For GOP only

[EvilMonkey]

Looks like Howard Dean and the DNC are being sued for discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Guess they didn't feel like being inclusive. Or keeping campaign promises.

http://www.courthousenews.com/HitchDNC.pdf

 

Seems the Dems also like to talk dirty.

"Why don't you go f--- yourself?" Emanuel replied, as he entered a men's room in the Capitol basement.

That was his reply to a reporter who asked him about the language in a lobby reform bill. How nice.

 

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0507/3966_Page2.html

(The quote is at the bottom of the page)

[Rex Kickass]

Rahm Emmanuel is a douchebag.

[Rex Kickass]

Looks like Howard Dean and the DNC are being sued for discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Guess they didn't feel like being inclusive. Or keeping campaign promises.

http://www.courthousenews.com/HitchDNC.pdf

 

I read that brief. Nobody really looks good in this. It sounds like people in the DNC are not the best at handling situations, it sounds like he doesn't understand the concept of what a political outreach coordinator does.

[southsider2k5]

Hmm maybe Wal-Mart is an evil corporation after all?

 

http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2006/Wal-M...nton10mar06.htm

 

NEW YORK — With retail giant Wal-Mart under fire to improve its labor and health care policies, one Democrat with deep ties to the company — Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton — has started feeling her share of the political heat.

 

 

Clinton served on Wal-Mart's board of directors for six years when her husband was governor of Arkansas. And the Rose Law Firm, where she was a partner, handled many of the Arkansas-based company's legal affairs.

 

Hillary Clinton had kind words for Wal-Mart as recently as 2004, when she told an audience at the convention of the National Retail Federation that her time on the board "was a great experience in every respect."

 

But in recent months, as the company has become a target for Democratic activists, she has largely steered clear of any mention of Wal-Mart. And late last year, Clinton's re-election campaign returned a $5,000 contribution from Wal-Mart, citing "serious differences with current company practices."

 

As Clinton sheds her Arkansas past and looks ahead to a possible 2008 presidential run, the Wal-Mart issue presents an exquisite dilemma: how to reconcile the political demands she faces today with her history at a company many American consumers depend upon but many Democratic activists revile.

 

"The interesting question is not just Hillary Clinton's history at Wal-Mart, but why it's delicate for her to talk about Wal-Mart," said Charles Fishman, author of "The Wal-Mart Effect," a book on the company's impact on the national economy. "Plenty of Democrats denounce Wal-Mart, but there are also plenty of people who need it, love it and rely on it."

 

———

 

If you worked for Wal-Mart at any time since December 26, 1998, you may have legal claims in a class action sex discrimination lawsuit against Wal-Mart.

 

Si Ud. desea información en Español sobre esta demanda de la acción de clase contra Wal-Mart, por favor llámenos al (800) 839-4372.

 

 

In 1986, when Wal-Mart's founder, Sam Walton, tapped Clinton to be the company's first female board member, Wal-Mart was a fraction of its current size, with $11.9 billion in net sales.

 

Today, Wal-Mart is the world's largest retailer and largest private employer, with over $312 billion in sales last year and 1.3 million employees or "associates" in the U.S. alone. But recently, the company has drawn intense scrutiny for its labor practices — from its wages to the lack of affordable health coverage for employees, to its stiff resistance to unionization.

 

Throughout the 1980s, both Bill and Hillary Clinton nurtured relationships with Walton, a conservative Republican and by far Arkansas' most influential businessman.

 

Among other things, Hillary Clinton sought Walton's help in 1983 for Bill Clinton's so-called Blue Ribbon Commission on Education, a major effort to improve Arkansas' troubled public schools. The overhaul became a centerpiece of Clinton's governorship.

 

And Wal-Mart's Made in America campaign, which for years touted the company's sales of American products in its stores, was launched after Bill Clinton persuaded Walton to help save 200 jobs at an Arkansas shirt manufacturing plant. The Made in America campaign has virtually vanished in recent years, as the company's manufacturing has gradually moved overseas — another point of criticism by many anti-Wal-Mart activists.

 

The Clintons also benefited financially from Wal-Mart. Hillary Clinton was paid $18,000 each year she served on the board, plus $1,500 for each meeting she attended. By 1993 she had accumulated at least $100,000 in Wal-Mart stock, according to Bill Clinton's federal financial disclosure that year. The Clintons also flew for free on Wal-Mart corporate planes 14 times in 1990 and 1991 in preparation for Bill Clinton's 1992 presidential bid.

 

———

 

Wal-Mart has little to say about Hillary Clinton's board service, and will not release minutes of the company's board meetings during her tenure. Lorraine Voles, Clinton's communications director, turned down a request for an interview with the senator.

 

Still, details have come to light over the years.

 

Bob Ortega, author of "In Sam We Trust," a history of Wal-Mart, said Clinton used her position to urge the company to improve its gender and racial diversity. Because of Clinton's prodding, Walton agreed to hire an outside firm to track the company's progress in hiring women and minorities, Ortega said.

 

"These were things the company was not addressing and wouldn't have, had she not pushed them to do so," Ortega said. "She's somebody who could definitely get things done."

 

In fact, Clinton proved to be such a thorn in Walton's side that at Wal-Mart's annual meeting in 1987, when shareholders challenged Walton on the company's lack of female managers, he assured them the record was improving "now that we have a strong willed young lady on the board."

 

Clinton was particularly vocal on environmental matters, pressing the company to boost its sale and use of recycled materials and other "green" products.

 

Garry Mauro, who served with Clinton on a Wal-Mart environmental advisory committee, pointed to many successes, such as persuading the company to establish recycling centers and sell products like recycled oil and long-life light bulbs.

 

"Hillary had real impact — when she had an idea, things got moving," he said. "When she resigned from the committee, it stopped having any innovative ideas and stopped being effective."

 

Still, critics say there was little tangible change at Wal-Mart during Clinton's tenure, despite her apparent prodding.

 

"There's no evidence she did anything to improve the status of women or make it a very different place in ways Mrs. Clinton's Democratic base would care about," said Liza Featherstone, author of "Selling Women Short: The Landmark Battle for Worker's Rights at Wal-Mart."

 

———

 

The Wal-Mart debate has been playing out in Legislatures and city councils around the country in the last year, even hitting close to Clinton's adopted home.

 

New York State legislators of both parties are promoting bills requiring businesses including Wal-Mart to provide health coverage to their workers. And in October, New York City passed a law, aimed squarely at Wal-Mart, requiring large grocery stores to pay most workers a health care benefit worth an estimated $2.50 to $3 an hour. The law helped stall Wal-Mart's efforts to move into the city, even though recent polls indicate a majority of New Yorkers would welcome Wal-Mart.

 

Amid the deluge of legislative proposals around the country, Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott announced last month that the company would expand its effort to enroll more workers in a new, low-premium health plan. The company will also trim the waiting period for part-time employees to become eligible for coverage.

 

But Hillary Clinton, who as first lady proposed a wide-ranging but ultimately unsuccessful plan to reshape the nation's health care system, has had little to say about Wal-Mart's health care record.

 

"That was a long time ago," she said recently when asked if she had done anything about the company's health care policies while she served on its board.

 

That comment was met with disbelief from Jonathan Tasini, a longtime labor organizer mounting a longshot challenge to Clinton in New York's Democratic Senate primary.

 

"Voters would find it a strained argument to believe that the senator who prides herself on intelligence and knowledge of detail can't recall any details in this case. It just strains credulity," Tasini said.

 

Nonetheless, Clinton and her advisers continue to insist that Wal-Mart has fundamentally changed since her tenure on the board.

 

"Wal-Mart was a different company then and the country was not facing the same health care challenges we face today," communications director Lorraine Voles said.

 

Even Clinton's decision to return Wal-Mart's campaign contribution illustrated the complicated role still Wal-Mart plays in her political life.

 

Wake-Up Wal-Mart posted several entries on its Web log applauding the decision, but others complained that the move seemed hypocritical and opportunistic given her history with the company.

 

Meanwhile, Republican National Committee spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt called the move "standard operating procedure" for Clinton.

 

"When push comes to shove, the senator allows politics to trump principle every time," Schmitt said.

 

Associated Press Writer Marcus Kabel contributed to this report.

[Texsox]

I don't believe it is fair to apply current understandings and values to actions from a decade or more ago. The world changes, far more important is how people face those changes and learn from past mistakes.

[Cknolls]

Poll: Congress 29, Bush 33 [byron York]

 

 

In a new Gallup poll, just 29 percent of those surveyed say they approve of the way Congress is handling its job, versus 64 percent who disapprove. The approval rating is down from a high of 37 percent approval in February, just after Democrats took over. The 64 percent disapproval rating is one point higher than Congress' disapproval rating just before last November's elections. The 29 percent approval rating is four points below President Bush's 33 percent approval rating in the new poll.

 

 

05/15 08:46 AM

[southsider2k5]

I don't believe it is fair to apply current understandings and values to actions from a decade or more ago. The world changes, far more important is how people face those changes and learn from past mistakes.

 

The really interesting thing is that it was a mention from Barrack Obama that told me about this stuff in the first place. If you put Hill and WMT into google, let's just say this was one of the nicer stories. Some were just down right brutal, with some crazy conspiracy type stuff in them.

[Texsox]

The really interesting thing is that it was a mention from Barrack Obama that told me about this stuff in the first place. If you put Hill and WMT into google, let's just say this was one of the nicer stories. Some were just down right brutal, with some crazy conspiracy type stuff in them.

 

And here is a philosophical conundrum in all this. Does a good person go into a bad situation and try to make it better, or does a good person just avoid it all together and avoid getting that stink on them? Jesus chose to dine with tax collectors, so I allow that thought to guide me, but that might not be right for everyone. I thought about that before choosing to work for the Boy Scouts, obviously there are some positions that I have contrary views than the official position. But I doubt anyone finds a company that 100% matches their views.

[Balta1701]

And here is a philosophical conundrum in all this. Does a good person go into a bad situation and try to make it better, or does a good person just avoid it all together and avoid getting that stink on them?

Depends on the salary.

[southsider2k5]

So its OK to go tell people not to shop at Wal-Mart, but then it is still OK to do supply business with them? I don't get that. If they are evil, they are evil.

 

http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/Story?id=3194026&page=2

 

When asked if she had considered resigning from her position, Michelle said that ultimately any changes that she made would be based on her own moral and ethical compass.

 

"I'm going to have to make a range of changes in my life. I've reduced my work hours at work. I will probably have to take a leave at some point. I will probably not be able to maintain my commitments," she said. "But if I make a change, it's going to be based on ... what I think is right."

 

"Barack is gonna say what needs to be said, and it's not going to, you know, necessarily matter ... what I'm doing if it's not the right thing," she said. "He's going to do what's right for ... the country. He's going to speak out. And he's going to, you know, implement his views as he sees fit. ... I see no conflict in that."

[southsider2k5]

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?pt=8ZspIxDwid...DpYUhc4Fy%3D%3D

 

Bob Shrum v. John Edwards

Fight Club

by Michael Crowley

 

 

Political junkies have been awaiting the new memoir by Bob Shrum, the famed consultant to a string of Democratic presidential candidates, including Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004. After compiling an 0-8 record in presidential campaigns, Shrum has taken something of a beating from the political and media establishment of late, and he has been conspicuously absent from the 2008 campaign thus far. But it seems he's determined to play a role after all, as is clear from his forthcoming book, No Excuses: Confessions of a Serial Campaigner.

 

As befits a canny campaign veteran, the book is self-serving in some places and remarkably tough in others. Shrum devotes several passages, for instance, to his feuds with Kerry's initial 2004 campaign manager, Jim Jordan, who was eventually forced out. Among other things, Shrum blames Jordan for a "rancid" mood inside the campaign and for dismissing the value of the Internet even as Howard Dean was harnessing it to historic effect.

 

But no one comes in for rougher treatment in this book than Shrum's former client, John Edwards.

 

Shrum discovered Edwards during the North Carolinian's first Senate campaign in 1998. Shrum writes that, after his encounter with Edwards, he telephoned his business partner and declared, "I think I just met a future President of the United States." But that view would change dramatically.

 

Shrum went on advising Edwards for several years, including as Edwards was contemplating his vote on the fall 2002 Iraq war resolution. In the one passage of the book already widely leaked, Shrum recounts how he and other political advisers pushed Edwards into a vote for the resolution that Edwards--and, even more so, his wife, Elizabeth--didn't want to cast. The episode didn't make Shrum look great. But the real damage is to Edwards, who comes across as a cipher taking orders from his handlers. As Shrum puts it: "[H]e was the candidate and if he was really against the war it was up to him to stand his ground. He didn't."

 

(Edwards aides have said Shrum exaggerates the importance of this meeting and wasn't in other pivotal meetings where Edwards deliberated. But, as an aide to a rival campaign recently pointed out to me, in a moment that passed largely unnoticed, Edwards seemed to confirm the basic thrust of this story during the first Democratic presidential debate last month in South Carolina. "I was wrong to vote for this war," Edwards said. "And the lesson I learned from it is to put more faith in my own judgment." It does sound as though Edwards is admitting that he allowed handlers to overrule his conscience.)

 

By early 2003 Shrum faced a choice: Would he work for Edwards's presidential 2004 campaign? Or would he go with another longtime client and friend, John Kerry? (Shrum had already ruled out two other would-be candidates seeking his services: Joe Lieberman had become "too monochromatic ... the Republicans' favorite Democrat," while Dick Gephardt's "time had passed.")

 

Shrum decided to go with Kerry. By now, he was coming to see Edwards as a lightweight--"a Clinton who hadn't read the books," as he puts it. Edwards didn't take the news well. Shrum writes that, in a dramatic early 2003 phone call, Edwards told him: "I can't believe you would do this to me and my family. I will never, ever forget it, even on my deathbed." The relationship has been poisoned ever since.

 

That surely helps to explain why No Excuses repeatedly portrays Edwards as a hyper-ambitious phony. Nowhere is that clearer--and more startling--than in a passage recounting Kerry's first meeting with Edwards during the summer 2004 running-mate selection process. Kerry had qualms about Edwards from the start, Shrum writes, but grew

 

 

even queasier about Edwards after they met. Edwards had told Kerry he was going to share a story with him that he'd never told anyone else--that after his son Wade had been killed, he climbed onto the slab at the funeral home, laid there and hugged his body, and promised that he'd do all he could to make life better for people, to live up to Wade's ideals of service. Kerry was stunned, not moved, because, as he told me later, Edwards had recounted the exact story to him, almost in the exact same words, a year or two before--and with the same preface, that he'd never shared the memory with anyone else. Kerry said he found it chilling, and he decided he couldn't pick Edwards unless he met with him again.

 

It's a stunning story--enough so to strain credulity. When I asked one person close to Edwards about it, he argued that Shrum's account makes no sense because Edwards had publicly recounted similar versions of the funeral home story before--and thus wouldn't possibly have claimed on either occasion that he was telling it for the first time. The person cites a 2003 Boston Globe story ($) in which Edwards's pollster, Harrison Hickman, recalls warning Edwards that his first run for the Senate could be a nasty experience: "And John looked at me and said, 'If you've ever had to get up on a medical examiner's table and hug your son goodbye, you know that there's nothing worse that can happen to you,'" Hickman recalled. Whether this disproves Shrum's account will be up to readers to decide. (An Edwards campaign spokesman adds that, as with other instances in the book, Shrum wasn't present and is relaying secondhand information.)

 

Regardless, Kerry wasn't too creeped out to choose Edwards as his running mate after further meetings. One reason, Shrum suggests, was that Edwards agreed "absolutely" not to run against Kerry in 2008--an assurance Shrum considers to have been insincere. (Edwards, meanwhile, has previously denied saying this.)

 

But the two men didn't coexist happily. The Kerry campaign was upset that Edwards didn't use more aggressive rhetoric on the campaign trail, Shrum writes. And Shrum portrays Edwards as not entirely ready for prime time. In a prep session before Edwards's one debate with Dick Cheney, Shrum writes, "Edwards came across as unsure and nervous." The session adjourned so Edwards could spend more time reading his briefing books. Shrum writes that Kerry later told him "that Edwards called [Kerry] before the debate in a state of 'panic.' He was worried; maybe he wasn't ready; could he pull this off? Kerry, who thought Edwards was suffering a peculiar but baffling case of stage fright, told his running mate that he'd ... do a great job." (Though Kerry was ultimately disappointed in Edwards's performance, Shrum writes.)

 

Shrum says that, in the end, Kerry "wished that he'd never picked Edwards, that he should have gone with his gut" and selected Dick Gephardt. And the feelings between Kerry and Edwards seem fairly mutual. After Kerry reached out to Edwards in the wake of his wife's disclosure of a recurrence of cancer, Shrum writes, "Kerry told me that the Edwardses simply stopped returning calls or talking to him and Teresa."

 

Kerry, by contrast, comes off fairly well. Shrum paints his 2004 candidate as a good man--albeit one prone to maddening gaffes (including one about a "global test" for military action that prompts Shrum to hurl his cellphone against a wall, smashing it to bits). "When his back was plainly against the wall ... Kerry was bold and decisive. At other times, he tended to second-guess, revise, fiddle, confer with anyone in sight, and try to placate everyone around him. For him, I think the easier days in the White House might have been harder. But in a crisis, I believe Kerry would have shown the right stuff as president."

 

Given that Shrum doesn't seem interested in causing added pain for Kerry, incidentally, it seems reasonable to assume that the anti-Edwards material in this book--like the story involving the mortuary--are included with Kerry's assent. In other words, it may be both Shrum and Kerry who are knifing Edwards here.

 

It's hard to say whether the ghost of Shrum will have a real impact on Edwards's campaign. No Excuses does tend to reinforce nagging doubts about whether Edwards is a manufactured candidate with outsized ambitions but muddy convictions.

 

Needless to say, the Edwards campaign doesn't appreciate Shrum's literary debut. "Bob is obviously more interested in selling books that reporting honestly and accurately about what happened. It's just kind of sad," Edwards spokesperson Mark Kornblau said in an e-mail statement.

 

And it's true that Shrum's constant swipes at Edwards feel like axe-grinding. Why the bitterness? The source close to Edwards cautions that Shrum had sought a bigger role in Edwards's campaign than the candidate was willing to grant. (Shrum himself hints at this in the book, saying Elizabeth Edwards had feared he would be "too visible and dominant a force in the campaign.") Thus, Shrum may have signed up with Kerry only after feeling maligned by the "future president" he'd discovered in North Carolina back in 1998. It's hard to know for sure. Which is, after all, the essential quality of a tell-all Washington memoir--and especially one from a spinner as experienced as Bob Shrum.

[Balta1701]

GOP folks...just like to say...Thanks. Really appreciate your help on this one.

Democrats who campaigned successfully last year against a “culture of corruption” in the Republican-controlled Congress found themselves one-upped today when more than 30 of their own members voted for a GOP motion to strengthen the package.

 

By 228-192, the House adopted a motion by Lamar Smith, R-Texas, to recommit the first of two lobbying bills — a measure requiring quarterly disclosure by lobbyists of bundled contributions to candidates and party units — to broaden the disclosure requirement to cover bundled donations to other PACs as well.

 

After that GOP victory, members of both parties coalesced to pass the bundling bill (HR 2317) by 382-37.

[Texsox]

[NorthSideSox72]

GOP folks...just like to say...Thanks. Really appreciate your help on this one.

Wow. Congress remembering what makes things work, for once.

[southsideirish71]

Al Qaeda Also Fed Up With Ground Zero Construction Delays Edited May 31, 2007 by southsideirish71

[southsider2k5]

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20...1e8boehner.html

 

Taking a step backward on earmarks

 

By John Boehner

June 8, 2007

 

After repeatedly promising the “most honest” and “most open” Congress in history, Democratic leaders have moved to make the earmark process entirely secret.

 

It started in January when the House quickly adopted rules that have prevented lawmakers from challenging an earmark as long as the bill to which it's attached contains a list of earmarks – even if the list is inaccurate and doesn't list the earmark at issue. The rules were supposed to ensure all earmarks receive appropriate scrutiny and opportunity for debate but have instead made it nearly impossible to challenge wasteful spending. In fact, in February the majority used this loophole to certify a massive spending bill as “earmark free,” despite the fact that it contained hundreds of millions of dollars in earmarks.

 

Now a new directive by the Democratic chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., will keep spending bills “earmark free” initially but allow Democrats to air-drop all earmarks into conference reports without any scrutiny. As The Associated Press reported, “Rather than including specific pet projects, grants and contracts in legislation as it is being written,” the order will “keep the bills free of such earmarks until it is too late for critics to effectively challenge them.”

 

While this is an unprecedented move to avoid accountability, it isn't the first time Democrats have shown how far they'll go to protect their pork. C-SPAN's video cameras caught Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., threatening Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich, for targeting a wasteful earmark for Murtha's district that siphoned off money from critical intelligence programs.

 

The rise in earmark secrecy has been accompanied by a massive increase in spending. In total, House Democrats have authorized $98 billion in new federal spending this year alone. They added some $6 billion to the omnibus spending package approved in January and more than $20 billion to the fiscal year 2008 budget. They stuffed more than $17 billion in additional spending into the supplemental and have racked up an additional $9 billion (and counting) in the first four appropriations bills they've marked up at the House Appropriations Committee.

 

All of this has helped fuel public cynicism about Congress and reaffirmed the need for fundamental change in the way Washington spends taxpayer dollars.

 

I've long been opposed to the practice of earmarking tax dollars – particularly its secretive and often wasteful nature – and was pleased when House Republicans passed the first-ever earmark reforms last year making the process more transparent by requiring a lawmaker's name be attached to any request. We also approved legislation creating a public database detailing federal grants and contracts. And just last month, Republicans successfully added a provision to a lobbying reform bill requiring lobbyists to report the earmarks for which they lobby. I've also voiced support for using new technologies to make congressional information more easily accessible and readily available on the Internet. And House Republicans are signing on to a letter signaling support for President Bush's veto of any spending bill that exceeds his requests. This kind of transparency and accountability is good and necessary, and we need more of it.

 

Democratic leaders claim their drastic turn toward earmark secrecy is necessary to give Appropriations Committee members time to review all of the requests – even though they've had plenty of time to do so. But there's no reason the Appropriations Committee should have to work alone. There are dozens of House Republicans – and scores of interested Americans and budget watchdog groups – who would gladly help review all of those requests. Congress just needs to cough up the information and end practices that allow wasteful spending to go unchallenged. Boehner, a Republican from Ohio, is House minority leader.

[southsider2k5]

A bit of Friday news that doesn't involve Paris... This involves destruction of government property and perjury, but we basically have heard nothing about it.

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19106937/

 

Sandy Berger gives up law license

Ex-Clinton security adviser smuggled secret papers from National Archives

 

Updated: 10:46 a.m. CT June 8, 2007

WASHINGTON - Sandy Berger, who served as national security adviser during the Clinton administration, has given up his license to practice law in the District of Columbia, two years after admitting he illegally sneaked classified documents out of the National Archives.

 

Berger, now an international business consultant, said in a statement last month that he "decided to voluntarily relinquish my license" as a result of pleading guilty to unauthorized removal and retention of classified material, a misdemeanor.

 

"I realized then that my law license would be affected," Berger said in the statement, obtained Thursday and issued through his lawyer, Lanny Breuer.

 

"While I derived great satisfaction from years of practicing law, I have not done so for 15 years and do not envision returning to the profession," Berger said. He added: "I am very sorry for what I did, and deeply apologize."

 

In April 2005, Berger admitted destroying some of the documents and then lying about it. He called his actions a lapse of judgment that came while he was preparing to testify before the Sept. 11 commission. The documents he took contained information on terror threats in the United States during the 2000 millennium celebration.

 

Berger had only copies of documents; all the originals remain in the government's possession. A report by the archives inspector general said that Berger acknowledged hiding some of them at a construction site near the archives building in Washington.

 

© 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

[kapkomet]

A bit of Friday news that doesn't involve Paris... This involves destruction of government property and perjury, but we basically have heard nothing about it.

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19106937/

This story NEVER gets the attention it deserves, and stories like this is EXACTLY why the "MSM" is biased. Then, Scooter Libby gets 30 months, while all this guy gets is a "don't do it again" and "you can't practice law" - well no crap, he committed a felony! Now, QUICK, you leftists come tell me how this is WAAAAAY different, and Scooter deserved everything because he was a part of the "evvvvvvvvil and lying" BushCo administration...

[mr_genius]

This story NEVER gets the attention it deserves, and stories like this is EXACTLY why the "MSM" is biased. Then, Scooter Libby gets 30 months, while all this guy gets is a "don't do it again" and "you can't practice law" - well no crap, he committed a felony! Now, QUICK, you leftists come tell me how this is WAAAAAY different, and Scooter deserved everything because he was a part of the "evvvvvvvvil and lying" BushCo administration...

 

the MSM will definately sweep this one under the rug.

[southsider2k5]

http://hillaryspot.nationalreview.com/post...WQ2M2I4YmI3Y2Y=

 

Good News: Elizabeth Edwards Allows John To Go To NBA Finals

 

I watch this video snippet released by the Edwards campaign and I'm half very amused, half shaking my head saying it's not presidential.

 

Edwards calls up Elizabeth, and says he needs advice. He has courtside tickets for the NBA finals, and he's trying to decide whether to go, or to leave that evening for Iowa. Basically, he acknowledges, he's asking for permission to go watch the Cavs and Spurs. She says yes. "That's what I needed! That's my girl!... I love you. (hangs up phone, to cameraman) That's why I love her."

 

Of course, having been hit for the huge house, the $400 haircut, and the $55,000 speaking fee, Edwards now tops it all off with courtside seats for the NBA finals.

 

Not that I blame him for going. But then again, I'm not trying to get elected president by touting myself as a savior of the downtrodden.

[southsider2k5]

Continuing the clean up of Pork in Congress, guess who added the second most earmarks for the defense bill?

 

HILLARY!

 

 

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/clinto...2007-06-13.html

 

Clinton can boast wealth of earmarks

By Roxana Tiron and Ilan Wurman

June 13, 2007

Presidential hopeful Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) has secured more earmarks in the fiscal 2008 defense authorization bill than any other Democrat except for panel Chairman Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.).

 

The bill contains about $5.4 billion in earmarks, or projects not requested by the Pentagon. With their slim majority, the Democrats on the panel claimed two-thirds of that sum. Clinton is among their more junior members.

 

By contrast, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), also a Democratic presidential candidate and Clinton’s rival for the nomination, has only one request in the defense bill.

 

Obama, who is not a member of the committee, made a request along with several other members for a Department of Education program for children with severe disabilities.

 

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a presidential candidate and the panel’s ranking member, has long opposed pork-barrel projects and has no earmark requests. Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), a new member of the panel, also refrained. The two have sponsored earmark-disclosure language as part of the bill’s markup.

 

In the 2008 defense authorization committee report, Senate authorizers published a list of projects requested by lawmakers as well as projects agreed upon by the entire panel. The list does not yet include the companies that would benefit from the extra money.

 

But several senators, including Levin and Clinton, have already touted their achievements in press releases listing companies in their state that would benefit from the requests.

 

Clinton received 26 earmarks worth about $148.4 million total, most of which were also sought by Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.). Clinton and Schumer agreed several years ago to go after projects together, according to several sources.

 

While Schumer has more seniority, Clinton has much higher name recognition and committee membership, which makes her better positioned to deliver projects for the state.

 

According to the watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense, Clinton has secured 360 earmarks worth a combined $2.2 billion from 2002 to 2006 in all spending and authorization bills.

 

“She has learned how to play the game and to use her power on the committee to bring home dollars for her constituents,” said Steve Ellis of Taxpayers for Common Sense. “She knows how to toot her own horn with the constituents, and that will likely play into her national campaigns.”

 

Ellis added that Clinton “micro-targets” her press releases to “seem part of the community.” Through these personal, localized messages, she can build political capital, he added.

 

“She is willing to legislatively roll up her sleeves and bring home the bacon for her constituents, which she can translate into working for the people across the country,” Ellis said. “It is also her recognition that she still has a day job as a senator from New York.”

 

Clinton’s beneficiaries include defense giant Northrop Grumman, which secured $6 million for the AN/SPQ-9B radar; New York-based Telephonics, which won $5 million for a standardized aircraft wireless intercom system for the National Guard Black Hawk helicopter fleet; Plug Power Inc., another New York state company, which got $3 million for fuel cell power technology; and Alliant Tech Systems (ATK), which won $3.5 million for the X-51 B robust scramjet research.

 

ATK is based in Utah, but it has a tactical propulsion-and-controls division in Ronkonkoma, N.Y.

 

Clinton, together with Schumer, was also able to secure $2 million for blast trauma detection research.

 

Meanwhile, Levin’s tally far exceeded Clinton’s take: 45 earmarks worth about $210 million.

 

A good portion of Levin’s requests focus on combat vehicle and automotive research as well as several energy initiatives, such as fuel cells, portable power sources and solar cells.

 

The Army’s Tank and Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Command (TARDEC) and its National Automotive Center are located in Warren, Mich. TARDEC is the leading laboratory for research and development of advanced military vehicle technologies for the Department of Defense. Some of Levin’s requests were split with Michigan’s junior senator, Debbie Stabenow (D).

 

Among other senior members of the committee, former Chairman John Warner (R-Va.) and Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) each had 24 earmarks in the defense authorization bill. But their requests included two of the highest plus-ups that the panel approved during the bill’s markup: $480 million more for an alternate engine for the multi-service, multi-national Joint Strike Fighter, and $470 million more for the Virginia class submarine advance procurement.

 

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) also received a hefty share in the defense bill: 17 earmarks worth $72.1 million. Among his requests are $10 million for an improved chemical agent monitor; $5 million for a helicopter autonomous-landing system; and $3 million for an electrochemical field-deployable system for potable water generation.

The last item was a joint request with Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.), who is a member of the Armed Services Committee. Reid has several other requests with Ensign, including $1 million for a cannon recoil reduction system.

 

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) had eight requests.

 

Overall, the Democrats, counting Joe Lieberman (Conn.), have 325 earmarks to the Republicans’ 171. The committee also initiated 62 additional projects, bringing the total to 558.

 

The Senate considers earmarks distinct from the equipment and projects that appear on the military services’ so-called unfunded requirements list, so such funding is not disclosed as an earmark. A good example is the additional $4.1 billion for the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicle approved by the committee. The committee also included $575 million in the earmark requests for MRAPs for the Army, Air Force and Special Operations Command as part of the Iraq supplemental funding for 2008.

 

Many of the Senate panel’s earmarks differ from those approved in the House version of the defense authorization bill, so conferees will most likely have to adjust the funding. After final passage of the authorization bill, appropriators will use the legislation when they craft their defense-spending bill. All earmarks approved in the defense appropriations bills are assured funding.

[mr_genius]

Any of you following this "Fairness Doctrine" thing? Basically, they want to censor all opinions opposed to the dem platform. I guess having a 90% hold of the media isn't quite enough, only 100% will due.

 

 

and who exaclty is going to decide what is "fair"? let me guess, the dems will. ok, sure....

[kapkomet]

Any of you following this "Fairness Doctrine" thing? Basically, they want to censor all opinions opposed to the dem platform. I guess having a 90% hold of the media isn't quite enough, only 100% will due.

and who exaclty is going to decide what is "fair"? let me guess, the dems will. ok, sure....

This will get either no reaction or some stupid excuses from Dems about "equal time" provisions.

[mr_genius]

Goracle Junior, out of control

 

http://www.breitbart.tv/html/2581.html

 

hopefully the car had good gas mileage

[Rex Kickass]

This will get either no reaction or some stupid excuses from Dems about "equal time" provisions.

The Fairness Doctrine and the Equal Time Doctrine are two completely different things.