J's Cafe Nette

Archive for the ‘Democrats’ Category

The article by Dan Perrin quoted below is so well written that I will say no more than it will not disappoint if you read it in its entirety.

Having been up on the House side for the last two days, I can report that the fog of war has enveloped the Speaker and will attempt to explain why the Speaker is losing. CNN puts the Speaker down 11 votes, FireDogLake puts the Speaker down 25 — Yes at 190 — she needs 216.

This is a classic political battle: conflicting reports, disinformation and propaganda (two distinct things) moles, the light and dark roles of key operatives, overlaid with the impact of time — and those “inside the decision cycle” of their enemy.

The basic problem for the Speaker and her team is the enemy (to them, that’s us) is inside their decision cycle.

Tweet This Post

The video shows the Democrats finally fessing up to the fact health care costs will go up under Obamacare.

In addition, today the Senate Parliamentarian ruled Obama must sign Congress’ original health care reform bill before the Senate can act on a companion reconciliation package.

This puts a crimp in the plan to use reconciliation as the Dems want to use it: by passing the Senate bill in the House and then sending it back to the Senate for changes to be sent back to the House for approval and then to Obama’s desk for signature.

The Parliamentarian’s office responded in answer to questions by Republican senators.

It’s as plain as the noses on their faces the best option right now is to tear up the existing faulty bill and start over again on an incremental basis to fix things everyone agrees needs fixing and stop trying to pass a comprehensive bill no one understands.

Tweet This Post

Following a link provided at Right Wing Nuthouse I discovered one of the best articles published on the stimulus package to date.

In addition to providing a comprehensive list of the projects which will move our economy forward, there’s this little gem:

Perhaps the worst part, however, appears in Section 1607 of the final bill. This section essentially says that if a governor refuses to accept stimulus funds allocated to his or her state, the state legislature can override the governor’s decision by passing a concurrent resolution. It means that governors, such as South Carolina’s Gov. Mark Sanford, who have said that they would not accept the money, could be overridden by their state legislative bodies.

Usurping the power of a states Governor is now acceptable in Washington.

What a pet project, pork filled power grab this is.

*Ms. de Rugy continues the breakdown of the bill here. It doesn’t get any better.

*Also: Dan Riehl gives us a glimpse of the topics to be addressed in the not too distant future (via CNN):

The following week, the president will host what the White House is billing as a “fiscal responsibility” summit on February 23. The goal of the summit is to begin weighing the impact of massive federal programs like Social Security and Medicare just days before the president plans to unveil his first annual budget to Congressional leaders.

Emphasis-mine

Remember when former President Bush attempted to address the size and scope of Social Security? Look no further than this:

The money quote from this video comes at approximately the 3:00 minute mark and is delivered by Senator Dick Durbin:

Do you want to saddle your children and mine with five trillion dollars of debt?

What a difference a few years makes.

.

Tweet This Post

Sure boss, I know you’re right. Gee, please tell me more about what I should believe:

Senator Schumer has it backwards. He is duly elected by his constituents to do what is right and just by them. Oh wait, that must have been in another dream.

Add to that, Senator Specter informing us he made a commitment to someone (it sure wasn’t the American people or the folks in Pennsylvania) to vote for this monstrosity of a stimulus bill (all the while admitting he did not know the health care provisions were written in):

HT: Ed Morrissey

and you have a serious recipe for eventual citizen revolt. That is unless the right to protest is also denied under this ugly legislation.

For more on the Health Care Provisions check out Texas Rainmaker:

Get that? Your medical care will be reviewed by the federal government to determine if it’s appropriate.

Next time you call in sick to work, your boss will ask if you have a note from your government. Doesn’t it make you feel all hopenchangy?

Ah. No!

Tweet This Post

Mind boggling..nah.

This has become run of the mill politics and there is no end in sight.

Does anyone really believe that either party in Washington will revamp the system if they feel it will hamper their chances of maintaining or gaining power?

If you do I would really like to hear your thoughts.

Jan. 8 (Bloomberg) — The bill for the 2008 U.S. elections has been paid, and it comes out to a record $4.1 billion — almost $20 per registered voter.

That’s 37 percent more than the $3 billion spent on the 2004 campaigns by the political parties and their candidates for the White House and Congress, the latest figures from the Federal Election Commission show. The figures don’t include the millions spent by labor unions, advocacy groups and independent political organizations on behalf of candidates.

Those barrier-breaking numbers may give ammunition to those pressing President-elect Barack Obama to overhaul the way federal races are funded.

“It’s hard to eliminate the temptations of corruption that Obama has promised to change without tackling campaign finance,” said Julian Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University in New Jersey.

[emphasis-mine]

Tweet This Post

Ordinarily I might not consider posting this video but these are not ordinary times. We are on the cusp of one of the most important presidential elections in decades.

After listening to this presentation, it is clear not much else need be said in relation to the candidates or their positions.

(There is one section which some might find not suitable for children)

Tweet This Post

Every election at least since 1980 has shown the Democrats to bring up race, class warfare and Medi-Scare.

This one is true to form. Anyone opposing Obama for his stand on the issues of the day is accused of being racist and inciting racial hatred by the Democrats, who then say the Republicans are bringing up race. I may not be watching or reading the right channels or newspapers, but the only ones mentioning race have been Democrats. The most recent has been Rep. John Lewis, a great man who was involved in the Civil Rights movement and was arrested and beaten so he could get civil rights to be guaranteed for all Americans and not just the white.

Rep. Lewis compared Sen. McCain and Sarah Palin to George Wallace, the segregationist governor of Alabama back in the sixties who was the very face of racism. Lewis said McCain and Palin were inciting hatred in their rallies. Accusations of “Kill him!” or “Off with his head!” at McCain or Palin rallies have been debunked by Secret Service agents planted in the crowds, as well as police officers in the crowds. But Lewis said it so it must be true. Yes, I’m sure some Republicans are racists, but if you think racism doesn’t exist in the Democratic party as well then I have a bridge to sell you.

Sen. Obama has resorted to class warfare because it resonates so well with people who would rather receive than earn. I have no problem helping those who need help, but I do have a problem with welfare for people, white, black or purple who would rather take a hand-out than help themselves, and then sit around and complain about their plight in life.

So, let’s pick on those who have worked their fannies off for years to scrimp and save to educate their children and put something aside for their golden years. Pick on them by taxing what was already taxed while they were working and make them feel guilty because they were wise and saved for their future, while they watch their savings go down the drain because no one knows how to solve the global economic crisis we are in. Yes, it’s global and since George Bush isn’t dictator of the world, it would appear this crisis is not his fault, but some of you will hold him responsible. I suppose we should also hold responsible the heads of nearly every other government in the world. But I digress.

Now we finally have the old Democratic standby scare tactic, Medi-Scare. Those mean old Republicans will take away your Medicare if you elect them.

The disclosures came as Obama accused McCain of wanting to cut $882 billion from Medicare over a decade to finance his health care plan. He said the result would be more costly drugs, diminished services and lower quality care for seniors.

“It’s entirely consistent with Sen. McCain’s record during his 26 years in Congress where, time and again, he’s opposed Medicare,” Obama said. “In fact, Sen. McCain has voted against protecting Medicare 40 times.”

In response, McCain’s campaign issued a statement saying Obama was “simply lying.” The statement said the Republican planned to trim spending, but said his plans “do not cut a single benefit.”

Unfortunately, my husband will be eligible for Medicare next year and he will be forced into a system neither of us wants to enter, but because it’s the law of the land he must no longer use our better insurance as his primary carrier, but will have to use Medicare and hunt for a supplemental policy while I am still eligible for my regular insurance. We are so fortunate to be able to pay three health insurance premiums. NOT!

You can always tell when the internals of their polls show the democrats losing ground because that’s when they bring out their big guns of Social Security and Medi-Scare. The hitch this year is that many baby-boomers are reaching the age of Social Security and Medicare and remember all the woe is me crying from Democrats back to Ronald Reagan’s first run for the presidency. “If you elect the Republicans they’re going to take away your Social Security and Medicare.” The old folks of 28 years ago believed it, but since it didn’t happen, our generation is a little bit smarter and not falling for the trick.

It is to the advantage of the Democratic Party to keep people on welfare and as dependent on the federal government as possible, because you can scare those people into voting for all the goodies every time. If you teach them to fish instead of giving them a fish they might get smarter and not need the federal handouts except in extreme cases. I have no problem with helping those in extreme circumstances—especially the elderly and disabled. I also have no problem training people for a job that can be a career and supporting their families in a good fashion while they are learning and getting on their feet.

These people should be given enough to live on in a decent lifestyle and not have to scrimp along with whatever crumbs Congress decides to throw them; however, those who are capable and refuse to work should not benefit from the system. If you take these people off the rolls then there is more money for those who really need it and will need it temporarily instead of a lifetime, with the exception of our elderly and disabled citizens.

OK, sermon over. Just don’t believe all the crap you are hearing now about having Medicare benefits cut. Even if McCain tried to do it the Democratic Congress wouldn’t allow it. That’s assuming McCain pulls this off, and shows why divided government works best. Vote for Obama and your benefits won’t change either, because the dirty little secret is we don’t have enough money to pay for more.

Tweet This Post

While Senator Obama is claiming it was he alone and John McCain had nothing to do with the bailout deal, the Washington Post, no friend of McCain’s, haswritten a piece that gives the inside look of what happened on Thursday in Washington.

When Sen. John McCain made his way to the Capitol office of House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) just past noon on Thursday, he intended to “just touch gloves” with House Republican leaders, according to one congressional aide, and get ready for the afternoon bailout summit at the White House.

Instead, Rep. Paul D. Ryan (Wis.), the ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee, was waiting to give him an earful. The $700 billion Wall Street rescue, as laid out by Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr., was never going to fly with House Republicans, Ryan said. The plan had to be fundamentally reworked, relying instead on a new program of mortgage insurance paid not by the taxpayers but by the banking industry.

McCain listened, then, with Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.), he burst into the Senate Republican policy luncheon. Over a Tex-Mex buffet, Sens. Robert F. Bennett (Utah) and Judd Gregg (N.H.) had been explaining the contours of a deal just reached. House Republicans were not buying it. Then McCain spoke.

“I appreciate what you’ve done here, but I’m not going to sign on to a deal just to sign the deal,” McCain told the gathering, according to Graham and confirmed by multiple Senate GOP aides. “Just like Iraq, I’m not afraid to go it alone if I need to.”

For a moment, as Graham described it, “you could hear a pin drop. It was just unbelievable.” Then pandemonium. By the time the meeting broke up, the agreement touted just hours before — one that Sen. Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), the No. 3 GOP leader, estimated would be supported by more than 40 Senate Republicans — was in shambles.

An incendiary mix of presidential politics, delicate dealmaking and market instability played out Thursday in a tableau of high drama, with $700 billion and the U.S. economy possibly in the balance. McCain’s presence was only one of the complicating factors. Sen. Barack Obama played his part, with a hectoring performance behind closed doors at the White House. And a brewing House Republican leadership fight helped scramble allegiances in the GOP.

It is unclear whether the day’s events will prove to be historically significant or a mere political sideshow. If the administration and lawmakers forge an agreement largely along the lines of the deal they had reached before McCain’s arrival Thursday, the tumult will have been a momentary speed bump. If the deal collapses, the recriminations spawned that day will be fierce.

But if a final deal incorporates House Republican principles while leaning most heavily on the accord between the administration, House Democrats and Senate Republicans, all sides will be able to claim some credit — even if the legislation is not popular with voters.

“If there is a deal with the House involved, it’s because of John McCain,” Graham, one of the Arizonan’s closest friends in the Senate, said yesterday.

In truth, McCain’s dramatic announcement Wednesday that he would suspend his campaign and come to Washington for the bailout talks had wide repercussions.

Democrats, eager to reach a deal before McCain could claim credit, hunkered down and made real progress ahead of his arrival. Conservative Republicans in the House reacted as well, according to aides who were part of the talks.

[Emphasis mine]

There were specific things the House Republicans did not want in the package and since Pelosi and Reid didn’t want to take full blame for the bill, even though they had enough votes to pass it and excluded the House republicans “by mistake” it appears the House Republicans got things cleaned up a bit and with the backing of Sen. McCain.

It looks like Boehner and Company had more sense than the Republican senators or the Democratic representatives and that’s why they were not invited to the negotiating table.

In walks McCain, he makes a statement that even if he has to stand alone he will, and out comes a better proposal. No one is happy about it, but one candidate shouldn’t be taking all the credit for it. Look at the table in the link Sue provided here and see how much worse it would have been without the House Republicans sticking to their guns.

Tweet This Post

Some might call this a political stunt, but I wish it was exactly what we would see more of on a constant basis:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and the Democrats adjourned the House and turned off the lights and killed the microphones, but Republicans are still on the floor talking gas prices.

Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) and other GOP leaders opposed the motion to adjourn the House, arguing that Pelosi’s refusal to schedule a vote allowing offshore drilling is hurting the American economy. They have refused to leave the floor after the adjournment motion passed at 11:23 a.m., and they are busy bashing Pelosi and her fellow Democrats for leaving town for the August recess.

At one point, the lights went off in the House and the microphones were turned off in the chamber, meaning Republicans were talking in the dark. But as Rep. John Shadegg (R-Ariz..) was speaking, the lights went back on and the microphones were turned on shortly afterward.

I would love to see President Bush call Congress back for an emergency session and keep them in Washington until they can provide him with an acceptable energy bill.

In the meantime I applaud those Republicans who, despite all obstacles put before them by the Speaker, stayed on and continued to hammer away at an issue so vital to the citizens of this country.

Lot’s more here, including video.

Tweet This Post

While being cautious in their headline by using the word “possible,” the NYT offers a sensible assessment of the current state of not just the race for the nomination but that of the party of a whole on the Democrat side of the aisle:

Certainly, no one is expecting a couple with such political skills, an extended network, history and broad appeal — not to mention fund-raising power — to disappear from the Democratic stage. Mrs. Clinton would presumably return to what could be a potentially very high-profile role in the Senate. Mr. Clinton is only 61, and never has been the kind of politician happy on the sidelines.

But Mr. Obama’s move to the brink of the nomination was fraught with symbolism and evidence of a party in transition. A first-time presidential candidate, he has so far outmaneuvered the vaunted Clinton political machine. He positioned his candidacy as a repudiation of the kind of politics the Clintons practiced and a generational break. And he drew thousands of new voters and donors into his fold, giving the party a fresh face and new energy.

“The Clintons had an important role in the recent history of the Democratic Party and will always play some role, given their success at bringing this country peace and prosperity,” said Senator Edward M. Kennedy, the Massachusetts Democrat who backed Mr. Obama. “But elections are about the future, not the past. It’s a new era. This is a new spirit that’s out there.”

The evidence may be mounting that Senator Clinton has very few options left to secure the nomination of her party but it was a pleasure to read an article which is not presuming to ask her to leave the race.

I see no one moving that mountain except the candidate herself and only after she is firmly convinced all of her avenues are exhausted be they in the best interest of the party or not.

Interviews with current party leaders and those who have gone before make this piece a worthwhile read.

Tweet This Post

What has been accomplished in Congress under the leadership of Mr. Reid and Mrs. Pelosi?

Find out all you need to know at Texas Rainmaker.

Progress, sheer backwards progress, (or perhaps an intentional lack thereof in a presidential election year…hmmm.).

Tweet This Post

By now everyone knows Florida and Michigan broke the Democratic Party’s rules when they held their primaries before the approved dates.

In each case Hillary Clinton won, but Barack Obama and the other candidates were not on the Michigan ballot and Clinton is the only one to break the pledge not to campaign in Florida.

Now the states face being disenfranchised at the convention because they broke party rules.

The states and the parties are trying to find an acceptable solution at this time, but it seems the caucus system favors Obama and the primary system favors Clinton, so what’s the answer?

The other day I had read that Gov. Crist of Florida had said the state would be willing to pay the expenses for a do-over, but now he says no after talking to the senior senator from Florida, Democrat Bill Nelson.

In my opinion, that’s a no-brainer anyway since the state already paid for one primary.

WASHINGTON (AP) – Officials in Michigan and Florida are showing renewed interest in holding repeat presidential nominating contests so that their votes will count in the epic Democratic campaign.
The Michigan governor, along with top officials in Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign and Florida’s state party chair, are now saying they would consider holding a sort of do-over contest by June. That’s a change from their previous insistence that the primaries their states held in January should determine how the their delegates are allocated.

Clinton won both contests, but the results were meaningless because the elections violated national party rules.

The Democratic National Committee stripped both states of all their delegates for holding the primaries too early, and all Democratic candidates—including Clinton and rival Barack Obama—agreed not to campaign in either state. Obama’s name wasn’t even on the Michigan ballot.

Florida and Michigan moved up their dates to protest the party’s decision to allow Iowa and New Hampshire to go first, followed by South Carolina and Nevada, giving them a disproportionate influence on the presidential selection process.

But no one predicted the race would still be very close this late in the year.

Ironically, Michigan and Florida could have held crucial primaries if they had stayed with their traditional later dates. They may yet do so if they decide to hold new contests as Clinton and Obama compete to the wire.

Clinton has been insisting that the desires of more than 2 million people who cast Democratic ballots in the two states should be reflected at the convention, which would help her catch up to Obama in the race for convention delegates. Obama has said he wants to see the delegates from the two critical swing states participate, too, but not if Clinton is rewarded for victories in boycotted primaries.

Now the Clinton campaign has begun expressing openness to a do-over. “Let’s let all of the voters go again if they are willing to do it,” Clinton adviser Terry McAuliffe said Tuesday night on MSNBC. “Whatever we have to do to get people in the system, let’s do it.”

The new contests could be part of a strategy for Clinton to come back in the race and attract votes from superdelegates who are not bound by any primary or caucus votes, Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell told the network. “Let’s assume for the moment Hillary Clinton wins Ohio and Texas, she wins Pennsylvania, Florida and Michigan have primaries in June, she wins both of those,” said Rendell, who has endorsed Clinton. “Then, can the superdelegates look at that and say, `Gosh, she’s won the last five big primaries in a row. She’s won almost every big primary since we began.’”

Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm, a Clinton supporter, told the Detroit Free Press that Clinton’s victory in Ohio changes “the landscape a bit.” She said it could open the door to a caucus, if it can be privately funded and both candidates agree.

The party doesn’t want to part with any money now because they need to save it for the general election. If the states can’t manage to get the funding privately or partially privately and partially publicly how will they have a do-over?

And is Hillary Clinton going to be open to a caucus system that has betrayed her all year long? Besides, the caucus system disenfranches anyone who is out of the state on the date of the caucus. How fair is that? Will the people be excited enough to go through this all again after the mess they’ve seen and the obvious anger they’ve experienced?

Michigan Democrats are discussing holding a “firehouse” contest in May or June that would be an alternative to a traditional primary or caucus and run by the state party, said a Democratic Party official who has been part of the discussions. “Firehouse” contests usually have fewer polling places and shorter voting hours than traditional state-run primary elections.

The party official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the discussions are private, said there was general consensus that it could not be held at taxpayers’ expense and would attempt to generate participation from about 1 million state Democrats.

House and Senate Democrats from Florida and Michigan planned to meet Wednesday night on Capitol Hill to discuss ways of getting their state’s delegates seated at the Democratic National Convention in Denver in late August, Democratic aides said.

Florida Democratic Party Chairwoman Karen Thurman said the party is open to another vote, as long as it meets three criteria. Both candidates would have to fully participate, a source of funding would have to be provided and it would have to allow all the state’s Democrats to participate, including those serving in the military overseas. So far, she said, no suggested alternative has met those requirements.

Barack, you’d better be careful, because if Hillary is for an arrangement there must be something sneaky going on.

Split the baby. Assign half the delegates from each state to each of the two remaining candidates and let the superdelegates decide which side they’re on. It’s cheaper and makes more sense.

Updated This later information from The Hill:

Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) warned the Democratic National Committee (DNC) Thursday that it is facing the “biggest train wreck you’ve ever seen” if a standoff is not resolved over his state’s pledged delegates to the party’s presidential nominating convention.

Nelson sent a letter to DNC Chairman Howard Dean Thursday asking the committee to either accept the Jan. 29 results of the primary election or pay for a redo of the elections, which could cost in the range of $20 million. He sent the letter after Dean did not return his telephone call Wednesday.

“If they go to the Democratic Convention and stiff-arm the Florida delegations, how in the world do you think Floridians are going to support the Democratic nominee on Nov. 4?” Nelson told reporters Thursday. “It’s in everybody’s interest to find a solution to this problem.”

However, earlier in the day, Dean said the party would not pay for any do-over.

“We can’t afford to do that,” Dean stated on CBS’s “Early Show.” “That’s not our problem. We need our money to win the presidential race.”

It looks like a mess. Nelson has a point. What incentive will the Democrats of Michigan or Florida have if their delegates are not seated and a part of the convention?

Tweet This Post

President Bush speaks on the Moveon.org ad and the Democrats.

Well said Mr. President.

Tweet This Post

Courtesy of Hot Air this is a must see.

Sorry for the brevity of the posts folks, my internet connection through Comcast has been less than reliable all week.

Tweet This Post

When Bill Clinton was undergoing impeachment proceedings a new group of grassroots democrats started up with the slogan and name of move on.

They wanted to move on from impeachment and get on to other business of the country as they saw it.

Impeachment was a mistake by the republicans at the time and I think everyone realizes now that they went too far. A resolution of condemnation would have served as well as impeachment.

Moveon.org never disbanded after the impeachment, but only got larger to the extent they collect way more than the NRA PAC.

Not only have they been successful in defeating republican candidates in the last cycle, but they are more willing now to go after democrats who disagree with their positions:

MoveOn also punishes Democrats who stray from their liberal, anti-war world view. MoveOn ran a radio ad against Michigan Democratic Rep. John Dingell when he announced his opposition to higher fuel economy standards for automobiles and light trucks.

The script of the brief radio campaign portrayed a conversation between a father and son about something called a Dingellsaurus. The child asks his father what that is. The script reads in part:

“Someone who’s been in Congress so long, he forgets about the people who sent him there,” says the father.

“Are there any around today?” asks son, Billy, to which the father replies: “Our own Congressman John Dingell. He’s standing in the way of the first energy bill ever that would really combat global warming. It would also help the auto companies in the long run and that means more jobs.”

“Is a Dingellsaurus dangerous?” Billy asks. The father replies: “Very, because if the Dingellsaurus gets his way, we could all be extinct.”

Earlier this month, MoveOn ran a brief television campaign against Washington Democratic Rep. Brian Baird after he returned from a trip to Iraq and announced the Bush troop surge may be achieving important military gains. The ad featured an anti-war Iraq veteran. The script reads in part: “Keeping American soldiers in Iraq for an indefinite period of time being attacked by an unidentifiable enemy is immoral and irresponsible.” It asked viewers to “Tell Rep. Baird: Support Our Troops. Bring Them Home.”

“Just because MoveOn only supports Democrats doesn’t mean it supports all Democrats,” Ritsch said.

We all know the very active politically are the ones who donate their money for political causes.

Moveon.org has a lot of wealthy Hollywood donors I’m sure, as well as other wealthy democrats who give, along with the average Joes who give $50 or $100 contributions to be bundled and given to a favored candidate.

With their full-page New York Times ad last week calling General Petreaus “General Betray Us” we have seen how far below the belt they are willing to hit. The fact most democrats kept quiet about the ad instead of denouncing it shows just how much this group is feared even by the people they support.

Either that or they have no sense of decency to denounce such an ad, I’m not sure which is the case.

It seems to me that Moveon is pulling all the political strings in the Democratic party and I’m not sure that’s so good, but money talks and when it does people tend to do what they are told.

Tweet This Post

That great prognosticator of current events in the House of Representatives, John Murtha, is predicting the Democrats will pick up 40 to 50 seats in the House in next year’s election.

We might as well pack it in, folks. He knows what he’s talking about. After all, he’s the one who wanted to redeploy our troops to Okinawa so they’d still be close to Iraq.

He’s the one who declared our Marines guilty of murder before they were found not guilty in courts-martial.

Congress has accomplished nothing in this session and he thinks the American public will be fooled once again into voting for the same do-nothing Congress, adding more do-nothing members to the Democratic side of the aisle.

Who knows? Maybe he’s right. Somehow I doubt it.

Tweet This Post

There has been one absolutely terrific site on all things Hsu. Flip at Suitably Flip has filled in the holes which have been left in this story by the media.

The referenced post above is one you will, I do not believe see elsewhere as it is a direct communication from the DA handling Mr. Hsu’s case to a reader at Suitably Flip. It is a fascinating read and provides very valuable information.

Also while there you might want to take a look at this post entitled “Dems Lowballing Hsu’s Fundraising Totals”. It is chock full of facts and figures which again I am not sure will be available in such a comprehensive form either.

For those of us who have written on this topic extensively since the first news was broken, but do not have the resources, time or knowledge to go beyond the accounts in the major publications, Suitably Flip has been a tremendous source.

I would personally like to thank Flip for all of the time he has devoted and information he has made available for public consumption so those of us who believe this is a “real story” with possible far reaching implications, may close a few of the gaps.

Tweet This Post

After having said, prior to the August Congressional recess, that the House would vote on a criminal contempt resolution against Harriet Miers and Joshua Bolton the Democratic leadership has come back and said “Not yet.”

Maybe while on recess they realized the hullaballoo about the U.S. Attorneys firings was much ado about nothing, which it is.

This doesn’t mean everyone is happy and singing Kumbaya around the Democratic caucus campground.

The decision delays any constitutional showdown, at least for the moment, between Congress and President Bush over the extent of executive privilege and the president’s ability to fend off congressional investigations.

But the slowdown, approved by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and her top lieutenants, is also stirring objections among Democrats.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) said he is uncomfortable with the delay and worries the House will be seen as toothless unless it moves quickly to hold top officials in contempt for failing to provide documents and testimony in congressional probes.

The House Judiciary Committee approved contempt citations against Bolten and Miers on July 25, after the two failed to comply with subpoenas as part of the committee’s investigation into the sacking of nine U.S. attorneys.

With the dismal record of the current Congress someone needs to inform Mr. Conyers it’s a bit late to worry about being called “toothless”. No significant legislation has been passed and the changes promised have not occurred.

This Congress has only been interested in two things since it took over in January: forcing the president to bring home the troops before the mission is completed, and investigating scandals that don’t exist.

Just before Congress changed hands Congressman Henry Waxman of California said the hardest part of his job would be to decide what to investigate first.

That statement shows exactly where the Democrats’ agenda is, and even that’s a failed agenda.

Tuesday the Speaker issued a press release actually acknowledging her hands are tied.

“The American people long ago rejected the President’s plan to stay in Iraq, which is why they voted for a New Direction in 2006. Yet, with his veto pen and the 60-vote hurdle in the Senate, the President is preventing the redeployment of our troops, the rebuilding of our military, and the refocusing of our nation’s efforts on fighting terrorism.”

How convenient to be concerned about our troops in the sense they want to rebuild the military when we’ve never seen anyone in Democratic leadership positions in the past fifty years who has wanted to rebuild our military.

The Democrats’ idea of fighting terrorism is to conduct a few bombing runs and blow up an aspirin factory and then claim they did everything possible to get rid of the terrorists.

Meanwhile, the terrorists attack us on our own soil, killing nearly 3,000 Americans and they’re worried about the “abuse” we meted out when we “tortured” people at Abu Ghraib.

The Speaker of the House and other Democrats, including Dennis Kucinich, are more worried about appeasing the terror-sponsoring regime of Assad in Syria than in getting the terrorists who still want to kill us or convert us whether or not we leave Iraq immediately.

Tweet This Post

Sue may have written about this already and I apologize for reposting the same information if she has.

The Wall Street Journal has a blog piece giving an eyewitness description of how Norman Hsu was found and the condition in which he was found.

That night, passengers on in the sleeper compartment across the aisle from his noticed a hat, a book and other items spilling into the hallway from under the door. The next morning, the drapes were still drawn. Returning from breakfast, one passenger peeked through the curtains and saw a person wedged against the door. The passenger, Joanne Segale, a retired school-bus driver from Sonora, Calif., knocked on the window but got no answer. Segale said she saw a man who appeared to be in fetal position, bare-chested. “It appeared this person had fallen out of bed,” she said.

Eventually, three conductors used the crowbar to pry the door open.

Segale said that Hsu “could not stand. He was acting like he didn’t understand them. They tried to get him up but he couldn’t walk.” At one point, Hsu asked the Amtrak attendants if he was in jail, according to Segale.

When Hsu was helped to the bathroom, Segale says she saw “lots and lots of medication in that room. I could see pills on the floor and rolling around.”

Giving back the money in drips and drops isn’t going to take this story away. The press and the bloggers smell blood in the water and will search it out.

The money from the Clinton campaign is going back to the donors, who were suspicious characters to begin with, so who is really getting the money? Who is behind this meddling in our political affairs?

How did Norman Hsu get the money he gave and how did the people he got to contribute honestly get the money? I say honestly because I strongly suspect the people involved are agents of the Chinese government.

Just as we sold our military secrets to the Chi-Coms in the 90s for political donations from Buddhist monks and other crooked “businessmen”, I wonder why they are so interested in making sure Hillary is president and lots of other Democrats are elected or re-elected.

The voters need to be reminded of this over and over again until it sinks in that if we put in Sen. Clinton we are going to have to endure another four or eight years of corruption at the very highest levels.

The first dribble of money went to “charity”. The question is: what is the charity so it can be confirmed? For all I know the charity is the DNC.

This fish is beginning to stink more and more with each passing day.

Tweet This Post

With every state party wanting to be one of the first and deciding states, the DNC has decided to disenfranchise the Florida delegates to the national convention in Denver next year if Florida doesn’t go back to its original primary date.

The Democratic Party has taken a swipe at the nation’s fourth biggest state, stripping Florida of all of its ‘08 delegates as punishment for jumping the gun with its Jan. 29 primary. Florida’s early date could force other states to move up and up to stay at the front of the pack.

Under a nearly unanimous vote taken moments ago by a powerful committee of the Democratic National Committee, if things don’t change, Florida’s primary will be a “beauty contest” — the delegates won’t count toward the party’s presidential nomination.

Florida officials complained that the DNC was going to “disenfranchise voters,” as it says on the state party’s home page. The DNC pushed back strongly against that contention, since it has rules that Florida decided not to follow.

This is the party’s way of trying to stop the crazy domino effect of states moving their nominating contests earlier and earlier, which causes OTHER states to go earlier and earlier.

The DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee voted nearly unanimously that Florida’s plan is noncompliant with party rules, and gave the state 30 days to fix it. Otherwise, the state will lose 100 percent of its delegates.

“The ayes clearly have it,” RBC co-chair James Roosevelt Jr. (FDR’s grandson) said, when only one clear voice on the 30-member committee said “no.”

UPDATE: Florida party officials say they’re going to confer before deciding what to do. They clearly realize that Dems back home aren’t going to like the idea of their votes not counting.

This outcome would mean that the candidates — while not being penalized by the DNC for campaigning in the Sunshine State, since no delegates would be at stake — would be likely to spend less time and money there.

Karen Thurman, a former congresswoman from Florida who is the State Party Chair, said during the meeting: “We have continued and spent time and more time on this particular issue than getting the state of Florida prepared for the ‘08 election.”

Tweet This Post

What’s new?

Failure to end the Iraq war has so divided Democrats it could jeopardize their chances of consolidating power in U.S. elections in November 2008, analysts said.

Nearly a year since the party parlayed discontent over the unpopular war into a majority in Congress, liberal Democrats, prodded by influential Internet bloggers, are pressing harder than ever for action to bring U.S. troops home.

Centrists, concerned about alienating conservative voters in swing districts, are wary of moving too precipitously, the analysts say.

The bottom line for Democrats was that they won a majority by picking up seats in marginal or nominally Republican districts, said Ethan Siegal, an analyst for The Washington Exchange, which monitors Congress for institutional investors.

“If the Democrats want to keep control of the House in the 2008 elections, they can’t force those members to take certain Iraq votes, he said.

Democratic divisions may grow after Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, reports to Congress in September on the results of President George W. Bush’s policy of building up troops as a way to stabilize Iraq.

Even a positive report is unlikely to sway the anti-war liberal Democrats, but it will make it difficult for centrist Democrats from more conservative districts to support pulling out troops, the analysts said.

Story

Tweet This Post

This just isn’t right. Thank you my fellow dems. for screwing me again.

Broad new surveillance powers approved by Congress this month could allow the Bush administration to conduct spy operations that go well beyond wiretapping to include — without court approval — certain types of physical searches on American soil and the collection of Americans’ business records, Democratic Congressional officials and other experts said.
Administration officials acknowledged that they had heard such concerns from Democrats in Congress recently, and that there was a continuing debate over the meaning of the legislative language. But they said the Democrats were simply raising theoretical questions based on a harsh interpretation of the legislation.

They also emphasized that there would be strict rules in place to minimize the extent to which Americans would be caught up in the surveillance.

The dispute illustrates how lawmakers, in a frenetic, end-of-session scramble, passed legislation they may not have fully understood and may have given the administration more surveillance powers than it sought.

Story

Tweet This Post

You can find the cowardly liberals Here
this is a story that J. referenced in her comment on Democrats see Clinton as strongest, most experienced leader.
I wonder if these are the same Democratic leaders that keep giving in to President Bush. They need to be replaced anyway.

WASHINGTON: Looking past the presidential nomination fight, Democratic leaders quietly fret that Hillary Rodham Clinton at the top of their 2008 ticket could hurt candidates at the bottom.

They say the former first lady may be too polarising for much of the country. She could jeopardise the party’s standing with independent voters and give Republicans who otherwise might stay home on Election Day a reason to vote, they worry.

In more than 40 interviews, Democratic candidates, consultants and party chairs from every region pointed to internal polls that give Clinton strikingly high unfavourable ratings in places with key congressional and state races.

“I’m not sure it would be fatal in Indiana, but she would be a drag” on many candidates, said Democratic state Reprenstative Dave Crooks.

Unlike Crooks, most Democratic leaders agreed to talk frankly about Clinton’s political coattails only if they remained anonymous, fearing reprisals from the New York senator’s campaign. They all expressed admiration for Clinton, and some said they would publicly support her fierce fight for the nomination – despite privately held fears. The chairman of a Midwest state party called Clinton a nightmare for congressional and state legislative candidates.

Tweet This Post

I guess they didn’t please this crowd.

At the first-ever televised presidential forum devoted to gay rights issues, the Democratic front-runners, Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) and Barack Obama (Ill.), were sharply questioned on why they do not support same-sex marriage, while the two joined the other candidates in backing civil unions and the end of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on gays in the military.

Obama said it is less important to focus on the semantics of the word “marriage” than to focus on equal rights, and Clinton — responding to a comment by singer Melissa Etheridge that gays were “thrown under the bus” during Bill Clinton’s administration — said “I am a leader now” on gay rights.

Activists were even more frustrated with New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, who when asked whether people are born gay or choose to be, said, “It’s a choice” and later explained, “I’m not a scientist.”

At the two-hour event in West Hollywood, Obama was asked several times why he would not back same-sex marriage, and he pledged to ensure that all same-sex couples have the same rights as married couples, the stance adopted by most of the Democrats.

“Semantics may be important to some,” he said, adding that if gay couples had equal rights, “then my sense is that’s enormous progress.”

The forum, organized by the Human Rights Campaign and Logo, a gay-themed television network operated by MTV, underscored the increasing importance of the constituency to the Democratic Party. When a similar forum was held in 2003, one of the top contenders, then-Sen. John Edwards (N.C.), did not attend, and the event was not televised.

This time, Edwards appeared, along with Obama and four other Democratic candidates who each spent more than 15 minutes taking questions from a four-person panel that included Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, and Etheridge.

When pressed on gay marriage, Edwards said, “My position on same-sex marriage has not changed.” He then used the question to challenge the Clinton administration on its approach to gay rights — and by implication to challenge his rival, Sen. Clinton. ” ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ is not just wrong now, it was wrong when it began,” Edwards said.

Clinton took a stance similar to Edwards’s and Obama’s, not backing marriage but saying she wanted same-sex couples to have equal rights. She also said states were making better progress on gay rights than the federal government.

Story

Tweet This Post

This is an editorial By Martin O’Malley and Harold Ford Jr.
makes sense to me.

With President Bush and the Republican Party on the rocks, many Democrats think the 2008 election will be, to borrow a favorite GOP phrase, a cakewalk. Some liberals are so confident about Democratic prospects that they contend the centrism that vaulted Democrats to victory in the 1990s no longer matters.

The temptation to ignore the vital center is nothing new. Every four years, in the heat of the nominating process, liberals and conservatives alike dream of a world in which swing voters don’t exist. Some on the left would love to pretend that groups such as the Democratic Leadership Council, the party’s leading centrist voice, aren’t needed anymore.

But for Democrats, taking the center for granted next year would be a greater mistake than ever before. George W. Bush is handing us Democrats our Hoover moment. Independents, swing voters and even some Republicans who haven’t voted our way in more than a decade are willing to hear us out. With an ambitious common-sense agenda, the progressive center has a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to win back the White House, expand its margins in Congress and build a political and governing majority that could last a generation.

A majority comes hard for Democrats. In the past 150 years, only three Democrats, one of whom was Franklin Roosevelt, have won the White House with a majority of the popular vote.

What’s more, political success built on the other party’s failure is fleeting. Jimmy Carter won a majority in the wake of Watergate, but his own shortcomings on national security and the economy took him from majority victor to landslide loser in four years. Repudiating the other side’s approach is only half the battle. Since neither side has a monopoly on truth, the hard part is knowing when to look beyond traditional orthodoxies to do what works.

Story

Tweet This Post

Tell me this isn’t crazy. Sounds like they’re doing the American peoples work. Yeah Right!
Well, I guess you could say they learned from the best.

House Democratic leaders are intent on sidetracking bipartisan attempts to change course in Iraq at least until fall, officials said Tuesday, rather than allow nervous Republicans to vote for legislation that lacks a troop withdrawal deadline.

Several lawmakers and aides said the goal was to deny members of the GOP rank and file a chance to proclaim their independence from President Bush by voting for a limited measure - after months of backing his policy in an increasingly unpopular war.

Story

Tweet This Post

This is an editorial by Suzanne Fields of the Washington Times.

Although the Senate’s refusal on Wednesday to permit the Democratic leadership to attach a surrender timeline to the defense authorization is welcome news, congressional Democrats remain convinced that opposing the war is a politically popular position, and they plan to milk defeatism for all it’s worth. That’s why Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and John Kerry decided to pick a fight with the Bush administration over a senior Pentagon official’s commonsense warning that “premature and public discussion” about withdrawing from Iraq would raise fears that Washington will abandon that country and would exacerbate sectarian tensions there.

Story

Tweet This Post

I wonder who is going to win this one?

In an April episode of ABC’s “The View,” Bill Maher and Rosie O’Donnell professed their support for Al Franken’s 2008 Minnesota Senate candidacy, with O’Donnell saying she was “maxing out” to the comedian-turned-candidate.

O’Donnell kept to her word, contributing $2,300 to his campaign, the maximum donation for the primary, while Maher chipped in $1,000. They were among the more than 50 contributions that Franken, a former “Saturday Night Live” star, received from actors, writers, producers and others in the last reporting period, his campaign finance report shows.

The man that Franken has in his cross-hairs, Republican Sen. Norm Coleman, used April’s episode of “The View” to help with his own fundraising. In a letter to prospective contributors, Coleman wrote: “I need your help to fight back against Hollywood’s liberal elite! Rosie O’Donnell, Bill Maher and Larry David sit atop the Democratic Party’s elite clique of big benefactors.”

Franken’s friends in the entertainment field helped catapult him to a surprising lead in money raised in the second quarter of the year, covering April through June. Franken raised about $1.9 million, compared with $1.66 million for Coleman, R-Minn., and $750,000 for Democratic candidate Mike Ciresi.

Story

Tweet This Post

Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel has always been considered to be a liberal Republican, who has even discussed impeachment of President Bush.

I could never understand how a liberal Republican would win a Senate seat when he’s from a very conservative state.

There are even rumors he might join Mayor Michael Bloomburg of NYC in a third party presidential run, although it’s all rumor about either of them as far as I can see.

Now comes word in a New York Sun editorial that the state attorney general of Nebraska, Jon Bruning, has stated that today he will announce his candidacy to challenge Hagel for the 2008 primary.

A poll conducted for Mr. Bruning shows him leading Mr. Hagel among likely Republican primary voters by 9 percentage points. Mr. Bruning assails Mr, Hagel for being, “The Republican that talks like a Democrat,” pointing to Mr. Hagel’s support for a timeline for withdrawal from Iraq, as well as his discussion of impeaching President Bush. “He’s become arrogant and out of touch,” Mr. Bruning said. “His constituent services are very poor.”

Mr. Bruning also mentioned New York Sun editorials documenting the weakness of Mr. Hagel’s record on Israel, including a recent speech by Mr. Hagel before an Arab American group in which Mr. Hagel said that support for Israel shouldn’t be automatic.

In my mind support for Israel is a very important issue and I would not support a candidate who does not support Israel, even if he were conservative on everything else. Read the rest of this entry »

Tweet This Post

With the self-proclaimed base of the Republican party going bananas over illegal immigration and promising to not vote for someone who is not 100% as far right as they are on every issue, we now have the same thing happening to the self-proclaimed base of the Democratic party.

The bitter battle between the Democratic Congress and President Bush over Iraq war funding may be over for now, but another fight has erupted between Democrats and members of the antiwar base who say they were betrayed by their party.

Democratic leaders told their rank-and-file supporters Friday they had no choice but to give up efforts to tie a troop-withdrawal deadline to an emergency appropriations bill. Mr. Bush on Friday signed the bill that pays for U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan until the end of the fiscal year, Sept. 30.

Many antiwar activists and bloggers condemned the Democrats’ retreat and said their patience with party leadership was wearing thin.

“Today America watched a Democratic Party kick them square in the teeth — all in order to continue the most unpopular war in a generation,” Democratic campaign strategist David Sirota wrote Friday on the left-wing Huffington Post Web site. “We gave them our heart; they gave President Bush a blank check.

“That will make May 24, 2007, a dark day … when Democrats in Washington not only continued the war they promised to end, but happily went on record declaring that they believe in their hearts that government’s role is to ignore the will of the American people,” Mr. Sirota wrote.

The Daily Kos, one of the largest antiwar Web sites, also expressed disappointment and anger that leaders such as Democratic Sen. James H. Webb Jr. of Virginia voted to approve funding for the war. But it took some solace in Mr. Webb’s statement that he “will not relent from my continuing efforts to bring this occupation to an end.”

“They let us down this time. But the opportunities for them to make amends still exist,” Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, founder of the Daily Kos, wrote the day after the vote. “If Democrats take advantage of them, as they promise they will, then all might be forgiven. They can prove to us that they in fact know what they are doing, and that they, in fact, do plan on honoring their most sacred promise to the 2006 electorate.

“And if they don’t? Well, no one, not even the most rabid partisans, have an endless supply of patience,” Mr. Zuniga warned.

As I’ve said before, the problem with the extreme wings of both parties is their candidates have to be as pure as the driven snow when it comes to their issues. No compromise; no reality; just temper tantrums to get what they want.

So, with the election about 17 months away, what will these purists do if they don’t get their way? Besides suck their thumbs and sulk?

They can’t vote for anyone in good conscience because no one measures up, so do they stay home to punish the party?

Maybe that’s not such a bad idea because then we could elect someone who is reasonable and not ready to fall off a cliff on the right or the left.

Tweet This Post