Saturday, March 11, 2006

Democratic Message for 2006: Found

Eleanor Clift has a pleasant read in Newsweek for anyone who isn't a Bush apologist and it may just hand the Democrats at least part of that message they've been looking for.

I would like to spend the morning expanding on some of her points, but my 12-yr-old wants to go shopping at
Birkdale in Huntersville, NC., so my morning will be spent shopping for new gym shorts at Dick's and books at Barnes and Noble.

However, after reading this piece one thing jumped out at me and sent shivers running up and down my spine. I knew we were borrowing from China. I knew it was in the billions. I didn't know it was several billion dollars a day. Clift has this to say:

We have a huge budget deficit that requires the federal government to borrow several billion a day, mostly from central banks in China and other Asian nations, and yet we have a government that doesn’t seem to be very worried about this.

Several billion dollars a day from China.

Several billion dollars a day from China.

China owns us. We almost lost management of our ports to a country that has supported the Taliban, though I'm sure other than that they are lovely people...just lovely. Hundreds of thousands of acres of National Forest land is up for a proposed sale - talk about handing over the family jewels! We owe how many billions to China?

Let's just hope they don't call the loan.

Friday, March 10, 2006

Elizabeth Dole Continues to Spread Slime

Pam Spaulding from Pam's House Blend has a great find. The NRSC (National Republican Senatorial Campaign) which boasts my Senator, Elizabeth Dole, as its leader has a new web site to smear Rep. Harold Ford from Tennessee. Pam has pictures from the 'Big Pimpin' web site, and you have to see it to believe it. This news follows my post about a campaign to intimidate money out of unsuspecting voters. Just how low will she go?

Bush: Toxic Waste in Washington

It's pretty bad when a sitting president can't even get his party loyalists to back him. However, when he's attempting to sell the country down the hole, we won't call them names or belittle them for finally doing something that might just be in the country's best interest.

An article in
The Washington Post has this to say:

The bipartisan uprising in Congress in the face of a veto threat represented a singular defeat for Bush, who when it came to national security grew accustomed during his first five years in office to leading as he chose and having loyal lawmakers fall in line. Now, with his poll numbers in a political ditch, the port debacle has contributed to a perception of weakness that has liberated
Republicans who once would never have dared cross Bush.

Why would they have never dared crossed Bush? More than likely it is because they all have too many skeletons in the closet that Karl Rove could use against them. They were scared. It wasn't a matter of principle. It was a matter of fear. This administration more than any other I've lived through or studied has controlled the voters and legislators through fear and intimidation tactics.

Republicans in the Senate and House didn't want Democrats to come out looking strong as the Dems took the lead on opposing the managing of major ports by a company owned by the United Arab Emirates, Dubai Ports World. After winning elections by constantly threatening terrorists acts would occur if they weren't re-elected, how could the Republicans allow a Taliban-loving country to come close to our already vulnerable ports? They wouldn't have it and it would mean turning against their President in order to maintain their position of being "tough on terror".

Will the Republicans in congress try to usurp this victory from the Democrats? More than likely, yes. To give them their due, a handful of Republicans came out immediately against the deal. North Carolina's Representative, Sue Myrick, wrote President Bush a letter soon after the deal was disclosed in the papers saying, "Not just no, but hell no." But other Republican legislators were slow to rally behind their colleagues as they waited to see if the public furor would die. God forbid they should think for themselves. Old habits die hard.

It took President Bush about two years to waste our country's good name and all of the support and sympathy given after the attacks of 9/11, but it took him only a year to waste the political capital he claimed to have after the 2004 election.

"He has no political capital," said Tony Fabrizio, a Republican pollster. "Slowly but surely it's been unraveling. There's been a direct correlation between the trajectory of his approval numbers and the -- I don't want to call it disloyalty -- the independence on the part of the Republicans in Congress."

As his numbers continue to tank Republicans running for re-election this year should keep a safe distance. It might help mitigate his power as a fundraiser for some which could help Democrats in the long run. A lot can happen between now and November and while I don't usually like to wish anyone ill will, I'm hoping the President continues to step in his own poo.

Wednesday, March 08, 2006


This rant is in reference to a CNN article linked to below.

You want choice in an unplanned pregancy? I'll do you one better. You can choose the fucking condom. Men have had all the choices for most of the history of this fucking world and now you're whining because you want to opt out of financially supporting a child your girlfriend said she couldn't bear.

Please go read this amazing bit of whining. Women have all the choices. Bull.Fucking.Shit. You had a choice. You had several choices. First you chose premarital sex. Then you chose unprotected sex. You had two very, very important choices before you knocked up your girlfriend. IT'S NOT LIKE THE SMALL PIDDLY SQUAT SHIT AMOUNT OF CHILD SUPPORT YOU WILL PAY WILL COVER RAISING A CHILD. Stop acting like a victim. I learned a term that perfectly covers someone like you. WATB. Whiney.Ass.Titty.Baby. (Thank you, Jane)

Wait, wait, please tell me I'm not reading this. You can't make this shit up. Some poor dumbass fell for the oldest trick in the book. Oh.My.God. He should have to pay double the child support just for being so stupid. He should have to pay triple if he passes the stupid gene on to the kid.

Gonna spell it out for you buddy. You get lucky and put your penis in. You cut loose the little sperm and one of them gets lucky and finds a ripe egg. AND BADDA BING, you're going to be a daddy. If you aren't responsible enough to wear a condom then too fucking bad! If you got tricked then be lucky there isn't a fine for stupidity in this country. (Not a bad idea, though. George Bush could pay off the deficit with his fines alone.)

So, this amazingly stupid WATB wants to bring some awareness to men not wanting to be financially responsible for their errant sperm? As if millions of women didn't already know this? He wants to bring awareness to men not having choices? What planet does he live on? Somebody pull this poor kids head out of his ass. This is just pathetic.

Update: I was going to pull this, this morning. When I read it again I thought I should leave it up because it was an honest angry response to the CNN article. The man and his attorney wanted to open the debate and here's my take on it - language and all.

Update 2: Also, I will admit that there are women who will intentionally get pregnant without the consent of their partner. I also think this is horribly wrong but my response is still the same. Condoms. Use Condoms.

Ethics Challenge to Conyers

First, I do not condone what Conyers is accused of having done. If he did it, he probably should be admonished by the ethics committee.

However, DeLay has been admonished 3 times for far more serious breeches of the rules and is under indictment for money laundering and under investigation for other crimes. Duke Cunningham just went to jail for accepting bribes and he was never admonished.

If you put these two on a balance which is worse? Bribery or babysitting. While all sins may be equal in the eyes of God, the eyes of man see things in a little different light. So which is worse? Bribery. Babysitting. Bribery. Babysitting.

The GOP will make hay out of this, denying that one is worse than the other. Leave it to them to try and play God.

Stupid Down in Texas

DeLay wins his primary. Not only do they shoot old men in the face down in Texas they elect people who are under indictment. Amazing. From The Washington Post:
DeLay -- under criminal indictment on a money-laundering charge; rebuked three
times by the House ethics committee; and linked to former GOP lobbyist Jack
Abramoff, who has pleaded guilty to political corruption charges -- faced his
toughest primary race in his 22-year congressional career.
Democrats have to share the stupid label as well. A known Bush pawn, Cuellar appears to have beat out Rodriguez for the Democratic seat for the House in the 28th District in Texas. Cuellar is a Republican posing as a Democrat because he can't win as a Republican in his district.

While voters might be able to shake the stupid label if they can oust DeLay in November, it's going to be tough for them to completely get away from it. Cuellar is pretty much guaranteed another trip to Washington as he has no Republican opposition in the fall and will face a Libertarian with a slim chance against him.

It looks like Texans will have to wear those great big L's on their foreheads for a while. (And, no, L isn't for love)

Monday, March 06, 2006

NRSC Scheme Has Potential to Intimidate Elderly and New Voters

Earlier today I went out to my mailbox to get our mail. I saw a very official looking envelope that had printed "Return Enclosed" at the bottom as if it were a tax return. While it was addressed to my husband, we commonly open each other's mail if it has to do with taxes. It wasn't until I pulled out the contents of the envelope that I realized it was a fundraiser. My blood started to boil.

Elizabeth Dole intentionally sent out an NRSC fundraiser disguised as a "Return" and sent to "U.S. Individual Resident". Upon a quick second look I did see that the return address had the American Eagle and Elizabeth Dole's name at the top of the envelope. Someone else might honestly think that this was an official notification from the government. Especially, an elderly person or a new registrant who hasn't been politically active in the past.

Enclosed in the envelope was a four page letter and a three page survey. The survey was designed to look like a tax form. The very first sentence of the letter is,

Your immediate attention is required on a confidential and time-sensitive matter.

First, this is unsolicited. Neither my husband nor I requested this solicitation. Imagine my surprise when I continued to read and found these paragraphs:

DO NOT DESTROY YOUR SURVEY! The enclosed Republican Senate Leadership Survey is an OFFICIAL REPUBLICAN PARTY DOCUMENT. Your Survey is REGISTERED IN YOUR NAME ONLY and MUST BE ACCOUNTED FOR upon completion of this project.

If you decide not to represent your local voting district in this important Republican Senate Leadership Survey - please RETURN THE SURVEY DOCUMENT - AT ONCE - IN THE ENVELOPE PROVIDED.

This certainly sounds official and it also sounds threatening. If I didn't know better, I would think that something bad could happen to me if I didn't return this to the Republican Party. It also says it is confidential. That's like an abuser saying, "Don't tell. This is our secret." This could be very intimidating to an elderly person or someone who isn't experienced in politics.

This isn't even the worst part. While there is a postage paid return envelope included in with the survey there are only three options given for returning the survey. All three ask for money. Yes, that's right. There are no options given to return the survey without enclosing money for the NRSC. The first option is:

Yes! I want to help defend our Republican Senate Majority and build a strong foundation of Republican grassroots support for President Bush and his agenda. I am enclosing my most generous contribution of: __$500 __$250 __$100 __$50 __$25 __Other$____

The second option is:

No. I do not wish to participate in this vital Republican Senate Leadership Survey. however, I am returning my Survey Document, along with a generous donation to help build Republican grassroots support for President Bush and his agenda. I am enclosing a donation of: __$500 __$250 __$100 __$50 __$25 __Other$___

The final option is simply absurd. This is the final option:

No. I do not wish to particiapte in the Survey, nor do I wish to make a donation to help the Republican Party. I am returning my Survey Document, along with a contribution of $11 to help cover the cost of tabulating and redistributing my Survey.

I have no problem with the NRSC wanting to do a survey. I have no problem with them wanting to solicit funds for their Senatorial candidates. I do have a problem with them passing off a fundraiser as a tax document, requiring that it be returned and then not allowing for a way to return it without sending money. It is basically a bill and it is delivered in a very intimidating and threatening tone.

I will be contacting the Attorney General in North Carolina tomorrow to see if this fundraiser in any way violates state law. I will be filing a formal complaint with the AG's office and anywhere required to put a stop to this type of false fundraiser. There is a way to raise money that is honest and straightforward. This is not it.

Shame on Elizabeth Dole for extending the Republican culture of corruption from Washington into North Carolina and every other state where this fundraising scam is being used.

Update: I changed the title of the post to prevent any misunderstanding about the "targeting" of the fundraiser. I don't know who it was sent to, but the wording, tone, design and secrecy of the mailing has the potential to be more intimidating to the elderly. I'm sorry for any confusion.

Cheney's 18% Approval Rating - Now That's Low

I don't usually read The Washinton Post Opinion columns. I figure I get their opinion each time I read an article. It's not like most Post reporters are objective and just report the facts. I broke down and read Richard Morin's column from Sunday, Just How Low is 18%.

In my opinion, Richard Morin was more than entertaining.....he was accurate.
Iraq teeters on the brink of civil war. The Bush agenda is in tatters. And one of his friends is recovering from an accidental gunshot wound inflicted by Cheney on a hunting trip. A particularly unfortunate mishap, as we learned last week, because Cheney wounded one of the rarest birds in America: someone who actually likes the vice president.
Morin goes on to list a few folks with only slightly higher approval ratings than Cheney. They include Michael Jackson, O.J. Simpson, and Nixon's V.P. Spiro Agnew. The news wasn't all bad though. Cheney does appear to be slightly more popular than the oh-so-respectable, Paris Hilton.

I can think of a few other things that Cheney may beat in popularity. They include cockroaches, sewer rats, and people who molest little children.

Bush Courts Jewish Voters and Fails

According to this piece in The Washington Post, Republican strategists identified Jewish voters as their next target after 9/11 calling them "September 12 Republicans". Did you need any more proof that Bush has used and continues to use one of the great tragedies of our nation for his benefit? Leave it to Republicans to use 9/11 to identify new voting blocks instead of concentrating on healing, rebuilding and protecting our country.

The good news in this is that this attempt to convince Jewish voters that they are Republicans has pretty much failed.

It is such people that Vice President Cheney will be courting tomorrow, when he speaks to the closing plenary session of the influential American Israel Public Affairs Committee's policy conference. But the much-trumpeted effort by the Bush White House to make deep inroads on the Democrats' historic claims on Jewish voters -- and, even more important politically, the campaign contributions of Jewish donors -- has not materialized in any convincing fashion, according to poll data, fundraisers and campaign finance reports.

In his article, Edsall identifies the DeLay and Abramoff scandals as obstacles for the Republicans in courting Jewish voters.

Recently, two new obstacles are hurting GOP efforts at cultivating Jews: the corruption scandals involving former House majority leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.)and his onetime friend and benefactor, Jack Abramoff.

Abramoff, an orthodox Jew, had asserted he was playing a key role in the drive to recruit Jewish donors to the Republican cause. But some Republicans now consider the disgraced lobbyist an albatross shadowing this effort.

So, to date, the Republicans have tried to highjack the women's vote, the black vote and now the Jewish vote. The one vote I don't see them coming after is the eyes-wide-open-brain-engaged vote. Well, they may come after us, but since we see them as the small-minded, opportunist, biggots that they are....let's just say, they won't get our votes.

Sunday, March 05, 2006

Bush Buries Another One

In 2004, at the suggestion of the 9/11 Commission the Civil Liberties Oversight Board was created. It has never been funded, nor has it hired any staff. It has taken a year for its members to receive nominations and confirmation. President Bush has guaranteed the board will not be able to accomplish its stated goals. He failed to include funding for it in the most recent budget.

According to
Newsweek the Office of Management and Budget doesn't seem to know what's going on, but assured the board would be completely funded.

Renewed concerns about the White House's commitment came just a few weeks ago when President Bush's new budget was released—with no listing for money for the civil liberties board. Alex Conant, a spokesman for the Office of Management and Budget, denied to NEWSWEEK the White House was trying to kill the panel by starving it of funds. "It will be fully funded," he said, explaining that the board wasn't in the budget this year because officials decided not to itemize funding levels for particular offices within the White House. When a reporter pointed out that funding for other White House offices such as the National Security Council were listed in the budget, Conant said: "I have no explanation."

If the name of the board doesn't clue you in as to why the Bush administration would want to make it disappear, just look at some of the issues board members say they want to address.
Board members tell NEWSWEEK the panel intends to immediately tackle contentious issues like the president's domestic wiretapping program, the Patriot Act and Pentagon data mining.

If you still aren't convinced that the Bush administration wants to bury this board and prevent board members from achieving their goals just look at who will be chairing it, Carol Dinkins. Don't know who he is? He served as a senior Justice official under Ronald Reagan and is the former law partner of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. You don't need those dots connected do you?

Decision Time in Texas

My first thought after reading this article in The Washington Post , was that an earthly judgment day, of sorts, is arriving for Tom DeLay. My second thought was that some people in Texas must have awfully thick skulls. Maybe they are just not very bright in DeLay's district, or maybe they just happen to like people who are accused of multiple felonies and under indictment for some of them.

The article describes a couple who are agonizing about their choice between Tom DeLay and another Republican.

"This has been difficult -- probably more so than any election in recent years," Judy Deats, 61, said as she sat in a Mexican restaurant in DeLay's butterfly-shaped suburban Houston district. "We're giving it all a fair shot, but I don't know how I'm going to decide. Maybe prayer."

Said her 63-year-old husband: "I probably won't decide until the night before."

This isn't even an election that requires they cross party lines to vote for someone not under indictment. They can still vote Republican. I really don't get it. I could understand if DeLay only stood accused and the proof of his involvement was sketchy. But, it appears that this man had his hands in most of the illegal happenings in congress and was orchestrating quite a bit of it.

This is a no-brainer folks. Stop agonizing over your decision. If nothing else, imagine being the butt of every political joke if you put Tom DeLay back in office and he winds up in the clink. Think of it as being a compassionate conservative. You're giving him a chance to deal with his many criminal charges without the added stress of representing you in Washington.

Of course, Democrats in Texas probably would prefer for DeLay to win the primary on Tuesday. They may consider him beatable. I'm not willing to bank on a Democrat beating DeLay in a district where 64% voted for Bush in 2004. I would rather not count on picking up that seat. We need DeLay out of Washington. If he loses the primary he loses some clout when it comes to raising money. Let him spend off every last cent of his war chest(s) paying his legal fees. He deserves to spend the rest of this year watching his clout in Washington dwindle away to nothing. Then, some time down the road, he can look forward to a cozy little cell for two.