County Democratic Committee's annual Jefferson-Jackson Day dinner on June 9 that while he in theory might oppose the fiscal irresponsibility of “earmarks” - funneling money to projects in a member of Congress's district - he understands the value they have to constituents.

 

“When I become chairman [of a House appropriations subcommittee], I'm going to earmark the s*** out of it,” Moran buoyantly told a crowd of 450 attending the event.

 

:banghead

[Balta1701]

So Here's your update on the Russel Tice testimony. The testimony was done, but was done behind closed doors, and no one seems to know if there'll be anything actually done based on it. Other committees seem to want to interview the guy and are asking the NSA for permission, but the NSA is stonewalling and not answering the questions.

[FlaSoxxJim]

So Here's your update on the Russel Tice testimony. The testimony was done, but was done behind closed doors, and no one seems to know if there'll be anything actually done based on it. Other committees seem to want to interview the guy and are asking the NSA for permission, but the NSA is stonewalling and not answering the questions.

 

I was starting to wonder whether he ever testified or not. Something else troubling me is that the %@#*&! Intelligence Committee is NOT asking to intterview Tice. I can see Chairman Pat Roberts doing everything he can to stonewall against Tice testifying before Intelligence. But that can't be sitting well with Vice Chairman John Rockefeller, seeing as he was one of the first Congresspersons to voice their concerns when the questionable NSA programs first came to light, even calling for a congressional investigation into them.

 

The purposeful memory holes being created in regard to any testimony concerning or any attempt at investigation into the NSA programs is truly Orwellian in nature.

 

Michael Haydon's briefing to Intelligence on the eve of the CIA confirmation hearings, specifically so that any potentially thorny NSA spying questions would then be off the table. . . allowing Tice to testify only behind closed doors and then figuring out how best to ignore any revelations he might have made. . . killing investigations into the complicity of the telcos and stonewalling the ACLU suit. . . and on it goes. . .

[Balta1701]

I was starting to wonder whether he ever testified or not. Something else troubling me is that the %@#*&! Intelligence Committee is NOT asking to intterview Tice. I can see Chairman Pat Roberts doing everything he can to stonewall against Tice testifying before Intelligence. But that can't be sitting well with Vice Chairman John Rockefeller, seeing as he was one of the first Congresspersons to voice their concerns when the questionable NSA programs first came to light, even calling for a congressional investigation into them.

I don't know if it's just me, but I've had the impression for quite a while that Rockefeller hasn't exactly been that strong of a minority leader on what has turned out to be one of the most important committees for oversight of this White House. I think the type example is the WMD report that, 7 months after Reid shut down the Senate, still isn't done somehow.

[FlaSoxxJim]

I don't know if it's just me, but I've had the impression for quite a while that Rockefeller hasn't exactly been that strong of a minority leader on what has turned out to be one of the most important committees for oversight of this White House. I think the type example is the WMD report that, 7 months after Reid shut down the Senate, still isn't done somehow.

 

It's not just you. Rockefeller's acquiescence on things like this has pissed me off greatly.

 

As can be seen by my use of this smiley >>

[Balta1701]

So, Here's an update on that Truthout.org "Karl Rove to be indicted" article from a month ago. Now the author is saying that the day Fitzgerald met with the Grand Jury, an indictment was returned, but it has remained sealed for a month, with the parties remaining unnamed. He's saying the indictmment is currently read as "Sealed v. Sealed".

 

So, if the original article was taken with a grain of salt, this one should probably be taken with one of those water softener salt blocks.

[FlaSoxxJim]

So, Here's an update on that Truthout.org "Karl Rove to be indicted" article from a month ago. Now the author is saying that the day Fitzgerald met with the Grand Jury, an indictment was returned, but it has remained sealed for a month, with the parties remaining unnamed. He's saying the indictmment is currently read as "Sealed v. Sealed".

 

So, if the original article was taken with a grain of salt, this one should probably be taken with one of those water softener salt blocks.

 

. . . Or, Jason Leopold could be vindicated some time in the near future.

 

Remaining hopeful. . .